[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/17/18

Wed Jan 17 08:03:46 PST 2018

What Real, Bipartisan Election Reform, Making It Easier to Vote and Harder to Cheat, Looks Like<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96949>
Posted on January 17, 2018 8:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96949> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
22 states plus DC now working together through @ericstates_info<https://twitter.com/ericstates_info?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> to keep their voter lists up-to-date and accurate, improving the integrity of elections! Special credit goes to @JayAshcroftMO<https://twitter.com/JayAshcroftMO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> and @SecretaryReagan<https://twitter.com/SecretaryReagan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> for leading MO and AZ as ERIC's 2 newest members. https://t.co/FhV8Z3c7JE
— David Becker (@beckerdavidj) January 17, 2018<https://twitter.com/beckerdavidj/status/953657197312884737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96949&title=What%20Real%2C%20Bipartisan%20Election%20Reform%2C%20Making%20It%20Easier%20to%20Vote%20and%20Harder%20to%20Cheat%2C%20Looks%20Like>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“Pennsylvania Could Be On The Verge Of Dealing Partisan Gerrymandering A Big Blow”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96947>
Posted on January 17, 2018 7:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96947> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sam Levine for HuffPo:<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pennsylvania-supreme-court-gerrymandering_us_5a5ce682e4b04f3c55a4f686>
Pennsylvania’s highest court could be on the verge of setting unprecedented limits on how much politicians can redraw electoral districts to their party’s advantage, a decision that would have profound legal and political consequences both in the state and the rest of the country.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case alleging the state’s 2011 congressional map, drawn by Republicans, violates protections on freedom of expression and equal protection in the state constitution.
Since 2012, Republicans have consistently been able to win 13 of the state’s 18 congressional seats, despite winning only about 50 percent of the statewide vote. The Brennan Center for Justice describes<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Extreme%20Maps%205.16_0.pdf> the state’s congressional map as one of the worst partisan gerrymanders in the country, and an analysis<https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/pennsylvania/articles/2017-06-25/ap-analysis-pennsylvania-gerrymander-gave-gop-a-big-boost> by The Associated Press found that the map was responsible for an additional three GOP seats in Congress.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96947&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20Could%20Be%20On%20The%20Verge%20Of%20Dealing%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20A%20Big%20Blow%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“DOJ: Kobach Has Agreed Not To Share Voter Fraud Panel Records With DHS”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96945>
Posted on January 17, 2018 7:50 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96945> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tierney Sneed<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/doj-kobach-dhs-share-voter-fraud-data> for TPM.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96945&title=%E2%80%9CDOJ%3A%20Kobach%20Has%20Agreed%20Not%20To%20Share%20Voter%20Fraud%20Panel%20Records%20With%20DHS%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Adventures in Extreme Gerrymandering: See the Fair and Wildly Unfair Maps We Made for Pennsylvania”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96943>
Posted on January 17, 2018 7:37 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96943> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT’s The Upshot:<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/17/upshot/pennsylvania-gerrymandering.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&smid=fb-nytupshot&smtyp=cur&_r=0>
This week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider whether the state’s harshly gerrymandered congressional map violates the state’s constitution.
The case is happening early enough in the year that the court could order a redrawn map ahead of the midterm elections. If that happens, Democrats will probably win at least one additional House seat this cycle, and they will be better positioned in several other seats.
The case is about state, not federal, law, so the result will stand regardless of how the United States Supreme Court rules on the biggest question<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/gerrymander-court-north-carolina-pennsylvania.html> of all: whether partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution.
A Supreme Court ruling against partisan gerrymandering could usher in a half-dozen or more new congressional maps before the 2020 election, but probably not before this November’s midterm elections.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t limit partisan gerrymandering, it could get a lot more extreme.
As unfavorable as the current map is for Democrats, Republicans could go even further in 2020 if they controlled the process again. This is unlikely because the Pennsylvania governor is now a Democrat, but Pennsylvania serves as a good illustration of how gerrymandering can play out.
We’ve redrawn the Pennsylvania congressional map in two ways. One is a neutral map, the kind that might be drawn by a nonpartisan committee. The other is an adventure in extreme gerrymandering that aims to maximize the number of Republican-held seats.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96943&title=%E2%80%9CAdventures%20in%20Extreme%20Gerrymandering%3A%20See%20the%20Fair%20and%20Wildly%20Unfair%20Maps%20We%20Made%20for%20Pennsylvania%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“Appropriations bill would bar SEC from requiring political spending disclosure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96941>
Posted on January 17, 2018 7:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96941> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Star Tribune:<http://www.startribune.com/appropriations-bill-would-bar-sec-from-requiring-political-spending-disclosure/469039303/>
The appropriations bill that the Senate and House must pass by Friday to avoid a government shutdown forbids the Securities and Exchange Commission from making publicly traded companies disclose their political spending to shareholders.
The language has been embedded in every major federal spending bill since 2016. The prohibition comes as politicians talk about open government and critics lament unlimited corporate contributions allowed under the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that they say are reshaping elections.
Telling regulators they cannot increase shareholder and public awareness of the influence of business on politics is controversial, but not so contentious that its inclusion in the 2018 appropriations bill will lead to a government shutdown, most observers believe.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96941&title=%E2%80%9CAppropriations%20bill%20would%20bar%20SEC%20from%20requiring%20political%20spending%20disclosure%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Boycotting the President’s Brand: Commercial Reactions to Trump 2015-2017”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96939>
Posted on January 16, 2018 12:48 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96939> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New report<https://corporatereformcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Boycotting-the-Presidents-Brand-FINAL.pdf> by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy for the Corporate Reform Coalition.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96939&title=%E2%80%9CBoycotting%20the%20President%E2%80%99s%20Brand%3A%20Commercial%20Reactions%20to%20Trump%202015-2017%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Campaign Finance, Free Speech, and Boycotts”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96937>
Posted on January 16, 2018 12:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96937> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has written this article<http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Torres-Spelliscy_FINAL.pdf> for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96937&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%2C%20Free%20Speech%2C%20and%20Boycotts%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Judges: No delay for new N. Carolina congressional map”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96935>
Posted on January 16, 2018 12:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96935> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:<http://www.wsoctv.com/news/north-carolina/federal-judges-wont-delay-requiring-north-carolina-remap/684554186>
The judges who struck down North Carolina’s congressional map for excessive partisanship that favored Republicans refused Tuesday to delay their order telling GOP state lawmakers to draw new lines by next week.
The denial by the three-judge federal panel was expected, given that the judges wrote 200-plus pages last week explaining why the boundaries approved two years ago were marked by “invidious partisanship” and are illegal political gerrymanders, violating several parts of the U.S. Constitution.
Barring a delay by the U.S. Supreme Court – which Republican legislators also have sought and their request is pending – the legislature will be required to redraw its map for North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts by Jan. 24.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96935&title=%E2%80%9CJudges%3A%20No%20delay%20for%20new%20N.%20Carolina%20congressional%20map%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“I agree with Donald Trump, we should have voter ID. Here’s how and why.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96933>
Posted on January 16, 2018 8:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96933> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael McDonald USA Today oped:<https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/15/national-id-card-voter-registration-system-we-could-love-michael-mcdonald-column/1025903001/>
I propose a national identification card to be issued by the government to all citizens of the United States when they turn 16. This identification would serve not only as required voter identification when someone reaches voting age, it would also serve as their voter registration. There are many benefits to this proposal, including one that should appeal to Trump: reinforcing a virtual wall to better track who is and is not an American citizen.
Many democracies around the world have national identity cards, while experiencing no ill tendencies towards authoritarianism. Indeed, my proposal echoes one made by former president Jimmy Carter. Following the 2000 election, the Carter-Baker commission<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR2005091801364.html> issued a number of recommendations, including voter identification if — and this is an important condition — all persons are given identification.
Having the government take responsibility for voter registration is actually a very old idea. It is how elections were run during America’s first century as a country. Local governments created lists of the people who owned property or paid taxes<http://earlyamericanelections.org/blog/2017/09/01/what-did-democracy-look-like.html>, which defined the eligible voters.
I advanced a similar idea in my 2012 book, The Voting Wars.<https://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516118908&sr=1-6>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96933&title=%E2%80%9CI%20agree%20with%20Donald%20Trump%2C%20we%20should%20have%20voter%20ID.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20how%20and%20why.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Democratic Party Petition Raising Partisan Gerrymandering Case, After Agreeing to Hear Texas Appeal on Voting Rights Act and Racial Gerrymandering Issues<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96929>
Posted on January 16, 2018 7:45 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96929> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I noted on Friday<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96895> the Supreme Court’s order to hear two Texas redistricting appeals raising claims under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution (including racially discriminatory intent and racial gerrymandering claims). I also noted that the Court did not act on  the Texas Democratic Party’s petition<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-680.html>, which raised a partisan gerrymandering claim. I wrote that “that claim will almost certainly be held until after the Court decides the Maryland and Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering cases and then likely sent back to the lower court in light of those decisions.”
Well that prediction turned out to be dead wrong, as the Supreme Court today without noted dissent<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011618zor_khlp.pdf>dismissed the Democrats’ partisan gerrymandering case for want of jurisdiction.  (It also dismissed another appeal in the case that Texas deemed so insubstantial it waived its right to file a response.)
What explains the divergent results? One possibility<https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/953277550888935425> is that the Court agreed with Texas’s arguments that the TDP’s arguments were not properly presented, as the rulings came in interlocutory orders (that is, orders in the middle of the case, and not at final judgment). That, however, is also true about Texas’s petitions. The plaintiffs in that case argued Texas’s appeals were premature, given that Texas did not wait until the lower court issued new maps and a final judgment in the case.  (Four of the Court’s liberal Justices dissented, presumably in part on these grounds, when the Court issued a stay in the case to last through the appeal.)
In any event, should the Supreme Court decide to rein in partisan gerrymandering in the Wisconsin or the Maryland cases, plaintiffs likely could go back to the lower court and see if they can get some relief, given that this case is not on final judgment, once the Supreme Court is done with them.
UPDATE:
Your post suggests these are inconsistent actions. Maybe SCOTUS accepted Texas's argument that it may hear appeals from interlocutory injunctions if filed w/i 30 days of the injunctions? I have no view of the merits of that position but that seems consistent w/ Justices' actions.
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) January 16, 2018<https://twitter.com/ssamcham/status/953294978498752514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D96929&title=Supreme%20Court%20Dismisses%20Texas%20Democratic%20Party%20Petition%20Raising%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case%2C%20After%20Agreeing%20to%20Hear%20Texas%20Appeal%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20an>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, 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/20180117/d8da0846/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/20180117/d8da0846/attachment.png>