[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/12/18

[Rick Hasen]

“Judge in Emoluments Case Questions Defense of Trump’s Hotel Profits”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99480>
Posted on June 11, 2018 9:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99480> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/us/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump-hotel.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront>

 A federal judge on Monday sharply criticized the Justice Department’s argument that President Trump’s financial interest in his company’s hotel in downtown Washington is constitutional, a fresh sign that the judge may soon rule against the president in a historic case that could head to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, charge that Mr. Trump’s profits from the hotel violate anti-corruption clauses of the Constitution that restrict government-bestowed financial benefits, or emoluments, to presidents beyond their official salary. They say the hotel is siphoning business from local convention centers and hotels.

The judge, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Maryland, promised to decide by the end of July whether to allow the plaintiffs to proceed to the next stage, in which they could demand financial records from the hotel or other evidence from the president. The case takes aim at whether Mr. Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html>, which prevent a president from accepting government-bestowed benefits either at home or abroad. Until now, the issue of what constitutes an illegal emolument has never been litigated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99480&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20in%20Emoluments%20Case%20Questions%20Defense%20of%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Hotel%20Profits%E2%80%9D>
Posted in conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>


“Judge in New Hampshire election law dispute steps aside”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99478>
Posted on June 11, 2018 9:20 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99478> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Union-Leader:<http://www.newhampshire.com/Judge-in-New-Hampshire-election-law-dispute-steps-aside>

A long-running court dispute over a controversial election reform law just got longer with the presiding judge deciding Friday to disqualify himself due to a close, personal relationship with one of the state’s lawyers.

The ruling throws yet another controversy at this court battle pitting the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party against Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who is defending a law meant to require voters show proof at the polls or after the election that they actually live or are domiciled in New Hampshire.

Critics maintain the law known as SB 3 is meant to discourage college students, low-income and minority citizens from taking advantage of New Hampshire’s easy requirements to cast a ballot in the state.

In a 13-page decision, Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Charles Temple said stepping aside or recusing himself from being further involved in this lawsuit is the right choice.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99478&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20in%20New%20Hampshire%20election%20law%20dispute%20steps%20aside%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Maine Democrats Focus on Campaign Finance in Congressional Primary”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99476>
Posted on June 11, 2018 9:03 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99476> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WSJ reports<https://www.wsj.com/articles/maine-democrats-focus-on-campaign-finance-in-congressional-primary-1528709401>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99476&title=%E2%80%9CMaine%20Democrats%20Focus%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20in%20Congressional%20Primary%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


“Second member resigns from California campaign finance watchdog panel”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99474>
Posted on June 11, 2018 9:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99474> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT reports.<http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-second-member-resigns-from-state-1528736964-htmlstory.html#nt=card>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99474&title=%E2%80%9CSecond%20member%20resigns%20from%20California%20campaign%20finance%20watchdog%20panel%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


Roundup of Stories on Husted Ohio Voter Purge Case via How Appealing<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99471>
Posted on June 11, 2018 8:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99471> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find it here<https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2018/06/11/#78216>.

And see my earlier Slate piece, “Sonia Sotomayor’s Dissent in the Big Voter Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down”<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sonia-sotomayors-husted-dissent-points-the-way-forward-on-racist-voter-purge-laws.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99471&title=Roundup%20of%20Stories%20on%20Husted%20Ohio%20Voter%20Purge%20Case%20via%20How%20Appealing>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


NC: “The new voter photo ID bill is vague and leaves lots of questions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99469>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99469> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gerry Cohen oped<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article212943754.html> for the News and Observer:

There are important questions to be resolved before the legislature votes to put voter photo identification in the state Constitution via referendum.

The ballot question says, “Every person offering to vote in person shall present photo identification before voting in the manner prescribed by law.” This language appears to not allow exceptions for those without ID or those who have lost them, as the 2013 law did. Will it be a “hard ID” like that struck down in federal court, or a “soft ID” like the 2013 House version that allowed student ID, public assistance ID or employer ID? Will there be a tedious provisional ballot process?

The referendum voter won’t know the actual proposal. Senate staffer Brent Woodcox tweeted, “Very few would read the details of the bill to make their decision on the amendment. Unless it passes, there will be no need for implementing language.” How cynical. Is the amendment just a blank check, as well as a sound bite to trap candidates? Is the actual reason to amend the constitution to end review on state constitutional grounds? Republicans control the legislature; the N.C. Supreme Court is now 4-3 Democratic and will remain Democratic next year.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99469&title=NC%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20new%20voter%20photo%20ID%20bill%20is%20vague%20and%20leaves%20lots%20of%20questions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Congressman can be ‘Rep. Ron Estes’ in race against other Estes, board says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99467>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:24 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99467> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wichita Eagle:<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article212954799.html>

The Rep will stay on the ballot.

U.S. Congressman Ron Estes will be listed as “Rep. Ron Estes” on the Republican primary ballot in his race against Ron M. Estes — a first-time candidate of the same name — after a state board denied an objection against using the name.

Should Rep. Estes win the primary, the “Rep” will not appear on the general election ballot, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99467&title=%E2%80%9CCongressman%20can%20be%20%E2%80%98Rep.%20Ron%20Estes%E2%80%99%20in%20race%20against%20other%20Estes%2C%20board%20says%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Derek Muller and I Discussed the Ohio Voter Purge Case on KPCC’s Airtalk<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99465>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99465> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Listen.<https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2018/06/11/63173/scotus-upholds-ohio-s-practice-of-cleaning-up-its/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99465&title=Derek%20Muller%20and%20I%20Discussed%20the%20Ohio%20Voter%20Purge%20Case%20on%20KPCC%E2%80%99s%20Airtalk>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Ohio’s voter purges were upheld by the Supreme Court. That doesn’t make them defensible.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99463>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:12 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99463> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Daniel Nichanian<https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ohio-s-voter-purges-were-upheld-supreme-court-doesn-t-ncna882146> for NBC Think.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99463&title=%E2%80%9COhio%E2%80%99s%20voter%20purges%20were%20upheld%20by%20the%20Supreme%20Court.%20That%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20make%20them%20defensible.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Ohio Voter-Purge Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99461>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:11 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99461> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nina Totenberg reports<https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618870982/supreme-court-upholds-controversial-ohio-voter-purge-law?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social> for NPR.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99461&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Upholds%20Controversial%20Ohio%20Voter-Purge%20Law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Supreme Court takes a giant step backward on voter rights”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99459>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:09 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99459> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Josh Douglas<https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/opinions/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-vote/index.html> for CNN Opinion.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99459&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20takes%20a%20giant%20step%20backward%20on%20voter%20rights%E2%80%9D>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Hidden Super-PAC Contributors Win Round as Court Upholds Secrecy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99457>
Posted on June 11, 2018 6:07 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99457> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA:<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=136147352&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=00000163efc5d4c1a56bffdd56980002&split=0>
A federal court upheld<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/CAMPAIGN_LEGAL_CENTER_et_al_v_FEDERAL_ELECTION_COMMISSION_Docket_/6?doc_id=X1Q6O0921282?fmt=pdf> the Federal Election Commission’s dismissal of disclosure charges involving two wealthy contributors who allegedly funneled $14 million to super-political action committees through obscure companies.
The FEC’s three Republican commissioners, who voted to dismiss the charges, exercised permissible discretion in “an issue of first impression” following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, ruled Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The judge accepted the Republican commissioners’ argument that the rules for such contributions were uncertain and a new legal standard should be established going forward.
The FEC dismissal resulted from deadlocked 3-3 votes involving complaints that super-PAC contributions were hidden by Steve Lund, a Utah businessman, and Richard Stephenson, the founder of Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
The three Democratic FEC commissioners said longstanding rules barring “straw donations” applied to campaign money funneled through a company. The FEC Democrats voted to follow staff recommendations to pursue enforcement action….
The judge’s decision to uphold the Republican commissioners’ view drew praise from David Keating, president of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, which criticizes campaign regulation.
“It was the right decision,” Keating said in a phone interview, adding that the FEC should provide “formal guidance” going forward about the legal standard for straw donations. Such guidance would require FEC Democrats and Republicans to agree on an approach.
The judge’s decision was faulted by Paul Seamus Ryan, a lawyer with the nonprofit Common Cause, which supports strong disclosure rules. On Twitter, Ryan noted that McFadden is a judge appointed by President Donald Trump and said his ruling bent “over backwards … to let campaign finance law violators off the hook for laundering millions of dollars into our elections.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99457&title=%E2%80%9CHidden%20Super-PAC%20Contributors%20Win%20Round%20as%20Court%20Upholds%20Secrecy%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


“Web of elite Russians met with NRA execs during 2016 campaign”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99454>
Posted on June 11, 2018 1:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99454> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

McClatchy reports:<https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article212756749.html>

Several prominent Russians, some in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle or high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with National Rifle Association officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, according to photographs and an NRA source.

The contacts have emerged amid a deepening Justice Department investigation into whether Russian banker and lifetime NRA member Alexander Torshin illegally channeled money through the gun rights group to add financial firepower to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.

Other influential Russians who met with NRA representatives during the campaign include Dmitry Rogozin, who until last month served as a deputy prime minister overseeing Russia’s defense industry, and Sergei Rudov, head of one of Russia’s largest philanthropies, the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation. The foundation was launched by an ultra-nationalist ally of Russian President Putin.

The Russians talked and dined with NRA representatives, mainly in Moscow, as U.S. presidential candidates vied for the White House. Now U.S. investigators want to know if relationships between the Russian leaders and the nation’s largest gun rights group went beyond vodka toasts and gun factory tours, evolving into another facet of the Kremlin’s broad election-interference operation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99454&title=%E2%80%9CWeb%20of%20elite%20Russians%20met%20with%20NRA%20execs%20during%202016%20campaign%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Sonia Sotomayor’s Dissent in the Big Voter Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99452>
Posted on June 11, 2018 9:37 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99452> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sonia-sotomayors-husted-dissent-points-the-way-forward-on-racist-voter-purge-laws.html> for Slate. It begins:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-980_f2q3.pdf> a controversial Ohio voter purge law which allows the state to begin the process of removing voters from the rolls based upon their failure to vote in a single election. No doubt other Republican states will follow suit and adopt Ohio’s procedures, leading to the removal of a disproportionate number of minority, low-income, and veteran voters from the list of eligible voters. It is an unfortunate decision, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s lone dissent provides two paths forward to mount new attacks on these voter suppressive laws based on their discriminatory impact.

A bit more:

Whether Alito or Breyer had the stronger analysis of the interplay of the statutory provisions is unclear to me, but both opinions said little about the key political issue underlying the case, an issue Justice Sotomayor flagged in her separate dissent. After noting that Congress passed the Motor Voter law in light of a history of using restrictive registration and purge rules to suppress the vote, the Justice pointed to evidence showing that the process “has disproportionately affected minority, low-income, disabled, and veteran voters.” She noted evidence that in Hamilton County, Ohio, “African-American-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of their voters removed due to inactivity” since 2012, as “compared to only 4% of voters in a suburban, majority-white neighborhood.” She also cited amicus briefs explaining “at length how low voter turnout rates, language-access problems, mail delivery issues, inflexible work schedules, and transportation issues, among other obstacles, make it more difficult for many minority, low-income, disabled, homeless, and veteran voters to cast a ballot or return a notice, rendering them particularly vulnerable to unwarranted removal under” Ohio’s process.

Justice Sotomayor pointed out that another provision of the Motor Voter law requires that any removal program “be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act,” and this part of the law provides a potential path forward. As more states enact laws like Ohio’s, it will become further apparent that these laws have discriminatory effects.

And aside from lawsuits, worries about voter suppression have energized the left to fight such laws politically. In at least some states discriminatory laws like Ohio’s can be fought through legislative battles and at the ballot box.

Justice Alito’s response to Justice Sotomayor is quite telling. He rightly noted that the challenge in this case was not about whether Ohio’s law was discriminatory. But he added that Justice Sotomayor did not point “to any evidence in the record that Ohio instituted or has carried out its program with discriminatory intent.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99452&title=%E2%80%9CSonia%20Sotomayor%E2%80%99s%20Dissent%20in%20the%20Big%20Voter%20Purge%20Case%20Points%20to%20How%20the%20Law%20Might%20Still%20Be%20Struck%20Down%E2%80%9D>
Posted in NVRA (motor voter)<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


--
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/20180612/61f1d6ed/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/20180612/61f1d6ed/attachment.png>