[EL] more news 11/2/18

Fri Nov 2 13:07:27 PDT 2018

“Judges Are Telling Minority Voters They’re Probably Being Disenfranchised, but It’s Too Late to Do Anything About It”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101915>
Posted on November 2, 2018 1:04 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101915> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/dodge-city-ruling-polling-place-closed.html> for Slate. it begins:

In separate rulings on Thursday, two federal courts had the same message for minority voters making credible claims of potential disenfranchisement: Your arguments may be good on the merits, but it’s too late. These courts, which were examining onerous voting rules in North Dakota and Kansas, took their cues from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has embraced an unfortunate rule that even serious voting problems cannot be remedied in the period before Election Day….

Both of these cases relied heavily upon what I’ve termed the “Purcell Principle<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>,” which guides courts against making last-minute changes in voting rules out of fear of voter and election-administrator confusion.

The concern about voter and election-administrator confusion is a real one, and certainly courts should consider such factors in deciding whether to grant emergency relief before an election. But the Purcell Principle deviates significantly from how courts usually consider whether to grant emergency relief, which generally involves looking at how likely it is that plaintiffs will ultimately win their argument, the burdens on each side depending upon how the court rules, and the public interest.

In the North Dakota case, for example, the court appeared convinced that voters were being disenfranchised, and the appeals court had explicitly invited these voters to come back if their voting rights were being burdened. In such a case, the risk of confusion is outweighed by the damage of failing to enact a simple rule that would prevent actual disenfranchisement of voters. It is the same with the Dodge City case. The confusion here would appear minimal, and though the state raised the risk of double voting, there was no good evidence that was a problem that could not be solved by having voters cast provisional ballots at the second polling place.

Ultimately, the message that the Purcell Principle sends is this: Sometimes voters are going to face actual disenfranchisement, but when the evidence of a problem comes too close to the election, the courthouse door will be closed
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101915&title=%E2%80%9CJudges%20Are%20Telling%20Minority%20Voters%20They%E2%80%99re%20Probably%20Being%20Disenfranchised%2C%20but%20It%E2%80%99s%20Too%20Late%20to%20Do%20Anything%20About%20It%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Democrats Who Swore Off Corporate Campaign Donations Are Still Getting a Boost From Big Money”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101913>
Posted on November 2, 2018 11:30 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101913> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Splinter reports. <https://splinternews.com/democrats-who-swore-off-corporate-campaign-donations-ar-1830082624>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101913&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Who%20Swore%20Off%20Corporate%20Campaign%20Donations%20Are%20Still%20Getting%20a%20Boost%20From%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Super PACs and the Market for Data”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101910>
Posted on November 2, 2018 11:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101910> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Gilbert and Samir Sheth<https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/super-pacs-and-the-market-for-data/> for the HLR Blog.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101910&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PACs%20and%20the%20Market%20for%20Data%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Pop-up PACs are spending big in Election 2018’s final days — but they’re hiding their bankrollers”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101908>
Posted on November 2, 2018 11:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101908> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI:<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/11/02/22437/pop-pacs-are-spending-big-election-2018-s-final-days-theyre-hiding-their>

Want to influence Tuesday’s midterm election but keep your identity secret from voters?

No problem. Here’s how you do it:

Step 1. Pick a super PAC name, treasurer and bank account.

Step 2. File a short form with the Federal Election Commission.

Step 3. Wait until Oct. 18<https://transition.fec.gov/info/report_dates_2018.shtml#general> to begin spending your money. That way, you won’t have to report your donors until an entire month after Election Day.

This isn’t just theory — it’s happening now. And Democrats are leading the way despite decrying political efforts funded by “dark money” — political cash that can’t be traced to<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/02/20/21559/how-democrats-use-dark-money-and-win-elections> its ultimate source.

A Center for Public Integrity<https://www.publicintegrity.org/politics> analysis of federal campaign records indicates that three super PACs that have formed since Oct. 18 have reported spending a combined $1.4 million across three hotly contested U.S. Senate races and one U.S. House race. Super PACs<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/03/18/14427/merriam-webster-makes-super-pac-official> may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates, but they can’t contribute money to candidates’ campaigns directly.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101908&title=%E2%80%9CPop-up%20PACs%20are%20spending%20big%20in%20Election%202018%E2%80%99s%20final%20days%20%E2%80%94%20but%20they%E2%80%99re%20hiding%20their%20bankrollers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

Federal Court Orders Georgia Officials to Make Sure New Citizens Whose Voter Registrations Were Flagged Can Vote on Election Day<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101906>
Posted on November 2, 2018 11:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101906> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
View image on Twitter<https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448/photo/1>
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448/photo/1>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843962466539208704/JM49BrmS_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/srl>
<https://twitter.com/srl>
Sam Levine<https://twitter.com/srl>
✔@srl<https://twitter.com/srl>

<https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448>

Breaking news: A federal judge ordered Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp to guarantee people flagged as non-citizens through Georgia's "exact match" system can vote in the 2018 election. https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2018/11/02/5bdc862ee4b04367a87c61a0.pdf …<https://t.co/9Lmw1rR4gH>

Here is how they can vote:
10:17 AM - Nov 2, 2018<https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448>

·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1058407855919976448>

1,112<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1058407855919976448>

·         <https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448>

837 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/srl/status/1058407855919976448>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101906&title=Federal%20Court%20Orders%20Georgia%20Officials%20to%20Make%20Sure%20New%20Citizens%20Whose%20Voter%20Registrations%20Were%20Flagged%20Can%20Vote%20on%20Election%20Day>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

--
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/>
[signature_1211228293]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/28ab987a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/28ab987a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 110265 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/28ab987a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2795 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/28ab987a/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181102/28ab987a/attachment-0001.png>