[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/6/16

Wed Sep 6 07:34:23 PDT 2017

“Prominent Republicans Urge Supreme Court to End Gerrymandering”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94613>
Posted on September 6, 2017 7:27 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94613> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Liptak<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/us/politics/prominent-republicans-urge-supreme-court-to-end-gerrymandering.html?_r=0> for the NYT:
Breaking ranks with many of their fellow Republicans, a group of prominent politicians filed briefs on Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to rule that extreme political gerrymandering — the drawing of voting districts to give lopsided advantages to the party in power — violates the Constitution.
The briefs were signed by Republicans including Senator John McCain of Arizona; Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio; Bob Dole, the former Republican Senate leader from Kansas and the party’s 1996 presidential nominee; the former senators John C. Danforth of Missouri, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming; and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former governor of California.
“Partisan gerrymandering has become a tool for powerful interests to distort the democratic process,” reads a brief filed by Mr. McCain and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, on Oct. 3.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94613&title=%E2%80%9CProminent%20Republicans%20Urge%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20End%20Gerrymandering%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Reapportionment, Nonapportionment, and Recovering Some Lost History of One-Person, One Vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94611>
Posted on September 6, 2017 7:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94611> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Pam Karlan has posted this draft<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3028237> on SSRN (forthcoming, William and Mary Law Review).  Here is the abstract:
The Constitution requires a decennial “Enumeration” of the U.S. population, following which seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states “according to their respective Numbers.” Congress has enacted a default provision that makes this reapportionment essentially automatic.
It was not always so. The post-2020 round of reapportionment will mark the centennial of the most striking episode in the history of American reapportionment: Congress’s failure, for an entire decade, to reallocate seats in light of the census results. The reasons for this failure, and the consequences of Congress’s ultimate response, continue to shape our politics.
Historians and political scientists have written excellent studies of apportionment that address the nonapportionment post-1920. But none of these studies approaches the question from the perspective of legal doctrine. This essay aims to fill that space. It begins by describing the constitutional structure of apportionment, the questions the Constitution left open, and how those questions were resolved prior to 1920. It then turns to what happened in the 1920s and why. Finally, it explores the judicial response to the 1929 solution and describes how that response set the stage for the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s, which imposed a constitutional requirement of equipopulous congressional districts. Along the way, it recovers the lost history of earlier, congressional attempts to require population equality. The story is interesting in its own right, but I also suggest ways in which the upcoming redistricting will occur in a context with striking similarities to the context a century before.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94611&title=%E2%80%9CReapportionment%2C%20Nonapportionment%2C%20and%20Recovering%20Some%20Lost%20History%20of%20One-Person%2C%20One%20Vote%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“Congress Can Help Prevent Election Hacking”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94609>
Posted on September 6, 2017 7:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94609> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Chertoff oped<https://www.wsj.com/article_email/congress-can-help-prevent-election-hacking-1504652957-lMyQjAxMTA3MzA3NTcwMDU1Wj/> in the WSJ:
American voters received yet another rude awakening last month. Chicago’s Board of Elections reported that names, addresses, birth dates and other sensitive information about the city’s 1.8 million registered voters had been exposed on an Amazon cloud server for an unknown period. Worse, it appears hackers might have gained access to employees’ personal accounts at Election Systems & Software, a major election technology vendor—info that could be used to hack a future U.S. election.
Earlier, the Department of Homeland Security reported that foreign agents targeted voting systems in 21 states<http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/russia-hacking-hearing-states-targeted/index.html> in the 2016 election, and Bloomberg News report<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections>ed<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections> that hackers had successfully compromised various election-technology companies.
In an age of unprecedented cyber risks, these dangers aren’t surprising. But lawmakers and election officials’ lackadaisical response is both staggering and distressing.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94609&title=%E2%80%9CCongress%20Can%20Help%20Prevent%20Election%20Hacking%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

Pence-Kobach Fraud Commission Members Using Personal Email to Communicate, Raising Public Records Concerns<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94602>
Posted on September 6, 2017 7:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94602> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Thread.<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/905173551778590720>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94602&title=Pence-Kobach%20Fraud%20Commission%20Members%20Using%20Personal%20Email%20to%20Communicate%2C%20Raising%20Public%20Records%20Concerns>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

5th Circuit Motions Panel, on 2-1 Vote, Allows Texas to Enforce Its Revised ID Law Pending Appeal<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94600>
Posted on September 5, 2017 5:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94600> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Josh Gerstein<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/09/05/texas-voter-id-law-242352> comes news of this order<http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-546a-df04-a5df-d46fe71d0000> in the long-running Texas voter ID litigation. Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod held that Texas is likely to succeed on the merits because its new voter id legislation (SB 5) is enough to cure the defects with the voter id law. These judges also said that the question of the validity of SB5 was not properly before the district court. (That must be wrong; otherwise a state could easily circumvent a court finding that a law is illegal by passing a slightly different law, which would then require a new lawsuit—sounds like the situation before the enactment of Section 5!)
Judge James Graves, Jr., dissented, noting that because the district court found Texas acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, the law should be thrown out as a whole, and Texas cannot cure it with SB5. The dissent also noted that even if a stay was permissible, it should not allow using SB5–the old status quo was the district court’s interim order.
Given how each judge voted in the en banc ruling<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Veasey-Opinion072016.pdf> on the last round of the voter id case, nothing here is a surprise.
This is a ruling just by a motions panel; a separate merits panel will review the case in short order (the motions panel expedited consideration of the case).
There is still a long road ahead. The last time this went through it went en banc to the full 5th Circuit and took a while—so the status quo in the interim matters perhaps for how the 2018 elections will be conducted.
Plaintiffs could try to appeal this stay order to the Supreme Court, where they would probably face a tough audience, with perhaps Justice Kennedy in play.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94600&title=5th%20Circuit%20Motions%20Panel%2C%20on%202-1%20Vote%2C%20Allows%20Texas%20to%20Enforce%20Its%20Revised%20ID%20Law%20Pending%20Appeal>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

Lots of Amicus Briefs in Gill v. Whitford, the WI Partisan Gerrymandering Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94598>
Posted on September 5, 2017 3:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94598> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via the Brennan Center<http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/whitford-v-gill>, here are a number of interesting amicus briefs filed today supporting the challengers to Wisconsin’s redistricting (there are still more briefs coming—update: more posted here<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d12dvfr072li0rw/AADMIcALhwnZJG4Yrn2tWD_Ta?dl=0>):

  *   Heather K. Gerken, Jonathan N. Katz, Gary King, Larry J. Sabato, and Samuel S.-H. Wang Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees <https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_HeatherK.GerkenEtAl_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (August 30, 2017)
  *   Eric Lander Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees <https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_EricLander_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (August 31, 2017)
  *   44 Election Law, Scientific Evidence, and Empirical Legal Scholars Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_Amicus_Brief_44ElectionLawet.al_.LegalScholars.pdf> (September 1, 2017)
  *   NAACP LDF, et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees <https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_LDF_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (September 1, 2017)
  *   Colleagues of Professor Norman Dorsen Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_ColleaguesofProfNormanDorsen.pdf>(September 1, 2017)
  *   ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union, and ACLU of the Wisconsin Foundation Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_ACLU_InSupportofAppelles.pdf> (September 1, 2017)
  *   American Jewish Committee, et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_AmericanJewishCommittee_et.al_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (September 5, 2017)
  *   Political Science Professors Amicus Brief in Support of Appeelles and Affirmance<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_PoliticalScienceProfessors_InSupportof%20Appellees.pdf> (September 5, 2017)
  *   Bipartisan Group of 65 Current and Former State Legislators Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_BipartisanLegislators_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (September 5, 2017)
  *   Law Professors Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_Law%20Professors_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (Karlan et al.) (September 5, 2017)
  *   Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_BrennanCenterforJustice_InSupportofAppellees.pdf>(September 5, 2017)
  *   Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_SenatorsJohnMcCain_and_SheldonWhitehouse_InSupportofAppellees.pdf>(September 5, 2017)
  *   Constitutional Law Professors in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_ConstitutionalLawProfessors_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (Sullivan et al.) (September 5, 2017)
  *   Election Law and Constitutional Law Scholars Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_ElectionLawAndConstitutionalLawScholars_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (First Amendment) (September 5, 2017)
  *   FairVote and One Nation One Vote Amicus Brief in Support of Appellees <http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_Fairvote_and_OneNationOneVote_InSupportofAppellees.pdf> (September 5, 2017)
  *   ˚Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress<https://www.theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Gill_v_Whitford_Merits_Amicus_Final.pdf> (CAC)
  *   Binghamton Political Scientists<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/McLaughlin_Gill-v-Whitford_Amici-Brief-PROOF.pdf>
And here are earlier amicus briefs supporting Wisconsin or neither party:

  *   Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_JudicialWatchandAEF_InSupportofAppellants.pdf> (August 3, 2017)
  *   Tennessee State Senators Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_TNStateSenators_InSupportofAppellants.pdf> (August 3, 2017)
  *   Legacy Foundation Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_LegacyFoundation_InSupportofAppellants.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   National Republican Congressional Committee Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_NRCC_InSupportofAppellants.pdf>(August 4, 2017)
  *   Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_WisconsinInstitute_InSupportofAppellants.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   American Civil Rights Union and the Public Interest Legal Foundation in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_AmericanCivilRightsUnion.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   The Majority Leader and Temporary President of the New York State Senate and Members of the Majority Coalition Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_MajorityLeaderofNYStateSenate.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   Republican State Leadership Committee Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants <https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_RSLC.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/GIll_AmicusBrief_WisconsinManufacturersandCommerce.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_WIStateSenateandAssembly.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   Republican National Committee Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_RNC.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants <https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_VariousStates.pdf> (August 4, 2017)
  *   Plaintiffs in Maryland Redistricting Litigation, Benisek v. Lamone, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_MDRedistrictingPlaintiffs_InSupportofNeitherParty.pdf> (August 10, 2017)
  *   Eric McGhee Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_EricMcGhee_InSupportofNeitherParty.pdf> (August 10, 2017)
  *   Bernard Grofman and Ronald Keith Gaddie Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Gill_AmicusBrief_BernardGrofmanAndRonaldGaddie_InSupportofNeitherParty.pdf>(August 10, 2017)
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94598&title=Lots%20of%20Amicus%20Briefs%20in%20Gill%20v.%20Whitford%2C%20the%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Trump’s voter suppression efforts must be defeated. Here’s one thing we can do”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94596>
Posted on September 5, 2017 11:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94596> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Russ Feingold oped <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/05/forget-purging-voter-rolls-improve-democracys-legitimacy#img-1> in The Guardian.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94596&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20voter%20suppression%20efforts%20must%20be%20defeated.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20one%20thing%20we%20can%20do%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Plaintiffs File #SCOTUS Opposition to Texas Stay Request in Congressional Redistricting Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94591>
Posted on September 5, 2017 9:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94591> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read it here.<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/No-17A225-Abbott-v.-Perez-Stay-Opposition.pdf>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94591&title=Plaintiffs%20File%20%23SCOTUS%20Opposition%20to%20Texas%20Stay%20Request%20in%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Case>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“We need political parties. But their rabid partisanship could destroy American democracy.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94588>
Posted on September 5, 2017 8:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=94588> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman<https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/5/16227700/hyperpartisanship-identity-american-democracy-problems-solutions-doom-loop> for Vox.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D94588&title=%E2%80%9CWe%20need%20political%20parties.%20But%20their%20rabid%20partisanship%20could%20destroy%20American%20democracy.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>

--
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/20170906/906caaef/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/20170906/906caaef/attachment.png>