[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/19/16

[Rick Hasen]

“The Real Reason Why Judges Should Keep Quiet About Elections; The restrictions remind judges to aspire to be apolitical.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84386>
Posted on July 19, 2016 10:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84386> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dahlia Lithwick and I have written this piece <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_trump_remarks_will_have_long_lasting_effects.html> for Slate. It begins:
Late last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to put the controversy<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_s_improper_attacks_on_donald_trump.html> over her recent criticisms of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_risks_her_legacy_to_insult_donald_trump.html> behind her, issuing a written statement of regret<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html> and telling NPR’s Nina Totenberg<http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486130165/supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-comments>: “I did something I should not have done. It’s over and done with, and I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”
But the issue of judicial speech on political matters is hardly over and done with. It will remain fodder for the 2016 presidential election because Donald Trump criticized Ginsburg, even questioning her mental competence<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/753090242203283457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> (“her mind is shot”) and calling on her to resign. Many court watchers worry what might happen if the court is called upon to rule on any kind of election dispute and that brings a reprise of calls for her to recuse in any Trump-related litigation. And on top of all that, the court itself will soon decide whether to weigh in on a case challenging an Arizona rule that bars judicial candidates from doing the very thing Justice Ginsburg did: openly supporting or opposing a candidate for public office.
If Justice Ginsburg follows her past judicial writing and not her personal example, she’d likely decide—correctly, we think—that states can stop judicial candidates and judges from endorsing or opposing candidates for office (aside from opponents in their own elections). Even though we all know that judges have political opinions, it is better for their own legitimacy and the integrity of our elections to keep the judicial and political roles separate. If the court votes to allow yet more political speech from sitting judges, we will have a great many more Ginsburggates to look forward to.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84386&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Real%20Reason%20Why%20Judges%20Should%20Keep%20Quiet%20About%20Elections%3B%20The%20restrictions%20remind%20judges%20to%20aspire%20to%20be%20apolitical.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

DOJ Files 6th Circuit Brief Supporting ACLU in Ohio Voter Purge Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84384>
Posted on July 19, 2016 9:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84384> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read.<http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/APhilipRandolphInstituteEtAl.v.JonHusted-029-DOJ-AmicusCuriae-2016_0718.pdf>
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84384&title=DOJ%20Files%206th%20Circuit%20Brief%20Supporting%20ACLU%20in%20Ohio%20Voter%20Purge%20Case&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“AP-GfK Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on self-funding”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84382>
Posted on July 19, 2016 9:15 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84382> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Julie Bykowicz and Emily Swanson<http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/our-latest-poll-findings-49> for AP:
Donald Trump’s voters adored him for mostly paying his own way in the first half of the presidential campaign. Yet those same people are shrugging their shoulders now that he’s raising money just like the rivals he once disparaged as the “puppets” of big donors.
A new Associated Press-GfK poll found that 63 percent of Trump supporters say they’re at least somewhat more likely to back a self-funded candidate, just as he once was. However, just 13 percent consider it a problem that Trump changed his mind — and nearly all those think it’s only a minor one.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84382&title=%26%238220%3BAP-GfK%20Poll%3A%20Trump%20supporters%20unfazed%20by%20reversal%20on%20self-funding%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Virginia high court considers whether McAuliffe erred in restoring felons’ voting rights”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84380>
Posted on July 19, 2016 9:13 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84380> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-high-court-to-consider-if-mcauliffe-erred-in-restoring-felons-voting-rights/2016/07/18/af6ea41a-4d11-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html>:
It was not clear which way the seven justices would rule. Much of the arguments were spent focused on whether the GOP legislative leaders and voters could even challenge the restoration of voter rights in court.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84380&title=%26%238220%3BVirginia%20high%20court%20considers%20whether%20McAuliffe%20erred%20in%20restoring%20felons%E2%80%99%20voting%20rights%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>

“Voting challenges head toward the Supreme Court: 4 cases to watch”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84378>
Posted on July 19, 2016 9:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84378> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ariane de Vogue<http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/voting-rights-supreme-court/index.html> for CNN:
The looming election and the Supreme Court will converge in the coming months as voting rights challenges on issues such as Voter ID, early vote cutbacks and same-day registration make their way to the high court.
Challenges during an election year are always fraught, but this cycle things could grow even more complicated because the court only has eight members to review the cases, and there’s a good chance that it could split 4-4.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84378&title=%26%238220%3BVoting%20challenges%20head%20toward%20the%20Supreme%20Court%3A%204%20cases%20to%20watch%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Amid Convention Controversy, Little Known About Donors”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84376>
Posted on July 19, 2016 9:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84376> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ken Doyle<http://www.bna.com/amid-convention-controversy-n73014444967/>, (momentarily) freed from the BNA paywall.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84376&title=%26%238220%3BAmid%20Convention%20Controversy%2C%20Little%20Known%20About%20Donors%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>

“Kansas Zealot Helps Shape the G.O.P.’s Right-Wing Platform”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84374>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84374> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial:<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opinion/kansas-zealot-helps-shape-the-gops-right-wing-platform.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0>
Appellate courts should act swiftly to show Mr. Kobach just how wrong he is. The basic rights of voters are being abridged by the champion of a shameful campaign that is being whipped up in Republican-controlled statehouses: using ID requirements to suppress voters who tend toward the Democrats. Mr. Kobach is pushing the myth that voter cheating is rampant. But he has utterly failed to document that, despite his Javert-like zealotry as secretary of state. In fact, the federal ruling against him said there was evidence of only three instances across 18 years in which noncitizens voted in Kansas.
While the courts are at it, I wonder if there will be sanctions for Kobach trying to reinstitut<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84214>e the two-tiered (or three tired) voting system a court already said he couldn’t use.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84374&title=%26%238220%3BKansas%20Zealot%20Helps%20Shape%20the%20G.O.P.%E2%80%99s%20Right-Wing%20Platform%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“In Which I Am (A Bit Of) A Killjoy About Pokemon Go At The Polls”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84372>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84372> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Doug Chapin’s right to raise concerns.<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/07/19/in-which-i-am-a-bit-of-a-killjoy-about-pokemon-go-at-the-polls/>
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84372&title=%26%238220%3BIn%20Which%20I%20Am%20(A%20Bit%20Of)%20A%20Killjoy%20About%20Pokemon%20Go%20At%20The%20Polls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“These Virginians Just Got Their Voting Rights Back. Republicans Are Trying To Take Them Away Again.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84370>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84370> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Think Progress<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/07/19/3794584/virginia-voter-restoration-lawsuit/>:
But Virginia Republicans are taking the state to court<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/23/3780784/va-lawsuit-voting/> on July 19 to try to roll back these changes, and restore the Reformation-era felon disenfranchisement law. The conservative officials are arguing<http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2841392-Howell-v-McAuliffe.html> not only that the governor’s order violates the state constitution, but that it hurts them personally. They told the court that allowing ex-offenders to vote in the 2016 presidential election would “dilute” their own votes, “injure” them, “and undermine the legitimacy of the election.”
“These ongoing, coordinated efforts to register unqualified voters have diluted Petitioners’ votes, created an illegitimate electorate, and threatened the legitimacy of the November elections,” their impending lawsuit states.
If their case at the Virginia Supreme Court succeeds, the governor would no longer be able to restore the rights of newly-released, and the thousands of Virginians who have already registered to vote could once again lose the ability to vote.
Republicans asked for the case to be expedited<https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/herring-defends-mcauliffes-voting-rights-order-in-face-of-gop-lawsuit/2016/05/27/8600ed30-2440-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html> to prevent ex-offenders from voting in this November’s presidential election.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84370&title=%26%238220%3BThese%20Virginians%20Just%20Got%20Their%20Voting%20Rights%20Back.%20Republicans%20Are%20Trying%20To%20Take%20Them%20Away%20Again.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“As the GOP Convention Begins, Ohio Is Purging Tens of Thousands of Democratic Voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84366>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84366> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman<https://www.thenation.com/article/as-the-gop-convention-begins-ohio-is-purging-tens-of-thousands-of-democratic-voters/> for The Nation.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84366&title=%26%238221%3B%20As%20the%20GOP%20Convention%20Begins%2C%20Ohio%20Is%20Purging%20Tens%20of%20Thousands%20of%20Democratic%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Read the (Proposed) WI John Doe Amicus Brief That Respondents are Afraid to Have Read by SCOTUS Justices<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84364>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:36 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84364> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/cdem-amicus.pdf>, from Center for Media and Democracy and the Brennan Center. (Background<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84339>)
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84364&title=Read%20the%20(Proposed)%20WI%20John%20Doe%20Amicus%20Brief%20That%20Respondents%20are%20Afraid%20to%20Have%20Read%20by%20SCOTUS%20Justices&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Big-name Donors Skip Trump Event”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84362>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84362> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ken Vogel<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-big-donors-225777#ixzz4Eq84mnG4> for Politico.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84362&title=%26%238220%3BBig-name%20Donors%20Skip%20Trump%20Event%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“And More Doublespeak in Reformland: On Reversing SpeechNow.org”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84360>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:27 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84360> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Smith at CCP<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2016/07/18/and-more-doublespeak-in-reformland-on-reversing-speechnow-org/>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84360&title=%26%238220%3BAnd%20More%20Doublespeak%20in%20Reformland%3A%20On%20Reversing%20SpeechNow.org%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

RNC Platform Statement on Campaign Finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84358>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:26 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84358> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Paul Blumenthal<https://twitter.com/PaulBlu/status/755159047972720640/photo/1>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84358&title=RNC%20Platform%20Statement%20on%20Campaign%20Finance&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>

Bauer on Chemerinsky on RBG<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84356>
Posted on July 19, 2016 8:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84356> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob:<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/07/question-intensity-campaign-finance-ginsburg-controversy/>
In the LA Times, Chemerinsky opens with these words:
Imagine that you are a person with great influence, highly respected and with a powerful voice that commands enormous attention. Imagine that you see the country heading down a potentially destructive and very dangerous path. Do you sit quietly and, if the worst happens, always regret your silence, or do you speak out even if doing so will subject you to criticism?
It is an entirely fair question. And the one that follows is what is permitted to others who lack the same power and influence but who feel no less urgency about the country’s direction. This is not an argument for dispensing with all campaign finance controls, but for considering them carefully in the light of those times when many wishing to speak and to influence voters are convinced that there is a great deal on the line, with the “country heading down a potentially destructive and very dangerous path.”
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84356&title=Bauer%20on%20Chemerinsky%20on%20RBG&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Beware of Robots Telling You How to Vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84354>
Posted on July 18, 2016 8:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84354> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Buchanan<http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-18/beware-of-robots-telling-you-how-to-vote> for Bloomberg View.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84354&title=%26%238220%3BBeware%20of%20Robots%20Telling%20You%20How%20to%20Vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, social media and social protests<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

Why Did Justice Ginsburg Speak About Trump?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84352>
Posted on July 18, 2016 7:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84352> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-supreme-court-and-political-world-are-more-entangled-than-either-acknowledges/2016/07/17/d3051454-4b5e-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html> in Wapo:
Ginsburg said she had made a mistake and considers the matter over. But perhaps she already had made her point to the young feminists who revere the “Notorious RBG”<http://notoriousrbg.tumblr.com/> but, polls indicate, are not necessarily enthused about Hillary Clinton.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84352&title=Why%20Did%20Justice%20Ginsburg%20Speak%20About%20About%20Trump%3F&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Former IN-SOS Todd Rokita Wants to Replace Mike Pences as IN-GOV<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84323>
Posted on July 18, 2016 7:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84323> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
IndyStar reports.<http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/07/15/holcomb-brooks-enter-race-governor/87128254/>
Rokita is a reliable member of the fraudulent fraud squad.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23053>

[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84323&title=Former%20IN-SOS%20Todd%20Rokita%20Wants%20to%20Replace%20Mike%20Pences%20as%20IN-GOV&description=>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

ELB Podcast Episode 14. Erwin Chemerinsky: Did Justice Ginsburg Cross the Line?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84347>
Posted on July 18, 2016 4:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84347> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Did Justice Ginsburg go too far in her comments against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump? Should comments like Justice Ginsburg’s be protected by the First Amendment, and would they be grounds for recusal in a future Clinton v. Trump case? Are judicial rules which bar endorsements of candidates and political statements by judges unconstitutional?
On Episode 14 of the ELB Podcast, we talk with UCI Irvine Law dean and noted constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky.
You can listen to the ELB Podcast Episode 14 on Soundcloud <https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-14> or subscribe at iTunes.<https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84347&title=ELB%20Podcast%20Episode%2014.%20Erwin%20Chemerinsky%3A%20Did%20Justice%20Ginsburg%20Cross%20the%20Line%3F&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ELB Podcast<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>, ethics investigations<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Lawyers’ Committee Expresses Disappointment with U.S. Department of Justice Decision to Terminate Critical Federal Observer Program”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84345>
Posted on July 18, 2016 2:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84345> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release<https://lawyerscommittee.org/press-release/lawyers-committee-expresses-disappointment-u-s-department-justice-decision-terminate-critical-federal-observer-program/>:
 The Justice Department (DOJ) has stated that it will no longer deploy federal observers inside polling sites, a long-standing and critical component of its election monitoring efforts.  The Justice Department announced<https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-league-united-latin-american-citizens> that it will cease dispatching federal election observers to polling sites, based on the their interpretation of the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder.  The DOJ also issued a Fact Sheet<https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/876246/download> further outlining the decision.  Federal election observers, specially trained individuals with authorization to enter polling locations and review the counting of the votes, have historically played a critical role monitoring elections to ensure that all voters are able to freely cast a ballot.
From an AG Lynch speech to LULAC:<https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-delivers-remarks-league-united-latin-american-citizens>
That decision did great damage.  It seriously undermined Section 5 of the VRA, which required jurisdictions with the most troubling histories of voter discrimination to receive federal approval, or “preclearance,” before they could change their election rules.  Section 5 was in many ways the heart of the Voting Rights Act and its neutralization was a serious blow with far-reaching consequences.  First and foremost, the Department of Justice can no longer block voting restrictions before they take effect.  For example, in 2011, the state of Texas passed a restrictive voter ID law that requires voters to produce documents that more than half a million Texas voters simply do not have.  Seven federal judges have reviewed this law and seven federal judges have found that it violates the Voting Rights Act – three of them before Shelby County and four of them after.  The case is currently before the full Fifth Circuit, with a decision due any day.  But because of Shelby County, Texas’s law remains in force while we wait for a final decision – and it is not the only one.  Because of Shelby County, other states have also enacted laws that restrict voting rights.  And these laws have the potential to distort elections by making it harder for voters – especially low-income and minority voters – to access the ballot box.
Shelby County had other consequences as well.  It has forced the Justice Department to rely much more on local groups and individuals to alert us to potentially unlawful acts, since jurisdictions no longer have to self-report.  In the past, we have also relied heavily on election observers – specially trained individuals who are authorized to enter polling locations and monitor the process to ensure that it lives up to its legal obligations.  Unfortunately, our use of observers is largely tied to the preclearance coverage formula that the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional in Shelby County and so our ability to deploy them has been severely curtailed.  Rest assured, we will continue to monitor elections to the extent that we can, but because of Shelby County, we will be sending out fewer people with fewer capabilities this November.
The kind of harm we see – in places that pass restrictive laws that we now spend years fighting on the back end, instead of preventing on the front end; the harm that comes when we don’t have the same number or kind of “eyes and ears” in polling locations that we did before –cannot be undone.  And in the year 2016, in the United States of America, it should not be tolerated.  Nor does it have to be.  In its ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress has the ability to establish a new system for determining which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance – a step that would restore Section 5 to its full effect and restore our capacity to protect.  I have repeatedly urged Congress to embrace this opportunity.  And today, once again, I call upon the people’s branch to stand up for the people’s voice.  In a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, no eligible citizen should be denied the right to vote, no matter who they are or where they live.  And the representatives of the people should guarantee that right – not tomorrow, not after the election, but right now.
Now, the good news is that even without Section 5, the Voting Rights Act remains a potent tool.  Its other provisions remain in effect. And there are many other important voting rights laws that our Civil Rights Division is using to ensure and to widen access to the ballot.  We entered into an agreement with the State of Alabama to ensure its compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to provide eligible citizens with the opportunity to register to vote through motor vehicle agencies.  Our action eased the way to vote for the more than one million Alabama residents who interact with the state motor vehicle agency annually.  We have also made certain that communities in Virginia establish accessible polling places for voters with disabilities.  We have secured access for Latino voters in Napa County, California, to the Spanish-language ballots and assistance to which they are legally entitled.  We have worked to ensure that uniformed service members deployed at home and abroad are able to send in their absentee ballots in plenty of time for them to be counted – because the men and women fighting to defend our rights should never be denied theirs.  When others bring cases, we join the fight there as well: since the beginning of 2014, we have filed briefs in private lawsuits in 14 different states that address issues ranging from district lines and registration opportunities to ID rules and language access.  And as we prepare for the first presidential election since the Shelby Countyruling, we are mobilizing all of the resources left at our disposal to monitor the process as thoroughly and effectively as possible.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84345&title=%26%238220%3BLawyers%E2%80%99%20Committee%20Expresses%20Disappointment%20with%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Justice%20Decision%20to%20Terminate%20Critical%20Federal%20Observer%20Program%26%238221%3B&d>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Could ‘Pokemon Go’ Break Election Laws?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84343>
Posted on July 18, 2016 1:59 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84343> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
US News reports.<http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-18/could-pokemon-go-break-election-laws>
This is the next “ballot selfie” controversy, no doubt.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84343&title=%26%238220%3BCould%20%26%238216%3BPokemon%20Go%26%238217%3B%20Break%20Election%20Laws%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Julian Castro Found To Have Violated Hatch Act In Katie Couric Interview”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84341>
Posted on July 18, 2016 1:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84341> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BuzzFeed reports.<https://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/julian-castro-found-to-have-violated-hatch-act-in-katie-cour?utm_term=.dnA2nK4pq#.gcK2VEKZg>
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84341&title=%26%238220%3BJulian%20Castro%20Found%20To%20Have%20Violated%20Hatch%20Act%20In%20Katie%20Couric%20Interview%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics investigations<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>

Supreme Court Asks for Response to Cert. Petition in WI John Doe Case, and Respondents Oppose Amicus Brief from Reform Groups<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84339>
Posted on July 18, 2016 1:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84339> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See the latest two entries.<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-1416.htm>
The next to last entry means that someone at the Court thought enough of the district attorneys’ cert petition to ask for those opposing cert. to file a response. It is no guarantee of a cert grant, but makes it somewhat more likely.
The second entry means that some of the unnamed respondents don’t want to allow those groups to file an amicus brief supporting cert. That’s unusual, and to me a sign of weakness.

[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84339&title=Supreme%20Court%20Asks%20for%20Response%20to%20Cert.%20Petition%20in%20WI%20John%20Doe%20Case%2C%20and%20Respondents%20Oppose%20Amicus%20Brief%20from%20Reform%20Groups&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Call for Papers: Analysis and Comment on Recent Developments in Constitutional Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84337>
Posted on July 18, 2016 9:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84337> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Announcement via email:
The Syracuse Law Review seeks manuscripts that address constitutional issues that were raised by the Supreme Court’s 2015-2016 term and that continue to be discussed in the ongoing 2016 presidential campaigns. Such issues include, but are not limited to, affirmative action, immigration, voting rights, healthcare, and gun control. A book of Volume 67 of the Law Review will be dedicated to addressing these constitutional themes, and we would like to include any and all pertinent subjects in the conversation. The articles’ subjects were left intentionally broad so as to leave room for authors to choose individual, specific topics within their fields. Article submissions should be approximately 10,000 words (flexible) and must be submitted to the Law Review no later than October 1, 2016. If you are interested in submitting or if you have any questions, please contact Lead Articles Editors Hillary Anderson athaanders at syr.edu<mailto:haanders at syr.edu> and Matthew Petrone at mlpetron at syr.edu<mailto:mlpetron at syr.edu>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84337&title=%26%238220%3BCall%20for%20Papers%3A%20Analysis%20and%20Comment%20on%20Recent%20Developments%20in%20Constitutional%20Law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Stop Corruption Now drive targeting Arizona dark money ends”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84335>
Posted on July 18, 2016 8:40 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84335> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Arizona Republic:<http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/07/15/stop-corruption-now-drive-targeting-arizona-dark-money-ends/87128524/>
A campaign to stop a bill that loosens much of the control Arizona has over anonymous campaign spending has dropped it efforts to get the issue before voters.
The Stop Corruption Now drive wanted to refer the state’s campaign-finance overhaul to the Nov. 8 ballot, so voters could decide if they agree with the changes state lawmakers approved earlier this year. But the drive didn’t have enough money to gather the more than 75,000 signatures needed to get it on the ballot.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84335&title=%26%238220%3BStop%20Corruption%20Now%20drive%20targeting%20Arizona%20dark%20money%20ends%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Get Ready for a Big Week on Texas Voter ID<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84333>
Posted on July 18, 2016 8:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84333> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reminder<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84168> on SCOTUS’s soft July 20 deadline to the 5th Circuit.
[cid:image001.png at 01D1E1A5.1D81BBF0]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D84333&title=Get%20Ready%20for%20a%20Big%20Week%20on%20Texas%20Voter%20ID&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>

--
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/20160719/8bf41877/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/20160719/8bf41877/attachment.png>