[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/1/17

Wed May 31 20:34:22 PDT 2017

“White House grants ethics waivers to 17 appointees, including four former lobbyists”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92901>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92901> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Matea Gold for WaPo.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/31/white-house-grants-ethics-waivers-to-17-appointees-including-four-former-lobbyists/?utm_term=.1ce00639fa98>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92901&title=%E2%80%9CWhite%20House%20grants%20ethics%20waivers%20to%2017%20appointees%2C%20including%20four%20former%20lobbyists%E2%80%9D>
Posted in lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

“No Sign of Trump’s ‘Millions’ of Illegal Voters in Texas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92899>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92899> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Texas Monthly’s Burkablog.<http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/no-sign-trumps-millions-illegal-voter-texas/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92899&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20Sign%20of%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Millions%E2%80%99%20of%20Illegal%20Voters%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Matt Ford on Cert. Grant in Ohio NVRA Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92897>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92897> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here is the Atlantic.<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/supreme-court-ohio-voting/528573/>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92897&title=Matt%20Ford%20on%20Cert.%20Grant%20in%20Ohio%20NVRA%20Case>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Trump’s electoral commission is a sham”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92895>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:20 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92895> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jason Kander<http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/opinions/trump-threat-democracy-opinion-kander/> for CNN Opinion.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92895&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20electoral%20commission%20is%20a%20sham%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

PunditFact Rates “False” FOX News Host’s Claim That a Candidate Can Collude With A Foreign Government in U.S. Elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92893>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:16 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92893> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
PunditFact:<http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/>
Jarrett said that “you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election,” because there’s no law that says collusion is a crime.
Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett’s focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code.
We rate this claim False.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92893&title=PunditFact%20Rates%20%E2%80%9CFalse%E2%80%9D%20FOX%20News%20Host%E2%80%99s%20Claim%20That%20a%20Candidate%20Can%20Collude%20With%20A%20Foreign%20Government%20in%20U.S.%20Elections>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

“SCOTUS’s Last Chance to Rein in Partisan Gerrymandering?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92891>
Posted on May 31, 2017 8:00 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92891> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kimberly Robinson <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106470&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0m5p1e9c6&split=0> for Bloomberg BNA:
The U.S. Supreme Court could radically change how states draw their districts for federal and state elections as Republicans and Democrats are preparing to battle over the next redistricting cycle.
More than 30 years ago, the high court said that considering party affiliation too much in redistricting could cross the line into unconstitutional gerrymandering. But the Supreme Court provided little guidance and federal courts have since struggled to find where that line is.
As a result, states defending allegations that they unconstitutionally relied on race when drawing voting maps often say they were merely relying on politics.
That could end—or at least be seriously curtailed—if the Supreme Court decides to hear Gill v. Whitford.
There, Democratic voters challenging the maps in Wisconsin think they’ve found a way to measure when political consideration in redistricting crosses the line. And a lower court agreed.
Wisconsin Republicans unconstitutionally created maps that disadvantaged Democratic candidates when they drew up new voting maps in 2010, a special three-judge district court panel said<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Whitford_v_Gill_No_15cv421bbc_2016_BL_386818_WD_Wis_Nov_21_2016_C> in a stunning decision last November. The panel relied on a new standard—the “efficiency gap”—to measure that disadvantage.
That standard attempts to measure the efficiency with which the parties can elect their candidates by calculating the number of votes their voters “wasted.” An efficiency gap in favor of one party suggests that the other was disadvantaged in the voting process.
Now Wisconsin—supported by a dozen other states—is asking the Supreme Court to step in.
The new standard the lower court blessed doesn’t take into account political realities, they argue…..
It’s highly likely the Supreme Court will agree to take up the case due to procedural oddities<https://www.bna.com/cases-supreme-court-n73014451469/> with redistricting cases, Paul M. Smith<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/team/paul-m-smith>, of the Campaign Legal Center, Washington, told Bloomberg BNA. Its “hard to imagine” the justices turning this case away, Smith, who represents the voters challenging the voting maps, said.
This may be one of the last opportunities to convince a majority of justices that the judiciary is capable of policing these claims, Rick Hasen<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>, an election law professor at University of California, Irvine, School of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.
Rumors that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy will retire soon are swirling, and he could provide the critical fifth vote in this area that has often split along ideological lines.
The court will consider whether to hear the case during its June 8 private conference….
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92891&title=%E2%80%9CSCOTUS%E2%80%99s%20Last%20Chance%20to%20Rein%20in%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Heading Soon to the Printer: New 6th Edition of Election Law, Cases and Materials<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92884>
Posted on May 31, 2017 2:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92884> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’m delighted to announce that the Sixth edition of our casebook<http://www.cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781531004729/Election-Law-Sixth-Edition>, with new co-author Nick Stephanopoulos, will be heading to the printer soon, and is available for fall classes. (The ISBN is 978-1-5310-0472-9). There will be a revised teacher’s manual coming soon as well. Instructors who wish to use page proofs for planning fall classes should contact Carolina Academic Press.<http://www.cap-press.com/compform.php?booknum=8166>
I am extremely excited about this new edition, especially the greatly revised chapters on voting rights, partisan and racial gerrymandering, and election administration and remedies. This book is better than ever, thanks to my wonderful co-authors.
It is also up to date, including developments this month at the Supreme Court (the new NC racial gerrymandering case, the summary affirmance in the soft money case, and the cert grant in the NVRA case).
Whether you want to use it for a full election law course, or a seminar on voting rights, campaign finance, election administration or redistricting, I think you will find the materials both comprehensive and student friendly.
As we wrote in our introductory remarks:
The Sixth Edition of this casebook appears twenty-two years after the first edition, written by Dan Lowenstein alone. When Lowenstein wrote, he was one of a half-dozen law professors in the country focusing on issues of election law and democracy. These days, the field has grown so large that there are many casebooks, other books, articles, and journals devoted to the subject. While that is good news for those who wish to study material at the intersection of law and politics, it reflects that election law has been the source of much controversy, not just in academia but in American politics and culture. The boom in interest coincided with the disputed 2000 election, and it does not appear to have dissipated. If anything, people have come to expect that judicial action will be front-and-center in electoral campaigns. This may not reflect well on the health of American democracy, but at least those who study the field will be able to understand the disputes.
The goals of this Sixth Edition of the casebook are the same as Lowenstein’s ambition with the first: to shed more light than heat on a disputed subject; to give students and their instructors a fair presentation of the cases and scholarship in the key areas of election law; to bring in political science evidence with which to evaluate legislative and judicial interventions into democratic processes; and to do all of this in clear language. We have strived to live up to Lowenstein’s example, although we acknowledge this book does not reflect his distinctive voice more evident in the earlier editions.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92884&title=Heading%20Soon%20to%20the%20Printer%3A%20New%206th%20Edition%20of%20Election%20Law%2C%20Cases%20and%20Materials>
Posted in pedagogy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>

“Hurricane, vote challenges prompt push for changes to NC election rule”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92880>
Posted on May 31, 2017 2:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92880> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest<http://www.wral.com/hurricane-vote-challenges-prompt-push-for-changes-to-nc-election-rules/16732937/> from WRAL.
You can find many proposed changes, including changes to ensure “voting site uniformity,” here<https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/Rulemaking/PublicNotice26May2017.pdf>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92880&title=%E2%80%9CHurricane%2C%20vote%20challenges%20prompt%20push%20for%20changes%20to%20NC%20election%20rule%E2%80%9D>
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
949.824.0495 - fax
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/20170601/04b8c76b/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/20170601/04b8c76b/attachment.png>