[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/24/17

[Rick Hasen]

"The CREW 'Emoluments' Suit and the Congress"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90602>
Posted on January 24, 2017 7:24 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90602> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer blogs.<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2017/01/crew-emoluments-suit-congress/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90602&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20CREW%20%E2%80%98Emoluments%E2%80%99%20Suit%20and%20the%20Congress%E2%80%9D>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>


"South Dakota GOP Rushes To Repeal Ethics Reforms Passed By Voters"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90600>
Posted on January 23, 2017 8:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90600> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo:<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/south-dakota-ethics-reform_us_588684ebe4b070d8cad4e9bc?obd08ju7ml0kep14i>

Republican lawmakers in South Dakota are ready to declare a legislative emergency so that they quickly and completely wipe out an ethics<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/ethics> and campaign finance<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/campaign-finance> reform law adopted by popular vote in November.

The measure, known as IM-22<https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/2016_IM_CampFinLobbyingLaws.pdf>, passed with 52 percent of the vote. It is supposed to create an independent commission to oversee investigations into ethical misconduct by elected officials, impose tougher limits on campaign contributions and lobbyists' gifts to lawmakers, place restrictions on lawmakers becoming lobbyists, increase disclosure by independent political groups, and set up a system to publicly finance elections.

Republican lawmakers from Gov. Dennis Daugaard to state Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd came out against the initiative before the election. The opposition was heavily funded by the South Dakota chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the largest advocacy arm of the conservative political machine run by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90600&title=%E2%80%9CSouth%20Dakota%20GOP%20Rushes%20To%20Repeal%20Ethics%20Reforms%20Passed%20By%20Voters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


Sen. Sessions Noncommittal on DOJ Position on Texas and North Carolina Voting Cases; Agrees to Enforce VRA Section 2<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90596>
Posted on January 23, 2017 8:06 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90596> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Written questions<https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/sessions-responses-to-leahy-questions-for-the-record-01-10-17> from Sen. Leahy and Sen. Sessions' answer in connection with his nomination as AG:

21. You claim to be a champion of the Voting Rights Act because you voted for VRA's reauthorization in 2006. But aside from this single vote, you have consistently criticized the VRA. You have called it an "intrusive piece of legislation" and have questioned its

constitutionality based on your belief that there is "relatively little present-day evidence" of voter discrimination. When the 2013 Shelby County decision struck down a central provision of the VRA, you argued that the decision was "good news...for the South" and observed that "Shelby County never had a history of denying the vote."

a. Since the Shelby County decision, some individuals have argued that there is no need to restore the protections of Section 5 because the Justice Department can still use Section 2 to bring lawsuits against states and localities that are discriminating against voters. But at the same time, some of these same individuals have argued that Section 2 might also be unconstitutional. Do you believe that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional?

RESPONSE: First, the above question does not provide a full accounting of my statement, so I will complete it for the record. Over 30 years ago, I said that the VRA "is an intrusive piece of legislation, but I do not believe-and I have seen, and I am absolutely certain of this, that racial progress could not have been made in the South without the power of the federal courts and the federal Government." When I testified before the Committee, I added that "[t]he Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 was one of the most important Acts to deal with racial difficulties that we face. And it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the South." Second, and to your direct question, the Supreme Court has concluded that Section 2 is constitutional, and if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, I will enforce this important section and others.

The current Justice Department is involved in several suits against states that have enacted severe voting restrictions that disproportionately harm minority voters. In two of these cases, courts of appeals found that voter ID laws in North Carolina and Texas were discriminatory and violated the VRA.

b. If you are confirmed, will the Justice Department maintain its current position in these cases - especially since federal appeals courts have found these voter ID laws to be discriminatory?

RESPONSE: Because this case involves pending litigation in which the Department is a party, it would be unwise for me to comment further. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will thoroughly review this case in conjunction with the expert and career attorneys in the Department of Justice to make a decision about how best to proceed.

In these answers<https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/sessions-responses-to-durbin-questions-for-the-record-01-10-17> to Sen. Durbin, Sen. Sessions expresses support for voter id laws:

RESPONSE: I am not familiar with this study. I would note, however, that the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission report, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform," found that "there is no doubt" that voter fraud occurs, that "a good ID system could deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud - such as multiple voting or voting by individuals using the identities of others or those who are deceased - and thus it can enhance confidence," and that "most advanced democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their democracies remain strong."
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90596&title=Sen.%20Sessions%20Noncommittal%20on%20DOJ%20Position%20on%20Texas%20and%20North%20Carolina%20Voting%20Cases%3B%20Agrees%20to%20Enforce%20VRA%20Section%202>
Posted in Department of Justice<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


"Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90594>
Posted on January 23, 2017 7:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90594> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html>

President Trump used his first official meeting with congressional leaders on Monday to falsely claim that millions of unauthorized immigrants had robbed him of a popular vote majority, a return to his obsession with the election's results even as he seeks support for his legislative agenda.

The claim, which he has made before on Twitter, has been judged untrue by numerous fact-checkers. The new president's willingness to bring it up at a White House reception in the State Dining Room is an indication that he continues to dwell on the implications of his popular vote loss even after assuming power.

Mr. Trump appears to remain concerned that the public will view his victory - and his entire presidency - as illegitimate if he does not repeatedly challenge the idea that Americans were deeply divided about sending him to the White House to succeed President Barack Obama.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D90594&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Repeats%20Lie%20About%20Popular%20Vote%20in%20Meeting%20With%20Lawmakers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


--
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/20170124/9b132841/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/20170124/9b132841/attachment.png>