[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/3/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Nov 2 21:15:16 PDT 2016
“Presidential Election: Trump Hits $100 Million in Small Donations in October, Team Says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88578>
Posted on November 2, 2016 9:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88578> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/presidential-election.html?ref=politics>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88578&title=%E2%80%9CPresidential%20Election%3A%20Trump%20Hits%20%24100%20Million%20in%20Small%20Donations%20in%20October%2C%20Team%20Says%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Can You Take a Voting Selfie? States Wage Legal Battles Days Before Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88576>
Posted on November 2, 2016 9:08 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88576> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/voting-selfie.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88576&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20You%20Take%20a%20Voting%20Selfie%3F%20States%20Wage%20Legal%20Battles%20Days%20Before%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Texas Secretary Of State Says Voter Fraud Exists But He Doesn’t Know How To Fix It”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88574>
Posted on November 2, 2016 9:05 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88574> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
KERA talks to TX SOS Cascos.<http://keranews.org/post/texas-secretary-state-says-voter-fraud-exists-he-doesnt-know-how-fix-it>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88574&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Secretary%20Of%20State%20Says%20Voter%20Fraud%20Exists%20But%20He%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Know%20How%20To%20Fix%20It%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Supreme Court Lets Stand Traditional PAC Limits”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88572>
Posted on November 2, 2016 8:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88572> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA:<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99981224&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0k3v3n8r3&split=0>
The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to Federal Election Commission contribution limits for traditional political action committees (PACs), leaving intact special limits for newly formed PACs (Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats (Stop REID) PAC v. FEC, U.S., No. 16-109, cert. denied 10/31/16).
The FEC limits were challenged in a case spearheaded by a PAC called Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats (Stop REID). A petition for certiorari filed with the high court last summer was denied Oct. 31.
A federal appeals court decision earlier this year upheld the FEC’s PAC contribution limits. In February, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed down an opinion rejecting the challenge brought by Stop REID and a number of conservative PACs and Republican Party committees.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88572&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Lets%20Stand%20Traditional%20PAC%20Limits%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Maine ballot initiative would let voters rank candidates”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88570>
Posted on November 2, 2016 8:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88570> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Mulroy <http://theconversation.com/maine-ballot-initiative-would-let-voters-rank-candidates-67694> for The Conversation.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88570&title=%E2%80%9CMaine%20ballot%20initiative%20would%20let%20voters%20rank%20candidates%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
Two Hour Lines to Vote Early in Phoenix, AZ<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88567>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:49 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88567> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP.<https://apnews.com/b3c1d52f7d1f49b78c2333b125611458/More-long-lines-in-Phoenix-as-people-vote-early?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88567&title=Two%20Hour%20Lines%20to%20Vote%20Early%20in%20Phoenix%2C%20AZ>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“RNC Advised Against ‘Ballot Security’ Efforts By Members With State Party Roles”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88565>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:41 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88565> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
As I explained in this post, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88545> the RNC is arguing that RNC members who have that position by virtue of being state party chairs had the right to engage in activities prohibited by the RNC consent decree because these people were acting in their capacity as state officers. It seems dubious to me, and now via Chris Geidner<https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/rnc-advised-against-ballot-security-efforts-by-members-with?utm_term=.hwGGw97d07#.wn52EMnBLn> we know it was also dubious to the RNC:
On Oct. 19, the Republican National Committee’s general counsel sent an email warning RNC members that the national party was barred from engaging in “ballot security” measures.
Specifically, RNC general counsel John Ryder wrote that a longstanding court-enforced agreement<https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/dnc-v-rnc-ballot-security-consent-decree-fight?utm_term=.uvg3oaDYlZ#.km8Ej6zadQ> meant that the RNC or those acting on its behalf could not engage in measures aimed at stopping voter fraud at the polls.
He went further, however, writing, “Given the seriousness of the Consent Degree and the severe consequences of a violation, you are encouraged not to engage in ‘ballot security’ activities even in your personal, state party, or campaign capacity.”
Two of those RNC members are now part of an argument by Democrats that the RNC has violated that agreement — which, if a federal courts agrees, would mean the agreement would be extended for another eight years.
The Democratic National Committee went to court, arguing<https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/dnc-v-rnc-ballot-security-consent-decree-fight?utm_term=.uvg3oaDYlZ#.km8Ej6zadQ> that, among other issues, two RNC members — one in Michigan<http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/19/trump-michigan-rigged/92407242/> and another in Pennsylvania<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/pennsylvania-republicans-sue-to-allow-poll-watchers-to-cross-county-lines/> — had taken specific actions violating the longstanding consent decree.
On Wednesday, the RNC’s lawyers made the opposite argument of Ryder’s October advice — telling a federal judge<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3213158/DNCvRNC-Doc119.pdf> that the RNC members from Michigan and Pennsylvania could not have their actions “attributed to the RNC” because they were acting solely in their capacity as state party chairs when discussing efforts to address voter fraud at the polls.
The DNC lawyers will have fun writing a reply.
[I first reported that letter from John Ryder to RNC members on October 21.]<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87898>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88565&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20Advised%20Against%20%E2%80%98Ballot%20Security%E2%80%99%20Efforts%20By%20Members%20With%20State%20Party%20Roles%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
VoteRiders v. Vox: “Get real: The underestimated impact of voter ID laws”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88563>
Posted on November 2, 2016 5:50 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88563> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following is a guest post from Kathleen Unger, President/CEO of the incredibly crucial VoteRiders organization:
We strongly disagree with the Vox journalist’s assertion<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13481816/voter-id-suppression-turnout> that voter ID laws have an insignificant impact on voter turnout. We base our view on our on-the-ground experience in Texas in 2014 and in Wisconsin during this electoral cycle.
Rather than parsing studies (most of which were conducted before the onslaught of strict and onerous voter ID laws), I would simply characterize voter ID in one word: confusion. We at VoteRiders have found voter ID confusion in three layers.
The first level of confusion is nationwide: Voters have been hearing about voter ID especially since 2011, compounded by all the litigation, court rulings and media coverage. Importantly, poll workers are confused, and they ask people for their voter ID even in the 18 states plus DC that do not have voter ID laws. These laws are complicated, and poll worker training is lacking.
The second tier of voter ID confusion is surprisingly pervasive: Many (most?) people do not really understand that voter ID is different from and in addition to voter registration! We believe that they conflate the two, hearing “voter ID” and yet thinking “voter registration.” Indeed, we see this mistake on a regular basis in media headlines. The blurring between the two requirements – and the impact – is certainly unknown and unanalyzed. Bottom line, it’s not enough to register to vote in a majority of states for your vote to count.
The third level of this three-layer confusion cake is in two parts. The first applies to all those who do not have the requisite identification under their state’s law. Ten years ago, a study<https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/citizens-without-proof-stands-strong> by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School “found that 11% [about 21 million] of voting-age American citizens—and an even greater percentage of African American, low-income, and older citizens—do not have current and valid government-issued photo IDs.” More recently, we know from expert testimony accepted by the courts that hundreds of thousands of registered voters in each of a number of states do not have an acceptable ID under their state’s law. For instance, over 300,000 (i.e., nine percent) registered Wisconsinites and at least 600,000 registered Texans lack a qualifying ID. Moreover, there has been an enormous upsurge in voter registrants for this election, totaling 200 million voters. If people were not interested in voting, why do they bother to register?
We discovered the second section of this third layer of confusion as a result of VoteRiders’ on-the-ground voter ID outreach and assistance efforts in Texas in 2014. We are finding the same to be true today: More people are interested in confirming that their ID is valid to vote than those who seek help to secure their voter ID. A study<http://news.rice.edu/2015/08/06/texas-id-requirement-kept-voters-from-the-polls/> that corroborated our experience in Texas was conducted by Rice University and the University of Houston: Confusion over Texas’ voter photo identification requirement potentially discouraged as many as nine percent of registered voters from going to the polls in the November 2014 elections in the most competitive Congressional district. People were intimidated by the complicated voter ID law and did not vote, even though they had a valid ID!
Without comprehensive and thoughtful government assistance and education, we believe voter ID laws sadly deny the fundamental right to vote to those who do not have acceptable identification. Of equal concern, these laws are so confusing and intimidating that an equal if not greater number of our fellow citizens do not vote even though they have the proper credentials. Using Wisconsin as an example and extrapolating from the aforementioned Texas study, almost 604,000 registered voters – 18% of registered Wisconsin voters – may well not have their votes counted on November 8. A significant impact on voter turnout? You betcha!
Kathleen Unger
President/CEO, VoteRiders™
VoteRiders.org<http://voteriders.org/>
VoteRiders<http://www.voteriders.org/>, a 501(c)(3) non-partisan non-profit, is the only organization that focuses exclusively on voter ID. We inform and help citizens to secure their voter ID as well as inspire and support organizations, local volunteers, and communities to sustain voter ID education and assistance efforts. We concentrate especially on helping voters obtain the documents required by a state’s voter ID.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88563&title=VoteRiders%20v.%20Vox%3A%20%E2%80%9CGet%20real%3A%20The%20underestimated%20impact%20of%20voter%20ID%20laws%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“BREAKING: Arizona Secy of State Reagan Warns Against Voter Intimidation Efforts (READ)”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88561>
Posted on November 2, 2016 5:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88561> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Arizona’s Politics<http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2016/11/breaking-arizona-secy-of-state-reagan.html> on this new guidance.<https://www.scribd.com/document/329809856/Guidance-on-Polling-Place-Conduct-and-Prevention-of-Voter-Intimidation-and-Discrimination-Arizona-Secretary-of-State#from_embed>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88561&title=%E2%80%9CBREAKING%3A%20Arizona%20Secy%20of%20State%20Reagan%20Warns%20Against%20Voter%20Intimidation%20Efforts%20(READ)%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Dems Offer More Evidence of Sketchy GOP Poll Watcher Activity In Nevada”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88559>
Posted on November 2, 2016 4:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88559> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TPM:<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/dems-put-forward-more-evidence-of-sketchy-gop-poll-watcher-activity-in-nevada?utm_content=bufferdb1d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
Democrats put forward more evidence on Wednesday that they said showed that the Republican National Committee was illegally engaging in poll watching activities.
The additional filing comes after an initial round of affidavits <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/dems-accuse-rnc-of-lying-about-having-poll-watchers-in-nevada> from Dem poll observers in Nevada who said they met other observers claiming to be working for the RNC earlier this week.
The new filing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzgzy2KXyxqtZk41U0pBakZmOFU/view> includes the affidavits of three more Democratic poll observers who have been monitoring early voting sites in Las Vegas. They said that not only did they meet poll observers who suggested RNC involvement in elections monitoring, but that one of the GOP observers gave inaccurate information to voters, according to the court documents.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88559&title=%E2%80%9CDems%20Offer%20More%20Evidence%20of%20Sketchy%20GOP%20Poll%20Watcher%20Activity%20In%20Nevada%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Election Law Procedures, Early and Absentee Voting and Resolution of a Disputed Presidential Election Now Available”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88557>
Posted on November 2, 2016 4:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88557> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ALI Adviser:<http://www.thealiadviser.org/election-administration/election-law-procedures-early-absentee-voting-resolution-disputed-presidential-election-now-available/>
The American Law Institute has released its updated Principles of the Law, Election Administration: Non-Precinct Voting and Resolution of Ballot-Counting Disputes, Part I: Principles of Non-Precinct Voting: Early In-Person Voting and Absentee Voting and Part III: Procedures for the Resolution of a Disputed Presidential Election. ALI is making these Principles available to be downloaded now on its website<https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/cf/23/cf239f6b-d0bb-4e0f-be8e-92fdc2962a7e/election_law_-_booked_-_revised_td_no_1_-_all_parts.pdf>.
The entire project is broken into three parts, however ALI prioritized completing Parts I and III in light of the upcoming election.
The first part concerns the rules for “non-precinct voting,” the casting of ballots by means other than the traditional polling place on Election Day.
“State judges could use Part I in any case that involves an issue concerning early or absentee voting,” said Edward B. Foley, Reporter on the Election Law project. “Part I embodies a commitment to the value of bipartisanship upon which this project has always been premised. We were careful in our selection of the project’s Adviser group include representatives from both sides of the aisle. From the outset, we have recognized that for the ALI’s work on the topic of election law to be influential, it must command the respect of both major parties in our political system.”
Part III is designed to address the timetable of a disputed presidential election and the extraordinary challenge of completing the resolution within the five-week window provided by Congress. In addition to a detailed scheme to coordinate all the essential elements needed for this situation—including a recount, the canvassing of returns, and a potential judicial contest of the result – this draft also contains a set of three schematic calendars representing the relationships among the various portions of the procedures for resolving a disputed presidential election.
“Disputed elections have played a large role in our national consciousness over the last two decades, mostly as a result of the 2000 presidential election but also because of high-profile senatorial and gubernatorial elections,” said Richard L. Revesz, Director of The American Law Institute. “Presidential elections present distinct issues for a number of reasons, including the importance of what is at stake, the very compressed five-week period, and the potential legal risks of not having procedures in place when the dispute arises.”
“Our effort to identify sound principles have been guided by the overarching norm that a well-functioning democracy involves robust electoral competition between two or more parties, and specifically in the American context that the ground rules for this competition must be seen as fair by the two major parties, rather than as the imposition of one party’s preferred rules upon the other,” added the project’s Associate Reporter Steven F. Huefner.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88557&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Law%20Procedures%2C%20Early%20and%20Absentee%20Voting%20and%20Resolution%20of%20a%20Disputed%20Presidential%20Election%20Now%20Available%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Trump campaign, Ohio GOP ask federal judge not to limit poll watchers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88555>
Posted on November 2, 2016 3:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88555> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cleveland Plain Dealer:<http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2016/11/trump_campaign_ohio_gop_ask_fe.html>
A lawyer for Donald Trump’s campaign wrote in a brief filed Wednesday that the Republican candidate’s statements encouraging supporters to watch the polls for Democratic voter fraud are protected speech and that preventing supporters from espousing those same views near polling places on Election Day would trample on their free-speech rights.
Chad Readler, an attorney for the Jones Day law firm, wrote that a lawsuit filed Sunday by the Ohio Democratic Party is based on “miscellaneous long-ago statements, vague innuendo, rank speculation, and a heavy dose of rhetoric.”
He wrote that Trump and other candidates “are perfectly within their rights to encourage their supporters to serve as poll watchers” and that an order preventing supporters from harassing or intimidating voters outside of polling places would violate the First Amendment.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88555&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20campaign%2C%20Ohio%20GOP%20ask%20federal%20judge%20not%20to%20limit%20poll%20watchers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“North Carolina voter challenge process seems ‘insane,’ judge says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88553>
Posted on November 2, 2016 3:31 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88553> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CBS News:<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-voter-challenge-process-seems-insane-judge/>
North Carolina<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-senator-apologizes-for-hillary-clinton-bullseye-flap/>’s process for challenging voters’ registration seems to harken to a bygone era when fewer safeguards were in place, a federal judge said Wednesday as she presided over a lawsuit that alleges voters are being purged unfairly.
Lawyers for North Carolina countered that state data shows only a sliver of names have been removed from county rolls in the past two years – fewer than 7,000 statewide out of 6.8 million registered voters.
The comments came during an emergency hearing over NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks….
“This sounds like something that was put together in 1901,” she told lawyers for the state.
The judge also said she was “horrified” by the number of removals in Cumberland County, which accounted for the majority of the statewide total.
“It almost looks like a cattle call, the way people are being purged,” she told county attorney Rick Moorefield.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88553&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20voter%20challenge%20process%20seems%20%E2%80%98insane%2C%E2%80%99%20judge%20says%E2%80%9D>
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>
NC GOP Says LGBT Forum Sponsored by Charlotte Observer Newspaper Is Unreported Independent Expenditure Supporting Democratic Candidate for Governor<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88548>
Posted on November 2, 2016 3:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88548> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Letter<http://nc.gop/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Complaint-RedVentures-etc.-.pdf>
via Dominic Holden.<https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/793937303131553792>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88548&title=NC%20GOP%20Says%20LGBT%20Forum%20Sponsored%20by%20Charlotte%20Observer%20Newspaper%20Is%20Unreported%20Independent%20Expenditure%20Supporting%20Democratic%20Candidate%20for%20Governor>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
RNC Denies Coordinating with Trump Campaign on “Ballot Security,” Says RNC Members Who Are Coordinating Working in Their State Party Capacities<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88545>
Posted on November 2, 2016 2:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88545> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See this Republican response <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/119111381181.pdf> and this declaration by John Phillippe Jr<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3213198/DNCvRNC-Doc120-Phillippe.pdf>. Some excerpts from the response:
Mr. Phillippe also personally interviewed Governor Mike Pence, and asked him about the statement he made regarding “ballot integrity” on August 3, 2016. See id. ¶¶ 12-13. Governor Pence confirmed that he made the statement based on his incorrect assumptions, and that he has had no contact with the RNC about any ballot integrity program and has no basis to believe that the RNC is working with the Trump campaign on such efforts. See id ¶¶ 13, 16. Mr. Phillippe also spoke by telephone with the Trump campaign’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway. See id. ¶ 14. She confirmed that she retracted the statement cited by the DNC in its motion and that she “has no knowledge of, and knows of no facts indicating, the RNC’s involvement in any poll monitoring activities in any state.” Id. ¶ 15; see also id. ¶ 16.
The RNC also took steps to further investigate the DNC’s mistaken allegations that the RNC has been involved in ballot security measures in Pennsylvania and Michigan. See Phillippe Decl. ¶¶ 17-22; Gleason Decl. ¶¶ 3-6; McDaniel Decl. ¶¶ 3-6. As shown in the Declaration of Pennsylvania Republican State Party Chair Rob Gleason, and as confirmed in the news article cited by the DNC, Mr. Gleason was quoted in the news article in his capacity as State Party Chair, not in his capacity as an RNC member. See Gleason Decl. ¶ 5. His declaration confirms that the RNC is not participating or assisting in the State Party’s poll watching effort. See id. ¶¶ 3-6. Similarly, as shown in the Declaration of Ronna Romney McDaniel, and as confirmed in the news article cited by the DNC, she was quoted in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Michigan, not in her capacity as an RNC member. See McDaniel Decl. ¶ 5. Ms. McDaniel also confirms that the RNC is not participating or assisting in the State Party’s poll watching effort. See id. ¶¶ 3-6. As this Court previously concluded, both in 1990 and in 2008, the Consent Decree “applies only to the actions of the RNC” and not to actions taken by employees or agents for other committees or organizations. Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 671 F. Supp. 2d 575, 581-82 & n.1 (D.N.J. 2009). When an individual is acting solely in his or her capacity as a state party chair that conduct cannot and should not be attributed to the RNC. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 157 (2003) (noting that statutory prohibition on national parties’ soliciting or directing soft-money contributions does not apply to officers of national parties when they are acting “in their individual capacities” or in their capacity as “officials of state parties”).
Not sure the second point will fly with the court on agency.
More filings tomorrow <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88503> on the extent of poll watching etc. by all involved.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88545&title=RNC%20Denies%20Coordinating%20with%20Trump%20Campaign%20on%20%E2%80%9CBallot%20Security%2C%E2%80%9D%20Says%20RNC%20Members%20Who%20Are%20Coordinating%20Working%20in%20Their%20State%20Party%20Capaci>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Breaking: Divided 9th Circuit Agrees to Hear AZ Ballot Harvesting Case En Banc, But J. Reinhardt Predicts Plaintiffs Will Lose<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88536>
Posted on November 2, 2016 2:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88536> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
On October 30 I wrote the following post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88306>:
Arizona passed a law limiting who is allowed to collect a completed absentee ballot from voters (so called “ballot harvesting”). Democrats and others filed suit claiming that the law was unconstitutional and a Voting Rights Act violation. A divided 9th Circuit panel<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/10/28/16-16698opinionanddissent.pdf> voted 2-1 to allow Arizona to enforce the law pending further proceedings (affirming the district court denial of a preliminary injunction). The judges divided along the ideological lines you would expect, with the two conservatives siding with Arizona and the one liberal siding with the plaintiffs.
A 9th Circuit judge has now sua sponte requested en banc consideration, and the court has ordered briefs filed by tomorrow<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/10/29/ShowDoc.pdf>, with an order probably to follow within a day or two (given the exigencies of the election).
I confess I find this to be a difficult case. On the one hand, the state does have an interest in preventing voter fraud, and when fraud does happen (including in parts of Arizona) it has been with absentee ballots and vote buying. Discouraging ballot harvesters can deal with that risk of vote buying. (I am less convinced by the public confidence in the electoral process argument, which seems not to depend on the specific election laws of the state). (As for the Purcell/delay issue, it looks like the problem has been with the timing at the district court, not any dilatory action of the plaintiffs.)
On the other hand, there is some evidence that the great distances in Arizona means that some voters, especially Native Americans, may be burdened by the lack of third parties available to collect ballots.
Now the Ninth Circuit has agreed to hear<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/16-16698_enbanc_order.pdf> the case en banc, with a concurrence by Judge Reinhard<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/16-16698_concurrence.pdf>t and a dissent by Judge O’Scannlain.<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/16-16698_dissent.pdf> (The dissent cites the Purcell principle<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676> against taking the case. so close to the election.)
Because the 9th Circuit is so big, they generally don’t hear the cases with all the Ninth Circuit judges, just an 11-judge subset. We don’t know exactly who is on the panel, but in a highly unusual move, Judge Reinhardt predicts the larger en banc panel will go against the plaintiffs based on how they voted on taking the case or not:
It is indeed no secret that many states have recently enacted legislation making it more difficult for members of minority groups to vote in presidential elections. Arizona is one. It has done so under the guise of guarding against voter fraud, although not one single case of voter fraud in the history of Arizona elections was identified by the Arizona legislature when it enacted statutes changing its system to attempt to limit the opportunity to vote of members of minority groups — of Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans — as well as the poor and infirm. And not one case of voter fraud has been cited to the district court or this court by Arizona when seeking to defend its indefensible and race-based statute.
In the wake of the panel majority’s opinion upholding the invidious Arizona statute by a 2-1 vote, the judges on this court voted to take the case en banc. I am confident that a majority of the members of the court do not support the panel majority’s view that the pretextual risk of voter fraud outweighs the significant burdens on the right to vote imposed by this unconscionable law. I am confident, instead, that the majority of the members of the court agree with Chief Judge Thomas’s persuasive opinion that “the anti-ballot-collection law significantly burdens the voting rights of minorities, particularly Hispanic and Native American voters” and that “[t]he State’s justification of preventing voter fraud was not, and is not, supportable.” Thomas Dissent at 29.
Different members of the court embrace differing legal philosophies and historical understandings regarding the significance of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution with relation to election restrictions and their discriminatory effects. A decision on an issue of such profound legal and political importance that could affect not only the rights of Arizona citizens but the interests of all Americans in the outcome of a presidential election should not depend on a 2-1 vote of three members of a panel of our court. Rather, our en banc process affords a more representative sampling of this court’s group of judges in helping to decide what fundamental approach to voting rights this Circuit will adopt. An en banc court of eleven is ordinarily far more likely than a panel of three to express the view of the court as a whole.
Unfortunately, however, our en banc process is not perfect and also does not necessarily represent the view of the full court. It is selected by lot, as a full court en banc is ordinarily deemed too unwieldy. Thus, although it is preferable to a three judge panel, in an extraordinary case such as this, it too may not accurately reflect the view of the court as a whole. It is possible that we will be faced with such a case here. The en banc court here is composed of a majority of judges who did not support the en banc call. Although I would hesitate to predict the outcome of the en banc court’s deliberation, it may be that its judgment will not reflect the
view of the full court. Nevertheless, although the en banc court is weighted by chance in favor of those who failed to support en banc rehearing, it still has a better chance of representing the view of the court as a whole than does any panel of three. If the en banc court does not reach the conclusion that I believe the full court would have reached, at the least it reflects a proper use of our en banc system. In my own view, regardless of the decision of the en banc court, I am confident that the court as a whole would have rejected the panel majority’s conclusion and enjoined the enforcement of the Arizona statute, although we will probably never know if I am correct. Whether I am or not, I should emphasize that whatever decision the en banc court reaches will be legitimate and will properly be binding on our court and in our Circuit.
On the Purcell point, Judge Reinhardt writes that the issue is too important to leave alone, especially with the Supreme Court divided 4-4 and leaving these issues to the circuit court:
Notwithstanding Judge O’Scannlain’s arguments as to what the Supreme Court would do, we have a duty to enforce the law and our constitution as we see it. Equally important, despite a similar injunction issued by the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court has not intervened to stay any action taken by a circuit court in advance of the 2016 presidential election, but has left such disputes for the circuit courts to resolve. Moreover, this Arizona criminal statute, which applies to third parties and carries a serious jail sentence, is far different from those which the Supreme Court has declined to enjoin in previous election cycles. To calm Judge O’Scannlain’s fears, however, I would note that the Supreme Court is quite capable of timely staying any injunction that our court may issue if it disagrees with us.
This post has been updated.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88536&title=Breaking%3A%20Divided%209th%20Circuit%20Agrees%20to%20Hear%20AZ%20Ballot%20Harvesting%20Case%20En%20Banc%2C%20But%20J.%20Reinhardt%20Predicts%20Plaintiffs%20Will%20Lose>
Posted in absentee ballots<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
CA Ban on Ballot Selfies Stands This Election as Judge Denies TRO<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88534>
Posted on November 2, 2016 1:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88534> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ross Todd reports<https://twitter.com/Ross_Todd/status/793914850254561280> the judge so ruled it is because the ACLU waited too long to file suit (and it doesn’t matter that the law changes on Jan. 1).
This is in line with the recent Sixth Circuit ruling<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88276>: “Call it what you will—laches, the Purcell principle<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>, or common sense—the idea is that courts will not disrupt imminent elections absent a powerful reason for doing so.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88534&title=CA%20Ban%20on%20Ballot%20Selfies%20Stands%20This%20Election%20as%20Judge%20Denies%20TRO>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“California officials say state has clean elections process”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88532>
Posted on November 2, 2016 1:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88532> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports.<http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-officials-say-state-has-clean-10501265.php>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88532&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20officials%20say%20state%20has%20clean%20elections%20process%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Federal judge wants GOP to hand over info on poll watchers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88530>
Posted on November 2, 2016 1:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88530> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ariane de Vogue for CNN.<http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/politics/republican-democrat-poll-watcher/index.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88530&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judge%20wants%20GOP%20to%20hand%20over%20info%20on%20poll%20watchers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“What to fear most at the polling booth”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88528>
Posted on November 2, 2016 1:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88528> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
KCRW To the Point:<http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/what-to-fear-most-at-the-polling-booth>
In many states, Republican claims of widespread “voter fraud” have led to photo ID laws and other restrictions that Democrats call “voter suppression.” Donald Trump, who’s gained political traction with the claim that next week’s election is “rigged” against him, takes it a step further by calling on his supporters to try to prevent it. “Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times. Democrats call that code for “intimidation” — especially in black and Latino neighborhoods important to the Clinton campaign. They’ve already filed suit against “Ballot Security Task Forces” organized by Trump supporters in several states. We hear what could be in store at polling places during early voting — and on Election Day.
Guests:
Christina Wilkie<http://www.kcrw.com/people/christina-wilkie>, Huffington Post (@christinawilkie<http://twitter.com/@christinawilkie>)
Rick Hasen<http://www.kcrw.com/people/rick-hasen>, University of California, Irvine (@rickhasen<http://twitter.com/@rickhasen>)
Jay DeLancy<http://www.kcrw.com/people/jay-delancy>, Voter Integrity Project (@VoteChecker<http://twitter.com/@VoteChecker>)
Allison Riggs<http://www.kcrw.com/people/allison-riggs>, Southern Coalition for Social Justice (@scsj<http://twitter.com/@scsj>)
Daniel Cox<http://www.kcrw.com/people/daniel-cox>, PRRI (@DCoxPRRI<http://twitter.com/@DCoxPRRI>)
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88528&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20to%20fear%20most%20at%20the%20polling%20booth%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Alabama Secretary of State: Helping More People Vote Would ‘Cheapen the Work’ of Civil Rights Heroes”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88524>
Posted on November 2, 2016 1:02 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88524> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Slate:<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/02/alabama_secretary_of_state_says_more_voting_would_cheapen_the_work_of_civil.html>
These people fought—some of them were beaten, some of them were killed—because of their desire to ensure that everybody that wanted to had the right to register to vote and participate in the process. I’m not going to cheapen the work that they did. I’m not going to embarrass them by allowing somebody that’s too sorry to get up off of their rear end to go register to vote … because they think they deserve the right because they’ve turned 18.
“To me,” Merrill continued, “that’s no different than giving them a trophy because they’ve played on the ball team.”
You only get a trophy if you win! And if you want to participate in the process, there’s a system for doing that. And we want to make sure that they have the ability to do that. And we’re going to help them have the opportunity to do it. But just because you turned 18 doesn’t give you the right to do anything.
Merrill then said, “I’m not attracted to lazy people or sorry people or people who don’t want to get involved.”
If you’re too sorry or lazy to get up off of your rear and to go register to vote, or to register electronically, and then to go vote, then you don’t deserve that privilege. As long as I’m Secretary of State of Alabama, you’re going to have to show some initiative to become a registered voter in this state.
Consistent with arguments I made in The New Conservative Assault on Early Voting<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/02/the_new_conservative_assault_on_early_voting_more_republicans_fewer_voters.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88524&title=%E2%80%9CAlabama%20Secretary%20of%20State%3A%20Helping%20More%20People%20Vote%20Would%20%E2%80%98Cheapen%20the%20Work%E2%80%99%20of%20Civil%20Rights%20Heroes%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Wichita man can vote after proving parents’ citizenship”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88522>
Posted on November 2, 2016 12:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88522> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bryan Lowry:<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article112088237.html>
A Wichita man will be allowed to vote in Tuesday’s presidential election after two of the state’s highest officers confirmed his parents were born in Kansas.
Dale Robert Weber, a Wichita resident, was born on a U.S. military base in Germany in 1967. Weber was placed in suspense when he attempted to register for the upcoming election through the state’s website because he lacked the federal documents proving his citizenship.
What an unnecessary hurdle for eligible voters given the fact, as confirmed by recent federal court rulings, the proven incidence of non-citizen voting is tiny and the number of potentially disenfranchised voters much larger.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88522&title=%E2%80%9CWichita%20man%20can%20vote%20after%20proving%20parents%E2%80%99%20citizenship%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Twitter Refuses to Remove Information Lying to Voters About How to Vote<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88520>
Posted on November 2, 2016 11:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88520> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A Twitter user complained about dirty tricks using tweets telling voters they can vote by text from home. (They can’t).
Twitter says<https://twitter.com/mcnees/status/793836301141159936> it won’t remove the items.
Bad policy.
UPDATE: TPM reports<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/twitter-user-suspended-after-tweeting-misleading-voting-info> the account has been suspended.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88520&title=Twitter%20Refuses%20to%20Remove%20Information%20Lying%20to%20Voters%20About%20How%20to%20Vote>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, social media and social protests<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“On Twitter, Trump bots are out-tweeting Clinton bots 7 to 1”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88518>
Posted on November 2, 2016 10:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88518> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Recode:<http://www.recode.net/2016/11/1/13488020/trump-bots-clinton-twitter-third-debate-twitterbots-election>
A huge percentage of election-related talk on Twitter isn’t coming from humans. It’s coming from bots.
And the majority of those bots are gunning for Trump to win the race, according to a paper released yesterday<http://politicalbots.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Data-Memo-Third-Presidential-Debate.pdf> from Oxford University’s Project on Computational Propaganda.
During the third presidential debate, Twitter bots sharing pro-Trump-related content outnumbered pro-Clinton bots by 7 to 1. And in the span between the first and second debates<http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/technology/twitter-bots-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/>, more than a third of pro-Trump tweets were generated by bots, compared with a fifth for pro-Clinton tweets.
A Twitter bot is an account that’s automated by software to act on its own. Bots can retweet, like and reply to tweets. They can also follow accounts and tweet themselves.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88518&title=%E2%80%9COn%20Twitter%2C%20Trump%20bots%20are%20out-tweeting%20Clinton%20bots%207%20to%201%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, social media and social protests<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>
“UPDATE: Arizona’s “Defend The Donald… Exit Polling” Plan Set For Thursday Emergency Hearing”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88516>
Posted on November 2, 2016 10:12 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88516> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest<http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2016/11/update-arizonas-defend-donald-exit.html> from AZ.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88516&title=%E2%80%9CUPDATE%3A%20Arizona%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CDefend%20The%20Donald%E2%80%A6%20Exit%20Polling%E2%80%9D%20Plan%20Set%20For%20Thursday%20Emergency%20Hearing%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The long history of black voter suppression in American politics”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88513>
Posted on November 2, 2016 10:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88513> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Fix reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/the-long-history-of-black-voter-suppression-in-american-politics/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88513&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20long%20history%20of%20black%20voter%20suppression%20in%20American%20politics%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Disenfranchised voters and civic groups challenge Massachusetts’ 20-day voter registration cutoff law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88509>
Posted on November 2, 2016 9:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88509> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release<https://aclum.org/uncategorized/disenfranchised-voters-civic-groups-challenge-massachusetts-20-day-voter-registration-cutoff-law/>. Why did the ACLU wait until now to file this? It is not as though the 20-day rule is new.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88509&title=%E2%80%9CDisenfranchised%20voters%20and%20civic%20groups%20challenge%20Massachusetts%E2%80%99%2020-day%20voter%20registration%20cutoff%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Harris County early voters greeted with incomplete ID instructions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88507>
Posted on November 2, 2016 9:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88507> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Houston Chronicle:<http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Harris-County-early-voters-greeted-with-10461738.php?t=c14ed8dd2d438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium>
Under the watered-down provisions – implemented for the November election only – a voter may cast a ballot after signing a declaration explaining the “reasonable impediment” that prevented him from getting a photo ID, such as a lack of transportation, disability or work schedule. The “declaration” voters must present an supporting identifying document, such as a birth certificate, bank statement or utility bill.
Election clerks at polling places across Harris County on Tuesday, however, still were greeting voters with the familiar welcome: “Have your photo IDs ready.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88507&title=%E2%80%9CHarris%20County%20early%20voters%20greeted%20with%20incomplete%20ID%20instructions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Judge in DNC v. RNC Supplements Discovery Order Aimed at the RNC<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88503>
Posted on November 2, 2016 8:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88503> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
On Monday I blogged <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88394> about the extensive discovery order <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/dnc-rnc-discovery.pdf> in the DNC v. RNC voter intimidation case.
The judge has now issued a new order<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/119111379131.pdf>, requiring more discovery to encompass as well poll watching efforts and also efforts during the early voting period.
ORDERED that Defendant shall also produce to Plaintiff no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, November 3, 2016, and file on the docket the following: An affidavit or affidavits by a person or persons with personal knowledge setting forth in detail Defendant’s efforts regarding poil watching or poll observation’ in connection with the 2016 Presidential Election. Defendant’s efforts shall apply to those efforts by any employee, agent, or servant of Defendant, including volunteers and independent contractors/vendors. The affiant(s) shall be an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant. The affidavit(s) shall set forth all material terms of any such efforts, including any geographic areas which are being targeted for poll watching or poll observation and the reason(s) those areas are being targeted. Any training materials or advice,2 whether written, electronic, or verbal, provided to poll watchers or poll observers shall also be provided.
1. Poll watching and poll observation includes any such efforts concerning early voting, Election Day at the polls, the counting of vote-by-mail/absentee ballots, and post-election canvassing when there may be disputes about counting the ballots of particular individuals.
2. Included within this information shall be any material or advice regarding for whom the poll watchers or poll observers are working and how the poll workers or poll observers may, should, or must respond to any inquiries as to whom they are working for.
Correction: Some of the material is due today at 5 and this new order has more material coming tomorrow at 5.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88503&title=Judge%20in%20DNC%20v.%20RNC%20Supplements%20Discovery%20Order%20Aimed%20at%20the%20RNC>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Despite Citizens United, Corporate Super PAC Contributions Trail Individuals, Study Finds”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88501>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:51 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88501> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ:<http://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-citizens-united-corporate-super-pac-contributions-trail-individuals-study-finds-1478059201?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>
Despite legal rulings allowing companies, trade groups and unions to spend unlimited sums supporting political candidates, they still trail far behind wealthy individuals in political spending, a new study finds.
A study by the Conference Board’s Committee for Economic Development found that individuals made about 80% of all super PAC contributions in the 19 months through July 31. Companies contributed just 8% in the period and unions a mere 1.9%, according to the report slated for release Wednesday.
“It’s wealthy individuals that are really driving the large sums” being spent on elections, said Anthony Corrado, Colby College professor of government, who carried out the analysis. “There wasn’t this big pent up supply of corporate political spending that was looking for some way to be unleashed.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88501&title=%E2%80%9CDespite%20Citizens%20United%2C%20Corporate%20Super%20PAC%20Contributions%20Trail%20Individuals%2C%20Study%20Finds%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
US Dept. of Justice Files Brief Supporting NAACP Legal Argument in NC Voter Purge Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88498>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88498> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can find the 13-page document here.<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/DOJ-statement-of-interest-NC-NAACP-v.-SBOE-NVRA.pdf> A snippet:
Here, plaintiffs allege that election officials in three North Carolina counties have removed voters solely based on alleged changes of residence, premised on mail returned as undeliverable and submitted through voter challenges, and without following the procedures required by Subsection 8(d). Pls.’ Amended TRO Mot., ECF No. 21-1, at 6,10-11. If true, such removals are not permitted by the NVRA.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88498&title=US%20Dept.%20of%20Justice%20Files%20Brief%20Supporting%20NAACP%20Legal%20Argument%20in%20NC%20Voter%20Purge%20Case>
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>
“West Palm Beach Trump Supporters Use Bullhorns, Scream at Clinton Supporters Outside Poll”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88496>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:42 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88496> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Electionland:<https://projects.propublica.org/electionland/florida/west-palm-beach-trump-supporters-use-bullhorns/?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1478050892>
Supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continue to gather in front of the West Palm Beach, Florida, supervisor of elections’ office and shout at Hillary Clinton supporters and voters through bullhorns as they use the early voting location, videos show.
“How many Syrian refugees, Muslim refugees, are you taking into your home?” yelled one Trump supporter in a video filmed Sunday afternoon at Clinton supporters across a parking lot. Later she said, “You hypocrites! Separate the people! Over here we have the LGBT, over here we have the blacks, and then over here we have the Hispanics. But I’m going to tell you something, the hard working American people that served in the armed forces support Donald Trump!”
Therese Barbera, spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s office, said by email that the sheriff’s office “was not aware” of the incidents in the videos until Electionland called for a statement but that “from what we reviewed we do not believe there are any violations occurring.”
“As far as voter intimidation, we did not observe any infractions in the video,” she added. “Please remember that there are First Amendment privileges being afforded here as long as they don’t violate the law.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88496&title=%E2%80%9CWest%20Palm%20Beach%20Trump%20Supporters%20Use%20Bullhorns%2C%20Scream%20at%20Clinton%20Supporters%20Outside%20Poll%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“White nationalists plot Election Day show of force; KKK, neo-Nazis and militias plan to monitor urban polling places and suppress the black vote’<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88494>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:31 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88494> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Hard to believe this is 2016<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616>. Let’s hope law enforcement is ready. And there’s this:
It is difficult to know at what scale these plans will materialize because Anglin and his fringe-right ilk are serial exaggerators, according to Potok. And rather than successfully uncover widespread voter fraud — for which there is a lack of compelling evidence — or successfully suppress minority turnout, Potok said the efforts are most likely to backfire.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88494&title=%E2%80%9CWhite%20nationalists%20plot%20Election%20Day%20show%20of%20force%3B%20KKK%2C%20neo-Nazis%20and%20militias%20plan%20to%20monitor%20urban%20polling%20places%20and%20suppress%20the%20black%20>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“How politicians hide their spending from the public”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88492>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88492> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Shane Goldmacher<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/how-politicians-hide-their-spending-from-the-public-230609> for Politico:
Donald Trump has plastered Facebook with millions of dollars worth of ads in recent months, an all-out effort to lure new donors and supporters. But his campaign filings from August, September and October tell a different story: $0 spent on Facebook.
The vast discrepancy is possible because Trump has leveraged an increasingly popular loophole for politicians seeking to outmaneuver an outmoded campaign-finance system: routing their spending through consulting firms to obscure the ultimate destination of their dollars — keeping the public in the dark about facts as basic as who they’re paying and how much they’re paying them.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88492&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20politicians%20hide%20their%20spending%20from%20the%20public%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
What Should We Think of WI AG Schimel’s Announced “Election Integrity” Efforts on Election Day?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88490>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:24 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88490> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release <https://www.doj.state.wi.us/news-releases/ag-schimel-announces-election-integrity-efforts> and fact sheet<https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/news-media/Election%20Integrity%20FAQ.pdf>. Those with experience on the ground have a better sense of how this will go, given Schimel’s reputation as a strong partisan on issues like the John Doe investigation. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88450>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88490&title=What%20Should%20We%20Think%20of%20WI%20AG%20Schimel%E2%80%99s%20Announced%20%E2%80%9CElection%20Integrity%E2%80%9D%20Efforts%20on%20Election%20Day%3F>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Despite Investigations, Obama’s IRS Has Never Stopped Targeting Conservatives”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88488>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:12 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88488> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey<http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/01/despite-investigations-obamas-irs-never-stopped-targeting-conservatives/> for The Federalist.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88488&title=%E2%80%9CDespite%20Investigations%2C%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20IRS%20Has%20Never%20Stopped%20Targeting%20Conservatives%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
Judge in Nevada GOP/Trump Voter Intimidation Case Will Allow GOP to File Campaign Plans Under Seal<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88486>
Posted on November 2, 2016 7:08 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88486> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See this order<https://www.scribd.com/document/329747608/NSDP-v-NVGOP-Boulware-Order-1> (via Jon Ralston<https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/793792366695940096>).
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88486&title=Judge%20in%20Nevada%20GOP%2FTrump%20Voter%20Intimidation%20Case%20Will%20Allow%20GOP%20to%20File%20Campaign%20Plans%20Under%20Seal>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, 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/20161103/c923dcd4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161103/c923dcd4/attachment.png>
View list directory