[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/22/18

Thu Jun 21 18:43:32 PDT 2018

“Democrats Plan New Effort to Target Minority Voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99724>
Posted on June 21, 2018 6:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99724> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/democrats-minority-voters-midterms.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront>

The Democratic National Committee is undertaking an expansive, multimillion dollar strategic plan to motivate voters who typically sit out midterm elections, with a particular focus on engaging nonwhite communities through new investments in local organizing and a six-figure advertising campaign.

The plan, which is set to be announced on Thursday, is likely the largest and most comprehensive effort ever by the Democratic Party to motivate minority voters in a midterm election year, according to aides and party insiders briefed on the new efforts. It includes $1.2 million split across 16 state parties to hire community organizers targeting groups who have been historically unlikely to vote — including black, Latino, Asian, millennial and rural voters. The plan also introduces a new database that seeks to identify 25 million likely Democratic voters who are currently unregistered and seemingly removed from the political process.

The nearly $2.5 million total investment telegraphs the Democratic Party’s strategy in November’s midterm elections. Party leaders say they believe that President Trump’s history of igniting racial divisions has motivated America’s minorities to engage in the political sphere, so the Democrats are expanding their target demographic to include voters who have traditionally not been cultivated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99724&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Plan%20New%20Effort%20to%20Target%20Minority%20Voters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Ranked-Choice Voting Fans Hope Maine’s Experiment Pays Off”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99722>
Posted on June 21, 2018 6:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99722> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2018-06-21/ranked-choice-fans-hope-maines-experiment-pays-off>

 Maine<https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine>‘s first crack at ranked-choice voting went off without a hitch, and backers of the voting method are hopeful the results will motivate other states to give it a try.

The state finished its first ranked-choice process Wednesday when it named the winners of Democratic primaries for governor and the 2nd Congressional District.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99722&title=%E2%80%9CRanked-Choice%20Voting%20Fans%20Hope%20Maine%E2%80%99s%20Experiment%20Pays%20Off%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>

“National Enquirer sent stories about Trump to his attorney Michael Cohen before publication, people familiar with the practice say”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99718>
Posted on June 21, 2018 4:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99718> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-enquirer-sent-stories-about-trump-to-his-attorney-michael-cohen-before-publication-people-familiar-with-the-practice-say/2018/06/21/3978aff4-57a4-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.9b17369e050a>

During the presidential campaign, National Enquirer executives sent digital copies of the tabloid’s articles and cover images related to Donald Trump and his political opponents to Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen in advance of publication, according to three people with knowledge of the matter — an unusual practice that speaks to the close relationship between Trump and David Pecker, chief executive of American Media Inc., the Enquirer’s parent company.

Although the company strongly denies ever sharing such material before publication, these three individuals say the sharing of material continued after Trump took office.

“Since Trump’s become president and even before, [Pecker] openly just has been willing to turn the magazine and the cover over to the Trump machine,” said one of the people with knowledge of the practice.

During the campaign, “if it was a story specifically about Trump, then it was sent over to Michael, and as long as there were no objections from him, the story could be published,” this person added….

Richard Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at the University of California at Irvine’s law school, said that coordinating a message with a political candidate only becomes problematic for a media company if the candidate exerts a level of “control” over the outlet.

If a media corporation submits to a candidate’s instructions, “that could amount to a violation of federal election laws,” he said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99718&title=%E2%80%9CNational%20Enquirer%20sent%20stories%20about%20Trump%20to%20his%20attorney%20Michael%20Cohen%20before%20publication%2C%20people%20familiar%20with%20the%20practice%20say%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

“Wilbur Ross Contradicts Trump Administration Rationale For 2020 Census Citizenship Question”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99716>
Posted on June 21, 2018 3:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99716> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sam Levine for HuffPo:<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wilbur-ross-citizenship-question_us_5b2c2367e4b0321a01cf6d84>

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/wilbur-ross> contradicted the Trump administration’s justification for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/census>, revealing for the first time<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4550954/Wilbur-Ross-Supplemental-Memo.pdf>Thursday that he began to consider the adding the question even before the Department of Justice requested that he do so.

The disclosure came in a supplemental memo filed as part of an ongoing lawsuit challenging the addition of the citizenship question. The memo<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4550954/Wilbur-Ross-Supplemental-Memo.pdf> is significant because the Trump administration has said that the request to add the citizenship question originated with the Department of Justice, which wanted better data to enforce the Voting Rights Act. DOJ asked<https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-justice-department-pushes-for-citizenship-question-on-census-alarming-experts> the Department of Commerce to add the question in December of 2017, but Ross revealed for the first time on Thursday that other senior administration officials had raised it earlier and he had been considering it.

Ross said he had begun considering adding a citizenship question after he was appointed secretary of commerce (he was confirmed in February 2017) and that it was he who approached the DOJ about adding the question….

The supplemental memo is likely to lend fuel to claims by civil rights and immigration groups, who say the DOJ request was merely a pretext for adding the citizenship question. They say that the Trump administration wanted to add the question in order to drive down immigrant response rate
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99716&title=%E2%80%9CWilbur%20Ross%20Contradicts%20Trump%20Administration%20Rationale%20For%202020%20Census%20Citizenship%20Question%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Beating a Dead Horse Dep’t: “Top Pa. Republicans appeal gerrymandering case to U.S. Supreme Court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99714>
Posted on June 21, 2018 3:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99714> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Philly Inquirer reports.<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-congressional-map-supreme-court-scotus-appeal-republicans-20180621.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99714&title=Beating%20a%20Dead%20Horse%20Dep%E2%80%99t%3A%20%E2%80%9CTop%20Pa.%20Republicans%20appeal%20gerrymandering%20case%20to%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“If voter ID comes to NC, Apple and Amazon shouldn’t”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99712>
Posted on June 21, 2018 3:31 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99712> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rev. Barber and Rashad Robinson oped<http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/article213551204.html> in The News & Observer:

Apple and Amazon have a clear choice: they can stand by their stated values or they can stay the course of enabling the N.C. General Assembly as they re-enact Jim Crow-style voter suppression in the state. Make no mistake, history will remember how our leading companies chose to condone or condemn the rolling back of civil rights laws across our country.

The parallel to Roseanne Barr is striking. We can only hope that in the case of racist policy, as well as racist rhetoric, the public, the media, and powerful corporations are just as willing to take a stand.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99712&title=%E2%80%9CIf%20voter%20ID%20comes%20to%20NC%2C%20Apple%20and%20Amazon%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Lee Goodman, No Longer on the FEC, Sending a Campaign Mailer with Envelope Identifying Him as “Chairman Federal Election Commission”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99709>
Posted on June 21, 2018 3:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99709> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Oh my.<http://dakotawarcollege.com/received-this-envelope-today-from-the-federal-election-commission-but-it-wasnt-from-the-fec/>

Not good.

[http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_4930.HEIC_.jpg]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_4930.HEIC_.jpg>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99709&title=Lee%20Goodman%2C%20No%20Longer%20on%20the%20FEC%2C%20Sending%20a%20Campaign%20Mailer%20with%20Envelope%20Identifying%20Him%20as%20%E2%80%9CChairman%20Federal%20Election%20Commission%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Parties in in North Carolina Partisan Gerrymandering Case Spar Over Whether U.S. Supreme Court Should Hear Case or Remand the Case Following Gill<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99706>
Posted on June 21, 2018 12:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99706> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Court had the case on its conference docket<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1295.html> for today, but it is possible these supplemental briefs will further delay disposition of the case.
Jun 19 2018

Second supplemental brief of appellees Common Cause, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Main Document<http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/50639/20180619153742124_17-1295%20Rucho%20v.%20Common%20Cause%20Supplemental%20Brief%20of%20the%20Common%20Cause%20Appellees.pdf>

Jun 20 2018

Supplemental brief of appellees League of Women Voters of North Carolina, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Main Document<http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/50714/20180620124033768_Rucho%20v.%20Common%20Cause%20No%2017-1295_Supplemental%20Brief_FINAL_FILE%20THIS.pdf>

Jun 20 2018

Supplemental brief of appellants Robert A. Rucho, et al. filed. (Distributed)

Main Document<http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/50717/20180620130106145_Rucho%20Supplemental%20Brief%20FINAL%20-%20PDFA.pdf>

I discussed in my recent Slate piece about Gill<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-wont-rule-on-gerrymandering.html> how the North Carolina case could be the next vehicle to consider these issues, though it might face a remand to reconsider standing questions in light of Gill.

Paul Clement, defending the state general assembly, has been arguing that there’s a standing problem (and therefore remand in light of Gill is appropriate<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1295/50717/20180620130106145_Rucho%20Supplemental%20Brief%20FINAL%20-%20PDFA.pdf>). But here’s his “To be sure” paragraph that makes his argument tough:

To be sure, the district court concluded in the alternative that “Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the 2016 Plan as a whole … [e]ven absent statewide standing, because Plaintiffs reside in each of the state’s thirteen districts and have all suffered injuries-in-fact.” JS.App.45; see also JS.App.40-41 n.9. But just like the plaintiffs in Gill, the plaintiffs here did not “meaningfully pursue their allegations of individual harm”; instead, they “rested their case … on their theory of statewide injury.” Gill, slip op. 18. Indeed, the League plaintiffs have never suggested that they had an individualized theory; they have just adamantly defended their statewide theory, insisting that “it would be incongruous to force challenges to the Plan to proceed district-by-district.” LWV.Mot.27; see also CC.Mot.15 (“the League of Women Voters plaintiffs proceeded only on a statewide theory’’ (alteration omitted)).

Bottom line: The Court can kick the case back or take it as it wishes, meaning a lot rides on Justice Kennedy for a change.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99706&title=Parties%20in%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case%20Spar%20Over%20Whether%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Should%20Hear%20Case%20or%20Remand%20the%20Case%20Following%20Gill>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Voting machine vendor treated election officials to trips to Vegas, elsewhere”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99704>
Posted on June 21, 2018 12:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99704> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

McClatchy:<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article213558729.html#cardLink=row1_card2>

The nation’s largest voting equipment vendor has for at least nine years coaxed state and local elections officials to serve on an “advisory board” that gathers twice annually for company-sponsored conferences, including one last year at a ritzy Las Vegas resort hotel.

The arrangement could compromise the integrity of the officials’ decisions — or at the very least, the optics of those decisions — at a time when they are faced with efforts by Russia and perhaps other nations to disrupt the upcoming mid-term elections, ethics and elections experts said.

As many as a dozen election officials attended the March 2, 2017 Las Vegas meeting, with a number of them accepting airfare, lodging, meals and, according to one participant, a ticket to a show on the Strip from their voting systems vendor, Nebraska-based Election Systems and Software (ES&S). Two other panel members said their state election boards paid for their trips.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99704&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20machine%20vendor%20treated%20election%20officials%20to%20trips%20to%20Vegas%2C%20elsewhere%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election law biz<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>

--
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/20180622/7ca6357b/attachment-0001.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/20180622/7ca6357b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 784289 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180622/7ca6357b/attachment-0001.jpg>