[EL] * Re: * Re: Uber/Lyft to the polls

[Allison Hayward]

And I respectfully believe there is a nontrivial argument to the contrary, and apparently the counsel for these ride sharing companies believe that too.  I think to assert that by not providing free return trips these programs show some interest is "saving money" rather than a genuine interest in getting it right is unjustified.


I do not believe transportation is categorically different.  I think there are cases where transportation can be provided without that service being contingent on a voter proving they voted.


If you know of a case where proof of voting is required, yet the gift of transporation is still allowed under the Act, I would love to know about it.  As is always the case, I could be wrong.


A.


________________________________
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Allison Hayward; Paul Gronke; edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
Subject: Re: * Re: * Re: Uber/Lyft to the polls


Transportation to (and I’d say from) the polls is different, according to a long line of cases. I don’t think your distinction between facilitating and requiring voting works here. It is totally fine for Uber to say: we will only give rides to the polls to people who will be voting.



From: Allison Hayward <ahayward at fppc.ca.gov>
Date: Friday, November 2, 2018 at 9:54 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: * Re: * Re: Uber/Lyft to the polls



But there nobody is holding the voter accountable for actually having voted.  The free busses take people to and from the polls, but in the cases with which I am familiar there's no requirement that you have to prove you voted to take the bus home.  It is exactly the difference between facilitating and requiring voting that I am trying to elucidate.



There was a situation involving free pizza years ago, to voters who could show they voted.  It was a Bad Thiing as I recall - how bad, I don't recall.  Jail?  Unlikely.  Embarrassment?  Possibly.  I'll try to find the reference.



A



________________________________

From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Allison Hayward; Paul Gronke; edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
Subject: Re: * Re: Uber/Lyft to the polls



I don’t think this logic works. Those who provide free transportation are giving a ride to the polling place to facilitate voting. That’s ok according to many court cases construing the vote buying statute and DOJ guidance. It’s not like they have to pretend it is for something else.  In the case I cited, the allegation was that people were getting full 10 gallon tanks of gas in rural areas to go vote, but the polling place was only 12 miles away, and the court said that this could violate the statute. I presume giving a gallon to go round trip would be just fine.





From: Allison Hayward <ahayward at fppc.ca.gov>
Date: Friday, November 2, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: * Re: Uber/Lyft to the polls



I believe the issue arises when the Uber or Lyft driver, in order to assess whether the passenger qualifies, demands proof of that passenger having voted before the passenger can ride for free.



The ride to the polls is just that.  The passenger leaves the vehicle, and then does whatever he or she wants to do.  That may include voting.  It may not.



The ride home?  You had better have voted, right?  So the program would be giving voters something because they had voted.  Which is a no-no.



Allison



________________________________

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Paul Gronke; edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
Subject: [EL] Uber/Lyft to the polls



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<mailto: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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

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<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/e5893bc1/attachment.html>