[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/29/17

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue May 30 08:02:14 PDT 2017 

“White House Backs Down on Keeping Ethics Waivers Secret”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92861>
Posted on May 30, 2017 8:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92861> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eric Lipton<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/politics/administration-lobbyists-ethics-waivers.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Feric-lipton&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection> for the NYT:
The White House unexpectedly backed down Friday in a confrontation with the government’s top ethics officer, announcing it will publicly disclose waivers that have been quietly handed out since January to let certain former lobbyists work in the administration.
The reversal came after the White House wrote last week to the Office of Government Ethics and asked its director to suspend his request<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/trump-white-house-government-ethics-lobbyists.html?_r=0> for copies of the waivers. Such waivers are needed when officials want to work on policies or other government issues that they were directly involved in recently as private-sector lobbyists or industry lawyers.
The debate over the waivers — which were routinely made public during the Obama administration — has drawn heightened attention as the Trump administration has hired dozens of former lobbyists and lawyers, and is frequently placing them into jobs that overlap with the work they did for paying clients.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92861&title=%E2%80%9CWhite%20House%20Backs%20Down%20on%20Keeping%20Ethics%20Waivers%20Secret%E2%80%9D>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics investigations<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


WaPo Fact Checker Gives Sen. Tammy Baldwin 3 Pinnochios for Claims WI Voter ID Depressed Turnout by 200,000 Votes<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92859>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92859> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
And Kobach<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/30/do-voter-id-laws-help-or-hurt-voter-turnout/?utm_term=.0113288eca5f> gets 2 Pinnochios for his claim about turnout and voting laws.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92859&title=WaPo%20Fact%20Checker%20Gives%20Sen.%20Tammy%20Baldwin%203%20Pinnochios%20for%20Claims%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Depressed%20Turnout%20by%20200%2C000%20Votes>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Kobach ‘Voter Fraud’ Commission Gets Fast Thumbs Down”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92857>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:49 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92857> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Miles Rapoport <http://prospect.org/article/kobach-%E2%80%98voter-fraud%E2%80%99-commission-gets-fast-thumbs-down> for TAP:
But, after the initial flurry of responses, a strategy for the longer haul is needed.
First, an aggressive communications offensive is required to counter the Commission’s biases and preconceived notions. ReThink Media and other organizations are putting together resource packages that citizens and organizations can use. Several foundations are discussing putting resources into assembling a group of experts ready to rebut the Commission, tied to a strong communications strategy to get the information out as widely as possible.
A second strategy has been a burst of freedom of information requests—to the vice president’s office, the Department of Justice, the Election Assistance Commission, and the offices of Kobach and all the secretaries of state serving on the Commission, challenging them to say what evidence they have that has prompted the executive order and the call for the Commission. The ACLU, the Brennan Center, and the NAACP LDF have all filed such requests.
A third, potentially major response strategy being seriously discussed is the creation of a proactive, alternative/shadow commission. The discussion first surfaced in the voting rights and elections community back in January, after Trump first raised the idea of a commission. At the time, the consensus was to hold fire, since it was not yet clear that there would be an actual commission.
But now the idea is being discussed anew in multiple forums used by advocates. Several weeks ago, Rutgers Professor Lorraine Minnite, a long time progressive scholar on voting rights and voting integrity, proposed creating a nonpartisan (as distinct from bipartisan) Citizens Commission on Election Integrity and Democratic Values. Such a commission “could prepare summaries of relevant scholarly research, organize an online clearinghouse of information about election administration, conduct public hearings, and issue policy briefs and a final report of its findings with recommendations for federal and state reform.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92857&title=%E2%80%9CKobach%20%E2%80%98Voter%20Fraud%E2%80%99%20Commission%20Gets%20Fast%20Thumbs%20Down%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“North Carolina’s battle over voting rights intensifies”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92855>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92855> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/north-carolinas-battle-over-voting-rights-intensifies/2017/05/29/a977a26c-43fd-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.90ce8c68fb62&wpmk=MK0000200>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92855&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20battle%20over%20voting%20rights%20intensifies%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Local Democracy on the Ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92853>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92853> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh Douglas<http://northwesternlawreview.org/online> in NULR Online:
In this Essay, Joshua A. Douglas highlights how local voter-backed initiatives can play a significant role in dictating voting rights and election rules. The Essay provides courts with a test to employ when facing an inevitable judicial challenge to one of these local election law initiatives. Professor Douglas argues that courts should generally defer to local rules that expand the electorate or open up the political process to more people, but should not defer to local voting restrictions or rules that tend to aggrandize the majority’s control or lead to entrenchment. He concludes that local laws that enhance democratic participation by expanding the electorate or reducing campaign finance barriers to running for office epitomize the benefits of local democracy and deserve judicial deference.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92853&title=%E2%80%9CLocal%20Democracy%20on%20the%20Ballot%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


“The Price of Power: How Political Parties Squeeze Influential Lawmakers to Boost their Campaign Coffers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92851>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92851> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Issue One:<https://www.issueone.org/price-power-political-parties-squeeze-influential-lawmakers-boost-campaign-coffers/>
A new report from Issue One called “The Price of Power”<https://www.issueone.org/price-of-power> details how the chairs and ranking members of the most influential committees in the U.S. House of Representatives are increasingly being pressured by party leadership to funnel significant portions of the funds they raise back to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) under the current “party dues” system.
At the extreme, House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) transferred more than $3 of every $5 he raised for his campaign committee during the past eight years back to the NRCC, according to this first-of-its-kind analysis of campaign finance data by Issue One — a total of $6.3 million.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92851&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Price%20of%20Power%3A%20How%20Political%20Parties%20Squeeze%20Influential%20Lawmakers%20to%20Boost%20their%20Campaign%20Coffers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


“Supreme Court’s next step on gerrymandering could be its biggest yet”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92849>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92849> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ariane de Vogue for CNN.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92849&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20next%20step%20on%20gerrymandering%20could%20be%20its%20biggest%20yet%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Rebuked Twice by Supreme Court, North Carolina Republicans Are Unabashed”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92847>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:37 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92847> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NY Times:<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/us/north-carolina-republicans-governor-gerrymander.html?_r=1>
In Washington, efforts by this state’s Republicans to cement their political dominance have taken a drubbing this month. On May 15, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina elections law<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html> that a federal appeals court said had been designed “with almost surgical precision” to depress black voter turnout. A week later, the court threw out maps of two congressional districts<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-congressional-districts.html> that it said sought to limit black voters’ clout.
And it could get worse: Gerrymandering challenges to other congressional and state legislative districts also are headed for the justices.
But if North Carolina Republicans have been chastened in Washington, there is scant evidence of it here in the state capital. Quite the opposite: Hours after the court nullified the elections law, for example, party officials said they would simply write another.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92847&title=%E2%80%9CRebuked%20Twice%20by%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20North%20Carolina%20Republicans%20Are%20Unabashed%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Breaking: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Ohio Motor-Voter Case; Remands NC Redistricting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92842>
Posted on May 30, 2017 7:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92842> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
(Apologies for the delay, as ELB was down this morning.)
After being relisted only once, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Husted v. A.Philip Randolph Institute<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/> from the Sixth Circuit.  The question presented is: “Whether 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permits Ohio’s list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter’s voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.”
The case has not been one that has garnered a lot of attention in the press, but it did get attention from election administrators and from the states. As Doug Chapin reported <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2017/03/14/15-states-file-amicus-brief-seeking-clarification-on-nvra-non-voting-and-list-maintenance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Academy%29> back in March, 15 states filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case to clarify the standards for when inactive voters may be removed from voting rolls consistent with the voter-protective requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the motor voter law) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Doug wrote:
The question stems from an Ohio case I wrote about last April.<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/04/07/another-electn-another-suit-new-challenge-to-ohio-voter-list-maintenance-practices/> There, plaintiffs challenged the state’s “supplemental process” for list maintenance, which uses failure to vote over a two-year period as a trigger for mailings seeking confirmation that the voter still wishes to vote. The allegation is that the use of non-voting as a trigger violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which expressly prohibits the removal of voters simply for failure to vote.
That argument failed to persuade the trial court to block the law, but last September a panel of the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/A.PhilipRandolphOpinion092316.pdf> to direct the lower court to hear the case, finding that the use of non-voting as a trigger should be understood as “resulting” in a voter’s removal for failure to vote. Ohio has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
The amicus brief – filed last Friday by the state of Georgia and 14 other states (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) asks the Court to hear the case and clarify whether use of non-voting data as a trigger violates the NVRA….
While it’s worth noting that all 15 state amici, like Ohio, have Republican chief state election officials – and thus a point of view on voter list maintenance that may be in conflict with others, including their Democratic counterparts – this is still an important issue needing clarification. Plaintiffs, and some other states, agree with the appeals court that using non-voting data to trigger confirmation mailings as part of list maintenance programs violates the law – but having clarity from the Supreme Court would likely go a long way in helping states nationwide structure their processes. Either way, what the Court decides (or lets stand by not deciding) is likely to have significant impact on states’ voter roll maintenance.
The Supreme Court also remanded a North Carolina redistricting case today, Dickson v. Rucho, for the state Supreme Court to consider in light of its ruling last week in Cooper v. Harris. As Justin explained in a post on all the NC redistricting cases, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92837>
There’s still another set of challenges, to both the congressional districts and the state legislative districts on racial grounds, coming out of state court.  It’s called Dickson v. Rucho<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-24.htm> (#16-24).  In 2014, the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected a challenge brought by a different group of plaintiffs, along similar lines to the challenge that succeeded in federal court.  In early 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back for a second look, in light of its Alabama redistricting decision<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/>.  In late 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court took that second look, and reaffirmed its decision.  Plaintiffs sought cert, and that petition is back in front of the Supreme Court right now, also distributed for yesterday’s conference.
[This post has been updated.]
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92842&title=Breaking%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Agrees%20to%20Hear%20Ohio%20Motor-Voter%20Case%3B%20Remands%20NC%20Redistricting%20Case>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


What are all these NC redistricting cases?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92837>
Posted on May 26, 2017 2:24 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92837> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
There are a bunch of North Carolina redistricting cases stacked up at the moment.  A few of these are in front of the Supreme Court, and could move as early as Tuesday.  Since we just had a North Carolina redistricting case decided by the Supreme Court earlier this week, that can get confusing.  So here’s just a brief explainer on what’s what.  Because I know what you want for your Memorial Day weekend.

  *   Cooper v. Harris<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccrory-v-harris/> – racial challenge to cong. districts, decided by SCOTUS 5/22
  *   Harris v. Cooper<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-166.htm> – partisan gerrymandering challenge to the remedy, at SCOTUS 5/25
  *   Common Cause v. Rucho – partisan gerrymandering challenge to cong. districts, in fed. trial court
  *   LWV of NC v. Rucho – partisan gerrymandering challenge to cong. districts, in fed. trial court
  *   North Carolina v. Covington<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-649.htm> – racial challenge to state leg. districts, at SCOTUS 5/25
  *   North Carolina v. Covington<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-1023.htm> – a related appeal focused on the remedy below, at SCOTUS 5/25
  *   Dickson v. Rucho<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-649.htm> – racial challenge to state leg. and cong. districts, at SCOTUS 5/25
More detail below the fold<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92837>.
[Update: between the time that I started writing and the time that I stopped, SCOTUS issued a request for more briefing <https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052617zr_21o3.pdf> (due June 6) on the procedural issues in Harris v. Cooper.  I’d expect all of the SCOTUS cases to be relisted for the next conference after June 6.]
Continue reading →<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92837#more-92837>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92837&title=What%20are%20all%20these%20NC%20redistricting%20cases%3F>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


Programming Note<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92825>
Posted on May 25, 2017 10:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92825> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ELB will be back Tuesday, May 30.
Have a safe, relaxing, and meaningful Memorial Day!
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92825&title=Programming%20Note>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“New York Developer Pleaded Guilty in Voter-Fraud Conspiracy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92835>
Posted on May 25, 2017 10:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92835> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ<https://www.wsj.com/article_email/new-york-developer-pleaded-guilty-in-voter-fraud-conspiracy-1495749062-lMyQjAxMTI3NTIyNTIyMDU0Wj/> on the latest in the Bloomingburg<http://electionlawblog.org/?s=bloomingburg&x=0&y=0> saga:
Prosecutors said Mr. Nakdimen and his associates falsely registered voters to overcome local opposition<https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-development-fight-in-the-catskills-1440378361> to their 396-unit townhouse project in the tiny Catskills village of Bloomingburg. The developers anticipated making hundreds of millions of dollars from the development, according to prosecutors.
 An attorney for Mr. Nakdimen didn’t respond to a request for comment. Under the agreement, Mr. Nakdimen could spend from six to 12 months in prison. The charge carried a sentence of up to five years.
In addition to Mr. Nakdimen, federal prosecutors last year charged his business partner Shalom Lamm and associate Volvy Smilowitz with one count each of conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process. A former town supervisor of Mamakating, N.Y., previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to submit false voter registrations.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92835&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20York%20Developer%20Pleaded%20Guilty%20in%20Voter-Fraud%20Conspiracy%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Republican TX Congressional Delegation Afraid of Map to Be Drawn by Court in Redistricting Litigation<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92833>
Posted on May 25, 2017 3:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92833> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Texas Tribune:<https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25/texas-republicans-congress-hope-special-session/>
There are few things that strike more fear into the heart of a member of Congress than the word “redistricting.”
That proved particularly true this week among Texas Republicans in Washington, thanks to a recent court ruling that came about just as talk was increasing in Austin that Gov. Greg Abbott may call a special session<https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/25/gov-abbott-there-still-time-avoid-special-session-legislature/>. Some Texas Republicans in Congress hope that any upcoming special session will include redrawing the state’s 36 congressional districts as part of its agenda.
The message coming out of Austin thus far: not going to happen.
Several congressional Republicans told the Tribune they want Abbott to call a special session to redraw the Congressional lines. They believe such a maneuver would put their allies in the state legislature in the driver’s seat, circumventing Republicans’ worst fear: that a panel of federal judges will draw a less favorable map of its own.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92833&title=Republican%20TX%20Congressional%20Delegation%20Afraid%20of%20Map%20to%20Be%20Drawn%20by%20Court%20in%20Redistricting%20Litigation>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Election Wars at the Supreme Court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92831>
Posted on May 25, 2017 1:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92831> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Linda Greenhouse <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/opinion/supreme-court-congressional-redistricting.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur> NYT column.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92831&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Wars%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Democrats Counter Trump “Voter Fraud” Commission with All Democratic Alternative Commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92829>
Posted on May 25, 2017 1:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92829> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-voter-fraud_us_59270b5ae4b061d8f8201913> is certainly not what I envisioned<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/trump_s_voting_fraud_investigation_is_a_great_idea.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top> as a reasonable alternative to Trump’s sham “election integrity” commission.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92829&title=Democrats%20Counter%20Trump%20%E2%80%9CVoter%20Fraud%E2%80%9D%20Commission%20with%20All%20Democratic%20Alternative%20Commission>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Breaking: “Project Vote to Close Its Doors May 31”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92827>
Posted on May 25, 2017 9:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92827> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Electionline<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly> with the bad news:
Project Vote<http://www.projectvote.org/>, a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit that has spent recent years focusing its attention on improving voter registration, especially the enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) will officially close its doors on May 31.
Michael Slater, executive director since 2003, cited the lack of funding as the reason for the closure.
“[F]unding for voter registration programs declined precipitously after 2008, and the number of funders supporting voting rights advocacy and litigation slowly decreased as well,” Slater said. “At the same time, more organizations created voting rights programs, which resulted in more competition.”
Slater also pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act which resulted in the donor community focusing available voting rights resources on VRA enforcement, which had the effect of reducing funds for other work, such as Project Vote’s work enforcing the NVRA….
roject Vote’s shuttering comes at a time when voting rights are making headlines daily and Slater is concerned about what impact the closure may have.
“From our perspective, voting rights work has never been more important. We hae been warning for months that [President Donald J.] Trump’s absurd rhetoric about ‘voter fraud’ signaled a top-down assault on the right to vote in America,” Slater said. “The concern, of course, is that the remaining voting rights organizations, already spread thing, will be unable to keep up with this assault.
The news of Project Vote’s closure is slowly starting to spread throughout the elections community and it is being met with sadness.
“We’re terribly saddened by the closing of Project Vote. It has been a great organization that has contributed significantly to the protection of the fundamental right to vote,” said Ezra Rosenberg, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law<https://lawyerscommittee.org/>. “Its role in ensuring the registration of all eligible voters was and remains of utmost importance.  It is particularly unfortunate for this to happen at a time when voting rights are under tremendous attack.”
Project Vote was involved in many legal cases nationwide with some recent cases including reaching a settlement agreement with Maricopa County, Arizona<http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/Amended-Signed-Maricopa-transparency-settlement-agreement-2017-01-30.pdf>, settling a suit with Georgia on access to public records Maricopa County, Arizona and just this week, meeting a deadline for filing a motion to dismiss in a list maintenance case, ACRU v Snipes<https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Doc-1-Complaint.pdf>, in Florida.
“This is very sad news for voters,” said Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/>, chancellor’s professor of law and political science at UC Irvine and author of the ElectionLaw Blog. “Project Vote has been a leader in making sure that states comply with the provisions of the motor-voter law making it easier for people to register and vote when they come into contact with government agencies. I hope that others can step in and help with this very important work.”
Thomas Hicks, commissioner on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission<https://www.eac.gov/> pointed to the groups’ work in Nevada in 2016 that resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding<http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/MOU-NV-DMV-3.13.17.pdf> to bring the state into compliance with NVRA.
“I am sad they are going away,” Hicks said. “They do a great deal in terms of voter registration and I don’t know if there are folks out there to fill that void. In my own opinion, it’s horrible that an organization that does as much as they do will no longer exist.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92827&title=Breaking%3A%20%E2%80%9CProject%20Vote%20to%20Close%20Its%20Doors%20May%2031%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>


ELB Podcast Episode 16. Bob Bauer: The Danger of Trump’s “Election Integrity” Commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92823>
Posted on May 24, 2017 9:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92823> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Will earlier work to improve the voters’ experience at the polls be abandoned thanks to unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud? Is the “Election Integrity” commission established by President Trump going to undermine efforts to improve voting rights? Is there a future for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, one of whose members is joining the Trump-established commission?
On Episode 16 of the ELB Podcast, we talk with Bob Bauer, former White House Counsel and co-chair of the Obama-established Presidential Commission on Election Administration.
You can listen to the ELB Podcast Episode 16 on Soundcloud<https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-16-bob-bauer-the-danger-of-trumps-election-integrity-commission> or subscribe at iTunes.<https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92823&title=ELB%20Podcast%20Episode%2016.%20Bob%20Bauer%3A%20The%20Danger%20of%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CElection%20Integrity%E2%80%9D%20Commission>
Posted in ELB Podcast<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>


--
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/20170530/aa512500/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/20170530/aa512500/attachment.png>

View list directory