[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/17/19

[Rick Hasen]

“Tennessee Advances Bill That Could Make It Harder to Register New Voters”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104714>
Posted on April 17, 2019 7:03 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104714> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/tennessee-voter-registration.html>:

Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill through the state House on Monday that would fine community groups that submit incomplete voter-registration applications, an unusual move that the bill’s opponents have denounced as voter suppression.

Protesters swarmed the State Capitol<https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/15/tennessee-bill-critics-criminalize-incomplete-voter-registration-efforts-tre-hargett/3478903002/> to speak out against the Republican-backed bill, which has drawn condemnation from voting rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers<https://cooper.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/cooper-slams-state-voter-registration-bill>, who say it would discriminate against minority voters in a state where overall turnout is already abysmal.

“It’s clearly intended to have a chilling effect on voting efforts across Tennessee,” John Ray Clemmons, a Democratic state representative, said of the bill.

Tens of thousands of new black and Latino voters were registered in Tennessee in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, but thousands of applications in Shelby County were disqualified by state election officials for what critics say were frivolous reasons. Republicans have cited the dispute as rationale for passing the legislation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104714&title=%E2%80%9CTennessee%20Advances%20Bill%20That%20Could%20Make%20It%20Harder%20to%20Register%20New%20Voters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Texas Senate Passes Bill That Could Send Texans To Jail For Voting Crimes”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104712>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104712> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Public Radio<https://www.tpr.org/post/texas-senate-passes-bill-could-send-texans-jail-voting-crimes>:

The state Senate passed legislation Monday that increases criminal penalties for election-related crimes in Texas. Voting rights groups have said they worry the bill could criminalize honest mistakes<https://www.kut.org/post/voters-who-make-mistakes-could-wind-jail-under-sweeping-voting-bill-advocates-say>, among other things.

Supporters say the sweeping election bill is aimed at cracking down on voter fraud. It is on Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s list of priority legislation the session.

Among other things, Senate Bill 9 increases criminal penalties for anyone who provides false information on a voter registration form. Currently, providing false information on an application is a Class B misdemeanor. Under the bill, it would become a “state jail felony.”

The legislation also increases criminal penalties for casting a ballot – including a provisional ballot – if you aren’t eligible to vote. Provisional ballots were created under federal law to allow people to vote if they aren’t sure they can; the votes are counted only if election officials can prove a voter is eligible. Groups say the bill could undermine these protections.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104712&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Senate%20Passes%20Bill%20That%20Could%20Send%20Texans%20To%20Jail%20For%20Voting%20Crimes%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“The footnote in Barr’s Mueller report letter we need to pay attention to”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104710>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:54 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104710> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Larry Noble<https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/opinions/mueller-report-legal-definition-coordination-noble/index.html> for CNN Opinion:

Since there are only two footnotes in the letter and this is the only substantive footnote, one can assume Barr thinks the legal definition of “coordination” used is significant. He is right.

The question of whether the Trump campaign interacted with the Russians as they interfered in the 2016 election, and whether that interaction is illegal, is often framed in terms of whether there was “collusion” between the campaign and the Russians. However, “collusion” is not a term of art and has no specific legal meaning in this case. In fact, the word “collusion” never appears in Barr’s letter.

Rather, Barr quotes Mueller as looking at whether the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.” The question of whether the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russia is central to the question of whether the campaign violated campaign finance law, which prohibits foreign nationals from making political contributions and candidates from accepting such contributions. A contribution is defined as “anything of value” and can include giving money to the campaign or spending money to support a candidate’s election in coordination with the campaign. The latter is called an “in-kind” contribution.

Therefore, if the Trump campaign “coordinated” with the Russians in their efforts to help get him elected, the Russians made, and the Trump campaign accepted, a prohibited in-kind contribution from a foreign national<https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/>. If they did so knowingly and willfully, it is a criminal violation.
The FEC’s current regulation, 11 CFR § 109.20(a)<https://www.fec.gov/regulations/109-20/2018-annual-109>, provides: “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or a political party committee.” Coordination can result if a “communication is created, produced, or distributed after one or more substantial discussions” between the campaign and the person paying for the communication, regardless of whether there was any “agreement” about the communication.

The FEC did not reach this definition lightly. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002<https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2356>ordered the FEC to rewrite its coordination rules and explicitly stated: “The regulations shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.” The reason for this was clear and easily explained by the Supreme Court when, in 2003, it upheld this congressional directive in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. According to the court<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf>, “expenditures made after a wink or nod often will be as useful to the candidate as cash.” As the court further explained, “[a] supporter easily could comply with a candidate’s request or suggestion without first agreeing to do so, and the resulting expenditure would be virtually indistinguishable from [a] simple contribution. …”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104710&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20footnote%20in%20Barr%E2%80%99s%20Mueller%20report%20letter%20we%20need%20to%20pay%20attention%20to%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Why Democrats are Falling All Over Themselves to Find Small-Dollar Donors<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104708>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:50 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104708> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Carrie Levine<https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/elections/democrats-small-dollar-donors-president-campaign/> for CPI/538:

But the time and energy going into cultivating a grassroots donor base early in the election cycle also carries clear benefits for the party and its eventual nominee — namely, a potentially massive pool of proven donors who could be tapped again in the general election.

Presidential candidates have, of course, achieved varying degrees of success in their attempts to court small dollars. Topping the list: Sanders, who raised 84 percent of his new money from donors giving $200 or less. Compare that to former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper<https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/elections/presidential-profiles-2020/john-hickenlooper-campaign-2020-election/>, who raised 10 percent of his cash from small donors.

More than half the money that 14 Democratic candidates for president raised from individual donors during the first quarter of 2019 came from donors giving a total of $200 or less. That compares to less than a third among a smaller Democratic field of primary candidates in early 2015.

The Democratic National Committee’s decision to use grassroots fundraising as one of two ways to earn a spot in the first two primary debates — candidates must demonstrate their campaigns have received contributions from at least 65,000 unique donors and a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 states — was “a new wrinkle which elevates small dollars,” said David Karpf, a professor at George Washington University who studies politics and digital strategy.

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104708&title=Why%20Democrats%20are%20Falling%20All%20Over%20Themselves%20to%20Find%20Small-Dollar%20Donors>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Trial date set for law that requires voters provide proof of NH residency”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104706>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:45 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104706> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The New Hampshire Union Leader reports<https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/trial-date-set-for-law-that-requires-voters-provide-proof/article_ad8342d4-d096-523b-8c39-e36585f3a116.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104706&title=%E2%80%9CTrial%20date%20set%20for%20law%20that%20requires%20voters%20provide%20proof%20of%20NH%20residency%E2%80%9D>
Posted in residency<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Congratulations to Election Law Prof Nate Persily<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104704>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104704> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Elected<https://www.amacad.org/newly-elected-members> to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

So well deserved.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104704&title=Congratulations%20to%20Election%20Law%20Prof%20Nate%20Persily>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


Post-Kobach Kansas Making It Easier for Some Voters to Register to Vote<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104702>
Posted on April 17, 2019 6:41 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104702> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wichita Eagle<https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article229313664.html>:

Sedgwick County residents will now have the option to vote at any polling place on Election Day.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly this week signed into law Senate Bill 130, which gives counties the option to let voters cast ballots at any polling place in the county — not just the one they’re been assigned.

“This law is about local control and protecting every vote,” Kelly said in a statement. “I applaud all of the local and state officials who worked together to make this law a reality, especially those in Sedgwick County who were the driving force behind it.”

The proposal had the backing<https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article229189849.html> of Sedgwick County and Election Commissioner Tabitha Lehman and Wichita Democratic Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104702&title=Post-Kobach%20Kansas%20Making%20It%20Easier%20for%20Some%20Voters%20to%20Register%20to%20Vote>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


Susquehanna County, Pa Again Leaves Candidate Off the Ballot, This Time Republican Running in Congressional Election<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104698>
Posted on April 16, 2019 7:37 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104698> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here is the ballot<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Susquehanna-ballot.pdf>, for the PA 12th congressional district special election<https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania%27s_12th_Congressional_District_special_election,_2019>, leaving off the name of Republican Fred Keller.

Flashback to 2016,<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=86693> same county:

I’ve just received what I’ve been told is a copy of the overseas ballot sent by Susquehanna County, PA.
Gary Johnson is omitted, the Constitution Party candidates are listed as being from the Conservative Party, and it has the wrong VP for the Green Party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104698&title=Susquehanna%20County%2C%20Pa%20Again%20Leaves%20Candidate%20Off%20the%20Ballot%2C%20This%20Time%20Republican%20Running%20in%20Congressional%20Election>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


--
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_2057403867]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190417/b61314a9/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/20190417/b61314a9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190417/b61314a9/attachment-0001.png>