[EL] ELB news and commentary 9/6/16 [Resend]
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Sep 6 07:33:04 PDT 2016
Here is a resend with corrected formatting:
NYT, Finally if Briefly, Discusses Bondi Story: More to Come?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86254>
Posted on September 6, 2016 5:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86254> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
There’s this <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/us/politics/clinton-trump-labor-day-campaign.html?_r=0> in a story today, but I expect we will see much more in the days ahead:
Addressing an issue that has dogged the campaign, Mr. Clinton defended the Clinton Foundation. And he criticized Mr. Trump over his own foundation, referring to aWashington Post report<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/> that found that his charitable organization paid the Internal Revenue Service a $2,500 penalty this year after improperly giving a political contribution to a campaign group with ties to the attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi.
Mr. Trump discussed the issue in his talk with reporters aboard his plane. He denied any impropriety on either his part or Ms. Bondi’s concerning the $25,000 donation.
At the time of the donation in 2013, Ms. Bondi was considering whether to investigate Trump University for fraud. In the end, she did not do so.
“I never spoke to her, first of all, she’s a fine person beyond reproach,” he said when asked about the controversy. “I never even spoke to her about it at all. She’s a fine person. Never spoken to her about it. Never.”
Many attorneys general besides Ms. Bondi, he said, decided against pursuing any action regarding Trump University. “I’ll win that case in court,” he said. “Many turned that down.”
“I never spoke to her,” he added, again referring to Ms. Bondi.
When asked what he expected to get out of the donation, he would only say: “I’ve just known Pam Bondi for years. I have a lot of respect for her. Never spoke to her about that at all. I just have a lot of respect for her, and she’s very popular.”
As Josh Marshall points out,<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-lying-about-bondi-already> there’s a question whether Trump lied about speaking to Bondi.
Over the weekend, I wrote this tweet<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/772560731677954048> about the NYT’s coverage which is my most RT’s tweet ever: “The failure to cover Trump-Bondi is probably the biggest omission in NYT presidential coverage. And its a BFD http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86182 <https://t.co/yNCwsCfrU5> ” But I do think the extent to which this issue has caught fire among those criticizing the NYT’s coverage of the race overall reflects more on the besieged mentality of the Clinton supporters than the NY Times coverage, which on Trump has been better than most (on things like housing discrimination, vote rigging charges, Trump University fraud etc). The reason I think the Bondi story (and the story is maybe just as strong involving Greg Abbott in Texas) is that it shows Trump engaging in pay to play. Sure he’s said in the past that he got influence for his money, but people discount everything he says on the issue. It is one thing for Trump to say it; it is another thing for the Times, still the paper of record, to demonstrate it. And it would provide quite a contrast with all the Clinton Foundation stories, which seem to pale in comparison to the idea of giving money to state AGs as one is under investigation, and then watching the investigations going away.
And on this, one more from Josh Marshall<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/amazing-find-about-trump-s-thinking-on-ag-payoffs>, quoting a reader:
On the other hand, the date of that article (9/23/2013) and the date of the Trump’s conversation with Bondi are very significant. Bondi solicited the donation from Trump about a week or two before he sent check (I don’t know the exact date). And, almost immediately, Trump made his $25,000 donation to Bondi on Sep 17, 2013.
In other words, almost immediately after he publicly accused Schneiderman of a donation shake down, he’s approached by Bondi for a donation. Trump already knows a investigation is in progress in Florida. So what does he do. Does he reject the solicitation and accuse Bondi of a shake down. Nope. Instead he makes a sizable donation. And Bondi kills the investigation almost immediately.
When Bondi solicits Trump for a donation, how could someone like Trump not be thinking that Bondi has heard about the NY case and is shaking him down.
The only difference between the NY scenario and the FL scenario is that Trump got exactly what he wanted from FL (and kept his mouth shut about it).
BUT, in NY scenario, the shake down is either figment of Trump’s imagination, or Trump thinks it was real and is upset that he didn’t get his money’s worth.
Josh adds:
More than a month later Trump was still claiming that Schneiderman or representatives of Schneiderman<http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/10/31/donald-trump-accuses-ny-attorney-general-of-being-a-publicity-hound/> were asking for campaign contributions as evidence of Schneiderman’s corruption.
I expect theres a lot more here for the Times to cover.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86254&title=NYT%2C%20Finally%20if%20Briefly%2C%20Discusses%20Bondi%20Story%3A%20More%20to%20Come%3F&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Trump’s ‘rigged election’ rhetoric could inspire voter intimidation, say experts”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86252>
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86252> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Guardian reports.<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/06/donald-trump-rigged-election-voter-fraud-intimidation>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86252&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98rigged%20election%E2%80%99%20rhetoric%20could%20inspire%20voter%20intimidation%2C%20say%20experts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Supreme Court blocks a last-ditch attempt to suppress votes in November”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86250>
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86250> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Economist reports.<http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/voting-rights-and-wrongs>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86250&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20blocks%20a%20last-ditch%20attempt%20to%20suppress%20votes%20in%20November%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Tucson’s hybrid city elections upheld by full 9th Circuit”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86248>
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:40 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86248> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tuscon Sentinel:<http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/090216_tucson_elections/tucsons-hybrid-city-elections-upheld-by-full-9th-circuit/>
A federal appeals court reaffirmed Tucson’s hybrid city election process Friday, rejecting Republican claims that it violates the one-person, one-vote principle.
The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the system for municipal elections – in which council members are first nominated by party in ward races and then run at-large – is allowed under the federal system that “permits ‘innovation and experimentation’” that can “vary greatly across the country.”
“Tucson’s hybrid system represents a careful, longstanding choice, twice affirmed by voters, as to how best to achieve a city council with members who represent Tucson as a whole but reflect and understand all of the city’s wards,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/09/02/15-16142.pdf>
The decision reverses a November 2015 ruling by a divided three-judge panel of the circuit court that had agreed with a lawsuit by the Public Integrity Alliance, representing local Republicans, that claimed the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86248&title=%E2%80%9CTucson%E2%80%99s%20hybrid%20city%20elections%20upheld%20by%20full%209th%20Circuit%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Longtime Milwaukee federal judge Rudolph Randa dies”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86246>
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86246> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2016/09/05/longtime-milwaukee-federal-judge-randa-dies/89435354/>.
Condolences to his family and friends.
Judge Randa decided a series of cases involving Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws, issuing a terrible series of rulings<https://electionlawblog.org/?s=randa&x=0&y=0> from the reform perspective (including a ruling in the John Doe case which was overturned by the 7th Circuit).
In connection with his rulings, I remember when I wrote this April Fool’s post, which many people on the left and right believed was accurate: Court Rules Wealthy Donors Have the Right to Bribe Candidates<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=71438>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86246&title=%E2%80%9CLongtime%20Milwaukee%20federal%20judge%20Rudolph%20Randa%20dies%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“The shameful spectacle of denying people their vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86244>
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86244> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eugene Robinson column<http://www.albanyherald.com/opinion/columnists/syndicated_columnists/eugene-robinson-the-shameful-spectacle-of-denying-people-their-vote/article_286c053a-6303-53e9-94ca-bf285cdf78f1.html>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86244&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20shameful%20spectacle%20of%20denying%20people%20their%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Without conservative Supreme Court majority, voter-law challengers make gains”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86242>
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86242> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes for WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/without-conservative-supreme-court-majority-voter-law-challengers-make-gains/2016/09/05/5ac74948-704e-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html>:
With the Supreme Court at an ideological impasse and Senate Republicans refusing to allow hearings for President Obama’s nominee to the court, Merrick Garland, the final state rules for elections throughout the country are likely to be set in a variety of rulings by state courts and lower-level federal judges.
“We’ll be in hand-to-hand combat the rest of the way,” said Marc E. Elias, a Washington lawyer who has filed many of the suits challenging the laws and whose firm represents Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and a host of party officeholders and committees.
Outstanding issues in the lawsuits still in play include rules about the handling of absentee ballots; a question of whether proof of citizenship can be required for voter registration; challenges to purges of inactive voters; and methods for counting the votes of those who are registered and eligible but mistakenly cast their ballots in the wrong precincts.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86242&title=%E2%80%9CWithout%20conservative%20Supreme%20Court%20majority%2C%20voter-law%20challengers%20make%20gains%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Trump, dismissing allegations of impropriety, says donation to Fla. attorney general came with no strings”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86239>
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86239> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/05/trump-dismissing-allegations-of-impropriety-says-donation-to-fla-ag-came-with-no-strings/>
Marc Reichelderfer — who worked as a consultant on Bondi’s reelection effort — told the Associated Press in June that Bondi spoke with Trump and solicited the donation herself. Reichelderfer said that Bondi had not been aware of the complaints against Trump University when she asked for the contribution. It was unclear if Trump meant Monday that he had never discussed the donation with Bondi — effectively contradicting Reichelderfer — or if he had simply never mentioned the Trump University case. The campaign would not comment for this story.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86239&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%2C%20dismissing%20allegations%20of%20impropriety%2C%20says%20donation%20to%20Fla.%20attorney%20general%20came%20with%20no%20strings%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Trump Surrogate Admits To Joy Reid: Trump Did ‘Pay-For-Play'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86237>
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86237> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Watch Joy Reid.<http://crooksandliars.com/2016/09/trump-surrogate-admits-trumps-pay-play?utm_content=buffer6734e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86237&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Surrogate%20Admits%20To%20Joy%20Reid%3A%20Trump%20Did%20%E2%80%98Pay-For-Play%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Trump Denies Pay to Play in Bondi AG Donation While Trump U Investigated<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86235>
Posted on September 5, 2016 11:37 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86235> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Trump asked, on his plane, about Florida AG Pam Bondi/Trump Foundation donation:pic.twitter.com/Xjq4Wrs6km<https://t.co/Xjq4Wrs6km>
— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) September 5, 2016<https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/772865171408781313>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86235&title=Trump%20Denies%20Pay%20to%20Play%20in%20Bondi%20AG%20Donation%20While%20Trump%20U%20Investigated&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Aggregate Corruption”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86233>
Posted on September 5, 2016 11:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86233> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Gilbert and Emily Reeder have posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834001> on SSRN (forthcoming, Kentucky Law Journal). Here is the abstract:
This symposium paper challenges the Supreme Court’s most recent campaign finance decision, McCutcheon v. FEC. True to recent form, the Court in that case invalidated another restriction on money in politics, the federal limit on aggregate contributions. The Court based its decision on two arguments: if one complies with base contribution limits, giving no more than $5,200 to any candidate, there is no “cognizable risk of corruption”; and aggregate limits do not prevent circumvention of base limits. We show that both arguments fall short. Contributions within base limits can cause corruption, as a simple theory and ample evidence demonstrate. And aggregate limits mitigate a particular and ubiquitous form of circumvention: spillover. Spillover happens when a lawful contribution to one candidate benefits that candidate’s allies, creating a multiplier effect. Separate from critiquing the Court, these points lead to a theory about contribution limits: base limits affect the magnitude of corrupt acts while aggregate limits affect their frequency. This theory provides a new justification for aggregate limits, and it casts fresh light on the debate over the First Amendment and corruption.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86233&title=%E2%80%9CAggregate%20Corruption%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Krugman on Press Coverage of the Candidates Mentions Bondi AG Issue<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86231>
Posted on September 5, 2016 10:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86231> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT column:<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0>
True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/> to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.
Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86231&title=Krugman%20on%20Press%20Coverage%20of%20the%20Candidates%20Mentions%20Bondi%20AG%20Issue&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“More early voting would ‘waste tax dollars,’ Wake County GOP says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86229>
Posted on September 5, 2016 10:51 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86229> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News & Observer:<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article99794997.html>
The Wake County Republican Party is calling on its members to lobby against expanded early voting opportunities, arguing more sites and hours “only creates additional opportunity for chaos.”
Party leaders sent out the message in an email<http://myemail.constantcontact.com/URGENT---MUST-ACT-NOW---PLEASE-READ.html?soid=1104865670647&aid=BPQRDSDWXoM> and Facebook post<https://www.facebook.com/WakeGOP/posts/1216861161691544?pnref=story> Friday, in advance of a State Board of Elections meeting next week to vote on Wake’s proposed early voting schedule.
“The Democrat request will greatly increase the cost to taxpayers,” the message says, calling the spending a “waste.”
“It has been proven that additional days and locations do NOT increase the number of voters who vote early.”
The email does not include a source for that claim.
County election boards – which all have a Republican majority under state law because North Carolina has a Republican governor – have developed new early voting schedules in response to a federal court ruling that threw out the state’s voter ID law. In addition to revoking the state’s photo ID requirement, the ruling requires counties to offer 17 days of early voting…
Carter Wrenn, a longtime Republican campaign strategist in Raleigh, recently told The Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html> that the GOP’s stance on early voting is “political.”
“Look, if African-Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn told the paper. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86229&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20early%20voting%20would%20%E2%80%98waste%20tax%20dollars%2C%E2%80%99%20Wake%20County%20GOP%20says%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
The View on Labor Day: Major Election Law Disputes Still to Be Resolved<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86226>
Posted on September 5, 2016 6:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86226> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Thanks in part to the Supreme Court’s signals<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676> in 2014 that courts resolve election litigation well in advance of the election, many of the hottest disputes have already been resolved. But there is still a fair amount of major election litigation still to be resolved, now a little more than two months before Election Day (and just a few weeks before<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/early-voting-limits-donald-trumps-time-to-turn-campaign-around.html> the beginning of early voting in some places).
Among the most important issues already resolved for Election 2016: Texas has considerably softened<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84922> its strict voter identification law, thanks to a 5th Circuit en banc decision which the Supreme Court rushed to decision for mid-July. (There may still be an attempt to take this to the Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85409> to overturn it in future elections). North Carolina‘s strict set of voting rules, including its voter id law, were blocked by the 4th Circui<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf>t for use in this election, and the Supreme Courtdeadlocked<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=86071> over what to do about it. (There’s a promised cert. petition to the Supreme Court after the election in this case too). Wisconsin’s strict voter id law, and some of its other laws, have been found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The 7th Circuit rejected an attempt to allow affidavits instead of IDs to vote in the 2016 election, but crafted a compromise<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=85911>allowing some people who go to the DMV to start an identification process to vote in this election.
Here’s the major litigation left that we know of (with more cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86154> potentially being filed as the election gets closer);
Ohio: The 6th Circuit blocked a district court order requiring Ohio to keep its “Golden Week,” which it tried to eliminate, allowing registration and early voting during one week before the election. Democrats have gone to the Supreme Court trying to get that order reversed. We should hear something late this week or early next week. I expect Democrats<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86121> to lose. We are still waiting for 6th Circuit rulings on a case involving provisional/absentee voting, and one on an Ohio vote purge. (The Supreme Court also rejected an attempt<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85975> by Gary Johnson to get him listed as a Libertarian on the Ohio ballot).
Michigan: The state has asked<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86158> for the Supreme Court to stay an order requiring Michigan to keep using straight-ticket voting this election. I expect the order by Thursday (the ballot printing deadline) and I expect Michigan to lose. Michigan Republicans do not want voters who reject Trump to have an easy way of rejecting the entire Republican ticket.
Arizona: Democrats are looking for a court order to make sure that the long lines that materialized in the primary will not reappear on election day. The case may partially settle<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86191>.
Kansas/EAC: The D.C. Circuit is considering an appeal over the issue of whether an EAC bureaucrat exceeded his authority when he allowed Kansas and Arizona to require documentary proof of citizenship for voters who register to vote in federal elections using the federal form. There is also litigation over the “dual” voting system that SOS Kobach has put in place over the objections of voting rights activists. There’s another one of these Kansas cases pending before the 10th Circuit.<https://www.aclu.org/cases/fish-v-kobach> And there is a state court case about Kobah’s dual voting system.
[If you want details on any of these cases, use the search box on ELB or check out the Major Pending Election Cases <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/major-pending-cases/> at the indispensable Election Law @ Moritz website).
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86226&title=The%20View%20on%20Labor%20Day%3A%20Major%20Election%20Law%20Disputes%20Still%20to%20Be%20Resolved&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
From: <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:31 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB news and commentary 9/6/16
See electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org> for working links.
NYT, Finally if Briefly, Discusses Bondi Story: More to Come?
Posted on September 6, 2016 5:00 am by Rick Hasen
There’s this in a story today, but I expect we will see much more in the days ahead:
Addressing an issue that has dogged the campaign, Mr. Clinton defended the Clinton Foundation. And he criticized Mr. Trump over his own foundation, referring to a Washington Post report that found that his charitable organization paid the Internal Revenue Service a $2,500 penalty this year after improperly giving a political contribution to a campaign group with ties to the attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi.
Mr. Trump discussed the issue in his talk with reporters aboard his plane. He denied any impropriety on either his part or Ms. Bondi’s concerning the $25,000 donation.
At the time of the donation in 2013, Ms. Bondi was considering whether to investigate Trump University for fraud. In the end, she did not do so.
“I never spoke to her, first of all, she’s a fine person beyond reproach,” he said when asked about the controversy. “I never even spoke to her about it at all. She’s a fine person. Never spoken to her about it. Never.”
Many attorneys general besides Ms. Bondi, he said, decided against pursuing any action regarding Trump University. “I’ll win that case in court,” he said. “Many turned that down.”
“I never spoke to her,” he added, again referring to Ms. Bondi.
When asked what he expected to get out of the donation, he would only say: “I’ve just known Pam Bondi for years. I have a lot of respect for her. Never spoke to her about that at all. I just have a lot of respect for her, and she’s very popular.”
As Josh Marshall points out, there’s a question whether Trump lied about speaking to Bondi.
Over the weekend, I wrote this tweet about the NYT’s coverage which is my most RT’s tweet ever: “The failure to cover Trump-Bondi is probably the biggest omission in NYT presidential coverage. And its a BFD http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86182 ” But I do think the extent to which this issue has caught fire among those criticizing the NYT’s coverage of the race overall reflects more on the besieged mentality of the Clinton supporters than the NY Times coverage, which on Trump has been better than most (on things like housing discrimination, vote rigging charges, Trump University fraud etc). The reason I think the Bondi story (and the story is maybe just as strong involving Greg Abbott in Texas) is that it shows Trump engaging in pay to play. Sure he’s said in the past that he got influence for his money, but people discount everything he says on the issue. It is one thing for Trump to say it; it is another thing for the Times, still the paper of record, to demonstrate it. And it would provide quite a contrast with all the Clinton Foundation stories, which seem to pale in comparison to the idea of giving money to state AGs as one is under investigation, and then watching the investigations going away.
And on this, one more from Josh Marshall, quoting a reader:
On the other hand, the date of that article (9/23/2013) and the date of the Trump’s conversation with Bondi are very significant. Bondi solicited the donation from Trump about a week or two before he sent check (I don’t know the exact date). And, almost immediately, Trump made his $25,000 donation to Bondi on Sep 17, 2013.
In other words, almost immediately after he publicly accused Schneiderman of a donation shake down, he’s approached by Bondi for a donation. Trump already knows a investigation is in progress in Florida. So what does he do. Does he reject the solicitation and accuse Bondi of a shake down. Nope. Instead he makes a sizable donation. And Bondi kills the investigation almost immediately.
When Bondi solicits Trump for a donation, how could someone like Trump not be thinking that Bondi has heard about the NY case and is shaking him down.
The only difference between the NY scenario and the FL scenario is that Trump got exactly what he wanted from FL (and kept his mouth shut about it).
BUT, in NY scenario, the shake down is either figment of Trump’s imagination, or Trump thinks it was real and is upset that he didn’t get his money’s worth.
Josh adds:
More than a month later Trump was still claiming that Schneiderman or representatives of Schneiderman were asking for campaign contributions as evidence of Schneiderman’s corruption.
I expect theres a lot more here for the Times to cover.
Share
Posted in chicanery
“Trump’s ‘rigged election’ rhetoric could inspire voter intimidation, say experts”
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:46 am by Rick Hasen
The Guardian reports.
Share
Posted in chicanery, fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting Wars
“Supreme Court blocks a last-ditch attempt to suppress votes in November”
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:44 am by Rick Hasen
The Economist reports.
Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars
“Tucson’s hybrid city elections upheld by full 9th Circuit”
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:40 am by Rick Hasen
Tuscon Sentinel:
A federal appeals court reaffirmed Tucson’s hybrid city election process Friday, rejecting Republican claims that it violates the one-person, one-vote principle.
The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the system for municipal elections – in which council members are first nominated by party in ward races and then run at-large – is allowed under the federal system that “permits ‘innovation and experimentation’” that can “vary greatly across the country.”
“Tucson’s hybrid system represents a careful, longstanding choice, twice affirmed by voters, as to how best to achieve a city council with members who represent Tucson as a whole but reflect and understand all of the city’s wards,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.
The decision reverses a November 2015 ruling by a divided three-judge panel of the circuit court that had agreed with a lawsuit by the Public Integrity Alliance, representing local Republicans, that claimed the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Share
Posted in voting
“Longtime Milwaukee federal judge Rudolph Randa dies”
Posted on September 6, 2016 4:38 am by Rick Hasen
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports.
Condolences to his family and friends.
Judge Randa decided a series of cases involving Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws, issuing a terrible series of rulings from the reform perspective (including a ruling in the John Doe case which was overturned by the 7th Circuit).
In connection with his rulings, I remember when I wrote this April Fool’s post, which many people on the left and right believed was accurate: Court Rules Wealthy Donors Have the Right to Bribe Candidates.
Share
Posted in campaign finance
“The shameful spectacle of denying people their vote”
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:43 pm by Rick Hasen
Eugene Robinson column.
Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars
“Without conservative Supreme Court majority, voter-law challengers make gains”
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:38 pm by Rick Hasen
Bob Barnes for WaPo:
With the Supreme Court at an ideological impasse and Senate Republicans refusing to allow hearings for President Obama’s nominee to the court, Merrick Garland, the final state rules for elections throughout the country are likely to be set in a variety of rulings by state courts and lower-level federal judges.
“We’ll be in hand-to-hand combat the rest of the way,” said Marc E. Elias, a Washington lawyer who has filed many of the suits challenging the laws and whose firm represents Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and a host of party officeholders and committees.
Outstanding issues in the lawsuits still in play include rules about the handling of absentee ballots; a question of whether proof of citizenship can be required for voter registration; challenges to purges of inactive voters; and methods for counting the votes of those who are registered and eligible but mistakenly cast their ballots in the wrong precincts.
Share
Posted in election administration, Supreme Court, The Voting Wars
“Trump, dismissing allegations of impropriety, says donation to Fla. attorney general came with no strings”
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:30 pm by Rick Hasen
WaPo:
Marc Reichelderfer — who worked as a consultant on Bondi’s reelection effort — told the Associated Press in June that Bondi spoke with Trump and solicited the donation herself. Reichelderfer said that Bondi had not been aware of the complaints against Trump University when she asked for the contribution. It was unclear if Trump meant Monday that he had never discussed the donation with Bondi — effectively contradicting Reichelderfer — or if he had simply never mentioned the Trump University case. The campaign would not comment for this story.
Share
Posted in campaigns, chicanery
“Trump Surrogate Admits To Joy Reid: Trump Did ‘Pay-For-Play'”
Posted on September 5, 2016 5:29 pm by Rick Hasen
Watch Joy Reid.
Share
Posted in campaigns
Trump Denies Pay to Play in Bondi AG Donation While Trump U Investigated
Posted on September 5, 2016 11:37 am by Rick Hasen
Share
Posted in Uncategorized
“Aggregate Corruption”
Posted on September 5, 2016 11:19 am by Rick Hasen
Michael Gilbert and Emily Reeder have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Kentucky Law Journal). Here is the abstract:
This symposium paper challenges the Supreme Court’s most recent campaign finance decision, McCutcheon v. FEC. True to recent form, the Court in that case invalidated another restriction on money in politics, the federal limit on aggregate contributions. The Court based its decision on two arguments: if one complies with base contribution limits, giving no more than $5,200 to any candidate, there is no “cognizable risk of corruption”; and aggregate limits do not prevent circumvention of base limits. We show that both arguments fall short. Contributions within base limits can cause corruption, as a simple theory and ample evidence demonstrate. And aggregate limits mitigate a particular and ubiquitous form of circumvention: spillover. Spillover happens when a lawful contribution to one candidate benefits that candidate’s allies, creating a multiplier effect. Separate from critiquing the Court, these points lead to a theory about contribution limits: base limits affect the magnitude of corrupt acts while aggregate limits affect their frequency. This theory provides a new justification for aggregate limits, and it casts fresh light on the debate over the First Amendment and corruption.
Share
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
Krugman on Press Coverage of the Candidates Mentions Bondi AG Issue
Posted on September 5, 2016 10:53 am by Rick Hasen
NYT column:
True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.
Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.
Share
Posted in campaigns
“More early voting would ‘waste tax dollars,’ Wake County GOP says”
Posted on September 5, 2016 10:51 am by Rick Hasen
News & Observer:
The Wake County Republican Party is calling on its members to lobby against expanded early voting opportunities, arguing more sites and hours “only creates additional opportunity for chaos.”
Party leaders sent out the message in an email and Facebook post Friday, in advance of a State Board of Elections meeting next week to vote on Wake’s proposed early voting schedule.
“The Democrat request will greatly increase the cost to taxpayers,” the message says, calling the spending a “waste.”
“It has been proven that additional days and locations do NOT increase the number of voters who vote early.”
The email does not include a source for that claim.
County election boards – which all have a Republican majority under state law because North Carolina has a Republican governor – have developed new early voting schedules in response to a federal court ruling that threw out the state’s voter ID law. In addition to revoking the state’s photo ID requirement, the ruling requires counties to offer 17 days of early voting…
Carter Wrenn, a longtime Republican campaign strategist in Raleigh, recently told The Washington Post that the GOP’s stance on early voting is “political.”
“Look, if African-Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn told the paper. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”
Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars
The View on Labor Day: Major Election Law Disputes Still to Be Resolved
Rick Hasen
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160906/6cec5f3b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160906/6cec5f3b/attachment.png>
View list directory