[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/5/19

[Rick Hasen]

“Like ‘Stepping on a Rake’: A Wave of Scandals Hits North Carolina Republicans”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104568>
Posted on April 5, 2019 8:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104568> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/us/north-carolina-republicans.html>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104568&title=%E2%80%9CLike%20%E2%80%98Stepping%20on%20a%20Rake%E2%80%99%3A%20A%20Wave%20of%20Scandals%20Hits%20North%20Carolina%20Republicans%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Wisconsin, Ground Zero for 2020 Politics, Looks Like a Tossup Again”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104566>
Posted on April 5, 2019 8:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104566> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/us/politics/wisconsin-2020.html>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104566&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%2C%20Ground%20Zero%20for%202020%20Politics%2C%20Looks%20Like%20a%20Tossup%20Again%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“The Cybersecurity 202: States spent just a fraction of $380 million in election security money before midterms”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104564>
Posted on April 5, 2019 8:13 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104564> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/04/05/the-cybersecurity-202-states-spent-just-a-fraction-of-380-million-in-election-security-money-before-midterms/5ca697b81b326b0f7f38f32b/?utm_term=.bc44e263ec42>:

Congress scrambled in early 2018 to deliver a surge in election security money before the midterms. But it turns out that states only spent about 8 percent of the $380 million Congress approved by the time the elections rolled around.

That’s the bad news in a spending report<https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY2018HAVAGrantsExpenditureReport.pdf> released Thursday by the Election Assistance Commission, which is responsible for disbursing the money.

The good news is that states are on track to spend the majority of the money before the 2020 elections — which intelligence officials say are far likelier than the midterms to be a hacking target for Russia and other U.S. adversaries.

The report highlights the lengthy process of investigations and reviews that are necessary before states can make major upgrades to specialized election equipment. Given the tight time frame — Congress approved<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?utm_term=.52f906d06e6b> the money in March and the EAC began disbursing it to states<https://www.eac.gov/news/2018/06/05/eac-announces-55-percent-of-hava-funds-requested-by-26-states/> in June — EAC Chairwoman Christy McCormick told me that 8 percent is a reasonable amount to have spent and about what the commission expected.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104564&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Cybersecurity%20202%3A%20States%20spent%20just%20a%20fraction%20of%20%24380%20million%20in%20election%20security%20money%20before%20midterms%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Election Assistance Commission<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>


“Very few Americans are satisfied with campaign finance laws, but most don’t know a lot about them”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104562>
Posted on April 4, 2019 5:23 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104562> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN:<https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/campaign-finance-polling/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29>

As major presidential hopefuls release their fundraising numbers from the first quarter this week, recent polling finds just 1 in 5 Americans say they are satisfied with the nation’s campaign finance laws.

The January Gallup poll<https://news.gallup.com/poll/246254/americans-satisfied-nation-military-security.aspx> found that exactly 20% of Americans were OK with how the US handles campaign finance. That’s tied with its poll in 2016 for the lowest who have said so since it started tracking in 2001. Democrats tended to be less satisfied than Republicans — 26% of Republicans said campaign finances laws are OK and 15% of Democrats agreed….

But the way to solve that dissatisfaction is unclear, especially since a lot of people in the US aren’t too knowledgeable about the guidelines.

In a late 2015 survey conducted by AP-NORC<http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/PoliticsMoney/November_Omnibus_Topline_FINAL.pdf>, 53% of Americans said they know only a little or nothing at all about the rules governing the financing of campaigns and only 13% said they know a great deal or quite a bit.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104562&title=%E2%80%9CVery%20few%20Americans%20are%20satisfied%20with%20campaign%20finance%20laws%2C%20but%20most%20don%E2%80%99t%20know%20a%20lot%20about%20them%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


New Mexico Governor Signs Bill Adding State to National Popular Vote Compact<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104560>
Posted on April 4, 2019 2:59 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104560> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This brings<https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/04/popular-vote-compact-new-mexico/> states representing 189 electoral college votes into the agreement.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104560&title=New%20Mexico%20Governor%20Signs%20Bill%20Adding%20State%20to%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Compact>
Posted in electoral college<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>


“Fixing Gerrymandered Maps Tougher than Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Think”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104558>
Posted on April 4, 2019 2:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104558> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg Law<https://www.bloomberglaw.com/exp/eyJjdHh0IjoiTFdOVyIsImlkIjoiMDAwMDAxNjktZGVhMC1kOWZhLWEzNmItZGZmYjRlNTYwMDAwIiwic2lnIjoiSXBkTnVzWmZSOWJoempwZE9jQUZzZE9uakhjPSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNTU0NDA4MjQwIiwidXVpZCI6Ii9CTlRhaTlOWGlDTSsxVitVT1JubGc9PWpmWlV1NExYeURxQnMxUmRVeXVZVFE9PSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?usertype=External&bwid=00000169-dea0-d9fa-a36b-dffb4e560000&qid=6366830&cti=LSCH&uc=1320041183&et=CURATED_HIGHLIGHTS&emc=blwnw_hlt:4&context=email&email=00000169-e88d-d8da-ad6b-eb9d78a10001>:

The Supreme Court’s newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, highlighted independent redistricting commissions as a solution to state legislatures maximizing seats for the party in power while drawing voting districts.

But legal experts say these commissions can’t solve the problem alone. The justices’ comments came during argument last week in a pair<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/top-court-justices-question-suits-over-partisan-gerrymandering> of partisan gerrymandering challenges out of Maryland and North Carolina, which allege politicians drew voting districts to disadvantage the other political party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104558&title=%E2%80%9CFixing%20Gerrymandered%20Maps%20Tougher%20than%20Gorsuch%2C%20Kavanaugh%20Think%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Blockchain Voting: Unwelcome Disruption or Senseless Distraction?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104556>
Posted on April 4, 2019 12:10 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104556> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

U.S. Vote Foundation:<https://www.usvotefoundation.org/blockchain-senseless-distraction>

It really gets old being a guinea pig. Not because of the cagey confines, but for the insistence of those who try their ideas out on you. Overseas and military voters continue to be the guinea pigs for unvetted online voting ideas, the new one being “blockchain voting”. We have been here before.

Overseas and military voters do need continued meaningful reforms across all states, and it is good when people truly care enough to examine and invest in solutions. What we do not need is a distraction that introduces new threats to overseas and military ballot integrity. The cliché “disruption model” doesn’t belong in our elections. Particularly in light of Russia’s cyber-interference in elections in Ukraine in 2014 and the US in 2016, we should consider with extra caution the idea of putting the entire voting process online. Russia itself is pushing to use this same technology for voting. Maybe it is worth a deeper look at it before we rush to its implementation? Perhaps investment in a threat detection system, which most state election offices cannot yet afford, would, at minimum, be a wise first course of action.

Typically election systems must undergo formal testing and certification. Public access and examination is crucial. With a fully online system, that requirement is far more serious. Internet voting is not the same sort of simple transaction as is online banking; it is far more complex due to the fact that there must be a separation of the transaction from the identity of the person executing it. Just because there is a “blockchain” for the transaction doesn’t make the total voting system secure.

The bottom line: it should not be possible to implement these systems in real elections without full and complete public examination. It is not sufficient to declare a technology as “tested” when it is used only in private elections and by outside companies hired to do “security audits”.
Hence the dismay at the most recent efforts by Bradley Tusk and his chosen vendor, Voatz, to influence the injection  of uncertified blockchain technology into overseas and military voting. We know how hard it is to resist the promotion that this is a panacea for voter turnout and access. There are real problems that need real attention. So when an attractive, wealthy individual  arrives in an under-resourced election community with a shiny new “disruptive technology” (cue the keywords) and a sleek PR machine, who can blame anyone for not opening the door at least a crack. But maybe, we should try to resist flinging that door wide open for the few, to the detriment of the many.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104556&title=%E2%80%9CBlockchain%20Voting%3A%20Unwelcome%20Disruption%20or%20Senseless%20Distraction%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


Horwitz on The Troubling Phenomenon of Supreme Court Justices as Celebrities<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104554>
Posted on April 4, 2019 9:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104554> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Horwitz<https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2019/04/balkinization-symposium-on-devins-baum-the-company-they-kee.html>:

Usefully, Hasen emphasizes “the role of the ‘Celebrity Justice<http://www.greenbag.org/v19n2/v19n2_articles_hasen.pdf>,’ a phenomenon which Devins and Baum acknowledge near the end of the book. Scalia, and later Ruth Bader Ginsburg, became rock star Justices, drawing adoring crowds who celebrate these lawyers as though they were teenagers meeting Beyoncé. If we are thinking about the psychological effects on Justices getting affirmation that they are on the right path, cult-like worship can only make the assured even surer in their convictions. This seems especially dangerous during polarized times.”

I could not agree more on this point. The Notorious RBG phenomenon (or Scalia worship) and the cult of personality and celebrity it represents, however understandable (I’m speaking here not of politics, but of Justice Ginsburg and the value of having previously under-represented role models), is bad for our already oversized view of the courts, bad for our politics, bad for the justices themselves, who hardly need further encouragement in thinking well of themselves and taking confirmation of their views from the like-minded (and who risk an increasing willingness to profit from these cults, whether personally or, as the line of Ginsburg products seems to have become, in creating a family business), and for us<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3172831>. I feel the same about the black-tie dinner appearances and selfie opportunities at FedSoc conferences, which may seem harmless and trivial enough to those who attend and participate in this adulatory culture but is not. While the connection between the celebrity justice phenomenon and political polarization may be clear, its connection to the idea of elite culture is perhaps less so. At a minimum, though, I might suggest that I would feel less worried about elites if they considered a fundamental characteristic and requirement of their position to be a quality of independence and maturity of mind, skepticism toward bromides and hero worship, and resistance toward consumer culture and its colonization of politics and governance. The celebrity justice phenomenon hardly contributes to those qualities; and without them, there is good reason to doubt that our “elites” will act in a way fully worthy of the positions of trust and privilege they occupy.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104554&title=Horwitz%20on%20The%20Troubling%20Phenomenon%20of%20Supreme%20Court%20Justices%20as%20Celebrities>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


--
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_1807646242]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190405/4948cfb2/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/20190405/4948cfb2/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190405/4948cfb2/attachment-0001.png>