[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/16/17

Wed Mar 15 22:02:55 PDT 2017

#SCOTUS Schedules NC Voting Case Cert Petition, and Motion to Dismiss It, for March 31 Conference<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91625>
Posted on March 15, 2017 3:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91625> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The case<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-833.htm> is back on the Justices’ conference list. (More <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91359> on the dispute and the delay.)
The first thing the Justices will do is decide the motion to dismiss the cert petition (put in by North Carolina’s governor and AG, and opposed by NC’s legislature). If the Court grants the motion to dismiss, the case is over and the 4th Circuit’s opinion stands.
If the Court denies the motion, it will then consider whether to grant or deny the cert. petition, a decision in which the Court has complete discretion.
A third possibility is that the Court issues some other kind of order to resolve the motion to dismiss (such as asking for more briefing or sending the question to another court if that is procedurally possible) and does not yet rule on the cert petition.
Orders from the March 31 conference likely will issue on April 3. If the court is inclined to hear the case, we may well not hear anything on April 3, as they usually take another week to look over such cases to make sure there’s no procedural problem with the case which would make granting it problematic.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91625&title=%23SCOTUS%20Schedules%20NC%20Voting%20Case%20Cert%20Petition%2C%20and%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20It%2C%20for%20March%2031%20Conference>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

New NAS Project on The Future of Voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91623>
Posted on March 15, 2017 11:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91623> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Project:<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49839> The Future of Voting: Accessible, Reliable, Verifiable Technology
Committee members<http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49839>
Project Scope

An ad hoc committee under the auspices of the Committee on Science, Technology and Law and the Board on Computer Science and Telecommunications will conduct a study that will: (1) document the current state of play in terms of technology, standards, and resources for voting technologies; (2) examine challenges arising out of the 2016 federal election; (3) evaluate advances in technology currently (and soon to be) available that may improve voting; and (4) offer recommendations that provide a vision of voting that is easier, accessible, reliable, and verifiable.  The committee will issue a report at the conclusion of the study.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91623&title=New%20NAS%20Project%20on%20The%20Future%20of%20Voting>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“In Potential Recusal Reversal, Neil Gorsuch Leaves Door Open to Hearing Supreme Court Cases Involving Billionaire Backer Philip Anschutz”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91621>
Posted on March 15, 2017 7:37 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91621> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Important Charlie Savage:<http://www.charliesavage.com/?p=1508>
My Denver-based colleague Julie Turkewitz and I have been taking a look at the relationship between Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court nominee, and Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz. The New York Times published it tonight<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html> and it will be in tomorrow’s newspaper. One thing the article deals with briefly is the question of whether Gorsuch will recuse himself from cases involving Anschutz’s numerous business interests. This is too weedy of an issue to plumb in depth in a newspaper article, but I’ll explore it a bit more here for legal ethics nerds.
Bottom line up front: Gorsuch systematically sought to recuse himself from such cases on the appeals court, but he is signaling that he may change that practice and leave himself free to participate in cases involving Anschutz’s interests if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91621&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Potential%20Recusal%20Reversal%2C%20Neil%20Gorsuch%20Leaves%20Door%20Open%20to%20Hearing%20Supreme%20Court%20Cases%20Involving%20Billionaire%20Backer%20Philip%20Anschutz%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“New Report Quantifies Supreme Court’s Impact on 2016 Election Spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91619>
Posted on March 15, 2017 7:25 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91619> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release:<http://www.demos.org/press-release/new-report-quantifies-supreme-courts-impact-2016-election-spending>
Today, Demos released a new report entitled Court Cash: 2016 Election Money Resulting Directly from Supreme Court Rulings<http://www.demos.org/publication/court-cash-2016-election-money-resulting-directly-supreme-court-rulings>. The report quantifies for the first time the direct impact of four of the Supreme Court’s most significant money in politics cases on 2016 election spending.
Key findings include:

  *   The Supreme Court’s rulings led to more than $3 billion in spending on the 2016 elections, which is equivalent to 45 percent of the total cost of the elections.
  *   The Court’s rulings led to 77 percent of spending in competitive congressional races, and 49 percent of spending the presidential election can be attributed to the Court.
  *   The Court’s rulings allowed 123 wealthy candidates to spend $161 million on their own campaigns.
  *   1724 wealthy donors contributed $274 million in “McCutcheon Money” in 2016—money that went beyond what would have been permitted by the previous “aggregate” contribution limit.
  *   Buckley v. Valeo resulted in more 2016 campaign spending than Citizens United v. FEC.
This report demonstrates the profound impact of Supreme Court decisions on the role of big money in American politics. Given the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Gorsuch’s pending nomination to the high court – and his record <http://www.demos.org/publication/judge-gorsuch%E2%80%99s-extreme-views-could-undermine-urgently-needed-money-politics-reforms> on this issue – the report speaks volumes about what is at stake for our democracy.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91619&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Report%20Quantifies%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Impact%20on%202016%20Election%20Spending%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Republicans relieved Trump eased up on voter fraud claims”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91617>
Posted on March 15, 2017 7:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91617> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico:<http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-voter-fraud-republicans-236046>
Prominent Republicans across the country are breathing a sigh of relief that President Donald Trump has so far not aggressively pursued his pledge for a “major investigation” into his allegations of widespread voter fraud that he claims robbed him the popular vote.
Current and former GOP state party chairs and other officials said in interviews that the unverified allegation was at best a distraction and at worst a damaging statement that could erode confidence in elections. And even as Trump continues to make some outrageous claims — including that former President Barack Obama tapped his Trump Tower phones — he’s now directing much of his attention to replacing Obamacare and juicing up the job market.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91617&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20relieved%20Trump%20eased%20up%20on%20voter%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Jon Grant Says He’s Signing Seattle’s Homeless Up for Democracy Vouchers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91615>
Posted on March 15, 2017 7:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91615> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Seattle Weekly:<http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/jon-grant-says-hes-signing-seattles-homeless-up-for-democracy-vouchers/>
Could Seattle’s new Democracy Voucher program help homeless people direct city policy?
That’s the argument being made by the Jon Grant campaign, which on Tuesday announced it has collected $76,000 worth in vouchers, a total that’s been aided by the campaign’s effort to enroll the homeless in the program.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91615&title=%E2%80%9CJon%20Grant%20Says%20He%E2%80%99s%20Signing%20Seattle%E2%80%99s%20Homeless%20Up%20for%20Democracy%20Vouchers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

--
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/20170316/0ce813fd/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/20170316/0ce813fd/attachment.png>