[EL] M(o)ore News

Tue Dec 12 20:33:20 PST 2017

Back in 2010, now-Trump-lawyer Jay Sekulow argued that the Senate need not
wait for Scott Brown's certification for him to be sworn in, citing Ted
Kennedy's 1962 swearing-in as precedent.
https://aclj.org/us-constitution/delay-in-seating-ma-senator-outrageous-

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
30 South 15th Street
15th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102

(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com
http://www.boninlaw.com

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Edward Still <still at votelaw.com> wrote:

> 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 <(205)%20320-2882>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ebcaef99/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/ebcaef99/attachment.png>