[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/12/18 (and a note about the last few days)

[Terry Martin]

Quite the interesting opinion in "Citizens United As Bad Corporate Law."
The authors cite Janus for the proposition that management can't be
expected to carry its shareholders' opinion into the public sphere, but
that case concerned compelled speech and association, where Citizens United
involved compelled silence and disassociation. Most importantly, you can
get rid of your shares in a corporation described in Citizens United, by
definition you can't opt out of the "fair share" fees at issue in Janus.
Nice try, though.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Justin Levitt has been doing a great job guest blogging for the last few
> days, but technical difficulties prevented his post from making it through
> to the list.  So there’s A LOT below.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
>
> “Exclusive: Trump to target foreign meddling in U.S. elections with
> sanctions order – sources” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101105>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:20 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101105> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reuters:
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-election-exclusive/exclusive-trump-to-target-foreign-meddling-in-us-elections-with-sanctions-order-sources-idUSKCN1LR2IO>
>
> *President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order as soon as
> Wednesday that will slap sanctions on any foreign companies or people who
> interfere in U.S. elections, based on intelligence agency findings, two
> sources familiar with the matter said.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101105&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Trump%20to%20target%20foreign%20meddling%20in%20U.S.%20elections%20with%20sanctions%20order%20%E2%80%93%20sources%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
> “Kavanaugh Decision Created Opening for Foreign Interference in U.S.
> Elections” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101103>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:19 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101103> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brendan Fischer blogs.
> <https://campaignlegal.org/update/kavanaugh-decision-created-opening-foreign-interference-us-elections>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101103&title=%E2%80%9CKavanaugh%20Decision%20Created%20Opening%20for%20Foreign%20Interference%20in%20U.S.%20Elections%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “Redistricting reformers turn to ballot initiatives”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101101>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:16 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101101> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reid Wilson:
> <http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/405989-redistricting-reformers-turn-to-ballot-initiatives>
>
> *Nonpartisan redistricting proponents are turning to midterm election
> referendums in key states where legislative leaders have signaled no desire
> to give up their authority on drawing political boundaries.*
>
> *Voters in four states — Michigan, Missouri, Colorado and Utah — will
> weigh in on ballot measures this November that would radically reshape the
> way congressional or legislative district lines are drawn.*
>
> *In those states, legislative leaders have the power to draw state
> legislative and congressional district lines, authority critics say they
> have used to safeguard incumbents.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101101&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20reformers%20turn%20to%20ballot%20initiatives%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
>
>
> Long Beach Contemplates End of Write In Votes after Term Limited Mayor
> Wins via Write-In <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101099>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:14 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101099> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Long Beach Business Journal.
> <http://www.lbbizjournal.com/single-post/2018/09/10/Legal-Experts-And-Former-Councilmembers-Weigh-In-On-Measure-BBB-%E2%80%93-Term-Limits>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101099&title=Long%20Beach%20Contemplates%20End%20of%20Write%20In%20Votes%20after%20Term%20Limited%20Mayor%20Wins%20via%20Write-In>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Citizens United As Bad Corporate Law”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101095>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:07 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101095> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jonathan Macey and Leo Strine have posted this draft
> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3233118> on SSRN.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> *In this Article we show that Citizens United v. FEC, arguably the most
> important First Amendment case of the new millennium, is predicated on a
> fundamental misconception about the nature of the corporation.
> Specifically, Citizens United v. FEC, which prohibited the government from
> restricting independent expenditures for corporate communications, and held
> that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights to engage in political
> spending as human citizens, is grounded on the erroneous theory that
> corporations are “associations of citizens” rather than what they actually
> are: independent legal entities distinct from those who own their stock.
> Our contribution to the literature on Citizens United is that the case is
> as much a case about corporate law, as it is about the First Amendment. The
> major disagreement among the justices in Citizens United is about the
> applicability of settled First Amendment protections to a particular
> juridical entity, the corporation. In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy,
> writing for the majority opines that Congress may not take into account the
> distinctions between corporations and human beings in regulating political
> speech, and that corporations must be permitted the same freedom to speak
> as human beings. In dissent, Justice Stevens fails directly to challenge
> Justice Kennedy’s existential conception of the corporation notwithstanding
> the fact that that it constitutes the core of the majority opinion. This
> Article fills that void. We reject the Citizens United majority’s
> conception of the corporation as an “associations of citizens” and reaffirm
> its status as an artificial, metaphysical, and legal construct that exists
> separate and apart from its investors. The Citizens United view of the
> corporation as an association of individuals is inconsistent with the
> established conception of the corporation as a juridical entity with
> limited liability.*
>
> *This conception confuses the corporation with the general partnership
> form of business organization. In fact, the entire point of the
> incorporation process is to permit the creation of a legal entity that is
> not an association of individuals, but rather a discrete legal entity whose
> rights and obligations are distinct from those of it its creators,
> investors, managers, and other constituents. We base our argument that
> corporations are separate and distinct legal entities and that they are not
> “associations of citizens” as Citizens United asserts on three facts about
> the corporate form:*
>
> *(1) the treatment of corporations as separate legal entities is what
> distinguishes corporations from general partnerships and sole
> proprietorships and what justifies the legal notion of “limited liability”
> and other central characteristics of the corporate form, such as the
> ability to contract and to sue and be sued;*
>
> *(2) corporations do not have owners, they have investors who have
> contract-based, financial interests in the firms and limited management
> rights; and*
>
> *(3) corporations are not fiction, but fact only because the law makes
> them real and distinct entities with a legal identity.*
>
> *In Part I of this Article, we discuss the nature of the corporate form by
> describing its core attributes and explain that one must infer from the
> nature of the corporate form itself that the corporation is an entity, not
> an association of individuals. In Part II, we expand upon the analysis in
> Part I by examining certain settled legal characteristics that the Supreme
> Court has itself recognized to distinguish the corporation from other forms
> of business organization that can more plausibly be viewed as associations
> of individuals. We conclude Part II by noting a simple, empirical reality
> that cuts against Citizens United’s conception of the corporation as an
> “association of citizens”: stockholders are not owners of the corporation,
> but rather contract claimants. In Part III, we discuss the reality that in
> most other areas of its jurisprudence the Supreme Court embraces the
> traditional entity view of the corporation, and does not treat corporations
> as associations of citizens. Thus, Citizens United and its progeny are
> outliers, in tension with the Supreme Court’s decisional law in key areas
> like standing, tax law, criminal law, and other areas of constitutional
> law.*
>
> *Our analysis shows that in the great bulk of its jurisprudence, the
> Supreme Court adheres to our view of the business corporation, which is
> that it is a distinct legal entity whose rights and obligations are subject
> to statutory constraint. In fact, by long tradition, starting under Chief
> Justice Marshall, corporations are the opposite of Lockean–Jeffersonian
> human beings endowed with inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by
> the government. By contrast, corporations have only those rights society
> gives them by statutory law, and any statutory law may take into account
> the unique nature of corporations in limiting their ability to act. We then
> point out in Part IV profound problems with Citizen United’s assertion that
> corporations are “associations of citizens.” Namely, that assertion comes
> without supporting legal authority and for good reason. Neither the law nor
> empirical fact supports the idea that stockholders are associated citizens,
> much less with any common political or social viewpoint. Part V then notes
> the stark difference in the Supreme Court’s approach when dealing with the
> free speech of labor unions. In the union context, the Supreme Court’s
> principal concern has been ensuring that no union member has his dues used
> for political speech without his express authorization, and has held that
> it is a First Amendment violation to use union dues for political speech.*
>
> *Just this year, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and
> Municipal Employees, Council 31 the Court went further and held that unions
> could not even collect fees for the costs due to the core costs of
> bargaining for higher wages from a workforce member who did not join the
> union. In McCain-Feingold, Congress embraced concerns like this and gave
> corporations the ability to engage in political speech by raising funds
> voluntarily from stockholders for this purpose. This means took into
> account the corporate law consensus that stockholders’ decision to invest
> in business corporations does not rationally involve any authorization for
> the corporation to use treasury funds for political speech, and that
> stockholders are of diverse political viewpoints and only have a shared
> interest in one thing, getting a good return on their investment. But,
> applying a starkly different viewpoint than it takes in cases like Abood
> and Janus, the Supreme Court struck down McCain-Feingold and trivialized
> the substantial leeway McCain-Feingold had given for corporations to speak.
> In analyzing this contradiction, we identify the market realities that make
> it even less plausible that 21st century American business corporations can
> be deemed “associations of citizens,” especially when most of their stock
> is owned by institutional investors, to whom American investors are in
> essence compelled to turn over their capital to save for college for their
> kids and retirement for themselves. And we conclude Part II by noting a
> simple, empirical realty that cuts against Citizens United’s conception of
> the corporation as an “association of citizens”: stockholders are not
> owners of the corporation, but rather contract claimants.*
>
> *Finally, in Part VI we comment on the lack of any source for the Citizens
> United majority’s view that the corporation is an association of
> individuals. In particular, we observe that corporations are creatures of
> state law, not federal law. As the Court observed in CTS Corp. v. Dynamics
> Corp., “[s]tate regulation of corporate governance is regulation of
> entities whose very existence and attributes are a product of state law.”
> Therefore, determinations about the nature of the corporation, such as
> whether the corporation is a distinct juridical entity or an association of
> individuals, should be made by reference to state law, not federal law. To
> further this point, we survey those forms of entities that might be more
> plausibly considered associational in form than corporations, and note that
> in the main, most of them are trending strongly toward the entity
> conception. After doing so, we address those corporations most rationally
> considered to be vehicles for the shared viewed points of those who form
> them: non-profit corporations. As to them, we highlight two features that
> buttress our core point. To wit, most non-profit corporations are member
> corporations and do not even have stockholders. And as important, these
> corporations do not fund their speech using the entrusted capital of their
> members or stockholders. Rather, they speak using funds they raise
> specifically for that purpose from donors—exactly the method that Congress
> left open to corporations in McCain-Feingold and that the Citizens United
> majority said constituted a total ban on corporate speech. We conclude by
> noticing an irony. It was the legislative branch, not the judicial branch
> that is supposedly more learned in the law, that was the one that
> understood corporate law when addressing political speech. Congress
> considered the nature of corporations when enacting McCain-Feingold and
> took into account that corporations are not associations of citizens, but
> separate, state-created entities formed for reasons that cannot be
> rationally attributed to the shared political or philosophical views of
> their investors. As such, Congress allowed corporations broad freedom to
> engage in political speech, but only by using funds voluntarily contributed
> for this purpose by stockholders to a corporate-controlled political action
> committee (PAC). By this means, Congress left ample room for the
> corporation to act as a collective vehicle for stockholders who wished to
> affiliate for that purpose, but protected other stockholders from being
> forced to subsidize speech that the mere decision to invest cannot
> plausibly be thought to endorse. By contrast, the Supreme Court ignored, or
> misunderstood, the traditional corporate law concept of the corporation and
> thereby subjected millions of American investors to suffer the involuntary
> use of their entrusted capital for speech that has no rational connection
> to their decision to buy stock. That is bad corporate law making bad
> constitutional law.*
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101095&title=%E2%80%9CCitizens%20United%20As%20Bad%20Corporate%20Law%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks to Justin Levitt <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101093>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:05 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101093> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Thanks to Justin for filling in the last few days.
>
> So. Much. News.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101093&title=Thanks%20to%20Justin%20Levitt>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> The North Carolina subpoenas get even more disturbing
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101091>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:24 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101091> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Looks like the North Carolina US Attorney’s Office
> <https://www.wral.com/dmv-gets-subpoena-too-in-federal-voting-query/17833877/> also
> subpoenaed the state DMV.  The subpoena is here
> <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4853147/NCDMV-Subpoena.pdf>.
> Among the other information sought: DMV voter registration documents
> (including from citizens) for individuals not born in the US and documents
> (including from citizens) completed in a language other than English.
>
> So you can add, to the serious problems of overbreadth, some increasingly
> disturbing constitutional issues
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12409062008966525460> as
> well.
>
> And if HSI or ICE plans to compile the information that it demanded from
> NC county registrars, the NC state board of elections, and now the NC DMV,
> and/or try to match that information up from place to place, it had better
> have done its homework under the Privacy Act
> <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2015-title5/pdf/USCODE-2015-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec552a.pdf> as
> well.  I flagged those issues
> <https://takecareblog.com/blog/all-your-voter-data-are-belong-to-us>with
> respect to the Pence-Kobach Commission, and there are even more
> restrictions for the compilation of data by agencies like DOJ or DHS.
> There are understandable exemptions from the Privacy Act for criminal
> investigations of specific named persons.  But this fishing program sure
> doesn’t sound like it’s targeted to specific named persons.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101091&title=The%20North%20Carolina%20subpoenas%20get%20even%20more%20disturbing>
>
> Posted in chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, voter
> registration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>
>
>
>
> Ninth Circuit reverses on disclosure of top contributors by charities
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101087>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:23 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101087> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> A Ninth Circuit panel today unanimously reversed
> <https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000165-c94a-d38c-a96f-cdfa6f470002> a
> lower court decision barring California’s collection of IRS Form 990
> Schedule B, which lists the top contributors to 501c3 organizations.  This
> was an as-applied claim by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the
> Thomas More Law Center, following an earlier facial challenge
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7157732388489530193>.
>
> Further coverage (so far) here
> <https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/09/11/koch-americans-for-prosperity-foundation-donor-secrecy-815137>
>  and here
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-11/koch-brothers-pac-must-reveal-major-donors-to-california>.
> (One of the articles says that it’s the Koch Brothers’ PAC that has to
> disclose – but I don’t believe that’s accurate.)
>
> This may not be the last word on this fight.  (h/t Howard Bashman
> <https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/> et al.)
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101087&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20reverses%20on%20disclosure%20of%20top%20contributors%20by%20charities>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> Sixth Circuit tosses incitement claim stemming from Trump rally
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101089>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:22 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101089> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The Sixth Circuit reversed
> <http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0202p-06.pdf> a denial
> of a motion to dismiss, tossing an incitement claim based on then-Candidate
> Trump’s exhortation at a rally to “Get ’em out of here.”
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101089&title=Sixth%20Circuit%20tosses%20incitement%20claim%20stemming%20from%20Trump%20rally>
>
> Posted in campaigns <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
>
>
> The logistics of pollsite prep <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101085>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:18 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101085> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Thanks to Doug Chapin
> <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2018/09/11/election-roadies-behind-the-scenes-crews-prepare-for-nh-primary-election-day/> for
> calling attention to this Concord Monitor piece
> <https://www.concordmonitor.com/If-you-build-it-they-will-vote-20063237> on
> the nuts-and-bolts of getting polling sites ready for an election.  The URL
> for the piece offers a nice insight not in the piece itself: “If you build
> it, they will vote.”  And Doug’s review gave me my new favorite term of the
> season: “election roadies
> <http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2018/09/11/election-roadies-behind-the-scenes-crews-prepare-for-nh-primary-election-day/>
> .”
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101085&title=The%20logistics%20of%20pollsite%20prep>
>
> Posted in election administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
> “Election error may have cost Georgia representative his race”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101083>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:18 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101083> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Calling Michael McDonald: looks like another redistricting precinct error
> <https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/politics/georgia-election-ballot-error-dan-gasaway-district-legislature-habersham-county/index.html>,
> but this time it may force a new vote.  (The article discusses a bunch of
> issues beyond the precinct error, few of which seem related to the race in
> question.)
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101083&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20error%20may%20have%20cost%20Georgia%20representative%20his%20race%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
>
>
> “AP FACT CHECK: Tester did rank No. 1 in cash from lobbyists”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101081>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:17 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101081> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> AP gives a thumbs-up <https://apnews.com/7b34826f284f4465a7678178e22eb1d1> to
> the claim.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101081&title=%E2%80%9CAP%20FACT%20CHECK%3A%20Tester%20did%20rank%20No.%201%20in%20cash%20from%20lobbyists%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> “Redistricting reformers turn to ballot initiatives”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101079>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:15 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101079> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The Hill
> <http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/405989-redistricting-reformers-turn-to-ballot-initiatives> runs
> down the measures on the ballot this fall.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101079&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20reformers%20turn%20to%20ballot%20initiatives%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in direct democracy <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>,
> redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
>
>
> “GOP redistricting group names executive director”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101077>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:15 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101077> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Here come the field generals
> <https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/11/national-republican-redistricting-trust-executive-director-776565> for
> the 2021 redistricting wars.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101077&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20redistricting%20group%20names%20executive%20director%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, The Voting
> Wars <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “Did Google Meddle in 2016 Election More Than Russia?”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101075>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:14 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101075> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> No.  But it’s interesting to hear Tucker Carlson
> <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/11/tucker_carlson_did_google_meddle_in_2016_election_more_than_russia.html> get
> angry about efforts to help Latinos vote.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101075&title=%E2%80%9CDid%20Google%20Meddle%20in%202016%20Election%20More%20Than%20Russia%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
> “Petition for paper ballots in Georgia denied by state board”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101073>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 11:14 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101073> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The State Board’s unanimous decision
> <https://politics.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/petition-for-paper-ballots-georgia-denied-state-board/klvkew4Zh7vudR2nQp1LpI/> pertains
> to the subject of an ongoing lawsuit as well.  Independent of the merits,
> it’s awfully close to the election to be making a statewide change of this
> magnitude.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101073&title=%E2%80%9CPetition%20for%20paper%20ballots%20in%20Georgia%20denied%20by%20state%20board%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting
> technology <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
>
>
>
>
> A Moment of Remembrance <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101071>
>
> Posted on September 11, 2018 9:32 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101071> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Just felt right to leave a pause in the middle of the normal hullabaloo.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101071&title=A%20Moment%20of%20Remembrance>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> FEC Approves Microsoft Giving Free Security Package to Candidates
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101069>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 4:06 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101069> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Late last week, the FEC unanimously (!) approved
> <https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/campaigns-and-political-parties-can-accept-free-security-service-from-microsoft-fec-says>
>  an advisory opinion
> <https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtg_doc_18-41-a_.pdf> allowing
> Microsoft to “offer a package of enhanced online account security services
> at no additional charge on a nonpartisan basis to its election-sensitive
> customers, including federal candidates and national party committees.”
>
> Translation: it’s OK for Microsoft to offer candidates anti-hacking tools
> for free without violating federal campaign finance law.
>
> Roll Call has more
> <https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/campaigns-and-political-parties-can-accept-free-security-service-from-microsoft-fec-says>,
> including musings from advocates about what other companies might seek to
> offer.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101069&title=FEC%20Approves%20Microsoft%20Giving%20Free%20Security%20Package%20to%20Candidates>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> “Trump Officials Say They Can’t Recall Discussing Census Citizenship
> Question” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101067>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 3:58 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101067> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Hansi Lo Wang, who’s been all over this issue, chronicles the memory loss
> <https://www.npr.org/2018/09/05/645032482/trump-officials-say-they-cant-recall-discussing-census-citizenship-question>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101067&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Officials%20Say%20They%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Recall%20Discussing%20Census%20Citizenship%20Question%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, redistricting
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
> “Judicial Intervention as Judicial Restraint”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101065>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 1:52 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101065> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Guy-Uriel Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer have a new piece
> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3239681> forthcoming
> in the Harvard Law Review, on partisan gerrymandering and justiciability:
>
> *This paper examines the Court’s decision in Gil v. Whitford. It advances
> two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court’s
> skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that
> we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that
> account and argues that the Court’s reluctance to intervene is a function
> of the Court’s institutional calculus that it ought to protect its
> legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like
> political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for
> judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent
> partisan gerrymanders, not only because partisan gerrymandering is harmful,
> but also because of what partisan gerrymandering communicates about the
> normativity of the manipulation of electoral rules for partisan gain.*
>
> Guy and Luis have been incredibly insightful observers of the judicial
> regulation of the electoral process for some time.  I’m really looking
> forward to reading this.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101065&title=%E2%80%9CJudicial%20Intervention%20as%20Judicial%20Restraint%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election law and constitutional law
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>, political parties
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, redistricting
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “On The Sidelines of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don’t Vote”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101063>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 11:58 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101063> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> NPR this morning
> <https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/645223716/on-the-sidelines-of-democracy-exploring-why-so-many-americans-dont-vote>,
> digging into the reasons why nonvoters don’t.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101063&title=%E2%80%9COn%20The%20Sidelines%20of%20Democracy%3A%20Exploring%20Why%20So%20Many%20Americans%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Vote%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
>
>
> Garland Might Review Ethics Complaint Against Kavanaugh
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101061>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 11:57 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101061> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The water cooler conversation around the DC Circuit these days must be
> fascinating.
>
> [image:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1849163545/Zoe_Tillman_photo1_bigger.jpg]
> <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman>
>
> <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman>
>
> *Zoe Tillman <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman>*
>
> *✔@ZoeTillman <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman>*
>
>
>
> <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1039149583128035330>
>
>
>
> The Democratic Coalition says it's filing an ethics complaint against #
> SCOTUS <https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash> nominee Brett
> Kavanaugh re: his answers about whether he received stolen docs: https://
> dworkinreport.com/2018/09/07/this-is-why-we-just-filed-a-criminal-
> complaint-against-brett-kavanaugh/ … <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5> These are
> typically reviewed by the chief judge of the court, who in this case is
> Merrick Garland
>
> 6:52 AM - Sep 10, 2018
> <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1039149583128035330>
>
> <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5>
>
> [image:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1038276049975615488/-lx7Mrzf?format=jpg&name=600x314]
> <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5>
> This is why we just filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh
> <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5>
>
> Forget the Supreme Court. Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached from the
> bench for the crime he perpetrated against the Senate.
> <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5>
>
> dworkinreport.com <https://t.co/wLKZvu5vc5>
>
>
>
> ·         <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1039149583128035330>
>
> 1,618 <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1039149583128035330>
>
> ·         <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1039149583128035330>
>
> 872 people are talking about this
> <https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1039149583128035330>
>
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> <https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101061&title=Garland%20Might%20Review%20Ethics%20Complaint%20Against%20Kavanaugh>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> Eighth Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Ban on PAC-to-PAC Contributions
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101059>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 11:56 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101059> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The opinion in Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission
> is here <http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172239P.pdf>.  (h/t Richard
> Winger
> <http://ballot-access.org/2018/09/10/eighth-circuit-agrees-with-u-s-district-court-that-missouri-cannot-ban-one-pac-from-donating-to-another-pac/>
> )
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101059&title=Eighth%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Invalidation%20of%20Ban%20on%20PAC-to-PAC%20Contributions>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> Massachusetts SOS to Take Control of Two Local Election Offices
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101057>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 11:56 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101057> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The state supervision will include the conduct of the recount
> <https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/09/10/galvin-lowell-mishandled-primary-ballots/pi2u0UZMLzDDtCep1dloUL/story.html> in
> the Democratic primary for the 3d Congressional District.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101057&title=Massachusetts%20SOS%20to%20Take%20Control%20of%20Two%20Local%20Election%20Offices>
>
> Posted in election administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
> John Oliver on Felony Disenfranchisement
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101054>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 2:12 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101054> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Sunday’s main segment <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpPyLcQ2vdI> was
> on felony disenfranchisement and Florida’s Amendment 4.  With, you know, a
> few asides.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101054&title=John%20Oliver%20on%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement>
>
> Posted in direct democracy <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, election
> law "humor" <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>, voting
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
>
>
> An Investigation Into the Investigation?
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101052>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 2:10 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101052> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Dem Members of Congress are calling for OIG investigations
> <https://butterfield.house.gov/sites/butterfield.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/09.07.2018%20Letter%20to%20IG%20on%20NC%20Subpoena.pdf> at
> DOJ and DHS into the issuance of the spectacularly broad North Carolina
> subpoenas <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100993> of voting information.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101052&title=An%20Investigation%20Into%20the%20Investigation%3F>
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>
>
>
>
>
> “For Older Voters, Getting The Right ID Can Be Especially Tough”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101050>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 2:09 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101050> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> NPR reports
> <https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-voters-getting-the-right-id-can-be-especially-tough> on
> the work of Spread the Vote <https://www.spreadthevote.org/>, one of the
> two main national organizations (VoteRiders <https://www.voteriders.org/>is
> the other) helping eligible voters get the IDs they need.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101050&title=%E2%80%9CFor%20Older%20Voters%2C%20Getting%20The%20Right%20ID%20Can%20Be%20Especially%20Tough%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in voter id <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
>
>
>
> “Trump waives millions in claims against Stormy Daniels in new fallout
> from illegal payoff” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101048>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 2:08 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101048> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> LA Times
> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-stormy-20180909-story.html>
> :
>
> *President Trump has agreed to give up his right to pursue millions of
> dollars in damages against Stormy Daniels in a move to kill litigation over
> an illegal payoff to the adult-film star.*
>
> *The maneuver marks a sharp reversal for Trump. His legal team sought
> earlier to pull Daniels into an arbitration that could have forced her to
> pay the president more than $20 million for breaking a nondisclosure
> agreement over her claim of a sexual liaison with Trump in 2006. Trump has
> denied the affair.*
>
> *…*
>
> *As a result, Trump’s lawyer argued, Daniels should drop her lawsuit.
> Lawyers for Trump, Cohen and Daniels are set to gather Sept. 24 for a
> hearing on the case before District Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles
> federal court.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101048&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20waives%20millions%20in%20claims%20against%20Stormy%20Daniels%20in%20new%20fallout%20from%20illegal%20payoff%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, Everybody <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101046>
>
> Posted on September 10, 2018 2:07 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101046> by *Justin Levitt*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> And Shana Tovah.  It’s Justin: I’ll be at the helm
> <https://media.giphy.com/media/P07JtCEMQF9N6/source.gif> of the blog for
> a day or two.  Please send your news (and your hate mail) my way
> <https://www.lls.edu/faculty/facultylistl-r/levittjustin/> for the next
> 48 hours.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101046&title=Hi%2C%20Everybody>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “He Could Be Florida’s First Black Governor – Unless A Jim Crow-Era Law
> Stops Him” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101044>
>
> Posted on September 9, 2018 11:15 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101044> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> HuffPost:
> <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andrew-gillum-florida-voting-rights_us_5b913ebce4b0cf7b003d629f>
>
> *Andrew Gillum, the Democratic mayor of Tallahassee, needs the support of
> black voters to become Florida’s first black governor. But he faces a major
> obstacle: A provision of the Florida Constitution with Jim Crow–era roots
> prevents more than 1.5 million Floridians
> <https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida> —
> a disproportionate number of whom are black
> <https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/> —
> from voting at all.*
>
> *Like three other states, Florida permanently blocks people with felony
> convictions from voting. But the state’s process for restoring voting
> rights to people who have served their time is uniquely harsh: Felons can
> win back their voting rights only by appealing directly to the governor and
> other state officials. It can take years to win a hearing. Because of this,
> Florida is home to more disenfranchised felons than any other state. In
> 2016 the policy blocked more than 10 percent
> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/06/us/unequal-effect-of-laws-that-block-felons-from-voting.html> of
> the voting-age population and more than 20 percent
> <https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/> of
> African-Americans from casting a ballot.*
>
> *But this fall, organizers see a rare opportunity to overcome that
> barrier. Voters in November will weigh in on a proposed constitutional
> amendment to automatically restore voting rights to most people who
> complete their sentences for felony convictions. (People convicted of
> murder and sexual offenses would be excluded.) Observers think the proposal
> could benefit Gillum by encouraging unlikely voters to go to the polls
> because they know someone disenfranchised because of a felony conviction.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101044&title=%E2%80%9CHe%20Could%20Be%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20First%20Black%20Governor%20%E2%80%93%20Unless%20A%20Jim%20Crow-Era%20Law%20Stops%20Him%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in felon voting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
>
>
>
>
> Watch Sen. Klobuchar and Judge Kavanaugh Discuss Whether there is
> Widespread Voter Fraud (and Reading ELB)
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101042>
>
> Posted on September 9, 2018 11:13 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101042> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/tkwRkJxC2tU
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101042&title=Watch%20Sen.%20Klobuchar%20and%20Judge%20Kavanaugh%20Discuss%20Whether%20there%20is%20Widespread%20Voter%20Fraud%20(and%20Reading%20ELB)>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “The Republican Approach to Voter Fraud: Lie”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101040>
>
> Posted on September 9, 2018 11:12 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101040> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Carol Anderson
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/opinion/sunday/voter-fraud-lie-missouri.html?emc=edit_th_180909&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=364778290909> NYT
> oped.
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101040&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Republican%20Approach%20to%20Voter%20Fraud%3A%20Lie%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
> Voting Wars <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “Justice Dept. Demand for North Carolina Voting Records Extended to D.M.V.
> Image” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101037>
>
> Posted on September 8, 2018 1:08 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101037> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/us/north-carolina-voting.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront>
>
> *In a further sign of the sprawling nature of the Justice
> Department’s effort to collect voting records
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/north-carolina-voting.html> in North
> Carolina, prosecutors demanded eight years of information from the state’s
> Division of Motor Vehicles, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by
> The New York Times.*
>
> *The newly disclosed order, along with subpoenas sent to the state’s
> elections board and counties
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/north-carolina-voting.html>, appears
> linked to a federal inquiry into illegal voting by noncitizens.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101037&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Dept.%20Demand%20for%20North%20Carolina%20Voting%20Records%20Extended%20to%20D.M.V.%20Image%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Michigan Election Law”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101035>
>
> Posted on September 8, 2018 12:59 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101035> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan/articles/2018-09-07/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-over-michigan-election-law>
>
> *The U.S. Supreme Court won’t intervene in a dispute over Michigan
> <https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/michigan>‘s ban on straight-party
> voting.*
>
> *The court turned down an appeal Friday, which means the ban will go into
> effect in the November election. Voters can’t use a single mark to quickly
> pick all candidates of a single party.*
>
> Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101035&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Rejects%20Appeal%20Over%20Michigan%20Election%20Law%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “Trump Executives Face U.S. Campaign-Finance Probe, Source Says”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101033>
>
> Posted on September 7, 2018 9:14 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101033> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg:
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-07/trump-executives-are-said-to-face-campaign-finance-probe-by-u-s?srnd=premium>
>
> *Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether anyone in the
> Trump Organization violated campaign-finance laws, in a follow-up to their
> conviction last month of Michael Cohen, according to a person familiar with
> the matter.*
>
> *The inquiry, not previously reported, shows that the Manhattan U.S.
> attorney’s office doesn’t intend to stand down following the guilty plea
> from Trump’s longtime personal lawyer. Manhattan prosecutors are working on
> a parallel track to U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is tasked with
> examining Russian interference in the presidential election and who is
> referring other matters as they arise to appropriate sections of the
> Justice Department.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101033&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Executives%20Face%20U.S.%20Campaign-Finance%20Probe%2C%20Source%20Says%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> In Sixth Circuit Ballot Access Case from Michigan, Court Suggests Jenness
> v. Fortson May No Longer Be Good Law
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101031>
>
> Posted on September 7, 2018 1:40 pm
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101031> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Opinion: <http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0463n-06.pdf>
>
> *And although the Supreme Court upheld a five-percent signature
> requirement in Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 438 (1971), that signature
> requirement was analyzed using a less stringent framework than that
> required by Anderson and Burdick. See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 817 (Rehnquist,
> J., dissenting) (distinguishing the standard used in Jenness from the
> “narrowly tailored” test applied in Anderson); see also Green Party of
> Georgia v. Kemp, 171 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (finding a
> one-percent signature requirement to be a severe burden and setting a
> requirement of 7,500 signatures), aff’d 674 F. App’x 974 (11th Cir. 2017)
> (“The judgment of the district court is affirmed based on the district
> court’s well-reasoned opinion.”). The numerical signature requirement here,
> in combination with the signature collection window and filing deadline, is
> a severe burden on independent candidates and those who wish to vote for
> them.*
>
> That would be good news for supporters of easier ballot access laws. (Via
> BAN
> <http://ballot-access.org/2018/09/06/chris-graveline-wins-ballot-access-in-sixth-circuit/>
> .)
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101031&title=In%20Sixth%20Circuit%20Ballot%20Access%20Case%20from%20Michigan%2C%20Court%20Suggests%20Jenness%20v.%20Fortson%20May%20No%20Longer%20Be%20Good%20Law>
>
> Posted in ballot access <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
>
>
>
>
> “Census Citizenship Question Won’t Perform Well, New Analysis Shows”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101024>
>
> Posted on September 7, 2018 10:46 am
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101024> by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Release:
> <https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/census-citizenship-question-wont-perform-well-new-analysis-shows/>
>
> *Inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census is likely to
> increase the costs and compromise census accuracy, according to a report
> released today by Georgetown Law’s Center on Poverty and Inequality
> <https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-inequality-center/>.*
>
> *Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr.’s March 26 directive that the
> Census Bureau add a question on citizenship status to the 2020 Census
> questionnaire stirred up a storm of controversy. Much of the discussion was
> about the impact the decision would have on response rates in the 2020
> Census.*
>
> *The new report, Citizenship Question Nonresponse: A Demographic Profile
> of People Who Do Not Answer the American Community Survey Citizenship
> Question
> <http://www.georgetownpoverty.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/GCPI-ESOI-Demographic-Profile-of-People-Who-Do-Not-Respond-to-the-Citizenship-Question-20180906-Accessible-Version-Without-Appendix.pdf>,
> examines patterns of nonresponse to the citizenship question in the Census
> Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The citizenship status question
> planned for the 2020 Census is the same as the one currently asked in ACS.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101024&title=%E2%80%9CCensus%20Citizenship%20Question%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Perform%20Well%2C%20New%20Analysis%20Shows%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
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> [image:
> /Users/rhasen/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_457211286]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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/20180911/d694002a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180911/d694002a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180911/d694002a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24046 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180911/d694002a/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180911/d694002a/attachment-0001.png>