[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/2/18

Fri Feb 2 07:55:29 PST 2018

“About 25% of Trump’s Re-election Spending Continues to Go to Lawyers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97316>
Posted on February 2, 2018 7:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97316> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/us/politics/trump-campaign-spending-russia.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront>

President Trump’s re-election campaign raised $15.2 million in the last three months of last year, and spent $1.2 million on legal fees — with much of the cash going to law firms responding to investigations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election — according to campaign finance reports….

The second biggest recipient of legal fees in Wednesday’s reports — McDermott Will & Emery, which was paid $214,000 — is representing Michael D. Cohen<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/us/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump.html>, Mr. Trump’s longtime lawyer and adviser, in the Russia investigations.

Mr. Cohen referred a question about the legal fees to the Trump campaign. Michael Glassner, the executive director of the Trump campaign, did not respond to an email asking whether the campaign was covering Mr. Cohen’s legal costs.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97316&title=%E2%80%9CAbout%2025%25%20of%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Re-election%20Spending%20Continues%20to%20Go%20to%20Lawyers%E2%80%9D>

Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
LA ALOUD Mar. 28 Daytime Event: Erwin Chemerinsky in Conversation with Me on My New Book: “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97313>
Posted on February 2, 2018 7:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97313> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Really looking forward<http://lfla.org/event/justice-contradictions-antonin-scalia-politics-disruption/> to this one.

RVSP opens to the general public on February 9.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97313&title=LA%20ALOUD%20Mar.%2028%20Daytime%20Event%3A%20Erwin%20Chemerinsky%20in%20Conversation%20with%20Me%20on%20My%20New%20Book%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Justice%20of%20Contradictions%3A%20Antonin%20Scalia%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Disruption%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>

“CCR Voting Rights Briefing Raleigh, NC 2-2-18 Morning Session”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97311>
Posted on February 2, 2018 7:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97311> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97311&title=%E2%80%9CCCR%20Voting%20Rights%20Briefing%20Raleigh%2C%20NC%202-2-18%20Morning%20Session%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“A ‘Blue’ Florida? There Are No Quick Demographic Fixes for Democrats”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97308>
Posted on February 1, 2018 3:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97308> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nate Cohn<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/upshot/a-blue-florida-there-are-no-quick-demographic-fixes-for-democrats.html> for NYT’s The UpShot:

Democrats could be forgiven for dreaming about a “blue” Florida. It is diversifying as fast as Texas or Arizona, and the demographic composition of its electorate may be poised to shift even faster than anticipated.

As many as 300,000 people have fled<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/puerto-ricans-orlando.html> to Florida from Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. And a ballot initiative this November could return the vote to the state’s estimated 1.5 million discharged felons. At first glance, either tally of these two Democratic-leaning groups would seem to dwarf Donald J. Trump’s 113,000-vote margin of victory in the state in 2016.

But the reality for Democrats is that neither development is likely to fundamentally alter Florida’s political character heading into the 2020 election.

The main reason? The electoral effect dwindles after accounting for the relatively low turnout rates among these groups. More generally, even big demographic shifts that seem to favor Democrats could easily be swamped by other demographic shifts that do the opposite.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97308&title=%E2%80%9CA%20%E2%80%98Blue%E2%80%99%20Florida%3F%20There%20Are%20No%20Quick%20Demographic%20Fixes%20for%20Democrats%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Report: Oregon Large Political Donors Outmatched Small Donors 14 to One in 2016”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97306>
Posted on February 1, 2018 3:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97306> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:

Days before the Oregon Legislature convenes for a month-long session and considers a proposal to make changes to how elections are financed, OSPIRG Foundation released a report<http://bit.ly/2BN3z3t> examining the sizable disparity between large donors and small donors in Oregon’s elections. The report finds that in the 2016 election season, just over 700 large donors contributed nearly fourteen times more than all small donors combined – a group comprised of an estimated 31,000 donors.

“One person, one vote. That’s how it’s supposed to work,” said Charlie Fisher, State Director of OSPIRG Foundation and co-author of the report. “Unfortunately, in Oregon large donors and special interests are able to have a louder voice than everyone else, simply as a result of the size of their pocketbook. This undermines our democracy and leaves everyday people out in the cold.”

The report, “Big Money in Oregon State Elections<http://bit.ly/2BN3z3t>” finds that in the 2016 election alone:

·         Approximately 31,000 donors contributed $250 or less, totaling $2.5 million.

·         In contrast, the 723 large donors that gave $5,000 or more contributed over $34.9 million.

·         Just the largest 25 donors accounted for $16.3 million, outspending all small donors 6.4 to 1.

·         While ballot measure races had the largest gap, significant disparities exist between large and small donors across the board. For candidate races in 2016, just over 400 large donors gave nearly four times that of all small donors.

·         A significant portion of large donor money came from out of state. Of total money given to campaigns by large donors, only 44 percent came from donors in Oregon; of campaign contributions made by small donors, almost 80 percent came from state residents.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97306&title=%E2%80%9CReport%3A%20Oregon%20Large%20Political%20Donors%20Outmatched%20Small%20Donors%2014%20to%20One%20in%202016%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Judge rules Florida’s arbitrary felon voting rights restoration scheme unconstitutional; remedy not immediately ordered”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97304>
Posted on February 1, 2018 3:19 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97304> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release via email:

United States District Court Judge Mark E. Walker ruled Florida’s voting rights restoration scheme violates the First Amendment rights of free association and free expression, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The decision, issued today, affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to vote – “the beating heart of our democratic government” – and concluded that the process by which Florida officials grant or deny former felons’ restoration of voting rights applications is unconstitutionally arbitrary. Judge Walker ordered further briefing from the parties on the appropriate remedy. Florida’s former felons still cannot register or vote.

“The question is whether the Clemency Board’s limitless power over Plaintiffs’ vote-restoration violates their First Amendment rights to free association and free expression. It does. This should not be a close question,” Judge Walker stated in the decision.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2017 by the national voting rights organization, Fair Elections Legal Network, and the law firm, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, on behalf of a proposed class of almost 1.5 million former felons who have completed their full sentences.

Citing a long line of Supreme Court cases striking down laws which give officials unrestricted power to control First Amendment rights, the Court concluded that the absence of any constraints on the Executive Clemency Board’s power to restore or deny voting rights “risks—if not covertly authorizes the practice of—arbitrary and discriminatory vote-restoration.”

“Today a federal court said what so many Floridians have known for so long—that the state’s arbitrary restoration process, which forces former felons to beg for their right to vote, violates the oldest and most basic principles of our democracy,” said Jon Sherman, Senior Counsel at Fair Elections Legal Network. “While the Court has yet to order a remedy in this case, it has held in no uncertain terms that a state cannot subject U.S. citizens’ voting rights to the limitless power of government officials.”

The Court’s order also stated that, “In Florida, elected, partisan officials have extraordinary authority to grant or withhold the right to vote from hundreds of thousands of people without any constraints, guidelines, or standards. The question now is whether such a system passes constitutional muster. It does not.”

“We are very happy with the Court’s ruling as it provides our country’s most basic rights to be restored to those who have served their time. No longer can politicians arbitrarily deny fundamental rights to citizens of the State of Florida,” said Theodore Leopold, partner with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

The decision concluded, “If any one of these citizens wishes to earn back their fundamental right to vote, they must plod through a gauntlet of constitutionally infirm hurdles. No more.”

Florida is one of four states that denies the right to vote to all former felons until they petition for rights restoration, and this process is the target of the lawsuit. About 1.5 million Floridians are currently disenfranchised even after completing their sentences, including men and women of all different political parties, races, ethnicities, ages, from cities and rural areas, as well as veterans, small business owners and others. Over 10,000 former felons are waiting for a hearing on their restoration applications.

The lawsuit cited the lack of any rules governing the Executive Clemency Board’s decisions to grant or deny applications and contended that the arbitrary rights restoration process violates the U.S. Constitution and hinders former felons from truly reentering society.

The text of the decision can be found here.<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8sUtVdCBLkoHWQFIUsgqC4bHfzMcf6Pm>

One big question: will this take the wind out of the sails of the ballot measure to restore voting rights to Florida’s felons who’ve completed their sentences?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97304&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20rules%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20arbitrary%20felon%20voting%20rights%20restoration%20scheme%20unconstitutional%3B%20remedy%20not%20immediately%20ordered%E2%80%9D>
Posted in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>

“N.C. has the worst gerrymander in US history. What else is new?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97302>
Posted on February 1, 2018 11:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97302> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gene Nichol oped<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article197852639.html> in the News & Observer:

In mid-January, yet again, a three-judge federal court ruled the redistricting work of the North Carolina General Assembly to be a knowing, intentional and hugely impactful violation of the U.S. Constitution. This time the court struck down the apportionment of our federal congressional districts as an impermissible, extreme, partisan political gerrymander – designed, admittedly and successfully, to entrench Republicans in power and handicap their adversaries. The state yawned. We’re used to it.

Rick Hasen, a professor at California-Irvine, is often said to be the nation’s leading election law expert. Hasen wrote that the decision could hardly be seen as a surprise, given what our legislature did. “If there is any case that could be invalidated as a partisan gerrymander, it is this one,” he indicated. It is “the most brazen and egregious” political electoral distortion yet seen in the United States. North Carolina leaders “admitted the practice, but argued it should be seen as perfectly legal.”

The Supreme Court stayed the federal court ruling pending appeal. And it is unlikely the review will be squeezed into the current term, given the late scheduling adjustments that would be demanded. The court presently has two political gerrymandering cases on the docket. But Hasen thinks the impact of the North Carolina decision will be felt immediately. The court now knows “what the future of gerrymandering will look like if it is doesn’t act in the Wisconsin or Maryland cases,” Hasen wrote. We point the way to darkness.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97302&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20has%20the%20worst%20gerrymander%20in%20US%20history.%20What%20else%20is%20new%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

5th Circuit Upholds Austin TX Campign Contribution Limits, Strikes Down Law Limiting Timing for Making Contributions, and Doesn’t Reach Ban on Contributions from Outside Austin Area<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97300>
Posted on February 1, 2018 11:22 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97300> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Unanimous decision.<http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-51366-CV0.pdf>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97300&title=5th%20Circuit%20Upholds%20Austin%20TX%20Campign%20Contribution%20Limits%2C%20Strikes%20Down%20Law%20Limiting%20Timing%20for%20Making%20Contributions%2C%20and%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Reach%20Ban%20on%20Contributions%20from%20Outside%20Austin%20Area>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Redistricting Cases Won’t Dictate Outcome of Midterms”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97298>
Posted on February 1, 2018 8:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97298> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg reports.<https://biglawbusiness.com/redistricting-cases-wont-dictate-outcome-of-midterms/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97298&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20Cases%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Dictate%20Outcome%20of%20Midterms%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

March 6 ACS Georgetown Law Event with Adam Liptak and Sue Bloch: “Justice of Contradictions: Discussing Scalia’s Legacy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97296>
Posted on February 1, 2018 7:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97296> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I hope to see some of my D.C. friends and readers at this great event<https://events.acslaw.org/rsvp?id=a0Y0f00000GDq5yEAD&campaign=a0WG000000DPHSlMAP> sponsored by the ACS Georgetown chapter:
Justice of Contradictions: Discussing Scalia’s Legacy
March 6, 2018
12:15 PM – 1:30 PM

Event Location:
McDonough 202
600 New Jersey Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

Details: In his upcoming book Professor Hasen argues that the late Justice Scalia “disrupted American jurisprudence in order to delegitimize opponents and establish a conservative legal order.” On March 6th Professor Richard Hasen and Professor Susan Bloch, a longtime friend of the late Justice, will be discussing the new book and Scalia’s controversial life and legacy in a small panel moderated by the NewYorkTimes Adam Liptak.

Lawyer Chapter(s):

Student Chapters:
Georgetown University Law Center

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97296&title=March%206%20ACS%20Georgetown%20Law%20Event%20with%20Adam%20Liptak%20and%20Sue%20Bloch%3A%20%E2%80%9CJustice%20of%20Contradictions%3A%20Discussing%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Legacy%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>

DNC Files Appeal in DNC v. RNC Consent Decree Case Over RNC “Ballot Security” Activities<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97294>
Posted on February 1, 2018 7:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97294> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It ain’t over till it’s over.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97294&title=DNC%20Files%20Appeal%20in%20DNC%20v.%20RNC%20Consent%20Decree%20Case%20Over%20RNC%20%E2%80%9CBallot%20Security%E2%80%9D%20Activities>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97292>
Posted on February 1, 2018 7:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97292> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Joshua Kalla and David Broockman have written this article<https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/minimal-persuasive-effects-of-campaign-contact-in-general-elections-evidence-from-49-field-experiments/753665A313C4AB433DBF7110299B7433> for APSR. Here is the abstract:

Significant theories of democratic accountability hinge on how political campaigns affect Americans’ candidate choices. We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero. First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in general elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact tenfold. These experiments’ average effect is also zero. In both existing and our original experiments, persuasive effects only appear to emerge in two rare circumstances. First, when candidates take unusually unpopular positions and campaigns invest unusually heavily in identifying persuadable voters. Second, when campaigns contact voters long before election day and measure effects immediately—although this early persuasion decays. These findings contribute to ongoing debates about how political elites influence citizens’ judgments.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97292&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Minimal%20Persuasive%20Effects%20of%20Campaign%20Contact%20in%20General%20Elections%3A%20Evidence%20from%2049%20Field%20Experiments%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Lesson of 2017: Political campaign season truly never ends”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97290>
Posted on February 1, 2018 6:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97290> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports.<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/02/01/21540/lesson-2017-political-campaign-season-truly-never-ends>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D97290&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8BLesson%20of%202017%3A%20Political%20campaign%20season%20truly%20never%20ends%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180202/92bf0aa5/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/20180202/92bf0aa5/attachment.png>