[EL] Plan to Counter Russian Hacking on Election Day

Thu Jul 20 11:14:38 PDT 2017

As is noted in the document, on pp. 13-14.

On 7/20/2017 9:31 AM, John Tanner wrote:
> “Sending armed federal law enforcement agents to polling places” 
> constitutes a felony.  See 18 USC 592
>
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu 
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> *“Kelly: States ‘nuts’ if they don’t ask feds for election protection 
>> help” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93966>*
>> Posted on July 20, 2017 7:45 am 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93966> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Politico reports. 
>> <http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/kelly-us-elections-help-240738>
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93966&title=%E2%80%9CKelly%3A%20States%20%E2%80%98nuts%E2%80%99%20if%20they%20don%E2%80%99t%20ask%20feds%20for%20election%20protection%20help%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting 
>> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *Today’s Must Read: “Exclusive: Read the Previously Undisclosed Plan 
>> to Counter Russian Hacking on Election Day” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93964>*
>> Posted on July 20, 2017 7:44 am 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93964> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Quite a wow from Time: 
>> <http://time.com/4865798/russia-hacking-election-day-obama-plan/>
>> /President Obama’s White House quietly produced a plan in October to 
>> counter a possible Election Day cyber attack 
>> <http://time.com/4559968/election-hackers-security-infrastructure/> that 
>> included extraordinary measures like sending armed federal law 
>> enforcement agents to polling places, mobilizing components of the 
>> military and launching counter-propaganda efforts./
>> /The 15-page plan 
>> <https://www.scribd.com/document/354227068/Russia-Hacking-President-Obama-s-Previously-Undisclosed-Election-Day-Plan#download&from_embed>, 
>> a copy of which was obtained by TIME, stipulates that “in almost all 
>> potential cases of malicious cyber activity impacting election 
>> infrastructure, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments” 
>> would have primary jurisdiction to respond./
>> / But in the case of a “signifcant incident” the White House had 
>> several “enhanced procedures” it was prepared to take./
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93964&title=Today%E2%80%99s%20Must%20Read%3A%20%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Read%20the%20Previously%20Undisclosed%20Plan%20to%20Counter%20Russian%20Hacking%20on%20Election%20Day%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *“What I Heard – And Didn’t – At Yesterday’s PACEI Meeting” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93962>*
>> Posted on July 20, 2017 7:39 am 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93962> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> A ChapinBlog. 
>> <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2017/07/20/what-i-heard-and-didnt-at-yesterdays-pacei-meeting/>
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93962&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20I%20Heard%20%E2%80%93%20And%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20%E2%80%93%20At%20Yesterday%E2%80%99s%20PACEI%20Meeting%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *“Donald Trump debuts new election integrity panel by hinting at 
>> big-league voter fraud” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93960>*
>> Posted on July 20, 2017 7:37 am 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93960> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Celeste Katz 
>> <https://mic.com/articles/182522/donald-trump-debuts-new-election-integrity-panel-by-hinting-at-big-league-voter-fraud#.Z67gOPT7T> for 
>> Mic.
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93960&title=%E2%80%9CDonald%20Trump%20debuts%20new%20election%20integrity%20panel%20by%20hinting%20at%20big-league%20voter%20fraud%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, 
>> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *“Hacking the Vote: Who Helped Whom?” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93958>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 8:36 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93958> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> NYR Daily: 
>> <http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/07/19/hacking-the-vote-trump-russia-who-helped-whom/>
>> /Similarly, bots can be programmed to search for certain keywords and 
>> particular users. That could account for why Russian bots were 
>> propagating anti-Clinton messages in places like Wisconsin: they 
>> might have simply been following the lead of other pro-Trump Twitter 
>> users. Moreover, once the bots’ Russian handlers saw attention being 
>> focused on the Rust Belt near the end of the campaign by Trump’s 
>> team, they would not have needed insider information to direct their 
>> fake accounts to spread false information in those precincts. As 
>> Issie Lapowsky observed 
>> <https://www.wired.com/story/russia-trump-targeting-fake-news/> recently 
>> in Wired, “…there’s nothing preventing a Russian actor or anyone else 
>> from reading the news and understanding the American electorate, and 
>> thanks to readily available digital tools, targeting that electorate 
>> is simple.”/
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93958&title=%E2%80%9CHacking%20the%20Vote%3A%20Who%20Helped%20Whom%3F%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>> *“North Carolina Court to Rule on Law on Gov’s Elections Role” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93956>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 8:29 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93956> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>  AP: 
>> <https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-carolina/articles/2017-07-19/north-carolina-court-to-rule-on-law-on-govs-elections-role>
>> /The state Supreme Court said Wednesday it will take up Gov. Roy 
>> Cooper’s lawsuit against state legislative leaders. The decision 
>> bypasses an intermediate appeals court and schedules a Supreme Court 
>> hearing on Aug. 28./
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93956&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20Court%20to%20Rule%20on%20Law%20on%20Gov%E2%80%99s%20Elections%20Role%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *“Campaign Finance Reform without Law?” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93954>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 8:20 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93954> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Robert Yablon has posted this draft 
>> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3001972> on SSRN 
>> (forthcoming Iowa L. Rev). Here is the abstract:
>> /Conventionally understood, campaign finance reform is a matter of 
>> public regulation. Reformers believe that, without adequate 
>> government intervention, wealthy individuals and entities are 
>> destined to exert outsized influence over elections and governance. 
>> Propelled by that belief, they have spent decades advocating 
>> regulatory fixes, with relatively little to show for it. Many 
>> existing regulations are watered down and easy to circumvent. Efforts 
>> to bolster them have repeatedly hit doctrinal and political 
>> roadblocks — obstacles that are more formidable today than ever before./
>> /This Article seeks to shift campaign finance discourse toward 
>> private ordering. Because scholars and reformers have long focused on 
>> public regulation, they have largely overlooked possible private 
>> correctives. The Article maps that uncharted terrain, revealing an 
>> array of extra-legal mechanisms that at least somewhat constrain 
>> money’s electoral clout. This survey suggests that numerous private 
>> actors have incentives and capacities to implement additional 
>> extra-legal reform. The Article then sketches several potential 
>> private interventions, and it assesses the interplay between public 
>> regulation and private reform. Private reform is no silver bullet, 
>> but to ignore private ordering even as public regulation flounders 
>> makes little sense. Especially given the significant constraints on 
>> public intervention, it is vital for campaign finance scholars and 
>> reformers to look beyond the law./
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93954&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%20Reform%20without%20Law%3F%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>> *“Congress, Statutory Interpretation, and the Failure of Formalism” 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93952>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 8:19 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93952> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Can’t wait to read this new one 
>> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2998699> from 
>> Abbe Gluck in U Chicago L. Rev:
>> /The formalist project in statutory interpretation, as it has defined 
>> itself, has been a failure. That project—typified by but not limited 
>> to Justice Antonin Scalia’s brand of textualism—has been doomed 
>> because even its staunchest supporters have been unwilling to carry 
>> it out. The rules that judges employ are too numerous to be 
>> predictably chosen. There is no ranking among them. They are not 
>> treated as blackletter, precedential law. Even formalist-textualist 
>> judges, it turns out, crave interpretive flexibility, do not want to 
>> be controlled by other courts or Congress, and feel the need to show 
>> their interpretive actions are democratically linked to Congress./
>> /What we actually have instead is an approach whose legitimacy 
>> depends, in large part, on understanding how Congress works. 
>> Establishing the incomplete execution of formalism is a crucial first 
>> step in this argument, because the fiction that textualism has been 
>> successful in achieving its goals has prevented us from seeing what 
>> judges actually want and, in fact, are actually doing./
>> /With that understanding, it becomes clear that better judicial 
>> understanding of the realities of congressional drafting practice 
>> will not only make statutory interpretation practice more legitimate, 
>> but also advance the enterprise of what most judges—even 
>> formalists—already see their job to be. If formalism originally began 
>> as a second-best alternative to understanding Congress, understanding 
>> Congress has emerged as a second-best alternative to carrying out the 
>> formalist project./
>> /After laying this groundwork, this Essay offers ten new rules of 
>> statutory interpretation— objective, formalism-compatible rules, but 
>> rules grounded in congressional practice. It especially highlights 
>> one new rule—the CBO Canon—and then offers nine more, including an 
>> anticonsistency presumption and presumptions about different 
>> legislative vehicles, multiple agency delegations, dictionaries, and 
>> special legislative history. Judges of all interpretive stripes have 
>> shown new interest in applying this kind of real-world understanding 
>> of the legislative process to statutory interpretation doctrine. The 
>> goals here are to explore why that might be the case; to meet some of 
>> the objections that have been raised about the use of such evidence; 
>> and to offer examples to illustrate the very possibility of what 
>> might be, and in some cases
>> already is./
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93952&title=%E2%80%9CCongress%2C%20Statutory%20Interpretation%2C%20and%20the%20Failure%20of%20Formalism%E2%80%9D>
>> Posted in statutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
>> *Applying the Foreign Solicitation Ban Against the Russian Government 
>> Consistent with the First Amendment 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93950>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 8:11 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93950> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> One issue which has arisen over possible campaign finance charges 
>> against Donald Trump Jr. concerns whether the statute is 
>> substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Eugene 
>> Volokh makes the case here 
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/can-it-be-a-crime-to-do-opposition-research-by-asking-foreigners-for-information/?utm_term=.dd42f90b531e>, 
>> and I argue against application of the substantial overbreath 
>> doctrine here 
>> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as_it_sounds.html>. 
>> Eugene conjures up DREAMers or a foreign individual who wants to give 
>> dirt to Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump, as a way of arguing the 
>> statute is substantially overbroad. (I respond against the 
>> substantial overbreadth doctrine in the piece.)
>> But a reader points out an even easier way to avoid overbreath 
>> arguments.  The relevant statute 
>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121>says that a person 
>> cannot take a campaign contribution (including an in kind 
>> contribution) from a “foreign principal.”  It then references another 
>> statute which defines 
>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/611> a “foreign 
>> principal” to include, among other things, “a government of a foreign 
>> country and a foreign political party.”
>> It seems to me that’s pretty narrowly tailored, even if applications 
>> to other “foreign principals” or “foreign nationals” that Eugene can 
>> dream up might not be.
>> The U.S. government’s compelling interest in stopping foreign 
>> influence must be at its zenith when things of value are coming from 
>> foreign governments,.
>> It’s a nice point.
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93950&title=Applying%20the%20Foreign%20Solicitation%20Ban%20Against%20the%20Russian%20Government%20Consistent%20with%20the%20First%20Amendment>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
>> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>> *Me SOS Dunlap Promises to Be “in a bear cage with a bullhorn” on 
>> Pence-Kobach Fraud Committee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93948>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 7:57 pm 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93948> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Uh-huh. 
>> <http://www.pressherald.com/2017/07/19/trumps-election-integrity-panel-wont-probe-russian-infiltration-of-state-election-systems/>
>> I’ll believe it <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93944>when I see it.
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93948&title=Me%20SOS%20Dunlap%20Promises%20to%20Be%20%E2%80%9Cin%20a%20bear%20cage%20with%20a%20bullhorn%E2%80%9D%20on%20Pence-Kobach%20Fraud%20Committee>
>> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, 
>> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> *SOS Kobach Says “We May Never Know the Answer” Whether Hillary 
>> Clinton Won Popular Vote for President in 2016 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93946>*
>> Posted on July 19, 2017 11:57 am 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93946> by *Rick Hasen* 
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>> Shameful. <https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/887745357899337728>
>> <image001.png> 
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93946&title=SOS%20Kobach%20Says%20%E2%80%9CWe%20May%20Never%20Know%20the%20Answer%E2%80%9D%20Whether%20Hillary%20Clinton%20Won%20Popular%20Vote%20for%20President%20in%202016>
>> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>> -- 
>> 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/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://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/20170720/2434c5dc/attachment.html>