[EL] 7th Cir. WI voter id ruling; update to Bannon voter fraud story; more news

[Rick Hasen]

Breaking: 7th Circuit Refuses En Banc in Both WI Voter ID Cases; No More Changes Unless #SCOTUS Intervenes<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85911>
Posted on August 26, 2016 1:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85911> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A unanimous 7th Circuit issued this order en banc<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/walker-en-banc.pdf> refusing to place the affidavit requirement to soften voter id back into effect at this point, and rejecting the other cross appeals. This would leave only the Supreme Court as a place to go to appeal, and relief there seems quite unlikely

To recap, in the Frank case, the trial court ruled that because some voters will have a hard time voting without voter id given Wisconsin’s strict list of acceptable ids, any voter without id could sign an affidavit saying he or she had a reasonable impediment to getting the id and would be allowed to vote. A Seventh Circuit panel put that ruling on hold for this election, and plaintiffs went to the full 7th Circuit to get it reinstated. Meanwhile, a separate court in the One Wisconsin Now case did not impose a voter id requirement, but confirmed that for this election Wisconsin is going to make it easy for people without id to get that id.

The reason the 7th Circuit was unanimous, and did not split badly as it did in the first round of the Frank v. Walker litigation (when the Court split 5-5 over the facial unconstitutionality of Wisconsin’s voter id law), is that thanks to the One Wisconsin Now litigation, for the upcoming election, Wisconsin is going to make it easy for people to get a temporary id from the DMV:

Frank II held that “[t]he right to vote is personal and is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily”, and that the state may not frustrate this right for any eligible person by making it unreason‐ ably difficult to obtain a qualifying photo ID. Id. at 386. The district court in One Wisconsin Institute concluded from this that an eligible voter who submits materials sufficient to initiate the IDPP is entitled to a credential valid for voting, un‐ less readily available information shows that the petitioner is not a qualified elector. The court in One Wisconsin Institute also held that the state must inform the general public that those who enter the IDPP will promptly receive a credential valid for voting, unless readily available information shows that the petitioner is not a qualified elector entitled to such a credential. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100178 at *181–82. This court denied the State’s motion to stay the Western District’s injunction pending appeal. See Order, One Wis. Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen, Nos. 16‐3083 & 16‐3091 (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).   The State assures us that the temporary credentials required in the One Wisconsin Institute decision will indeed be available to all qualified persons who seek them. In its response to the petition for initial hearing en banc in Nos. 16‐ 3003 and 16‐3052, it said this: ʺ[T]he State has already voluntarily accommodated any concerns relating to the November 2016 election. Specifically, Wisconsin has enacted a rule that requires the Division of Motor Vehicles (‘DMV’) to mail automatically a free photo ID to anyone who comes to DMV one time and initiates the free ID process. See Wis. EmR1618, § 10. No one must present documents, that, for some, have proved challenging to acquire; no one must show a birth certificate, proof of citizenship, and the like. Id. § 6.” Resp. to Pet. For Initial Hr’g En Banc at 1, Frank v. Walker, Nos. 16‐3052 & 16‐ 3003 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016) (emphasis in original). Given the State’s representation that “initiation” of the IDPP means only that the voter must show up at a DMV with as much as he or she has, and that the State will not refuse to recognize the “initiation” of the process because a birth certificate, proof of citizenship, Social Security card, or other particular document is missing, we conclude that the urgency needed to justify an initial en banc hearing has not been shown. Our conclusion depends also on the State’s compliance with the district court’s second criterion, namely, that the State adequately inform the general public that those who enter the IDPP will promptly receive a credential for voting, unless it is plain that they are not qualified. The Western District has the authority to monitor compliance with its injunction, and we trust that it will do so conscientiously between now and the November 2016 election.

I believe, but I’m not sure, that this disposes of all of the issues in front of the en banc court now, meaning no more changes to the rules put in place by the courts. The only way this could change would be if either the plaintiffs or the state go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the lateness of time and upcoming preparations for early voting, and given the 4-4 ideological split on SCOTUS (with 5 votes needed to make a change), I think this is the end of the line for this election.

After the election, these cases will get further review in the 7th Circuit.

[This post has been updated.]
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85911&title=Breaking%3A%207th%20Circuit%20Refuses%20En%20Banc%20in%20Both%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Cases%3B%20No%20More%20Changes%20Unless%20%23SCOTUS%20Intervenes&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“New Sanders Group Illustrates Legal Compliance Challenges”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85909>
Posted on August 26, 2016 12:46 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85909> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eric Wang<http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/new-sanders-group-illustrates-yuuuge-legal-compliance-challenges> for Roll Call.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85909&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Sanders%20Group%20Illustrates%20Legal%20Compliance%20Challenges%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Ann Coulter: Dems will ‘steal’ close election’<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85907>
Posted on August 26, 2016 12:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85907> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

She’s as bad<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293472-ann-coulter-dems-will-steal-close-election> as Roger Stone.

But at least Stone hasn’t been accused of voter fraud personally as Coulter has.<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/ann_coulters_voter_fraud_secret_why_she_urged_republican_not_to_push_issue/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85907&title=%26%238220%3BAnn%20Coulter%3A%20Dems%20will%20%E2%80%98steal%E2%80%99%20close%20election%26%238217%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Steve Bannon moves Florida voter registration to home of Breitbart writer”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85905>
Posted on August 26, 2016 12:17 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85905> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Guardian:<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-voter-registration-home-breitbart-writer?CMP=share_btn_tw>

Donald Trump’s campaign chief has moved his voter registration to the home of one his website’s writers, after the Guardian disclosed<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump> that he was previously registered at an empty house in Florida where he did not live.

Stephen Bannon is now registered to vote at the Florida house of Andy Badolato<http://www.breitbart.com/author/andy-badolato/>, who reports for Breitbart News and has worked with Bannon in the past on the production of political films.

According to public records, Badolato, 52, and two of his adult sons are also registered to vote at the property, which he co-owns with his ex-wife.

A spokeswoman for Bannon, a spokesman for Trump, and Badolato did not respond to emailed questions about whether Bannon lives at the single-family house, which is listed as his residence on his new voter registration record in Sarasota County.

My earlier coverage<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85878> expressed skepticism about the Guardian’s claim that Bannon committed voter registration fraud. This new revelation will prompt questions as to whether Bannon actually spends time at Badolato’s home and considers it his domicile.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85905&title=%26%238220%3BSteve%20Bannon%20moves%20Florida%20voter%20registration%20to%20home%20of%20Breitbart%20writer%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
“Sixth Circuit Upholds Kentucky’s Failure to Have a Procedure for an Unqualified Party to Become a Qualified Party in Advance of Any Particular Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85903>
Posted on August 26, 2016 12:12 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85903> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BAN:<http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/26/sixth-circuit-upholds-kentuckys-failure-to-have-a-procedure-for-an-unqualified-party-to-become-a-qualified-party-in-advance-of-any-particular-election/>

On August 26, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion<http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0212p-06.pdf> in Libertarian Party of Kentucky v Grimes, 16-6107. The opinion upholds Kentucky’s failure to have any procedure for a group to transform itself into a qualified party, in advance of any particular election. Kentucky is one of only eleven states that lacks any such procedure. Instead, Kentucky, and the other ten states, only have candidate petitions. A group can’t become a qualified party in Kentucky until after it puts a candidate for President on the ballot who then gets at least 2% of the vote. The other states that lack such a procedure for a group to become qualified in advance of an election are Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

The case also challenged the Kentucky law (unique in the nation, except for Washington), that confines the vote test to just President.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85903&title=%26%238220%3BSixth%20Circuit%20Upholds%20Kentucky%E2%80%99s%20Failure%20to%20Have%20a%20Procedure%20for%20an%20Unqualified%20Party%20to%20Become%20a%20Qualified%20Party%20in%20Advance%20of%20Any%20>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, third parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
Read the Libertarian Party’s Reply Brief in Ohio #SCOTUS Party Label Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85901>
Posted on August 26, 2016 12:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85901> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

With shoutouts<http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Ohio-US-Supreme-reply.pdf> to Elmendorf, Schleicher and Winger.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85901&title=Read%20the%20Libertarian%20Party%26%238217%3Bs%20Reply%20Brief%20in%20Ohio%20%23SCOTUS%20Party%20Label%20Case&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“NC GOP chairman Woodhouse asked Wake elections board to make his cousin chairman”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85899>
Posted on August 26, 2016 11:42 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85899> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News & Observer:<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article98064022.html>

The leader of the N.C. Republican Party urged a Wake County Board of Elections member to appoint his cousin as chairman of the board, according to emails released this week.

Records show Dallas Woodhouse, the state GOP’s executive director, sent an email to a private account of board member Ellis Boyle on Aug. 7. Woodhouse asked Boyle to give the reins of the board to his cousin, Eddie Woodhouse, who the state appointed to the board that day.

Dallas Woodhouse also asked Boyle to delay any vote on a plan to expand early voting from 10 to 17 days, as required under a court ruling that applies statewide.

The board didn’t grant either request, and Boyle chastised Dallas Woodhouse for discussing public business through Boyle’s work email account instead of an elections-board account.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85899&title=%26%238220%3BNC%20GOP%20chairman%20Woodhouse%20asked%20Wake%20elections%20board%20to%20make%20his%20cousin%20chairman%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Irony Alert: Trump Campaign CEO, Former Breitbart Head, Accused of Voter Fraud<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85878>
Posted on August 26, 2016 7:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85878> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Guardian<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump> has an explosive story on Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart and now the Trump campaign CEO, possibly committing voter fraud:

Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.

Stephen Bannon<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/17/donald-trump-stephen-bannon-breitbart-news-kellyanne-conway>, the chief executive of Trump’s election campaign, has an active voter registration at the house in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is vacant and due to be demolished to make way for a new development.

“I have emptied the property,” Luis Guevara, the owner of the house, which is in the Coconut Grove section of the city, said in an interview. “Nobody lives there … we are going to make a construction there.” Neighbors said the property had been abandoned for several months

Bannon, 62, formerly rented the house for use by his ex-wife, Diane Clohesy, but did not live there himself. Clohesy, a Tea Party activist, moved out of the house earlier this year and has her own irregular voting registration arrangement. According to public records, Bannon and Clohesy divorced seven years ago.
Bannon previously rented another house for Clohesy in Miami from 2013 to 2015 and assigned his voter registration to the property during that period. But a source with direct knowledge of the rental agreement for this house said Bannon did not live there either, and that Bannon and Clohesy were not in a relationship.

Bannon, Clohesy and Trump’s campaign repeatedly declined to answer detailed questions about Bannon’s voting arrangements. Jason Miller, a Trump campaign spokesman, eventually said in an email: “Mr Bannon moved to another location inFlorida<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/florida>.” Miller declined to answer further questions.

So did Bannon commit voter fraud by lying about his residency?  If he in fact maintained residency by moving to another location in Florida, and he intended to make Florida his permanent residence, then arguably no, even if he was spending much of his time in other states. The question of residency is often difficult in practice, particularly for people who live in multiple places. But if he maintained no home in Florida and spent no time living there, there’s a decent chance he is fraudulently registered. These inquiries are notoriously fact specific.

There’s been a similar claim leveled against Ann Coulter for years. <http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/ann_coulters_voter_fraud_secret_why_she_urged_republican_not_to_push_issue/>

So while we may for now give the benefit of the doubt to Bannon, until more facts are ferreted out, we can know with confidence that his inflammatory Breitbart news, which fans the flames of rampant voter fraud as part of the fraudulent fraud squad and its network of phonies, would not do the same if they were covering someone like Bannon, especially if he were a person of color.

UPDATE: Michael McDonald checked the voter file and no evidence of Bannon actually voting in Miami-Dade. So is this voter registration fraud? Mike:<https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/769186200544505856> “I’ll take him at his word that he briefly lived in the home (its a rental) – and at the time he intended to live there.”

But if this is the explanation, why didn’t the campaign say this instead of suggesting he had set up residency somewhere else in Florida? It shows the campaign was flat-footed at best in its response. Now the question: does he really have another Florida residence?

Further update: Here’s some evidence Bannon<https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/769195294223241216> was living in the home when he registered there. So this looks like much ado about nothing.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85878&title=Irony%20Alert%3A%20Trump%20Campaign%20CEO%2C%20Former%20Breitbart%20Head%2C%20Accused%20of%20Voter%20Fraud&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


--
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/20160826/a8e97bb2/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/20160826/a8e97bb2/attachment.png>