[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/2/17

Sun Oct 1 20:59:21 PDT 2017

“How Two Sentences in Tax Plan May Help Unleash $1 Billion in Lobbying”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95146>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95146> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/us/politics/lobbyists-tax-reform.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront>
The sweeping tax rewrite unveiled by President Trump and Republican lawmakers this past week leaves many of the details to Congress, but two sentences in the nine-page framework have Washington lobbyists salivating over a payday that some industry experts predict could top $1 billion.
Tucked away on Page 8, the sentences refer vaguely to plans to repeal or roll back “numerous” exclusions and deductions, and to “modernize” tax rules affecting specific industries “to ensure that the tax code better reflects economic reality and that such rules provide little opportunity for tax avoidance.”
That language has prompted concerns<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/politics/a-fight-erupts-to-shield-tax-breaks-threatened-by-gop-plan.html> among a wide range of businesses and industries about the prospect of losing valuable tax breaks — from preferential tax treatment for insurers to credits for renewable energy to a prized tax treatment used by the commercial real estate industry.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95146&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Two%20Sentences%20in%20Tax%20Plan%20May%20Help%20Unleash%20%241%20Billion%20in%20Lobbying%E2%80%9D>
Posted in lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

“Everything you need to know about the Supreme Court’s big gerrymandering case”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95144>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95144> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Barry Burden<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-big-gerrymandering-case/?utm_term=.cfb69a471efd> for The Monkey Cage.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95144&title=%E2%80%9CEverything%20you%20need%20to%20know%20about%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20big%20gerrymandering%20case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Google Prepares to Brief Congress on Its Role in Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95142>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:47 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95142> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/technology/google-russian-electon-meddling.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95142&title=%E2%80%9CGoogle%20Prepares%20to%20Brief%20Congress%20on%20Its%20Role%20in%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“How partisan is too partisan? Wrong question.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95140>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95140> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
John Barrow WaPo oped.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-partisan-is-too-partisan-wrong-question/2017/09/29/4b54db0e-8756-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html?utm_term=.00b1a622a581>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95140&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20partisan%20is%20too%20partisan%3F%20Wrong%20question.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“From gerrymandering to voter purging – the critical issues facing the supreme court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95138>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95138> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Guardian reports.<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/01/supreme-court-key-cases-2017-gerrymander-travel-ban>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95138&title=%E2%80%9CFrom%20gerrymandering%20to%20voter%20purging%20%E2%80%93%20the%20critical%20issues%20facing%20the%20supreme%20court%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“How a Wisconsin Case Before Justices Could Reshape Redistricting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95136>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95136> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Wines reports<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/us/wisconsin-supreme-court-gerrymander.html> for the NYT.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95136&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20a%20Wisconsin%20Case%20Before%20Justices%20Could%20Reshape%20Redistricting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“The most and least transparent companies for political spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95134>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95134> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/09/28/the-most-and-least-transparent-companies-for-political-spending/?utm_term=.bf3f01e3d87e>
Major public companies are letting a little more sunlight into their wallets, making more disclosures about their political spending on their web sites and adding more board oversight to monitor it, according to a new study.
The report<http://files.politicalaccountability.net/index/2017_CPA-Zicklin_Index.pdf> released Tuesday, by the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability<http://politicalaccountability.net/>and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center<https://www.zicklincenter.org/> for Business Ethics Research, creates an index that ranks companies based on the disclosure, oversight and policies about their election-related spending. It found that 50 companies in the S&P 500 received scores of 90 percent or above, up from just 41 companies in 2016 and 28 in 2015.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95134&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20most%20and%20least%20transparent%20companies%20for%20political%20spending%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“History frowns on partisan gerrymandering”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95132>
Posted on October 1, 2017 8:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95132> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cliff Sloan and Michael Waldman have this WaPo oped<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/history-frowns-on-partisan-gerrymandering/2017/10/01/a6795fca-a491-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.b3abb6a7781c&wpmk=MK0000200>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95132&title=%E2%80%9CHistory%20frowns%20on%20partisan%20gerrymandering%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Gerrymandering the Constitution: More than statehouse politics at risk”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95130>
Posted on October 1, 2017 3:19 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95130> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
 Carolyn Shapiro<http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/353283-gerrymandering-the-constitution-theres-more-than-just-statehouses-at-risk> for The Hill with an important point I have not seen made elsewhere:
Those of us who live outside Wisconsin (or Virginia, North Carolina, or Maryland) should not assume these issues do not affect us. We all have a stake in ensuring that, in rough terms, elected representatives throughout the country are accountable to the people. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to amending the Constitution.
The Framers made it hard to amend the Constitution without widespread support. A supermajority of states must ratify any constitutional amendment before it goes into effect. Partisan gerrymandering, however, opens a door to the proposal and ratification of amendments are not in fact widely supported…
Those of us who live outside Wisconsin (or Virginia, North Carolina, or Maryland) should not assume these issues do not affect us. We all have a stake in ensuring that, in rough terms, elected representatives throughout the country are accountable to the people. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to amending the Constitution.
The Framers made it hard to amend the Constitution without widespread support. A supermajority of states must ratify any constitutional amendment before it goes into effect. Partisan gerrymandering, however, opens a door to the proposal and ratification of amendments are not in fact widely supported.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95130&title=%E2%80%9CGerrymandering%20the%20Constitution%3A%20More%20than%20statehouse%20politics%20at%20risk%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Can the Supreme Court Fix American Politics?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95128>
Posted on October 1, 2017 3:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95128> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/gerrymandering-supreme-court.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials> on Gil v Whitford.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95128&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Fix%20American%20Politics%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Facebook can’t protect elections on its own”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95126>
Posted on October 1, 2017 3:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95126> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo editorial.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/facebook-cant-protect-elections-on-its-own/2017/09/29/d8a6d3b0-a491-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.f1c55e986a9a&wpmk=MK0000200>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95126&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20can%E2%80%99t%20protect%20elections%20on%20its%20own%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Courting Kennedy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95124>
Posted on October 1, 2017 3:11 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95124> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mike Parsons on Gil.<https://moderndemocracyblog.com/2017/09/30/courting-kennedy/>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95124&title=%E2%80%9CCourting%20Kennedy%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

City of Pasadena Texas, Under Federal Voting Rights Preclearance for Intentional Racial Discrimination, Poised to Drop Appeal UPDATED AND CORRECTED<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95116>
Posted on September 29, 2017 2:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95116> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
UPDATE to the post below: The information I had was incomplete.  This settlement still must be approved twice by the Pasadena City Council, which likely will not happen until some time in November.

City will also pay $1 million (presumably in fees). Details to come<https://twitter.com/chronsnyder/status/913786416068546565>. (Updated news story<http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena/article/Pasadena-to-pay-about-1-million-to-settle-voting-12240736.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop>).
This is a big deal.
The findings <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90352> of intentional discrimination against Latino voters were stark.
It was unclear what the 5th Circuit was going to do in this appeal, but the facts were pretty damning.
Now the ball looks like it will be in the Trump DOJ’s court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=90502> to police Pasadena’s redistricting efforts.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95116&title=City%20of%20Pasadena%20Texas%2C%20Under%20Federal%20Voting%20Rights%20Preclearance%20for%20Intentional%20Racial%20Discrimination%2C%20Poised%20to%20Drop%20Appeal%20UPDATED%20AND%20CORRECTED>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“To Limit Gerrymandering, Supreme Court Needs Just to Reaffirm Equal Population Requirement”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95114>
Posted on September 29, 2017 12:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95114> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Barone column.<https://www.creators.com/read/michael-barone>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95114&title=%E2%80%9CTo%20Limit%20Gerrymandering%2C%20Supreme%20Court%20Needs%20Just%20to%20Reaffirm%20Equal%20Population%20Requirement%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Litigating the Line Between Past and Present; The Supreme Court is about to take up another blockbuster voting rights case. At its core is a struggle over the limits of history.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95112>
Posted on September 29, 2017 12:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95112> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sara Mayeux<https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/1027?related=346&relationship_name=REWIND> for Bunk History:
How past is the past? That quandary, among the definitional puzzles of the human condition, is also the crux of the voting rights battles currently rending statehouses and federal courts around the country. Election law is an intricate tangle of constitutional doctrine, federal statutes and regulations, state laws and procedures, and local practices. It’s among the most complicated of legal specialties. And yet the blockbuster voting rights cases that federal courts in North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and elsewhere have decided in recent years—one of which, Gill v. Whitford<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/>, the Supreme Court will hear on October 3—are not, fundamentally, technical legal disputes. Fundamentally they are philosophical fights about the burdens of history.
Consider Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court decision that partially invalidated<http://https/www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96> the Voting Rights Act. Congressman John Lewis implored the Court to save the Act in a powerful amicus brief<http://https/www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-96_resp_amcu_hcjl.authcheckdam.pdf>. Quoting from Lewis’s memoir, the brief detailed the 1965 march across Selma’s Pettus Bridge, which ultimately impelled the Act’s passage, and in particular, the moment in the course of that march when an Alabama state trooper with a billy club cracked open the left side of the young John Lewis’s skull: “Bleeding badly and barely hanging onto consciousness,” Lewis “tried to stand up from the pavement only to find himself surrounded by women and children weeping, vomiting while ‘men on horses [moved] in all directions, purposely riding over the top of fallen people, bringing the animals’ hooves down on shoulders, stomachs, and legs.’”
Apparently unmoved by this image, a 5-4 majority of the Court joined the opinion<http://https/www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_OPINION_3> of Chief Justice John Roberts, which depicted those men and horses not as still riding in the minds of those who saw them but rather as neatly suspended in a hermetically sealed “before” to which the present world had little connection. “History did not end in 1965,” Roberts insisted. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95112&title=%E2%80%9CLitigating%20the%20Line%20Between%20Past%20and%20Present%3B%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20is%20about%20to%20take%20up%20another%20blockbuster%20voting%20rights%20case.%20At%20its%20core%20is%2>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Federal authorities didn’t tell Wisconsin for a year about Russian involvement in hacking attempts”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95110>
Posted on September 29, 2017 12:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95110> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/09/29/federal-authorities-didnt-tell-wisconsin-year-russian-involvement-hacking-attempts/717241001/>:
Wisconsin officials for a year were not told about specific attempts by the Russian government to gain access to the state’s voter registration database, the leaders of the state Elections Commission said Friday.
Friday’s statement<http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/news/nr_elections_election_security_update_9_29_17_pd_55081.pdf> from the commission comes after a week of conflicting reports<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/09/26/wisconsin-elections-commission-offers-apology-raises-questions-hacking-attempt/703660001/> about what Russian agents attempted to do<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/22/homeland-security-russians-tried-hack-wisconsins-election-system/694570001/> and when state and federal officials knew about them.
\Wisconsin systems were targeted<http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2017/09/29/wisconsin-has-made-progress-heading-off-election-hackers-but-more-could-done/708138001/> in July and August 2016. Wisconsin officials were aware of the attempts but not that Russian government actors were behind them, according to Friday’s statement and public records. In one of the incidents, the attack was targeted at a different state agency, not the Elections Commission.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95110&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20authorities%20didn%E2%80%99t%20tell%20Wisconsin%20for%20a%20year%20about%20Russian%20involvement%20in%20hacking%20attempts%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Miscellany<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95107>
Posted on September 29, 2017 12:17 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95107> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>
A few final notes about the gerrymandering articles I flagged over the last few days: First, the Election Law Journal (where three of the pieces are forthcoming) has generously agreed to make them available free of charge. The McGhee article is here<http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2017.0453>; the Chen article here<http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2017.0455>; and the Caughey et al. article here<http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/elj.2017.0452>.
Second, all of the authors worked on amicus briefs in Whitford that built on the pieces I cited. McGhee’s brief is here<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/16-1161tsacEricMcGhee.pdf>; a brief representing Chen and other political geographers is here<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/16-1161bsacPoliticalGeographyScholars.pdf>; and a brief discussing the findings of Caughey et al. is here<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/16-1161bsacLeagueOfConservationVoters%20et%20al.pdf>.
And third, in a recent paper<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2990638_code636048.pdf?abstractid=2990638&mirid=1> of mine, I confirmed the findings of Caughey et al. at the congressional level. I determined, that is, that a pro-Democratic (pro-Republican) efficiency gap leads to a congressional delegation with a significantly more liberal (conservative) ideological midpoint, even holding constant voters’ preferences. The key chart is below; it shows large differences in representation, for states with similar electoral environments, based on whether their congressional plans exhibit pro-Democratic, pro-Republican, or more neutral skews.
[http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pic11-300x220.png]
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95107&title=Miscellany>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Slashing corporate taxes opens floodgate on ‘dark money’ ads”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95105>
Posted on September 29, 2017 11:59 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95105> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ezra Reese oped<http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/353100-slashing-corporate-taxes-opens-floodgate-on-dark-money-ads>:
Political organizations very rarely withhold donors currently because the 35 percent tax is simply too high. A cut in that rate to 20 percent, however, would lead a number of political organizations and their donors to conclude that withholding the names of at least some donors would be worth the price. The result would be political organizations that raise unlimited, undisclosed funds, pay a relatively small tax on those funds, and then spend all remaining funds on political ads.
This loophole could be closed by an FEC ruling that political organizations engaged in federal electoral activity should register and report under federal campaign finance law (which unlike the IRS system, requires mandatory reporting enforced by both civil and criminal penalties). But at the FEC, trends are cutting the other way, with half the current commissioners believing that a political organization need not register and report unless it is spending most of its funds on communications that “expressly advocate” for or against federal candidates, a standard that many organizations are deft at avoiding.
A large cut in the corporate rate, without action to preserve that rate as applied to political spending, will create a roadmap to raise unlimited amounts of undisclosed money, spend it all on political activity, and pay only a minimal tax. The result would be an eclipse on the sunlight of public disclosure of political spending.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95105&title=%E2%80%9CSlashing%20corporate%20taxes%20opens%20floodgate%20on%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20ads%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

Is Justice Gorsuch in Play in Ohio Voter Purge Case?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95103>
Posted on September 29, 2017 11:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95103> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sam Bagenstos, in a fine amicus brief<https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5nstp4r600kwnm/16-980%20bsac%20Eric%20Holder%2C%20Jr.pdf?dl=0> for former DOJ officials, makes a very strong textualist argument (along with other arguments) that Ohio’s voter purge process violates the plain meaning of the NVRA and HAVA.  (Sam makes other persuasive arguments too, including pointing out that the current Trump Administration’s read of the statute conflicts with more than two decades of earlier consistent interpretation by DOJ.)
I’ll be watching closely to see whether Justice Gorsuch, who otherwise I would expect to have sympathy with Ohio’s position, follows the close textual reading in Sam’s brief.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95103&title=Is%20Justice%20Gorsuch%20in%20Play%20in%20Ohio%20Voter%20Purge%20Case%3F>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Ned Foley on Why Oral Argument Might Matter in WI Partisan Gerrymandering Case, and Some Questions<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95099>
Posted on September 29, 2017 10:35 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95099> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ned:<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=13413>
It is often said that oral arguments rarely make a difference to the outcome of a Supreme Court case, that the Justices’ minds are essentially made up before oral argument begins.
But Gill v. Whitford,<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> the blockbuster partisan gerrymandering case from Wisconsin, looks to be one of those rare cases for which what transpires during oral argument genuinely has a chance to be outcome-determinative.
There are two reasons for this.   First, Justice Kennedy—whose vote is widely understood<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95071> as crucial to determining whether or not the Constitution is interpreted as containing a judicially enforceable constraint on the deliberately partisan manipulation of legislative districts—has made clear from his own previous opinions on the topic that he is genuinely torn between two opposing view: on the one hand, the need to identify some such constraint; and on the other, the inability to do so thus far. Even if Justice Kennedy goes into Tuesday’s oral argument tentatively leaning towards one side or the other (having read all the briefs filed in the case), there is a significant possibility that what is said during the argument could push him back in the opposite direction.   There is little doubt that even now, so far into the litigation of this issue, Justice Kennedy is still very much open to persuasion on this issue. It is, of course, the task of the Supreme Court advocate to be persuasive when and where the opportunity exists, and there may be moments in Tuesday’s argument—in responding to one of his questions, or even one of another Justice’s—when the advocate can make a point that either dislodges a previous expectation based on the reading of the briefs or instead solidifies a tentative understanding.
The second reason is that, even after all the briefs (or maybe because of all of them), there is still much uncertain and unsettled about the litigation of monumental lawsuit and thus important points that the oral argument can clarify or pin down in ways that might be helpful to one side or the other. For example, how important is the so-called “standing” issue, upon which the state of Wisconsin places much emphasis in its briefs, but which received relatively less attention in the district court (and virtually no discussion in the media’s consideration of the case)? In other words, could this particular lawsuit fail not because of an invalid theory on the merits of the claim, but because the plaintiffs did not identify specific districts that were harmed as a result of the statewide gerrymander (and thus did not attempt to link specific plaintiffs with a district-specific injury, even if the unconstitutionality of the gerrymander had a statewide character)?
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95099&title=Ned%20Foley%20on%20Why%20Oral%20Argument%20Might%20Matter%20in%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case%2C%20and%20Some%20Questions>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Two Events with Great Lineups from “Make Every Vote Count” Group<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95097>
Posted on September 29, 2017 10:31 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95097> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Two events with great lineups from a new group<https://makingeveryvotecount.com/mission/> headed by Reed Hundt dedicated to passing the national popular vote.
“Improving American Democrac<https://makingeveryvotecount.com/stanford/>y” (Oct. 7 at Stanford, use link to RSVP).
“The Need for Presidential Selection Refor<https://makingeveryvotecount.com/washington-dc/>m” (Oct. 12, Washington DC, use link to RSVP)

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95097&title=Two%20Events%20with%20Great%20Lineups%20from%20%E2%80%9CMake%20Every%20Vote%20Count%E2%80%9D%20Group>
Posted in electoral college<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>

“Why Retirements May Hold the Key in Whether Republicans Can Keep the House”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95094>
Posted on September 29, 2017 8:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95094> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Cohn<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/upshot/dont-forget-the-republicans-incumbency-advantage-in-2018.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront> for NYT’s The Upshot:
Democrats often lament that the House electoral playing field is stacked against them, but that’s not their only problem.
The Republican structural edge in the House is fully realized only with the added advantage of incumbency. The Democrats would be overwhelming favorites to retake the House in this political environment if no incumbents chose to run for re-election, even with all of the burdens of gerrymandering and geography.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95094&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Retirements%20May%20Hold%20the%20Key%20in%20Whether%20Republicans%20Can%20Keep%20the%20House%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

--
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/20171002/75db2daf/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/20171002/75db2daf/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 110036 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171002/75db2daf/attachment-0001.png>