[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/29/16

[Rick Hasen]

“Many NC counties’ early vote plan not set”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85960>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:49 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85960> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Charlotte Observer:<http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article98326857.html>

Early voting schedules for the fall elections remain unresolved in at least one-quarter of North Carolina’s counties after a federal court ruling that struck down key portions of the state’s 2013 voter identification and ballot access law.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Republican legislators acted with discriminatory intent toward black voters when they approved several provisions, including one that reduced the number of early voting days from a maximum of 17 days to 10.

Early in-person voting is popular in North Carolina, used by more than half of the people casting ballots in the 2012 presidential election, when it covered 17 days. Its use could make a difference Nov. 8.

County boards of elections had approved 10-day plans for early voting sites and hours of operation. They had until late last week to give the State Board of Elections revised plans based on a schedule beginning Oct. 20 instead of Oct. 27.

Local boards in 66 of the state’s 100 counties approved their updated plans, according to data provided Friday by the State Board of Elections. Those plans are now essentially finalized.

But 24 counties provided two plans – one approved by a majority on each three-member board and the other backed by a single member. Those counties include several of the state’s largest: Mecklenburg, Wake, New Hanover, Pitt and Union. The Orange County board offered four plans.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85960&title=%26%238220%3BMany%20NC%20counties%E2%80%99%20early%20vote%20plan%20not%20set%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Libertarians hope rallies and ads can nudge them into the presidential debates”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85958>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85958> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Weigel.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/libertarians-hope-rallies-and-ads-can-nudge-them-into-the-presidential-debates/2016/08/27/2517567c-6b9d-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85958&title=%26%238220%3BLibertarians%20hope%20rallies%20and%20ads%20can%20nudge%20them%20into%20the%20presidential%20debates%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, third parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>


“Pennsylvania, Berks officials say voter fraud is virtually nonexistent”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85956>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:35 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85956> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Yup.<http://www.readingeagle.com/news/article/pennsylvania-berks-officials-say-voter-fraud-is-virtually-nonexistent>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85956&title=%26%238220%3BPennsylvania%2C%20Berks%20officials%20say%20voter%20fraud%20is%20virtually%20nonexistent%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Yes, Citizens United and Other Court Rulings Led to a Rise in Dark Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85954>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:28 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85954> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Blumentha<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dark-money-supreme-court_us_57c09b32e4b0267344500abb>l for HuffPo.

I’d place much more blame on Congress, the FEC, and the IRS for the lack of disclosure, which the Supreme Court fully endorsed in Citizens United and other court rulings.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85954&title=%26%238220%3BYes%2C%20Citizens%20United%20and%20Other%20Court%20Rulings%20Led%20to%20a%20Rise%20in%20Dark%20Money%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


“Meet the man siphoning money from Donald Trump”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85952>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85952> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Shane Goldmacher <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-fundraiser-hawes-227486> for Politico:

In just its first three weeks of operation, Hawes’ PAC spent more than $108,000 on Facebook ads, offering an opportunity to win “Dinner with Donald Trump” — and netted itself nearly $350,000 in donations, according to federal records.

The biggest chunk of the money raised — $133,000 — went to a company that Hawes founded and owns, CartSoft LLC. The purpose of the payments is described on federal records as “media” and “media purchasing,” though CartSoft’s website describes itself as an online payment-processing platform.

Since its launch, the PAC has collected more than $1 million, Hawes told POLITICO. It has reportedly spent $0 on behalf of Trump.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85952&title=%26%238220%3BMeet%20the%20man%20siphoning%20money%20from%20Donald%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“FBI says foreign hackers penetrated state election systems”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85950>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85950> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Isikoff<https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-foreign-hackers-penetrated-000000175.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw> for Yahoo News:

The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers penetrated two state election databases in recent weeks, prompting the bureau to warn election officials across the country to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems, according to federal and state law enforcement officials.

The FBI warning, contained in a “flash” alert from the FBI’s Cyber Division, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News, comes amid heightened concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about the possibility of cyberintrusions, potentially by Russian state-sponsored hackers, aimed at disrupting the November elections.

Those concerns prompted Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to convene a conference call with state election officials on Aug. 15, in which he offered his department’s help to make state voting systems more secure, including providing federal cyber security experts to scan for vulnerabilities, according to a “readout” of the call released by the department.<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10R1QN>

Anyone thinking we can use electronic voting machines without a paper trail needs to think harder.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85950&title=%26%238220%3BFBI%20says%20foreign%20hackers%20penetrated%20state%20election%20systems%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


APSA Panels on Money in Politics<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85948>
Posted on August 29, 2016 7:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85948> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From Campaign Finance Institute:

If you are going to the American Political Science Association convention in Philadelphia September 1-4, we’d like you to know about a panel being sponsored by the Campaign Finance Research Group as well as two related panels. We hope to see you there!

—————————————————————————————

CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESEARCH GROUP

Round Table: Money and Politics, 2016

Sat, September 3, 12:00 to 1:30pm, Marriott, Room 411

On the weekend before the traditional start of the general election season, this round table will focus on what we have learned about post-Citizens United politics from fundraising and spending in the four elections since the case was decided. Was Super PAC and other non-party money (and advertising) in the presidential primaries a major factor, or largely wasted? What about in the less visible congressional primaries? What questions should we take into the general elections from lessons learned in this year’s primaries and other recent elections? How does 2016 so far give us a better handle on the systemic impacts of change in these past four federal election cycles? And what do we predict for the weeks between now and November 8 (Election Day)?

Participants: Robert Boatright (Clark U.); Erika Franklin Fowler (Wesleyan U.); Robin Kolodny (Temple U).; Michael Malbin, (University at Albany and The Campaign Finance Institute); Travis Ridout -(Washington State U.)

—————————————————————————————

LAW AND POLITICAL PROCESS GROUP

Buckley v. Valeo at 40: New Thinking, New Directions on Campaign Finance

Thu, September 1, 8:00 to 9:30am, Marriott 414

Forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Buckley v. Valeo, allowing some but not all limits on campaign financing in U.S. elections. In more recent years, including in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC, the Court has moved in a deregulatory direction. What is the future of campaign financing in the U.S.? Do reform attempts lead to increased political polarization? Should the Court reconsider whether equality is a compelling reason for reform? This panel considers recent works and new directions in campaign finance law, including La Raja and Schaffner’s “Campaign Finance and Political Polarization,” Hasen’s “Plutocrats United,” and Drutman’s “The Business of America is Lobbying.”

Chair: Guy-Uriel Charles (Duke Law School). Presenters: Richard Hasen (UC, Irvine Law Scool); Raymond La Raja (U. Mass.); Brian Schaffner (U. Mass); Lee Drutman (New America); Diana Dwyre (Cal. State, Chico); Joel Gora (Brooklyn Law School).

———————————————————————————–

U.S. Federal Campaign Finance in a time of Transition Sat, September 3, 8:00 to 9:30am, Marriott, Salon KL

A group of academics are working together to identify what we do and don’t know about campaign finance in American federal elections. The U.S. system of campaign finance is undergoing a major transformation. The group’s efforts are being funded by the Hewlett Foundation, and we were convened by Nate Persily of Stanford University. The group is comprised of Steven Ansolabehere, Robert Boatright, Adam Bonica, Bruce Cain, Diana Dwyre, Erika Franklin Fowler, Kenneth Goldstein, Rich Hall, Keith Hamm, Eitan Hersh, Robin Kolodny, Ray LaRaja, David Magleby, Kenneth Mayer, Nolan McCarty, Jeffrey D. Milyo, David Primo, John Sides, James Snyder, Charles Stewart, Lynn Vavreck, and Abby Wood. Two prominent election lawyers, Robert Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, one from each party, are also participating in the conversations and facilitating contacts for the task force with the two parties.

Chair: Nathaniel Persily (Stanford). Participants: Diana Dwyre (Cal. State, Chico); Erika Franklin Fowler (Wesleyan U.); Robin Kolodny (Temple U); Travis Ridout (Washington State U.); David Primo (Rochester); David Magleby (Brigham Young); Jeffrey Milyo (Missouri); Abby Wood (USC Law)

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85948&title=APSA%20Panels%20on%20Money%20in%20Politics&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


Georgetown Prof. Wants to Take Away Your Vote Unless You Can Pass a Knowledge Test<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85946>
Posted on August 28, 2016 7:59 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85946> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Amazing that these ideas<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brennan-epistocracy-20160828-snap-story.html> persist in 2016.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85946&title=Georgetown%20Prof.%20Wants%20to%20Take%20Away%20Your%20Vote%20Unless%20You%20Can%20Pass%20a%20Knowledge%20Test&description=>
Posted in voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


Federal Government Still Deciding about Retrying Gov. McDonnell<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85944>
Posted on August 28, 2016 7:49 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85944> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Amy Howe<http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/08/progress-but-no-decisions-in-former-governors-case/> has the details.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85944&title=Federal%20Government%20Still%20Deciding%20about%20Retrying%20Gov.%20McDonnell&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Selfies in voting booths: Depending on where you live, they may be illegal”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85942>
Posted on August 28, 2016 7:47 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85942> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Kravets writes.<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/selfies-in-voting-booths-depending-on-where-you-live-they-may-be-illegal/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85942&title=%26%238220%3BSelfies%20in%20voting%20booths%3A%20Depending%20on%20where%20you%20live%2C%20they%20may%20be%20illegal%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Was the 7th Circuit’s Voter ID En Banc Order a 4-4 Compromise a la #SCOTUS?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85939>
Posted on August 28, 2016 7:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85939> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

On Friday, I linked<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85911> to this per curiam order<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/walker-en-banc.pdf> from the Seventh Circuit in the two WI voter id/voting cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85911>, Frank v. Walker and One Wisconsin Now. In the first case, plaintiffs were trying to make it easier for people without id to vote without an affidavit, in the second, the state of Wisconsin was trying to make it harder for people to vote.

Two years ago, when the en banc 7th Circuit considered an earlier stage of the Frank v. Walkerlitigation, in which a 7th Circuit panel had upheld WI’s strict voter id law against a facial challenge, the en banc court divided 5-5. But since then one of the conservatives on the court retired, leaving the possibility of a 5-4 vote in Frank to allow people without one of the strict forms of id to vote with an affidavit.

But one of the judges who could have been in such a five-judge majority, Judge Williams, did not participate in the case. We are not told why. It could be health, a need to recuse for some reason, or some other reason.

As Mark Sherman noted<https://twitter.com/shermancourt/status/769274954819010560> when the compromise per curiam order appeared, the unanimous per curiam could mask a 4-4 split.  Imagine if 4 judges wanted to restore the affidavit requirement and 4 did not, and 4 wanted to side with Wisconsin in its other challenge and four did not.  That would leave things standing as they were in any case, and would not do much good.

And it’s not like a 4-4 SCOTUS would be likely to be decisive on this either.

This compromise at least gives the One Wisconsin Now case district court judge a chance to make sure that the DMV alternative is working as the state promises.

This is not nearly as good as the affidavit for those lacking the id.  They will need to make a trip to DMV (presumably during working hours) and then to vote, as opposed to simply submitting an affidavit while voting.  But it is better than nothing, especially with a district court looking over the DMV’s shoulder.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85939&title=Was%20the%207th%20Circuit%26%238217%3Bs%20Voter%20ID%20En%20Banc%20Order%20a%204-4%20Compromise%20a%20la%20%23SCOTUS%3F&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>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Do CEOs Affect Employee Political Choices?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85937>
Posted on August 28, 2016 4:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85937> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New<https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/08/28/do-ceos-affect-employee-political-choices/> on HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation:

Do CEOs affect political choices of their employees? Using a large sample of U.S. firms, we find evidence that they do. First, we document that employees donate significantly more money to CEO-supported political candidates than to otherwise similar candidates not supported by the CEO. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama raised three times more money from employees of firms whose CEOs donated to him than from employees of firms whose CEOs donated to Mitt Romney (see Figure). We find similar effects for all federal elections (House, Senate, and President). Second, we find that employees located in congressional districts where CEOs support political candidates are more likely to vote in elections, suggesting that CEOs can affect not only their employees’ campaign contributions but also voter turnout.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85937&title=%26%238220%3BDo%20CEOs%20Affect%20Employee%20Political%20Choices%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


“Is This About Taxes?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85935>
Posted on August 28, 2016 3:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85935> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Josh Marshall <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-this-about-taxes> on the Bannon “voter fraud” controversy.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85935&title=%26%238220%3BIs%20This%20About%20Taxes%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Plaintiffs in Ohio “Golden Week” Case Seek Stay from 6th Circuit; May Seek Emergency #SCOTUS Relief<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85930>
Posted on August 27, 2016 8:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85930> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

On Tuesday, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85729> a 6th Circuit panel reversed a trial court’s ruling which had prevented Ohio from eliminating “Golden Week,” a week in which a person could both register to vote (or change a registration) and cast an early ballot. The trial court found the elimination was unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The 6th Circuit panel reversed.

This evening plaintiffs sought a stay<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/6th-golden-stay.pdf> from the 6th Circuit, the effect of which would be to put the trial court’s order restoring Golden Week back on.

There’s virtually no chance the panel grants the stay. But asking for the stay is a precursor to asking for an emergency stay from the Supreme Court before the election.  (It is also possible to ask the full 6th Circuit to review, but that not requested in the new motion).

Expect a quick decision from the 6th Circuit panel.

UPDATE: Marc Elias on Twitter<https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/769914872725250048>: “Unless the 6th Cir. stays its decision and restores Golden Week, we will file in SCOTUS on emergency basis.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85930&title=Plaintiffs%20in%20Ohio%20%26%238220%3BGolden%20Week%26%238221%3B%20Case%20Seek%20Stay%20from%206th%20Circuit%3B%20May%20Seek%20Emergency%20%23SCOTUS%20Relief&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>


Republican Pressure to Modify the Nomination Process<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85927>
Posted on August 27, 2016 8:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85927> by Richard Pildes<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

I suggested in my recent Washington Post piece on the history of the Presidential nomination process, here<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/memo-to-gop-forget-2016-start-thinking-2018-and-2020/2016/08/26/f6cf607a-6bab-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a922c517b914>, that after the fall election there is likely going to be significant pressure to reconsider the post-1960s process that has developed for choosing presidential nominees.   As I said there, that pressure would probably be greatest on the Republican side, if Donald Trump loses badly in the fall.

We are now already seeing the first signs of that push emerging:  in today’s<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/memo-to-gop-forget-2016-start-thinking-2018-and-2020/2016/08/26/f6cf607a-6bab-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a922c517b914> Washington Post, important senior figures in the Republican Party, Tom Korologos and Richard Allen, first concede that Trump will lose and then identify reform of the primary process as one of the key items Republicans should focus on to rebuild their party for subsequent elections:

Fourth, move quickly to clean house at the Republican National Committee and change the primary rules that allowed Trump to win the nomination.

The RNC must share major responsibility for the outcome on Nov. 8. Having allowed Trump to gain the upper hand over a very good crop of Republican candidates would be Exhibit A of its political malpractice.

For the party chairman to declare that the “primary campaign is over” after Indiana (while Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas were still in the race) was a major blunder.

Reforms are needed now for the delegate selection process for 2020. All options, including creating superdelegates, finding ways to limit the number of candidates and setting later primary dates, should be on the table.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85927&title=Republican%20Pressure%20to%20Modify%20the%20Nomination%20Process&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“When Poll-Watching Crosses the Line”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85925>
Posted on August 26, 2016 9:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85925> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read Jocelyn Benson<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/poll-election-monitor-challengers-vote-laws-watchers-214189> in Politico:

Trump and Pence are partly correct: There is great value in having elections monitored. Poll watching helps to preserve an open, transparent democratic process by ensuring that elections are administered in a manner that protects access while inviting scrutiny. Poll observers can ensure the law is followed, provide support for voters and poll workers in navigating often confusing and ever-evolving election regulations.

But in nearly a decade of organizing vote-monitoring efforts around the country, I have seen firsthand how volunteer monitors—often positioned as “challengers” at the polls—can intimidate and harass even the most seasoned poll workers and voters, interfere with the process, delay voting, and potentially alter the election’s outcome.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85925&title=%26%238220%3BWhen%20Poll-Watching%20Crosses%20the%20Line%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Wisconsin Gets to Enforce Restrictive Voter ID Law, With One Big Twist”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85923>
Posted on August 26, 2016 9:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85923> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Cristian Farias<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wisconsin-voter-id-law_us_57c0ac7ae4b04193420f3492> for HuffPo.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85923&title=%26%238220%3BWisconsin%20Gets%20to%20Enforce%20Restrictive%20Voter%20ID%20Law%2C%20With%20One%20Big%20Twist%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Voter ID in Texas by way of North Carolina?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85921>
Posted on August 26, 2016 9:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85921> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bobby Cervantes<http://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas-take/article/Voter-ID-in-Texas-by-way-of-North-Carolina-9186881.php?cmpid=twitter-premium> in the Houston Chronicle.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85921&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20ID%20in%20Texas%20by%20way%20of%20North%20Carolina%3F%26%238221%3B&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>


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. See also my updated post,Was the 7th Circuit’s Voter ID En Banc Order a 4-4 Compromise a la #SCOTUS?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85939>]
[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>


--
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/20160829/7ac06390/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/20160829/7ac06390/attachment.png>