[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/20/18

[Rick Hasen]

“How the Senate Got Its Groove Back With the Power of the Purse Image”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100730>
Posted on August 19, 2018 9:05 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100730> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/senate-appropriations-bills.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront>

Against the backdrop of rising partisan rancor over the Supreme Court vacancy, an unlikely bipartisan breakthrough is quietly taking place in the Senate, where the annual spending bills are advancing in a way that hasn’t been seen in years.

While they are at one another’s throats over the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the court, top Senate Democrats and Republicans are working hand in hand to pass a series of consensus spending bills in the old-school fashion of putting them on the floor, allowing amendments to be considered and then passing the measures and sending them into future negotiations with the House.

That may sound like the way things are supposed to be done, but the polarized Senate has been unable to perform this most basic function for a considerable time. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, noted that it had been 15 years since the Senate had passed the sweeping labor, health and education spending bill it was now considering before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100730&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Senate%20Got%20Its%20Groove%20Back%20With%20the%20Power%20of%20the%20Purse%20Image%E2%80%9D>
Posted in legislation and legislatures<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>


California: “Walters: ‘Biggest rollback of campaign finance law’ weighed”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100728>
Posted on August 19, 2018 8:59 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100728> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dan Walters:<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/19/walters-why-ab-84-is-called-the-biggest-rollback-of-californias-campaign-finance-law-in-decades/>

They clearly aspire to re-establish the centralized legislative leadership that had been eroded by term limits, and to do so, they want bigger roles in amassing and dispensing campaign funds to their favored legislators and candidates, ala Unruh and Brown.

A late-blooming bill, Assembly Bill 84, would do exactly that, giving leadership campaign organizations the same status as political parties, and thus allowing them to raise and spend much more money.

Political reform groups oppose it, of course. “AB 84 would be the biggest rollback of California’s campaign finance law in at least a decade,” Nicolas Heidorn of California Common Cause told the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee before it voted to approve the measure last week.

Interestingly, however, AB 84 also draws opposition from the California Democratic Party even though Rendon and Atkins are high-ranking leaders of the party, apparently because it would erode the party’s powerful role in financing campaigns provided by Proposition 34.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100728&title=California%3A%20%E2%80%9CWalters%3A%20%E2%80%98Biggest%20rollback%20of%20campaign%20finance%20law%E2%80%99%20weighed%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


“Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100726>
Posted on August 19, 2018 8:56 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100726> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html>

President Trump’s lawyers do not know just how much the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, told the special counsel’s investigators during months of interviews, a lapse that has contributed to a growing recognition that an early strategy of full cooperation with the inquiry was a potentially damaging mistake.

The president’s lawyers said on Sunday that they were confident that Mr. McGahn had said nothing injurious to the president during the 30 hours of interviews. But Mr. McGahn’s lawyer has offered only a limited accounting of what Mr. McGahn told the investigators, according to two people close to the president.

That has prompted concern among Mr. Trump’s advisers that Mr. McGahn’s statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which the Justice Department could send to Congress, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers realized on Saturday that they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html>describing Mr. McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller’s office. After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr. Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100726&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Lawyers%E2%80%99%20Sudden%20Realization%3A%20They%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Know%20What%20Don%20McGahn%20Told%20Mueller%E2%80%99s%20Team%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Michael Cohen May Be Indicted for Bank Fraud and Campaign Finance Violations by the End of the Month<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100724>
Posted on August 19, 2018 8:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100724> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/nyregion/michael-cohen-loans-donald-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

Federal authorities investigating whether President Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, committed bank and tax fraud have zeroed in on well over $20 million in loans obtained by taxi businesses that he and his family own, according to people familiar with the matter.

Investigators are also examining whether Mr. Cohen violated campaign finance or other laws by helping to arrange financial deals to secure the silence of women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump. The inquiry has entered the final stage and prosecutors are considering filing charges by the end of August, two of the people said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100724&title=Michael%20Cohen%20May%20Be%20Indicted%20for%20Bank%20Fraud%20and%20Campaign%20Finance%20Violations%20by%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Month>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“New insights on US voters who don’t have photo ID”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100722>
Posted on August 19, 2018 8:47 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100722> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Journalist’s Resource explores. <https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/voter-photo-id-law-research>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100722&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20insights%20on%20US%20voters%20who%20don%E2%80%99t%20have%20photo%20ID%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Tom Hofeller: “Pioneer of modern redistricting dies at 75”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100720>
Posted on August 19, 2018 8:43 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100720> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Hill:<http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/402489-pioneer-of-modern-redistricting-dies-at-75>

For more than four decades, when Republicans needed strategic advice drawing political boundaries, the party turned to a small cadre of expert cartographers, trained in the rare art of redistricting. At the heart of that group was Tom Hofeller<http://thehill.com/person/tom-hofeller>.

A mild-mannered California native who rarely allowed himself to be quoted in the media, Hofeller may be more responsible for the Republican majority in Congress than any other single person in modern politics.

He is one of only a handful of people who helped create the modern redistricting process, first by crafting district lines meant to overcome decades of Democratic advantages and then by tilting the field in favor of Republicans in later years.

Condolences to his family and friends.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100720&title=Tom%20Hofeller%3A%20%E2%80%9CPioneer%20of%20modern%20redistricting%20dies%20at%2075%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


“Exclusive: FBI probing cyber attack on congressional campaign in California – sources”–David Min Campaign<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100718>
Posted on August 17, 2018 6:52 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100718> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reuters:<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hacking-exclusive/exclusive-fbi-probing-cyber-attack-on-congressional-campaign-in-california-sources-idUSKBN1L22BZ>

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a cyber attack on the congressional campaign of a Democratic candidate in California, according to three people close to the campaign.

The hackers successfully infiltrated the election campaign computer of David Min, a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives who was later defeated in the June primary for California’s 45th Congressional district.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100718&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20FBI%20probing%20cyber%20attack%20on%20congressional%20campaign%20in%20California%20%E2%80%93%20sources%E2%80%9D%E2%80%93David%20Min%20Campaign>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Federal Court in California Denies Motion to Dismiss in Suit Challenging Citizenship Question on the Census<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100716>
Posted on August 17, 2018 6:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100716> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the 29-page opinion here<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4776065-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss.html>.

As Cristian Farias notes<https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/1030629295411142661>, this opinion goes further than the NY opinion, which had allowed claims under the Due Process Clause and under the Administrative Procedure Act to go forward.

This one also allows a claim under the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100716&title=Federal%20Court%20in%20California%20Denies%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20in%20Suit%20Challenging%20Citizenship%20Question%20on%20the%20Census>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Top Ten Law Faculty in Election Law by Scholarly Impact, 2013-2017 (Inclusive)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100714>
Posted on August 17, 2018 3:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100714> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The latest Sisk et al study<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3230371> of scholarly impact and the work of Brian Leiter<http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/top-50-law-schools-based-on-scholarly-impact-2018.html> on scholarly rankings considers the scholarly impact of law school faculty based upon citations in law reviews. (I recently wrote about how my young law school, UCI Law, recent ranked 12 in these rankings<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100618>.)

Brian has also done some rankings of scholars in particular subject areas. Brian did not do a survey of the election law field during the last round of these rankings, I believe out of concern that many people who write in the election law field write in other areas, and he is aiming to include those who write 75% to 80% in an area to be counted as writing primarily in that field. I am not sure if all the people below would make a strict count in a 75% threshold (someone like Sam Issacharoff, for example, writes a fair bit on class actions and civil procedure). But each person on the list is someone who is strongly identified as an election law, voting rights, or law and democracy scholar by those of us in the field.

In any case, I used the same methodology as the latest Sisk study [TE(firstname /2 lastname) and date(aft 2012) and date(bef 2018) in Westlaw “Journals and Law Reviews” database—the TE qualifier excludes mentions in the author * footnote], but looked only at scholars who write significantly in election law.

I have created a new ranking of election law professors of the 2013-2017 period (inclusive):
Rank

Name

Institution

Total citations

1

Samuel Issacharoff

NYU

950

2

Richard Pildes

NYU

898

3

Richard Hasen

UC Irvine

708

4

Pamela Karlan

Stanford

656

5

Heather Gerken

Yale

654

6

Richard Briffault

Columbia

570

7

Nathaniel Persily

Stanford

395

8

James Gardner

Buffalo

275

9

Michael Kang

Northwestern

252

10

Daniel Tokaji

Ohio State

227




For those interested here is the 2016 ranking<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=84676> and here is the ranking from 2014<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63297&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+electionlawblog%2FuqCP+%28Election+Law%29>.








[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100714&title=Top%20Ten%20Law%20Faculty%20in%20Election%20Law%20by%20Scholarly%20Impact%2C%202013-2017%20(Inclusive)>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


“Nations on All Continents are Spending Millions of Dollars Through Various Channels to Shape US Policies”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100712>
Posted on August 17, 2018 1:05 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100712> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

That’s the sub-headline on this piece<https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2018-08-17/biggest-spenders-of-foreign-lobbying-in-the-us-comes-from-americas-closest-allies> at US News & World Report, which analyzes a database that Open Secrets.org has put together on money that foreign governments and their agents spend on lobbying in the US.  These figures involve money publicly declared under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

It’s worth observing that Congress has enacted extremely strict prohibitions on foreign government contributions and spending on elections, as discussed in detail here<https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-preposterous-collusion-not-crime-defense>.  These prohibitions have been the focus, of course, of the inquiry into whether any criminal activity occurred between the Trump campaign and the Russian government concerning the 2016 election.  But Congress has treated lobbying differently than elections with respect to the permissibility of foreign government involvement.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100712&title=%E2%80%9CNations%20on%20All%20Continents%20are%20Spending%20Millions%20of%20Dollars%20Through%20Various%20Channels%20to%20Shape%20US%20Policies%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“NC GOP leader raises possibility of impeaching justices over amendment ruling”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100710>
Posted on August 17, 2018 11:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100710> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News and Observe<https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article216886935.html>r:

The state Republican Party executive director raised the possibility that state Supreme Court justices could be impeached if they ruled against legislative leaders in a lawsuit over constitutional amendments.

Dallas Woodhouse made the remarks at an NC Free Enterprise Foundation event Friday. In a later interview with The News & Observer, he said he wasn’t threatening the justices, but is concerned about what would happen if they rule against legislative leaders. “It would be an evisceration of separation of powers,” he said.

In separate lawsuits, Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, and the NAACP and an environmental group are suing to remove some of the proposed constitutional amendments the legislature placed on the fall ballot
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100710&title=%E2%80%9CNC%20GOP%20leader%20raises%20possibility%20of%20impeaching%20justices%20over%20amendment%20ruling%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Sen. Bill Nelson Gets Four Pinocchios for Claims of Hacking into Florida Election System….But Maybe He Doesn’t Deserve It? [Updated]<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100705>
Posted on August 17, 2018 10:51 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100705> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/17/has-russia-hacked-into-floridas-election-system-theres-no-evidence/?utm_term=.93aec5f27a87>

Nelson and Rubio warned Florida election officials to be on high alert for Russian cyber-intrusions. We take no issue with their July 2 letter.

Nelson, however, went on to make a specific and alarming claim several times: that Russia currently has access to Florida’s election systems and could purge voters from the rolls. Not a single speck of evidence backs him up, and we have serious doubts whether the classified information he cited even exists.

In his letter to Burr, Florida’s top election official said the state asked DHS and the FBI whether Russia had access to Florida’s election systems and was told “they have no information that corroborates Senator Nelson’s statement.” Burr replied that “any briefings or notifications about ongoing threats would, rightfully, come from those agencies,” meaning DHS and the FBI. Reading between the lines, Burr seems to be contradicting Nelson’s claim.

He wouldn’t be the only one. DHS contradicted Nelson’s claim. Wray’s comments from Aug. 2 contradict Nelson’s claim. Local election officials in Florida contradict Nelson’s claim. Neither Rubio nor Warner confirmed what he said.

Making matters worse, Nelson misquoted his own letter from July 2 several times (it made no mention of an ongoing breach) and inaccurately said Burr, Rubio and Warner reaffirmed his assertion that Russia has access to Florida voters’ records.

Without minimizing the threat of Russian interference in this year’s elections, we give Nelson’s claim Four Pinocchios.

NBC News:<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/bill-nelson-wasn-t-making-things-when-he-said-russians-n901701>

The Republican governor of Florida, who happens to be running against Nelson for his U.S. Senate seat this fall<https://www.nbcnews.com/card/rick-scott-gop-overwhelming-democrats-bill-nelson-tv-n896181>, has blasted his claim as irresponsible. The top Florida elections official, also a Republican, said he had seen no indication it’s true. And the Washington Post weighed in Friday<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/17/has-russia-hacked-into-floridas-election-system-theres-no-evidence/?utm_term=.692064ad3d4d> with a 2,717-word fact check that all but accused Nelson — without evidence — of making it up.

However, three people familiar with the intelligence tell NBC News that there is a classified basis for Nelson’s assertion, which he made at a public event after being given information from the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The extent and seriousness of the threat remains unclear, shrouded for reasons of national security.

The episode illustrates the extent to which secrecy, politics and state-federal rivalries can stand in the way of a unified response to the threat from Russian attacks on a diffuse U.S. election system run by state and local officials. Through a spokesman, Nelson declined to comment.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100705&title=Sen.%20Bill%20Nelson%20Gets%20Four%20Pinocchios%20for%20Claims%20of%20Hacking%20into%20Florida%20Election%20System%E2%80%A6.But%20Maybe%20He%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Deserve%20It%3F%20%5BUpdated%5D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Chicago-Kent Law Review Publishes Symposium Issue on The Supreme Court and American Politics<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100702>
Posted on August 17, 2018 10:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100702> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Honored to have given the keynote here<http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/issues/past-issues/vol-93-issue-2/>

There are some great pieces below.

Vol. 93, Issue 2
The Supreme Court and American Politics

SYMPOSIUM EDITORS
Christopher W. Schmidt<https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/faculty/christopher-schmidt>
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Carolyn Shapiro<https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/faculty/carolyn-shapiro>
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Table of Contents
<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/1/>Live Symposium<http://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/live-symposia/the-supreme-court-and-american-politics/>

Articles
________________________________

The Supreme Court and American Politics: Symposium Introduction<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4204&context=cklawreview>
Christopher W. Schmidt, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Carolyn Shapiro, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 315 (2018)

Keynote Address: Judging the Political and Political Judging: Justice Scalia as Case Study<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4205&context=cklawreview>
Richard L. Hasen, University of California, Irvine School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 325 (2018)
Abstract: In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/3/>

Will the Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4206&context=cklawreview>
Kevin J. McMahon, Trinity College
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 343 (2018)
Abstract: This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/4/>

Above Politics: Congress and the Supreme Court in 2017<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4207&context=cklawreview>
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 373 (2018)
Abstract: The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/5/>

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court and the 2016 Presidential Campaign<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4208&context=cklawreview>
Christopher W. Schmidt, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 411 (2018)
Abstract: This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/6/>

What Members of Congress Say about the Supreme Court and Why It Matters<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4209&context=cklawreview>
Carolyn Shapiro, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 453 (2018)
Abstract: Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used bu the political right. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/7/>

Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4210&context=cklawreview>
Lori A. Ringhand, University of Georgia School of Law
Paul M. Collins, Jr., University of Massachusetts Amherst
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 475 (2018)
Abstract: Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/8/>

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4211&context=cklawreview>
Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 505 (2018)
Abstract: Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/9/>

The Consequences of Citizens United: What Do the Lawyers Say?<https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4212&context=cklawreview>
Ann Southworth, University of California, Irvine School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 525 (2018)
Abstract: This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. Continue—><https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol93/iss2/10/>






[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100702&title=Chicago-Kent%20Law%20Review%20Publishes%20Symposium%20Issue%20on%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20American%20Politics>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Hey Chief Justice Roberts: Remember When You Said the Preclearance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act Were No Longer Needed in the South?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100699>
Posted on August 17, 2018 10:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100699> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/15/us/ap-us-polling-places-proposed-closures.html>

Civil rights advocates are objecting to a proposal to close about 75 percent of polling locations in a predominantly black south Georgia county.

The Randolph County elections board is scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss a proposal that would eliminate seven of nine polling locations in the county, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. Included in the proposed closures is Cuthbert Middle School where nearly 97 percent of voters are black….

With no car or bus to reach a different polling location, this predominantly black, Democratic county will not be able to fairly vote, ACLU of Georgia executive director Andrea Young said.

“If you don’t have a car and you want to vote in-person, you have to walk three-and-a-half hours,” Sean Young said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100699&title=Hey%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%3A%20Remember%20When%20You%20Said%20the%20Preclearance%20Provisions%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Were%20No%20Longer%20Needed%20in%20the%20South%3F>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


Big: Federal Court in Census Litigation Orders Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore Be Available for Deposition<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100696>
Posted on August 17, 2018 10:10 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100696> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The deposition<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/census-depo.pdf> will help sort out whether DOJ really wanted citizenship info to help bring (non-existent) Section 2 Voting Rights lawsuits or this was a pretext to give Wilbur Ross what he wanted for other nefarious reasons. Court order:

Given the combination of AAG Gore’s apparent role in drafting the Department of Justice’s December 12, 2017 letter requesting that a citizenship question be added to the decennial census and the Court’s prior rulings — namely, its oral ruling of July 3rd concerning discovery, (18-CV-2921, Docket No. 207), and its Opinion of July 26th concerning Defendants’ motions to dismiss (18-CV-2921, Docket No. 215, at 60-68) — his testimony is plainly “relevant,” within the broad definition of that term for purposes of discovery. See, e.g., Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (“Although not unlimited, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is an extremely broad concept.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, given Plaintiffs’ claim that AAG Gore “ghostwrote DOJ’s December 12, 2017 letter requesting addition of the citizenship question,” (Docket No. 236, at 1), the Court concludes that AAG Gore possesses relevant information that cannot be obtained from another source. See Marisol A. v. Giuliani, No. 95-CV-10533 (RJW), 1998 WL 132810, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100696&title=Big%3A%20Federal%20Court%20in%20Census%20Litigation%20Orders%20Acting%20Assistant%20Attorney%20General%20John%20Gore%20Be%20Available%20for%20Deposition>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


“Ohio Republican officials lose bid to dismiss gerrymandering suit over congressional map”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100694>
Posted on August 17, 2018 10:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100694> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Cleveland Plain Dealer:<https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2018/08/ohio_republican_officials_lose.html#article>

Three federal judges have rejected<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4775190/Ohio-Gerrymandering-Lawsuit-Order.pdf> a request by Republican elected leaders in Ohio to dismiss a lawsuit that says the judges should toss out the state’s congressional district map because it’s gerrymandered.

Judges Karen Nelson Moore, Timothy Black and Michael Watson ruled Wednesday that the constitutional violations the group challenging Ohio’s map allege are still germane despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue from earlier this year.

The Supreme Court overturned lower-court decisions in similar gerrymandering lawsuits<https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/06/us_supreme_court_releases_deci.html> in Wisconsin and Maryland on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits of the lawsuits themselves. Republican elected officials in Ohio tried to use that ruling as a basis to have the lawsuit filed in May<https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/05/lawsuit_filed_to_toss_out_ohio.html> against them dismissed.

The judges disagreed that the Supreme Court case and others preclude them from hearing Ohio’s gerrymandering lawsuit. They also noted that while it’s still early in the litigation and that they cannot decide whether the challenges have merit, the plaintiffs have shown enough for the case to proceed.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100694&title=%E2%80%9COhio%20Republican%20officials%20lose%20bid%20to%20dismiss%20gerrymandering%20suit%20over%20congressional%20map%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


“Florida Officials Are Breaking The Law By Not Offering Spanish Ballots, Suit Claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100692>
Posted on August 17, 2018 8:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100692> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo:<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-spanish-ballot-puerto-ricans_us_5b75f86ae4b05906b411ce23?mph>

Nearly half of Florida’s counties are violating the Voting Rights Act by not offering Spanish-language ballots and other election materials to citizens, a suit filed in federal court<https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/1.18%20cv%2000152-MW-GRJ%20Rivera%20Madera%20et%20al%20v.%20DETZNER%20et%20al%20Complaint.pdf> Thursday alleges.

The lead plaintiff<https://www.demos.org/press-release/voting-rights-advocates-sue-bring-bilingual-elections-32-florida-counties> in the suit is Marta Rivera, a woman in her 70s who lived all of her life in Puerto Rico until she moved to Gainsville last year after Hurricane Maria severely damaged the U.S. territory. Rivera is more comfortable with Spanish than English, but her daughter helped her register to vote. The suit says election officials will offer her only an English-language ballot this fall, violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A provision of the 1965 law says anyone educated in a public school in the U.S. or territory where the language is not English can’t be blocked from voting based on their English proficiency.

Rivera’s lawyers want the court to let her represent all voters with Puerto Rican education who have limited or no English proficiency living in 32 of Florida’s 67 counties. They estimate there are at least 30,000 voters in the state who meet those conditions. More than 135,000 people<https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/eeuu/nota/superalos200000lospuertorriquenosquehanemigradoaflorida-2378624/> moved from Puerto Rico to Florida in the weeks following Hurricane Maria last year, more than to any other state. They could be a potent political force in this year’s midterm elections but have been slow to register so far<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/07/27/daily-202-puerto-ricans-who-fled-to-florida-after-hurricane-maria-are-not-registering-to-vote/5b5a82a61b326b0207955dcb/?utm_term=.91008cd8c1a5>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100692&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20Officials%20Are%20Breaking%20The%20Law%20By%20Not%20Offering%20Spanish%20Ballots%2C%20Suit%20Claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“‘Oh that’s cool — do that!’: Super PACs use new trick to hide donors”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100690>
Posted on August 17, 2018 8:15 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100690> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico:<https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/super-pacs-hidden-donors-disclosures-741795>

t wasn’t the first super PAC to pull that trick: The scheme is part of a sharp escalation in super PACs avoiding reporting requirements and keeping voters in the dark about their funding until after key elections. Two other groups aired more than $3 million in attack ads in West Virginia’s GOP Senate primary this year and used the same method to dodge the FEC until after the May 8 vote. Overall, at least two dozen super PACs that spent millions of dollars in recent elections used loopholes to get out of revealing their donors, according to information compiled by the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog organization.

It’s a sign that political operatives see more risk in revealing the big-money meddlers in congressional elections than in pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law — and many of the groups pushing the boundaries are aligned with Democrats, the party most associated with complaints about undisclosed “dark money” affecting elections.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100690&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Oh%20that%E2%80%99s%20cool%20%E2%80%94%20do%20that!%E2%80%99%3A%20Super%20PACs%20use%20new%20trick%20to%20hide%20donors%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“The Chance of Michael Cohen Facing Criminal Campaign Finance Charges Just Went Up”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100686>
Posted on August 16, 2018 5:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100686> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/michael-cohen-paid-stormy-daniels-only-after-the-access-hollywood-tape-emerged-thats-big.html> for Slate. A snippet:

The new Wall Street Journal report describes some apparent documentary evidence. According to the Journal, Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson had approached Cohen in September 2016 about securing a payment from Trump to buy Daniels’ silence. “Mr. Cohen was dismissive, saying the story was bogus,” according to a source who spoke to the Journal. Yet one month later, right as the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged of Trump crudely discussing his sex life and saying disparaging things about women, Cohen was suddenly interested in making a deal with Daniels.

The Journal reports federal prosecutors view the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape as the “trigger” for Cohen’s payments to Daniels.

That’s a big deal. Two important Republican election lawyers have attempted to set a high bar for how to tell when a payment in this context might be campaign-related rather than personal. Charlie Spies told<https://www.wsj.com/articles/was-the-payment-to-stormy-daniels-a-campaign-contribution-1518643885?mod=article_inline> the Journal in February that the payment to Daniels was “an expense that would exist irrespective of whether Mr. Trump was a candidate and therefore should not be treated as a campaign contribution.” And former Federal Election Commission chair Brad Smith wrote in an April op-ed<https://www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987> in the Journal that “FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist ‘irrespective’ of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist ‘but for’ the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.”

Even under these tough standards for what counts as campaign-related, the proof of the timing would be damning for Cohen. Why should Cohen not care a whit about protecting Trump’s reputation in his wife’s eyes in September 2016, but be anxious to close the deal—and shut Daniels up—right as the campaign faced a crisis involving allegations of Trump’s treatment of women? The Daniels payment was not an expense that existed until the campaign needed it. But for the campaign, it seems that Cohen would not have paid.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100686&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Chance%20of%20Michael%20Cohen%20Facing%20Criminal%20Campaign%20Finance%20Charges%20Just%20Went%20Up%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Despite Enthusiasm for Women Candidates, Gender Gap on Campaign Cash<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100684>
Posted on August 16, 2018 4:15 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100684> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/despite-year-of-the-woman-buzz-female-candidates-lag-behind-men-in-pulling-in-campaign-cash/2018/08/16/7d192f84-998c-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?utm_term=.0651a074a633>

Even as a record number of women run for office this year, female congressional candidates overall are lagging behind their male counterparts when it comes to pulling in campaign cash, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports.

Men running for the House had collected almost 17 percent more on average than their female counterparts by the end of June, The Post found in its examination of candidates who showed viability by raising at least $50,000.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100684&title=Despite%20Enthusiasm%20for%20Women%20Candidates%2C%20Gender%20Gap%20on%20Campaign%20Cash>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


Supreme Court Requests Response in Austin Campaign Finance Limits Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100682>
Posted on August 16, 2018 4:11 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100682> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From an emailed press release:

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/18-93.html> requiring the City of Austin to respond to the request filed in July by Don Zimmerman, former District 6 Councilmember, seeking High Court review of two of Austin’s limits on campaign contributions.

Austin had previously notified the Court that it would waive its right to file a response.  The Court’s action this week requires the City to respond to Zimmerman’s petition by September 13.

No doubt Judge Jim Ho’s dissen<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=98733>t from denial of en banc rehearing in the 5th Circuit got this case some attention.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100682&title=Supreme%20Court%20Requests%20Response%20in%20Austin%20Campaign%20Finance%20Limits%20Case>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“West Virginia’s high court corruption just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to big money’s judicial influence”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100680>
Posted on August 16, 2018 2:28 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100680> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jame Sample<https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/west-virginia-s-high-court-corruption-just-tip-iceberg-when-ncna901301> for NBC Think:

In West Virginia, Justice Robin Davis spent an absurd $500,278.23 in taxpayer dollars on renovating her office alone<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/expensive-renovations-lead-to-impeachment-political-feud/2018/08/15/9cc6c1b4-a0af-11e8-a3dd-2a1991f075d5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.604022a2b59e>. Mind you, Davis is the same jurist who, through her husband, sold a $1.3 million Lear Jet<https://abcnews.go.com/US/lear-jet-justice-west-virginia-circus-masquerading-court/story?id=27291436> to an attorney trying a multimillion case before her and never disclosed the deal. But while money flowing out of American courts is a problem, we should be paying attention to the bigger issue of money flowing in to judicial campaigns — and even, occasionally, into judge’s personal coffers — from litigants, lawyers and special interests with cases before the very judges who benefit from spenders’ largesse.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100680&title=%E2%80%9CWest%20Virginia%E2%80%99s%20high%20court%20corruption%20just%20the%20tip%20of%20the%20iceberg%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20big%20money%E2%80%99s%20judicial%20influence%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, judicial elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>


“New York Fusion Laws and the Joe Crowley Imbroglio”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100678>
Posted on August 16, 2018 2:25 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100678> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jerry Goldfeder & Myrna Perez<https://www.stroock.com/siteFiles/Publications/JoeCrowleyImbroglioNYLJ.pdf>:

Crowley has taken a different tack. Although he remains on the Working Families line, he immediately endorsed Ocasio-Cortez for the congressional seat. This is not unlike what Andrew Cuomo did in 2002. Running for governor that year, he dropped out right before the primaries and endorsed the eventual Democratic candidate H. Carl McCall. But Cuomo was running unopposed for the Liberal party nomination, and the timing was such that he, like Crowley, could no longer unilaterally decline the Liberal line. So, though he supported McCall, Cuomo’s name appeared on the general election ballot.

The only way Crowley in 2018 or Cuomo in 2002 could have been removed from the ballot was by dying, moving out of the state (because of various residency requirements) or running for another office (if, of course, eligible to do so). Putting aside the option of dying (or in a state race, being convicted of a felony), neither Crowley nor Cuomo wished to move or run for some other office, like Assembly or state Senate. Crowley bluntly said that such a switch would be a “fraud on the voters.” In both cases, then, someone no longer seeking an office remains on the ballot—a situation that is obviously confusing to the voter.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100678&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20York%20Fusion%20Laws%20and%20the%20Joe%20Crowley%20Imbroglio%E2%80%9D>
Posted in ballot access<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>


“Stolen Elections, Voting Dogs And Other Fantastic Fables From The GOP Voter Fraud Mythology”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100676>
Posted on August 16, 2018 2:13 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100676> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rick Perlstein and Livia Gershon<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/stolen-elections-voting-dogs-and-other-fantastic-fables-from-the-gop-voter-fraud-mythology> deep dive for TPM.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100676&title=%E2%80%9CStolen%20Elections%2C%20Voting%20Dogs%20And%20Other%20Fantastic%20Fables%20From%20The%20GOP%20Voter%20Fraud%20Mythology%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Federal Judge Strikes Down N.H.’s ‘Signature Mismatch’ Absentee Voting Law”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100671>
Posted on August 16, 2018 8:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100671> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NHPR on a very important election administration decision:<http://www.nhpr.org/post/federal-judge-strikes-down-nhs-signature-mismatch-absentee-voting-law#stream/0>

A federal judge has struck down a New hampshire law that allows pollworkers to toss out absentee ballots if they don’t believe the signature adequately matches the one used on other voting paperwork.

In a ruling issued Tuesday afternoon<http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201808/11712118636.pdf>, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty said “the current process for rejecting voters due to a signature mismatch fails to guarantee basic fairness,” because it gives moderators “sole, unreviewable discretion” to discard absentee ballots.

“It cannot be emphasized enough that the consequence of a moderator’s decision — disenfranchisement — is irremediable,” Judge McCafferty wrote.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100671&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20Judge%20Strikes%20Down%20N.H.%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Signature%20Mismatch%E2%80%99%20Absentee%20Voting%20Law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Surprise: This new index shows that U.S. elections were better run in 2016 than in 2012.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100669>
Posted on August 16, 2018 8:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100669> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Charles Stewar<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/16/surprise-this-new-index-shows-that-u-s-elections-were-better-run-in-2016-than-in-2012/?utm_term=.0fbd7d3b9156>t for The Monkey Cage:

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia had higher overall scores in 2016 than in 2012. Six states declined, but by tiny amounts, often because of random variability. You can see the measures in the map below.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100669&title=%E2%80%9CSurprise%3A%20This%20new%20index%20shows%20that%20U.S.%20elections%20were%20better%20run%20in%202016%20than%20in%202012.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“In a few hours, Gov. Colyer went from prepping for a recount to endorsing his rival”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100667>
Posted on August 16, 2018 8:01 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100667> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KC Star:<https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article216753550.html>

Colyer, who was sworn in as governor in January<https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article197678154.html>, faced a Friday deadline to file for a recount, a financially precarious decision because Kansas does not have automatic recounts in close races.

“I guess the governor changed his mind at the last moment there after a conversation between him and the LG (Lt. Gov. Tracey Mann) and it became clear that the votes were just not there and it’s best to just go ahead and get out for the sake of the party,” the official said. “Those congressional seats are going to be under siege and we’ve got to get united right away.”

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have automatic recounts<http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx> depending on the margin in a race, but in Kansas Colyer would have had to file a bond with the secretary of state’s office to pay for the cost of a recount. If he still trailed after a recount, he would have had to forfeit that money.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100667&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20few%20hours%2C%20Gov.%20Colyer%20went%20from%20prepping%20for%20a%20recount%20to%20endorsing%20his%20rival%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Partisan Gerrymandering and Party Rights: Why Gill v. Whitford Undermines All Future Partisan-Gerrymandering Claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100665>
Posted on August 16, 2018 7:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100665> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Richard Raile for Fed Soc writes<https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/partisan-gerrymandering-and-party-rights-why-gill-v-whitford-undermines-all-future-partisan-gerrymandering-claims>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D100665&title=%E2%80%9CPartisan%20Gerrymandering%20and%20Party%20Rights%3A%20Why%20Gill%20v.%20Whitford%20Undermines%20All%20Future%20Partisan-Gerrymandering%20Claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


Speaking August 21 at ACS Event in San Diego: “Battle for the U.S. Supreme Court”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100663>
Posted on August 16, 2018 7:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100663> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Looking forward to talking about the Kavanaugh nomination down in San Diego.

RVSP link.<https://getinvolved.acslaw.org/component/events/event/36>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://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/>
[/Users/rhasen/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_589409900]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180820/98a76e7d/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/20180820/98a76e7d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180820/98a76e7d/attachment-0001.png>