[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/10/17

Thu Aug 10 08:23:22 PDT 2017

“Republicans limiting early voting in Marion County, letting it bloom in suburbs”; and New Indiana Lawsuit Re Lake County Precinct Consolidation<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94259>
Posted on August 10, 2017 8:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94259> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
IndyStar:<http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/08/10/silencing-vote-data-shows-unequal-barrier-indiana-polls/435450001/>
State and local Republicans have expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas, an IndyStar investigation has found, prompting a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns.
From 2008 to 2016, GOP officials expanded early voting stations in Republican dominated Hamilton County, IndyStar’s analysis found, and decreased them in the state’s biggest Democratic hotbed, Marion County.
That made voting more convenient in GOP areas for people with transportation issues or busy schedules. And the results were immediate.
Most telling, Hamilton County saw a 63 percent increase in absentee voting from 2008 to 2016, while Marion County saw a 26 percent decline. Absentee ballots are used at early voting stations….
Other Central Indiana Republican strongholds, including Boone, Johnson and Hendricks counties, also have added early voting sites — and enjoyed corresponding increases in absentee voter turnout.
But not Marion County, which tends to vote Democratic, and has a large African-American population….
In May, Common Cause Indiana and the NAACP’s Indianapolis chapter filed a lawsuit against the Marion County Election Board, Lawson and individual members of the Marion County Election Board, along with Marion County Clerk Myla Eldridge over the lack of early voting locations in the County.
They say the state has intentionally discriminated against minorities in forming these rules.
Meanwhile:<http://mailchi.mp/prioritiesusaaction/priorities-usa-launches-new-six-figure-digital-ad-campaign-to-hold-trump-and-senate-republicans-accountable-for-trumpcare-575357>
 Supported by Priorities USA Foundation, the NAACP Indiana State Conference, several precinct committee people and Lake County voters today filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana challenging a new law enacted by the Indiana State Legislature (formerly SB 220), which forces Lake County, Indiana – and only Lake County, out of Indiana’s 92 counties – to consolidate voting precincts, targeting and burdening Lake County’s substantial minority voting population with onerous and confusing changes to the voting process. If the law is not stopped, the mandatory, forced precinct consolidation will discriminate against African-American and Hispanic voters in Lake County by unfairly reassigning large numbers to new polling locations, which may be difficult to access for the substantial number of voters who have mobility issues or lack access to reliable transportation, creating longer lines and decreasing the voice of these voters in local government.
In May, Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor enacted SB 220, which requires Lake County to immediately consolidate precincts containing fewer than 600 “active” voters, with limited exceptions. Lake County, which is home to the state’s second largest African-American population and largest Hispanic population, is the only county in the state required to undergo this onerous process. In the heavily minority northern portion of Lake County—made up of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond—half of the voting precincts may be eliminated as a result of the law, while the largely White voting population outside the county lines will see no changes at all.
The complaint challenges the law on the grounds that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in its disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic voters in Lake County. Additionally, the suit alleges that the law places an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote guaranteed in the First and Fourteenth Amendments and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94259&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20limiting%20early%20voting%20in%20Marion%20County%2C%20letting%20it%20bloom%20in%20suburbs%E2%80%9D%3B%20and%20New%20Indiana%20Lawsuit%20Re%20Lake%20County%20Precinct%20Consol>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Texas House Votes to Repeal Voting Law Meant to Make Voting Easier, Calling it a Well-Intentioned Mistake<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94256>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:59 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94256> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Texas Tribune:<https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/09/backing-proposal-crackdown-mail-ballot-fraud-texas-house-pushes-repeal/>
Two months ago, Texas lawmakers quietly did something rare in this statehouse: They sent Gov. Greg Abbott<https://www.texastribune.org/directory/greg-abbott/> a bill designed to make voting easier for thousands of Texans. Abbott praised that effort and ultimately signed the legislation that, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, both Democrats and Republicans supported.
Scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1, the law would overhaul balloting at nursing homes<https://www.texastribune.org/2017/06/02/texas-might-broaden-ballot-access-elderly-and-voters-disabilities/> — an attempt to simultaneously remove opportunities to commit ballot fraud while expanding ballot access to nursing home residents.
But on Wednesday, the Texas House voted to repeal the new law, which some Republicans dubbed a well-intentioned mistake.
“It was an oversight that people missed,” said Rep. Craig Goldman<https://www.texastribune.org/directory/craig-goldman/>, R-Fort Worth, who led the repeal effort.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94256&title=Texas%20House%20Votes%20to%20Repeal%20Voting%20Law%20Meant%20to%20Make%20Voting%20Easier%2C%20Calling%20it%20a%20Well-Intentioned%20Mistake>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Trump’s voter fraud commission could create target for hackers, critics say”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94254>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94254> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trumps-voter-fraud-commission-create-target-hackers-critics-say/>
In Maine, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democrat who is a member of Trump’s voting commission, is not handing over the information.
Dunlap said the information the commission is getting from other states “isn’t wicked intimate” and may be too sparse to identity ineligible registered voters. Another commission member, Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, said in a statement that the commission is aware of limitations of the data. But Lawson, a Republican, said the commission’s work using the information could help find ways to help states improve the “quality and integrity” of their voter rolls.
But it could still be hacked, Dunlap said.
“The best way to protect people’s private information,” Dunlap said, “is not to have it in the first place.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94254&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20voter%20fraud%20commission%20could%20create%20target%20for%20hackers%2C%20critics%20say%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

More SCOTUSBlog Posts on Gill v. Whitford, the WI Partisan Gerrymandering Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94252>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:51 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94252> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justin Levitt<http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-intent-enough/>
Rick Esenberg<http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-whitford-nothing-new/>
Chris Winkelman and Phillip Gordon<http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-mind-gap-efficiency-gap-failures-problem-geography-choice-redistricting/>
Tyler Green<http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-gill-v-whitford-bad-theater/>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94252&title=More%20SCOTUSBlog%20Posts%20on%20Gill%20v.%20Whitford%2C%20the%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Measuring Efficiency in Redistricting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94250>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94250> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eric McGhee has posted this draft <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3007401> on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
There has been a recent surge in work on measuring partisan bias in single-member (SMD) redistricting plans. A classic SMD gerrymander is “efficient”: it “cracks” a party’s supporters so they barely lose many seats, and “packs” the remainder in a few seats that the party wins by large margins. This essay classifies these new metrics and proposes a simple principle for evaluating each metric as a gauge of this efficiency. It finds that only methods that measure the packing and cracking directly through the counting of wasted votes can serve as consistent measures of the concept. Indeed, measures of symmetry in the seats-votes curve not only fail to consistently measure efficiency, but suffer from internal contradictions in certain circumstances. Further examination of the wasted votes measures reveals that only a modified version of the “efficiency gap” — a measure active in ongoing litigation — can serve as a measure of efficiency under a wide range of electoral circumstances. Among the rest, there is considerable variation in their ability serve as appropriate measures of the concept.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94250&title=%E2%80%9CMeasuring%20Efficiency%20in%20Redistricting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

Sigh. “In a new poll, half of Republicans say they would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump proposed it”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94248>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:45 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94248> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ariel Malka and Yphtach Lelkes for The Monkey Cage<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.8434520bbc8c>:
The survey interviewed a sample of 1,325 Americans from June 5 through 20. Respondents were recruited from the Qualtrics online panel who had previously reported identifying with or leaning toward one of the two major parties. We focus on the 650 respondents who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. The sample has been weighted to match the population in terms of sex, age, race and education.
After a series of initial questions, respondents were asked whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. These questions evoke arguments frequently made by Trump and others about the integrity of the 2016 election.
Then the survey asked two questions about postponing the 2020 election.

  *   If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

  *   What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?
Roughly half of Republicans believe Trump won the popular vote — and would support postponing the 2020 election.
Nearly half of Republicans (47 percent) believe that Trump won the popular vote, which is similar to this finding<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?utm_term=.e1fcca532148>. Larger fractions believe that millions of illegal immigrants voted (68 percent) and that voter fraud happens somewhat or very often (73 percent). Again, this is similar to previous polls<https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/15/National-Politics/Polling/question_17201.xml?uuid=kmJFjnszEeaAZMHdyKckuw>.
Moreover, 52 percent said that they would support postponing the 2020 election, and 56 percent said they would do so if both Trump and Republicans in Congress were behind this.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94248&title=Sigh.%20%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20new%20poll%2C%20half%20of%20Republicans%20say%20they%20would%20support%20postponing%20the%202020%20election%20if%20Trump%20proposed%20it%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Judge won’t dismiss Menendez charges before trial”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94246>
Posted on August 10, 2017 7:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94246> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94246&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20won%E2%80%99t%20dismiss%20Menendez%20charges%20before%20trial%E2%80%9D>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>

“Maryland City May Let Noncitizens Vote, a Proposal With Precedent”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94244>
Posted on August 9, 2017 7:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94244> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/us/college-park-immigrant-voting-rights.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=1&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F09%2Fus%2Fcollege-park-immigrant-voting-rights.html&eventName=Watching-article-click>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94244&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20City%20May%20Let%20Noncitizens%20Vote%2C%20a%20Proposal%20With%20Precedent%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“A Summer School for Mathematicians Fed Up with Gerrymandering”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94242>
Posted on August 9, 2017 1:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94242> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The New Yorker reports.<http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-summer-school-for-mathematicians-fed-up-with-gerrymandering?mbid=social_twitter>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94242&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Summer%20School%20for%20Mathematicians%20Fed%20Up%20with%20Gerrymandering%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“They sued for Clinton’s emails. Now they want information on California voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94238>
Posted on August 9, 2017 7:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94238> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT:<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-judicial-watch-voter-registration-records-20170808-story.html>
California’s top elections officer and 11 county registrars have been asked to hand over detailed voter registration records or face a federal lawsuit, a request that centers on new accusations that the records are inaccurate.
The effort by the conservative-leaning organization Judicial Watch<http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/judicial-watch-ORGPOL00002-topic.html> seeks an explanation for what its attorneys contend are official records that don’t match the group’s estimates of the legally eligible voting population in the counties, including Los Angeles County….
The exact size of the alleged errors is unclear. Judicial Watch declined a request from the Los Angeles Times to provide the full details of its voter registration analysis.
Dean Logan, the registrar of voters for Los Angeles County, countered that the two lists are quite different. He said the inactive voter list is more like “a fail-safe to make sure that people are not administratively disenfranchised.”
Even then, elections officials argue the lists shouldn’t be compared with ACS data, which are compiled with caveats about population accuracy.
“Voter registration is not a survey,” Gail Pellerin, registrar of voters in Santa Cruz County, said in questioning Judicial Watch’s methodology. “We deal in real facts.”
“We may be in litigation shortly,” Popper said when asked why the information won’t be shared.
Those details, however, are at the heart of the complaint. Judicial Watch alleges that adding together the active and inactive voter lists in the 11 counties produces a total number of voters significantly larger than the estimate of voting-age citizens calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The organization used the ACS five-year average for its baseline of eligible voters….
See also Sac Bee: More voters than eligible adults? Group makes dubious claim about California<http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article166187232.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94238&title=%E2%80%9CThey%20sued%20for%20Clinton%E2%80%99s%20emails.%20Now%20they%20want%20information%20on%20California%20voters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>

“Investor Reaction to Covert Corporate Political Activity”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94236>
Posted on August 9, 2017 7:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94236> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Timothy Werner has posted this draft<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008652> on SSRN (forthcoming Strategic Management Journal).
Here is the abstract:
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and subsequent developments created a covert channel for firms to allocate resources from corporate treasuries to political activity. Through the use of a financial market event study of an accidental disclosure of firms’ contributions to a Republican non-profit organization, I examine investors’ reactions to covert investment in independent political expenditures. I find that, on average, contributing firms experienced positive abnormal returns around the disclosure event and that these abnormal returns were more positive for firms in heavily regulated industries, as well as those previously making campaign contributions to candidates. However, firms that recently faced a shareholder resolution on political spending disclosure experienced negative abnormal returns, suggesting that the controversial nature of covert activity moderated investors’ reactions.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94236&title=%E2%80%9CInvestor%20Reaction%20to%20Covert%20Corporate%20Political%20Activity%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

--
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/20170810/cb89fd95/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/20170810/cb89fd95/attachment.png>