[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/26/18
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jun 25 20:56:25 PDT 2018
North Carolina: “Cooper goes on veto binge, rejecting seven bills”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99801>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:50 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99801> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WRAL:<https://www.wral.com/cooper-goes-on-veto-binge-rejecting-seven-bills/17654695/>
In his largest set of vetoes to date, Gov. Roy Cooper rejected seven bills late Monday, including one changing early voting schedules and a second that would insulate hog farm operators from nuisance lawsuits filed by neighbors.
Lawmakers are expected to hold override votes on all seven this week.
Senate Bill 325 sets up a 17-day early voting period<https://www.wral.com/legislature-oks-changes-to-early-voting/17630055/> that runs from mid-October to the Friday before Election Day, eliminating voting on the final Saturday before Election Day. It also would require all early voting sites to be open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays during the period. Counties could set their own weekend hours, but all sites would have to be open those hours….
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99801&title=North%20Carolina%3A%20%E2%80%9CCooper%20goes%20on%20veto%20binge%2C%20rejecting%20seven%20bills%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
What About the *Other* Case Claiming Partisan Gerrymandering in North Carolina?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99799>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:46 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99799> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Li reminds us<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011320640186519553>:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/757344014/mail_bigger.jpeg]<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Michael Li<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
✔@mcpli<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
13h<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011247855804219392>
Replying to @mcpli<https://twitter.com/_/status/1011247400806215680>
By the time the case returns to SCOTUS, the court will also have the benefit of the 2018 having occurred - which will offer an added lens into how durable these gerrymanders are - if, as projected, 2018 is a big D wave. #fairmaps<https://twitter.com/hashtag/fairmaps?src=hash> #ncpol<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ncpol?src=hash> 8/
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/757344014/mail_bigger.jpeg]<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Michael Li<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
✔@mcpli<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011320640186519553>
Side note: There actually is a third North Carolina partisan gerrymandering case - Harris v. Cooper - that still is awaiting some action by SCOTUS. It also had been set for conference last week, but no action today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-166.html#fairmaps …<https://t.co/VCetIxsoL3> #ncpol<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ncpol?src=hash> 9/
11:50 AM - Jun 25, 2018<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011320640186519553>
· <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1011320640186519553>
5<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1011320640186519553>
· <https://twitter.com/mcpli>
See Michael Li's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/757344014/mail_bigger.jpeg]<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Michael Li<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
✔@mcpli<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
9h<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011321255209914369>
Replying to @mcpli<https://twitter.com/_/status/1011320640186519553>
Harris is an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the NC racial gerrymandering case who objected before the district court to the 2016 remedial congressional map on the grounds that it was a partisan gerrymander. #fairmaps<https://twitter.com/hashtag/fairmaps?src=hash> #ncpol<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ncpol?src=hash> 10/
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/757344014/mail_bigger.jpeg]<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Michael Li<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
✔@mcpli<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011322525329051649>
I'd expect Harris to be addressed in the court's end of term clean up orders with a GVR, but a bit surprising that it wasn't addressed today. #fairmaps<https://twitter.com/hashtag/fairmaps?src=hash> #ncpol<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ncpol?src=hash> 11/
11:57 AM - Jun 25, 2018<https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1011322525329051649>
· <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1011322525329051649>
2<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1011322525329051649>
· <https://twitter.com/mcpli>
See Michael Li's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/mcpli>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
A bit strange. Hard to imagine at this point it won’t be sent back down in light of Gill too. But still…
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99799&title=What%20About%20the%20*Other*%20Case%20Claiming%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20in%20North%20Carolina%3F>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
How Appealing Roundup of Stories on Texas Redistricting Decision<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99797>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99797> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can find it here.<https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2018/06/25/#78647>
You can also read my Slate piece on the decision, “Suppression of Minority Voting Rights Is About <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-abbott-v-perez-case-echoes-shelby-county-v-holder-as-a-further-death-blow-for-the-voting-rights-act.html> to Get Way Worse; The Supreme Court has put its thumb on the scales in favor of discriminatory states.<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-abbott-v-perez-case-echoes-shelby-county-v-holder-as-a-further-death-blow-for-the-voting-rights-act.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99797&title=How%20Appealing%20Roundup%20of%20Stories%20on%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Decision>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, residency<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Missouri: “Greitens committed impeachable offenses, nonprofit was ‘a criminal enterprise from inception,’ letter says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99795>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:32 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99795> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
St. Louis Post-Dispatch:<https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/investigative-chairman-good-cause-that-greitens-committed-multiple-impeachable-offenses/article_67387a27-9158-5eb9-9404-42ec5a82d6cb.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share>
The chairman of the Missouri House committee that investigated former Gov. Eric Greitens sent out a scathing letter<https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/a0/ea00a6f1-d7d7-5358-b9fc-61dfd346ad84/5b31369704e99.pdf.pdf> Monday calling Greitens’ dark-money group a “criminal enterprise” and saying that if Greitens had not resigned, the committee would have had the evidence to approve articles of impeachment.
Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said in a letter to his fellow committee members that the panel possessed evidence that Greitens committed “multiple acts constituting crimes, misconduct, and acts of moral turpitude warranting the filing of articles of impeachment.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99795&title=Missouri%3A%20%E2%80%9CGreitens%20committed%20impeachable%20offenses%2C%20nonprofit%20was%20%E2%80%98a%20criminal%20enterprise%20from%20inception%2C%E2%80%99%20letter%20says%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“How the Supreme Court is changing the rules on voting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99793>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99793> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Joan Biskupic analysis<https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-voting-rights-gerrymandering/index.html> for CNN.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99793&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20is%20changing%20the%20rules%20on%20voting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
How Appealing Rounds Up Stories of Supreme Court’s Sending of North Carolina Partisan Gerrymandering Case Back to the Minors<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99791>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:07 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99791> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Howard’s links..<https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2018/06/25/#78645>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99791&title=How%20Appealing%20Rounds%20Up%20Stories%20of%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Sending%20of%20North%20Carolina%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Case%20Back%20to%20the%20Minors>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Neil Gorsuch Declares War on the Voting Rights Act”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99789>
Posted on June 25, 2018 8:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99789> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Joseph Stern<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/abbott-v-perez-neil-gorsuch-says-the-voting-rights-act-does-not-prohibit-racial-gerrymandering.html> for Slate:
What may be most remarkable about Monday’s decision in Abbott v. Perez<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-586_o7kq.pdf>, however, is Justice Neil Gorsuch’s effort to position himself as a fierce opponent of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court already gutted a central provision of the VRA in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder<https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96>. Now, in Perez, Gorsuch has joined Justice Clarence Thomas’ crusade to hobble the law even further by holding that it does not prohibit racial gerrymandering. Were the court to adopt Gorsuch’s interpretation, the VRA could never again be used to stop racist mapmakers from diluting minority votes.
Mark has also written: Sam vs. Sonia: Alito believes states deserve our sympathy in voting rights disputes. Sotomayor thinks minority voters do. So far, Alito is winning.<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/alito-and-sotomayor-are-fighting-over-voting-rights-alito-is-winning.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99789&title=%E2%80%9CNeil%20Gorsuch%20Declares%20War%20on%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Smart Bob Barnes: “Like Punting after a Punt”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99787>
Posted on June 25, 2018 7:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99787> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-supreme-court-shows-it-is-in-no-rush-to-decide-controversial-cases/2018/06/25/36b1c9ac-788a-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html?utm_term=.a4910ef09bc7>
The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it is in no hurry to decide two important questions it sidestepped earlier this term: whether a business owner’s religious beliefs can justify refusing wedding services to same-sex couples, and how courts should evaluate extreme partisan gerrymandering.
The justices sent back the case of a Washington state florist who was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination law, as well as a ruling that North Carolina’s redistricting plan is unconstitutional. They said lower courts should reconsider those decisions by applying the rather gauzy guidelines the court issued on those subjects earlier this month.
It was like punting after a punt — raising questions about the careful path the court is treading this term.
One of the biggest: whether the delay is related to the plans of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a pivotal vote whose future on the bench is a matter of intense speculation. Kennedy, who will turn 82 on July 23, may decide to retire, and the court is sometimes reluctant to take controversial cases when the ideologically divided justices don’t know who will decide them next term.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99787&title=Smart%20Bob%20Barnes%3A%20%E2%80%9CLike%20Punting%20after%20a%20Punt%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Top Tech Companies Met With Intelligence Officials to Discuss Midterms”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99785>
Posted on June 25, 2018 7:55 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99785> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/technology/tech-meeting-midterm-elections.html>
Eight of the tech industry’s most influential companies, in anticipation of a repeat of the Russian meddling that occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign, met with United States intelligence officials last month to discuss preparations for this year’s midterm elections.
The meeting, which took place May 23 at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., was also attended by representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oath, Snap and Twitter, according to three attendees of the meeting who spoke on condition of anonymity because of its sensitive nature.
The company officials met with Christopher Krebs, an under secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, as well as a representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s newly formed “foreign influence” task force….
But the people who attended described a tense atmosphere in which the tech companies repeatedly pressed federal officials for information, only to be told — repeatedly — that no specific intelligence would be shared.
The tech companies shared details about disinformation campaigns they were witnessing on their platforms, but neither the F.B.I. nor the Department of Homeland Security was willing or able to share specific information about threats the tech companies should anticipate, the people said.
One attendee of the meeting said the encounter led the tech companies to believe they would be on their own to counter election interference.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99785&title=%E2%80%9CTop%20Tech%20Companies%20Met%20With%20Intelligence%20Officials%20to%20Discuss%20Midterms%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Florida: “24 Years Ago She Lost Her Voting Rights For Pushing A Cop. She Just Got Them Back.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99782>
Posted on June 25, 2018 4:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99782> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sam Levine<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voting-rights-felons-florida_us_5b2d1816e4b0040e274289e7> for HuffPo:
There are more than 10,000 people waiting to have their voting rights restored in Florida, but the clemency board meets only four times a year to restore voting rights (some cases are resolved without a hearing). Scott’s immediate predecessors, Govs. Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, took steps to speed up the process<http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/FL_SAC_Ex-Felon-Report.pdf>. Scott, who has been governor since 2011, changed the rules to require people to wait five to seven years after they completed their sentences before they could apply. Individuals convicted of less serious felonies have to wait just five years before applying and can have their civil rights restored without a hearing. Those convicted of more serious crimes can have their rights restored only after the panel hears their case.
Obtaining an appearance before the clemency board can take another decade because of the backlog. Reginald Garcia, a Tallahassee lawyer who has represented applicants before the board for decades, said the Florida Commission on Offender Review begins its formal investigation into an applicant about six months to a year before that person’s scheduled hearing. But the yearslong waiting period, he said, is still a crucial time to provide investigators with unsolicited information about how the applicant has turned their life around.
Beyond the court system, civil rights activists are working to change Florida’s process. There’s a proposed constitutional amendment<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-felony-disenfranchisement_us_5a62060fe4b074ce7a07ab01> on the ballot this fall to automatically restore voting rights to many felons who have completed their sentences, including probation and parole. Those convicted of the most serious crimes, like murder and sexual assault, would be exempt from automatic restoration.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99782&title=Florida%3A%20%E2%80%9C24%20Years%20Ago%20She%20Lost%20Her%20Voting%20Rights%20For%20Pushing%20A%20Cop.%20She%20Just%20Got%20Them%20Back.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
“It’s a Mess”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99780>
Posted on June 25, 2018 4:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99780> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Great opening<https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623318888/supreme-court-upholds-texas-congressional-state-legislative-maps> quoting Justin Levitt and Rick Pildes in this well-done NPR report by Nina Totenberg on today’s Texas redistricting decision.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99780&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20a%20Mess%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Suppression of Minority Voting Rights Is About to Get Way Worse; The Supreme Court has put its thumb on the scales in favor of discriminatory states.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99775>
Posted on June 25, 2018 11:23 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99775> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-abbott-v-perez-case-echoes-shelby-county-v-holder-as-a-further-death-blow-for-the-voting-rights-act.html> for Slate. It begins:
On Monday, five years<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99752> to the day<https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/the-chief-justices-long-game.html> that the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1305449212751290785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>, a case in which the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act with assurances that other parts of the act would still protect minority voters, the court proved those assurances false in Abbott v. Perez<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-586_o7kq.pdf>. In Abbott, the Roberts court on a 5–4 vote eschewed the judicial minimalism it has used to avoid other contentious issues—such as partisan<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99759> gerrymandering<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-wont-rule-on-gerrymandering.html> and the clash<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-is-a-kennedy-compromise.html> between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberties—to contort rules limiting its own jurisdiction so that it could give states like Texas freer rein for repression of minority voting rights. The signals from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who signed onto a Clarence Thomas concurrence, show that things will only get worse going forward, especially if Justice Anthony Kennedy retires in the near future….
In perhaps the most important part of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion, the court emphasized that courts must “presume” the “good faith” of the legislatures in determining whether a state was engaged in racial discrimination. Further, because race and party overlap so much in places like Texas, what looks like racial motivation may be partisan motivation.
The upshot of this analysis is that it is going to be well near impossible for plaintiffs to prove that states have engaged in intentional racial discrimination so as to put those states back under federal supervision for voting under Section 3. With this thumb on the scale in favor of states, and the ability to say they were just being partisan<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912403> and not engaged in race discrimination<https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/>, they will have a freer rein to engage in discriminatory action. That’s happening not only in Texas, but in states like North Carolina (also subject to federal oversight before Shelby), which the Fourth Circuit found had targeted black Americans “with almost surgical precision”<https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf> in passing an earlier strict set of voting rules and that is back at it again, trying to reimpose voter ID<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99746> and pass a host of other discriminatory measures.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D99775&title=%E2%80%9CSuppression%20of%20Minority%20Voting%20Rights%20Is%20About%20to%20Get%20Way%20Worse%3B%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20put%20its%20thumb%20on%20the%20scales%20in%20favor%20of%20discriminatory%20states.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in 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/20180626/5c592697/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/20180626/5c592697/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16298 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180626/5c592697/attachment.jpg>
View list directory