[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/11/19

Thu Apr 11 07:36:11 PDT 2019

“Don’t blame our polarized politics on voters. Blame it on who runs for office in the first place.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104642>
Posted on April 11, 2019 7:12 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104642> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Monkey Cage<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/dont-blame-our-polarized-politics-voters-blame-it-who-runs-office-first-place/?utm_term=.798e1484082a>:

In his new book, “Who Wants to Run?<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022660957X?ie=UTF8&tag=thewaspos09-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=022660957X>” Stanford University political scientist Andrew Hall<http://andrewbenjaminhall.com/> investigates a familiar question — why Congress is so polarized<https://www.voteview.com/articles/party_polarization> — but comes to a less familiar answer. He writes, “Most legislative polarization is already baked into the set of people who run for office.” To understand more, I asked him some questions via email. Here is a lightly edited transcript of our exchange.

John Sides: I was struck by this statistic early in the book: Even if voters had picked the most moderate candidate in every U.S. House election between 1980 and 2014, 80 percent of the polarization between Democratic and Republican members would have occurred anyway. Why is that important to know?

Andrew Hall: The point of that 80 percent statistic — which is based on an analysis that Adam Bonica<https://web.stanford.edu/~bonica/> first developed — is that there just aren’t a lot of moderate choices for House voters. If we want to understand where polarization is coming from, we have to understand why so few moderate people run for office.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104642&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20blame%20our%20polarized%20politics%20on%20voters.%20Blame%20it%20on%20who%20runs%20for%20office%20in%20the%20first%20place.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Ex-Obama Counsel Expects to Be Charged Soon in Mueller-Related Case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104640>
Posted on April 11, 2019 7:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104640> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/politics/ex-obama-counsel-expects-to-be-charged-soon-in-mueller-related-case.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur>:

Lawyers for Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, expect him to be indicted in the coming days on charges related to his work for the Russia-aligned government of Ukraine.

The case against Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/politics/foreign-lobbying-gregory-craig-manafort.html?module=inline> initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III….

he case against Mr. Craig is related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which the Justice Department is prioritizing<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/fara-task-force-justice-department.html?module=inline> in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

The law requires Americans to disclose detailed information about lobbying and public relations work for foreign governments and politicians, and it has been the basis for charges<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/us/politics/patten-fara-manafort.html?module=inline> brought against several people<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html?module=inline> investigated by the special counsel.

Mr. Craig’s lawyers do not necessarily expect him to be charged with violating the act.

Rather, they expect him to be charged with making false statements to the Justice Department officials examining whether he was required to register under the law for work he did in 2012, while he was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104640&title=%E2%80%9CEx-Obama%20Counsel%20Expects%20to%20Be%20Charged%20Soon%20in%20Mueller-Related%20Case%E2%80%9D>

Posted in lobbying<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

“Broad cross-partisan coalition urges presidential candidates to disclose their big-money campaign fundraisers”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104638>
Posted on April 11, 2019 7:05 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104638> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Issue One:<https://www.issueone.org/broad-cross-partisan-coalition-urges-presidential-candidates-to-disclose-their-big-money-campaign-fundraisers/>

Issue One<https://www.issueone.org/> was joined today by 15 other organizations from across the ideological spectrum in urging<https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Letterhead-Copy-of-Bundler-Letter.pdf> all Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to publicly disclose information about their campaign top fundraisers on a regular basis during the 2020 presidential election.

Presidential candidates have long utilized individuals known as “bundlers” to help them raise the funds necessary to wage competitive campaigns, and it has long been a bipartisan tradition for candidates to voluntarily disclose information about their campaign bundlers. This transparency practice has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, including President George W. Bush<http://info.tpj.org/pioneers/pioneers04/who_all.html>, President Barack Obama<https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638>, Senator John McCain<https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00006424>, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton<https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/bundlers>. (President Donald Trump broke with tradition and did not release<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-refuses-to-disclose-his-bundlers-what-is-he-hiding/2016/08/12/dcad6d4e-6012-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html?utm_term=.4e06b3ec561a> a list of his campaign bundlers in 2016.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104638&title=%E2%80%9CBroad%20cross-partisan%20coalition%20urges%20presidential%20candidates%20to%20disclose%20their%20big-money%20campaign%20fundraisers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

Douglas: Vote for US – The Organizations<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104604>
Posted on April 11, 2019 7:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104604> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is the third of three guest posts<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104599> by University of Kentucky Law Professor Josh Douglas <http://law.uky.edu/directory/joshua-a-douglas> about his new book, Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting:<https://www.amazon.com/Vote-US-Elections-Change-Future/dp/1633885100/>

In my previous posts about my new book, Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting<https://www.amazon.com/Vote-US-Elections-Change-Future/dp/1633885100/>, I discussed some of the Democracy Champions working on positive election reforms and highlighted some of the reforms themselves. The third piece of the puzzle is the incredible local, state, and national organizations focused on these issues.

The book tells the stories of lots of great groups and the work they are doing to reach voters in their communities. Perhaps my favorite story is from the Texas affiliate of Mi Familia Vota. That organization went to taco trucks in heavily-Latino areas of Houston to give them voter registration forms to hand out to their customers. On the voter registration deadline, taco truck owners were calling Mi Familia Vota to ask for more forms, as so many people wanted to register to vote. Organizations like these actively work in local communities to reach voters where they are.

I also tell the stories of two amazing organizations, VoteRiders and Spread the Vote, that focus on voter mobilization and issues of voter ID, each with their own strategy and reach. Their models rely on local volunteers, who often help to secure the necessary underlying documentation that a voter may need and offer rides to the DMV to obtain an ID. As Spread the Vote notes, having an ID is helpful for everyday life, not just Election Day.

These are just a few examples. Great organizations exist in all 50 states. The Appendix lists groups in every state, as well as national organizations, dedicated to voting rights, election reform, and campaign finance. No matter your state, you can flip to the back of the book and find a couple of organizations that focus on voting rights and election reform. Give one of them a call.

This is, I hope, a different book. Although I spent considerable time doing research, the focus goes beyond an academic audience. I hope that everyday Americans will read the book and feel inspired about what is possible. We need not suffer from the doom-and-gloom that most people think invades our voting rights discourse. We can promote positive reforms that will truly improve our election system. We can achieve much higher turnout and much less apathy about our democracy. All of us can help to take back our elections and change the future of voting.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104604&title=Douglas%3A%20Vote%20for%20US%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Organizations>
Posted in voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>

“DHS, FBI say election systems in all 50 states were targeted in 2016”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104636>
Posted on April 10, 2019 1:53 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104636> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ARS Technica<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/dhs-fbi-say-election-systems-in-50-states-were-targeted-in-2016/>:

joint intelligence bulletin (JIB) has been issued by the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation to state and local authorities regarding Russian hacking activities during the 2016 presidential election. While the bulletin contains no new technical information, it is the first official report to confirm that the Russian reconnaissance and hacking efforts in advance of the election went well beyond the 21 states confirmed in previous reports.

As reported by the intelligence newsletter OODA Loop<https://www.oodaloop.com/archive/2019/03/29/dhs-fbi-report-that-election-infrastructure-in-all-50-states-targeted-during-2016/>, the JIB stated that, while the FBI and DHS “previously observed suspicious or malicious cyber activity against government networks in 21 states that we assessed was a Russian campaign seeking vulnerabilities and access to election infrastructure,” new information obtained by the agencies “indicates that Russian government cyber actors engaged in research on—as well as direct visits to—election websites and networks in the majority of US states.” While not providing specific details, the bulletin continued, “The FBI and DHS assess that Russian government cyber actors probably conducted research and reconnaissance against all US states’ election networks leading up to the 2016 Presidential elections.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104636&title=%E2%80%9CDHS%2C%20FBI%20say%20election%20systems%20in%20all%2050%20states%20were%20targeted%20in%202016%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“PR Firm Behind Likud’s Hidden Cameras in Arab Polling Sites Boasts of Lowering Voter Turnout”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104634>
Posted on April 10, 2019 1:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104634> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Haaretz<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-pr-firm-behind-likud-s-hidden-cameras-in-arab-poll-sites-boasts-of-lowering-turnout-1.7108972>:

An Israeli public relations company headed by a settler leader boasted Wednesday that it was behind the Likud initiative to place 1,200 hidden cameras in Arab polling stations on Election Day.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104634&title=%E2%80%9CPR%20Firm%20Behind%20Likud%E2%80%99s%20Hidden%20Cameras%20in%20Arab%20Polling%20Sites%20Boasts%20of%20Lowering%20Voter%20Turnout%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Third Circuit Strikes Down Delaware Rule Requiring Judicial Candidates to Be Member of Republican or Democratic Parties<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104631>
Posted on April 10, 2019 11:15 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104631> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Opinion <https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181045ppan.pdf> in Adams v. Delaware:

James R. Adams is a resident and member of the State
Bar of Delaware. For some time, he has expressed a desire to
be considered for a judicial position in that state. Following
the announcement of several judicial vacancies, Adams
considered applying but ultimately chose not to because the
announcement required that the candidate be a Republican.

Because Adams was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, he
concluded that any application he submitted would be futile.
Adams brings this suit against the Governor of the State
of Delaware to challenge the provision of the Delaware
Constitution that effectively limits service on state courts to
members of the Democratic and Republican parties. Adams
claims that under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Elrod v.
Burns and Branti v. Finkel, a provision that limits a judicial
candidate’s freedom to associate (or not to associate) with the
political party of his or her choice is unconstitutional. The
Governor argues that because judges are policymakers, there
are no constitutional restraints on his hiring decisions and he
should be free to choose candidates based on whether they
belong to one of the two major political parties in Delaware—
that is, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We
disagree and conclude that judges are not policymakers
because whatever decisions judges make in any given case
relates to the case under review and not to partisan political
interests. We therefore conclude that the portions of
Delaware’s constitution that limit Adams’s ability to apply for
a judicial position while associating with the political party of
his choice violate his First Amendment rights, and we will
accordingly affirm in part and reverse in part the District
Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Adams.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104631&title=Third%20Circuit%20Strikes%20Down%20Delaware%20Rule%20Requiring%20Judicial%20Candidates%20to%20Be%20Member%20of%20Republican%20or%20Democratic%20Parties>
Posted in judicial elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>

“John Roberts: Boy the the Bubble”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104629>
Posted on April 10, 2019 7:43 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104629> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Stephanie Mencimer reviews<https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019/john-roberts-boy-in-the-bubble/> Joan Biskiupic’s fantastic new book on John Roberts, The Chief. The review focuses on Roberts and race, and discusses the Crawford voter id decision and the Shelby County voting rights case. A good read.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104629&title=%E2%80%9CJohn%20Roberts%3A%20Boy%20the%20the%20Bubble%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_42075518]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190411/dfc449b0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2022 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190411/dfc449b0/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25208 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190411/dfc449b0/attachment-0001.png>