[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/15/16

[Rick Hasen]

“Sowing Doubt Is Seen as Prime Danger in Hacking Voting System”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86542>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:57 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86542> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read NYT:<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/sowing-doubt-is-seen-as-prime-danger-in-hacking-voting-system.html?ref=politics>

Russian hackers would not be able to change the outcome of the United States presidential election, the nation’s most senior intelligence and law enforcement officials have assured Congress and the White House in recent weeks.

But disrupting it, they acknowledge, would be far easier — causing doubts in battleground states, prompting challenges to results and creating enough chaos to make Florida’s hanging chads seem like a quaint problem from the analog age. By some measures, in fact, the disruption has already begun.

And meddling around the edges of an election could sow doubts about the legitimacy of the results — especially in a year in which the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, has told his supporters that the only way he will lose is if the election is “rigged,” and while campaign officials for his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, have held a series of meetings about preparing for the possibility that the vote will be hacked.

The White House has declined to name Russia publicly as the chief suspect in a series of recent hacks, and has worded its public warnings carefully. The greatest danger, Lisa O. Monaco, President Obama’s domestic security adviser, said on Wednesday, is from attempts to cause “concern or confusion” about the voting system.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86542&title=%E2%80%9CSowing%20Doubt%20Is%20Seen%20as%20Prime%20Danger%20in%20Hacking%20Voting%20System%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“New Records Shed Light on Donald Trump’s $25,000 Gift to Florida Official”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86540>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86540> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Another A1-NYT on Trump-Bondi<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump-foundation.html?ref=politics&_r=0>, with a timing detail which Trump supporters will surely highlight:

The Sentinel’s report<http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-09-13/business/os-trump-institute-complaints-20130913_1_trump-entrepreneur-initiative-trump-university-florida-attorney-general>, which was published on Sept. 13, 2013, paraphrased Ms. Meale’s response and took it a step further, saying that Ms. Bondi’s office would “determine whether Florida should join the multi-state case.”Four days later, a check for $25,000<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/14/us/politics/check.html> from the Donald J. Trump Foundation landed in the Tampa office of a political action committee that had been formed to support Ms. Bondi’s 2014 re-election. In mid-October, her office announced that it would not be acting on the Trump University complaints.

The proximate timing of the Sentinel article and Mr. Trump’s donation, and suspicions of a quid pro quo, have driven a narrative that has dogged Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi for three years. It has intensified during Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, peaking this month with the filing of ethics complaints, calls for a federal investigation by editorial boards and Democrats in Congress, and a new investigation of Mr. Trump’s foundation by New York regulators<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/pam-bondi-donald-trump.html>.

But documents obtained this week by The New York Times, including a copy of Mr. Trump’s check, at least partly undercut that timeline. Although the check was received by Ms. Bondi’s committee four days after the Sentinel report, and was recorded as such in her financial disclosure filings, it was actually dated and signed by Mr. Trump four days before the article appeared.

The check’s date does not categorically demonstrate that Mr. Trump was not seeking to influence Ms. Bondi, a fellow Republican. Even as he has denied trying to do so in this instance, he has boasted brazenly and repeatedly during his presidential campaign that he has made copious campaign contributions over the past two decades, including to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, in order to buy access and consideration for his business dealings.

Politicians in Florida, which Mr. Trump considers his second home, have been among his leading beneficiaries. An analysis of public records shows he has contributed at least $375,000 to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own.

Although not unprecedented, his $25,000 gift to And Justice for All, the committee supporting Ms. Bondi, is among his largest.

What is more, when Mr. Trump wrote that check, he still theoretically had reason to be concerned that Florida’s attorney general could become a player in the legal assault on Trump University.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86540&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Records%20Shed%20Light%20on%20Donald%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%2425%2C000%20Gift%20to%20Florida%20Official%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Missouri lawmakers loosen gun laws, back voter photo ID”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86538>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:47 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86538> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Gun-rights-voting-restrictions-up-for-overrides-9221350.php>

Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature used its supermajority Wednesday to significantly loosen the state’s gun laws and potentially tighten its voting requirements as lawmakers overrode numerous vetoes of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon<http://www.seattlepi.com/search/?action=search&channel=news&inlineLink=1&searchindex=gsa&query=%22Jay+Nixon%22>.

The sweeping guns legislation would allow most adults to carry concealed weapons without needing a permit while also expanding people’s right to defend themselves both in public and private places. The elections law change would require people to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls starting in 2017, if voters also approve a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
 Both measures passed with more than the required two-thirds majority in each chamber as Republicans shut off Democratic discussion and enacted the laws on largely party-line votes.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86538&title=%E2%80%9CMissouri%20lawmakers%20loosen%20gun%20laws%2C%20back%20voter%20photo%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Wisconsin: John Doe investigation documents leaked, show fundraising efforts, and early attempt to tarnish effort with voter fraud claims”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86536>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86536> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Recall Elections Blog:<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2016/09/wisconsin-john-doe-investigation.html>
However, Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86522> notes one specific email, where “a Republican operative” suggests “messaging ‘widespread reports of election fraud’ so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number.”
Longtime readers, if any, of this blog may remember that this early push on election fraud claims definitely happened in a very specific way:
Here is Scott Walker<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/05/scott-walker-expresses-concerns-on.html> claiming that he needs over 53% of the vote because voter fraud is going to claim 1-2% of the vote.
Here’s RNC Chair Reince Priebus <http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/05/rnc-chair-claims-rampant-voter-fraud-in.html> backing up the same voter fraud claim.
Here’s future state House Speaker Robin Vos<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/06/wisconsin-vos-claims-that-lehman.html> claiming that the Republican’s loss in a Wisconsin Senate recall race was partly due to fraud.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86536&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%3A%20John%20Doe%20investigation%20documents%20leaked%2C%20show%20fundraising%20efforts%2C%20and%20early%20attempt%20to%20tarnish%20effort%20with%20voter%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“In newly released emails, critics see proof of political motive for GOP voter fraud claims”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86534>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86534> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wisconsin State Journal:<http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-newly-released-emails-critics-see-proof-of-political-motive/article_140c898e-2c28-5e0c-ad4e-aa8fdf61cc8c.html>

They were dated to the early morning hours of April 6, 2011. At that time, the incumbent and GOP favorite in the Supreme Court race, then-Justice David Prosser, clung to a razor-thin election lead over the candidate favored by Democrats, Judge Joanne Kloppenburg.

Steve Baas, a lobbyist for the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and former Republican legislative staffer, floated an idea on the email thread:

“Do we need to start messaging ‘widespread reports of election fraud’ so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number? I obviously think we should.”

Scott Jensen — the former GOP Assembly Speaker turned lobbyist for American Federation for Children, a private school voucher advocacy group — quickly responded:

“Yes. Anything fishy should be highlighted. Stories should be solicited by talk radio hosts.”

In another email, Jensen writes that Prosser “needs to be on talk radio in the morning saying he is confident he won and talk radio needs to scream the Dems are trying to steal the race.”

Prosser went on to win the election in a recount. He served five more years on the high court before stepping down in July.

In a Wednesday post to his “Election Law Blog,”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86522> Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine, wrote the emails show “all this talk of fraud is all about manipulating Republican public opinion.”

“This cynical “messaging” is sadly validating of what many of us have said,” Hasen wrote.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86534&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20newly%20released%20emails%2C%20critics%20see%20proof%20of%20political%20motive%20for%20GOP%20voter%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“U.S. Supreme Court could announce Wisconsin John Doe decision in October”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86532>
Posted on September 14, 2016 9:32 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86532> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Cap Times reports.<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/u-s-supreme-court-could-announce-wisconsin-john-doe-decision/article_d908c007-c299-5f71-a19d-8735486d7b94.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86532&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20could%20announce%20Wisconsin%20John%20Doe%20decision%20in%20October%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Will There Be an Investigation of the WI John Doe Leak?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86530>
Posted on September 14, 2016 5:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86530> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From the same MJS article <http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/14/report-lead-paint-makers-helped-gov-walker/90349256/> I earlier linked to:

“The public release of this John Doe evidence without court authorization is not merely a violation of the John Doe secrecy order; it is a crime under Wisconsin law,” Chisholm said. “As Special Prosecutor Fran Schmitz has done in the past when other secret materials have been publicly disclosed, we support any effort that may be undertaken to determine the source of these newest leaks.”

Such an investigation appears possible.

GOP Attorney General Brad Schimel “is currently reviewing the available options to address the serious legal questions raised by the leak and publication of these sealed documents,” Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos said in a statement.

State Rep. David Craig (R-Town of Vernon) said he wants to form a special legislative committee with subpoena power to look into how the investigation was conducted and the leak of documents. Craig, who is running for state Senate without opposition, helped lead the effort to end the ability of prosecutors to use John Doe investigations to investigate campaign finance matters.

This leak of John Doe documents comes just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is to meet in closed session on a petition from prosecutors to revive the investigation.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86530&title=Will%20There%20Be%20an%20Investigation%20of%20the%20WI%20John%20Doe%20Leak%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86528>
Posted on September 14, 2016 3:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86528> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/14/report-lead-paint-makers-helped-gov-walker/90349256/>

Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature approved a measure aimed at retroactively shielding paint makers from liability after a billionaire owner of a lead producer contributed $750,000 to a political group that provided crucial support to Walker and Republicans in recall elections, according to a report released Wednesday.

Citing leaked documents gathered during a now-shuttered investigation into the governor’s campaign, the Guardian U.S., an arm of the British newspaper, reported<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/sep/14/john-doe-files-scott-walker-corporate-cash-american-politics> that Harold Simmons, owner of NL Industries, a producer of the lead formerly used in paint, made three donations<http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3105164-Corporate-Checks-Sanitized.html#document/p5> totaling $750,000 to the Wisconsin Club for Growth between April 2011 and January 2012.

Simmons’ donations were made before and after Republicans approved two laws helpful to the industry — one in January 2011<https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/2.pdf> and the other in June 2013. The 2013 measure was inserted in a budget bill in the middle of the night despite warnings about its constitutionality.

The documents confirm earlier reports that Walker solicited millions of dollars for Wisconsin Club for Growth<http://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-wanted-funds-sent-to-wisconsin-club-for-growth-b99336519z1-272364371.html>, a group then run by R.J. Johnson, one of his top campaign advisers. The Guardian story says Walker was warned in an email about potential “red flags” with Simmons<http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3105984-2012-08-14-Exhibits-01-100-PT1.html#document/p72/a317550>, who died in 2013, including a magazine story that described him as “Dallas’ most evil genius.”…

The Guardian story quotes a Walker email to Karl Rove, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who oversaw a major political action committee, in which the Republican governor credits Johnson and Wisconsin for Growth in the election of Gableman and Prosser. Both justices voted to shut down the John Doe investigation.

“RJ was the chief adviser to my campaign,” Walker wrote on May 4, 2011. “He put together the team to flip the Senate three times and the Assembly two times.

“He ran the effort that defeated the first incumbent Supreme Court Justice in decades back in 2008, and Club for Growth-Wisconsin was the key to retaining Justice Prosser.”

Since the recalls, Walker and Republicans in the state have sought to shield paint makers from liability in lawsuits involving lead paint, though federal courts have in turn blocked some of those actions from standing.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86528&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20eases%20lead%20paint%20laws%20after%20%24750%2C000%20in%20donations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Big Deal: WI Republicans Ginned Up Voter Fraud Talk Ahead of Recall, worked with Talk Show Hosts, to Prepare Republican Base for Recounts<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86522>
Posted on September 14, 2016 11:31 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86522> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Check out this Republican operative suggesting “messaging ‘widespread reports of election fraud’ so we are positively set up for the recount regardless of the final number.” This comes from from the Guardian’s<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/sep/14/john-doe-files-scott-walker-corporate-cash-american-politics?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other> collection of leaked John Doe papers [in this Prosser file]<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3105957-Prosser.html>. It shows that all this talk of fraud is all about manipulating Republican public opinion to believe that if Democrats won a close Supreme Court race, and the recall went to a recount ,that the election was stolen by Democratic voter fraud. This cynical “messaging” is sadly validating of what many of us have said. [UPDATE: This wasn’t at the time of the recall but right after the Prosser-Kloppenburg Supreme Court race which was very close and eventually went to a recount.]



[raud-jpg]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/fraud.jpg.png>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86522&title=Big%20Deal%3A%20WI%20Republicans%20Ginned%20Up%20Voter%20Fraud%20Talk%20Ahead%20of%20Recall%2C%20worked%20with%20Talk%20Show%20Hosts%2C%20to%20Prepare%20Republican%20Base%20for%20Recounts&descripti>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Foley: The Sixth Circuit’s Distinction between Absentee and Provisional Ballots: Why?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86520>
Posted on September 14, 2016 11:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86520> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from Ned Foley<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/edward-b-foley/>:

The Sixth Circuit’s Distinction between Absentee and Provisional Ballots: Why?

One thing I don’t understand about the majority opinion in yesterday’s NEOCH decision<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NEOCH-opinion091316.pdf> is the distinction that the majority draws between absentee and provisional ballots for the purpose of applying Anderson-Burdick balancing to the invalidation of ballots for a voter’s clerical error in writing the voter’s birthdate or address on the envelope in which the ballot (absentee or provisional) is submitted.

The majority finds an Equal Protection violation under Anderson-Burdick for the invalidation of ABSENTEE ballots for this type of clerical error, but rejects the equivalent Equal Protection claim with respect to the invalidation of PROVISIONAL ballots for the identical type of clerical error.  This disparate disenfranchisement of comparably situated voters (by the Sixth Circuit majority) itself invites Equal Protection inquiry under a Bush v. Gore type of analysis.

What does the Sixth Circuit majority say to justify this distinction?  Not much; it doesn’t really address the comparison of absentee and provisional ballots directly, but rather just analyzes each separately in turn under its application of the Anderson-Burdick balancing test.

The majority seems to think that process of verifying provisional ballots, to make sure that the provisional voter is registered and authentic (ID matches, so that the person casting the ballot is really the person entitled to cast it) justifies disqualifying a provisional ballot if the voter accidently writes the wrong information for the voter’s birthdate or address—for example, accidently writing the current date rather than one’s birthdate.  The relevant sentence of the majority’s opinion, on page 22, is this:  “Ohio’s important interests in provisional-voter registration and identification eclipse the small burden of accurately completing the two fields—a burden that actually impacts just a few hundred voters each election, an impact wholly in their own control.”

But then the very next sentence is: “However, we agree with the district court that Ohio has made no such justification for mandating technical precision in the address and birthdate fields of the absentee-ballot identification envelope.”  Ohio’s defense was the same in both contexts: the need to make sure that the person submitting the absentee ballot was in fact registered and authentically the person in whose name the ballot is being cast.  But here the majority rejects the defense as theoretical and speculative, not grounded in actual evidence of a problem.  As the majority puts it, “some level of specificity is necessary to convert that abstraction into a definite interest for a court to weigh.”  (Id.)  But why wasn’t that point equally applicable to the same defense regarding provisional ballots?

It is as if the majority opinion believes that provisional ballots are inherently more suspicious than absentee ballots, enough so that an innocent clerical mistake is enough grounds to toss the ballot out, thereby disenfranchising the voter.  But this position makes no sense to me.  The constitutional claim in the case, as the Sixth Circuit majority itself defines it, concerns the invalidation of the ballot solely because of the clerical error regarding the birthdate—the mistaken writing of the current date, for example (as I discussed in a previous post<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/commentary/?ID=13257> on this case before it reached the Sixth Circuit).  But if this is the sole reason for rejecting the provisional ballot, then the election officials already know that the provisional voter’s registration status has been confirmed, and that the provisional voter’s required ID number (driver’s license or last 4 digits of SSN) has dispelled doubt about the voter’s authenticity.  In this situation, there is no need to disqualify the ballot just because of the inconsequential clerical error regarding the birthdate.  As the majority acknowledges elsewhere regarding ABSENTEE ballots, the state’s justification for “requiring mail-in voters to complete the address and birthdate fields” as information that potentially aids election officials in the verification process is not an adequate justification “to reject ballots containing technical errors” when those errors do not defeat the ability of officials to verify the ballot in question (slip op. at 24; emphasis in original).  The very same point applies equally to provisional ballots, but the Sixth Circuit majority just seemed to miss it in that context.

There is some language in the Sixth Circuit’s majority opinion that suggests that it might make a difference to the Anderson-Burdick balancing that numerically fewer provisional ballots are rejected each election because of these clerical errors than absentee ballots 620 provisional ballots, compared to 1712 absentee ballots, in 2014 & 2015 (slip op. at 21).  But that numerical difference would seem irrelevant under the way that the Crawford “plurality” — the Justice Stevens opinion — understood Anderson-Burdick balancing (in contrast to Justice Scalia’s alternative approach in hisCrawford concurrence), and the Sixth Circuit majority acknowledges the Stevens opinion inCrawford to be “controlling”.  In this regard, the Sixth Circuit majority refers to the Anderson-Burdickclaims before it as “facial challenge[s]” (slip op. at  21), but I had understood the Anderson-Burdickclaims in this case – in contrast to Crawford itself – to be as-applied challenges on behalf of the subset of voters represented by the plaintiffs (the homeless and other specifically disadvantaged groups).

This leads me to wonder whether, even after yesterday’s decision, there is still the possibility of a valid AS-APPLIED challenge on behalf of any provisional voter whose ballot is rejected solely because of a clerical error regarding a birthdate or address—and that the upshot of the decision is that the equivalent rule regarding absentee ballots is facially invalid, and thus absentee voters do not need to seek an as-applied remedy for this kind of disenfranchisement, whereas provisional voters still do.  Even so, I still don’t understand the basis for the Sixth Circuit majority’s distinguishing between absentee and provisional voters, even for purposes of the kind of claims that the majority characterized as equivalent “facial challenge[s].”  But at least that would not rule out the possibility of protecting provisional voters from disenfranchisement solely because of a clerical error that the Sixth Circuit majority itself defines as inconsequential to verifying the voter’s eligibility and identity.

I welcome hearing from others about their thoughts on how best to understand the Sixth Circuit’s distinction between provisional and absentee ballots with regard to rejecting them for clerical errors.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86520&title=Foley%3A%20The%20Sixth%20Circuit%E2%80%99s%20Distinction%20between%20Absentee%20and%20Provisional%20Ballots%3A%20Why%3F&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“McDonnell and Anti-Corruption’s Last Stand”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86518>
Posted on September 14, 2016 11:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86518> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jacob Eisler has posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837814> on SSRN (forthcoming, UC Davis Law Review).  Here is the abstract:

In McDonnell v. United States, the Supreme Court constrained the reach of federal anti-corruption law, declared the inevitability and even desirability of representatives aggrandizing favored constituents, and asserted patronage to be a hallmark of democracy. The unanimous decision is the latest and clearest indication that the Court will frustrate regulations that require officials to discharge their roles with disinterested neutrality.

This article demonstrates the impact of the Court’s minimalist view of integrity through political philosophy and game theory. Given the Court’s hostility to regulatory prohibition of self-interested political behavior, the final bulwark of public-minded governance is the electorate, which must use the ballot box to reject corrupt representatives. Additionally, the Court’s position erects significant obstacles for reform of campaign finance and political institutions. The article concludes that implementing civic anti-corruption requires either jurisprudential innovation or novel approaches to enforcement.

This article thereby integrates the history of modern anti-corruption law with the latest leading decision on the topic, weaves together the Court’s blackletter doctrine with its substantive politics, describes the impact of the law on democratic governance, and points the way forward for both scholarship and policy.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86518&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20and%20Anti-Corruption%E2%80%99s%20Last%20Stand%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


New Lawsuit Challenges GA Voter Verification System<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86514>
Posted on September 14, 2016 8:42 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86514> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Complaint:<http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/1-2016-09-13-GA-NAACP-Kemp-Complaint-FINAL.pdf>
1.      This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop an administrative policy employed by the Georgia Secretary of State that creates an illegal precondition to voter registration and, if not enjoined, will unlawfully disenfranchise tens of thousands of Georgia voting-eligible citizens, the vast majority of whom are minorities, in the November 2016 election and thereafter.
2.      Under the Georgia Secretary of State’s current administrative policy, voter registration applications submitted by eligible voters are not added to the list of persons eligible to vote if certain identifying information does not match exactly with existing Georgia Department of Driver Services or Social Security Administration records. Voter registration applicants whose information does not match those records are not allowed to cast a valid ballot unless they overcome a series of burdensome bureaucratic hurdles that deprive them of their fundamental right to vote, unless they happen to fall within a couple of narrow and arbitrary exceptions. Those who cannot overcome these hurdles are denied the right to vote.
3.       Insistence on digit-by-digit and character-by-character exactitude when comparing information from one database with information in a different database is a notoriously unreliable method of verification in the elections context. The “match” process is invariably plagued with errors, especially when the match criteria demand an exact match across numerous data fields. Mismatches between databases can result from innocuous mistakes such as omitting a hyphen or initial, and frequently result from no fault of the voter whatsoever. Examples include data entry errors, typos, misreading of imperfect 3 handwriting by elections officials and computer glitches within the State’s registration system. None of these common errors relate to a voter’s eligibility to vote, yet may routinely result in disenfranchisement under the Secretary’s policy.
4.       There are many ways in which the records of eligible voters who submit truthful and accurate registration applications will fail to “match.” For example, voters who register in their married names will not match if their driver’s license or Social Security records are in their maiden names. Voters with compound last names will not be deemed a match if one database assigns part of the last name to the middle name position, but the other does not. Voters with symbols in their name, such as accent marks, will not match if one database recognizes those symbols and another does not. Finally, the voter’s records will not be deemed a match if the person doing the data entry omits or transposes any digits or characters when entering information from a voter registration

More in the press release<http://www.projectvote.org/press-releases/voting-rights-advocates-file-new-federal-voting-rights-lawsuit-protect-voters-color-state-georgia/>.


[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86514&title=New%20Lawsuit%20Challenges%20GA%20Voter%20Verification%20System&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160915/e989d243/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/20160915/e989d243/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 93477 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160915/e989d243/attachment-0001.png>