[EL] Blogging and the listserv
Douglas Carver
dhmcarver at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 13:09:30 PST 2016
I would like to echo Bill's thanks. You do yeoman's work providing this
invaluable resource. Many thanks.
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:
> Thanks for keeping the listserv running and so up-to-date during the
> election, Rick. I regularly sent articles from it to a wide variety of
> people who had questions about the election.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2016 12:20 PM
> *To:* Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* [EL] (FULL) ELB News and Commentary 11/14/16
>
>
> The technical issues have been resolved. Thanks for your patience.
>
>
>
> *ELB Blogging, Tweeting, Commenting Slowdown for Next Few Months
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89262>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 12:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89262>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The last election season was all consuming. I gave hundreds of interviews,
> wrote thousands of blog posts, and offered many opeds and commentaries. No
> election season has been nearly as busy as this one, and they are all busy
> (I have been blogging, essentially nonstop, since 2003 and the California
> recall), The only thing to come close to this election season is the
> post-2000 election season and *Bush v. Gore.*
>
> While I have enjoyed the blogging, tweeting, and commenting, and think of
> it as a public service, it came at a price. Among other things, the
> schedule of public commentary put me behind on a book project and other
> academic writing.
>
> My plan is to slow down considerably, at least for the next few months, as
> I try to concentrate on larger work and to recharge a bit.
>
> For those who get their news on the election law listserv, expect less
> frequent updates.
>
> Thanks for understanding!
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89262&title=ELB%20Blogging%2C%20Tweeting%2C%20Commenting%20Slowdown%20for%20Next%20Few%20Months>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Exciting News: Nick Stephanopoulos Joining Lowenstein Election Law
> Casebook (6th Edition), Becoming #ELB Contributor
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89260>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 12:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89260>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dan Tokaji and I are thrilled to announce that University of Chicago’s Nick
> Stephanopoulous <http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos> will
> be coming on as co-author to the 6th edition of Election Law–Cases and
> Materials (5th edition (2012)—Lowenstein, Hasen, Tokaji
> <http://www.cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611631784/Election-Law-Fifth-Edition>),
> which will be out in time for the fall classes. Dan Lowenstein, while no
> longer working on editions of the book since his retirement, says he is
> delighted about the addition of Nick to the book and strengths Nick will
> bring to the project. Nick also joins the roster of ELB contributors, chiming
> in <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12> from time to time.
>
> Nick’s scholarly work
> <http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/10610/publications> is at the
> intersection of law and empirical political science, bringing together
> rigorous data analysis and normative insights on election law issues issues
> from partisan gerrymandering to campaign finance to voting rights. He is
> the perfect addition to a book whose strengths have always been found at
> this intersection. Nick also asks the good, tough questions, and his
> inquisitiveness will help us to strengthen and update key parts of the
> casebook.
>
> We have many exciting plans for the new edition, but more about that in
> coming months.
>
> Welcome aboard, Nick!
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89260&title=Exciting%20News%3A%20Nick%20Stephanopoulos%20Joining%20Lowenstein%20Election%20Law%20Casebook%20(6th%20Edition)%2C%20Becoming%20%23ELB%20Contributor>
>
> Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>, pedagogy
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Rep. Issa, Clinging to Narrow Lead as Ballots are Counted, Says Democrats
> Will Force Counting of Ballots from “Illegal, Unregistered Voters”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89258>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89258>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> At the time of this writing, Rep. Darrell Issa leads
> <http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/49/> challenger Doug
> Applegate for California’s 49th congressional district by about 3,700
> votes. But there are still an unknown number of provisional and other
> ballots left to be counted. On Friday afternoon, Rep. Issa sent out the
> following incendiary fundraising email:
>
> *See, I won my race by 2.2%, but there are still as many as 103,787
> ballots left to count, including many provisional ballots. . . . *
>
> *Because of those lies many later voters were influenced and could bring
> the count to within 1%. Once the count is that close, Democrats will
> attempt to force the Registrars to allow thousands of illegal, unregistered
> voters to influence the election. We cannot let that happen.*
>
> *I will not allow my consituents (sic) voices to be cancelled by those who
> do not have the right to vote in our elections.*
>
> [image: hare]
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud
> squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, provisional ballots
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>, recounts
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“NC GOPer Denies Republicans May Try To Pack State’s Highest Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89256>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89256>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports.
> <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/potential-north-carolina-republicans-pack-state-court>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89256&title=%E2%80%9CNC%20GOPer%20Denies%20Republicans%20May%20Try%20To%20Pack%20State%E2%80%99s%20Highest%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Durham defends handling of 90K ballots in NC governor’s race”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89254>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89254>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The News and Observer reports.
> <http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article114638193.html>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89254&title=%E2%80%9CDurham%20defends%20handling%20of%2090K%20ballots%20in%20NC%20governor%E2%80%99s%20race%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in recounts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Campaign Finance Laws Poised for Rollback Under Trump”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89252>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89252>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Must-read
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/campaign-finance-laws-poised-rollback-trump> Roll
> Call:
>
> *Von Spakovsky, who manages the Election Law Reform Initiative at the
> conservative Heritage Foundation, says he’s hopeful that McConnell and
> Trump, along with a Republican House, will greatly increase the limits on
> donations to party committees and candidates, or undo the limits
> altogether. Individual donors can give no more than $2,700 directly to
> candidates per election in the 2016 cycle.*
>
> *He believes that Trump’s aides and advisers, including lawyer Donald
> McGahn, another former FEC commissioner who advocates for deregulation,
> reveal where Trump is on the issue. McGahn on Friday was named general
> counsel of the president-elect’s transition team….*
>
> *Trump’s election and the continuing GOP control of the Senate also mean
> that the next Supreme Court justice is expected to be a conservative, along
> the lines of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Liberals had viewed the
> vacancy, left by Scalia’s death on Feb. 13, as an opportunity for a redo of
> court decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC, which helped usher in
> big-money super PACs that can accept unlimited contributions from
> corporations, unions and individuals.*
>
> *Bopp said Friday he was filing an appeal to the high court in a case,
> Louisiana Republican Party v. FEC, that challenges soft money bans in state
> and local parties.*
>
> *“With the prospect of a Trump appointment of a conservative to the court,
> that case has very bright prospects,” Bopp said.*
>
> As I wrote right after the election: Get Ready for the Supreme Court to
> Strike Down the Rest of McCain-Feingold, the Soft Money Ban
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89070>.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89252&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Poised%20for%20Rollback%20Under%20Trump%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“How President Trump Could Reshape the Supreme Court—and the Country”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89250>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89250>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jeffrey Rosen
> <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wins-supreme-court-214449> in
> Politico:
>
> *A 6-3 conservative court could cut back on abortion rights by upholding
> state regulations on abortion clinics and providers, and eventually even
> strike down Roe v. Wade. (In the third presidential debate, Trump said that
> because he would appoint pro-life justices, overturning Roe “will happen,
> automatically in my opinion.”) The Trump Court also could strike down
> affirmative action programs on the principle that the Constitution is
> colorblind. It could uphold voter ID laws and continue to deregulate the
> campaign finance system, striking down disclosure requirements and limits
> on campaign contributions that the Roberts court has upheld.*
>
> See my earlier “Notorious” Justice Ginsburg Wears Her “Dissent Jabot”
> While Rome Burns <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89103>.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89250&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20President%20Trump%20Could%20Reshape%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%94and%20the%20Country%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The State of the Political Reform Program, Post-Election”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89248>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89248>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Thoughtful Bob Bauer.
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/11/state-political-reform-program-post-election/>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89248&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20State%20of%20the%20Political%20Reform%20Program%2C%20Post-Election%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, electoral college
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“After Voter Approval In Maine, Work Begins On Ranked Choice Voting”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89246>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:15 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89246>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Doug Chapin
> <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/11/14/after-voter-approval-in-maine-work-begins-on-ranked-choice-voting/>
> :
>
> *Last Tuesday, Maine voters approved a referendum requiring ranked choice
> voting (RCV). Now, election officials and policymakers are puzzling out how
> to make the change – and worrying about having it ready in time for the
> next elections two years away. The Portland Press-Herald has more
> <http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/11/logistics-could-put-ranked-choice-voting-on-hold-in-2018/>.*
>
> And the newspaper offers an editorial
> <http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/14/our-view-ranked-choice-voting-fuels-hope-for-the-future/>,
> “Our View: Ranked-choice voting fuels hope for the future.”
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89246&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20Voter%20Approval%20In%20Maine%2C%20Work%20Begins%20On%20Ranked%20Choice%20Voting%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in alternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
> , election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“It’s in the mail, or is it? Broward voters lament vote-by-mail
> shortfalls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89244>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89244>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Sun Sentinel:
> <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-broward-absentee-ballots-unreceived-20161112-story.html>
>
> *Fuming Broward voters — Republicans
> <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/politics-government/republican-party-ORGOV0000004-topic.html> and Democrats
> <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/politics-government/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005-topic.html> alike
> — are complaining that they were shut out of the high-stakes presidential
> election.*
>
> *They say their mail-in ballots never arrived.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89244&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20in%20the%20mail%2C%20or%20is%20it%3F%20Broward%20voters%20lament%20vote-by-mail%20shortfalls%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The Year Ahead in Racial and Political Gerrymandering Law”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89242>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89242>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Extensive analysis
> <https://moderndemocracyblog.com/2016/11/13/the-year-ahead-in-racial-and-political-gerrymandering-law/> from
> Michael Parsons.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89242&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Year%20Ahead%20in%20Racial%20and%20Political%20Gerrymandering%20Law%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The Resurgence of Campaign Finance Regulation, Trumped?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89240>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 11:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89240>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Steve Klein blogs.
> <http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/the-resurgence-of-campaign-finance-regulation-trumped>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89240&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Resurgence%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Regulation%2C%20Trumped%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Could NC lawmakers choose the next governor?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89238>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 10:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89238>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WRAL:
> <http://www.wral.com/could-nc-lawmakers-choose-the-next-governor-/16234656/>
>
> *It may be an outside possibility, but the ghosts of a contested election
> for school superintendent in 2004 could haunt this year’s gubernatorial
> race, allowing the Republican-led legislature to settle the contest between
> Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and Democrat Roy Cooper, the state’s attorney
> general.*
>
> *Over the weekend, several political operatives and others with interest
> in the election began circulating a 2007 article by Robert Joyce of the
> University of North Carolina School of Government
> <http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/document/16234657/>. That article
> recapped the 2004 contest between June Atkinson, a Democrat, and Bill
> Fletcher, a Republican, and sketched out the process that eventually
> allowed the General Assembly to decide the race.*
>
> *The question now becomes whether the same process, created by a
> legislature controlled by Democrats, could be used to put the governor’s
> race in the hands of Republican lawmakers.*
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89238&title=%E2%80%9CCould%20NC%20lawmakers%20choose%20the%20next%20governor%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sad News: David Adamany Has Passed Away (Tribute by Dan Lowenstein)
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89222>*
>
> Posted on November 14, 2016 10:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89222>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I am sorry to report that election law scholar and former university
> president David Adamany has passed away at 80
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20161112_Former_Temple_president_David_Adamany_dead_at_80.html>.
> Dan Lowenstein offers this tribute:
>
> *DAVID ADAMANY*
>
> *When I began academic work in election law around 1980, there was a body
> of excellent commentary on particular subjects, such as voting rights and
> constitutional aspects of redistricting. Otherwise, scholarly work in the
> field was scarce and high-quality work even scarcer. A major exception was
> David Adamany’s 1975 book written with George Agree, Political Money: A
> Strategy for Campaign Financing in America. That book was a model for the
> very best election-law work that would be produced in the coming decades,
> as the field burgeoned. Adamany and Agree explained and defended their
> policy views, but more importantly they set forth a balanced and
> comprehensive account of the subject, including thorough consideration of
> then-existing research but grounded in Adamany’s extensive political
> experience. The relevant landscape has of course changed enormously since
> that pre-Buckley, pre-media-diversification book was published, but one
> chapter stands to this day as possibly the best statement of the merits and
> limitations of campaign finance disclosure.*
>
> *One personal benefit for me of Adamany’s book was that, as I entered the
> field, it led to my meeting him and to an enduring friendship. Although
> Adamany retained an interest in election law to the day of his death, it
> perforce became a sideline for him as he took on major administrative
> responsibilities, especially as president of Wayne State and Temple
> Universities. Not surprisingly to anyone who knew him, he fulfilled those
> responsibilities with courage, determination, and achievement.*
>
> *Despite the importance of Adamany’s political, scholarly, and
> administrative accomplishments, I expect most of us who knew him will
> remember him foremost for his personal qualities. Adamany was the perfect
> gentleman, in the best sense of that old-fashioned word. He was courtly
> and gentle in his manner, firm in his views, respectful of all, and
> pervasively thoughtful and generous. O brave new world, that has such
> people in’t.*
>
>
>
> * — Daniel
> Lowenstein*
>
> * Director,
> UCLA Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions*
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89222&title=Sad%20News%3A%20David%20Adamany%20Has%20Passed%20Away%20(Tribute%20by%20Dan%20Lowenstein)>
>
> Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
>
>
>
>
>
> *The Election Law Blog is Having Technical Troubles
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89223>*
>
> Posted on November 13, 2016 1:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89223>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Back soon, we hope.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89223&title=The%20Election%20Law%20Blog%20is%20Having%20Technical%20Troubles>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Voter Turnout in 2016 Appears About the Same as in 2012
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89216>*
>
> Posted on November 13, 2016 6:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89216>
> by *Richard Pildes* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> Yes, that’s right. One fact obscured by analysis that focuses only on the
> Trump and Clinton vote totals is that overall turnout this year is likely
> to end up being essentially the same as in 2012. A big difference is that
> this year, there were at least 6.5 million votes cast for third-party or
> independent candidates, while in 2012, there were only 2.24 million such
> votes (2012 final results are here
> <http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml>).
>
> In addition, as more people are becoming aware, the number of ballots
> still to be counted post-Election Day is large and growing each election.
> Current estimates
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/> put
> it at 5-7 million. This number has been increasing, as more states go to
> all vote-by-mail (three states now), absentee ballot rules become more
> liberalized, and more ballots are cast as provisional ballots than before
> the Help America Vote Act was enacted.
>
> Turnout in 2012 was 58.6% of eligible voters. Based on the indispensable Election
> Project website <http://www.electproject.org/2016g>, run by Michael
> McDonald, the current *estimate *for 2016 once all the ballots are
> counted is 57.9%. Turnout was higher in 2008 and 2004 – political
> polarization increases turnout – but other than those years, we have to go
> back to 1968 to find higher turnout elections.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89216&title=Voter%20Turnout%20in%202016%20Appears%20About%20the%20Same%20as%20in%202012>
>
> Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“After a Fraught Election, Questions Over the Impact of a Balky Voting
> Process” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89212>*
>
> Posted on November 12, 2016 1:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89212>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Michael Wines
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/voter-registration-election-2016.html> for
> the NYT:
>
> *Some scholars and election analysts questioned this week whether a better
> run and less politically influenced voting process might have changed the
> outcome in some close races and made the presidential contest even closer.*
>
> *The headline example is Wisconsin, where a Republican-backed law
> requiring voters to produce one of a limited number of acceptable photo IDs
> was in effect for the first time. Studies show — and some Republicans admit
> — that such laws disproportionately reduce Democratic turnout because many
> of the laws require IDs that low-income and immigrant voters, who are often
> Democrats, frequently lack.*
>
> *In Milwaukee, where turnout dropped 41,000 votes from the 2012 total, the
> chief elections official said on Friday
> <http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/milwaukee-elections-chief-voter-id-law-caused-problems-at-the-polls/42468388> that
> declines in voting were greatest in areas where lack of IDs was most
> common. Donald J. Trump won Wisconsin by about 27,000 votes.*
>
> *No conclusion can be drawn on the impact of the ID requirement until
> voting data is analyzed, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at
> the University of Chicago and an election law expert. But “it’s at least a
> reasonable hypothesis that voting restrictions made a major difference in
> places like Wisconsin,” he said.*
>
> *Others said they remained skeptical until election data could be sifted.
> Some of the strictest voter-identification laws that Republican
> legislatures had enacted were struck down by courts before balloting began,
> they noted, and support for
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/hillary-clintons-campaign-was-crippled-by-voters-who-stayed-home/>Hillary
> Clinton declined across the board f
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/hillary-clintons-campaign-was-crippled-by-voters-who-stayed-home/>rom
> 2012 levels
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/hillary-clintons-campaign-was-crippled-by-voters-who-stayed-home/>,
> not just in states with stricter voter ID requirements.*
>
> *“With their election debacle, Democrats are looking for a scapegoat,”
> said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California,
> Irvine, and a leading election scholar. “And as much as I am upset with the
> efforts of Republican legislatures to make it harder to register and vote,
> I don’t think that’s the primary explanation for the Democrats’ failure at
> the top of the ticket.”*
>
> *There is nevertheless broad agreement that the electoral system failed
> large numbers of would-be voters this year, and substantial doubt that many
> of those failings will be remedied anytime soon.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89212&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20a%20Fraught%20Election%2C%20Questions%20Over%20the%20Impact%20of%20a%20Balky%20Voting%20Process%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Where the money came from, not how much, mattered in the presidential
> race” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89210>*
>
> Posted on November 12, 2016 12:37 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89210>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Open Secrets looks
> <https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/where-the-money-came-from-not-how-much-mattered-in-the-presidential-race/>at
> Election 2016.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89210&title=%E2%80%9CWhere%20the%20money%20came%20from%2C%20not%20how%20much%2C%20mattered%20in%20the%20presidential%20race%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The year when money won nobody nothing”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89208>*
>
> Posted on November 12, 2016 12:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89208>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Teddy Schleifer
> <http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/money-campaign-spending/index.html>for
> CNN:
>
> *Almost all players, Republican and Democrat, acknowledge that their
> dollars had a far more limited impact than they themselves had predicted at
> the campaign’s starting gun.*
>
> *What has perplexed the nation’s political financiers, according to more
> than a dozen interviews with leading players, is what 2016 has signaled —
> if anything — about the changing country. Some, including loyalists to
> Trump and Bernie Sanders, argue that they have crafted the new normal,
> pooh-poohing the rich as self-important and — in a painful indictment of
> the entire big-money world — proven to be powerless. A high-wattage,
> carefully cultivated super PAC? No need, they say. Have a real movement,
> and watch the money bloom eternal.*
>
> *The other train of thought — often from the spurned corps of
> professionals who have, at some point, been cast as the elite bogeymen:
> Trump is a self-financed, larger-than-life aberration that tells us next to
> nothing about how money will rule in the post-Trump era. Super PACs, attack
> ads and the luxury fundraising circuit? How the game is played — now and
> forever.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89208&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20year%20when%20money%20won%20nobody%20nothing%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> *NC: “McCrory calls for recount of Durham votes, cites other
> “irregularities”” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89206>*
>
> Posted on November 12, 2016 11:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89206>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News and Observer:
> <http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article114391848.html>
>
> *Gov. Pat McCrory, trailing in a close race for re-election behind
> Attorney General Roy Cooper, claims there was “malfeasance” in tabulating
> votes in Durham County and “irregularities” reported around the state.*
>
> *Cooper’s campaign said nothing improper happened in Durham, and accused
> McCrory of tryingn to undermine the election.*
>
> *A formal protest filed Saturday with the Durham County Board of Elections
> calls for a recount of disputed votes there. About 90,000 votes weren’t
> counted until late on Election Day. Durham officials said it was due to
> malfunctioning equipment earlier in the day that led to a backlog, and that
> it had no impact on the votes cast.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89206&title=NC%3A%20%E2%80%9CMcCrory%20calls%20for%20recount%20of%20Durham%20votes%2C%20cites%20other%20%E2%80%9Cirregularities%E2%80%9D%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> recounts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Donors and lobbyists already shaping Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’
> administration” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89204>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 4:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89204>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donors-and-lobbyists-already-shaping-trumps-drain-the-swamp-administration/2016/11/11/d1c13704-a828-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html>
>
> See also NYT’s Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They’re on His
> Transition Team
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html?smid=tw-share>
> .
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89204&title=%E2%80%9CDonors%20and%20lobbyists%20already%20shaping%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98drain%20the%20swamp%E2%80%99%20administration%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
>
>
>
>
>
> *NC: “State GOP leaders could neutralize Democrats’ Supreme Court majority
> by adding justices” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89202>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 3:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89202>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> More
> <http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/state/state-gop-leaders-could-neutralize-democrats-supreme-court-majority-by/article_510c2c00-f7ea-5c8d-9251-26a784d6cb9c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share> from
> North Carolina.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89202&title=NC%3A%20%E2%80%9CState%20GOP%20leaders%20could%20neutralize%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20Supreme%20Court%20majority%20by%20adding%20justices%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, judicial
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Florida orders recount in Miami-Dade House race where margin is just 68
> votes” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89200>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 2:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89200>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Miami Herald reports.
> <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article114158618.html>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89200&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20orders%20recount%20in%20Miami-Dade%20House%20race%20where%20margin%20is%20just%2068%20votes%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in recounts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Voter Suppression Laws Cost Americans Their Voices at the Polls”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89197>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 1:49 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89197>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Liz Kennedy
> <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/> for
> CAP.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89197&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20Suppression%20Laws%20Cost%20Americans%20Their%20Voices%20at%20the%20Polls%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“GOP legislative leaders could make rare court-packing move to keep
> partisan control of state Supreme Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89195>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 1:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89195>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NC Policy Watch.
> <http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2016/11/11/gop-legislative-leaders-make-rare-court-packing-move-keep-partisan-control-state-supreme-court/>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89195&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20legislative%20leaders%20could%20make%20rare%20court-packing%20move%20to%20keep%20partisan%20control%20of%20state%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Court challenges likely for photo ID, campaign contribution amendments
> approved by Missouri voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89193>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 1:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89193>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
> <http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/court-challenges-likely-for-photo-id-campaign-contribution-amendments-approved/article_b970d0d3-9ea4-5602-a890-f1c36a9803d4.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share>
> reports.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89193&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20challenges%20likely%20for%20photo%20ID%2C%20campaign%20contribution%20amendments%20approved%20by%20Missouri%20voters%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The dual meaning of evidence-based judicial review of legislation”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89191>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 1:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89191>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ittai Bar Siman-Tov has written this article
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/7UJscKBBZnbaPqU5syxM/full> for *The
> Theory and Practice of Legislation.* Here is the abstract:
>
> *This article contributes to the nascent debate about the globally
> emerging, yet largely undefined, phenomenon of evidence-based judicial
> review of legislation, by offering a novel conceptualisation of
> evidence-based judicial review. It argues that evidence-based judicial
> review can have two related, but very different, meanings: one in which the
> judicial decision determining constitutionality of legislation is a product
> of independent judicial evidence-based decision-making; and the other in
> which the judicial decision on constitutionality of legislation focuses on
> evidence about the question of whether the legislation was a product of
> legislative evidence-based decision-making. The article then employs this
> novel insight about the overlooked dual meaning of evidence-based judicial
> review to shed new light on some of the major debates about this
> phenomenon, such as: whether it should be understood as part of substantive
> or procedural judicial review; the relationship between evidence-based
> judicial review and evidence-based law-making; and the role of legislative
> findings in constitutional adjudication.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89191&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20dual%20meaning%20of%20evidence-based%20judicial%20review%20of%20legislation%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Rare big win for Democrats tilts party balance on NC Supreme Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89189>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 1:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89189>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Charlotte Observer:
> <http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article114053308.html>
>
> *As people pore over election results, trying to make sense of a year that
> has baffled many, some in North Carolina are trying to decipher the reasons
> for Wake County Superior Court Judge Mike Morgan’s resounding victory over
> Justice Bob Edmunds for the only open seat on the state Supreme Court.*
>
> *The victory for Morgan, a Democrat, over Edmunds, a Republican, means the
> ideological balance of the state’s highest court swings back to favor the
> Democrats, who will hold four of the seven seats.*
>
> *Morgan won by more than nine percentage points even though Republicans
> won the state’s votes for president, Senate, five state Court of Appeals
> seats and six other statewide races. Democrats lead narrowly in three more
> contests, including for governor, but Morgan and Secretary of State Elaine
> Marshall were the only Democrats with decisive statewide wins….Some
> wondered, too, whether the attempt to create retention elections hurt
> Edmunds’ chances for re-election….*
>
> *The race between Morgan, 60, and Edmunds, 67, this year would not have
> come about had it not been for Sabra Faires, a Raleigh attorney who
> successfully challenged a 2015 law that would have changed how sitting
> justices stood for re-election. A Superior Court judge panel found the law,
> which would have shielded sitting justices from opposition on the ballot
> unless they lost a “retention election,” to be a violation of the state
> Constitution. Because the Supreme Court split 3-3 on the question, with
> Edmunds abstaining, the lower court ruling forced a competitive race.*
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89189&title=%E2%80%9CRare%20big%20win%20for%20Democrats%20tilts%20party%20balance%20on%20NC%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Super PAC Donor Literally Given a Seat at the Table for Trump’s
> Transition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89187>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 11:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89187>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Announcement <https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/797157219066413057> from
> transition team that Rebekah Mercer is joining.
>
> Now’s the time to go back and study Matea Gold’s must-read
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-rise-of-gop-mega-donor-rebekah-mercer/2016/09/13/85ae3c32-79bf-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html> profile
> of Mercer.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89187&title=Super%20PAC%20Donor%20Literally%20Given%20a%20Seat%20at%20the%20Table%20for%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Transition>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Plutocrats United
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
>
>
>
>
>
> *ATL: Supreme Court Releases Statement Signalling Justice Kennedy Not
> Planning to Leave Court Soon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89183>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 10:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89183>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Following up on this post, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89140> David
> Lat of Above the Law
> <http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/anatomy-of-a-rumor-on-justice-kennedys-retirement-next-year/> has
> obtained this statement from the Court:
>
> *Justice Kennedy is in the process of hiring clerks for 2017. The Justice
> didn’t go to Salzburg this past summer because it conflicted with some
> plans with his family, but he is scheduled to return to teach there in
> 2017. The reunion is scheduled for the end of this Term because the
> Justice’s law clerks wanted to hold it during the Justice’s 80th year to
> mark his birthday.*
>
> David adds:
>
> * This statement, which presumably reflects input from Justice Kennedy,
> strikes me as a persuasive and well-founded rebuttal to the rumors. If
> AMK were planning to retire next year, the easiest thing would have been
> for the Court to offer a simple “no comment.”*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89183&title=ATL%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Releases%20Statement%20Signalling%20Justice%20Kennedy%20Not%20Planning%20to%20Leave%20Court%20Soon>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Effect of voting laws seen, but not enough to sway outcome”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89181>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 10:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89181>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/effect-of-voting-laws-seen-but-not-enough-to-sway-outcome/>
>
> *Fourteen states had new voting or registration restrictions in place for
> the 2016 presidential election, raising concerns that minority voters in
> particular would have a harder time accessing the ballot box.*
>
> *Voting experts believe the laws had some effect on turnout this year, but
> said it would be difficult to measure against other factors — such as a
> lack of enthusiasm for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton and the
> decision of many people simply not to vote.*
>
> *They expressed frustration that some states had made it more difficult
> for voters to participate, even if there is no evidence the changes
> influenced the outcome of the presidential election.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89181&title=%E2%80%9CEffect%20of%20voting%20laws%20seen%2C%20but%20not%20enough%20to%20sway%20outcome%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another
> forecast: Trump will be impeached” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89179>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 9:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89179>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo:
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/11/prediction-professor-who-called-trumps-big-win-also-made-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/>
>
> *At the end of our September conversation, Lichtman made another call:
> That if elected, Trump would eventually be impeached by a Republican
> Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence — someone who
> establishment Republicans know and trust.*
>
> *“I’m going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based
> on a system, it’s just my gut. They don’t want Trump as president, because
> they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence — an
> absolutely down the line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I’m
> quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by
> doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his
> pocketbook.”*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89179&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Prediction%20professor%E2%80%99%20who%20called%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20big%20win%20also%20made%20another%20forecast%3A%20Trump%20will%20be%20impeached%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Voters reject voucher system for political contributions”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89177>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 9:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89177>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <http://komonews.com/news/local/voters-reject-voucher-system-for-political-contributions>
>
> *Washington voters have rejected a measure that creates a publicly funded
> voucher system for political contributions.*
>
> *Initiative 1464’s voucher system would have given voters three $50
> “democracy credits” that they could use in state races every two years. To
> pay for the statewide system, the measure would have repealed the
> non-resident sales tax exemption for residents of sales-tax-free states
> like Oregon and Montana who shop in Washington.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89177&title=%E2%80%9CVoters%20reject%20voucher%20system%20for%20political%20contributions%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Hard Choice for Mitch McConnell: End the Filibuster or Preserve
> Tradition” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89175>*
>
> Posted on November 11, 2016 9:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89175>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Carl Hulse NYT:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/republicans-house-senate.html?_r=0>
>
> *In the afterglow of their election success, Republicans prefer not to
> discuss this unpleasant possibility. They would rather rhapsodize about a
> sunny legislative future in which the two parties work in harmony, negating
> the need for all those troublesome Senate cloture votes to try to break
> filibusters (a tactic that they, in fact, employed very effectively to
> stymie President Obama).*
>
> *“I think what the American people are looking for is results,”
> Senator Mitch McConnell
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per>of
> Kentucky, who will retain his majority leader title by virtue of surprising
> Republican victories, told reporters. “And to get results in the Senate, as
> all of you know, it requires some Democratic participation and
> cooperation.”*
>
> *At the same time, Mr. McConnell said that repealing the Affordable Care
> Act was a “pretty high item on our agenda,” and he predicted quick action.
> “The sooner we can go in a different direction, the better,” he said.*
>
> *Democrats are certain to oppose that. Even if some red-state Democrats up
> for re-election in 2018 join Republicans, the repeal effort will most
> likely remain short of the 60 votes now needed.*
>
> *Republicans can use a special process known as reconciliation to avoid a
> filibuster. But that effort would take well into 2017 and would require
> passage of a congressional budget resolution, among other steps.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89175&title=%E2%80%9CHard%20Choice%20for%20Mitch%20McConnell%3A%20End%20the%20Filibuster%20or%20Preserve%20Tradition%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Senator-Turned-Lobbyist Trent Lott Promises to Help Trump “Drain the
> Swamp” in Washington <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89161>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 3:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89161>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/lobbyists-trump.html?_r=0>
>
> *“Trump has pledged to change things in Washington — about draining the
> swamp,” said Mr. Lott, who now works at Squire Patton Boggs,
> <http://www.squirepattonboggs.com/> a law and lobbying firm. “He is going
> to need some people to help guide him through the swamp — how do you get in
> and how you get out? We are prepared to help do that.”*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89161&title=Senator-Turned-Lobbyist%20Trent%20Lott%20Promises%20to%20Help%20Trump%20%E2%80%9CDrain%20the%20Swamp%E2%80%9D%20in%20Washington>
>
> Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Congrats to Election Law Prof Jamie Raskin, Now Elected to Congress
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89158>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 2:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89158>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jamie is a great guy
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/new-member-democrat-jamie-raskin-elected-marylands-8th-district>and
> I wish him the best of luck.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89158&title=Congrats%20to%20Election%20Law%20Prof%20Jamie%20Raskin%2C%20Now%20Elected%20to%20Congress>
>
> Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Lines, glitches, snafus, boobs, in other words a typical election”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89156>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 2:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89156>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.
> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89156&title=%E2%80%9CLines%2C%20glitches%2C%20snafus%2C%20boobs%2C%20in%20other%20words%20a%20typical%20election%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Independent Spending Dominated the Closest Senate and House Races in
> 2016” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89152>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 2:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89152>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important release
> <http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/16-11-10/INDEPENDENT_SPENDING_DOMINATED_THE_CLOSEST_SENATE_AND_HOUSE_RACES_IN_2016.aspx>from
> CFI:
>
> *The Campaign Finance Institute today released six tables comparing
> candidates’ receipts to independent spending in the most competitive Senate
> and House races of 2016. As several of the tables show in summary form
> (Tables 3-6), candidates tend to raise more money as their races become
> more competitive. But in the most competitive ones, independent spending by
> party, quasi-party and non-party committees this year has far outstripped
> the spending by candidates.*
>
> *Table 1
> <http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/Congress/2016/PostElec_2016_Table1.pdf> covering
> all Senate races, lists the candidates’ receipts through pre-election
> disclosure reports alongside summary information for all independent
> spending through the election. The top race for spending in 2016 was the
> one in Pennsylvania between incumbent Sen. Patrick Toomey against Kathleen
> McGinty. Independent spending in that race alone topped $116 million – more
> than triple the amount raised by the candidates themselves. Seven other
> Senate races also saw independent spending above the $40 million mark – NV,
> NH, NC, OH, MO, IN, and FL (see Table 1
> <http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/Congress/2016/PostElec_2016_Table2.pdf>).
> In most of these cases, the independent spending was at least double the
> money raised by the candidates. Subdividing the independent spending showed
> that there was rough parity between formal party organizations and the four
> quasi-party Super PACs1 on the one hand, and non-party organizations on the
> other.*
>
> *In House contests 40 different districts saw independent spending of at
> least $1 million (see Table 2
> <http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/Congress/2016/PostElec_2016_Table6.pdf>).
> In twenty of the top twenty-two races with $5 million or more of
> independent spending, that spending exceeded the candidates’ receipts.
> Relatively speaking, the party and quasi-party committees spent less money
> on House elections than did non-party organizations.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89152&title=%E2%80%9CIndependent%20Spending%20Dominated%20the%20Closest%20Senate%20and%20House%20Races%20in%202016%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Bert Rein, Lawyer for Shelby County, Says Maybe #SCOTUS Decision Good
> Because It Deterred “Some Illegals” from Voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89148>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 2:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89148>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wow: <https://bol.bna.com/did-new-voter-laws-tip-the-election/>
>
> *Both Kang and Hasen said whether the Shelby decision tipped the election
> is less important than whether it unnecessarily disenfranchised any number
> of voters, even if it was less than a substantial amount.*
>
> *We put the same question to Bert Rein, of Wiley Rein, who argued on
> behalf of Shelby County, Alabama that the Voting Rights Act
> was unconstitutional.*
>
> *“You know, I saw that in Rick Hasen’s blog,” he acknowledged.*
>
> *Rein laid out the issue as he sees it: “Were those changes sufficiently
> impactful to really influence the outcome? I don’t know the answer. Some
> people would say sure because it dissuaded some Hispanic and other voters
> who would have voted. But maybe some illegals would also have voted and
> that’s not good.”*
>
> *The main impact of Shelby was that it allowed some states to more rapidly
> change voter laws, he said.*
>
> *“I’d love to take credit for it and then Donald Trump could write me a
> nice letter,” said Rein.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89148&title=Bert%20Rein%2C%20Lawyer%20for%20Shelby%20County%2C%20Says%20Maybe%20%23SCOTUS%20Decision%20Good%20Because%20It%20Deterred%20%E2%80%9CSome%20Illegals%E2%80%9D%20from%20Voting>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Durham County’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Election Day”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89146>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 1:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89146>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A ChapinBlog.
> <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/11/10/durham-countys-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-election-day/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Academy%29>
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89146&title=%E2%80%9CDurham%20County%E2%80%99s%20Terrible%2C%20Horrible%2C%20No%20Good%2C%20Very%20Bad%20Election%20Day%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
> *“In Close Race for North Carolina Governor, Democrat Claims Victory
> Though GOP Incumbent Hasn’t Conceded” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89144>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 1:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89144>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ:
> <http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-close-race-for-north-carolina-governor-democrat-claims-victory-though-republican-incumbent-hasnt-conceded-1478719475?emailToken=JRr8fvtzY3yXhNM9acw90hgjaq4TBqqTT1jaaX7NIA3Ks2bJoaeqzr8yg9qxqCagQlh3/dYD9SszSDjWi3BjQIqan7d+lEzhZXhWspbewEiXOkPGk07PZ+cEq6PR/yJg6OxaHANNZ9Ie2129sRDuqMwaEV+HbzYSQKzUzmMlOPJ1JXsEWg==>
>
> *Next, county canvassers likely will sort through roughly 10,000 absentee
> vote, as well as about 30,000 provisional votes from people who recently
> moved or who registered too recently to be reflected in the voting rolls,
> said Gerry Cohen, former special counsel to the North Carolina legislature
> and an expert on state election law. Democrats are pinning their hopes on
> the fact that many provisional ballots are typically filed on college
> campuses and big cities, he said.*
>
> *Although Republicans tend to hold a historic advantage in absentee
> voting, the Democratic nominee Mr. Cooper has been doing comparatively well
> in that category so far this cycle, Mr. Cohen said.*
>
> *Mr. McCrory’s backers say he is likely to ask for a recount after the
> provisional and absentee votes are counted, if the margin stays less than
> 10,000 votes. County elections officials meet Nov. 18 to begin certifying
> results, and a recount request must be made no later than Nov. 22,
> according to state law.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89144&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Close%20Race%20for%20North%20Carolina%20Governor%2C%20Democrat%20Claims%20Victory%20Though%20GOP%20Incumbent%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Conceded%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> recounts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Frias alleges ‘pervasive mail ballot fraud’ by Mattiello campaign”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89142>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 1:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89142>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A big fight
> <http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20161110/frias-alleges-pervasive-mail-ballot-fraud-by-mattiello-campaign>involving
> possible absentee ballot fraud and the Rhode Island House speaker.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89142&title=%E2%80%9CFrias%20alleges%20%E2%80%98pervasive%20mail%20ballot%20fraud%E2%80%99%20by%20Mattiello%20campaign%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Justice Kennedy, Not Thomas, the Next to Go from #SCOTUS?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89140>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 1:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89140>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> That’s the rumor, <https://twitter.com/isamuel/status/796824470707142657> and
> it appears to have some credibility to it. But maybe not.
> <https://twitter.com/chris_j_walker/status/796831440633786368> (Update:
> More maybe not from David Lat
> <https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/796834564551409664>.)
>
> I had thought <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89052> Justice Thomas, given
> what I heard of rumblings he had had enough.
>
> Of course, it could also be Justice Ginsburg
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89103>, depending upon her health, or any
> other Justice for that reason.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89140&title=Justice%20Kennedy%2C%20Not%20Thomas%2C%20the%20Next%20to%20Go%20from%20%23SCOTUS%3F>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Democrats Blame “Voter Suppression” for Clinton Loss at Their Peril
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89133>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 9:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89133>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Let me start by getting a few important points out of the way, so it is
> clear what I’m saying.
>
> Yes, Republican legislatures have passed a series of laws making it harder
> to register and vote. It is not just voter id laws, but laws affecting how
> ballots are counted, when voting takes place, and what rules are used for
> resolving disputes. They have done this for partisan (or in some
> circumstances perhaps a mix of partisan and racial)
> <http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/> reasons,
> and not to prevent fraud, promote public confidence, or further government
> efficiency. (I make this claim most fully in my 2012 book, The Voting Wars
> <https://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478796815&sr=1-3>,
> but it is one of the top topics on this blog.)
>
> Yes, the conservative Supreme Court made it easier for Republican
> legislatures to pass these laws by gutting a key part of the Voting Rights
> Act in the 2013 *Shelby County v. Holder*
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5108914727330958790&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr> case
> and by giving the green light to restrictive voter id laws in the 2008
> case, *Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9378098557660608267&q=crawford+v.+marion+county+election+board&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1>. *(And,
> thanks in part to the irresponsible decision of Justice Ginsburg
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89103>not to retire early in Obama’s
> second term and the Democrats’ losses in the 2016 election, the moment for
> a new progressive Supreme Court has passed and we are likely to see an even
> more conservative Supreme Court which will give these Republicans the green
> light to pass ever restrictive voting rules.)
>
> Yes, as Ari Berman has argued,
> <https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/> the
> story of these suppressive efforts have been underreported by the popular
> press. There were some excellent reporters on this beat this year
> (including Ari, Pam Fessler, Michael Wines, Sari Horwitz, Tierney Sneed,
> and Zack Roth), but it did not get reported enough, especially on
> television (Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid discussed it, but it was barely a
> blip elsewhere).
>
> BUT….
>
> There is thus far not enough evidence (as I’ve shown in this post
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89101>) that these laws actually affected
> the outcome of the presidential election. We have statistics on a fewer
> number of polls open or early voting days in some of these states, and we
> know courts have found in some cases that up to hundreds of thousands of
> voters lacked the right kind of ID to vote in some strict voter id states.
> But it is a big empirical leap to claim that these cutbacks *caused* the
> losses for Democrats in states that mattered for the outcome of the
> electoral college. Lots of people who lacked id could have gotten it and
> voted. (A more plausible case could be made in some of these states that
> these laws mattered in races which are very, very close.)
>
> More importantly, even in states that had eased their voting and
> registration rules in recent years, such as Minnesota
> <https://twitter.com/karpmj/status/796698126111412224>, Democratic
> turnout was way down. This is key: Hilllary Clinton is down millions of
> Democrats’ votes (right now about 7 million votes)
> <https://twitter.com/jonathanwebber/status/796448989931417600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> compared
> to Obama in 2012. People stayed home for reasons unrelated to voter
> suppression.
>
> From Philip Bump
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/hillary-clintons-campaign-was-crippled-by-voters-who-stayed-home/>
> :
>
> *In Michigan, Clinton got 13 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump got 7
> percent more than Romney.*
>
> *In Pennsylvania, Clinton got 5 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump got
> 9 percent more than Romney.*
>
> *In Wisconsin, Clinton got 15 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump did
> slightly worse than Romney — in a state that was home to Romney’s running
> mate.*
>
> Of these states, only Wisconsin had stricter voting laws this election.
>
> So there’s something going on here besides changes in voting rules. Now
> some can blame the Comey email motivating Republicans to “return home,”
> Russian/wikileaks stolen Podesta emails, the treatment of Sanders’ voters
> by Clinton, or Clinton’s ties to big donors
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html> and
> lack of a plan to reach out to rural white voters or give a message that
> would have resonated more with the Democratic base. It is an important
> debate to have, and I don’t have answers to what the main problems are. But
> this is the debate that needs to be had.
>
> Democrats now face two structural disadvantages in running for president
> going forward. First, they need to overcome the electoral college, which
> helps Republicans (thanks to smaller states leaning red). Once again, we
> will have a Democratic candidate getting more popular votes than the
> Republican. I suspect we would see the same results (but we don’t know) if
> both candidates ran for the popular vote. Second, going forward we can
> expect more laws making it harder to register and vote in battleground
> states controlled by Republicans, and a Supreme Court likely to continue to
> give the green light.
>
> That makes things tougher. But there’s something more fundamental at play
> here. Blaming voter suppression in this election will be just as effective
> as the increasing calls on social media for Republican electors to not vote
> for Donald Trump when the electoral college votes. It’s not going to help,
> and ignores the larger problems facing the party and the nation that the
> party, and those on the left, need to face.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89133&title=Democrats%20Blame%20%E2%80%9CVoter%20Suppression%E2%80%9D%20for%20Clinton%20Loss%20at%20Their%20Peril>
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“What the Trump Presidency Means for the Supreme Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89131>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 8:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89131>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Adam Liptak for the NYT.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89131&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20the%20Trump%20Presidency%20Means%20for%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89129>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 8:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89129>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT reports.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/the-electoral-college-is-hated-by-many-so-why-does-it-endure.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>
> See my post from yesterday, Democrats Will Push Electoral College Reform,
> But Odds Remain Heavily Against Change
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89094>.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89129&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Electoral%20College%20Is%20Hated%20by%20Many.%20So%20Why%20Does%20It%20Endure%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Trump’s victory has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89127>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 8:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89127>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bob Barnes:
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20161110_Trump_s_victory_has_enormous_consequences_for_the_Supreme_Court.html>
>
> *The political earthquake that hit Tuesday night has enormous consequences
> for the future of the Supreme Court, swallowing up Judge Merrick Garland’s
> nomination and dismantling Democratic hopes for a liberal majority on the
> high court for the first time in nearly half a century.*
>
> *In the short term, Donald Trump’s victory means that at some point next
> year, the nine-member court will be restored to full capacity with a
> majority of Republican-appointed justices, just as it has been for decades.*
>
> *Trump’s upset victory likely changes the court’s docket, as well: With a
> stroke of the pen, the new president could cancel President Obama’s
> regulations regarding the environment, immigrants, and the provision of
> contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act, all issues that have
> preoccupied the justices in recent terms.*
>
> *The long-term question will be Trump’s ultimate impact on the court’s
> membership and further down the line on the rest of the federal courts,
> where numerous openings on the bench await nominations.*
>
> *Besides replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, Trump may
> get the chance to replace liberal justices and move the court to the right
> for generations.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89127&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20victory%20has%20enormous%20consequences%20for%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“How Gary Johnson and Jill Stein helped elect Donald Trump”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89117>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 8:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89117>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CNN
> <http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/index.html>
> :
>
> *Neither Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson nor the Green Party’s Jill
> Stein managed to make a dent in the Electoral College, but they did post a
> significant enough showing in several states arguably to help elect Donald
> Trump.*
>
> *Trump won 290 Electoral College votes to 232 for Hillary Clinton, as of
> Wednesday evening, with Clinton topping him in the popular vote. But had
> the Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of
> the closest contests — Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and
> Florida (29) — Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral
> College votes, enough to secure the presidency.*
>
> *The entire scenario conjures up memories of Ralph Nader’s Green Party run
> in 2000. Nader’s share of the vote in that year’s razor-thin Florida
> contest was 1.63%, according to the final totals from the Federal Election
> Commission <http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm>. Bush won the
> state by just .05%, which tipped the Electoral College in his favor. (Nader
> has for years denied his candidacy played a role in Bush’s 2000 victory.)*
>
> *It’s impossible to know how an election could have gone under
> hypothetical scenarios, but the Johnson campaign regularly said they
> thought they were pulling support equally from would-be Trump supporters
> and would-be Clinton voters. Stein’s campaign, meanwhile, made a constant,
> explicit appeal to disenchanted Democrats and former supporters of Vermont
> Sen. Bernie Sanders.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89117&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Gary%20Johnson%20and%20Jill%20Stein%20helped%20elect%20Donald%20Trump%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, third
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Linda Greenhouse, Changing Tone, Urges CJ Roberts to Rise Above Politics
> in North Carolina Voting Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89115>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 7:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89115>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Linda sees
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/opinion/the-choice-confronting-the-supreme-courts-chief-justice.html?emc=eta1&_r=1>
> what I see <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89052>, which is the prospect
> of an even more conservative Court for the next generation. And now rather
> than criticizing CJ Roberts’ positions on race and voting, she has a
> different argument:
>
> *He needs to make it clear that the Roberts court is not a tool of
> partisan politics, that the Supreme Court has not turned irrevocably away
> from protecting civil rights, including the right to vote. Three years ago,
> he was the author of the 5-to-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf>, which gutted
> the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the ground that “things have changed
> dramatically” and the protections of the law were no longer needed. That
> was a dubious sentiment in 2013. In 2016, it reads like an insult to
> reality
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/magazine/the-supreme-court-ruled-that-voting-restrictions-were-a-bygone-problem-early-voting-results-suggest-otherwise.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region>.*
>
> *Does the chief justice understand this? The signs are not encouraging. In
> late summer, North Carolina asked the justices to put on hold an appeals
> court decision that invalidated the state’s new voter ID requirement and
> other election law changes that the appeals court found had been devised
> “with almost surgical precision” to suppress the African-American vote. The
> stay sought by the state would have put the law back into effect for
> Tuesday’s election.*
>
> *Whether there are eight justices or nine, it takes five votes to grant a
> stay. The state fell one vote short. Those voting to grant the stay were
> Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief
> Justice Roberts. Usually, when a stay request fails to get five votes, the
> court simply announces “stay denied,” and those who voted to grant the
> motion remain silent. Why did these four announce themselves, gratuitously
> and contrary to custom, with voting rights and the Supreme Court itself
> squarely in the political spotlight? I wish I knew the answer, and I hope
> it wasn’t to send a signal to the Republican base of how important it was
> to fill the current vacancy with a conservative. Had Justice Scalia been
> alive and voting, the stay would have been granted.*
>
> *This episode is not over. North Carolina’s formal appeal of the lower
> court’s decision, North Carolina v. North Carolina Conference of the
> N.A.A.C.P., is due at the court
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a362.htm> on
> Nov. 28. Sometime after the first of the year, the court will decide
> whether to hear it. The decision to hear a case, as opposed to the decision
> to grant a stay, takes only four votes, so the four dissenters have the
> power to grant North Carolina a hearing. The question then would be whether
> a ninth justice — a Trump justice — is seated in time for the argument and
> decision, and what the decision would be.*
>
> *So Chief Justice Roberts has a choice of how to handle the gift of
> continued relevance that Tuesday’s election granted him.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89115&title=Linda%20Greenhouse%2C%20Changing%20Tone%2C%20Urges%20CJ%20Roberts%20to%20Rise%20Above%20Politics%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Voting%20Case>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Electoral College Lesson: More Voters Chose Clinton, but Trump Will Be
> President” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89113>*
>
> Posted on November 10, 2016 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89113>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Zack Roth for NBC News.
> <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/electoral-collage-lesson-more-voters-chose-hillary-clinton-trump-will-n681701>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D89113&title=%E2%80%9CElectoral%20College%20Lesson%3A%20More%20Voters%20Chose%20Clinton%2C%20but%20Trump%20Will%20Be%20President%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161114/ecf425ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161114/ecf425ef/attachment.png>
View list directory