[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/8/17

Thu Mar 8 09:54:08 PST 2018

“Venturing Into the Swamp, Trump Dines With Major Donors”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98057>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98057> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/us/politics/trump-donor-dinner-georgetown.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront>

President Trump dined at the ornate Georgetown home of a prominent Washington lawyer on Wednesday night with wealthy donors who are expected to play crucial roles in financing his re-election campaign.

The dinner was the latest in a series of donor events associated with a pair of independent groups — America First Policies and America First Action — that are aiming to raise $100 million this year, mostly in large donations, to support Mr. Trump’s agenda and the election campaigns of allied congressional candidates.

Attendees included donors and operatives who are working to raise money for the America First groups, such as the Dallas financial executive Roy W. Bailey and the Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm, as well as the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., according to someone briefed on the list of attendees and published reports.

Mr. Hamm and Mr. Bailey are on the board of America First Policies, a nonprofit group that was created to advocate Mr. Trump’s agenda and that has paid for a series of polls and strategy memos<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/trump-ally-america-first-policies-key-research-polls-reports.html> about the political effects of the Trump administration’s efforts. America First Action, on the other hand, is a “super PAC” that is raising money to air advertisements in support of Republican congressional candidates allied with the president.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98057&title=%E2%80%9CVenturing%20Into%20the%20Swamp%2C%20Trump%20Dines%20With%20Major%20Donors%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“PowerPost Democratic super PAC makes plans to spend $43 million on House races”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98055>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:49 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98055> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/08/democratic-super-pac-makes-plans-to-spend-43-million-on-house-races/?utm_term=.dc8e977de344>

The most prominent Democratic super PAC exclusively targeting House races said Thursday it plans to reserve $43 million worth of TV ad time ahead of November’s midterm elections, sketching out dozens of media markets where it plans to spend.

House Majority PAC (HMP) has close ties to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and is the Democrats’ main counterweight to Republican super PAC spending led by the Congressional Leadership Fund, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth Action and other independent GOP organs.

The early ad reservations are not binding — they can be modified, canceled or enlarged later in the election cycle — but they allow ad buyers to lock in lower rates in key media markets where House campaigns will be potentially competing with Senate, gubernatorial and other races for ad time. This year, HMP’s ad reservations are coming weeks earlier than in prior cycles.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98055&title=%E2%80%9CPowerPost%20Democratic%20super%20PAC%20makes%20plans%20to%20spend%20%2443%20million%20on%20House%20races%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Phoenix voters may get to weigh in on ‘dark money’ donations”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98053>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98053> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AZ Central:<https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/03/08/phoenix-may-get-vote-dark-money-donations-city-council/395921002/>

Phoenix could follow Tempe in an effort to root out secretive campaign donations from city elections.

The Phoenix City Council Wednesday took the first step toward curbing the influence of “dark money” — campaign donations made by political non-profits that do not have to disclose their donors.

This money is typically spent on things like robocalls, television ads and campaign mailers and often takes the form of negative attack ads.

Mayor Greg Stanton and council members Kate Gallego and Debra Stark requested city staff to draft an amendment to the city’s charter that requires political non-profits to disclose the sources of “major contributions used to influence city elections.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98053&title=%E2%80%9CPhoenix%20voters%20may%20get%20to%20weigh%20in%20on%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20donations%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

John Gore Behind DOJ Letter Urging Census Department to Add Citizenship Question to Census Survey<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98051>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98051> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ProPublica:<https://www.propublica.org/article/john-gore-trump-appointee-citizenship-question-census>

In December, the Department of Justice requested that the Census Bureau add a question to the 2020 survey that would ask respondents to reveal whether or not they are U.S. citizens. Since ProPublica first reported<https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-justice-department-pushes-for-citizenship-question-on-census-alarming-experts> the DOJ’s letter, civil rights groups and congressional Democrats have announced their opposition, arguing that in the midst of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, the question will lead many people to opt out of the census, resulting in an inaccurate population count.

A lot is at stake. The once-a-decade population count determines how House seats are distributed<https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/about/faqs.html#Q1> and helps determine where hundreds of billions<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-in-Federal-Funds-Distribution.pdf> of federal dollars are spent.

But one question regarding the December letter remained unclear. The letter was signed by a career staffer in a division of the DOJ whose main function is handling budget and procurement matters. Who, observers wondered, was actually driving the policy change?

Emails obtained by ProPublica in response to a Freedom of Information Act request provide an answer: The letter was drafted by a Trump political appointee who is best known for his work defending Republican redistricting efforts around the country.

John Gore, who since last summer has been the acting head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, drafted<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4403719-JMD-Response-Documents.html#document/p25> the original letter<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4403719-JMD-Response-Documents.html#document/p49/a408913> to the Census Bureau, the emails show. In one email<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4403719-JMD-Response-Documents.html#document/p49/a408913>, Arthur Gary, the career official who signed the letter, noted that it was sent “at the request of leadership, working with John.”

Gore came to the Trump administration from the law firm Jones Day, where he was an appellate specialist best known<https://theintercept.com/2017/01/24/trump-doj-gerrymander/> for defending<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=90559> a range of Republican state redistricting plans that were attacked as racial gerrymandering by opponents. Gore, for example, helped defend<http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-third-district-unconstitutional-20141007-story.html> a Virginia redistricting that was ultimately thrown out <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-leaves-in-place-va-redistricting-decision-rejects-gop-lawmakers-challenge/2016/05/23/1940110e-20f2-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html?utm_term=.542b74a55f56> by a court which ruled that the legislators had focused too much on race.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98051&title=John%20Gore%20Behind%20DOJ%20Letter%20Urging%20Census%20Department%20to%20Add%20Citizenship%20Question%20to%20Census%20Survey>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

“The Move to Politicize Churches Is Back, and Conservatives Should Be Outraged”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98049>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98049> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eliza Newlin Carney<http://prospect.org/article/move-politicize-churches-back-and-conservatives-should-be-outraged> for TAP.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98049&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Move%20to%20Politicize%20Churches%20Is%20Back%2C%20and%20Conservatives%20Should%20Be%20Outraged%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

“Almost No Progress in Key Areas of Election System Security in Last Two Years”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98047>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98047> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brennan Center:<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/almost-no-progress-key-areas-election-system-security-last-two-years>

 By a number of key metrics, the country has failed to make significant progress securing voting machines, despite increasing warnings about system vulnerabilities from election officials and national security experts. An analysis<https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/americas-voting-machines-risk-an-update> released today by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law comes amid concerns about the government’s response to attempts to interfere in U.S. democracy.

“The threats of both hacking and foreign interference are undeniable, yet we’re not doing all we can as a country to protect machines or ensure correct vote totals if a successful attack does occur,” said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “While there has been important progress in securing our election infrastructure since 2016, when it comes to replacing outdated machines and mandating audits throughout the nation, we are failing. Casting a ballot and having it count as intended is the foundation of any democracy, and the time to fix these issues is now. States have been scrambling to do what they can, but Congress needs to support their efforts.”

The new analysis updates a 2015 Brennan Center report, America’s Voting Machines at Risk<https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/americas-voting-machines-risk>. While some federal agencies — and some states and counties around the country — have taken steps to secure infrastructure, Brennan Center researchers found two critical areas where the country has been remarkably slow to act:
·         We have not replaced voting machines most vulnerable to hacking: more than 40 states use ones that aren’t in production anymore.
·         States don’t mandate post-election audits that would allow us to detect and recover from successful cyberattacks against those machines. Only three require what is considered by experts to be the “gold standard” of auditing.

In the 2018 mid-term election, 43 states and Washington, D.C., will use voting machines that are no longer manufactured — the same number of states as in 2015. The age of the machines makes it difficult or impossible to find replacement parts, forcing some officials to turn to eBay.

This fall, 13 states will use paperless voting machines in some counties and towns. These older models are a security risk because they do not produce a paper record that can be used to verify vote totals in the event of a hack. Five states will be using these risky machines statewide. That’s just slightly down from 14 states that used paperless machines in 2016.

Paper records are of limited value against a cyberattack if they aren’t used to check the accuracy of the software-generated total, and to confirm that the results have not been manipulated. Only three states mandate post-election audits that provide a high-level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally.

National security officials and election experts have called on Congress to act on legislation that would implement some of these security solutions. These bipartisan bills would help replace outdated machines and expand the number of machines with paper records. Debates that could decide if these measures get funded begin next week on Capitol Hill.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98047&title=%E2%80%9CAlmost%20No%20Progress%20in%20Key%20Areas%20of%20Election%20System%20Security%20in%20Last%20Two%20Years%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“CFI’s Guide to Money in Federal Elections – 2016 in Historical Context”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98045>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:25 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98045> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Campaign Finance Institute:<http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-03-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_GUIDE_TO_MONEY_IN_FEDERAL_ELECTIONS_%E2%80%93_2016_IN_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT.aspx>

Did you know . . .

<http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf>[http://www.cfinst.org/images/email/FedReport16_v2.png]<http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf><http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf>
·
·         That Donald Trump raised more money from small donors than Barack Obama – more than Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton combined?

·
·         That independent spending in congressional elections by non-party groups was nearly 14 times as high in 2016 as 2008, the last election before Citizens United?

·
·         That more than half of the “non-party” independent spending in 2016 House elections was by two Super PACs closely identified with the party leaders in Congress?

·
·         That the Democratic Party raised more money in 2016 than ever before? Or,

·         That successful challengers normally spend less than the incumbents they beat?

All this material and much more is in a new 83-page publication just released by the Campaign Finance Institute, “CFI’s Guide to Money in Federal Elections – 2016 in Historical Context.”<http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf> The authors are Michael J. Malbin (CFI’s Executive Director and a Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, SUNY) and Brendan Glavin (CFI’s Data and Systems Manager).

The publication is loaded with historical tables, with many going back decades. It is divided into four main sections on presidential elections, congressional elections, political parties, and independent spending. Each section includes historical tables that go through 2016, preceded by essays that interpret the tables and put them in context.

This will be exactly the reference many politics-watchers will need to put the next election’s money-in-politics news into perspective. You can download or view a copy of the full publication here<http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/2016Report/CFIGuide_MoneyinFederalElections.pdf>. Any of the tables included in the report can be downloaded as Excel files by using links located under each. Many present the information in inflation-adjusted dollars. Where they do, the downloaded versions include a separate tab with the dollar figures before adjustment. Feel free to use or republish the tables, but please credit CFI when you do.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98045&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%E2%80%99s%20Guide%20to%20Money%20in%20Federal%20Elections%20%E2%80%93%202016%20in%20Historical%20Context%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Are congressional Democrats lying their way to riches?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98043>
Posted on March 8, 2018 9:23 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98043> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI:<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/03/08/21586/are-congressional-democrats-lying-their-way-riches>

Last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent supporters an email. Subject line: “NOT asking you for money.”

Open the email and Pelosi scolds<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4390725-Pelosimoney.html> Republicans for “playing politics with our national security.” She urges you to click a link if you agree. The link leads to a “Russia investigation survey,” which concludes with Pelosi doing exactly what she said wouldn’t do.

She asks you<https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4390726/pelosimoney2.pdf> for money.

“Will you pitch in $3 (or more!) to help the DCCC support Democratic House candidates every step of the way to victory and flip the House in 2018?” Click, and a donation page pops up<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4390727-pelosimoney3.html> urging readers to “take the next step” and donate $15, or $100, or $1,000, or more.

The email was the latest among more than two dozen Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-sponsored emails sent since January 2017 and reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity<http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics> that woo potential suitors with the same false promise.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98043&title=%E2%80%9CAre%20congressional%20Democrats%20lying%20their%20way%20to%20riches%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Kris Kobach Admits White House’s Idea For Identifying Voter Fraud Wasn’t A Good One”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98040>
Posted on March 7, 2018 5:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98040> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPost reports.<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris-kobach-voter-fraud_us_5aa001eee4b002df2c5fc54a>

From May 2017 until January, Kobach led the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a probe convened by the White House to investigate voter fraud. The commission asked election officials in all 50 states to provide it with voter roll data, and White House officials said they wanted to compare that information against federal databases<https://www.propublica.org/article/election-experts-see-flaws-in-trump-voter-commissions-plan-to-smoke-out-fraud> to identify noncitizens and duplicate voters. One of those databases was a Department of Homeland Security directory of noncitizens<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/27/voter-fraud-and-suppression-commission-to-meet-in-/>. Officials communicated with DHS while the panel was operational, and when the probe was disbanded in January, Kobach said<https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/trump-disbands-voter-fraud-commission-322621> DHS could run voter information against federal databases of noncitizens to try and identify noncitizens getting on the voter rolls.

But on Tuesday, during his opening statement in a federal lawsuit challenging a restrictive voting law, Kobach said the federal databases could not adequately identify noncitizens on the voting rolls. He said that a DHS database called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements was intended to assess eligibility for government benefits ― not to verify citizenship.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98040&title=%E2%80%9CKris%20Kobach%20Admits%20White%20House%E2%80%99s%20Idea%20For%20Identifying%20Voter%20Fraud%20Wasn%E2%80%99t%20A%20Good%20One%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“Judge Keeps Correcting Kobach Lawyers On Trial Procedure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98038>
Posted on March 7, 2018 5:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98038> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TPM:<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/kobach-judge-lecture-trial-procedure>

On multiple occasions, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson has interrupted questioning to walk Kobach and his crew of lawyers through the intricacies of moves such as admitting evidence and asking witnesses about previous depositions. Robinson, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has even instructed Kansas’ attorneys on the correct ways to phrase their questions.

Rather than rely on the representation of the Kansas Attorney General’s office, Kobach has opted to represent himself, with the assistance of other attorneys in his office. They haven’t exactly given the impression of crack litigators.

The first hang-up occurred even before the opening statements Tuesday, when Kobach sought to introduce a demonstrative exhibit. Lawyers for the ACLU objected, as they had only been emailed the exhibit at 10:43 p.m. the night before, well after a 24-hour deadline before trial started that the judge imposed.

“The whole point of that is so everyone knows what they’re working with,” Robinson said.

Later Tuesday, Sue Becker, an attorney in Kobach’s office, received a brief lecture from Robinson on “evidence 101.” Robinson’s consternation came as Becker was cross-examining Donna Bucci, a challenger in the case. The judge knocked Becker for not laying the foundation for evidence before presenting it during the cross-examination.
 “Evidence 101 — not going to do it,” Robinson said. “We’re going to follow the rules of evidence.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98038&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Keeps%20Correcting%20Kobach%20Lawyers%20On%20Trial%20Procedure%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

Cert. Petition Filed Challenging Montana Law Barring Judicial Candidates from Seeking, Accepting, or Using Political Party Endorsements<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98036>
Posted on March 7, 2018 1:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98036> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read it here.<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1255/37657/20180305150149853_180305%20French%20v%20Jones%20Petn.pdf>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98036&title=Cert.%20Petition%20Filed%20Challenging%20Montana%20Law%20Barring%20Judicial%20Candidates%20from%20Seeking%2C%20Accepting%2C%20or%20Using%20Political%20Party%20Endorsements>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Santa Fe’s First Ranked Choice Voting Election Produced Clear Outcomes, Higher Turnout and Effective Use of New Ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98033>
Posted on March 7, 2018 1:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98033> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

FairVote release.<http://www.fairvote.org/santa_fe_s_first_ranked_choice_voting_election_produced_clear_outcomes_higher_turnout_and_effective_use_of_new_ballot?utm_campaign=pr_sf_3_7_182&utm_medium=email&utm_source=fairvote>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98033&title=%E2%80%9CSanta%20Fe%E2%80%99s%20First%20Ranked%20Choice%20Voting%20Election%20Produced%20Clear%20Outcomes%2C%20Higher%20Turnout%20and%20Effective%20Use%20of%20New%20Ballot%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>

“What We Found in Trump’s Drained Swamp: Hundreds of Ex-Lobbyists and D.C. Insiders”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98031>
Posted on March 7, 2018 1:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98031> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ProPublica:<https://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-found-in-trump-administration-drained-swamp-hundreds-of-ex-lobbyists-and-washington-dc-insiders>

When the Trump administration took office early last year, hundreds of staffers from lobbying firms, conservative think tanks and Trump campaign groups began pouring into the very agencies they once lobbied or whose work they once opposed.

Today we’re making available, for the first time, an authoritative searchable database of 2,475 political appointees<https://projects.propublica.org/trump-town/>, including Trump’s Cabinet, staffers in the White House and senior officials within the government, along with their federal lobbying and financial records. Trump Town is the result of a year<ttps://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-compiled-trump-town> spent filing hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests; collecting and organizing staffing lists; and compiling, sifting through and publishing thousands of financial disclosure reports.Here’s what we found:

At least 187 Trump political appointees have been federal lobbyists, and despite President Trump’s campaign pledge to “drain the swamp,” many are now overseeing the industries they once lobbied on behalf of. We’ve also discovered ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest. In addition, at least 254 appointees affiliated with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and at least 125 staffers from prominent conservative think tanks are now working in the federal government, many of whom are on teams to repeal Obama-era regulations.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98031&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20We%20Found%20in%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Drained%20Swamp%3A%20Hundreds%20of%20Ex-Lobbyists%20and%20D.C.%20Insiders%E2%80%9D>
Posted in lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

“Video of Kobach’s testimony could give insight on conversations with Trump”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98029>
Posted on March 7, 2018 12:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98029> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bryan Lowry:<http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article203887994.html>

A federal judge will allow the ACLU to show video of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach speaking about his advice to President Donald Trump as part of a trial that will determine whether thousands can vote in Kansas this November.

The video of a 2017 deposition will serve as a piece of evidence in the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge of a Kansas law that requires prospective voters to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, before they can register to vote.

Kobach’s team objected Wednesday to the showing of the video on the grounds that they had not had a chance to review the video. They asked that a transcript of the deposition be read instead
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98029&title=%E2%80%9CVideo%20of%20Kobach%E2%80%99s%20testimony%20could%20give%20insight%20on%20conversations%20with%20Trump%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98026>
Posted on March 7, 2018 12:02 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98026> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Matt Ford for TNR.<https://newrepublic.com/article/147310/can-states-ban-trump-ballot-doesnt-release-tax-returns>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98026&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20States%20Ban%20Trump%20From%20the%20Ballot%20If%20He%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Release%20His%20Tax%20Returns%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, 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/20180308/f447bae9/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/20180308/f447bae9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32873 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180308/f447bae9/attachment-0001.png>