[EL] Uber/Lyft to the polls

[Rob Richie]

The Eagles had a song about this, if I'm remembering right, called "Polling
Place California":

'Relax' said the poll worker,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can vote here any time you like,
But you can never leave!'





On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Each offers rides only TO the polls.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, November 2, 2018 at 9:05 AM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] [UCI-DISCARD?] Re: ELB News and Commentary 11/2/18
>
>
>
> Can you take Lyft one way and Uber the other?
>
>
>
> ---
> Paul Gronke
> Professor, Reed College
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
> http://earlyvoting.net
>
> General Inquiries: Laura Swann swannla at reed.edu
>
> Media Inquiries: Kevin Myers myersk at reed.edu
>
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Ostensibly To Avoid Laws Against Vote Buying, Lyft and Uber Offer Only
> One-Way Free Transportation to the Polls
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101904>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:44 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101904>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Clark.com:
> <https://clark.com/family-lifestyle/uber-lyft-free-rides-polls-one-way/#.W9xfjn0VmuA.twitter>
>
> *Much has been made recently about the good deed being offered
> <https://clark.com/technology/uber-lyft-free-rides-election-day/> by two of
> America’s most popular ridesharing services. Uber and Lyft have both
> announced that they are going to give voters in the midterm elections rides
> to the polls on Tuesday, November 6.*
>
> *But what Uber and Lyft aren’t saying, at least not as loud, is that those
> free rides to the polling stations are one way. In other words, once you
> take one of these companies up on their offer, they won’t take you back
> home — for free, at least….*
>
> *Team Clark reached out to Lyft, as well, about the free rides. A Lyft
> spokeswoman replied via email that free or discounted transportation back
> from the polls could be construed as a gift for voting.*
>
> *“The ride only covers the way there. Voting is every citizen’s right,
> which means there are a number of regulations in place to protect against
> voter fraud or buying someone’s vote. There are strict rules against gifts
> or incentives, and providing free or discounted transportation back from
> the polls falls into that category,” she wrote.*
>
> The question of whether return trips are illegal is one I have not seen
> before. The federal prohibition on vote buying. The relevant statute
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307>, among other things,
> makes it a crime for one who willfully “pays or offers to pay or accepts
> payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” The statute has
> long been interpreted to allow payments for transportation to the polls. As
> one court explained
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2607238/dansereau-v-ulmer/>:
>
> *In United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/305970/united-states-v-cleophus-c-lewin-united-states-of-america-v-thomas-f/>,
> 1136 (7th Cir.1972), the court classified providing transportation to the
> polls as “assistance rendered by civic groups to prospective voters,”
> rather than payment, and held that § 1973i(c) does not proscribe “efforts
> by civic groups or employers to encourage people to register.” The United
> States Department of Justice appears to agree with this analysis.*
>
> *[T]he concept of “payment” does not reach things such as rides to the
> polls or time off from work which are given to make it easier for those who
> have decided to vote to cast their ballots. Such “facilitation payments”
> are to be distinguished from gifts made personally to prospective voters
> for the specific purpose of stimulating or influencing the more fundamental
> decision to participate in an election.Craig C. Donsanto, Federal
> Prosecution of Election Offenses 18 (5th ed. 1988).*
>
> *The distinction between “facilitative” programs and “gift” programs seems
> based in part on historical factors which preceded the passage of most
> voting rights legislation. See Day-Brite Lighting v. State of
> Missouri, 342 U.S. 421
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/104970/day-brite-lighting-inc-v-missouri/>,
> 424-25, 72 S. Ct.405
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/104970/day-brite-lighting-inc-v-missouri/>,
> 407-08, 96 L. Ed. 469 (1952) (upholding state law requiring employer to
> allow employees four hours of paid leave on election day in order to vote);
> 111 Cong.Rec.S. 8986 (daily ed. April 29, 1965) (Section 1973i(c) does not
> prohibit the “practice that has been recognized and has been accepted by
> both political parties and all organizations with respect to helping to
> transport people who do not have means of transportation to the polls in
> order to cast their ballots”). See also Parsley v. Cassady, 300 Ky. 603
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3446719/parsley-v-cassady-etc/>, 189S.W.2d 947
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3446719/parsley-v-cassady-etc/>, 948
> (1945) (upholding candidates’ contribution of cars and trucks to assist in
> voter transportation as reasonable due to bad roads and wartime
> exigencies); Watkins v. Holbrook, 311 Ky. 236
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3450671/watkins-v-holbrook/>, 223 S.W.2d 903
> <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3450671/watkins-v-holbrook/>, 903-04
> (1949) (upholding disbursement of money to provide for transport to polls
> to “get out the vote”).*
>
> *Perhaps more importantly, this distinction reflects the difficulty in
> balancing the need to minimize undue pecuniary influence in elections with
> the desire to encourage and facilitate maximum political participation…..*
>
> I think a good faith argument could be made that the exemption for
> transportation to the polls includes a return trip. Indeed, most groups
> that offer rides to the polls (on buses or otherwise) offer a round trip. I
> wonder whether this is just a way for Lyft and Uber to save some money.
> Hard for me to believe they’d be in legal jeopardy for offering round trip
> transportation. Would be great to find a way to test this.
>
> (Thanks to Matt Weil
> <https://twitter.com/MattIWeil/status/1058366410282418187> for asking the
> question.)
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101904&title=Ostensibly%20To%20Avoid%20Laws%20Against%20Vote%20Buying%2C%20Lyft%20and%20Uber%20Offer%20Only%20One-Way%20Free%20Transportation%20to%20the%20Polls>
>
> Posted in vote buying <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
>
>
>
>
> “North Dakota Voter ID Law Stands After Last-Ditch Lawsuit”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101902>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:21 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101902>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/us/politics/north-dakota-voter-id-tribe.html>
>
> *The judge, Daniel L. Hovland of the United States District Court for the
> District of North Dakota, wrote in a brief, two-page order
> <https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/Order%20Denying%20TRO.pdf> that
> it was simply too close to Election Day to do so. He noted that “federal
> courts are unanimous in their judgment that it is highly important to
> preserve the status quo when elections are fast approaching.”*
>
> *His order was in response to a lawsuit
> <https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/SPIRIT%20LAKE%20V.%20JAEGER.pdf> that
> the Campaign Legal Center and the Native American Rights Fund filed Tuesday
> on behalf of the Spirit Lake Tribe and six individuals. The suit described
> mass confusion and bureaucratic obstacles as Native Americans tried to
> obtain the addresses and corresponding identification now required.*
>
> *North Dakota officials maintain that any voter without a residential
> address can obtain one easily from their county’s 911 coordinator. But the
> lawsuit identified multiple instances in which people were unable to obtain
> an address through that process; obtained one but were denied an absentee
> ballot because election officials deemed the state-issued address invalid;
> or were denied an absentee ballot because the address they had used for
> years could not be found in the state’s database.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101902&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Dakota%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Stands%20After%20Last-Ditch%20Lawsuit%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
>
>
>
> “The speculation among GOP elites in this state capital town is that
> Kobach will probably lose narrowly and Trump will quickly appoint him to an
> administration job.” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101900>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:17 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101900>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo.
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/11/02/daily-202-struggling-in-kansas-kris-kobach-won-t-adjust-his-tone-or-focus-even-if-costs-him-the-governorship/5bdb70501b326b3929054578/?utm_term=.6b3bdf3cf469>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101900&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20speculation%20among%20GOP%20elites%20in%20this%20state%20capital%20town%20is%20that%20Kobach%20will%20probably%20lose%20narrowly%20and%20Trump%20will%20quickly%20appoint%20him%20to%20an%20administration%20job.%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>
>
>
>
> “Voting Rights, Election Law, and the Midterms”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101898>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:07 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101898>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Constitution Daily Podcast
> <https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/podcasts/voting-rights-election-law-and-the-midterms>
> :
>
> *As Americans prepare to head to the polls next week, We the People
> partnered with Ballotpedia for a rundown of the election law and voting
> rights issues most relevant to the 2018 midterms. Ballotpedia’s News Editor
> Sarah Rosier joins election law scholars Franita Tolson and Michael Morley
> to break down all sides of the legal arguments surrounding voter ID laws,
> gerrymandering, “signature matching,” the purging of voter rolls, and felon
> disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.*
>
> *PARTICIPANTS*
>
> *Sarah Rosier  <https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:Sarah_Rosier>is
> Ballotpedia’s news editor. She’s been at Ballotpedia since 2013, where she
> has served as director of the Congress Project, and has covered everything
> from presidential elections and the executive cabinet to the federal
> courts.*
>
> *Michael T. Morley <http://www.law.fsu.edu/our-faculty/profiles/morley> is
> an assistant professor at Florida State University College of Law,
> specializing in election law, constitutional law, and federal courts. He is
> the author of numerous publications on election law issues including **Prophylactic
> Redistricting? Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the New Equal
> Protection Right to Vote**.*
>
> *Franita Tolson <https://gould.usc.edu/faculty/?id=73521>** is a
> professor at USC Gould School of Law, where her scholarship and teaching
> focuses on election law and constitutional law. She was previously the
> Betty T. Ferguson Professor of Voting Rights at Florida State University
> College of Law. Her forthcoming book, **A Promise Unfulfilled: Section 2
> of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Future of the Right to Vote**, will
> be published in 2019.*
>
> *​​​​​​**Jeffrey Rosen
> <https://constitutioncenter.org/about/president-and-ceo/biography>** is
> the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution
> Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to
> disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a
> nonpartisan basis.”*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101898&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%2C%20Election%20Law%2C%20and%20the%20Midterms%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Well-financed foes give Michigan Supreme Court justices a fight”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101896>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:05 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101896>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Detroit News:
> <https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/30/michigan-supreme-court-justices-foes-fight/1536168002/>
>
> *The campaign was roiled in early August when the state’s high court
> ruled 4-3 to let Proposal 2 on the Nov. 6 ballot, despite arguments from
> Republican officials and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce that it would
> change too many parts of the Michigan Constitution and should be subject to
> a constitutional convention.*
>
> *The plan would create a redistricting commission to draw political
> boundaries instead of the party in power, which has been the GOP for the
> past two decades.*
>
> *Clement was booed at the Republican nominating convention later that
> month and told The Detroit News editorial board that unnamed “special
> interests” attempted to coerce her into supporting the GOP-leaning business
> groups who challenged Proposal 2 in court. Her name has not appeared on
> certain Republican Party circulars urging party members’ votes on absentee
> ballots, while Wilder’s name has.*
>
> *The Democratic-nominated candidates in this non-partisan race have tried
> to take advantage and have raised competitive amounts of money.*
>
> *Sam Bagenstos, a Democratic nominee and University of Michigan law
> professor, was the top fundraiser through July 21. He had received more
> than $791,000 contributions for the cycle and had more than $500,000 in
> cash reserves heading into the final weeks of the election. Megan Cavanagh,
> an appellate attorney, had raised roughly $406,000 and had $308,000 left in
> her campaign coffers.*
>
> *Clement, who is completing a term for now-6th Circuit U.S. Court of
> Appeals Judge Joan Larsen, has been the strongest fundraiser among
> Republicans, who are likely to enjoy the benefit of being designated as
> incumbents on the ballot. She had pulled in $555,490 in contributions as of
> July 21 and had roughly $101,000 in cash reserves.*
>
> *Wilder, who is completing the term for retired Supreme Court Chief
> Justice Robert Young Jr., had raised $468,000 and a cash balance of more
> than $186,000.*
>
> *Those numbers are on pace with 2016, when Republican incumbents David
> Viviano and Joan Larsen reported $501,000 and $543,000 in contributions,
> respectively, by the same point. That race was also marked by outside
> spending from groups that pumped “dark money” into television ads, with
> half of the $3.4 million spent coming from sources that were required to
> disclose their own donors to the state.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101896&title=%E2%80%9CWell-financed%20foes%20give%20Michigan%20Supreme%20Court%20justices%20a%20fight%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in judicial elections <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
>
>
> “Day after Arkansas Supreme Court justice takes stand, judge says he won’t
> block attack ads” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101894>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 8:01 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101894>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Arkansas Online:
> <https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/nov/01/day-after-arkansas-supreme-court-justice-takes-sta/>
>
> *A federal judge on Thursday denied Arkansas Supreme Court Justice
> Courtney Goodson’s request for an injunction to stop attack ads that have
> been airing against Goodson during her re-election campaign.*
>
> *The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller, came a day after Goodson
> took to the stand and testified
> <https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/nov/01/justice-goodson-testifies-in-suit-to-ha/> that
> at least one of the claims about her — that she had requested a raise in
> 2017 — was false.*
>
> I cannot think of a single instance where a judge ordered an attack ad off
> the air during a campaign on grounds it was false and made with actual
> malice. Kind of crazy to think that the judge asked for this.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101894&title=%E2%80%9CDay%20after%20Arkansas%20Supreme%20Court%20justice%20takes%20stand%2C%20judge%20says%20he%20won%E2%80%99t%20block%20attack%20ads%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaigns <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
> “Just 56 Megadonors Funnel Nearly Half a Billion Dollars to Super PACs”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101892>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 7:58 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101892>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Public Citizen:
> <https://www.citizen.org/media/press-releases/just-56-megadonors-funnel-nearly-half-billion-dollars-super-pacs>
>
> *Fifty-six rich election donors have poured at least $2 million each into
> super PAC groups this election season, more than double the level in the
> 2014 midterms and a record for any midterm election, according to a report
> (PDF)
> <https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/superpacs-november-2018.pdf> by
> Public Citizen. Contributions to super PACs from these 56 individuals add
> up to nearly $481 million spent by the wealthiest Americans to influence
> our elections.*
>
> *The biggest individual contributor is Republican casino billionaire
> Sheldon Adelson, who has provided more than $112 million to super PACs so
> far this year, followed far behind by Democratic donor Tom Steyer at about
> $50 million and Republican donor Richard Uihlein at nearly $37 million.*
>
> *Additionally, the top five contributors have spent more than $251 million
> to influence the 2018 midterms, and since 2012, these billionaires have
> spent more than $700 million to influence elections.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101892&title=%E2%80%9CJust%2056%20Megadonors%20Funnel%20Nearly%20Half%20a%20Billion%20Dollars%20to%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> campaigns <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Plutocrats United
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
>
>
>
>
> “Hoboken developer ‘Pupie’ Raia indicted in alleged cash-for-votes scheme”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101890>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 7:57 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101890>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NJ.com:
> <https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/10/pupie_raia_campaign_worker_indicted_in_alleged_cas.html#incart_2box_hudson>
>
> *Frank “Pupie” Raia, a real-estate developer and major figure in Hoboken
> politics for decades, was indicted by a federal grand jury Wednesday and
> accused of overseeing a cash-for-votes operation
> <https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/09/woman_charged_in_cash-for-votes_scheme_tied_to_hob.html> during
> the city’s 2013 municipal race.*
>
> *Prosecutors allege Raia, 67, directed an associate, Dio Braxton and
> others to promise voters that they would be paid $50 if they cast mail-in
> ballots in Hoboken’s 2013 race. Braxton, 43, was also indicted today.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101890&title=%E2%80%9CHoboken%20developer%20%E2%80%98Pupie%E2%80%99%20Raia%20indicted%20in%20alleged%20cash-for-votes%20scheme%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in absentee ballots <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
> chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
> “Citizenship Question May Be ‘Major Barrier’ To 2020 Census Participation”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101888>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 7:54 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101888>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Hansi Lo Wang
> <https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/663061835/citizenship-question-may-be-major-barrier-to-2020-census-participation> for
> NPR:
>
> *The controversial new citizenship question
> <https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4426784-Planned-Questions-2020-Acs#document/p11/a414610> the
> Trump administration added to the 2020 census may turn out to be a “major
> barrier”
> <https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5026590-Oct-31-2018-Slide-Deck-On-2020-Census-Barriers#document/p43/a464354> to
> the country’s full participation in the upcoming national head count,
> according to a national study commissioned by the Census Bureau
> <https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5026590-Oct-31-2018-Slide-Deck-On-2020-Census-Barriers>….*
>
> *In focus groups conducted in March and April to inform the government’s
> outreach efforts for the census, some participants identified that question
> as a significant reason why they would avoid taking part in the head count.*
>
> *“They tended to both believe that the purpose of the question was to find
> undocumented immigrants and that the political discourse is targeting their
> ethnic group,” explained Sarah Evans, a lead researcher at PSB
> <http://psbresearch.com/blog/people/sarah-evans/>, a firm that is
> affiliated with census contractor Young & Rubicam. “This was an idea we
> heard across audiences,” she added.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101888&title=%E2%80%9CCitizenship%20Question%20May%20Be%20%E2%80%98Major%20Barrier%E2%80%99%20To%202020%20Census%20Participation%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Too Poor to Vote; If you’ve committed a crime and are rich, you can pay
> court fees and cast a ballot. If you don’t have money, you might be left
> out of democracy.” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101886>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 7:47 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101886>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Danielle Lang and Thea Sebastian NYT oped.
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/opinion/election-voting-rights-poverty.html>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101886&title=%E2%80%9CToo%20Poor%20to%20Vote%3B%20If%20you%E2%80%99ve%20committed%20a%20crime%20and%20are%20rich%2C%20you%20can%20pay%20court%20fees%20and%20cast%20a%20ballot.%20If%20you%20don%E2%80%99t%20have%20money%2C%20you%20might%20be%20left%20out%20of%20democracy.%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in voting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
>
>
> “An End to Spoiler Candidates” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101884>
>
> Posted on November 2, 2018 7:30 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101884>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dave Daley
> <https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/an-end-to-spoiler-candidates/> for
> Democracy Journal, with the subhead: “If more states adopted ranked-choice
> voting, far fewer elections would include unsatisfactory, binary choices
> and minority-backed winners.”
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101884&title=%E2%80%9CAn%20End%20to%20Spoiler%20Candidates%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in alternative voting systems <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
>
>
>
>
> North Dakota Ad Apparently Run By Democrats on Facebook Says Hunters Could
> Lose Out-of State Licenses by Voting in North Dakota; Controversy Shows
> Value of Disclosure <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101882>
>
> Posted on November 1, 2018 3:20 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101882>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This is interesting.
> <http://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/north-dakota-democrats-promote-message-telling-hunters-they-may-lose-their-licenses-if-they-vote/>
>
> Also interesting: the use that is being made of Facebook’s disclosure
> requirements. Sure seems to me to be an argument for mandatory disclosure
> of campaign ads. Don’t voters want to know who is behind these messages.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101882&title=North%20Dakota%20Ad%20Apparently%20Run%20By%20Democrats%20on%20Facebook%20Says%20Hunters%20Could%20Lose%20Out-of%20State%20Licenses%20by%20Voting%20in%20North%20Dakota%3B%20Controversy%20Shows%20Value%20of%20Disclosure>
>
> Posted in campaigns <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
> “Here’s Why Democrats Have Made Secretary Of State Elections One Priority”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101880>
>
> Posted on November 1, 2018 2:39 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101880>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Iowa Public Radio reports.
> <http://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/heres-why-democrats-have-made-secretary-state-elections-one-priority#stream/0>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101880&title=%E2%80%9CHere%E2%80%99s%20Why%20Democrats%20Have%20Made%20Secretary%20Of%20State%20Elections%20One%20Priority%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> Dodge City, KS Moved Polling Place Because of “Construction,” But…. (Bonus
> Spurious Claim of Risk of Double Voting)
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101877>
>
> Posted on November 1, 2018 1:09 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101877>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> <image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1057806315232391168>
>
> <image003.jpg> <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog>
>
> *Maddow Blog <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog>*
>
> *✔@MaddowBlog <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog>*
>
>
>
>
>
> They say that Dodge City voters can't vote in their usual polling location
> because it is inaccessible due to construction. So we went there to see for
> ourselves. Wanna guess what we found?
>
> 6:27 PM - Oct 31, 2018
> <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1057806315232391168>
>
> ·
>
> 30.1K <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1057806315232391168>
>
> ·
>
> 20.8K people are talking about this
> <https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1057806315232391168>
>
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> <https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
>
> Now election officials are claiming having two polling places would open
> up the possibility of  *double voting*
> <https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article220942645.html>.
> Wow.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101877&title=Dodge%20City%2C%20KS%20Moved%20Polling%20Place%20Because%20of%20%E2%80%9CConstruction%2C%E2%80%9D%20But%E2%80%A6.%20(Bonus%20Spurious%20Claim%20of%20Risk%20of%20Double%20Voting)>
>
> Posted in *election administration* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> , *fraudulent fraud squad* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>
>
>
>
> *“Someone Paid Thousands Of Foreigners 20 Cents Each To Hide HuffPost’s
> Negative Coverage Of A Democratic PAC”*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101875>
>
> Posted on *November 1, 2018 12:57 pm*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101875> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *HuffPost:*
> <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/end-citizens-united-microworkers-campaign_us_5bd8b5bce4b0da7bfc14afd0>
>
> *HuffPost’s April 2016 report
> <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/end-citizens-united-pac-campaign-finance-reform_us_570e5308e4b0ffa5937da409> investigated
> the tactics of End Citizens United, a political action committee founded by
> three former staffers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
> the party’s official organ dedicated to electing Democrats to the House of
> Representatives. ECU, which worked to elect Democratic candidates who
> support campaign finance reform, used aggressive and expansive email
> campaigns to rake in millions of dollars in online donations. The PAC’s
> pushy tactics angered other nonprofits working toward campaign finance
> reform, which came to think of the PAC as an arm of the Democratic Party
> stealing their donors with deceptive email marketing.*
>
> *Until this spring, HuffPost’s story was the second to come up in a
> generic Google search for “End Citizens United.” But in the spring of 2018,
> an anonymous U.S.-based contractor paid at least 3,800 workers in countries
> around the world through the crowdsourcing firm Microworkers to manipulate
> what stories would come up when people searched for the PAC in Google. The
> contractor paid each of the workers 20 cents to click on stories and sites
> that portrayed the PAC positively, bumping those stories up in Google at
> the expense of critical coverage. HuffPost’s story dropped from the second
> place on the first page of the Google search
> <https://app.kwfinder.com/dashboard?keyword=end+citizens+united&language_id=0&location_id=0&source_id=0> to
> the second page of search results.*
>
> *End Citizens United did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment
> before publication.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101875&title=%E2%80%9CSomeone%20Paid%20Thousands%20Of%20Foreigners%2020%20Cents%20Each%20To%20Hide%20HuffPost%E2%80%99s%20Negative%20Coverage%20Of%20A%20Democratic%20PAC%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in *campaign finance* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> *chicanery* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
> *Federal District Court, Citing Purcell Principle, Rejects New Relief in
> North Dakota Residential Address for Voting Case*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101873>
>
> Posted on *November 1, 2018 12:38 pm*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101873> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *The order is here and is not a surprise given the timing:*
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5026607-Tro-Denied.html>
>
> *The federal courts are unanimous in their judgment that it is highly
> important to preserve the status quo when elections are fast approaching.
> See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006); Williams v. Rhodes, 393
> U.S. 23, 34-35 (1968); Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892-95 (5th Cir.
> 2014). “Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting orders,
> can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain
> away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”
> Purcell, 549 U.S. at 4–5. In this case, early voting has already begun.
> Election day is less than one week away. The allegations in the complaint,
> the motion for a temporary restraining order, and the attached affidavits
> give this Court great cause for concern.*
>
> *The allegations will require a detailed response from the Secretary of
> State as this case proceeds. The litany of problems identified in this new
> lawsuit were clearly predictable and certain to occur as the Court noted in
> its previous orders in Brakebill v. Jaeger.*
>
> *However, a further injunction on the eve of the election will create as
> much confusion as it will alleviate, and is foreclosed by precedent which
> is hesitant to permit “eleventh-hour changes to election laws.” See Veasey,
> 769 F.3d at 895. The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record and
> finds the issuance of an emergency temporary restraining order unwarranted
> given the importance of avoiding further confusion and chaos on the eve of
> an election.*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101873&title=Federal%20District%20Court%2C%20Citing%20Purcell%20Principle%2C%20Rejects%20New%20Relief%20in%20North%20Dakota%20Residential%20Address%20for%20Voting%20Case>
>
> Posted in *Uncategorized* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> *Ohio Will Not Appeal Divided 6th Circuit Ruling on Provisional Ballots*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101870>
>
> Posted on *November 1, 2018 9:37 am*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101870> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *I had been expecting* <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101837> an
> emergency stay request from Ohio, but it’s not going to happen:
>
> *Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, said he disagreed with
> the ruling but called it “temporary and narrow.” He said he would not mount
> a further appeal “because that would serve as an unnecessary source of
> contention with an election only five days away.”*
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101870&title=Ohio%20Will%20Not%20Appeal%20Divided%206th%20Circuit%20Ruling%20on%20Provisional%20Ballots>
>
> Posted in *election administration* <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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* <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> *http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/*
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>
> *http://electionlawblog.org* <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>
> <image004.png>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> *Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu*
> <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election*
> <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
President and CEO, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
<https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/c2751add/attachment.html>