[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/24/18

Tue Apr 24 08:18:44 PDT 2018

Texas: “Judge dismisses GOP lawsuit that sought to remove dozens of Democrats from November ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98813>
Posted on April 24, 2018 8:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98813> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Dallas Morning News reports.<https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018-elections/2018/04/23/judge-dismisses-gop-lawsuit-sought-remove-dozens-democrats-november-election>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98813&title=Texas%3A%20%E2%80%9CJudge%20dismisses%20GOP%20lawsuit%20that%20sought%20to%20remove%20dozens%20of%20Democrats%20from%20November%20ballot%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

North Carolina: “GOP’s Woodhouse deposed, releases opposition research wish list”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98811>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:59 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98811> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WRAL:<https://www.wral.com/gop-s-woodhouse-deposed-drops-opposition-research-to-press/17505666/>

 A legal team for the state Democratic Party deposed the North Carolina Republican Party’s executive director for at least 90 minutes Monday morning.

Dallas Woodhouse said he answered some questions “out of respect to the courts,” declined to answer others and didn’t think anything he had to say was particularly helpful to the federal lawsuit the Democratic Party filed against Republican legislators over the cancellation of this year’s judicial primaries.

“We anticipated a fishing expedition, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s what we saw,” Woodhouse said after appearing under oath before attorneys at the downtown offices of Poyner Spruill.

Woodhouse provided members of the media with a packet of documents that he said he also turned over to Democrats in answer to their subpoena. It was made up largely of talking points against Anita Earls, a Democrat running for the state Supreme Court.

There was also a two-page opposition research to-do list containing Democratic General Assembly candidates and unverified claims against them.

“Is he passing the plate around his church for campaign contributions?” one entry asks. “Is he having an extramarital affair?”

Another entry reads in part: “Waiting on mole to produce evidence of illegal coordination.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98811&title=North%20Carolina%3A%20%E2%80%9CGOP%E2%80%99s%20Woodhouse%20deposed%2C%20releases%20opposition%20research%20wish%20list%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

Today’s Must-Read: TX: “White Judge Sentenced to Probation for Election Fraud in Same County Where Black Woman Received 5 Years”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98809>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98809> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Root:<https://www.theroot.com/white-judge-sentenced-to-probation-for-election-fraud-i-1825479980?utm_source=theroot_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow>

Right now, there is a black woman sitting in prison, reading about a Texas judge who was found guilty of the same crime she committed. She probably noticed that the judge was sentenced to five years’ probation in the same county that sentenced her to five years in jail. More than likely, she also noticed that she is black and the judge who was found guilty of turning in fake signatures to secure a spot in the Republican primary is white.

On Monday, Tarrant County, Texas, Justice of the Peace Russ Casey pleaded guilty to tampering with a government record after an investigation found that many signatures on his ballot petition were false, even though Casey signed a form attesting that he’d witnessed the signatures, according to the Star-Telegram.<https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article209608374.html>

In a Donald Trump-like display of testicular boldness, the Republican Casey was so desperate to keep his job, which paid $125,911.76 a year, he filed a lawsuit to keep his fellow GOP challengers off the ballot, claiming that they didn’t have enough signatures.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98809&title=Today%E2%80%99s%20Must-Read%3A%20TX%3A%20%E2%80%9CWhite%20Judge%20Sentenced%20to%20Probation%20for%20Election%20Fraud%20in%20Same%20County%20Where%20Black%20Woman%20Received%205%20Years%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Colorado Republican congressman is kicked off primary ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98805>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:51 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98805> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/04/23/colorado-republican-congressman-kicked-off-primary-ballot/?utm_term=.0b584cd86111>

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) is pursuing legal action to keep his name on the June 26 primary ballot after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled<https://www.denverpost.com/2018/04/23/doug-lamborn-kept-off-2018-ballot/> that hundreds of signatures on his candidate petitions were collected by people who did not live in his district.

“We recognize the gravity of this conclusion, but Colorado law does not permit us to conclude otherwise,” wrote Judge Brian Whitney in a decision released Monday afternoon. Lamborn’s campaign pledged immediately to fight the decision.

“We are disappointed by the outcome and believe it was wrongly decided,” said Lamborn spokesman Dan Bayens. “We are immediately bringing an action in federal court to overturn the part of Colorado law that deprives voters who have petitioned to have Congressman Lamborn on the ballot of their constitutional rights.”

While such a constitutional challenge may well have merit, it may be too late to get relief for Lamborn in this case.  He should have challenged the rule before collecting such signatures using people who were not state residents.

The Colorado Supreme Court said it lacked jurisdiction<xhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA176.pdf> to decide the constitutional issue. To bring this up now in federal court raises issues of both abstention and claim/issue preclusion.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98805&title=%E2%80%9CColorado%20Republican%20congressman%20is%20kicked%20off%20primary%20ballot%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Ninth Circuit Motions Panel Refuses to Enjoin California Voting Rights Act, Pending Expedited Appeal<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98803>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98803> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Order:

Filed order (RICHARD C. TALLMAN and MARY H. MURGUIA) Appellant Higginsons emergency motion for injunction pending appeal in 18-55455 (Docket Entry No. ) is denied. Appellants opposed request to expedite appeal No. 18-55455 is granted in part. The opening brief is due April 30, 2018; the answering brief is due May 14, 2018; and the optional reply brief is due within 5 days after service of the answering brief. No streamlined extensions will be approved under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a). No written motions for extensions of time under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b) will be granted absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The Clerk shall calendar this case for June 2018. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(g). [10847576] [18-55455, 18-55506] (OC)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98803&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20Motions%20Panel%20Refuses%20to%20Enjoin%20California%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%2C%20Pending%20Expedited%20Appeal>

Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

BPC Making Elections Work Event on Friday<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98801>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:40 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98801> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This looks<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/making-elections-work/?_cldee=cmhhc2VuQGxhdy51Y2kuZWR1&recipientid=contact-2dd9ced25ba8e211b13a78e3b50834b8-283897c1af7b4d4189e9fe98a49ef7ab&utm_source=ClickDimensions&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Democracy%20%7C%20PCEA%20Anniversary%20%7C%204.27.18&esid=18a5b29d-1b47-e811-8115-5065f38b81e1> very good:

Making Elections Work

KEYWORDS: PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/tag/presidential-commission-on-election-administration>, VOTER REGISTRATION<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/tag/voter-registration>, LIVE NOW<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/tag/live-now>

WHEN: Friday, April 27, 2018 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. ET

WHERE: Bipartisan Policy Center, 1225 Eye St NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC, 20005

➤ REGISTER NOW <http://bpcevents.cloudapp.net/Pages/Home.aspx?eventid=%7b55E50E20-2838-E811-8112-5065F38B81E1%7d>

The President Commission on Election Administration’s (PCEA) bipartisan and unanimous recommendations remain as valid today as they were four years ago when its final report was released. Please join BPC on April 27 for updates on our continuing work, with a focus on polling place line management and voter registration modernization.

Can’t join us in person? The event will be webcast on this page.

________________________________

Featuring:

Jay Ashcroft
Missouri Secretary of State
@MissouriSOS<https://twitter.com/MissouriSOS>

Robert F. Bauer
Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Ryan Chew
Deputy Director of Elections, Cook County

Sen. Judy K. Emmons
33rd District, Michigan
@judyformichigan<https://twitter.com/judyformichigan>

Adrian Fontes
Recorder, Maricopa County
@RecorderFontes<https://twitter.com/RecorderFontes>

Benamin L. Ginsberg
Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Craig Latimer
Supervisor of Elections, Hillsborough County
@hillsboroughsoe<https://twitter.com/hillsboroughsoe>

Maggie Toulouse Oliver
New Mexico Secretary of State
@NMSecOfState<https://twitter.com/NMSecOfState>

Charles Stewart III
Director, MIT Election Data and Science Lab
@cstewartiii<https://twitter.com/cstewartiii>

Michele L. White
General Registrar, Prince William County

Sally Williams
Elections Director, Michigan

REGISTER NOW<http://bpcevents.cloudapp.net/Pages/Home.aspx?eventid=%7b55E50E20-2838-E811-8112-5065F38B81E1%7d>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98801&title=BPC%20Making%20Elections%20Work%20Event%20on%20Friday>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Does the Chief Justice or Justice Gorsuch Have the Majority Opinion in Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98799>
Posted on April 24, 2018 7:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98799> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tea leaf reading<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/988783108194385920> from my colleague Leah Litman:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/953757222990790656/6wDn2ic7_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman>
<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman>
Leah Litman<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman>
✔@LeahLitman<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman>

<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/988783108194385920>

This (ordinarily) would mean the opinion assignment in Gill (from the October sitting) went to...

The Chief Justice or Justice Gorsuch. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/988782443120463875 …<https://t.co/NFxkSp5yOS>
7:13 AM - Apr 24, 2018<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/988783108194385920>
·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988783108194385920>
8<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988783108194385920>
·         <https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/988783108194385920>
16 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/988783108194385920>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>

Let me lay out a marker and say that if the Chief has it, I think he’s more likely to be the sixth vote to rein in partisan gerrymandering than the fifth to kill it.

UPDATE: Another, less rosy possibility:  Maybe we get another 4-1-4 like Vieth, and Roberts is writing a Scalia-like plurality of nonjusticiability and there is no majority decision.

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98799&title=Does%20the%20Chief%20Justice%20or%20Justice%20Gorsuch%20Have%20the%20Majority%20Opinion%20in%20Gill%20v.%20Whitford%2C%20the%20Wisconsin%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case%3F>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Texas redistricting and the travel ban<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98793>
Posted on April 24, 2018 5:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98793> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

(X-posted at Take Care<https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-week-s-blockbuster-scotus-cases-share-a-troublesome-common-issue>.)

Two of the last SCOTUS mega-cases of the Term share a little something.

This morning, the Supreme Court hears argument in the Texas redistricting case.  Tomorrow, the Court considers Trump’s travel ban.  They’re both massive cases, with multiple outsized issues apiece.  And one vital concern ties them together, with ramifications far beyond the context of either case alone.

The issue common to both cases is the staying power of a discriminatory taint.

Trump v. Hawaii is ostensibly about Proclamation 9645<https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201700685/pdf/DCPD-201700685.pdf>, issued on September 24, 2017.  The proclamation restricted entry into the United States by nationals of seven countries (and certain government officials from Venezuela).  Viewed in isolation, the proclamation raises several important questions about immigration law and the scope of executive authority.  But context adds another layer.  Five of the seven countries impacted by Proclamation 9645 were also the subject of a March 2017 Executive Order<https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-09/pdf/2017-04837.pdf> — which, according to the President, was itself the “watered down, politically correct version<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871675245043888128>” of a January 2017 “Travel Ban<https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-01/pdf/2017-02281.pdf>” imposed largely on Muslim residents of the targeted countries.  The Fourth Circuit found<http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/171351.P.pdf> that the March Executive Order was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.  And now the Court faces questions about the lingering impact of that March discrimination on the September proclamation.

Similarly, Abbott v. Perez is about a decision that looks different on its face than it does in context.  In 2011, Texas passed a redistricting plan that was blocked<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-redistricting-district-court.pdf> under the Voting Rights Act, and found<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/17-586-17-626-17-680-17-780-opinion-below.pdf> to be the product of intentional racial discrimination.  With 2012 elections swiftly approaching, the plaintiffs and Texas arrived at a vigorously negotiated interim plan, approved by a federal court as good enough for the time being<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gOEx1X0dxbllTS3VhVmxtRk9aSjJ6QQ/view>.  In 2013, with just a few modifications to the state House plan, Texas essentially adopted the 2012 interim maps.  The case now up at SCOTUS is ostensibly about the 2013 legislation, which on Texas’s view merely reflects a new statute based on federal court blessing.  But the 2012 compromise at the heart of the controversy preserved several aspects of the initial discriminatory effort.  And now the Court faces questions about the lingering impact of that 2011 discrimination on the 2013 plan.

This is not the first time that the Court has had to address the lingering impact of an impermissible purpose.  In Hunter v. Underwood<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12060855501208977263>, the Court was clear that time alone — even eighty years worth of time alone, much less a matter of months — does not purge the taint of an invidiously discriminatory purpose.  And while a jurisdiction’s subsequent attempts to ameliorate the damage of a discriminatory law are not forever tainted by an original sin, United States v. Fordice<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12724876774165086679> shows that any new enactment must eliminate or adequately justify the vestiges of earlier discrimination.  It also shows that the burden of proof with respect to turning a new cheek is squarely on the state, to be reviewed by the courts with a skeptical eye<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12562965837902735221>.

The DOJ, perhaps sensing the connection between the two cases, has adopted a rather striking posture in Texas, pushing back on this standard.  (A caveat: while at the DOJ, I worked on the case, though my service began well after trial and concluded before the court’s opinion was issued: most of the action happened before I arrived and after I left.)  Its brief is styled<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-586/36714/20180226194103481_17-586%2017-626%20tsUnitedStates.pdf> as a filing “as appellee in support of appellants”: the DOJ, which had sued Texas over the discriminatory intent in the 2011 redistricting plan, now says that the 2013 maps were unfairly saddled by the wrongs of 2011.  And it dismisses Fordice as the artifact of some special educational-desegregation carveout<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-586/43672/20180417131904338_17-586%20and%2017-626rbUnitedStates.pdf>.

This is a dangerous argument.  Particularly in voting cases, officials elected under discriminatory rules are already playing with house money<http://redistricting.lls.edu/other/2018%20Levitt%20testimony.pdf>: the longer they can drag out litigation, the longer they can maintain the electoral conditions that keep them in office.  And Texas has already been adept at running down the clock: relief for maps preserving intentional discrimination in 2011 will come, at the earliest, for the 2020 elections.

If the DOJ’s position prevails, it renders invidious discrimination a viable strategy indefinitely.  A jurisdiction with the desire to discriminate will enact its preferred policy, and time will pass as plaintiffs attempt to prove it illegitimate. But even if the plaintiffs are able to secure a judicial finding of invidious intent — an exceedingly serious holding with an exceedingly high standard of proof — under the DOJ position, the jurisdiction need only change the window dressing to earn a reboot.

The DOJ’s position would also have profound consequences for litigation before a final judgment.  Voting rights litigation is a slog: by some measures, the 6th most cumbersome<https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/fjc/CaseWts0.pdf> in the federal courts.  The Texas case itself shows that justice in such matters can be years’ delayed.  But under the DOJ’s position, preliminary relief becomes its own pitfall.  The offending jurisdiction will simply seize on any court order short of a complete remedy, enacting the interim measure and deploying it as a shield against further attack.  Plaintiffs in an intent case settling temporarily for half a loaf may find the other half irreparably gone.  And that will inevitably deter plaintiffs from coming to the table in the first place.

The issue of lingering discriminatory intent is just one of the matters on the table this week: the redistricting and immigration cases are each legally and factually complex.  It is possible that neither will turn on the issue above.  But let us hope that that welter of detail does not render the taint of invidious intent a mere afterthought.  The Court’s decision on a government’s ability to evade the consequences of an invidious motive would have lasting impact well beyond the contexts at hand.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98793&title=Texas%20redistricting%20and%20the%20travel%20ban>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Election Emergencies: Voting in the Wake of Natural Disasters and Terrorist Attacks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98791>
Posted on April 23, 2018 1:32 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98791> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Morley<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3160436> has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Emory Law Journal). Here is the abstract:

Our electoral system is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other calamities that can render polling places inaccessible, trigger mass evacuations, or disrupt governmental operations to the point that conducting an election becomes impracticable. Many states lack “election emergency” laws that empower officials to adequately respond to these crises. As a result, courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate the consequences of election emergencies as a matter of constitutional law, often applying vague, subjective, ad hoc standards in rushed, politically charged proceedings. This Article examines the legal steps various government actors took in response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters that disrupted impending or ongoing elections throughout the early twenty-first century, including the September 11 attacks on New York City, Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of New Orleans, Hurricane Sandy’s devastation of New Jersey and New York, and Hurricane Matthew’s impact along the southeastern United States. It then analyzes the constitutional issues that such election emergencies raise.

Courts may prevent or remedy constitutional violations triggered by election emergencies by postponing elections or modifying the rules governing them, but the Constitution virtually never requires courts to extend deadlines for activities people have a substantial period of time to perform, including registering to vote or participating in early voting. Under the laws of most states, courts also should generally decline to hold open individual polling places past their statutorily designated closing time on Election Day based on ordinary, run-of-the-mill problems that temporarily interfere with their operations. States can and should alleviate the need for such constitutional litigation by enacting laws that specifically empower election officials to respond appropriately to election emergencies. This Article provides principles to guide the development of election emergency statutes, which should distinguish among election modifications, postponements, and cancellations. These laws should provide objective, specific criteria to guide and limit election officials’ discretion, and balance preserving the right to vote against protecting the integrity of the electoral process. To the greatest extent possible, election officials should be required to delay, reschedule, or extend voting periods ahead of time, before votes are cast, rather than after voter turnout or preliminary election results are known.

Looking forward to reading this!
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98791&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Emergencies%3A%20Voting%20in%20the%20Wake%20of%20Natural%20Disasters%20and%20Terrorist%20Attacks%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“Should 16-year-olds be allowed to vote?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98789>
Posted on April 23, 2018 1:31 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98789> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

PBS news Hour reports.<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/should-16-year-olds-be-allowed-to-vote>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98789&title=%E2%80%9CShould%2016-year-olds%20be%20allowed%20to%20vote%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>

Kansas SOS Kobach Calls Judicial Contempt Finding Against Him “Just Ridiculous;” Offers Misleading Explanation for Why Court Found Him in Contempt<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98787>
Posted on April 23, 2018 9:28 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98787> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/974729083232845824/zyiBwDIw_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>
<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>
Kira Lerner<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>
✔@kira_lerner<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>

<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner/status/988402483549671424>

In Breitbart interview, Kris Kobach calls the recent order holding him in contempt for failing to register voters “just ridiculous.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/22/kris-kobach-contempt-of-court-ridiculous/ …<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>
6:01 AM - Apr 23, 2018<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner/status/988402483549671424>
<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/988188516432654336/tfLrzNhd?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>
EXCLUSIVE - Kris Kobach on Being Held in Contempt During Fight Against Voter Fraud: 'It's Just...<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>

Kansas Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach exclusively told SiriusXM's Breitbart News Saturday that the recent news of Chief District Court of Kansas Judge Julie A. Robinson...<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>
breitbart.com<https://t.co/hc2W8zJGv1>

·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988402483549671424>
5<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988402483549671424>
·         <https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>
See Kira Lerner's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/kira_lerner>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988415085239504901>

Kobach's description of why he was held in contempt is really inaccurate. I would encourage people to read his own comments in court, which paint a dramatically different picture https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4444124/Fish-v-Kobach-contempt-hearing-transcript.pdf …<https://t.co/DN0JXd0Mca> https://twitter.com/kira_lerner/status/988402483549671424 …<https://t.co/fuGGudqy5V>
6:51 AM - Apr 23, 2018<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988415085239504901>
·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988415085239504901>
165<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988415085239504901>
·         <https://twitter.com/srl/status/988415085239504901>
121 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988415085239504901>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

23 Apr<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988415085239504901>

Kobach's description of why he was held in contempt is really inaccurate. I would encourage people to read his own comments in court, which paint a dramatically different picture https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4444124/Fish-v-Kobach-contempt-hearing-transcript.pdf …<https://t.co/DN0JXd0Mca> https://twitter.com/kira_lerner/status/988402483549671424 …<https://t.co/fuGGudqy5V>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988416101624184832>

Kobach says he told local election officials to send out certificates of registration, they just failed to do so.

In court, his lawyers said they didn't have to send out the certificates. Then he suddenly reversed and said he verbally told local officials https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris-kobach-contempt_us_5ad8d5fce4b03c426dac6519 …<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>
6:55 AM - Apr 23, 2018<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988416101624184832>
<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/987055704371580928/6aHgSejM?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>
Why Kris Kobach Was Found In Contempt For Not Clarifying To People That They Could Vote<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>

A federal judge said the Kansas secretary of state didn't do what he was ordered to do to make sure people knew they were eligible.<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>
huffingtonpost.com<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>

·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988416101624184832>
23<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988416101624184832>
·         <https://twitter.com/srl>
See Sam Levine's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/srl>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

23 Apr<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988416101624184832>
Replying to @srl<https://twitter.com/_/status/988415085239504901>

Kobach says he told local election officials to send out certificates of registration, they just failed to do so.

In court, his lawyers said they didn't have to send out the certificates. Then he suddenly reversed and said he verbally told local officials https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris-kobach-contempt_us_5ad8d5fce4b03c426dac6519 …<https://t.co/keMYO0GhPs>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988419880813817861>

Here is U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson directly pushing back on Kobach's claim that it's not his fault that people affected by her 2016 ruling didn't receive the postcards with voting information Kansans are used to getting before an election pic.twitter.com/TvJdNfUtoN<https://t.co/TvJdNfUtoN>
7:10 AM - Apr 23, 2018<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988419880813817861>
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/srl/status/988419880813817861/photo/1>
·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988419880813817861>
24<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=988419880813817861>
·         <https://twitter.com/srl>
See Sam Levine's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/srl>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98787&title=Kansas%20SOS%20Kobach%20Calls%20Judicial%20Contempt%20Finding%20Against%20Him%20%E2%80%9CJust%20Ridiculous%3B%E2%80%9D%20Offers%20Misleading%20Explanation%20for%20Why%20Court%20Found%20Him%20in%20Contempt>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“140,000 Maricopa County voters haven’t received registration cards”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98785>
Posted on April 23, 2018 9:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98785> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Arizona Republic:<https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/04/20/maricopa-county-voters-havent-received-registration-id-cards/537702002/>

Roughly 140,000 Maricopa County voters have not received ID cards, potentially leaving eligible voters in Tuesday’s special congressional election unaware that they can cast a ballot.

County election officials said they haven’t sent cards out since December, blaming a printing delay.

The 8th Congressional District special election to replace ousted Republican U.S. Rep. Trent Franks in the West Valley is being watched nationally as a possible bellwether for the fall midterm elections.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98785&title=%E2%80%9C140%2C000%20Maricopa%20County%20voters%20haven%E2%80%99t%20received%20registration%20cards%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“America is still unprepared for a Russian attack on our elections”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98783>
Posted on April 23, 2018 8:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98783> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo editorial.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-still-unprepared-for-a-russian-attack-on-our-elections/2018/04/22/70dbe500-4279-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.532b382f3132&wpmk=MK0000200>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98783&title=%E2%80%9CAmerica%20is%20still%20unprepared%20for%20a%20Russian%20attack%20on%20our%20elections%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case Barring Montana Judicial Candidates from Taking, Using Political Party Endorsements<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98781>
Posted on April 23, 2018 8:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98781> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

No noted dissents on today’s order list<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042318zor_6j37.pdf>.

I had thought in reading the cert petition<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1255/37657/20180305150149853_180305%20French%20v%20Jones%20Petn.pdf> this one had a decent chance of a grant.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98781&title=Supreme%20Court%20Refuses%20to%20Hear%20Case%20Barring%20Montana%20Judicial%20Candidates%20from%20Taking%2C%20Using%20Political%20Party%20Endorsements>
Posted in judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

--
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/20180424/b88b002f/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/20180424/b88b002f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3685 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4397 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 31877 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2795 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 31802 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 91837 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180424/b88b002f/attachment-0005.jpg>