[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/24/17

Mon Oct 23 20:00:11 PDT 2017

Pence-Kobach Fraud Commission Spokesperson Suggests There May Be No More Meetings of Sham Commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95632>
Posted on October 23, 2017 7:49 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95632> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-on-trumps-voter-commission-say-theyre-in-the-dark-about-what-its-doing/2017/10/23/e1c82dd2-b7ff-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.bd6f897a65d2>
The 11-member panel, which is nominally chaired by Vice President Pence and formally known as the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, has met publicly twice, in Washington in July and in New Hampshire last month. A third meeting has yet to be announced.
“For all I know, we may never meet again,” said Matthew Dunlap, Maine’s secretary of state and a Democratic commissioner.
Asked about plans for future meetings, the commission’s executive director, Andrew Kossack, issued a statement leaving open the possibility that there would be none.
“The Commission continues to review information obtained during the last meeting and will keep all Commission members updated should further meetings be scheduled,” Kossack said.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95632&title=Pence-Kobach%20Fraud%20Commission%20Spokesperson%20Suggests%20There%20May%20Be%20No%20More%20Meetings%20of%20Sham%20Commission>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“Maine’s ranked-choice voting law could be delayed until 2021”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95629>
Posted on October 23, 2017 7:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95629> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bangor Daily News:<http://bangordailynews.com/2017/10/23/politics/maines-ranked-choice-voting-law-delayed-until-2021/>
The ranked-choice voting law enacted by voters in 2016 is in danger of full repeal following a series of votes Monday in the Legislature, but it has a stay of execution until December 2021.
The law, which was deemed partially unconstitutional earlier this year<http://bangordailynews.com/2017/05/23/politics/maine-supreme-judicial-court-rules-ranked-choice-voting-unconstitutional/> by an advisory opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, has been at the center of controversy in the Legislature for months. Lawmakers adjourned this year’s regular session in August with the House and Senate in disagreement and unable to pass a bill.
However, the two chambers agreed in preliminary votes Monday to delay implementation of the law until December 2021, as long as the Legislature can amend the law by then to bring it into constitutional compliance. A failure to do that would lead to a full repeal of the ranked-choice voting law.
Rob Richie statement:<http://www.fairvote.org/statement_on_maine_suspending_ranked_choice_voting>
“Today’s action by the legislature to effectively repeal ranked choice voting stands in violation of the clear desire of a majority of Maine voters to have more voice, better choice and majority rule in their elections.
The legislature had a clear path forward if it was serious about respecting the will of the people, as well as satisfying the state constitution. As initially passed by the House today, it could have kept ranked choice voting (RCV) on course for all primaries and all congressional elections in the state. Instead, it chose today’s unnecessary and draconian steps, suspending the law until 2021, when it would be repealed unless Maine changes its constitution via a two-thirds vote of the legislature and a vote of the people to allow majority voting in general elections for governor.

Ironically, today’s attack on the sovereignty of voters was led by gubernatorial candidates in the legislature who without RCV could win their primary with far less than 50%. This is yet another example of why voters demanded RCV — in order to create a new politics that is genuinely responsive to the will of the people.
Maine’s legislature took this undemocratic step despite clear evidence that Mainers can handle RCV and non-RCV races at the same time, without confusion. Legislators need only to look to Portland’s highly successful elections in 2011 and 2015, when voters used RCV to choose a mayor, but not the city council. Those Portland elections also show that RCV can be administered effectively and inexpensively in Maine.
The legislation now goes to Gov. Paul LePage for his signature. We call on the governor to stand with the voters of Maine and veto the bill. Furthermore, we applaud and support all Mainers who are now calling for a people’s veto. If enough signatures are gathered to force a veto, then the law will be suspended until a referendum vote in June, and RCV will be used in Maine’s upcoming primaries. If it takes another referendum for Maine’s politicians to understand the will of Maine’s voters, then they will learn — once again — that Mainers insist on better government and real democracy through ranked choice voting.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95629&title=%E2%80%9CMaine%E2%80%99s%20ranked-choice%20voting%20law%20could%20be%20delayed%20until%202021%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>

“Obama’s army enlists in redistricting fight”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95627>
Posted on October 23, 2017 4:12 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95627> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico:<http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/23/obama-redistricting-fight-244049>
Organizing for Action, the progressive group born out of Barack Obama’s old campaign apparatus, is joining the redistricting effort that Obama has made a central cause of his post-presidency.
On Monday, OFA officially launched a partnership with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95627&title=%E2%80%9CObama%E2%80%99s%20army%20enlists%20in%20redistricting%20fight%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

House Committee on Administration Holding Hearing on State Voter List Maintenance<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95625>
Posted on October 23, 2017 1:05 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95625> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Witness list<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HA/HA00/20171025/106531/HHRG-115-HA00-WList-20171025.pdf> for Wed. hearing.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95625&title=House%20Committee%20on%20Administration%20Holding%20Hearing%20on%20State%20Voter%20List%20Maintenance>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“The Voter Fraud Commission Wants Your Data — But Experts Say They Can’t Keep It Safe”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95623>
Posted on October 23, 2017 12:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95623> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ProPublica:<https://www.propublica.org/article/crosscheck-the-voter-fraud-commission-wants-your-data-keep-it-safe>
The voter-fraud-checking program championed by the head of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity suffers from data security flaws that could imperil the safety of millions of peoples’ records, according to experts.
Indivisible Chicago, a progressive advocacy group in Illinois, filed a public-records request with Illinois and Florida for information on the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program. Crosscheck was created and run by the Kansas secretary of state’s office and is often cited by Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as a way to identify voters casting ballots in more than one state. Indivisible Chicago then posted emails and other documents<https://www.indivisiblechicago.com/crosscheck-documents> it received, including messages exchanged between elections officials in Illinois and Florida and Crosscheck.
The emails and records revealed numerous security weaknesses. Crosscheck’s files are hosted on an insecure server, according to its own information. Usernames and passwords were regularly shared by email, making them vulnerable to snooping. And passwords were overly simplistic and only irregularly changed.
“It blows my mind — this is complete operational security incompetence,” said Joe Hall, the chief technologist for the Center for Democracy & Technology, an organization that promotes internet freedom. “You should consider all of that stuff in the hands of people who are clever enough to intercept someone’s email.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95623&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voter%20Fraud%20Commission%20Wants%20Your%20Data%20%E2%80%94%20But%20Experts%20Say%20They%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Keep%20It%20Safe%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

In Major Victory in Case with National Significance, Ninth Circuit on 2-1 Vote Upholds Montana Contribution Limits; Judge Bea Would Appear to Hold *All* Limits Unconstitutional<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95620>
Posted on October 23, 2017 11:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95620> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In Lair v. Motl,<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/23/16-35424.pdf> a case I have been closely watching, the Ninth Circuit on a 2-1 vote reversed a district court decision and upheld Montana’s contribution limits.
The case is of course important to Montana, but it has national ramifications because the theory accepted by the trial court (and in part by a 9th Circuit motions panel) would have required very specific evidence of bribery-like corruption to sustain virtually any contribution limit. It would have had the effect of bringing down those limits wherever the precedent was applied.  In today’s opinion by Judge Fisher, the court reaffirms the much laxer standard of review that has applied to contribution limits in the past, including in cases like Shrink Missouri, and even the later Randall case.
Judge Bea in dissent believes that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon change everything, and that virtually all contribution limits now fail strict scrutiny (this, despite the fact that Citizens United expressly said it had nothing to say about contribution limits).  From Judge Bea:
In footnote 5, the majority opinion notes that “[u]nder the dissent’s logic…Montana’s evidence is inadequate to justify any contribution limit whatsoever, no matter how high.” This is quite correct. Absent a showing of the existence or appearance of quid pro quo corruption based on objective evidence, the presence of a subjective sense that there is a risk of such corruption or its appearance does not justify a limit on campaign contributions. Restrictions on speech must be based on fact, not conjecture.
Whether the Supreme Court would go so far as Judge Bea is uncertain. But because any review would come up to the Supreme Court on a discretionary cert. petition, it may be hard to get the Court to bite on taking a case which would have such major ramifications for campaign financing in this country (particularly because many cases come up to the Court on non-discretionary appeals).

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95620&title=In%20Major%20Victory%20in%20Case%20with%20National%20Significance%2C%20Ninth%20Circuit%20on%202-1%20Vote%20Upholds%20Montana%20Contribution%20Limits%3B%20Judge%20Bea%20Would%20Appear%20to%20Hold%20>
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/20171024/49374ed7/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/20171024/49374ed7/attachment.png>