[EL] M(o)ore News

Tue Dec 12 20:24:59 PST 2017

Ala Code § 17-12-17. All returns of elections required by law to be sent to
the Secretary of State must, within 22 days after an election, be opened,
counted, and certified in the presence of the Governor, Secretary of State,
and Attorney General, or two of them.

In other words, by 3 January 2018. All the executive officials named are
Republicans, so they are not likely to hurry in doing the certification
early.

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882
still at votelaw.com
www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/edwardstill>
Twitter: @edwardstill

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Margaret Groarke <
margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu> wrote:

> What rules govern when the winner of tonight's Alabama Senate election
> takes his seat?
>
> Mitch McConnell said the winner will not take office until 2018. Is that
> his decision to make?
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> “If He Wins, Could the Senate Exclude Roy Moore? Under an 1844 Senate
>> Precedent, Perhaps.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96367>
>>
>> Posted on December 12, 2017 8:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96367>
>>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Fascinating Hugh Brady:
>> <https://legislativelawbulletin.com/2017/12/12/if-he-wins-could-the-senate-exclude-roy-moore-under-an-1844-senate-precedent-perhaps/>
>>
>> *The Powell Court held that the constitutional grant of power extends “to
>> judg[ing] only the qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution”
>> and that “the [Senate is] without authority to exclude any person, duly
>> elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership
>> expressly prescribed by the Constitution.” 395 U.S. at 521-522, 548.*
>>
>> *The Powell Court was focused exclusively on the Article I
>> qualifications, sidestepping any discussion of additional qualification
>> imposed by Article VI, Clause 3: “The Senators … shall be bound by oath or
>> affirmation, to support this Constitution[.]” The Court explained that it
>> did not consider whether this provision, or the other provisions concerning
>> dual office-holding or disqualification because of impeachment or
>> rebellion, was a qualification because the parties agreed that “Powell was
>> not ineligible under any of these provisions.” Id. at 520 n.41.*
>>
>> *So, what if the individual does not have the capacity to take the oath?
>> Could the Senate exclude that individual? Consider the case of John M.
>> Niles, elected to the Senate in 1843….*
>>
>> *What should Senator Collins do? It seems that she should offer a
>> resolution delaying the administration of the oath to Moore pending an
>> inquiry into his capacity to take the oath; such a resolution is privileged
>> and prevents the Presiding Officer from administering the oath. Riddick’s
>> Senate Procedure, S. Doc. 101-28 at 704 (1992). This is certainly the
>> procedure used by Jarnagin in the Niles precedent. While “orderly
>> procedure” first outlined in 1903 suggests that a Senator-elect should be
>> sworn first and then his qualifications should be reviewed, that procedure
>> seems to relate primarily to cases of election contests and not to cases
>> where the Senator lacks capacity to take the oath. See id. at 704-705.
>> Moore can then take his case to a Federal district court and thence on
>> appeal, eventually to the Supreme Court. Poetic, I think.*
>>
>> *Senator Collins, if you feel as you say, it’s worth a try. Good luck.*
>>
>> [image: Share]
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96367&title=%E2%80%9CIf%20He%20Wins%2C%20Could%20the%20Senate%20Exclude%20Roy%20Moore%3F%20Under%20an%201844%20Senate%20Precedent%2C%20Perhaps.%E2%80%9D>
>>
>> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> “Facebook and the New Red Scare” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96363>
>>
>> Posted on December 12, 2017 8:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96363>
>>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> David Keating and Paul Jossey in The Hill:
>> <http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/364079-facebook-and-the-new-red-scare>
>>
>> *Various interests have seized on Russian chicanery to push “reforms”
>> lacking priority in less neurotic times. Sens. Amy Klobuchar
>> <http://thehill.com/people/amy-klobuchar> (D-Minn.) and Mark Warner
>> <http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/people/mark-warner> (D-Va.) sent a “Dear
>> Colleague” letter
>> <https://www.scribd.com/document/359617514/Sens-Warner-Klobuchar-Dear-Colleague-Letter-On-Online-Political-Advertising-Disclosure#close_user_settings_menu> seeking
>> new rules for online ads. The resulting bill would burden internet speech
>> with suffocating rules, even possibly banning some forms of online speech.
>> Instead of hitting the Russians, the bill instead targets American speech,
>> press and assembly rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. In short,
>> despite the dearth of candidate references in the Russian ads, there is
>> already a rush to chill the world’s most dynamic speech forum.*
>>
>> *Egging on lawmakers in this endeavor is the usual cadre of nonprofits
>> <https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-09-25/congress-must-follow-up-facebooks-exposing-russian-political-advertising> and
>> opinion shapers. Oft-quoted progressive professor Richard Hasen
>> direly warns
>> <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/26/russian-facebook-ads-regulation-215647>,
>> “It is a matter of national security and sovereignty to assure that only
>> Americans should be able to influence who American leaders should be.” This
>> is absurd and impractical.*
>>
>> Good to know I’m both absurd AND impractical.
>>
>> [image: Share]
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96363&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20and%20the%20New%20Red%20Scare%E2%80%9D>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
>> campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Disturbing News from Alabama Senate Race: “Alabama Supreme Court Blocks
>> Digital Ballot Preservation in Eleventh Hour”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96361>
>>
>> Posted on December 12, 2017 8:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96361>
>>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Steven Rosenfeld:
>> <https://www.alternet.org/activism/alabama-supreme-court-issues-monday-night-order-blocking-best-practices-verify-vote>
>>
>> *The Alabama Supreme Court stepped into Tuesday’s U.S. Senate race
>> between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones on Monday night by
>> blocking a lower state court’s ruling earlier in the day that ordered
>> election officials to take steps to preserve digital images of every ballot
>> cast Tuesday.*
>>
>> *In effect, the Alabama Supreme Court’s stay—or freezing—of an earlier
>> court order to preserve the digital ballot images undermines the best-case
>> scenario for ensuring that an accurate vote count can be verified in the
>> controversial Senate race.*
>>
>> *Alabama’s Supreme Court, where Moore served as chief justice, did not
>> issue an explanation with its stay. However, a lengthy brief filed at the
>> close of business Monday by the state on behalf of Alabama Secretary of
>> State John Merrill contained a list of eyebrow-raising assertions, such as
>> Merrill had no authority to tell local election officials how to operate
>> their voting machines. The state also said only private vendors holding
>> contracts to program the machines could do so—and that it was too late for
>> that.*
>>
>> Update: Here
>> <http://www.gregpalast.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Stay-from-Supreme-Court-of-AL-12.11.17.pdf> is
>> the order. It provides for further proceedings. But it grants an emergency
>> stay in the interim, which for all practical purposes allows the ballot
>> images to be destroyed before the case could be heard.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second update: It appears
>> <http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/in_final-hour_order_court_rule.html> that
>> the court issued its order within minutes after the stay request, without
>> giving the other side a chance for briefing. How could they have had a
>> chance to fairly consider the issue?
>>
>> *But at 4:32 p.m. Monday, attorneys for Alabama Secretary of State John
>> Merrill and Ed Packard, the state administrator of elections, filed an
>> “emergency motion to stay” that order, which the state Supreme Court
>> granted minutes after Merrill and Packard’s motion was filed.*
>>
>> It is very disturbing because the AL Supreme Court’s order effectively
>> decides the case. The ballot images will be destroyed, even if plaintiffs
>> ultimately win on the merits weeks later. Goes against principles of
>> preserving the status quo.
>>
>> [image: Share]
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96361&title=Disturbing%20News%20from%20Alabama%20Senate%20Race%3A%20%E2%80%9CAlabama%20Supreme%20Court%20Blocks%20Digital%20Ballot%20Preservation%20in%20Eleventh%20Hour%E2%80%9D>
>>
>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 <(949)%20824-3072> - office
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Margaret Groarke*
> *Associate Professor, Government*
> Riverdale, NY 10471
> Phone: 718-862-7943 <(718)%20862-7943>
> Fax: 718-862-8044 <(718)%20862-8044>
> margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu <name.name at manhattan.edu>
> www.manhattan.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171212/375c1199/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171212/375c1199/attachment.png>