[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/26/19

[Rick Hasen]

New Hampshire: “Bills that reverse GOP election law changes headed to House floor”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104874>
Posted on April 25, 2019 8:22 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104874> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Union Leader<https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/state/bills-that-reverse-gop-election-law-changes-headed-to-house/article_2c68115a-ca69-56fe-a4ce-71b79258b5aa.html>:

The Democratically controlled state legislature advanced its efforts to repeal election-related laws passed by Republicans in 2017 and 2018 with several key votes by the House Election Law Committee on Thursday.

In a party line, 12-8 vote, the House committee endorsed a Senate-passed bill (SB 67) regarding residency and domicile for purposes of voting.
The change would restore the law to wording that existed prior to 2018, making it more likely that out-of-state college students would choose to vote in New Hampshire.

Also in a party line vote, the committee endorsed a Senate-passed bill (SB 68) allowing the release of detailed information from the state’s voter database by court-order.

Democrats and other plaintiffs are suing the state to block implementation of a new law regarding procedures for voter registration, SB 3. They sought information from the voter database to make their case, and last year Republicans passed a bill specifically precluding the release of voter information under those circumstances.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104874&title=New%20Hampshire%3A%20%E2%80%9CBills%20that%20reverse%20GOP%20election%20law%20changes%20headed%20to%20House%20floor%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Eric Holder: The Supreme Court can’t allow Trump to weaponize the census”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104872>
Posted on April 25, 2019 8:15 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104872> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo oped<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-holder-the-supreme-court-cant-allow-trump-to-weaponize-the-census/2019/04/25/d8f18f38-6770-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.45387225d263>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104872&title=%E2%80%9CEric%20Holder%3A%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20can%E2%80%99t%20allow%20Trump%20to%20weaponize%20the%20census%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“The Trump Campaign Conspired With the Russians. Mueller Proved It.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104870>
Posted on April 25, 2019 4:34 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104870> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jed Shugerman NYT oped<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur>:

Even without knowing what is redacted, the report offers “substantial and credible information” of the Trump campaign conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government. Under federal criminal law<https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf>, “conspiracy” does not require direct proof or explicit words of agreement. It can be proven by action and circumstantial evidence from which the agreement may be inferred. And on campaign “coordination,” the Mueller report made a significant omission or oversight on this question when it stated that “‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express.”

As the election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan noted, Congress in its 2002 campaign finance law rejected that view: Federal law “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.”

The federal regulations followed<https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/109.20> this command: “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,” with no need to show any kind of agreement. Expenditures for coordinated communications are considered in-kind contributions, and foreign contributions — public or private — are illegal. In fact, the Federal Election Commission is reviewing a complaint<https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FSFP-FEC-Complaint-re-Russia-Trump-WEB.pdf> along these lines.

The report states that Rick Gates, a campaign deputy, suspected that Mr. Manafort’s Russian associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, was a “spy,” a view that he shared with Mr. Manafort (and others). For months, Mr. Manafort informed Mr. Kilimnik about the campaign through internal polling data, even pointing out that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota were target states. The Mueller report did not conclude their motives were criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance in context, the motives were clearly campaign related and likely a coordination with Russia.

Despite being heavily redacted, the report seems to add context to Roger Stone’s indictment, implicitly suggesting that Mr. Trump may have directed officials to contact Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, and may have been in contact with Mr. Stone about WikiLeaks. It may not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew WikiLeaks was an extension of Russian hacking and a Russian campaign, but it is more likely than not a kind of indirect coordination with a foreign government prohibited by law. And Donald Trump Jr.’s continuing contacts<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/563996442/donald-trump-jr-had-direct-contact-with-wikileaks-during-campaign> with WikiLeaks in September and October 2016, long after the Trump Tower meeting and the July events made its connection to a Russian campaign clear, also were likely a coordination, even if not knowingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104870&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Trump%20Campaign%20Conspired%20With%20the%20Russians.%20Mueller%20Proved%20It.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“The Roberts Court Is Considering the Legal Reasoning of Jim Crow to Uphold a Rigged Census”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104868>
Posted on April 25, 2019 1:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104868> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eric Muller in Slate<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/john-roberts-supreme-court-census-jim-crow-muslim-ban.html>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104868&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Roberts%20Court%20Is%20Considering%20the%20Legal%20Reasoning%20of%20Jim%20Crow%20to%20Uphold%20a%20Rigged%20Census%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


Florida: “Amendment 4 requires addressing the criminalization of poverty”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104866>
Posted on April 25, 2019 1:29 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104866> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Morse oped<https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-amendment-4-florida-passage-20190424-story.html>:

The Republican-dominated Legislature has tried to hang Amendment 4 by its own advocate’s words. When the campaign went before the state supreme court<https://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/transcript/pdfs/16-1785_16-1981.pdf> to qualify for the ballot, it explained to the seven justices that “completion of sentence” meant that the payment of fines and fees were also required to vote. The campaign has since called that concession a mistake. Regardless, the amendment’s general language offers a cautionary tale about how the many metastasizing consequences of the carceral state can complicate well-intentioned efforts at reform.

Although a fragmented criminal justice system has made data collection difficult, my previous research<https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/morse/files/46_jlegalstud_309.pdf> using court records in Alabama found that the typical ex-felon faced a staggering bill of about $4,000 in fines and fees. Perhaps recognizing the potential impact, the ACLU of Florida, which helped draft Amendment 4, has tried to offer a saving construction<https://www.aclufl.org/en/node/2961#FAQs> to the legislature. They have suggested that “fees not specifically identified as part of a sentence . . . are therefore not necessary for ‘completion of sentence’ and thus, do not need to be paid before an individual may register.”

This would likely help address some onerous and unnecessary fees, such as those collected as part of a court payment plan. But the problem is much deeper, because the legislature has enacted a litany of statutory fees that are mandatorily imposed by the judge at sentencing, such as $100 for the “cost of prosecution,” $50 for a “public defender application fee,” $225 for “additional court costs,” and at least $100 more for various “crime prevention,” “crime compensation,” and “crime stoppers” funds.

See also this thread:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/523497434874257408/EElofiMG_bigger.jpeg]<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse>
<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse>
Michael Morse at MichaelLMorse<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse>

<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse/status/1121462924076298240>


My 1st thread: I'm writing my dissertation on #Amendment4<https://twitter.com/hashtag/Amendment4?src=hash>. I started last Nov, after the campaign's historic victory. Today, I wrote an oped about how to save it. A4 tackled disenfranchisement, but its implementation is about the criminalization of poverty https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-amendment-4-florida-passage-20190424-story.html …<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1121462924076298240>
63<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1121462924076298240>
10:16 AM - Apr 25, 2019<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse/status/1121462924076298240>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1121461997609148418/pGsYh4e9?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>
Amendment 4 requires addressing the criminalization of poverty | Opinion<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>

The Legislature should eliminate its reliance on fees and take account of indigency for fines in restoring voting rights to ex-felons. A more robust narrative of redemption should demand this. In...<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>
sun-sentinel.com<https://t.co/O0hCg0mDWH>

<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse/status/1121462924076298240>
32 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/MichaelLMorse/status/1121462924076298240>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104866&title=Florida%3A%20%E2%80%9CAmendment%204%20requires%20addressing%20the%20criminalization%20of%20poverty%E2%80%9D>
Posted in felon voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>


Texas: “Edinburg Mayor Richard Molina charged with orchestrating an illegal voting scheme”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104864>
Posted on April 25, 2019 1:23 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104864> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Tribune<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/25/edinburg-mayor-richard-molina-voter-fraud-arrest-south-texas/>:

Edinburg Mayor Richard Molina has been arrested for voter fraud, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton<https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/> announced Thursday morning, the latest in a string of arrests the state’s election fraud unit has made in connection with what Paxton described as “an organized illegal voting scheme” in the November 2017 municipal election that brought Molina to power.

According to a news release from the attorney general’s office, Molina directed voters to change their addresses to places where they did not live — including an apartment complex owned by Molina — so they could vote for him. Molina, hailed<https://texasscorecard.com/rio-grande-valley/outcome-edinburg-mayoral-upset-may-also-shape-future-rgv/> as an “anti-establishment” outsider, won the election by 1,240 votes, unseating incumbent Mayor Richard Garcia in the South Texas town….

City spokeswoman Cary Zayas said<https://www.themonitor.com/2019/04/25/breaking-edinburg-mayor-wife-surrender-authorities-illegal-voting-charges/> Molina “very adamantly denies any wrongdoing” and added that “the city is supportive of the mayor.”

Molina, who could not immediately be reached for comment, released a Facebook video<https://www.facebook.com/MayorRichardMolina/videos/2123323924553742/> last year dismissing the investigation as politically motivated. The formal voter fraud complaint that sparked the investigation, Molina claimed in the video, was filed by a political enemy who holds a “political vendetta against me.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104864&title=Texas%3A%20%E2%80%9CEdinburg%20Mayor%20Richard%20Molina%20charged%20with%20orchestrating%20an%20illegal%20voting%20scheme%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


Breaking: Unanimous 3-Judge Federal Court Strikes Down 27 Michigan Districts (Some Congressional) as Partisan Gerrymanders<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104860>
Posted on April 25, 2019 12:14 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104860> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the unanimous 146-page decision at this link<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/michigan-gerrymandering.pdf>.

The court embraced both an equal protection theory and a First Amendment theory, the two main theories the Supreme Court is considering in the pending partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.

Here’s a list of which districts are affected and subject to a remedial order if the Michigan legislature does not act (and unless stayed or reversed by the Supreme Court—a stay seems likely pending outcome of the NC/Md cases):

The Court concludes that the following Challenged Districts constitute unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, because they dilute the votes of Democratic voters: Congressional Districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; Senate Districts 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 27, and 36; and House Districts 24, 32, 51, 55, 60, 63, 75, 83, 91, 94, and 95.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Senate Districts 10, 22, and 32, and House Districts 52, 62, 76, and 92 are unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders under a vote dilution theory….

We find that Plaintiffs have proven their First Amendment association claim with respect to every Challenged District. Because Plaintiffs’ First Amendment association claim does not require proving vote-dilution in a given district, Plaintiffs have established that every Challenged
District violates their First Amendment association right, including those Challenged Districts—specifically, Senate Districts 10, 22, and 32, and House Districts 52, 62, 76, and 92—for which Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate unconstitutional vote-dilution.

This post has been updated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104860&title=Breaking%3A%20Unanimous%203-Judge%20Federal%20Court%20Strikes%20Down%2027%20Michigan%20Districts%20(Some%20Congressional)%20as%20Partisan%20Gerrymanders>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


--
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_505393812]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190426/fe3f8b35/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/20190426/fe3f8b35/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190426/fe3f8b35/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 49032 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190426/fe3f8b35/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190426/fe3f8b35/attachment-0001.png>