[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/18/18

Thu Oct 18 07:39:23 PDT 2018

“Liberals Must Embrace a Bankrupt Judicial Philosophy to Have Any Chance of Winning at the Supreme Court”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101597>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:35 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101597> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have written this piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/originalism-textualism-supreme-court-liberal-strategy.html> for Slate. It begins:

It’s a great time for liberals to brush up on their knowledge of originalism and textualism. These judicial theories, which say that judges should interpret constitutional provisions or statutes by looking solely at their “original public meaning,” are embraced by many of the conservative judges and justices appointed by President Donald Trump who have begun to build a stranglehold on the federal judiciary. Despite recent work demonstrating the bankruptcy of these approaches, liberal lawyers trying to get progressive results at the Supreme Court have already begun trying to pick off conservative justices through a calculated embrace of the theories…..

In a terrific new book, Originalism as Faith<https://www.amazon.com/Originalism-as-Faith-Eric-Segall-ebook/dp/B07FSCYHNQ?tag=slatmaga-20>, Georgia State University law professor Eric Segall demolishes the case for originalist constitutional interpretation. Segall traces the long history of originalist thought in American legal circles from the 19th century to the present time. The heart of the book demonstrates the bankruptcy of the originalist approach.

Segall’s key thesis is that originalism does not constrain in the hands of judges purporting to use it. …

n a recent podcast conversation<http://www.firstmondays.fm/episodes/2018/8/13/in-recess-8-would-you-rather>, Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Ian Samuel made the point that a deeply conservative justice believing he or she is constrained by originalism or textualism is better than a justice like Samuel Alito, who is also deeply conservative but not similarly constrained. I continue to believe that in the core cases of greatest importance to conservatives, originalism and textualism are hardly constraining. But Samuel is right about that subset of second-tier cases.

And so it’s time for liberals to dust off the old dictionaries and put on their hard hats for work in the construction zone, despite Segall’s and others’ trenchant critiques. The work won’t be pretty, but it may sometimes get the job done.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101597&title=%E2%80%9CLiberals%20Must%20Embrace%20a%20Bankrupt%20Judicial%20Philosophy%20to%20Have%20Any%20Chance%20of%20Winning%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Scalia<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Facebook’s Political Disclosure Rules Aren’t Working —And Things Will Get Much Worse if Facebook Doesn’t Change<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101595>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:32 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101595> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Back in April, I had a post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98577> where I expressed skepticism that Facebook’s plan for voluntary disclosure of who is running political ads will actually work. Here’s a snippet:

Here’s a hypothetical to flesh out some issues. Let’s assume that Facebook, working with these third parties, can successfully identify key issues like “Black Lives Matter,” immigration, or gay rights and religious liberties. Suppose an ad comes in from a group formed in the U.S. called “Traditional Values Coalition” or “Progress Now!” running ads on LGBT issues.
1.      Will Facebook require these groups to disclose their donors? What if their donors consist of a series of shell groups, hiding the real identity of the group? How will Facebook know that they’ve figured out who the real donors are?
2.      What happens if Facebook determines that some of the donors are foreign? Will it apply a percentage test?
3.      Will foreign ads simply be subject to disclosure regulation, or will the ads be rejected if from a foreign source even if federal law does not bar the ads (such as “Hillary is a Satan” if the Honest Ads Act does not apply, or LGBT ads if it does apply)?
4.      What if the material is from a media corporation that is a foreign entity, like The Guardian? (Suppose The Guardian editorializes “Don’t vote for Trump.”) if so, how will it decide who counts as the media?

Well a NYT story<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/politics/virginia-race-comstock-wexton-facebook-attack-ads.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront> out of Virginia shows who bad Facebook’s disclosure rules really are:

A competitive race in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District has an alarming new element: anonymous attack ads on Facebook.

The ads, which appeared on a Facebook page<https://www.facebook.com/pg/Wacky-Wexton-Not-231941607444655/posts/?ref=page_internal> called “Wacky Wexton Not,” were purchased by a critic of Jennifer Wexton, a Democrat trying to unseat Representative Barbara Comstock, a Republican. The race is one of the most closely watched in the country.

The ads paint Ms. Wexton as an “evil socialist,” with language and imagery not typically found in even the roughest campaigns. In one ad<https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&q=wacky%20wexton>, which began running on Monday, Ms. Wexton is pictured next to an image of Nazi soldiers, and the ad’s text refers to her supporters as “modern-day brown shirts.” In another<https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&q=wacky%20wexton>, which first ran this month, Ms. Wexton is compared to Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused the new Supreme Court justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, of sexual assault. The image is captioned: “What’s the difference??? Nothing!! Both are liars.”

The person or group behind the ads is known to Facebook, but a mystery to the public. The funding disclaimer attached to the ads reads, simply, “Paid for by a freedom loving American Citizen exercising my natural law right, protected by the 1st Amendment and protected by the 2nd Amendment.” There is no other identifying information on the page….

But the owner of “Wacky Wexton Not” was able to remain anonymous by taking advantage of a loophole in Facebook’s policy. Once authorized to pay for political ads, buyers are able to fill the “paid for by” field with whatever text they want, even if it does not match the name of a Facebook user or page, and even if it is not an organization registered with the Federal Election Commission. Facebook does not reveal the identity of authorized ad buyers, or allow users to get more information about them.

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101595&title=Facebook%E2%80%99s%20Political%20Disclosure%20Rules%20Aren%E2%80%99t%20Working%20%E2%80%94And%20Things%20Will%20Get%20Much%20Worse%20if%20Facebook%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Change>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“The real voter fraud is restricting a fundamental right”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101593>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:24 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101593> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

USA Today editorial:<https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/17/midterm-elections-real-voter-fraud-restricting-fundamental-right-editorials-debates/1664369002/>

One of the most self-destructive features of the Republican Party is a reliance on repressive election laws to obtain and maintain power. It is one reason the GOP controls the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.

This can be seen graphically in the grotesquely gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts they have drawn in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas. In the Austin<https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/TX#map> area, for example, urban and suburban Democratic voters are split among five mostly rural Republican districts.

The GOP’s cheap tricks don’t stop with gerrymandering. They are also evident in state laws that restrict some people from registering to vote or kick them off the rolls if they area already registered.

While these techniques might be effective in the short run, they will help cement the Republicans’ reputation as a party with a serious problem with democracy, a hard reputation to live down.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101593&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20real%20voter%20fraud%20is%20restricting%20a%20fundamental%20right%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“What keeps Native Americans from voting – and what could change this”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101591>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101591> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Monkey  Cage:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/10/18/what-keeps-native-americans-from-voting-and-what-could-change-this/?utm_term=.26566182cc8f>

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court allowed a lower court ruling to stand<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-senate-battleground-native-american-voting-rights-activists-fight-back-against-voter-id-restrictions/2018/10/12/7bc33ad2-cd60-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.3ea4719cb16e>, allowing North Dakota to require voters to provide identification that shows a residential address rather than a post office box number. Many Native American advocacy groups have argued that this decision violates tribal sovereignty and systematically disenfranchises voters. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s (D-N.D.) reelection may be at stake.

The reason: Many Native Americans living on rural reservations do not have traditional street addresses, and receive mail at P.O. boxes rather than at home.

But that’s not the only issue that keeps Native Americans from voting. Native Americans on reservations<https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/vote-dilution-and-suppression-in-indian-country/1A787B5A9BA00FB1EA6096A9495DDD6B> have long voted at very low rates, facing barriers to voting that include long travel distances to the polls, high poverty rates, and low high school graduation rates. When native voters need to travel to reservation border towns to cast ballots, the well-documented<https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf>and long-standing mistrust between Native American communities and non-native populations likely discourages voting in those areas…

So would having a voting booth on reservations bring out more voters? To find out, we looked at 2016 voter turnout across these four reservations. Our analysis, after controlling for other factors, suggests that, yes, it did. In the two reservations that had the on-site early voting option, turnout went up roughly 11 to 24 percent over that at reservations where citizens still had to travel to border towns.

What do our findings mean for Nevada’s Native Americans?

This research suggests that adding administrative barriers — like requiring street addresses for people who don’t have street addresses — will likely depress voter turnout on reservations still more.

Nor would it help to allow Native Americans to vote by mail. Our survey evidence found that very few Native Americans vote by mail, both because they do not trust the process and because they do not have regular access to mail. By a wide margin, we found that native voters trust their vote is more likely to be counted when it is cast in person. With limited access to mail and without the ability to use post office boxes to vote, reservation turnout probably won’t go up if it’s possible to vote by mail.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101591&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20keeps%20Native%20Americans%20from%20voting%20%E2%80%93%20and%20what%20could%20change%20this%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Not Just Georgia’s Brian Kemp: Other Secretaries of State Accused of Abusing Elections Power”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101589>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101589> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Governing:<http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-secretary-state-brian-kemp-georgia-candidate-conflict.html>

When the stakes are high, the temptation is always there to bend the rules to give your own side an advantage. Civil rights groups argue that Georgia GOP Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is running for governor, is doing just that.

Kemp, who oversees the state’s election process, faces legal accusations of voter suppression — particularly among minorities — as he battles Democrat Stacey Abrams, who would be the nation’s first black woman to be governor.

Kemp denies any wrongdoing, but the controversy echoes questions raised about whether secretaries of state who oversee elections have irreconcilable conflicts as candidates.

“It is a problem that we have partisan-elected secretaries of state as the chief election officers,” says Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. “It creates an inevitable conflict of interest when the person’s allegiance is partly to their own political party. But the problem is of a different magnitude when the elected official is supervising an election where the secretary himself or herself is on the ballot.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101589&title=%E2%80%9CNot%20Just%20Georgia%E2%80%99s%20Brian%20Kemp%3A%20Other%20Secretaries%20of%20State%20Accused%20of%20Abusing%20Elections%20Power%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

“Saxbys plans to give away free lattes for voting. That’s a nice idea — but also illegal.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101587>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101587> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Billy Penn:<https://billypenn.com/2018/10/18/saxbys-plans-to-give-away-free-lattes-for-voting-thats-a-nice-idea-but-also-illegal/>

While the locally owned coffee chain’s altruism is admirable, it’s also illegal under federal law.

“In elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot, no one can offer any kind of benefit or reward for voting,” UC Irvine law and political science professor Rick Hasen told Politico<https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2010/10/beer-for-votes-030353> in 2010. “The simple way to deal with this is to open up the event to all comers — voters and nonvoters alike.”

Hasen confirmed to Billy Penn by email that Saxbys offer does run afoul of federal law: “Tell them free lattes for all!”

A spokesperson for Saxbys said they were looking into our question.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101587&title=%E2%80%9CSaxbys%20plans%20to%20give%20away%20free%20lattes%20for%20voting.%20That%E2%80%99s%20a%20nice%20idea%20%E2%80%94%20but%20also%20illegal.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in vote buying<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>

“Facebook ‘war room’ scrambles to combat fake election news”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101585>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101585> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNET:<https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-enlists-war-room-to-combat-fake-election-news/>

On Oct. 7, during the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, Facebook<https://www.cnet.com/tags/facebook/>employees noticed something suspicious on the social network.

A story posted to Facebook incorrectly claimed the election was delayed because of protests. The company’s data scientists and operations team scrambled to pull down the misinformation before it went viral.

These employees were working face-to-face in Facebook’s new “war room,” an operation the social media giant launched in September to stamp out fake news, disinformation and fake accounts in real time.

“We know that when it comes to an election, really every moment counts,” said Samidh Chakrabarti, Facebook’s director of elections and civic engagement work.

As the clock winds down before the run-off elections in Brazil and the midterm elections in the US, Facebook is trying to prove to both the public and lawmakers that it’s more prepared to combat election interference on its network. There’s a lot at stake not only for democracy, but for Facebook, which has seen Russians<https://www.cnet.com/news/this-was-the-most-viewed-facebook-ad-bought-by-russian-trolls/>, Iranians<https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-finds-influence-campaigns-coming-from-russia-and-iran/> and Americans, too, exploit the social network to spread hoaxes and sow discord.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101585&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20%E2%80%98war%20room%E2%80%99%20scrambles%20to%20combat%20fake%20election%20news%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

“Democratic candidates for Congress have raised a record-shattering $1 billion this election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101583>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:06 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101583> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-candidates-for-congress-have-raised-a-record-shattering-1-billion-this-election/2018/10/17/afedfe66-d231-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?stream=top&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=.5041986f445b>

Democratic candidates running for Congress this year collectively raised more than $1 billion for their campaigns — a record-shattering sum that highlights the party’s zeal to retake the House and Senate and underscores the enormous amount of money flowing into the midterm races.

The $1.06 billion raised through the end of September surpasses the nearly $900 million collected by Republican candidates for Congress in 2012 — previously the largest haul registered by a single party by this point in the election cycle, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

And it is the first time since 2008 — when Democrats swept the White House and both chambers of Congress — that Democratic candidates for House and Senate have outraised Republicans in direct contributions to candidates’ committees.

Republican candidates for Congress raised $709 million through September, FEC records show.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101583&title=%E2%80%9CDemocratic%20candidates%20for%20Congress%20have%20raised%20a%20record-shattering%20%241%20billion%20this%20election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Democracy Fund Relaunches electionline”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101581>
Posted on October 18, 2018 7:02 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101581> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great news:<https://www.democracyfund.org/blog/entry/democracy-fund-relaunches-electionline>

Today we are pleased to unveil a new and improved electionline<http://www.electionline.org/> — America’s only politics-free source for election administration news and information.

In January 2018, we announced that electionline had become a project of Democracy Fund’s Elections program. We felt then, as we do now, that it is a vital platform for finding trusted news and information about the people and processes that guide our nation’s elections, and for sharing tools, best practices, and innovative ideas for improving the voting experience. Our simple goals for redeveloping the site were to enhance its capabilities and expand content — but our long-term plans are to create a place where readers are exposed to new ideas, opportunities for continuing education, and relationship building.

To do this, we started by thinking long and hard about the site’s current audience and their needs. Starting today, election administrators, academics, voting advocates and other regular readers of electionline will find new items of interest on the site, including:
·         A calendar of national, state and other field-relevant events;
·         A directory of organizations and their areas of expertise;
·         Reports, trainings, tools, guides, and other materials;
·         A marketplace featuring job openings in the elections field and information on used election equipment for sale; and
·         Better search functionality throughout

Electionline remains the only place on the internet to find state-by-state curation of daily election administration news. In addition to publishing the classic electionline Weekly newsletter<https://electionline.org/electionline-weekly/>, we will also begin sharing original reports and exclusive content from leaders and experts in the field — making the site a must-read for local election officials, civic organizations, and journalists who cover elections.

While redeveloping the site, we learned two really insightful lessons that might be helpful for others who are developing virtual spaces for information sharing and engagement.

First, collaborate with your audiences and include some “outsider” perspective. As our team weighed important decisions about the look and feel of the website, we were grateful to receive insight and direction from many readers who already trust and rely on electionline.

Second, reflect your values. Redeveloping or creating a new platform is an opportunity to reinforce essential characteristics that inform readers who your organization is, and what they care about. For us it meant focusing on authenticity (even if it means publishing unflattering stories about ourselves or our partners); transparency about who we support with resources in the field; and cultivating greater interest for under-covered areas of importance like voting trends for overlooked communities.

Through this process, we hope we were able to successfully incorporate the feedback we heard from current readers. We also hope that the new electionline website more deeply resonates with all those who are interested in elections in America. We’re excited to hear your thoughts and reactions as you explore the new website. Please visit www.electionline.org<http://www.electionline.org/> and let us know what you think!
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101581&title=%E2%80%9CDemocracy%20Fund%20Relaunches%20electionline%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

ELB Podcast, Season 2, Episode 3: Kristen Clarke: Voter Protection in the 2018 Midterms<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101579>
Posted on October 17, 2018 12:58 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101579> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Is the state of Georgia going to disenfranchise voters over missing hyphens on voter registration cards? What can be done about new strict voting rules, such as the North Dakota residential address rule that may disenfranchise Native American voters? Will the Supreme Court with new Justice Kavanaugh protect minority voting rights?

On Season 2, Episode 3 of the ELB Podcast, we talk with Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

You can listen to the ELB Podcast Season 2, Episode 3 on Soundcloud<https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-23-kristen-clarke-voter-protection-in-the-2018-midterms> or subscribe at iTunes.<https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-season-2-episode-1-dale-ho-from-the-trenches-of-the-voting-wars>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101579&title=ELB%20Podcast%2C%20Season%202%2C%20Episode%203%3A%20Kristen%20Clarke%3A%20Voter%20Protection%20in%20the%202018%20Midterms>
Posted in ELB Podcast<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Counterfeit Campaign Speech”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101577>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:55 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101577> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rebecca Green<https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/counterfeit-campaign-speech/> at the HLR Blog.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101577&title=%E2%80%9CCounterfeit%20Campaign%20Speech%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

Sessions Defends Emergency SCOTUS Relief Seeking to Block Wilbur Ross Deposition in Census Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101575>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:24 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101575> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

FOX News:<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sessions-vows-emergency-supreme-court-battles-amid-outrageous-discovery-rulings-by-federal-judges>

In a fiery speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, Sessions warned that “once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back.” He vowed to take “these discovery fights to the Supreme Court in emergency postures. … We intend to fight this, and we intend to win.”

Sessions specifically singled out New York district court judge Jesse M. Furman, who ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could be questioned in an ongoing lawsuit concerning the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Furman’s decision, Sessions said, contradicts longstanding statutory provisions that protect certain executive branch discussions from disclosure, in order to encourage free and open deliberations by executive branch officials. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including several liberal states, are arguing in part that the White House added the citizenship question for political reasons.

The judge wants “to hold a trial over the inner workings of a Cabinet secretary’s mind,” and inappropriately allow inquiry into the motivations for the Trump administration’s decisions, Sessions said.

I wonder if there is an exception when a Cabinet secretary lies to Congress. <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101470>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101575&title=Sessions%20Defends%20Emergency%20SCOTUS%20Relief%20Seeking%20to%20Block%20Wilbur%20Ross%20Deposition%20in%20Census%20Case>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Revised Version of My Forthcoming Paper, “Polarization and the Judiciary,” Now Current Through Kavanaugh Nomination<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101573>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101573> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Updated version<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3132088> of the paper out in May in the Annual Review of Political Science.  Abstract:

The period of increased polarization in the United States among the political branches and citizenry affects the selection, work, perception, and relative power of state and federal judges, including Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Polarization in the United States over the last few decades matters to the American judicial system in at least four ways. First, polarization affects judicial selection, whether the selection method is (sometimes partisan-based) elections or appointment by political actors. In times of greater polarization, governors and presidents who nominate judges, legislators who confirm judges, and voters who vote on judicial candidates are more apt to support or oppose judges based upon partisan affiliation or cues. Second, and driven in part by selection mechanisms, polarization may be reflected in the decisions that judges make, especially on issues that divide people politically, such as abortion, guns, or affirmative action. On the Supreme Court, for example, the Court often divides along party and ideological lines in votes in the most prominent and highly contested cases. Those ideological lines now overlap with party as we enter a period in which all the Court liberals have been appointed by Democratic Presidents and all the Court conservatives have been appointed by Republican Presidents. Third, increasingly polarized judicial decisions appear to be causing the public to view judges and judicial decision-making though a more partisan lens, at least when considering public attitudes about the United States Supreme Court. Fourth, polarization may affect the separation of powers, by empowering courts against polarized legislative bodies which sometimes cannot act thanks to legislative gridlock. The Article concludes by considering how increased polarization may interact with the judiciary and judicial branch going forward and suggesting areas for future research.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101573&title=Revised%20Version%20of%20My%20Forthcoming%20Paper%2C%20%E2%80%9CPolarization%20and%20the%20Judiciary%2C%E2%80%9D%20Now%20Current%20Through%20Kavanaugh%20Nomination>
Posted in political parties<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Hurricane aftermath threatens to unleash Florida election chaos”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101570>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101570> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mark Caputo<https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/17/hurricane-michael-florida-elections-909887?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318> for Politico:

As tens of thousands of voters in Florida’s storm-tossed Panhandle try to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Michael, their communities are grappling with yet another problem — an election season thrown into disarray.

With power out in many areas and phone lines down, it’s still not clear how many voters across the state have been affected. Nor is it clear which voter precincts were damaged, or what exactly the state should do to make voting easier for survivors and the displaced.

Then there are the more crass political considerations. The state’s Senate and gubernatorial races are virtually tied at the moment — and 8 of the 11 counties without power, an area affecting 135,000 customers, are Republican-performing counties….

Scott’s office won’t say what his plans are in regards to delaying the general election, but he’s expected to issue an emergency order as early as Wednesday morning concerning early and absentee-ballot voting at the request of elections supervisors in Florida’s hardest-hit counties.

Complicating matters, the hurricane struck just as vote-by-mail absentee voting got under way. So far, about 453,000 people statewide had already voted by Tuesday morning, only 4,100 of which were in the 11 affected counties. More issues surfaced: Did any ballots get lost in the mail? When will mail service resume?

Okaloosa County Elections Supervisor Paul Lux, chair of Florida’s elections supervisors’ association, asked<https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/10/16/after-michaels-fury-hardest-hit-counties-say-changes-in-voting-are-needed/> the state Sunday to consider several major alterations: “mega-precincts” where any county voter can drop off a ballot because precincts have been destroyed; a process to allow people without ID to cast regular ballots if provisional ballots are in short supply; aid to help evacuated nursing home residents vote by absentee ballot; ideas to figure out how to deliver absentee ballots from one county to the next if mail service is down; consideration of whether to allow overseas voters to cast absentee ballots via email.

Scott is expected to issue an emergency order tomorrow in response to Lux’s recommendations.

Seems like a no brainer. People should not be disenfranchised because they could not vote through no fault of their own.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101570&title=%E2%80%9CHurricane%20aftermath%20threatens%20to%20unleash%20Florida%20election%20chaos%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Design flaw in Dominion ImageCast Evolution voting machine”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101568>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:10 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101568> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Andrew Appel blogs. <https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/10/16/design-flaw-in-dominion-imagecast-evolution-voting-machine/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101568&title=%E2%80%9CDesign%20flaw%20in%20Dominion%20ImageCast%20Evolution%20voting%20machine%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

“Majority Leverage Against Minority Rule”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101566>
Posted on October 17, 2018 7:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101566> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Food for thought<https://balkin.blogspot.com/2018/10/majority-leverage-against-minority-rule.html> from Joey Fishkin.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101566&title=%E2%80%9CMajority%20Leverage%20Against%20Minority%20Rule%E2%80%9D>
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_461606130]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181018/d761ec59/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/20181018/d761ec59/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181018/d761ec59/attachment-0001.png>