[EL] Common Cause complaint against Cambridge Analytica et al.

[Paul Ryan]

Regarding the first item in today’s ELB News and Commentary, Common Cause has just filed complaints with the DOJ and FEC alleging violations of federal law prohibition on foreign nationals participating in certain U.S. election-related activities.  Here’s our press release with links to the complaints.

For Immediate Release – Mar. 26, 2018
David Vance, Common Cause, (202) 736-5712 dvance at commoncause.org<mailto:dvance at commoncause.org>

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against Cambridge Analytica for Violating Prohibition on Election-Related Activities by Foreign Nationals in Work for Trump, Others
Today, Common Cause filed complaints<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fcambridge-analytica-doj-complaint.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C3bcb166c9b8543df228408d59328ae33%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636576725295277829&sdata=oq4%2BsBdslBTptxXTzHddv3x5APQdMuYcdwz9NzJSIJE%3D&reserved=0> with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging reason to believe that Cambridge Analytica LTD and its sister company, SCL Group Limited, and numerous employees of the London-based companies repeatedly violated the prohibition on foreign nationals performing certain election-related activities over two U.S. election cycles – including extensive work for the Trump campaign.
As the complaint outlines in detail, publicly available data and numerous published reports make abundantly clear that numerous employees of the companies “violated the federal law prohibition on foreign nationals ‘directly or indirectly participat[ing] in the decision-making process of any . . . political committee . . . such as decisions concerning the making of . . . expenditures’” in connection with U.S. elections.
Among the foreign nationals employed by the two companies named in the complaint are Alexander Nix, Nigel Oakes, Alexander Tayler, Mark Turnbull and Christopher Wylie who all reportedly did significant work for U.S. election campaign during the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. The companies, staffed almost entirely by foreign nationals, did more than $5 million worth of work for the presidential campaigns of both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as well as millions of dollars more for other campaigns and Super PACs including the John Bolton Super PAC and Make America Number 1.
In addition to alleging violations of campaign finance law, the complaint filed with the DOJ notes that certain U.S. nationals operating and/or working for Cambridge Analytica and its political committee clients, including the Trump campaign and the John Bolton Super PAC, may have aided and abetted foreign national offenses against the U.S., conspired to commit offenses against the U.S., and/or attempted to conspire to commit offenses against the U.S. in violation of the U.S. criminal code.
“We are a nation of laws and our campaign finance laws must be enforced by the FEC and the Justice Department in order to safeguard the integrity of our elections from foreign interference,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “These companies and individuals ignored the law, enriched themselves performing millions of dollars of prohibited work for candidates and committees, and then boasted about the effectiveness of their activities in swaying U.S. elections.”
“It defies belief that even after their own attorney warned them that they would be violating the prohibition on performing certain election-related activities in U.S. elections that they did so anyway,” said Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause vice president for policy and litigation. “A full investigation must be conducted, and if Cambridge Analytica and its staff did in fact repeatedly violate our laws, then there must be punishment levied sufficient to deter similar lawbreaking in future.”
To read the DOJ complaint, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fcambridge-analytica-doj-complaint.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C3bcb166c9b8543df228408d59328ae33%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636576725295277829&sdata=oq4%2BsBdslBTptxXTzHddv3x5APQdMuYcdwz9NzJSIJE%3D&reserved=0>.
To read the FEC complaint, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fcambridge-analytica-fec-complaint.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C3bcb166c9b8543df228408d59328ae33%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636576725295277829&sdata=F2JiRqWI6sUdriAe5cXw0bSbJqiLSxhJcowQym94ThY%3D&reserved=0>.
To read this release online, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fdoj-and-fec-complaints-filed-against-cambridge-analytica-for-violating-prohibition-on-election-related-activities-by-foreign-nationals-in-work-for-trump-others.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C3bcb166c9b8543df228408d59328ae33%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576725295277829&sdata=ik5YsZb2QvWWLG8Jg6Am0UdoXj8yMqfRJRUhgAw2qeA%3D&reserved=0>.
###
Paul Seamus Ryan
Vice President, Policy & Litigation
805 Fifteenth St. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
(o) 202.736.5716 | (m) 202.262.7315
www.commoncause.org<http://www.commoncause.org/>
Twitter @ThePaulSRyan<https://twitter.com/ThePaulSRyan?lang=en> | @CommonCause<http://twitter.com/commoncause>
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-seamus-ryan-30069a/>
[CCLogo_HorizontalTag]


From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 10:45 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/26/18

“Former Cambridge Analytica workers say firm sent foreigners to advise U.S. campaigns”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98349&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=iv33V%2BreVNVw4HqmIAvZdYOeZYTOfIAicaomJq3JuNs%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:36 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98349&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=iv33V%2BreVNVw4HqmIAvZdYOeZYTOfIAicaomJq3JuNs%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

WaPo:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fformer-cambridge-analytica-workers-say-firm-sent-foreigners-to-advise-us-campaigns%2F2018%2F03%2F25%2F6a0d7d90-2fa2-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html%3Futm_term%3D.591d07852523&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=Lpr1zUezyYOp2rXL%2FuioSTXHupj%2FILhlsu3%2FklNfWPE%3D&reserved=0>

Cambridge Analytica assigned dozens of non-U.S. citizens to provide campaign strategy and messaging advice to ­Republican candidates in 2014, according to three former workers for the data firm, even as an attorney warned executives to abide by U.S. laws limiting foreign involvement in elections.

The assignments came amid efforts to present the newly created company as “an American brand” that would appeal to U.S. political clients even though its parent, SCL Group, was based in London, according to former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie.

Wylie, who emerged this month as a whistleblower, provided The Washington Post with documents that describe a program across several U.S. states to win campaigns for Republicans using psychological profiling to reach voters with individually tailored messages. The documents include previously unreported details about the program, which was called “Project Ripon” for the Wisconsin town where the Republican Party was born in 1854.

U.S. election regulations say foreign nationals must not “directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process” of a political campaign, although they can play lesser roles.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98349%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CFormer%2520Cambridge%2520Analytica%2520workers%2520say%2520firm%2520sent%2520foreigners%2520to%2520advise%2520U.S.%2520campaigns%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=0GgPKd9o%2BW50U%2FPCotI8IV3BbnpJRTXF3AaFE0%2BSivY%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in campaign finance<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D10&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=mpzNwqd8r0yKc0RI%2B0n31tCm4JnDYexeQ3OFGLF3xzw%3D&reserved=0>, chicanery<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D12&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=otvl5ARnY4Fzr%2BWl6Y%2F4GQ1u3xiHxwh%2B54DNWRpWsRo%3D&reserved=0>


Watch C-SPAN Video of Adam Liptak, Sue Bloch, and Me Discussing Justice Scalia’s Legacy and My New Book<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98347&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=19qg3mdw1qyYiW9Hsv7LFiqNKw3%2BJyWPSDQdwGZtgdY%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:33 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98347&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=19qg3mdw1qyYiW9Hsv7LFiqNKw3%2BJyWPSDQdwGZtgdY%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

You can watch at this link<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.c-span.org%2Fvideo%2F%3F442130-2%2Fthe-justice-contradictions&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=vRyxLq44pwj5W1k0TO%2F6CMItbGGyvuArzv3R72JqhKA%3D&reserved=0>.

This is from an event at Georgetown Law (sponsored by ACS) held on March 6, 2018, about my new book, The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FJustice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption%2Fdp%2F0300228643%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1516904231%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3Drichard%2Bl.%2Bhasen&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=ZgZxiJBDu3e4z%2FuosNRWJWLzfzf6qOU%2BikaYgZ%2FDkWU%3D&reserved=0>.




[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98347%26title%3DWatch%2520C-SPAN%2520Video%2520of%2520Adam%2520Liptak%252C%2520Sue%2520Bloch%252C%2520and%2520Me%2520Discussing%2520Justice%2520Scalia%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Legacy%2520and%2520My%2520New%2520Book&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=JwEjMkSoCiPdlH75LbyaHKhY2q0LPKEIRMnIQaHdpK8%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Scalia<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D123&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=fo1KyJKnt7b82NWDeRbP97GXM9e1bU4Vs9BIYZctMwY%3D&reserved=0>, Supreme Court<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D29&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=BmDJPLG%2Fo6dOcV1x31vRJK9AohUmWluLN2%2BgSFgcAAs%3D&reserved=0>


“Facing unfriendly new map, Pennsylvania GOP congressman won’t seek reelection”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98345&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=VtWiWExPsWXbv9tDVH8i2HfbEg%2B5uHIQGCOlPiTFhBE%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:28 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98345&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=VtWiWExPsWXbv9tDVH8i2HfbEg%2B5uHIQGCOlPiTFhBE%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

WaPo:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fwp%2F2018%2F03%2F25%2Ffacing-unfriendly-new-map-pennsylvania-gop-congressman-will-retire%2F%3Futm_term%3D.29196dbd8e1e&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=pcstjgWiqeo8DxUi7%2B7Qdnf2tktICJ4WKdhNLu2aXZY%3D&reserved=0>

Costello had been considering the decision since February, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew a new map to replace a gerrymander that Republicans put into place seven years ago. The 6th District, which had cut through three suburban counties in an L-shape, was reshaped to include all of Costello’s Chester County and part of Berks County.

That change turned a district that had narrowly backed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president into one that had given her a 10-point margin of victory over Donald Trump. Before Costello’s decision, the Cook Political Report rated the 6th District a “toss-up,” and the congressman had called on state legislators<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pottsmerc.com%2Farticle%2FMP%2F20180220%2FNEWS%2F180229951&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=eLgGiLTf54cHJEsI3ym1OPPvuCB07yIjv1fLo%2FopfHA%3D&reserved=0> to impeach the judges who drew the new map. (Pennsylvania elects judges in partisan elections, and the majority that ruled on the map was mostly composed of Democrats.)

“The state Supreme Court, in a matter of a week or so decided to invalidate the map,” Costello said on Sunday night. “The first time in the history of the republic that a state Supreme Court has done that.”
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98345%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CFacing%2520unfriendly%2520new%2520map%252C%2520Pennsylvania%2520GOP%2520congressman%2520won%25E2%2580%2599t%2520seek%2520reelection%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=X%2FiOa5Czm2mBOPJTMsnzBukQ7RetJ%2FJ8evKn8x1W2hw%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in redistricting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=B%2BYRQ2mgqxiOBgXcX4G5h40Bg2TlPyjkIUneFaN098Y%3D&reserved=0>


“Fund-Raiser Held Out Access to Trump as a Prize for Prospective Clients”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98343&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=YgueRHdoNEpd6cH7KC6GKraZfoa5YRJeHIA5Mg7eUJU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:25 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98343&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=YgueRHdoNEpd6cH7KC6GKraZfoa5YRJeHIA5Mg7eUJU%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

NYT:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F03%2F25%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Felliott-broidy-trump-access-circinus-lobbying.html%3Frref%3Dcollection%252Fsectioncollection%252Fpolitics%26action%3Dclick%26contentCollection%3Dpolitics%26region%3Drank%26module%3Dpackage%26version%3Dhighlights%26contentPlacement%3D1%26pgtype%3Dsectionfront&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=z69prYDOeT5aBW%2F8PWlTgyNBbr%2Biq78FYOEpnup%2B25U%3D&reserved=0>

For Elliott Broidy, Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign represented an unparalleled political and business opportunity.

An investor and defense contractor, Mr. Broidy became a top fund-raiser for Mr. Trump’s campaign when most elite Republican donors were keeping their distance, and Mr. Trump in turn overlooked the lingering whiff of scandal from Mr. Broidy’s 2009 guilty plea<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdealbook.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F12%2F03%2Fguilty-plea-in-new-york-pension-bribery-case%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=EbCoy4qmJrxYr%2FpZahXhtl27OrlVi1ta3aiNOBRE9iM%3D&reserved=0> in a pension fund bribery case.

After Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Broidy quickly capitalized, marketing his Trump connections to politicians and governments around the world, including some with unsavory records, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Broidy suggested to clients and prospective customers of his Virginia-based defense contracting company, Circinus, that he could broker meetings with Mr. Trump, his administration and congressional allies.

Mr. Broidy’s ability to leverage his political connections to boost his business illuminates how Mr. Trump’s unorthodox approach to governing has spawned a new breed of access peddling in the swamp he vowed to drain<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F11%2F11%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-government.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=XJOIKN307ozbmn1XkRTVhNDGdZXsqHGVmW052dnutZI%3D&reserved=0>.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98343%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CFund-Raiser%2520Held%2520Out%2520Access%2520to%2520Trump%2520as%2520a%2520Prize%2520for%2520Prospective%2520Clients%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=%2BAnVVXuXpJBs2LkdtcqWcCaKeo6v4qMUpAJqVVnKLgY%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in campaign finance<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D10&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=mpzNwqd8r0yKc0RI%2B0n31tCm4JnDYexeQ3OFGLF3xzw%3D&reserved=0>


“ACLU: No ‘lawyer trick’ needed to spurn Kobach claims of voter fraud”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98341&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=dF9le8LCHtnkXQspokA8Gyf8kFoaHpm%2BFvlfyjPrHNs%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:22 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98341&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=dF9le8LCHtnkXQspokA8Gyf8kFoaHpm%2BFvlfyjPrHNs%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

Sherman Smith<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjonline.com%2Fnews%2F20180325%2Faclu-no-lawyer-trick-needed-to-spurn-kobach-claims-of-voter-fraud&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=OZgKjV0FRdmHAmYAmjtgWKJot7rEjRrSZ6%2FuXuA2ZiY%3D&reserved=0> in the Topeka Capital-Journal:

 Dale Ho’s mic drop flourish with a key witness for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach made for one of the most memorable moments in a trial over the state’s voter registration law.

But it wasn’t the first time the American Civil Liberties Union attorney exposed Jesse Richman’s ignorance in recognizing a federal judge, and from Ho’s perspective, it wasn’t Richman’s biggest calamity.

Embarrassed and bitter, Richman’s testimony<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjonline.com%2Fnews%2F20180313%2Fkobach-witness-cant-support-claim-that-illegal-votes-helped-hillary-clinton&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=ehT%2FS7MKb82Ojmyw1OB%2BJCEWLaHK8qd7ujyftXkFbXo%3D&reserved=0> became a hallmark of the seven-day trial, which ended last week with a coda<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjonline.com%2Fnews%2F20180320%2Fjudge-blasts-kris-kobachs-efforts-to-help-suspended-voters-in-kansas&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=4O07TLguYmNj4bn%2FdqfQiN%2FtFt6JB%2FlSZ%2BaKuhJEmvE%3D&reserved=0> to determine if Kobach should be held in contempt of court. An army of ACLU attorneys probed the work of Kobach’s expert witnesses to undermine their academic merit while Kobach and his assistants appeared unprepared<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cjonline.com%2Fnews%2F20180311%2Fincredible-and-offensive-retired-attorney-feels-sorry-for-kobach-team-in-voter-fraud-trial&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=L0eXRwGqxYs29G1fm70kuR%2F2nzJZIM0aW%2BMOumT%2BVQY%3D&reserved=0>, inviting harsh words from U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.

Already, Kobach’s office is working to address its failure to comply with Robinson’s order to send postcards to suspended voters who were given a green light when the judge blocked enforcement of proof of citizenship requirements.

Robinson’s fury intensified during the contempt hearing when Kobach’s election director, Bryan Caskey, admitted Kobach never instructed him to carry out the judge’s order. Kobach told Robinson postcards were being sent before November 2016 elections.

“I honored and trusted what you told me,” Robinson said.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98341%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CACLU%253A%2520No%2520%25E2%2580%2598lawyer%2520trick%25E2%2580%2599%2520needed%2520to%2520spurn%2520Kobach%2520claims%2520of%2520voter%2520fraud%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=ScyFIhzh3VJCQrB3ssYJzZa%2FfR1v81IqDWR68Lr%2F5xw%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D8&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=1eQO1a36Hqy3Hkb6dXCDc8KeL%2BwPMUJCYRIv5uMAFws%3D&reserved=0>


“America’s Warped Elections”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98339&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=a3ei%2Blbquo%2FTNdum1DvPU9Jq7d%2FpFMLEVEcrCspLmrU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:19 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98339&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=a3ei%2Blbquo%2FTNdum1DvPU9Jq7d%2FpFMLEVEcrCspLmrU%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=tlsll2j%2BLYw4XaN%2BrDmEdk5gL88Lay%2FHULor42U2PmA%3D&reserved=0>

Michael Li and Laura Royden NYT oped:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F03%2F25%2Fopinion%2Fgerrymandering-midterms-2018.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322388367&sdata=JQ77ENim%2FagdQvlnIicfVXTsIcIbBjmyDvNE5HMUnA4%3D&reserved=0>

We conducted an analysis to measure how hard it would be for Democrats in each state to win additional seats under these gerrymandered maps. The results are sobering. In 2006, a roughly five-and-a-half-point lead in the national popular vote was enough for Democrats to pick up 31 seats and win back the House majority they had lost to Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America 12 years before.

But our research<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brennancenter.org%2Fpublication%2Fextreme-gerrymandering-2018-midterm&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=7Ze9wsnZeMuBGH8ziEeXc4VjwG3srU1z8%2Fy%2BggYpHdE%3D&reserved=0> shows that a similar margin of victory in 2018 would most likely net Democrats only 13 seats, leaving the Republicans firmly in charge. Just to get the thinnest of majorities in the House, Democrats would need around an 11-point win in the national popular vote. They haven’t come close to winning by that much in a midterm election since 1982.

Of course, every election is shaped by local circumstances. There can be upsets. But because we know that the results in any given district tend to move in tandem with a party’s statewide share of the vote, we can reliably measure how likely it is that Democrats will win a district — and how “responsive” a map is to electoral shifts. The differences among the states are striking.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98339%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CAmerica%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Warped%2520Elections%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=HPQScLjNofiy6cW94yiOwTl%2BC8iyan1fc1%2FtOZ7lkZs%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in redistricting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FlnVcEOBz1a1oxfLdtEwb2g1p%2FlW33%2FVzNd5P9UjfM0%3D&reserved=0>


Foley: Congressional Gerrymanders and Article I: a Reply to Professor Maltz’s Response<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98337&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=RGoLV7QC5zU822jgFk67u7OAJLspawnihWixYzkuL4E%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:10 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98337&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=RGoLV7QC5zU822jgFk67u7OAJLspawnihWixYzkuL4E%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Ned Foley replies to Earl Maltz response<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98313&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=I%2Fg%2B9yECrPVSFQCpt8a1AOgGv55PqFpPxIruTwDMZNI%3D&reserved=0> on originalism and gerrymandering:

Sometimes originalist inquiry leads to unexpected conclusions.  Texas v. Johnson, the flag burning case, serves as a good illustration of this.  Upon initial examination, it is easy to be dismissive of the claim that a statute punishing the burning of a flag is protected by the “freedom of speech” clause of the First Amendment.  Setting a flag on fire is not opening one’s mouth to speak, as any ordinary layperson would immediately observe.  And since the historical record shows approval for the suppression of political dissent among the Founders (Alexander Hamilton’s support for the Sedition Act of 1798 being one example), it would be easy to argue that the Founders themselves did not expect the First Amendment to protect flag burning.

Still, when one undertakes systematic analysis of what “freedom of speech” actually means as a principle added to the Constitution in the First Amendment, it turns out that the principle entails the right to criticize the government without fear of prosecution—and does so even though some of the Founders did not always abide by this truth or fully understand the implications of the principle that ratification of the First Amendment made part of the Constitution.  Likewise, even though the burning of a flag is obviously not the utterance of words, the principle that “freedom of speech” entails (as becomes apparent on further examination of it) the right to express dissent through symbols as well as words, including the symbolic destruction of the flag that visually depicts the government the protester is opposing.  Thus, a committed originalist necessarily comes to the conclusion that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment, as Justice Scalia did in Texas v. Johnson, and abides by this conclusion even at the cost of some personal discomfort (as Justice Kennedy openly expressed in his concurrence in that case).

A similar surprise occurs when one considers the specific issue of congressional gerrymandering from an originalist perspective.  I, for one, did not expect rigorous originalism to yield the conclusion that extreme congressional gerrymanders require judicial invalidation.  Influenced by Justice Scalia’s plurality in Vieth, I had expected that from an originalist perspective nothing was unconstitutional about partisan gerrymandering, which after all has existed as long as the first congressional elections (when Patrick Henry redrew a district in the hopes of defeating James Madison for a seat in the new House of Representatives).  Like Professsor Maltz<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98313%23more-98313&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=fRE48dta%2B1XygBtSWsfOEg4BIbrdMwb6mImT3JywzuI%3D&reserved=0>, I also thought gerrymandering could be considered unconstitutional only if one adopted an avowedly non-originalist jurisprudence, like the kind that animated the one-person-one-vote doctrine of Reynolds v. Sims.

Continue reading →<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98337%23more-98337&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=3fD9Cu5s%2Bbch5Cgoeo9WnRuFlnTGToIjUp6uye%2BA7N8%3D&reserved=0>
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98337%26title%3DFoley%253A%2520Congressional%2520Gerrymanders%2520and%2520Article%2520I%253A%2520a%2520Reply%2520to%2520Professor%2520Maltz%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Response&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=nPNDrk0BaA9RGCYzD9r%2B8pnZ0RslDYJ2pCA2ODm37b8%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in redistricting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FlnVcEOBz1a1oxfLdtEwb2g1p%2FlW33%2FVzNd5P9UjfM0%3D&reserved=0>


“Feds prohibit candidates from commenting on Trump, despite constitutional questions”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98335&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=GfDjDjCYJVYY6%2Fkpobjry4zn3Z%2FfZB4Jdg9CZmssbUw%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:06 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98335&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=GfDjDjCYJVYY6%2Fkpobjry4zn3Z%2FfZB4Jdg9CZmssbUw%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Eric Wang oped<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2Fcampaign%2F380212-federal-law-prohibits-candidates-from-commenting-on-trump-despite&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=X9Kx0egqz4YYpS2b8ZlhgCYoWGgORqekf2Uf3gAIqMU%3D&reserved=0> in The Hill.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98335%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CFeds%2520prohibit%2520candidates%2520from%2520commenting%2520on%2520Trump%252C%2520despite%2520constitutional%2520questions%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=GvMJS%2FmGEQ3Z0gEPse8yHheZMUWeUdNABAtQixV4pBU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=mDCdQzI4MDXTe%2F9rHQqKult%2FeH008xhWGXuNaiXtAxs%3D&reserved=0>


“In Spite of Executive Order, Cuomo Takes Campaign Money From State Appointees”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98333&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=gtorK5tmKHc4CPkFNq3%2B5jw5zkYq9LhALJ1GbWgsrDo%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 26, 2018 7:06 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98333&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=gtorK5tmKHc4CPkFNq3%2B5jw5zkYq9LhALJ1GbWgsrDo%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

NYT:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F02%2F24%2Fnyregion%2Fcuomo-fund-raising-ethics-appointees.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=GnbDmxeD7WuH5sZ89ZjUgKazX4Huo%2BZUT91iZ29cjlc%3D&reserved=0>

That type of arrangement — appointments go out, campaign cash comes back in — has vexed government reformers in Albany for generations. Things were supposed to change in 2007, when Eliot L. Spitzer, then the newly elected governor, issued an executive order barring most appointees from donating to or soliciting donations for the governor who made the appointment. Mr. Cuomo renewed the order on his first day in office.

But a New York Times investigation found that the Cuomo administration has quietly reinterpreted the directive, enabling him to collect about $890,000 from two dozen of his appointees. Some gave within days of being appointed.

The governor also has accepted $1.3 million from the spouses, children and businesses of appointees, state records show.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98333%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CIn%2520Spite%2520of%2520Executive%2520Order%252C%2520Cuomo%2520Takes%2520Campaign%2520Money%2520From%2520State%2520Appointees%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=0C%2BK7%2Bjw5kx33aIKzBc1hnlCTfQ7Q4aIHuVO8uTi3aU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in campaign finance<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D10&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=uUVILITIOyp59yEBGo8FQodVcDCGXnCHepIT1CkQFZM%3D&reserved=0>, conflict of interest laws<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=w%2BE25wuP0XA%2FCcxFdnL6uB02cZSDLYZBLn0u7d%2B31Yk%3D&reserved=0>


“Wisconsin GOP will aim to block judge’s order to Gov. Scott Walker to call special election”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98331&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=185uqncxMvaaDP9TgomBTFmEA9R1pEfgF70vu0V0PBo%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 8:40 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98331&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=185uqncxMvaaDP9TgomBTFmEA9R1pEfgF70vu0V0PBo%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F03%2F23%2Fsenate-gop-leader-wants-bill-undercut-judges-order-gov-scott-walker-schedule-special-election%2F453291002%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VLEQT9Go6cJ%2Bm90F7GeyMqIWM1hF%2FrDuLO%2FIWiA5boM%3D&reserved=0>

One day after a judge dealt Republicans a setback by ordering special elections, Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow GOP leaders in the Legislature said they will pass legislation to block those elections.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said they would take up legislation to change special election rules after a Dane County judge ruled that Walker must call special elections to fill two legislative seats that have been vacant almost three months. Walker quickly committed to signing the bill, which has not yet been released.

“It would be senseless to waste taxpayer money on special elections just weeks before voters go to the polls when the Legislature has concluded its business. This is why I support, and will sign, the Senate and Assembly plan to clarify special election law,” Walker said in a statement.

Democrats leapt to object, saying that Republicans were seeking to block a vote at a time when the GOP is underperforming in special elections. In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) said Republican lawmakers are “clearly intimidated by the thought of losing power.”
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98331%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CWisconsin%2520GOP%2520will%2520aim%2520to%2520block%2520judge%25E2%2580%2599s%2520order%2520to%2520Gov.%2520Scott%2520Walker%2520to%2520call%2520special%2520election%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=gst2JZQWU7PhOkCemI26LbOm6sGHDXrw%2FVir%2FgQFPYQ%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=mDCdQzI4MDXTe%2F9rHQqKult%2FeH008xhWGXuNaiXtAxs%3D&reserved=0>


“Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of MacIver suit over John Doe II probe”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98329&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=RagEiq76I8%2FvCBTLYjq4%2FjVKH17Ljd13j%2FEggaroNn0%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 8:24 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98329&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=RagEiq76I8%2FvCBTLYjq4%2FjVKH17Ljd13j%2FEggaroNn0%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F03%2F23%2Ffederal-appeals-court-upholds-dismissal-maciver-suit-over-john-doe-ii-probe%2F452579002%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=SKRrXwR%2FHwa%2BSXVuSe16Hv28IJ376Gx89O%2F6cjzlMhU%3D&reserved=0>

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a conservative group’s lawsuit over how prosecutors obtained the group’s electronic records during an investigation into possible election law violations during the Gov. Scott Walker campaign.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with U.S. District Judge William Conley that the prosecutors properly obtained a search warrant from the original John Doe II judge before obtaining the records from the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, Inc.’s internet service provider without notice to MacIver.

The records were obtained pursuant to the federal Stored Communications Act, and the act’s good-faith defense, as well as qualified immunity, protects the prosecutors from MacIver’s claims, Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for a three-judge panel.<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.ca7.uscourts.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2FrssExec.pl%3FSubmit%3DDisplay%26Path%3DY2018%2FD03-21%2FC%3A17-1790%3AJ%3AWood%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A2126625%3AS%3A0&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=RsL%2FzyYfie4%2Bxuq98hIt%2BhUOuegy%2FZeQ0k3ENxaPLZU%3D&reserved=0>
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98329%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CFederal%2520appeals%2520court%2520upholds%2520dismissal%2520of%2520MacIver%2520suit%2520over%2520John%2520Doe%2520II%2520probe%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=zRMdyfKRNu84EyiRx5YCAXOZZjyH%2Fv0Uvjy8Td2UXmU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=mDCdQzI4MDXTe%2F9rHQqKult%2FeH008xhWGXuNaiXtAxs%3D&reserved=0>


“Scalia’s Legacy: The Abiding Contradictions”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98327&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=nE%2F1DQPZ56wChWUSNFDAwaMO2h3EXdXE8uh%2BIvG4EpU%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 4:07 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98327&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=nE%2F1DQPZ56wChWUSNFDAwaMO2h3EXdXE8uh%2BIvG4EpU%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Jost on Justice:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jostonjustice.com%2F2018%2F03%2Fscalias-legacy-abiding-contradictions.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=wqnti%2Ffv8txFFvAjOggi5LL59Kv2F%2BL%2FoqaItX5Dvls%3D&reserved=0>

 Antonin Scalia knew how to dish it out, but he wasn’t so good at taking it. Thus, Supreme Court watchers can be sure that the late justice would have nothing good to say about the myth-puncturing critique of Scalia’s career that law professor Richard Hasen dishes out in his new book The Justice of Contradictions.<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FJustice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption%2Fdp%2F0300228643%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1516904231%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3Drichard%2Bl.%2Bhasen&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=F1VhHkMBsg6hdrHN5e9oTal5hTen2EIv2W9rfpvfgyE%3D&reserved=0>
From his earliest days after joining the Court in 1986, Scalia proclaimed himself to be the apostle of judicial restraint by virtue of his two signature jurisprudential theories: textualism and originalism. In Scalia’s telling, a scrupulously scientific focus on statutory text and original constitutional meaning leaves judges, even Supreme Court justices, nothing to do but apply established canons of construction to provide the correct answer to even the most baffling of legal issues.
Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California-Irvine, rightly notes the “hubris” in Scalia’s espousal of textualism and originalism. With a quarter-century of teaching law to his credit, Hasen proceeds to deflate Scalia’s puffery by proving with clear and convincing evidence that Scalia was simply wrong in claiming for himself to have been consistent in applying his touted techniques.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98327%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CScalia%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Legacy%253A%2520The%2520Abiding%2520Contradictions%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=S8urpM5ya12rLLhSwvOQhJAvXwsd%2Fl%2Fp48mg59C2x0Y%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Scalia<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D123&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=o%2F%2BwVCh2IvcZAEH3TCowa6cN1xu4AgAWSX%2BG0Pbjsgg%3D&reserved=0>, Supreme Court<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D29&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=oFZxNO%2B8qcyVQ7iVSWvMpNb%2BCVn%2Bb2N9NHPtY34%2Fj3U%3D&reserved=0>


“Mortality, Incarceration, and African American Disenfranchisement in the Contemporary United States”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98325&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FPrRtCEBnHeaC4E2CYB1LbnWKsCEUJWefRFTgH7lxuQ%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 4:03 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98325&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FPrRtCEBnHeaC4E2CYB1LbnWKsCEUJWefRFTgH7lxuQ%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

David Cottrell, Michael C. Herron, Javier M. Rodriguez, and Daniel A. Smith have written this article<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1177%2F1532673X18754555&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=Onkkp7VOp3G2mCElC6ckNgB6EatG6osyUR1PTNFmJF8%3D&reserved=0>for American Politics Research. Here is the abstract:

On account of poor living conditions, African Americans in the United States experience disproportionately high rates of mortality and incarceration compared with Whites. This has profoundly diminished the number of voting-eligible African Americans in the country, costing, as of 2010, approximately 3.9 million African American men and women the right to vote and amounting to a national African American disenfranchisement rate of 13.2%. Although many disenfranchised African Americans have been stripped of voting rights by laws targeting felons and ex-felons, the majority are literally “missing” from their communities due to premature death and incarceration. Leveraging variation in gender ratios across the United States, we show that missing African Americans are concentrated in the country’s Southeast and that African American disenfranchisement rates in some legislative districts lie between 20% and 40%. Despite the many successes of the Voting Rights Act and the civil rights movement, high levels of African American disenfranchisement remain a continuing feature of the American polity.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98325%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CMortality%252C%2520Incarceration%252C%2520and%2520African%2520American%2520Disenfranchisement%2520in%2520the%2520Contemporary%2520United%2520States%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=OFM%2B5yr1U5ydGhFlZ%2FSPyWwlu1iF67CSfG85SnkBkyQ%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in felon voting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D66&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=u3iT2ZQ0ApHTGOFDPX9WF%2BylSZfumNWzPadIsas43lU%3D&reserved=0>, Voting Rights Act<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D15&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=naeMIy1XuQKm9w%2FDVlg4K1KnZtzwFXKdGWqqMyj21o4%3D&reserved=0>


“Maine races to implement election overhaul before June vote”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98322&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=273AyK76cGVAtjlY3cBFXFkIQbsVFJC%2F5wafGJr4rEs%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 3:57 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98322&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=273AyK76cGVAtjlY3cBFXFkIQbsVFJC%2F5wafGJr4rEs%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

AP:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldcourier.com%2Fnews%2Fmaine-races-to-implement-election-overhaul-before-june-vote%2Farticle_1dbeb4cd-aa66-5829-b1aa-86054f9e3aa8.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=oJbu%2Bhe4h8Hpn8dDMvr6AiGLv0wavlLr8bRNliGhdG4%3D&reserved=0>

Maine election officials are racing to implement a new voting system in time for the June primary, marking the first use of ranked-choice voting in statewide primary elections.

Secretary of State Matt Dunlap plans to submit proposed rules governing the voting method by month’s end.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98322%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CMaine%2520races%2520to%2520implement%2520election%2520overhaul%2520before%2520June%2520vote%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=gLBP5PWklPhY86upNkcmPYxDEIRyCGxinzr6VcaiNiE%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in alternative voting systems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D63&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=L4URyvmu%2FUtQtnkbHLgmamH4G8mk%2BeMQkO7z5vZEpgk%3D&reserved=0>


What is the First Amendment Theory of Partisan Gerrymandering?<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98319&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=fEJeYqO5Wh30pbI3JUR361l3WV80pz7yF2kNdNFZU0o%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 25, 2018 1:06 pm<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98319&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=fEJeYqO5Wh30pbI3JUR361l3WV80pz7yF2kNdNFZU0o%3D&reserved=0> by Richard Pildes<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D7&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=580j3%2Baj%2BLTZsmFpzUtH0xbeC%2BDssmaTxjTcKg5B59g%3D&reserved=0>

This week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in the Maryland partisan-gerrymandering case, Benisek v. Lamone.  The case is the first to be framed exclusively as a First Amendment challenge to alleged partisan gerrymandering, and it thus raises new, complex questions about what it would mean to apply the First Amendment to partisan gerrymandering.

Until now, the cases the Court has seen have all been framed principally as Equal Protection challenges (references to the First Amendment have sometimes been thrown in but never developed in a full way).  What changes when partisan gerrymandering is framed as a First Amendment violation?

To work through that question, and the plaintiffs’ theory in the Maryland case, I think it’s helpful to look at the cases involving race and redistricting, which the plaintiffs invoke, and where the law is more developed than in the partisan context.  But two dramatically different types of “racial redistricting” cases exist, which reflect two entirely different causes of action:  those involving racial gerrymandering and those involving racial vote dilution.  These distinct two types of cases differ significantly in the nature of the legal harm involved and, therefore, what needs to be proven to establish these two distinct injuries.

Thus, we can ask:  does a First Amendment theory of partisan gerrymandering treat such gerrymandering as more akin to racial gerrymandering or to racial vote dilution?  Figuring that out is helpful in clarifying about what makes a First Amendment theory of partisan gerrymandering distinctive and what the consequences might be, doctrinally, from endorsing such a theory.  The answer to this question is not easy to tell from the challengers’ brief, which refers to both lines of cases without distinguishing between them.  So let me try to disentangle these two options.
1.       Does the First Amendment Theory Treat Partisan Gerrymandering as Akin to Racial Gerrymandering?

The most natural or logical way, in my view, to understand the First Amendment approach is that it treats partisan gerrymandering very much like unconstitutional racial gerrymandering (not racial vote dilution).  In the Shaw line of racial gerrymandering cases, the constitutional harm is treated as the very sorting of voters by race into districts, without adequate justification.  As the Court says, the constitutional violation “stems from the racial purpose of state action” — nothing more than racial sorting itself has to be shown.  At that point, strict scrutiny is triggered and the State has to demonstrate a legitimate and compelling justification for moving voters by race (if it’s done because the Voting Rights Act requires it, then it’s constitutional).

In the racial gerrymandering cases, it doesn’t matter what the effects of sorting voters by race might be.  The courts don’t ask whether the political power of different racial groups of voters might have been diluted, or even diminished, or otherwise affected.  It is the very fact of sorting voters by race that constitutes the constitutional harm, unless there is adequate justification for doing so.  Moreover, racial gerrymandering can occur in a single district, if voters have been sorted into or out of that district based on race.  Such a case does not depend on what the state might have done in other districts or what the effects of the districting plan as a whole might be.  The cases are litigated district by district, rather than on a statewide basis.

The First Amendment critique of partisan gerrymandering seems analytically most like these racial gerrymandering cases, both in principle and in the argument the appellants might be taken to be making.  The challengers argue that, just as it is unconstitutional for the State to disfavor individuals based on their political viewpoint in the context of hiring or firing employees (such as engaging in patronage hiring), or in awarding or ending government contracts, so too the State cannot move groups into or out of districts based on their political viewpoints (which in redistricting is done by relying on voter registration information and, more importantly, on past patterns of voting in specific precincts) – also ought to be unconstitutional, if done without adequate justification.  The core idea of a First Amendment theory would seem to be that it’s an impermissible purpose to take political affiliation into account in sorting voters into districts, at least without constitutionally adequate justification.

Understanding the First Amendment claim as akin to the racial gerrymandering cause of action responds to some of the criticisms various briefs make about the Benisek challenge.  First, just as racial gerrymandering claims are made about a specific district or districts, so too with this understanding of a First Amendment theory of partisan gerrymandering:  if voters have been moved into or out of a single district based on their political affiliation, this is impermissible absent a constitutionally adequate justification.  On this approach, it doesn’t matter what’s happening in other districts any more than it does in the racial gerrymandering cases.  There is no need to look at the statewide effects of a plan overall because the injury is the “viewpoint discrimination” involved in sorting voters by political affiliation, without good reason.  And on this theory, of course, the pure pursuit of partisan advantage seeking is not a constitutionally legitimate or permissible reason.

Similarly, the fact that this theory uses the prior districting plan as the baseline, against which the courts then ask whether voters have been moved on the basis of political affiliation, works much the same way as in the racial gerrymandering cases.  In the latter, the courts also take the prior status quo as the starting point and ask whether voters in the new districts were sorted or classified by race.  So the fact that the First Amendment challenge is to a specific district, or that it uses the prior districting plan as the baseline, is not conceptually problematic if the point of the First Amendment theory is to assert that partisan gerrymandering claims ought to be treated like racial gerrymandering claims.

If political sorting by viewpoint has taken place, the question then becomes whether there is a constitutionally adequate justification for it.  Use of political data to ensure a politically fair plan, in which political parties are represented roughly in proportion to their statewide support, is presumably constitutional, as the Supreme Court held many years ago in Gaffney v. Cummings.  Similarly, use of political data to undo a prior partisan gerrymander would also presumably be a legitimate purpose (which is why this approach does not lock into place prior partisan gerrymanders).  But use of political affiliation to pursue unjustified partisan advantage seeking would violate the First Amendment.

The clearest and most unqualified articulation of this way of understanding what a First Amendment approach to partisan gerrymandering means is the amicus brief<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2FDocketPDF%2F17%2F17-333%2F33612%2F20180129153946041_Amicus%2520Curiae%2520Brief.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636576723322544620&sdata=loaj867GHteZy45cUgKlLEDI9Edbbq5GbjsAPc1i9eE%3D&reserved=0> of Professor Michael Kang.  I believe this understanding also forms the basis in the court below of the dissenting opinion<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2F17-333-opinion-below.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636576723322544620&sdata=W5GHg1Qiy69EIlsX%2F2XW5pCoNZoSyjmDSCNttoPHx3w%3D&reserved=0> from Judge Niemeyer, on which the appellants rely – when it comes to the remedy he would impose, Judge Niemeyer would “require the redrawing of the Sixth District’s boundaries without the use of information about how citizens voted in the past.”  This remedy reveals his view of the right at stake – the right not to be sorted into districts on the basis of political affiliation.  That does seem the most logical reading of basing challenges to partisan gerrymandering on First Amendment doctrine proscribing viewpoint discrimination by government in the provision of public employment and contracts.

Notice that this understanding of the First Amendment theory does not require saying about the need to prove partisan “vote dilution.”  If the First Amendment theory is that partisan gerrymandering is like racial gerrymandering, there is no need to prove an injury like vote dilution.  The racial gerrymandering cases are not about vote dilution and do not involve vote dilution, as that idea is legally understood.  If the First Amendment theory directly tracks the racial gerrymandering cases, it is enough that redistricters sorted people based on their political affiliations for the purpose of seeking partisan advantage, and no further harm or injury need be shown.  At that point the question shifts to whether the State has an adequate justification for doing so.

The challengers seem to think their theory does, though, require a bit more than that; they take on the obligation to show voters have been “burdened” by the political sorting in some more concrete and specific way beyond having been sorted based on political affiliation.  Thus, they say courts should ask whether plaintiffs have suffered a “real and practical disadvantage” from having been moved into out of districts based on their political affiliations.  Whatever the content of this “real and practical disadvantage” is supposed to be – and I am not clear how the plaintiffs understand this requirement — this “burden” is apparently meant to be something less than traditional vote dilution but something more than just being moved for partisan political advantage seeking.  But it’s also unclear to me why a First Amendment theory logically requires more than being moved on the basis of partisan affiliation for partisan advantage without constitutionally adequate reason.

If the First Amendment theory does ask the courts to treat partisan gerrymandering as akin to racial gerrymandering, the biggest question then becomes whether that approach would draw the courts into too many redistricting contests.  On this approach, redistricters can still take political considerations into account, if they are doing for legitimate, constitutionally permissible reasons.  But they cannot do so for the predominant purpose of seeking partisan advantage.

Nonetheless, sorting people by political affiliation would be suspect, even when partisan vote dilution was not the result, and redistricting bodies would potentially have to defend that sorting in court by being forced to provide a legitimate justification for doing so.  In Vieth v. Jubelirer, Justice Kennedy wrote that any judicial constraints on partisan gerrymandering must be “limited and precise;” the judicial concern here would be that the First Amendment approach does not offer such an approach.   Yet also in Vieth, and in the oral argument in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, he suggested that when the State moves voters based on their political affiliations for the purpose of seeking partisan advantage, that purpose itself makes the plan unconstitutional.  That purpose-based analysis fits within the framework of a First Amendment approach that sees partisan gerrymandering as akin to racial gerrymandering.
2.       Does the First Amendment Theory Treat Partisan Gerrymandering as Instead Akin to Racial Vote Dilution?

The alternative is that the First Amendment attack treats the harms from partisan gerrymandering as much like the harms in the racial vote dilution cases.  This approach asks whether the effects of a redistricting plan dilute the political power of one identifiable group – voters of one political party, in the partisan context, or of racial/ethnic minority groups, in the race context.  The mere purpose or fact of sorting voters by party would not, itself, be an impermissible act, unless adequately justified.  The plaintiffs would also have to show that this sorting had the effect of diluting the voters of those affiliated with one particular political party.  Is that what the First Amendment theory of partisan gerrymandering means?

In all the partisan-gerrymandering litigation under the Equal Protection clause, this effects prong has been the critical and challenging question all along.   This is why social scientists and lawyers have offered measures like the Efficiency Gap, or other measures, that purport to identify when the effects of a districting plan amount to intentional partisan vote dilution (indeed, plaintiffs often seek to show that this vote dilution is likely to last for most of the decade the plan is in effect).

With respect to this way of understanding the First Amendment theory, I have only a couple things to say.  First, it is not clear to me what distinctive or additional work a First Amendment approach would then do here compared to the traditional way these cases have been litigated under the Equal Protection clause.

The Equal Protection cases, starting with the one in which the Court first recognized a cause of action for partisan gerrymandering under the Constitution, Davis v. Bandemer (1986), have always addressed partisan gerrymandering as akin to the racial vote dilution cases.  If the First Amendment theory is that partisan gerrymandering violates the First Amendment because it amounts to partisan vote dilution, and is akin to the problem of racial vote dilution, then the First Amendment approach just repackages in different language and under a different clause the same issues that have been present all along regarding partisan gerrymandering.  The First Amendment might be a symbolic reminder that’s what’s taking place when partisan vote dilution occurs involves advantaging or disadvantaging voters based on their political affiliations and viewpoints, but I don’t see the First Amendment as adding any distinct value when it comes to determining when and whether impermissible partisan vote dilution has occurred.

Second, if the First Amendment theory is best understood as asserting that partisan gerrymandering is akin to racial vote dilution, then a challenge to a single district in isolation – as in the Maryland case – becomes hard to make sense of.  In the analogous context of racial vote dilution, dilution is assessed on a jurisdiction-wide basis.  You can’t really define racial vote dilution by looking at a single district in isolation.  For example, the claim might be that at-large city or county elections dilute minority voting power; here, the baseline is the city or the county as a whole.  Or when it comes to single-member districting plans, for a state legislature or Congress, the claim in racial vote dilution cases is that, based on the size of the minority population in the state as a whole, or in some distinct region of the state, minority voting power is being diluted – here again, you have to look at what’s happening on a statewide or at least region-wide basis to determine whether vote dilution is taking place.

If a plan, for example, already ensures proportional opportunities to minority groups to elect their candidates of choice – proportional to the baseline of the minority population in the state or region as a whole – then vote dilution has not taken place.  You can’t point to some other district in isolation and assert that this district, too, could be transformed into one in which minority voters are concentrated as the majority.  Racial vote dilution is not, and cannot in principle, be determined by isolating out one district from how a plan works overall.  The same would be true about identifying partisan vote dilution because dilution claims require a baseline that looks at the aggregate effects of a map across some area larger than one single district in isolation.

Thus, if the First Amendment theory views partisan gerrymandering as akin to racial vote dilution – as opposed to racial gerrymandering – I am not sure appeal to the First Amendment adds much to the way these cases are litigated already and I find it puzzling to claim that a single district in isolation can show partisan vote dilution.

* * *

My aim here in sorting through what the First Amendment approach might mean is not to argue for a particular result in the case before the Court.  But in trying to work through what the new approach of litigating these cases through a First Amendment framework might mean, I think it’s  helpful to figure out whether the First Amendment challenge treats partisan gerrymandering more like racial gerrymandering or like racial vote dilution.  Doing so clarifies what the key elements of proof ought to be, what the nature of the asserted constitutional harm is, and what the consequences are likely to be from adopting one way or the other of understanding a purely First Amendment challenge to partisan gerrymandering.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98319%26title%3DWhat%2520is%2520the%2520First%2520Amendment%2520Theory%2520of%2520Partisan%2520Gerrymandering%253F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=OF1r%2BPa%2BxKodXNs8aoT24Ys4OsulmBWNcfJtE3N14%2Bw%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=mDCdQzI4MDXTe%2F9rHQqKult%2FeH008xhWGXuNaiXtAxs%3D&reserved=0>


“California Lawmakers Want Twitter Bots Branded With Disclaimers”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98317&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=7Wr%2BJ3Mq6gYfYVrIZBIeEUOn9nzp7D9jdkHjJo6Qe00%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 24, 2018 8:19 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98317&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=7Wr%2BJ3Mq6gYfYVrIZBIeEUOn9nzp7D9jdkHjJo6Qe00%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Motherboard:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmotherboard.vice.com%2Fen_us%2Farticle%2F9kgy4y%2Fcalifornia-levine-lawmakers-want-twitter-social-media-bots-branded-with-disclaimers&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=JOIE6x4vM4AmUuyplnwjJfoPry5lcODkhNkoaeqI6Xk%3D&reserved=0>

While Congress has done essentially nothing, many states<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-switch%2Fwp%2F2018%2F03%2F02%2Fas-d-c-sits-on-the-sidelines-these-states-are-looking-to-regulate-facebook-google-and-twitter%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=xXTR0NLEAAW00%2B3MLRYJkRJHineoGuyLkk8lcv%2BfsIY%3D&reserved=0>—including Maryland, New York, and Washington—are drafting regulations that would attempt to reign in bots. In California, two bills—AB 1950<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fleginfo.legislature.ca.gov%2Ffaces%2FbillTextClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id%3D201720180AB1950&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=3OLpJ8qX%2FN%2Bse%2FH5Vder5r6LIrj0SwkYuDIGkYmARoc%3D&reserved=0> and SB 1001<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fleginfo.legislature.ca.gov%2Ffaces%2FbillTextClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id%3D201720180SB1001&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=c4sBTIrG5EUldOCz8c1sStHXCt7utjsAGd2xdq%2Fe%2BK8%3D&reserved=0>—would force Silicon Valley giants to identify which accounts are not “natural” humans.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98317%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CCalifornia%2520Lawmakers%2520Want%2520Twitter%2520Bots%2520Branded%2520With%2520Disclaimers%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=vfdv2SezGNqtcYaE8CZXOL%2BiN2cMBEpdVrpu6z4Z7ME%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in campaigns<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D59&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=Pz6f29L3MTPOGbCYaPbKqcLFMGwPS1J7ooEOUYRFtv8%3D&reserved=0>


“De Blasio Donor Says He Steered Thousands in Bribes to Mayor’s Campaigns”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98315&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=UMFiG0hICvZg%2FH2bWrQMIG4oKo0YMdtDRz7TQsuFUoI%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 24, 2018 8:15 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98315&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=UMFiG0hICvZg%2FH2bWrQMIG4oKo0YMdtDRz7TQsuFUoI%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

NYT reports.<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F03%2F22%2Fnyregion%2Fde-blasio-campaign-bribes-harenda-signh.html%3Frref%3Dcollection%252Fsectioncollection%252Fnyregion%26action%3Dclick%26contentCollection%3Dnyregion%25C2%25AEion%3Dstream%26module%3Dstream_unit%26version%3Dlatest%26contentPlacement%3D10%26pgtype%3Dsectionfront%26referer%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fsection%2Fnyregion%3Fhpw%26rref%26action%3Dclick%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3Dwell-region%25C2%25AEion%3Dbottom-well%26WT.nav%3Dbottom-well&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=lPUU9x0DEfJrsO%2BsKr%2F32NSnQmM%2FFI%2Bs1tKo1a%2BYJ%2Fo%3D&reserved=0>
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98315%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CDe%2520Blasio%2520Donor%2520Says%2520He%2520Steered%2520Thousands%2520in%2520Bribes%2520to%2520Mayor%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Campaigns%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=PVnc3%2FMo2sZWbDuZPA1N7x4eAYIPZwPpoLjWFPeKnso%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in bribery<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D54&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=TAv8dhGK%2F9LeOYMY%2Fw92V6S12HeVen9NeSJFa3apGzo%3D&reserved=0>


Maltz: Originalism and Partisan Gerrymandering: A Response to Professor Foley<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98313&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=I%2Fg%2B9yECrPVSFQCpt8a1AOgGv55PqFpPxIruTwDMZNI%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 24, 2018 8:13 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98313&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=I%2Fg%2B9yECrPVSFQCpt8a1AOgGv55PqFpPxIruTwDMZNI%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

The following is a guest post from Professor Earl Maltz<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.rutgers.edu%2Fdirectory%2Fview%2Femaltz&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=LZY80YD3kPdJS%2FFaTPdPWqhjsw2qCf%2F8QbG4%2BZTXlT4%3D&reserved=0> of Rutgers Law:



In a recent series of blog posts<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98299&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FDHXlW4cCfBsP%2BGGk3nNr9fAaow6boSKy5em39v0gvY%3D&reserved=0> drawn from a forthcoming article<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2Fpapers.cfm%3Fabstract_id%3D3128936&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=PR9kWpcvP8j9K2NR34suDtvri%2Bk8mRYsZRFP1jCwet4%3D&reserved=0> in the Georgia Law Review, Professor Edward B. Foley argues that a successful constitutional challenge to extreme political gerrymanders of congressional districts can be based on the original meaning of the Constitution.  Professor Foley contends that, even in the absence of federal statutes regulating such gerrymanders, by analogy to the dormant Commerce Clause, limitations on the actions of state governments can be inferred Article I, section four, which grants Congress the authority to establish the rules under which members of the House of Representatives are chosen.  Second, relying on what he describes as “structural originalism,” Professor Foley argues that “partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts contravenes Article I of the original Constitution insofar as those gerrymanders undermine the responsiveness to the will of the ‘People’ that biennial elections to the federal House of Representatives originally were designed to effectuate.”  However, despite a valiant effort, Professor Foley ultimately fails to demonstrate that the use of partisan gerrymanders is barred by the original meaning.

In making his argument, Professor Foley makes only passing reference to the most directly relevant constitutional provision—the part of Article I, section four, which provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for….Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” subject only to the proviso that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations.”  The existence of this language undermines Professor Foley’s argument on a number of different levels.

Continue reading →<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98313%23more-98313&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=fRE48dta%2B1XygBtSWsfOEg4BIbrdMwb6mImT3JywzuI%3D&reserved=0>
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98313%26title%3DMaltz%253A%2520Originalism%2520and%2520Partisan%2520Gerrymandering%253A%2520A%2520Response%2520to%2520Professor%2520Foley&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=tPvhV8NsAiC0XwFBp9gzYrHI06%2BIa4c8lwoZXePHyaQ%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in redistricting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FlnVcEOBz1a1oxfLdtEwb2g1p%2FlW33%2FVzNd5P9UjfM0%3D&reserved=0>, Supreme Court<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D29&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=oFZxNO%2B8qcyVQ7iVSWvMpNb%2BCVn%2Bb2N9NHPtY34%2Fj3U%3D&reserved=0>


“Maryland Republicans take electoral map fight to U.S. high court”<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98311&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=XigWRKIqoX9cI%2BAzLT%2BlByPjHVc4wbt5%2BiNBpanm%2Fhw%3D&reserved=0>
Posted on March 23, 2018 8:51 am<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98311&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=XigWRKIqoX9cI%2BAzLT%2BlByPjHVc4wbt5%2BiNBpanm%2Fhw%3D&reserved=0> by Rick Hasen<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fauthor%3D3&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=VY0U4GugIwRfSAVTNCh%2BGTGaaWbiQIdt4l%2B1x7Su%2FZA%3D&reserved=0>

Lawrence Hurley for Reuters:<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-court-gerrymandering%2Fmaryland-republicans-take-electoral-map-fight-to-u-s-high-court-idUSKBN1GZ1GG&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=EvKNp3rI4KbIT8kLCy49DcRk3nKphAoEg8L%2BYTdKzZI%3D&reserved=0>
Eyler, a retired business owner in the small town of Thurmont roughly 55 miles north of the U.S. capital, said he thinks he and others like him were being targeted by the Democrats because of their party affiliation. He was inserted into a Democratic-leaning congressional district in an electoral map that diminished the statewide clout of Republican voters.
“There’s nothing we can do or say or vote that will make any difference,” Eyler said in an interview.
Eyler is one of nine Republican voters who pursued a legal challenge against a portion of Maryland’s electoral map. Their closely watched case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
It is one of two major cases the nine justices are tackling during their current term concerning a practice called partisan gerrymandering in which a state’s majority party redraws legislative districts with the intent of tightening its grip on power. The justices on Oct. 3 heard a challenge by Democratic voters to Wisconsin’s Republican-drawn electoral map.
[Share]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.addtoany.com%2Fshare%23url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Felectionlawblog.org%252F%253Fp%253D98311%26title%3D%25E2%2580%259CMaryland%2520Republicans%2520take%2520electoral%2520map%2520fight%2520to%2520U.S.%2520high%2520court%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=kxovdQ3fhwxYjdWpcPlel4IXi4Se62RiC2GnfSkzTKQ%3D&reserved=0>
Posted in redistricting<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D6&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2FlnVcEOBz1a1oxfLdtEwb2g1p%2FlW33%2FVzNd5P9UjfM0%3D&reserved=0>, Supreme Court<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fcat%3D29&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=oFZxNO%2B8qcyVQ7iVSWvMpNb%2BCVn%2Bb2N9NHPtY34%2Fj3U%3D&reserved=0>


--
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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.uci.edu%2Ffaculty%2Ffull-time%2Fhasen%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=nx1pTaSv92E8cFwhHGXAtC4%2FQbrYa6O%2FZsDFWrc7zxQ%3D&reserved=0>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpryan%40commoncause.org%7C09719691df2d4766a27008d5932836dd%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636576723322544620&sdata=%2BVJqwqYB2HbFVrVljSTTJLegDuENCoZAwjyVAHCmTDA%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180326/2a3fb9fd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14834 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180326/2a3fb9fd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180326/2a3fb9fd/attachment-0001.png>