[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/15/16

[Rick Hasen]

“Candidates, super-PACs pushing the boundaries?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85319>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:54 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85319> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette<http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2016/08/15/Candidates-super-PACs-push-boundaries-navigating-election-rules-after-Citizens-United/stories/201608110215>:

As Senate candidate Katie McGinty pulled ahead of Pennsylvania Republican incumbent Pat Toomey in several recent polls, a right-leaning watchdog group filed a complaint alleging she broke federal election law by using her campaign website to cue super-PACs on what political messages to send.

McGinty aides shot back that Mr. Toomey’s campaign — which they claim is behind the allegation — does the same thing.

The complaint from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust alleges that “through obscure postings on her website, McGinty is instructing organizations, with which she is not permitted to coordinate, to run advertisements beneficial to her campaign.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85319&title=%26%238220%3BCandidates%2C%20super-PACs%20pushing%20the%20boundaries%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Clinton’s Lawyer Weighs in on Possible Trump Voter Intimidation Efforts<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85317>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85317> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Marc Elias speaks<https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/trumps-vote-monitoring-tactic-possibly-considered-voter-intimidation> with Ari Rabin-Havt and says the possibility of Trump voter intimidation efforts is something that the campaign “will have to look at very, very carefully” in the coming days and weeks.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85317&title=Clinton%26%238217%3Bs%20Lawyer%20Weighs%20in%20on%20Possible%20Trump%20Voter%20Intimidation%20Efforts&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Few affected by court rulings voted in Kansas primary”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85315>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85315> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article95495662.html?platform=hootsuite>:

Few of the 17,600 Kansas voters at the center of legal fights over the state’s proof of citizenship requirements actually cast ballots in the Aug. 2 primary.

Voting rights advocates won temporary court rulings in federal and state courts affirming the right to vote for people who registered at motor vehicle offices but never submitted citizenship documents.

Overall, statewide turnout was 23.1 percent, with 403,532 votes cast. The unofficial count for the primary shows 9,032 provisional ballots were cast; provisional ballots are typically given out when there is a question about voter eligibility, such as someone who voted in the wrong precinct.

And the Associated Press surveyed the state’s five biggest counties – Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee, Wyandotte and Douglas – that together accounted for 4,287 of those provisional ballots. The AP found just 37 voters in those counties who cast ballots because of the court decisions.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85315&title=%26%238220%3BFew%20affected%20by%20court%20rulings%20voted%20in%20Kansas%20primary%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Why Donald Trump’s ‘rigged elections’ warning could actually make his supporters less likely to vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85313>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85313> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

John Sides at The Monkey Cage.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/why-donald-trumps-rigged-elections-warning-could-actually-make-his-supporters-less-likely-to-vote/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85313&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Donald%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98rigged%20elections%E2%80%99%20warning%20could%20actually%20make%20his%20supporters%20less%20likely%20to%20vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Bloomberg Law Brief: Wisconsin Voter ID Law “<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85311>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85311> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg Law program <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2016-08-15/bloomberg-law-brief-wisconsin-voter-id-law-audio> with June Grasso:

Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School, and Rick Hasen, professor at University of California Irvine School of Law and founder of the Election Law Blog discuss an appeals court decision, which put on hold an earlier ruling hat allowed Wisconsin residents without a photo ID to vote if they attested to their identity in an affidavit. The latest ruling in this highly controversial case has enraged voting rights activists, who argue that the decision will block many from voting in the presidential election. According to the ACLU, as many as 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin lack acceptable photo ID. They speak with Bloomberg Law host June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio’s “Bloomberg Law.” Bloomberg’s Karen Moskow and Bob Moon report the day’s top legal stories.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85311&title=%26%238220%3BBloomberg%20Law%20Brief%3A%20Wisconsin%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20%26%238220%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>


“Democrats Brace for More Leaks From Hackers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85309>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85309> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WSJ:<http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-brace-for-more-leaks-from-hackers-1471220388>

Two websites created in recent months and whose operators are believed to have ties to the Russian government now serve as portals for leaking sensitive and at times embarrassing information about the Democratic Party and its supporters.

Some computer experts and Democrats in Congress believe both websites—the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress page and DCLeaks.com—have ties to Russian intelligence services and that the sites are using hacked information to try to influence the November elections.

The precise motives of the entities controlling these webpages cannot be learned because their identities are unclear.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85309&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrats%20Brace%20for%20More%20Leaks%20From%20Hackers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Verbatim fact check: Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85307>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:25 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85307> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ballotpedia.<https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Does_an_increase_in_the_number_of_propositions_on_the_ballot_in_California_lead_to_more_of_those_propositions_being_rejected_by_voters%3F>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85307&title=%26%238220%3BVerbatim%20fact%20check%3A%20Does%20an%20increase%20in%20the%20number%20of%20propositions%20on%20the%20ballot%20in%20California%20lead%20to%20more%20of%20those%20propositions%20being%2>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Corporate Regulation of Internet Politics”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85305>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:18 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85305> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer on Persily<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/08/corporate-regulation-internet-politics/>:

Nate Persily has written intriguingly<http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/10/the-campaign-revolution-will-not-be-televised/> about the “dangers” and “opportunities” presented by the increasing prominence, and perhaps eventual dominance, of Internet platforms as outlets for paid political speech. We’re not in a television age anymore, he cautions<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/08/10/facebook-may-soon-have-more-power-over-elections-than-the-fec-are-we-ready/?utm_term=.631a2bfed362>. Now we have portals that have fundamental decisions to make about whether and how to apply policies devised for commercial speech to political communications. Those decisions concern standards of tone, fairness, accuracy and content, e.g. hate speech, but also those of transparency, such as requiring more complete disclosure than the just an organization’s name might provide of the true sources of financing for its paid ad.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85305&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20Regulation%20of%20Internet%20Politics%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Clinton’s list of bundlers shorter than Obama’s, and she’s disclosing less”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85303>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85303> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Open Secrets:<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/08/clintons-list-of-bundlers-shorter-than-obamas-and-shes-disclosing-less/>

Though federal campaign law requires the disclosure only of bundlers who are registered lobbyists, most White House candidates in recent elections have opted to share a fuller list of names. But in the last presidential election, Mitt Romney<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00000286> became the first major-party nominee since 2000 to keep his bundlers private, and so far, Trump has done the same.

While Clinton has released a list, her campaign is disclosing less than previous Democratic candidates. In 2008 and 2012, bundlers were grouped in tiers — those who gathered between $50,000 and $100,000, between $100,000 and $200,000, between $200,000 and $500,000, and more than $500,000. Clinton has instead simply released the names of everyone who has bundled more than $100,000, with no specifics about amounts raised beyond that.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85303&title=%26%238220%3BClinton%E2%80%99s%20list%20of%20bundlers%20shorter%20than%20Obama%E2%80%99s%2C%20and%20she%E2%80%99s%20disclosing%20less%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“U.S. judge blocks Texas law on election interpreters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85301>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:13 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85301> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Austin American-Statesman:<http://www.statesman.com/news/news/us-judge-blocks-texas-law-on-election-interpreters/nsFXF/>

A federal judge Friday blocked Texas from enforcing a state law that limits the availability of interpreters in polling places, ruling that it violates protections<http://projects.statesman.com/documents/?doc=3011899-Pitman-Ruling> guaranteed by the U.S. Voting Rights Act.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Austin came in a lawsuit filed on behalf<http://aaldef.org/OCAvStateofTexascomplaint.pdf> of Mallika Das, who was born in India and who, in October 2014, brought her son into a Round Rock polling station to act as an interpreter because she had limited proficiency in English.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85301&title=%26%238220%3BU.S.%20judge%20blocks%20Texas%20law%20on%20election%20interpreters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“How We Killed the Tea Party”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85299>
Posted on August 15, 2016 7:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85299> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read Paul Jossey article <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164> for Politico Magazine, with the subhead: “Greedy super PACs drained the movement with endless pleas for money to support “conservative” candidates—while instead using the money to enrich themselves. I should know. I worked for one of them.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85299&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20We%20Killed%20the%20Tea%20Party%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Trump’s Lawyer Don McGahn, Republican Lawyers’ Group, Plotting “Election Observer” Strategy<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85296>
Posted on August 15, 2016 6:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85296> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Weigel:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-warns-of-election-cheating-as-he-fires-up-recruitment-of-poll-watchers/2016/08/13/cac7223c-617f-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html>

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is asking supporters to become election monitors, warning voters Friday night that “cheating” might rob him of a win.

At the same time, outside groups are readying to help the campaign watch the polls. Donald F. McGahn II, the Trump campaign’s attorney, stopped by the Denver meeting of the Republican National Lawyers Association to plot the strategy and explain how the campaign could help the lawyers build a sophisticated election-protection network.

“What they want to do is create a pretty select, Navy SEAL-type operation that takes the data we’re able to provide and deploy resources of the highest caliber,” said Randy Evans, the chairman of the lawyers group, which he said does not coordinate its work with the campaign. “If you have 7,000 lawyers on the ground, and 200 sophisticated election attorneys on call, you can move quickly. The message was: This ain’t your father’s Cadillac.”

And “it helps a lot” not to have federal monitors:

The Trump campaign’s push for election monitors also comes at a time of weakness for independent poll watchers. A 2013 Supreme Court ruling limited the Department of Justice’s ability to deploy election observers with full access to polling places. Since the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act, Justice had sent hundreds of observers to states where tensions over elections seemed high. Now, observers may be sent only to five states where court rulings will allow election monitors. None of those states — Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana and New York — is seen as competitive in November.

“That helps a lot,” Evans said of the reduced Justice Department role. “It takes away the suggestion that the Democrat machine is being supplemented by government officials.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85296&title=Trump%26%238217%3Bs%20Lawyer%20Don%20McGahn%2C%20Republican%20Lawyers%26%238217%3B%20Group%2C%20Plotting%20%26%238220%3BElection%20Observer%26%238221%3B%20Strategy&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Trump Campaign Responds on Election Observers/Voter Intimidation Claims<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85294>
Posted on August 13, 2016 10:50 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85294> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR<http://www.npr.org/2016/08/13/489889496/trump-calls-to-stake-out-polling-places>:

Trump spokesman Jason Miller says claims that volunteer poll observers could be a form of voter intimidation are unfounded.

“To be clear, liberals love to throw out the voter intimidation card. What we’re advocating are open, fair and honest elections,” Miller said in a statement to NPR’s Sarah McCammon.

He also added that poll watchers are “standard for professional campaigns” and pointed out poll watcher guides from around the country, including New York<http://vote.nyc.ny.us/downloads/pdf/documents/boe/pollworkers/pollwatchersguide.pdf>andTexas<http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pollwatcher2013.pdf>.

In his statement to NPR, Miller echoed Trump’s concerns about a “rigged system.”

“As we’ve seen from Crooked Hillary’s willingness to use – and outright lie about – government institutions for personal and political enrichment, there’s a lot of cheating going on,” Miller said.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85294&title=Trump%20Campaign%20Responds%20on%20Election%20Observers%2FVoter%20Intimidation%20Claims&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“How Donald Trump’s bizarre voter-watch effort could get the GOP in trouble”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85292>
Posted on August 13, 2016 10:03 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85292> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I talk to Philip Bump<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/13/how-donald-trumps-bizarre-voter-watch-effort-could-get-the-gop-in-trouble/> at the Washington Post about my blog post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85289>, Donald Trump May Be Violating RNC Consent Decree Aimed at Voter Intimidation.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85292&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Donald%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20bizarre%20voter-watch%20effort%20could%20get%20the%20GOP%20in%20trouble%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Donald Trump May Be Violating RNC Consent Decree Aimed at Voter Intimidation<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85289>
Posted on August 12, 2016 8:05 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85289> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

With Trump’s dangerous and irresponsible hyperventilating<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85282> about voter fraud and cheating in Pennsylvania potentially costing him the election, it is probably no surprise, as reported by theWeekly Standard,<http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-campaign-seeks-election-observers-to-prevent-rigged-election/article/2003813?custom_click=rss?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=TWSAutoTweet> that Trump is seeking “election observers<https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer>” to stop “Crooked Hillary” from “rigging this election.”

However, there’s a longstanding consent decree that bars the RNC afrom engaging in such activities.  Here’s Tal Kopan and Josh Gerstein, reporting in 2013 <http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/scotus-wont-disturb-gop-voter-fraud-decree-154135> on the RNC’s unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court to lift the decree:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined the Republican National Committee’s request to lift a three-decade-old court order that limits the national GOP’s ability to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls.

The case, Republican National Committee vs. Democratic National Committee, dealt with a consent decree issued in 1982 that prevents the RNC from engaging in some voter fraud prevention efforts without prior court consent. It specifically said the RNC could not engage in ballot security efforts (later defined in 1987 as “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opinion<http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094615p.pdf>), especially in areas where racial or ethnic makeup could be considered a reason for the activities.

A response to claims of voter intimidation in minority areas in the 1970s and early 1980s, the decree allowed the RNC to continue “normal poll watching” operations while barring activities that could be aimed at voter suppression, though the RNC complained to the courts that the distinction was unclear and difficult to follow. The decree effectively put the national party on the sidelines as concern about voter fraud became more and more pronounced in GOP ranks in recent years and as states passed a series of voter-identification measures.

In deciding the case, which stems from a 2008 lawsuit brought by the DNC, the district court clarified ballot security efforts as “any program aimed at combating voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot,” and upheld the consent decree while adding a Dec. 1, 2017, expiration date.

In the consent decree, “The RNC agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, ‘whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.” Does Trump count as the RNC’s agent in these circumstances?  They are certainly acting in concert, and it is plausible to argue that Trump and the RNC are agents of each other for purposes of this election. Also, the activity Trump is talking about engaging violate the consent decree?  One thing the consent decree says is that they must:

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose…

If this activity violates the consent decree, the DNC can ask for it to be extended for up to another 8 years.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85289&title=Donald%20Trump%20May%20Be%20Violating%20RNC%20Consent%20Decree%20Aimed%20at%20Voter%20Intimidation&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


2016 Database of Election Law Teachers<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85284>
Posted on August 12, 2016 5:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85284> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Now posted <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Election-Law-Database-2016.xlsx> for your viewing pleasure.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85284&title=2016%20Database%20of%20Election%20Law%20Teachers&description=>
Posted in election law biz<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


Trump Encourages His Supporters to Patrol Polling Places, Says He Will Lose Pa. Only If There is Cheating<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85282>
Posted on August 12, 2016 4:57 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85282> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

There are no depths to which this man will not sink.

Quote on patrolling to avoid fraud<https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/764245337867427842>:

“So I hope you people can sort of not just vote on the 8th, go around and look and watch other polling places and make sure that it’s 100% fine because without voter identification, which is shocking, shocking that you don’t have it. Many states get it approved and some states they don’t get approved. And I have still—I’m supposed to be a smart person. I have still, I’ve yet to understand how you cannot approve voter identification in some form right?”

Of course every state has some form of voter identification—the question is whether to limit it to a strict set of identifications many people (especially poor and minority people) don’t have.

On Pennsylvania:<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-cheating-cheat-voter-id-fraud-system-rigged>
“The only way we can lose, in my opinion, I really mean this, Pennsylvania, is if cheating goes on. I really believe it,” he said Friday during a rally in Altoona, Pa.

Trump said law enforcement and his supporters have to be on the lookout for voter fraud to keep Trump from getting “cheated out of a win.”

“That’s the way we can lose the state, and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody watching,” he said.

“The only way they can beat it, in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, is if in certain sections of the state they cheat.”

Update: Here’s the video.<http://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-clinton-can-t-win-pennsylvania-unless-there-s-cheating-743559747525> The language of “certain sections of the state” is code word for “urban” areas with large concentrations of minority voters. We hear this about Philly, Milwaukee, etc.

Despicable.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85282&title=Trump%20Encourages%20His%20Supporters%20to%20Patrol%20Polling%20Places%2C%20Says%20He%20Will%20Lose%20Pa.%20Only%20If%20There%20is%20Cheating&description=>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


Revised Version of My Piece on Judicial Softening of Voter ID Laws in Theory and Practice Now Posted on SSRN<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85280>
Posted on August 12, 2016 3:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85280> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This piece<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2743946>, forthcoming in the Wisconsin Law Review Forward, is now updated to discuss recent softening attempts in WI, NC, and TX. Here is the abstract:

Headlines about voter identification laws often place court rulings in a simple win or loss frame. For example, the New York Times headline describing the result in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a 2008 case involving the constitutionality of Indiana’s strict voter identification law, read: In a 6-3 Vote, Justices Uphold a Voter ID Law. Similarly, in reporting on the 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit involving Texas’ voter identification law, the Associated Press article was headlined Federal Court Strikes Down Tough Texas Voter ID Law.

In fact, the results in both cases were more nuanced. As reporter Linda Greenhouse explained in that New York Times article, the Supreme Court decision in Crawford was fractured. Although a majority of the Court rejected a full facial challenge to Indiana’s law on equal protection grounds, a plurality of the Court, as well as the dissenters, left open the possibility that Indiana’s law could be unconstitutional “as applied” to certain voters who faced special burdens in getting a voter identification law. Further, although the Fifth Circuit did hold in Veasey v. Abbott that Texas’s voter identification law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court held that the appropriate remedy would not be a wholesale abandonment of the law; instead the appeals court directed the lower federal district court to allow Texas to use its law in most instances, but to craft a remedy which would allow those facing special burdens additional ways to prove identity and cast a ballot.

In theory, softening of voter identification laws through litigation is a positive development aimed at avoiding disenfranchisement of both voters who face special burdens obtaining an acceptable government-issued identification necessary to vote and of those voters who face confusion or administrative error. In practice, however, softening may do less to alleviate the actual burdens of voter identification laws than to make judges feel better about their Solomonic rulings. In fact, softening devices still leave an uncertain number voters disenfranchised. These burdens might be justified if there were evidence that state voter identification laws solve a serious problem, but there is no such evidence.

This brief Essay first describes the theoretical softening which emerged in some voter identification litigation. It then explains that such softening offers less than meets the eye in helping voters facing difficulties voting in states with strict voter identification requirements. It concludes that courts should strike down fully strict voter identification laws, because the laws deprive at least some voters of the ability to cast a valid vote for no good reason, and the softening devices do not do enough.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85280&title=Revised%20Version%20of%20My%20Piece%20on%20Judicial%20Softening%20of%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20in%20Theory%20and%20Practice%20Now%20Posted%20on%20SSRN&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Redistricting, Voter ID Laws, Early Voting, And The Post-Shelby World”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85277>
Posted on August 12, 2016 3:17 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85277> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Above the Law’s Joe Patrice has a new podcast episode:



First, Ben Griffith<http://www.glawms.com/services-2/> of the Griffith Law Firm<http://www.glawms.com/> in Oxford, Mississippi and Robert Heath<http://www.bickerstaff.com/attorney/c-robert-heath/>ofBickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta<http://www.bickerstaff.com/> discussed election law in the context of the new bookAmerica Votes<http://amzn.to/2aZdbhU> (affiliate link), which Griffith also edited. In a wide-ranging discussion about voting rights restrictions, they share the less well-known backdoor to the Voting Rights Act that could alleviate the sting Shelby County laid on activists in the old pre-clearance jurisdictions.

On the other side of the fence: Representative Paul Stam, Speaker Pro Tempore of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and a defender of the both the state’s voter ID law and redistricting plan — both recently shot down by the Fourth Circuit. I may not have agreed with Rep. Stam’s take on the constitutionality of those laws, but with North Carolina’s early voting reforms still floating around, he made a sharp defense of cutting back early voting days in favor of longer hours for each day to give people with difficult daily schedules better access to voting.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85277&title=%26%238220%3BRedistricting%2C%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%2C%20Early%20Voting%2C%20And%20The%20Post-Shelby%20World%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


IL Gov. Vetoes Automatic Voter Registration Bill; Override Possible<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85275>
Posted on August 12, 2016 3:02 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85275> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Details to come.

Update: Here’s AP.<http://www.sj-r.com/news/20160812/rauner-vetoes-automatic-voter-registration?rssfeed=true>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85275&title=IL%20Gov.%20Vetoes%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%20Bill%3B%20Override%20Possible&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>


Close of Business Friday, and No NC “Emergency” SCOTUS Petition in Voting Case: Why?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85273>
Posted on August 12, 2016 2:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85273> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

And now the Purcell Principle<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676> works against the state of North Carolina, which has been living with, and preparing to implement, the 4th Circuit North Carolina ruling for two full weeks.

A stay imposed by the Supreme Court at this point threatens to confuse voters further, and to make election administrators’ life hell.

The whole reason<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84989> the 4th Circuit issued its opinion in July is because it had assurances from the state that this would be enough time to make changes. (“At oral argument, the State assured us that it would be able to comply with any order we issued by late July. As to early voting locations and staffing, we were told that at a minimum the State could conduct early voting at the Board of Elections office for each county. As to the photo ID requirement, the State informed us that it would comply with an injunction of that law by instructing its poll workers not to require photo ID. And, as the State acknowledges, its SEIMS system is already prepared to implement same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. The State told us that the proofs for its voter guide were not due until August 5, and that its election official training would not begin until August 8. We issued our opinion, injunction, and mandate a week in advance of those dates. Because of these assurances, we are confident that North Carolina can conduct the 2016 election in compliance with our injunction.”)

Now, it will be at least 17 days later before the state even starts the clock in the Supreme Court.

Could it be that the state knows it is going to lose this motion before a 4-4 Supreme Court, and the state would rather chalk it up to the timing issue?
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85273&title=Close%20of%20Business%20Friday%2C%20and%20No%20NC%20%26%238220%3BEmergency%26%238221%3B%20SCOTUS%20Petition%20in%20Voting%20Case%3A%20Why%3F&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“How the Voting Rights Act Could Be a Path to Police Reform”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85271>
Posted on August 12, 2016 2:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85271> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brentin Mock:<http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/08/how-the-voting-rights-act-could-be-a-path-to-police-reform/495572/>

For the Leadership Conference, which represents more than 200 organizations dedicated to protecting the rights of people of color, that means Congress needs to pass long-idling bills including the End Racial Profiling Act<http://www.naacp.org/action-alerts/entry/the-end-racial-profiling-act-introduced-in-both-the-u.s.-house-of-represent>, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2875/text>, and The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1232>. But there’s one other place Congress should look for solutions for meaningful police reform: The Voting Rights Act.

So say the Co-Director of the Program in Constitutional Theory, History & Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Jason Mazzone, and Stephen Rushin, a law professor at the University of Alabama. Their paper<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2731347>, “From Selma to Ferguson: The Voting Rights Act as a Blueprint for Police Reform,” argues that the civil rights law passed in 1965 to mitigate voter discrimination also offers guidance on how to mitigate rogue policing.

Under the Voting Rights Act, Congress created a formula<http://www.colorlines.com/articles/growing-debate-over-voting-rights-act> that determines which areas of the country warrant federal supervision over their election affairs. That formula was derived by looking at where African Americans were prevented from voting due to obstructions such as literacy tests and poll taxes. It also includes places with historically low voter-registration and turnout rates among African Americans.

A similar formula could be applied to areas where police departments have been found guilty of engaging in patterns and practices of racial discrimination and misconduct, write Rushin and Mazzone. The Justice Department has already established that such patterns exist in police departments not only inFerguson<http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/03/the-doj-report-on-ferguson-is-damning-and-its-just-the-beginning/386851/> andBaltimore<http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/08/doj-report-racist-police-practices-are-endemic-in-baltimore/495245/>, but also Newark<http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/03/newark-joins-the-list-of-police-departments-monitored-by-us-justice-department-consent-decree/476175/>, Cleveland<http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/05/cleveland-joins-the-growing-list-of-us-cities-with-federal-oversight-of-police/394148/> and New Orleans<http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/09/when-independent-police-oversight-becomes-too-independent/407290/>. There are currently more than 20 police departments<https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/836896/download> being monitored by the Justice Department due to police misconduct.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85271&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Could%20Be%20a%20Path%20to%20Police%20Reform%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Opinion: Protect Our Voting Machines From Hackers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85269>
Posted on August 12, 2016 2:50 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85269> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Larry Norden oped.<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/opinion-protect-our-voting-machines-hackers-n628441>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85269&title=%26%238220%3BOpinion%3A%20Protect%20Our%20Voting%20Machines%20From%20Hackers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Breaking: WI Files Emergency Stay in Second Voting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85267>
Posted on August 12, 2016 2:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85267> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Although WI tried to spin <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85249> yesterday’s loss as a win, now they’ve gone to the 7th Circuit with this emergency motion<https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/news-media/One%20Wisconsin%20Stay%20-%20FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf>. The state wants<https://www.doj.state.wi.us/news-releases/ag-schimel-files-emergency-motion-seeking-stay-one-wisconsin-v-thomsen> 7 election rollbacks the trial court found illegal to be reinstated before the election, and the state wants a ruling if possible by Aug. 26, with some ballots being printed Aug. 31.

The first question is whether this goes to the same panel that stayed Judge Adelman’s WI voter id order.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85267&title=Breaking%3A%20WI%20Files%20Emergency%20Stay%20in%20Second%20Voting%20Case&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Obama facing pressure to rip up his lobbyist rules”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85265>
Posted on August 12, 2016 12:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85265> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico:<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-lobbying-rules-226958>

Nixing the order could be seen as an acknowledgment that he failed to uphold one of the major pledges of his 2008 campaign, or that the change he brought to Washington wasn’t built to last. But punting the issue to his successor, especially if it’s Hillary Clinton, would risk thrusting upon her the bad optics of welcoming lobbyists with open arms.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85265&title=%26%238220%3BObama%20facing%20pressure%20to%20rip%20up%20his%20lobbyist%20rules%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


“Donald Trump claims the election might be ‘rigged.’ Here’s how voting really works”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85263>
Posted on August 12, 2016 11:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85263> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT.<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-presidential-election-process-20160812-snap-htmlstory.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85263&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20claims%20the%20election%20might%20be%20%26%238216%3Brigged.%26%238217%3B%20Here%26%238217%3Bs%20how%20voting%20really%20works%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Why the North Carolina Redistricting Case is More Consequential than the North Carolina “Right to Vote” Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85260>
Posted on August 12, 2016 10:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85260> by Richard Pildes<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Federal courts have now issued two major decisions invalidating North Carolina’s laws regulating the political process — yesterday’s decision on racial redistricting and last week’s decision on the state’s package of changes regarding access to the ballot box.  While the latter has and will attract far more media attention, yesterday’s decision invalidating the state’s redistricting map is actually of greater practical consequence.

Right to vote cases understandably generate a great deal of attention.  Access to the ballot box, for eligible voters, is widely and properly recognized to be as fundamental a right as there is in democracy.  These cases are easy to understand and trigger deep moral passions.  But in practical terms, it remains unclear how large the effect is on eligible voters from the kinds of changes North Carolina made to early voting, same-day registration, and the like.  We do not know, for example, how many of those who take advantage of more expansive early voting will still vote in any event when early voting days are reduced.  Of course, one eligible voter who is wrongly deterred from voting by these kind of changes is one voter too many.  But in terms of whether there are significant systematic effects on elections or policy outcomes from voter ID and similar laws to those struck down in North Carolina, there is still a good deal of uncertainty among those who study these issues.

But the redistricting case does have considerable systematic effects on elections and politics.  What the legislature had done was to take districts in which white and black political coalitions had been electing minority candidates, even when black voters were no more than 40-some percent of the districts, and turning them into majority-black districts.  The effects of this kind of districting (which NC insisted the Voting Rights Act required, a position the court held was incorrect) are to unnecessarily segregate voters by race; to destroy interracial political coalitions by turning districts into ones that are mostly majority white or black; and to further polarize politics by creating districts that tend to be either extremely liberal or conservative.  By holding that the way NC used race to create these districts was unconstitutional, the court’s decision will reinforce the forces of centrism and moderation, along with enabling the continuation of the kind of inter-racial political coalitions that have existed in a state like NC for some years now.

[I must disclose, as readers of this blog know, that I argued the Alabama racial redistricting case two years ago on which the North Carolina redistricting decision rests]
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85260&title=Why%20the%20North%20Carolina%20Redistricting%20Case%20is%20More%20Consequential%20than%20the%20North%20Carolina%20%26%238220%3BRight%20to%20Vote%26%238221%3B%20Case&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160815/c29a527c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160815/c29a527c/attachment.png>