[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/27/18

[jboppjr]

Rick, this is a disgusting low for you. Jim Bopp


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note8, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> Date: 10/27/18  5:04 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/27/18 


Domestic
 Terrorism, President Trump, and the 2018 U.S. Midterm Elections
Posted on October
 27, 2018 1:54 pm by Rick
 Hasen

I am heartbroken for the victims of today’s domestic terrorist attack at the Tree of Life
 synagogue in Pittsburgh which has left 11 people dead. These people were praying and celebrating a recent birth with a bris. The killer apparently yelled “All
 Jews must die” as he opened fire.

This comes just a few days after two African-American patrons of a Kroger store were senselessly killed in Louisville Kentucky in another
 racist domestic terrorist incident after the shooter could not get into a predominantly African-American Baptist church. The killer at one point explained that “whites don’t kill whites.”

And of course these incidents come the same week as a man apparently obsessed with President Trump sent
 pipe bombs to those who have been frequent targets of the President’s inflammatory rhetoric, including former Presidents Obama and Clinton, Secretary Hillary Clinton, Sen. Kamala Harris, Rep. Maxine Waters, CNN, George Soros, and others. Fortunately,
 at least so far the bombs that have turned up in the mail have not exploded.

Ordinarily, the acts of a deranged individual who commits political violence should not be attributed to the elected official they support or who inspires them. Think, for example, of
 the shooter of Rep Steve Scalise at the congressional baseball game who was a Bernie Sanders supporter.

But things with President Trump are different. He has refused to condemn anti-semitism and racism; he has encouraged chants of “lock her up” against his political opponent Hillary Clinton and against others; he has appeared with, and promoted the views of,
 those who blame George Soros and the Jews for immigration problems; he calls his political adversaries by demeaning names, especially African-American women opponents such as Rep. Waters. He has done these things even as this violence grows. He praised the
 body slamming of a journalist by Rep. Gianforte. He has shown no interest in bringing the nation together, suggesting that rather than “toning it down” he could
 “really tone it up.”

He has pursued a political strategy that is aimed at inflaming his base to try to win the election. He has even
 complained about how the pipe bombs could hurt Republican election momentum.

And he has brought many Republicans along with him, such as Kevin McCarthy, soon to be leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives. McCarthy, in
 a now-deleted tweet, accused “Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg” of “trying to BUY this election.” Such anti-Semitic tropes have moved from the fringe right wing to the center of the Republican party.

At the beginning of the Trump presidency, I had hopes that people like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan would have courage to speak out about these things, and actually take action to punish Trump for not strongly condemning the racism and violence Trump has
 encouraged. It hasn’t happened. There is the barest of hand-wringing by people like Senator Sasse and Senator Flake, and no consequences for Trump. Republicans in the Senate are fine to put up with the racism and inflammation toward violence if they get to
 pack the federal judiciary with conservative appointees.

There is reason to believe that if Republicans lose the House, Trump will only turn up the rhetoric, perhaps attacking the legitimacy of the election results, and trying to rile up his base more in an effort to preserve his presidency and maximize his chances
 for reelection. As ugly as things have gotten, they stand to get uglier.

It is time for people across the aisle to stand up to racism. So far people like Paul Ryan have been cowards. Maybe they will have more “courage” if it seems that Trump’s appeal to racism will cost the party its lock on power. But I would not have count on
 it. And in the meantime, increased political violence and domestic terrorism seems not only possible, but unfortunately likely.

May the memory of this weeks’ victims be a blessing, and may their deaths not be in vain.

 

Posted in social
 media and social protests
 
 

Revelations
 from John Gore Deposition: “Jeff Sessions Told DOJ Not To Discuss Citizenship Question Alternatives”
Posted on October
 27, 2018 1:13 pm by Rick
 Hasen

Hansi Lo Wang for NPR:

In a newly-released court filing in preparation for the
 first trial of the citizenship question lawsuits, the plaintiffs’
 attorneys wrote that John Gore testified out of court Friday that Sessions “personally made the decision to direct DOJ not to even meet with the Census Bureau to discuss alternative approaches.”

The attorneys cite Gore’s testimony to back up their claims that the decision to add the citizenship question was a misuse of the commerce secretary’s authority over the census and intended to discriminate against immigrant communities of color….

For decades, the federal government has relied on citizenship information to make sure the voting power of racial and language minorities is not diluted. Since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, the Justice Department has enforced the law’s protections
 against discrimination by using estimates of U.S. citizens from a Census Bureau survey now known as the American Community Survey. About one in 38 households in the U.S. are required by law to complete that survey every year.

In its December 2017 letter to the Census Bureau,
 however, the Justice Department said that collecting citizenship data from every household through the once-a-decade census would be “more appropriate” to use for enforcing Voting Rights Act and redistricting.

Still, Gore does not seem sure if the data collected from the new citizenship question would be more accurate.

According to the plaintiffs’ filing, Gore testified Friday
 that “he does not even know if citizenship data based on responses to a citizenship question on the census will have smaller or larger margins of error, or will be any more precise, than the existing citizenship data on which DOJ currently relies.”

Posted in Department
 of Justice
 
 

I
 Talked with Dahlia Lithwick for Slate’s Amicus Podcast About the State of Voting Rights in the US
Posted on October
 27, 2018 1:10 pm by Rick
 Hasen

Listen:

Dahlia Lithwick talks with Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern about what to look out for this term, and with Rick Hasen, professor of law and
 political science at the University of California, Irvine, about how free and fair the midterm elections will be in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights.

Posted in The
 Voting Wars
 
 

Orange
 County, California: “They Want To Register Voters In Jail. The Sheriff Won’t Let Them Inside To Do It.”
Posted on October
 27, 2018 1:08 pm by Rick
 Hasen

HuffPo:

In California, people with a felony conviction can
 vote as long as they aren’t currently incarcerated in state or federal prison, on parole, or in county jail for a parole violation. Otherwise-eligible jail inmates are permitted to vote by mail.

Torres is one of the roughly 6,000 likely eligible voters who are detained in the Orange County jail at any given time that the ACLU of Southern California is trying to reach through a program it calls Unlock
 The Vote. They face a big obstacle: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department, currently led by Sandra Hutchens, won’t let them set foot inside the jail to talk about voting. Instead they must wait outside, across the street, where they approach inmates
 as they’re released and ask them to register.

It’s a mission that, at times, can seem quixotic. Around 30 inmates were released that Friday; the ACLU registered only four. But even if a fraction of those 6,000 current or since-released inmates vote in November, it could make a big difference….

It doesn’t have to be this hard to register people in jail. Just north of Orange County, the ACLU has been allowed inside the Los Angeles County jail to register inmates. They estimate they’ve registered about 4,000 people there. Efforts in jails in Chicago and New
 York, among other places, have also added new voters to the rolls.

Those numbers add up. There are 700,000 people detained in jails across the country who are likely eligible to vote, but don’t know they can. Forty-eight states strip people of their voting rights after they’re convicted of a felony. But people can still
 vote while they’re awaiting trial in jail or if they’re serving time for a misdemeanor.

Posted in felon
 voting
 
 

“Texas
 Civil Rights Project asks Secretary of State to take action on voting machines”
Posted on October
 26, 2018 6:46 pm by Rick
 Hasen

Release:

Tonight, the Texas Civil Rights Project (“TCRP”) sent a letter to the
 Secretary of State asking that his office take immediate action to inform Texans regarding the straight-ticket voting issues on the Hart eSlate voting machines. The letter asks the Secretary to:

1.     
Devise a system to more proactively inform voters at polling places about this potential problem.

2.     
Substantially increase outreach efforts across the state to communicate more clearly to the public the reason some voters are facing this issue; the need for voters to check their ballot choices before submitting their ballot;
 and that voters should immediately ask for help from a poll worker if they encounter any issue.

TCRP initially heard of this issue after voters contacted the non-partisan election protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE. So far, TCRP has received reports from voters in six counties (Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend, Travis, Tarrant, and McLennan) who either
 had this happen to them, or were concerned that it may have happened to them.

At a minimum, 5.1 million Texas voters in six of the largest counties in Texas that use Hart eSlate voting machines may be affected by this issue.

 

Posted in election
 administration, voting technology
 
 

Postcard
 Advises Arizona Democrats to Vote on Wrong Election Day
Posted on October
 26, 2018 2:52 pm by Rick
 Hasen


Adrian
 Fontes at RecorderFontes
 
 · 23h

 

The Elections Department is advising voters to rely solely on official sources for information on the 2018 General Election. Some voters have notified us of receiving post cards like
 this one showing an incorrect date for the upcoming election:



Arizona's Politics at AZs_Politics
 

cc: 
@rickhasen
2:48 PM - Oct 26, 2018

·        


4

·        


See
 Arizona's Politics's other Tweets
Twitter
 Ads info and privacy


Posted in chicanery
 
 

“Reports
 of Voter Intimidation at Polling Places in Texas”
Posted on October
 26, 2018 2:33 pm by Rick
 Hasen

ProPublica reports.

Posted in Uncategorized
 
 

District
 Court and 2nd Circuit Reject DOJ Argument to Delay Census Citizenship Trial; Next Stop #SCOTUS?
Posted on October
 26, 2018 2:29 pm by Rick
 Hasen
View
 image on Twitter



Hansi Lo Wang
✔@hansilowang
 

 

BREAKING: Three-judge panel of 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Trump administration’s request to delay 1st trial of
#2020census
 citizenship question lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman issued a similar ruling earlier today. Watching for
#SCOTUS action
 now...
2:27 PM - Oct 26, 2018

·        

202

·        


142
 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Posted in Uncategorized
 
 

More
 Trouble with Texas Voting Machines Not Accepting Straight Party Ticket Choice; State Blames “Operator Error”
Posted on October
 26, 2018 1:51 pm by Rick
 Hasen

ABC 13 reports.

Posted in Uncategorized
 
 

“Combination
 Among the States: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional Attempt to Reform the Electoral College”
Posted on October
 26, 2018 1:38 pm by Rick
 Hasen

Patrick Valencia has written this article for the Harvard Journal on Legislation.

Posted in electoral
 college
 
 

Kansas
 Voting Official Responds “LOL” to ACLU Request to Publicize Voter Help Line for Dodge City Voters
Posted on October
 26, 2018 1:29 pm by Rick
 Hasen

Wichita Eagle:

After the ACLU objected to Dodge City’s single, out-of-town polling place, the local official in charge of elections forwarded to the state an ACLU letter asking her to publicize a voter help line.

“LOL,” she wrote in an email to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s office.

As Election Day approaches, concerns are being raised in Kansas over voting rights and access to the polls. The movement and elimination of some polling places is sparking fears that casting a ballot may be more difficult for some this year.

Nowhere are worries greater than in Dodge City, where residents must leave town if they want to vote on Election Day….

Cox said she moved the polling location out of a concern for safety. And she said she didn’t mean anything when she wrote “LOL.”

“This was not done with any racial intention at all,” Cox said during an interview in her office on Gunsmoke Street downtown.

Posted in election
 administration, The Voting Wars
 
 

“Redistricting
 Reform and the 2018 Elections”
Posted on October
 26, 2018 8:32 am by Richard
 Pildes

The Harvard Law Review blog is running a Symposium on legal issues related to the 2018 election.  Here’s my contribution,
 which analyzes the different measures on the ballot to change the redistricting process in Utah, Missouri, Michigan, and Colorado.  An excerpt:

Underlying the entire issue of redistricting is the question of what constitutes a fair map.  The issue is not just whether voters will endorse independent redistricting commissions, but what substantive criteria those commissions will be instructed to use. 
 This is not as straightforward a question as many people intuitively think.  As a conceptual matter, there are two fundamentally different approaches to answering that question, and it is worth noticing the distinct approaches these various ballot measures
 embrace.

The first approach is what I have called a
 process-oriented one.  Redistricters would be instructed to take a set of criteria into account that reflect appropriate democratic values for designing districts, but that do not include partisan political considerations.  Thus, in “partisan-blind” redistricting,
 districts would be designed to meet standards like equal population; compliance with the Voting Rights Act; keeping pre-existing political units (like towns, cities, and counties) together, to the extent possible; respecting communities of interest; and keeping
 districts reasonable compact and contiguous.  Under this approach, a “fair” map would reflect these criteria, and whatever partisan political consequences resulted from such a process would not affect the fairness of the plan.

The second approach is instead focused on exactly those consequences:  it is an outcome-oriented approach that would seek to ensure a map is “fair” in the sense that the likely outcome of elections under the plan would be that each political party would
 end up with roughly the same percentage of seats as the percentage of votes it received.  Under this approach, many of the values listed above would be of secondary importance to the primary goal of seeking to design a map that would generate partisan outcomes
 that match each party’s share of the overall statewide vote.   The “process-oriented” and “outcome oriented” approaches define two poles of the spectrum; one can imagine approaches that try to merge these approaches, though doing so risks becoming a muddle
 that leaves redistricters with a great deal of discretion unless the proper tradeoffs between these different objectives are identified with precision.  But having these two distinct conceptual frameworks in mind is helpful in evaluating the different ballot
 initiatives. . . .

No
 other country with single-member election districts like ours leaves the power to draw these districts in the hands of the most politically self-interested actors, the politicians whose power and seats will be affected. . . . But shifting to commissions
 cannot avoid the fact that substantive choices must still be made about how we ought to define fair maps and what criteria commissions, or any other redistricting body, ought to follow in order to design fair maps.

The proposals on the ballot in these four states agree that redistricting should be taken out of the hands of self-interested state legislatures. But they show that on the deeper question – what makes a map fair – there remain differences of view.

Posted in Uncategorized
 
 
-- 

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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181027/f1415c3b/attachment.html>