[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/30/16

[Gabe Gopen]

I didn't see this story posted but apologies if it has been.  A novel idea
in voting.

*How 'Food Truck Voting' Is Catching On In One Idaho County*

October 29, 20166:17 PM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
FRANKIE BARNHILL

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/10/29/499856446/
how-food-truck-voting-is-catching-on-in-one-idaho-county

Elections officials in one Idaho county have found a delicious new way to
get out the vote: by bringing "food truck voting" straight to the people.

OK, so it's not a real food truck. You can't get a meal there.

The Ada County mobile voting booth is actually a converted cargo trailer,
complete with walk-up windows and a giant "I voted" sticker painted on the
side. As the most populous county in Idaho (the capital of Boise is the
county seat and most urban city in the mostly rural state), Chief Deputy
Clerk Phil McGrane says the mobile trailer adds a fifth option to early
voting locations in Ada County.

The county expects 200,000 people will vote this election, and McGrane
hopes to get 60,000 of those votes early.

"So far we've been able to vote almost 2,000 people for this election by
moving the trailer around to some of our biggest employers and some of our
really highly populated areas," says McGrane.

So, where did food truck design come from? Believe it or not, McGrane says
he was inspired by his love of Kansas City barbecue.

"One of my hobbies on the side is competitive barbecue," says the elections
official. "And if you were to go see me set up, you'd see pop-up tents and
a trailer, and so it's taking some of those ideas and just flipping it for
voting."

Earlier this week, the voting booth was parked outside Idaho Power's Boise
headquarters. Employees came down during their lunch break to cast their
ballots early. Brooks Reynolds walked a few blocks from his job in
downtown, and says it was a convenient way to make his voice heard.

"I actually heard from a friend of mine, and then I was like, 'Oh yeah — I
want to go do that now,' " Reynolds says. "And I actually shared it with my
siblings and friends and they're all doing it as well."

As the 29-year-old leaves the trailer he puts his "I voted" sticker on his
jacket.

To Phil McGrane, making voting convenient makes all the difference between
a low turnout year and high turnout year. The county's goal this year is 75
percent turnout, and so far — they're on track to meet that goal, while
tripling the record of early votes cast.

"People often associate elections with long lines — the reason being
everyone gets off work and goes to the polls at the same time," says
McGrane. "Voting on a Tuesday doesn't make sense for a lot of people; this
provides an opportunity where they can plan it out, fit it into their
schedule, get their vote cast."

The food truck voting system works because of a computerized voter roll,
which makes it easy to print off ballots, no matter what precinct a voter
lives in. McGrane says the county hired a cybersecurity company to ensure
the integrity of the process.

But in an election year marred by allegations of voter suppression and
fraud, Ada County is not without its critics.

"We are acutely aware of what's going on nationally and we see it here
locally as well. Interestingly enough, some guy drove by earlier and yelled
that the election is rigged. And so we see it in full force."

Ada County spent about $50,000 on the trailer and all the equipment that
goes with it, which is a fraction of their 2016 election budget (they plan
to spend between $800,000-900,000). McGrane says the design could easily be
replicated in other parts of the state for counties that want to make the
investment.

He sees the booth as the wave of the future in elections, relieving the
pressure put on polling places on election night.

...

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> *Divided 9th Circuit Rejects Dems’ Voting Challenge to AZ “Ballot
> Harvesting” Law, But En Banc May Be Coming
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88306>*
>
> Posted on October 30, 2016 10:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88306>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
>
>
> 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. From
> Judge Thomas’s d
>
> *The burden of the law on Arizona minority voters is substantial and
> occurs in both urban and rural areas of the state. The uncontradicted
> evidence presented to the district court showed that a substantial number
> of minority voters used ballot collection as their means of voting. As
> Maricopa Board of Supervisors Steve Gallardo testified: “ballot collectors
> are used in large part by Latino and Native American groups and [ballot
> collecting] has come to be critical in enabling voters in those communities
> to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”*
>
> *The record demonstrated that, in many rural areas with a high proportion
> of minority voters, home mail delivery was not available, and it was
> extremely difficult to travel to a post office. No one contested the fact
> that the rural communities of Somerton and San Luis, which are comprised of
> 95.9% and 98.7% Hispanic voters, respectively, were without home mail
> delivery and reliable transportation. As the representative for that
> district testified, “[b]ecause many of these voters are elderly and have
> mobility challenges, it is a common practice in this area to have one
> neighbor pick up and drop off mail for others on their street as a
> neighborly service.” Th e representative noted that there is only one post
> office, which is located across a highway crowded with cars waiting to
> cross the border, and is virtually inaccessible by foot. Another example of
> the impact of the law on minority voters is the Tohono O’odham Indian
> Nation. The Tohono O’odham reservation constitutes over 2.8 million acres
> in the Sonoran desert. It is an area larger than Rhode Island and Delaware,
> and approximates the size of Connecticut. It has about 14,000 registered
> voters. It does not have home mail delivery. It has one post office, which
> is over 40 miles away from many residents. The evidence in this case shows
> that restrictions on ballot collection affect the Tohono O’odham tribe
> significantly. No one contested the fact that the members of the Tohono
> O’odham Indian Nation have limited access to a postal service and no home
> mail delivery. Similarly, no one disputed that members of the Cocopah
> Indian Tribe do not have home mail delivery or easy access to a post
> office. The Cocopah Reservation is located along the lower Colorado River,
> south of Yuma, Arizona. The CocopahReservation comprises approximately
> 6,500 acres, with approximately 1,000 tribal members who live and work on
> or near the Reservation. As to urban areas, record evidence demonstrated
> that the burden of the law affected minority voters the most because of
> socioeconomic factors. Minority voters in urban areas were more likely to
> be economically disadvantaged. The record showed that many minority urban
> voters lived in places with insecure mail delivery; that many minority
> urban voters were dependent upon public transportation, which made election
> day in-person voting difficult; that many minority voters worked several
> jobs, making it difficult to take time off work to vote in person; and that
> many infirm minority voters did not have access to caregivers or family who
> could transmit ballots.*
>
> Stay tuned.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88306&title=Divided%209th%20Circuit%20Rejects%20Dems%E2%80%99%20Voting%20Challenge%20to%20AZ%20%E2%80%9CBallot%20Harvesting%E2%80%9D%20Law%2C%20But%20En%20Banc%20May%20Be%20Coming>
>
> Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Viral Video of Son Joking He’s Not Voting for Clinton Prompts Mom to Ask
> for Ballot Selfie to Prove How He Voted
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88304>*
>
> Posted on October 30, 2016 9:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88304>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Yeah, it’s funny.
> <https://twitter.com/xxxjayglo/status/792039225877299200>
>
> But it’s not. Ballot selfies can facilitate coercion, not just vote buying
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88276>.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88304&title=Viral%20Video%20of%20Son%20Joking%20He%E2%80%99s%20Not%20Voting%20for%20Clinton%20Prompts%20Mom%20to%20Ask%20for%20Ballot%20Selfie%20to%20Prove%20How%20He%20Voted>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Is this proof of voter fraud or election rigging?: A user guide”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88301>*
>
> Posted on October 30, 2016 9:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88301>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Philip Bump
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/is-this-proof-of-voter-fraud-or-election-rigging-a-user-guide/>performing
> a useful service. For example, on dead people “voting,” here’s a common
> one, an administrative foul-up:
>
> *But there are stories about ballots being cast for dead people!*
>
>
> *Is this vote-rigging? No. Is this in-person voter fraud? Probably not.*
>
> *Reports out of Philadelphia recently suggested that the voter
> registrations of a handful of dead people had been used to cast ballots.
> Voting commissioner Al Schmidt on Friday blasted
> <http://www.phillyvoice.com/6abc-reports-it-found-dead-people-voting-philly/> those
> reports, noting that the board of elections had already ruled out fraud.
> What happened in one case was that a poll worker was looking for the name
> “Paul Bunch” and found it at the bottom of a page in the sign-in book. That
> Paul Bunch was the deceased Paul Bunch, Sr.; Paul Bunch, Jr., who was
> voting, was at the top of the page that followed. He signed in the wrong
> place — and didn’t then come back to vote as “himself.”*
>
> *Most cases of suspicious voter behavior end up being situations like
> this: A mistake is made somewhere in the process. That’s not always the
> case, so we won’t say definitively that any report you see of a dead person
> allegedly casting a vote is not someone committing fraud. But it’s worth
> remembering that situations like this are caught and ruled out — so the
> idea that a slew of examples aren’t caught and comprise the thousands of
> votes needed to swing an election seems unlikely.*
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88301&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20this%20proof%20of%20voter%20fraud%20or%20election%20rigging%3F%3A%20A%20user%20guide%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>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Richard Painter, GW Bush Ethics Czar, Files Hatch Act Complaint Against
> FBI <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88298>*
>
> Posted on October 30, 2016 9:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88298>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Painter
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0> in
> the NYT opinion section:
>
> *But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to
> conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of
> the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I.,
> absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress from the
> party opposing the candidate that the candidate or his associates were
> under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so
> far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower,
> hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television
> cameras.*
>
> *The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an
> election.*
>
> *Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the
> use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the
> F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential
> until after the election.*
>
> *And that is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with
> the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and
> with the Office of Government Ethics. I have spent much of my career
> working on government ethics and lawyers’ ethics, including two and a half
> years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush,
> and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political
> circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88298&title=Richard%20Painter%2C%20GW%20Bush%20Ethics%20Czar%2C%20Files%20Hatch%20Act%20Complaint%20Against%20FBI>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, conflict of
> interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics investigations
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Complaint: GOP illegally funneled corporate contributions to NC
> Republican Party” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88296>*
>
> Posted on October 30, 2016 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88296>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WRAL:
> <http://www.wral.com/complaint-gop-illegally-funneled-corporate-contributions-to-nc-republican-party/16174313/>
>
> *ecently filed state and federal campaign finance reports suggest a
> national Republican organization may have piped as much as $1.5 million in
> corporate contributions to the North Carolina Republican Party, prompting a
> formal complaint from Democrats
> <http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/document/16175194/> that the GOP
> is circumventing state limits on the size of individual contributions and
> prohibitions on corporate donations.*
>
> *Officials with both the state Republican Party and the Republican
> Governors Association, a national group that supports GOP candidates such
> as Gov. Pat McCrory, insist they have followed both federal and state law.
> Corporate contributions to parties and candidates are illegal under North
> Carolina campaign finance law, with rare exceptions for things such as
> referendum efforts and accounts used to pay for party headquarters….*
>
> *A spokesman for the RGA said Saturday that the contributions do not
> violate either the prohibition on corporate contributions or limitations on
> contributions from single donors. In an email, he said Democrats did not
> seem to understand the state’s campaign finance laws.*
>
> *“This baseless complaint from the North Carolina Democratic Party is a
> direct attempt to mislead voters. The RGA’s contributions contained no
> corporate dollars, as compliant with state law,” RGA spokesman Jon Thompson
> said in response to questions about the transactions. “Unable to articulate
> a cohesive message about the issues or counter North Carolina’s positive
> momentum, it’s no surprise that Roy Cooper and his friends are using
> outright falsehoods and fabrications as the closing message for his
> struggling campaign.”*
>
> *Thompson pointed to reports showing that the Democratic Governors
> Association put money into the state Democratic Party, including a $1
> million transfer reported in by the National Journal last week, and asked
> how that was different.*
>
> *Contributions to the state Democratic Party come from a PAC known as
> Democratic Action, a federal PAC that Democratic Party officials say takes
> contributions only from individuals and in amounts limited to $5,000 per
> year, an assertion federal records appear to confirm. Those contributions
> would be legal under state law.*
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88296&title=%E2%80%9CComplaint%3A%20GOP%20illegally%20funneled%20corporate%20contributions%20to%20NC%20Republican%20Party%E2%80%9D>
>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Hoax Image of Immigration Officers Arresting Voters Is Making Rounds on
> Social Media” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88294>*
>
> Posted on October 29, 2016 5:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88294>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Electionland:
> <https://projects.propublica.org/electionland/national/hoax-image-of-immigration-officers-arresting-voters-making-rounds-on-social-media/?utm_campaign=sprout&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1477709467>
>
> *An image has begun circulating on Twitter that appears to show an
> immigration officer arresting someone in line to vote. The image is a hoax,
> as is the accompanying threatening language directed at Hispanic voters.*
>
> *The image is a composite of two photographs readily found on the
> internet, and there has not been a single report of anyone being arrested
> by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while voting as far as we are aware.*
>
> This kind of stuff can deter voters, not who worry about being arrested,
> but who worry about being hassled at the polls.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88294&title=%E2%80%9CHoax%20Image%20of%20Immigration%20Officers%20Arresting%20Voters%20Is%20Making%20Rounds%20on%20Social%20Media%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>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Donald Trump Questions Veracity of Ballot Counting in Colorado”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88292>*
>
> Posted on October 29, 2016 5:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88292>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/donald-trump-ballots-colorado.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>
> *Donald J. Trump
> <http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/donald-trump?inline=nyt-per> has found
> a new reason to question the legitimacy of the 2016 election — ballots —
> and he wasted little time here on Saturday before taking issue with the
> voting system in this largely vote-by-mail state.*
>
> *“I have real problems with ballots being sent,” Mr. Trump said,
> pantomiming a ballot collector sifting envelops and tossing some over his
> shoulder while counting others.*
>
> *f you don’t have a ballot, they give you another one and they void your
> one at home,” he told the crowd at an afternoon rally, explaining how
> voters could go fill out their ballot at the back of the venue here. “And
> then, of course, the other side would send that one in too, but, you know,
> we don’t do that stuff. We don’t do that stuff.”*
>
> Sigh.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88292&title=%E2%80%9CDonald%20Trump%20Questions%20Veracity%20of%20Ballot%20Counting%20in%20Colorado%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent
> fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Prominent Democratic law firm pays questionable ‘bonuses’ to partners
> for campaign contributions” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88290>*
>
> Posted on October 29, 2016 5:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88290>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Boston Globe/Center for Responsive Politics:
> <https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/29/prominent-democratic-law-firm-pays-questionable-bonuses-partners-for-campaign-contributions/GpD5tRQZR7pRe8hwAvQw8N/story.html>
>
>
>
> *From 2010 through 2014, Strouss and Bradley, along with founding partner
> Michael Thornton and his wife, donated nearly $1.6 million to Democratic
> Party fund-raising committees and a parade of politicians — from Senate
> minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada to Hawaii gubernatorial candidate
> David Ige to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Over the same span,
> the lawyers received $1.4 million listed as “bonuses” in Thornton Law Firm
> records; more than 280 of the contributions precisely matched bonuses that
> were paid within 10 days.*
>
> *That payback system, which involved other partners as well, helped make
> Thornton the 11th-ranked law firm nationally for political contributions in
> 2014, according to data analyzed by the center, even though it is not among
> the 100 largest in Massachusetts.*
>
> *Thornton, through a spokesman, said its donation reimbursement program
> was reviewed by outside lawyers and complied with applicable laws. Campaign
> finance experts said that without reviewing the firm’s records, they cannot
> say the payback system breaks the law, but that it raises numerous red
> flags.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88290&title=%E2%80%9CProminent%20Democratic%20law%20firm%20pays%20questionable%20%E2%80%98bonuses%E2%80%99%20to%20partners%20for%20campaign%20contributions%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Obama Got Zero Votes in At Least 38 Precincts in 2012
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88288>*
>
> Posted on October 29, 2016 3:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88288>
>  by *Richard Pildes* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> Mitt Romney’s failure to receive any reported votes in 49 Philadelphia
> election precincts in 2012 has been viewed suspiciously by some
> commentators
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/upshot/funny-stuff-in-philadelphia-zero-votes-does-not-equal-fraud.html>,
> including Donald Trump, who recently said:  “Philadelphia is one that’s
> mentioned.  I think Romney got no votes and McCain got no votes.  I mean,
> like no votes, and Philadelphia is certainly one.”
>
> Professor Stephen Ansolabehere and I decided to examine whether there were
> a significant number of precincts in which President Obama likewise
> received no votes.  We do not believe anyone has systematically looked at
> this issue before, because you need election return data by precinct
> throughout the country.  We limited ourselves to precincts in which at
> least 20 votes were cast and used the Harvard Election Data Archive
> <https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:1902.1/21919>.
> On an initial estimate, we found at least 38 precincts with more than 20
> votes cast in which Obama received no votes.  Twenty-one of these were in
> Kansas; another 10 were in Texas.
>
> But this initial estimate probably understates the total number.  The data
> set does not have data on four states – Utah, Nevada, Florida and Indiana —
> where it would seem quite likely there were additional precincts in which
> no votes were cast for Obama, particularly rural precincts or those in the
> panhandle area of northern FL.    By limiting our count to precincts with
> more than 20 voters, we have inevitably left out a lot of rural precincts
> that might well have had zero Obama votes; this story
> <http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/In-Some-Utah-Precincts-Obama-Received-No-Votes-179322261.html>indicates
> there were Utah precincts, for example, that voted 17-0, 14-0, and 14-0,
> for Romney.
>
> So even without Utah, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana in the count, we found
> 38 precincts of more than 20 votes with no Obama votes.  By the way, those
> 49 precincts in Philadelphia had, on average, 338 total votes cast in each
> of them – people sometimes think precincts are much larger than is often
> the case.
>
> As a separate matter, as others have noted, because Democratic voters tend
> to be more geographically concentrated than Republican ones, we would
> expect to see more Democratic precincts than Republican ones in which the
> opposite-party candidate received very few or no votes.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88288&title=Obama%20Got%20Zero%20Votes%20in%20At%20Least%2038%20Precincts%20in%202012>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Double Voter (for Trump) Caught in Iowa
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88285>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 5:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88285>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> People who do this
> <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/28/voter-fraud-suspect-arrested-des-moines/92892042/> are
> often not the sharpest tools in the shed.
>
> Then again, if you are told how easy it is to rig an election, maybe you
> try such nonsense.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88285&title=Double%20Voter%20(for%20Trump)%20Caught%20in%20Iowa>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Voting Rights Group Sues Bexar County, TX, to Provide Proper Information
> on Voter ID Rules This Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88280>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 4:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88280>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lawsuit
> <https://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/2016_10_28_Petition_and_Application_TRO_2.pdf>
>  (background)
> <https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/28/early-voting-issues-texas/>.
>
> UPDATE: TRO granted
> <http://www.ksat.com/news/politics/voter-id-lawsuit-filed-against-bexar-county>
>
> *“Today, Jacque Callanen, Bexar County Elections Administrator, agreed to
> a temporary restraining order in order to avoid a drawn out hearing on the
> allegations made by Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.”*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88280&title=Voting%20Rights%20Group%20Sues%20Bexar%20County%2C%20TX%2C%20to%20Provide%20Proper%20Information%20on%20Voter%20ID%20Rules%20This%20Election>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Lisa Manheim on the Latest in DNC v. RNC Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88278>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 3:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88278>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Blog post:
> <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/10/warning-this-area-is-being-patrolled-by-the-national-ballot-security-task-force.html>
>
> *It will be interesting to see how the District Court in New Jersey
> responds. Will it take the approach of, for example, a recent decision
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Opinion72916.pdf> by
> the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which seemed eager to
> interpret the controlling law in a manner that protects voters against
> problematic efforts to combat “voter fraud”? Or will it follow an approach
> more similar to the Supreme
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> Court
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf> as of late
> (at least, prior to the passing of Justice Scalia), which seemingly has
> been reluctant to interpret the law in a manner that tends to favor such
> protections? In my view, the history surrounding the consent decree—and the
> history of voting rights more generally—suggests that the former tends to
> be the better approach. It is true that, in the words
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> of Chief
> Justice Roberts, “history did not end in 1965.” But neither did activities
> that have the very real potential to suppress votes.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88278&title=Lisa%20Manheim%20on%20the%20Latest%20in%20DNC%20v.%20RNC%20Case>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Breaking: Divided 6th Circuit Restores Michigan Ban on Ballot Selfies for
> this Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88276>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 3:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88276>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A majority opinion (by Judge Sutton), a concurrence, and a dissent.
> <http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0266p-06.pdf>
>
> Judge Sutton’s main point is that this comes too late in the election
> season for Michigan to make a change now: “Call it what you will—laches,
> the Purcell principle, or common sense—the idea is that courts will not
> disrupt imminent elections absent a powerful reason for doing so.” (More on
> thePurcell principle)
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>.
>
> But Judge Sutton also takes a nod at the merits, in what is much in line
> with my own views
> <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/17/why-the-selfie-is-a-threat-to-democracy/>
> :
>
> *The State’s policy advances several serious governmental interests:
> preserving the privacy of other voters, avoiding delays and distractions at
> the polls, preventing vote buying, and preventing voter intimidation.
> Crookston tries to minimize the risk of vote buying as a relic of a bygone
> electoral era. But plenty of cases—in this circuit alone—show otherwise.
> See UnitedStates v. Robinson, 813 F.3d 251, 254 (6th Cir. 2016) (affirming
> a vote-buying conviction);United States v. Turner, 536 F. App’x. 614, 615
> (6th Cir. 2013) (same); United States v. Young,516 F. App’x. 599, 600–01
> (6th Cir. 2013) (same). The links between these problems and the
> prohibition on ballot exposure are not some historical accident; they are
> “common sense.”Burson, 504 U.S. at 207. At the same time, it is far from
> clear that Crookston’s proposal creates no risk of delay, as ballot-selfie
> takers try to capture the marked ballot and face in one frame—all while
> trying to catch the perfect smile.*
>
> *Nor do we think much of Crookston’s argument that the State has offered
> no evidence of ballot photography being used in vote-buying schemes or to
> intimidate voters. The SupremeCourt made quick work of a similar argument
> in Burson. “The fact that these laws have been in effect for a long period
> of time,” it reasoned, “makes it difficult for the States to put on
> witnesses  who can testify as to what would happen without them.” Id. at
> 208; see also id. at 214–16 (Scalia, J., concurring). Just so here.*
>
> *It also is not clear whether a ban on ballot selfies “significantly
> impinges” Crookston’s First Amendment rights. A picture may be worth a
> thousand words, but social media users can (and do) post thousands of words
> about whom they vote for and why. Although the loss of any potential First
> Amendment freedom deserves serious consideration, the government’s
> interests in a stay outweigh any imposition on the expressive rights of
> Crookston and other would-be selfietakers— particularly given the privacy
> interests of other voters in not having their votes made public….*
>
> *We recognize, to be sure, that other courts have struck down similar laws
> in thoughtful opinions. See Rideout v. Gardner, __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 5403593
> (1st Cir. 2016); Ind. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. Ind. Sec’y of State,
> No. 1:15-cv-01356, 2015 WL 12030168 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2015). But these
> decisions concerned laws that were targeted at ballot selfies, not general
> bans on ballot-exposure and photography at the polls. And, most
> importantly, theselawsuits did not seek to enjoin longstanding statutes on
> the eve of a presidential election. One filed 728 days before the next
> major election. Rideout, 123 F. Supp. 3d at 227. The other was filed two
> months after the legislature enacted the law. Ind. Civil Liberties Union,
> 2015 WL 12030168, at *1.*
>
> This is far from the last word, in this case and others. Ultimately, I
> predict this is headed to SCOTUS.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88276&title=Breaking%3A%20Divided%206th%20Circuit%20Restores%20Michigan%20Ban%20on%20Ballot%20Selfies%20for%20this%20Election>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Trump Doesn’t Have the Ground Game to Intimidate Voters”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88274>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 3:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88274>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wired reports.
> <https://www.wired.com/2016/10/trump-doesnt-ground-game-intimidate-voters/>
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88274&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Have%20the%20Ground%20Game%20to%20Intimidate%20Voters%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Federal Court Says North Carolina Likely Violated ‘Motor Voter’ Law”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88272>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 3:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88272>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Demos:
> <http://www.demos.org/press-release/federal-court-says-north-carolina-likely-violated-motor-voter-law>
>
> *On October 27, 2016, a federal judge granted preliminary relief
> <http://www.demos.org/publication/federal-court-orders-north-carolina-protect-rights-voters-who-registered-dmvs-november-e> requiring
> North Carolina election officials to take actions to protect eligible
> citizens who were improperly left off the voter rolls after attempting to
> register to vote through state motor vehicle offices. In the decision, U.S.
> District Court Judge Loretta Biggs found that the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
> against state officials in charge of North Carolina’s Division of Motor
> Vehicles (DMV), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and State
> Board of Elections (SBOE) were likely to succeed on their legal claims when
> the case goes to trial next spring.*
>
> *Voting rights groups Action NC, Democracy North Carolina, the A. Philip
> Randolph Institute, and three North Carolina voters, sued the state in
> December 2015 after evidence showed that many North Carolina citizens who
> attempt to register to vote through DMV are not being added to the voter
> rolls. The suit also alleges that DHHS is failing to give low-income North
> Carolinians the voter registration services required by federal law.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88272&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20Court%20Says%20North%20Carolina%20Likely%20Violated%20%E2%80%98Motor%20Voter%E2%80%99%20Law%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>
>
>
>
>
>
> *North Carolina “Super Suppressors” Article Corrected
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88270>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 2:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88270>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Correction:
> <http://www.insight-us.org/blog/super-suppressors-the-18-north-carolina-counties-that-are-strangling-early-voting-to-death/>
> “*This article was corrected on 10/28/2016 at 11:25 AM US Eastern. The
> original version incorrectly reported the turnout percentages for
> ‘super-suppressor’ counties, and incorrectly included Forsyth County among
> them. We regret these errors.”*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88270&title=North%20Carolina%20%E2%80%9CSuper%20Suppressors%E2%80%9D%20Article%20Corrected>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
> *“Pa. urges judge to reject GOP poll watcher suit”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88268>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 12:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88268>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Morning Call
> <http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-gop-poll-watcher-lawsuit-cortes-response-20161026-story.html> reports.
> Hearing is today.
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88268&title=%E2%80%9CPa.%20urges%20judge%20to%20reject%20GOP%20poll%20watcher%20suit%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Why Trump’s rhetoric about immigrant voters is dangerous”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88266>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 10:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88266>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Chris Kromm
> <https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/10/why-trumps-rhetoric-about-immigrant-voters-dangerous> for
> Facing South.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88266&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20rhetoric%20about%20immigrant%20voters%20is%20dangerous%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Man Arrested For Wearing ‘Basket Of Deplorables’ Shirt At Texas Polling
> Place” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88264>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 9:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88264>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ban on electioneering.
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brett-hauthe-arrested-wearing-trump-gear-texas-polling-place>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88264&title=%E2%80%9CMan%20Arrested%20For%20Wearing%20%E2%80%98Basket%20Of%20Deplorables%E2%80%99%20Shirt%20At%20Texas%20Polling%20Place%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Donald Trump Adds $10 Million of His Own Money for Advertising”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88262>*
>
> Posted on October 28, 2016 9:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=88262>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ:
> <http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-adds-10-million-of-his-own-money-for-advertising-1477669187>
>
> *Mr. Trump’s cash infusion brings his total contributions to his campaign
> to $66 million, including about $30,000 he gave earlier this month in
> in-kind contributions, according to a report the campaign filed with the
> Federal Election Commission on Thursday.*
>
> *Mr. Trump’s latest donation to his cause still falls $34 million short of
> the $100 million he has repeatedly said he will give to his campaign—a
> pledge he reiterated as recently as Wednesday.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D88262&title=%E2%80%9CDonald%20Trump%20Adds%20%2410%20Million%20of%20His%20Own%20Money%20for%20Advertising%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161030/8fbea828/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/20161030/8fbea828/attachment.png>