[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/17/17

[Rick Hasen]

Supreme Court Takes No Action Today in North Carolina Voting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92134>
Posted on April 17, 2017 7:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92134> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Today's order list<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041717zor_09m1.pdf> means the Court has not ruled on whether or not to dismiss the cert. petition in the big North Carolina voting case, as the Democratic governor and AG ask, on the Republican legislature's attempt to intervene in the case to keep the cert. petition alive, or on the cert. petition itself.

What does it mean that the Court did not act? Too hard to know, other than that someone at the Court wants to take a closer look at one or more of these questions.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92134&title=Supreme%20Court%20Takes%20No%20Action%20Today%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Voting%20Case>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


"The Supreme Court as "Electoral Prize""<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92132>
Posted on April 17, 2017 7:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92132> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer blogs.<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2017/04/supreme-court-electoral-prize/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92132&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20as%20%E2%80%9CElectoral%20Prize%E2%80%9D%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


"With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and 'No Transparency'"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92130>
Posted on April 16, 2017 7:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92130> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/us/politics/trump-appointees-potential-conflicts.html?ref=politics&_r=0>

President Trump is populating the White House and federal agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who in many cases are helping to craft new policies for the same industries in which they recently earned a paycheck.

The potential conflicts are arising across the executive branch, according to an analysis of recently released financial disclosures, lobbying records and interviews with current and former ethics officials by The New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica<https://www.propublica.org/>.

In at least two cases, the appointments may have already led to violations of the administration's own ethics rules. But evaluating if and when such violations have occurred has become almost impossible because the Trump administration is secretly issuing waivers to the rules.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92130&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20Trump%20Appointees%2C%20a%20Raft%20of%20Potential%20Conflicts%20and%20%E2%80%98No%20Transparency%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Persily, "Can Democracy Survive the Internet?"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92128>
Posted on April 15, 2017 12:47 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92128> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nate Persily has written this article<https://muse.jhu.edu/article/653377/summary> for the Journal of Democracy.  Here is the abstract:

The 2016 presidential election represents the latest chapter in the disintegration of the legacy institutions that had set bounds for U.S. politics in the postwar era. It is tempting (and in many ways correct) to view the Donald Trump campaign as unprecedented in its breaking of established norms of politics. Yet this type of campaign could only be successful because established institutions-especially the mainstream media and political-party organizations-had already lost most of their power, both in the United States and around the world. The void that these eroding institutions left was filled by an unmediated populist nationalism tailor-made for the Internet age.

Can't wait to read this one.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92128&title=Persily%2C%20%E2%80%9CCan%20Democracy%20Survive%20the%20Internet%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in social media and social protests<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Nevada Secretary of State, Department of Motor Vehicles Spar over SOS's Allegations of Voter Fraud<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92126>
Posted on April 15, 2017 12:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92126> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nevada Independent:<https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-secretary-state-says-shes-confirmed-noncitizens-cast-ballots>

Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske said she's launching a voter fraud probe after discovering evidence that "noncitizens" cast ballots in the 2016 election.

Cegavske's office didn't immediately answer additional questions about the alleged illegal votes, including how many were cast, where, whether arrests have been made, and why the existing system for verifying voters' eligibility apparently did not catch unqualified registrations....

The Department of Motor Vehicles responded with a sharp letter to the secretary of state's announcement, saying the letter about its voter registration practices "comes as a complete surprise as you and your office have reviewed, contributed to, and approved the processes you are expressing concerns about."

The letter<https://www.scribd.com/document/345244496/LettertoSOS-April15-2017>, and an accompanying news release<https://www.scribd.com/document/345244546/Dmv-Release>, essentially point the finger back at the SOS
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92126&title=Nevada%20Secretary%20of%20State%2C%20Department%20of%20Motor%20Vehicles%20Spar%20over%20SOS%E2%80%99s%20Allegations%20of%20Voter%20Fraud>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


"Nevada: State Supreme Court rules that Judges aren't subjected to recall law"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92124>
Posted on April 14, 2017 5:56 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92124> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Recall Elections Blog:<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2017/04/nevada-state-supreme-court-rules-that.html>

In its long delayed ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court<https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/north-las-vegas/elected-judges-cannot-be-recalled-nevada-high-court-rules/> ruled 4-2 that judges are not subject to the state's recall law. Both the ruling and the dissent hold that judges are "public officers" as provided for in the recall law, but the majority ruled that the recall law was superseded by the 1976 creation of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. According to the majority, the fact that the act creating the Commission didn't specifically mention recalls removed the recall as an option for future judges.

My recommendation is to read the dissent as I think the majority decision is a poorly reasoned one. The majority ruling is a very tortured way to protect judges from the recall - one that other states very clearly don't follow. Allowing for impeachment or removal by a commission is very common - it is odd and extremely unlikely that voters were voting to remove the recall at the same time that they were putting forth another method of removing judges.Nevada happens<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-nevada-recall-fight-examining.html> to have a very challenging recall law, thanks to another unusual Supreme Court ruling in 2010<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-nevada-recall-fight-examining.html> that severely constricted the voters' ability to use recalls (a decision later signed<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2015/06/nevada-new-law-makes-recalls-harder.html> into law with a later bill. Both may actually violate federal law as stated in Bush v. Gore).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92124&title=%E2%80%9CNevada%3A%20State%20Supreme%20Court%20rules%20that%20Judges%20aren%E2%80%99t%20subjected%20to%20recall%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


"Freedom Caucus Member's Book Slams Money-Obsessed Politicians"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92120>
Posted on April 14, 2017 5:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92120> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Roll Call reports<http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/freedom-caucus-member-slams-money-obsessed-politicians-new-book>:

In his book, Buck writes: "Money rules in Washington."

He recounts in detail the contributions that House Republicans are expected to forward to their campaign arm as dues to serve on congressional committees. Lesser committee spots, such as the Judiciary panel, will set a freshman lawmaker back $220,000, Buck writes, while "A" committees, such as Ways and Means, require dues of $450,000....

"Members are required to pay for committee assignments," Buck writes. "Lobbyists, corporations, and wealthy individuals who need something from Congress raise the money."

The result of that system, he writes, "is that members routinely vote for defective legislation in order to please party leaders and get money for their re-election campaigns instead of doing what is right for America."

He tells a story of an Appropriations chairman urging lobbyists not to donate to then-Rep. Cynthia Lummis, who eventually left the panel because she couldn't raise enough money to cover dues for that "A" committee. The Wyoming Republican did not seek re-election in 2016.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92120&title=%E2%80%9CFreedom%20Caucus%20Member%E2%80%99s%20Book%20Slams%20Money-Obsessed%20Politicians%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


"The Entirely Preventable Battles Raging Over Voting Rights"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92118>
Posted on April 14, 2017 9:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92118> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Matt Ford <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/shelby-county-v-holder-voting-rights-supreme-court/522867/?platform=hootsuite> for The Atlantic:

Four years later, a series of lawsuits and legal challenges in states formerly covered by preclearance suggest the country perhaps hasn't changed as much as Roberts thought. Had the provision, Section 4(b), remained intact, it would have largely forestalled the courtroom battles over election laws that have engulfed multiple Southern states.

The foremost example came earlier this week in Texas, where a federal district court handed the state's controversial voter ID bill a major defeat in a long-running legal dispute over whether it violates the VRA. The evidence presented to the court "establishes that a discriminatory purpose was at least one of the substantial or motivating factors" behind the bill's passage, federal judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos wrote in her order in Veasey v. Abbott. "Consequently, the burden shifted to the state to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without its discriminatory purpose. The state has not met its burden."
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92118&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Entirely%20Preventable%20Battles%20Raging%20Over%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


Harvard Law Review Covers New Hampshire Ballot Selfie Case, Rideout v. Gardner<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92115>
Posted on April 14, 2017 9:19 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92115> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Very nice treatment<http://harvardlawreview.org/2017/04/rideout-v-gardner/?platform=hootsuite> of the case:

 Vote buying, a practice carried over from England's early experiments with democracy, was widespread in United States elections until the modern era.. A 1905 study of a New York City election, for example, found that 170,000 people sold their votes at a going rate of five dollars.2Show More Around this time, states began to introduce the secret ballot and enact other laws intended to prevent voter corruption and intimidation. Since then, the outright buying of votes has receded as a significant issue though occasional prosecutions continue and many Progressive era statutes remain in force. Recently, in Rideout v. Gardner, the First Circuit held that a New Hampshire law prohibiting voters from sharing photographs of marked ballots - which came to be known as a ban on "ballot selfies" - was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Despite the possibility that legislatures may be better suited than courts to determine if election regulations are needed, the court found New Hampshire's stated justification - to prevent vote buying and coercion - insufficiently strong. The Rideout court's approach shows how First Amendment free speech doctrine fails to consider the institutional competence of legislatures when it comes to regulating elections.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92115&title=Harvard%20Law%20Review%20Covers%20New%20Hampshire%20Ballot%20Selfie%20Case%2C%20Rideout%20v.%20Gardner>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Fewer Than 200 Ultra-Wealthy People Collectively Spent $1 Billion on 2016 Election<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92113>
Posted on April 14, 2017 9:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92113> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That tidbit <https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/> and much more in Open Secrets tally of Election 2016:

That's why we also looked at the top 1 percent of 1 percent of donors, a group of less than 200 people who spent almost $1 billion combined in the 2016 cycle. The group's political contributions more than doubled from 2012 to 2016, from about $390 million to nearly $948 million. And although the group's size grew by about 33.4 percent, which would naturally raise giving totals, the contribution increase amounted to an even greater 143 percent.

The uppermost crust

Billionaire donors like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, consistently pile millions of dollars onto federal elections. The pair contributed a combined $82.5 million over the course of the 2016 cycle. But they were eclipsed by a single individual: Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager and environmentalist, who led all donors by pumping more than $90 million into the election. Despite their political differences, Steyer, a liberal, and the Adelsons, staunch conservatives, are on the same page when it comes to spending millions of dollars on their causes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92113&title=Fewer%20Than%20200%20Ultra-Wealthy%20People%20Collectively%20Spent%20%241%20Billion%20on%202016%20Election>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


"It's time for the Justice Department to disown Texas's discriminatory voting law"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92111>
Posted on April 14, 2017 9:07 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92111> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo editorial.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-for-the-justice-department-to-disown-texass-discriminatory-voting-law/2017/04/13/ee63a0e0-1ef7-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.c3f3111ae423&wpmk=MK0000200>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92111&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20time%20for%20the%20Justice%20Department%20to%20disown%20Texas%E2%80%99s%20discriminatory%20voting%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


--
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
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/20170417/8ab7f6ee/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/20170417/8ab7f6ee/attachment.png>