[EL] Pasadena, TX ruling; more news

Fri Jan 6 18:20:44 PST 2017

Court Holds Pasadena, Texas Discriminated in Move to At-Large Districts, Places City under Preclearance<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90352>
Posted on January 6, 2017 6:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90352> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In a major decision in a closely-watched case heard by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a federal district court has issued this 100+ page ruling <https://www.scribd.com/document/335897732/Patino-v-Pasadena> in Patino v. Pasadena. The court found that Pasadena Texas’s move from districts to at large voting had the effect and was done with racially discriminatory intent against Latino voters. The court not only ordered the restoration of district elections; it put the city back under federal supervision for elections (supervision which was eliminated with the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County).  For background on this case, see Jim Rutenberg’s excellent NYT magazine article, The New Attack on Hispanic Voting Rights.<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/magazine/block-the-vote.html?_r=0>
From the opinion’s introduction:
For the reasons stated in detail below, the court finds and concludes that Pasadena’s 2014 change from an eight single-member district map and plan to a six single-member district and two at-large position map and plan for electing its City Council dilutes the votes of its Latino citizens, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also finds and concludes that the change to the mixed map and plan was intended to dilute those votes because they were cast by Latino voters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pasadena is enjoined from using the 2014 mixed map and plan in the 2017 City Council elections or subsequent elections. Instead, Pasadena must conduct the 2017 City Council election using the eight single-member district map it used in the May 2013 City Council elections. Pasadena must also submit to federal Department of Justice preclearance before implementing future redistricting changes.
From the court’s findings on the discrimination being intentional:
Another deviation from the usual procedures accompanied the passage of Proposition 1. The Mayor’s tie-breaking vote instituted a new three-minute-debate rule, limiting the time to speak on a particular topic. This rule was new. It deviated from prior practice. It was introduced when the divisive nature of the proposed new map and plan to elect City Council members had become clear. This new rule was applied to the opponents of the 6–2 map and plan. Council member Van Houte’s violation of the rule led the Mayor to order her removed from the meeting. Three other Council members departed in protest, yet the remaining Council, guided by the Mayor, persisted to pass the 6–2 map and plan in their absence. And the Mayor deviated from ordinary procedures and violated City ordinances by bringing a firearm to one of the Council meetings at which the 6–2 map and plan was being debated.
This evidence provides a more compelling record than was present in Veasey to find that the proponents of the 6–2 map and plan not only knew it would have a dilutive, discriminatory impact on Latinos, but that the legislative body and its leader, the Mayor, intended that result. The fact that this legislative body is considerably smaller than the Texas legislature makes the intent analysis more straightforward as well. Cf. Veasey, 830 F.3d at 233….
Objective indicia of dilutive intent are present here as well. The objective indicia include the timing of the redistricting proposal so soon after Shelby County removed Department of Justice preclearance; the number and extent of procedural irregularities used in enacting the redistricting map and plan; the clear dilutive impact the map and plan would have; the clear knowledge that if a mixed redistricting map and plan was not put into place, the 2015 elections would produce a Latino preferred candidate majority of City Council members for the first in Pasadena’s history; and the use of such dilutive procedures as the place system and majority-vote requirement for the at-large Council positions. These provide strong objective indicia of a legislative intent to dilute Latino voting strength.
And from the section on reimposing preclearance:
Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10302(c), authorizes a federal court, following a finding “that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the territory of such State or political subdivision,” to order a jurisdiction to obtain the Justice Department’s preclearance of its election changes under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Because the court finds that Pasadena officials intentionally discriminated against Latinos in diluting their voting strength, the court grants the plaintiffs’ request under § 3(c) to require Pasadena to submit future changes to its electoral map and plan to the Department of Justice for preclearance. The court also grants the request for an order under § 3(c) to retain jurisdiction to review, before it is enforced, any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect” from the map and plan in use in the May 2013 election. Any new City Council voting map or procedure may be enforced if it has first been submitted to the United States Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within 60 days after submission.
Section 3(c) requires the court to define a period to retain jurisdiction. The parties have not made any suggestions about how long that should last. The court invites the parties to do so, no later than January 13, 2017. As a starting point, five years, or through the 2021 election, might be appropriate, because it is likely enough time for demographic trends to overcome concerns about dilution from redistricting.
(h/t Michael Hurta<https://twitter.com/MichaelHurta/status/817548463755890688>)
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90352&title=Court%20Holds%20Pasadena%2C%20Texas%20Discriminated%20in%20Move%20to%20At-Large%20Districts%2C%20Places%20City%20under%20Preclearance>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Jenner’s Paul Smith on Leaving Big Law, and What’s Next”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90350>
Posted on January 6, 2017 5:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90350> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marcia Coyle Q&A <https://t.co/Uf2h5TdoOh> with Paul Smith on his move to Georgetown and the Campaign Legal Center.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90350&title=%E2%80%9CJenner%E2%80%99s%20Paul%20Smith%20on%20Leaving%20Big%20Law%2C%20and%20What%E2%80%99s%20Next%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election law biz<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>

“Hackers Tried To Break Into DNC Computers Right Before New Year’s Eve”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90348>
Posted on January 6, 2017 4:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90348> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BuzzFeed<https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/hackers-tried-to-break-into-dnc-computers-right-before-new-y?utm_term=.vbr8GWNAz#.itRZMQpYB>:
The FBI alerted the Democratic National Committee as recently as New Year’s Eve that hackers were once again trying to break into their computer systems, BuzzFeed News has learned.
“There was activity the day after the president issued sanctions [against Russia], looking for ways to get into the servers,” one high-level source familiar with the investigation said.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90348&title=%E2%80%9CHackers%20Tried%20To%20Break%20Into%20DNC%20Computers%20Right%20Before%20New%20Year%E2%80%99s%20Eve%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

“US designates election infrastructure as ‘critical'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90346>
Posted on January 6, 2017 4:16 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90346> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP<https://apnews.com/64a7228c974d43009cdfc2b98766320b/US-designates-election-infrastructure-as-'critical?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics>:
Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that’s “vital to our national interests,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he’s designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure, a move that provides more federal help for state and local governments to keep their election systems safe from tampering.
“Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law,” Johnson said in a statement. He added: “Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do.”
The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered” an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90346&title=%E2%80%9CUS%20designates%20election%20infrastructure%20as%20%E2%80%98critical%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

#DemocracyRIP: Russians Sought to Undermine Legitimacy of a Clinton Presidency in Social Media Campaign<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90344>
Posted on January 6, 2017 2:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90344> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the joint intelligence report<https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf> at page 2:
We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump’s chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency the Russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting Secretary Clinton’s legitimacy and crippling her presidency from its start, including by impugning the fairness of the election.
• Before the election, Russian diplomats had publicly denounced the US electoral process and were prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results. ProKremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from their social media activity.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90344&title=%23DemocracyRIP%3A%20Russians%20Sought%20to%20Undermine%20Legitimacy%20of%20a%20Clinton%20Presidency%20in%20Social%20Media%20Campaign>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, social media and social protests<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

Trump Says DNC Hacking Had “Absolutely No Effect” on Election Outcome and “No Tampering Whatsoever with Voting Machines”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90340>
Posted on January 6, 2017 11:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90340> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Trump also said in statement<https://twitter.com/cam_joseph/status/817454815039123458> that attempts to hack RNC were unsuccessful thanks to “strong hacking defenses.”
He also refers to the DNC as the “Democrat National Committee.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90340&title=Trump%20Says%20DNC%20Hacking%20Had%20%E2%80%9CAbsolutely%20No%20Effect%E2%80%9D%20on%20Election%20Outcome%20and%20%E2%80%9CNo%20Tampering%20Whatsoever%20with%20Voting%20Machines%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Scalia, Trump, Tillman and the Foreign Emoluments Clause”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90338>
Posted on January 6, 2017 11:26 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90338> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read Mike Stern<http://www.pointoforder.com/2017/01/06/scalia-trump-tillman-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/> at Point of Order.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90338&title=%E2%80%9CScalia%2C%20Trump%2C%20Tillman%20and%20the%20Foreign%20Emoluments%20Clause%E2%80%9D>

Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>

DOJ Report Highlights Obama Administration Voting Rights Achievements<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90336>
Posted on January 6, 2017 11:06 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90336> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here,<https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/923096/download> beginning at page 39. Introduction:
The integrity of our democracy depends on ensuring that every eligible voter can meaningfully participate in the electoral process. Voting forms the bedrock of our democracy. The division works to ensure that every eligible voter enjoys the full range of voting rights protected by federal law. Even with the severe setback of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the division has continued to use every tool at its disposal, including the Voting Rights Act, to protect voters from discrimination and provide the opportunities federal law guarantees.
One thing not highlighted in the report: the very small number of VRA Section 2 suits brought by DOJ during this period.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90336&title=DOJ%20Report%20Highlights%20Obama%20Administration%20Voting%20Rights%20Achievements>
Posted in Department of Justice<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

Updated: Congratulations to Ciara Torres-Spelliscy and Franita Tolson<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90320>
Posted on January 6, 2017 9:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90320> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This post has been updated
Franita Tolson has been elected as this year’s chair of the Election Law section of the AALS. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has been elected as next year’s chair.
Congrats!
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90320&title=Updated%3A%20Congratulations%20to%20Ciara%20Torres-Spelliscy%20and%20Franita%20Tolson>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Remedies in the WI Partisan Gerrymandering Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90330>
Posted on January 6, 2017 9:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90330> by Richard Pildes<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
The League of Women Voters has offered some interesting suggestions for the remedial approach the federal court should take in this case.  The brief suggests the legislature should be given the first shot, but with the use of institutional structures that would cabin in excessive partisanship.  The brief asserts it is suggesting remedial approaches that respect the values of political accountability without permitting excessive partisanship to control the outcome.
Here is the key paragraph:
In the Wisconsin context, several options are available for drafting a new map in such a way. First, the legislature could delegate the responsibility for drafting a new map to defendants themselves, the six bipartisan members of Wisconsin’s bipartisan Elections Commission. Second, if there is concern that an even-numbered membership might reduce the chances of producing a mutually acceptable map, the legislature could follow the model successfully employed in several states by instructing the Commissioners, for this purpose only, to jointly designate a nonpartisan seventh member to serve as chair. Third, the legislature could direct Wisconsin’s Legislative Reference Bureau, an existing nonpartisan legislative service agency that drafts all legislation, to develop a new map. Finally, the legislature, following another model successfully employed in many states, could create a new five-member ad hoc committee consisting of an equal number of members designated by the minority and minority leaders of the Senate and Assembly, with those members jointly designating a nonpartisan additional community member to serve as chair.
The full brief is here: LWV Amicus Brief Whitford v Gill<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/LWV-Amicus-Brief-Whitford-v-Gill.pdf>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90330&title=Remedies%20in%20the%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case>
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
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/20170107/8d32502e/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/20170107/8d32502e/attachment.png>