[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/17/19

Tue Dec 17 08:27:43 PST 2019

“Right-Wing PAC Loses Challenge to Illinois Campaign-Finance Ban”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108451>
Posted on December 17, 2019 8:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108451> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Courthouse News Service:<https://www.courthousenews.com/right-wing-pac-loses-challenge-to-illinois-campaign-finance-ban/>

The Seventh Circuit on Monday rejected<http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/liberty-pac.pdf> a conservative PAC’s challenge to an Illinois law banning direct campaign contributions by independent expenditure committees, citing the need to curb corruption.

The Illinois Liberty PAC is an independent expenditure committee founded by Dan Proft, a conservative radio talk-show host and former Republican candidate for governor.

Under state law, an independent expenditure committee is a type of political action committee that may raise unlimited funds but it is prohibited from contributing any of that money directly to a candidate, party or another PAC.

Taking its fight to court, Illinois Liberty claimed<https://www.courthousenews.com/campaign-finance-2/> this blanket prohibition violates the First Amendment because there are instances where the Illinois code lifts contribution caps for other entities and individuals. For example, if a candidate self-funds their campaign to the tune of $250,000 or more, the state election code waives contribution limits for all candidates in that race.

In these circumstances, Illinois Liberty PAC claims it should also be allowed to contribute unlimited money directly to candidates.

But a federal judge rejected this line of reasoning, and a panel of Republican-appointed Seventh Circuit judges affirmed Monday.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108451&title=%E2%80%9CRight-Wing%20PAC%20Loses%20Challenge%20to%20Illinois%20Campaign-Finance%20Ban%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Midland County officials just found a missing ballot box. It may change the result of a $569 million bond election.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108449>
Posted on December 17, 2019 8:15 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108449> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Tribune:<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/16/missing-midland-texas-ballot-box-could-throw-bond-election-question/>

A proposal for a $569 million bond to build two new high school buildings in Midland failed by 25 votes in the November election, a margin slim enough it set off calls for a recount.

The ballots were recounted manually, and to the delight of Midland ISD officials, the results flipped and the proposal passed by a margin of 11 votes.

But last week, a Midland elections staffer found a box on the bottom of a shelf in the office containing 836 ballots that weren’t tallied in the recount. Those votes threaten to again reverse the election results, which school officials are counting on to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for school construction.

The elections office obtained a court order to open the ballot box on Monday morning, when staffers began to count up the missing votes.

The first and unofficial vote tally on Nov. 5, which used the electronic ballots, took the missing ballots into account. The paper ballots are a physical copy of how constituents voted on the electronic system. The paper ballots came into play during the manual recount, which was missing the more than 800 ballots, making the recount number inaccurate.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108449&title=%E2%80%9CMidland%20County%20officials%20just%20found%20a%20missing%20ballot%20box.%20It%20may%20change%20the%20result%20of%20a%20%24569%20million%20bond%20election.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Russian disinformation network said to have helped spread smear of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108447>
Posted on December 17, 2019 8:13 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108447> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/17/russian-disinformation-network-said-have-helped-spread-smear-us-ambassador-ukraine/>:

The story that appeared on The Hill website on March 20 was startling.

Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, had given a “list of people whom we should not prosecute” to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according to a write-up of an interview Lutsenko gave to the conservative columnist John Solomon.

Five days later, an image of that purported list appeared in a post on the website Medium and on a number of other self-publishing platforms in locations as disparate as Germany, South Africa and San Francisco. In less than a week, the Medium essay had been translated into Spanish and German and posted to other websites.

Now, a social media analysis firm, Graphika<https://graphika.com/>, has traced those posts to a Russian disinformation campaign — in the first evidence that a network of accounts involved in spreading disinformation before the 2016 election also participated in circulating the false claims about Yovanovitch that led earlier this year to her recall from the U.S. embassy in Kyiv.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108447&title=%E2%80%9CRussian%20disinformation%20network%20said%20to%20have%20helped%20spread%20smear%20of%20U.S.%20ambassador%20to%20Ukraine%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

“How Partisan Gerrymandering Prevents Legislative Action on Gun Violence”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108445>
Posted on December 17, 2019 8:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108445> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CAP report.<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/17/478718/partisan-gerrymandering-prevents-legislative-action-gun-violence/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108445&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Prevents%20Legislative%20Action%20on%20Gun%20Violence%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

Interview with Me on the State of American Democracy, from the Producers of the Documentary “Rigged: The Voter Suppression Handbook”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108443>
Posted on December 17, 2019 8:09 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108443> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can watch here<https://vimeo.com/377118923>:
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108443&title=Interview%20with%20Me%20on%20the%20State%20of%20American%20Democracy%2C%20from%20the%20Producers%20of%20the%20Documentary%20%E2%80%9CRigged%3A%20The%20Voter%20Suppression%20Handbook%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

New Cert. Petition Challenges Montana’s Rules for Regulating Political Committees That Avoid Express Advocacy<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108441>
Posted on December 16, 2019 8:24 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108441> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read the cert. petition <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-767/125342/20191212143100866_NAGR%20Petition.pdf> in National Association for Gun Rights v. Mangan.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108441&title=New%20Cert.%20Petition%20Challenges%20Montana%E2%80%99s%20Rules%20for%20Regulating%20Political%20Committees%20That%20Avoid%20Express%20Advocacy>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“A black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan to ‘protect white voters’”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108439>
Posted on December 16, 2019 1:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108439> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Guardian:<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/16/north-carolina-felony-vote-law-black-woman>

Bratcher faces up to 19 months in prison because she did not realize she had actually been stripped of the right to vote. Her lawyer says she’s being punished based on a Jim Crow-era law that was intended to disenfranchise African Americans.

Bratcher was on probation after being convicted of assault and North Carolina law mandates that people convicted of felonies can only vote once they complete their criminal sentences, including probation and parole, entirely.

Documents obtained<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZlP2BFb7kg-Q0mfMZQlRtNb_EWXFW3N/view?usp=sharing> by the Guardian show that a prosecutor brought charges against Bratcher even though state officials said she may have illegally voted unintentionally. The decision also came after a report<https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/Post-Election%20Audit%20Report_2016%20General%20Election/Post-Election_Audit_Report.pdf> in which state officials recognized there were serious problems in the system in place to inform convicted felons of their voting rights.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108439&title=%E2%80%9CA%20black%20woman%20faces%20prison%20because%20of%20a%20Jim%20Crow-era%20plan%20to%20%E2%80%98protect%20white%20voters%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
Posted in felon voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>

“U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear California Ballot Access Case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108437>
Posted on December 16, 2019 12:57 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108437> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BAN reports.<http://ballot-access.org/2019/12/16/u-s-supreme-court-wont-hear-california-ballot-access-case/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108437&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Hear%20California%20Ballot%20Access%20Case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in ballot access<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>

“$425M allocated for election security in government funding deal”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108435>
Posted on December 16, 2019 12:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108435> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Hill:<https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/474739-425m-allocated-for-election-security-in-government-funding-deal>

The spending deal agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators includes $425 million for states to improve their election security, two congressional source confirmed to The Hill on Monday.

According to the sources, the appropriations deal, set to be made public later Monday, will also include a requirement for states to match 20 percent of the federal funds, meaning the eventual amount given to election officials to improve election security would reach $510 million.

The federal funds set to be given to states through the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) represent a compromise between the amounts separately offered by the House and Senate earlier this year for election security purposes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108435&title=%E2%80%9C%24425M%20allocated%20for%20election%20security%20in%20government%20funding%20deal%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

“Jim Crow As Kafka: Voter Suppression on the Ground”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108433>
Posted on December 16, 2019 10:54 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108433> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jonathan Zasloff has posted this paper<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3498498&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_u.s.:constitutional:law:rights:liberties:ejournal_abstractlink> on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Requiring photo identification before voting has generated fiercely contested litigation and scholarly literature. This Article attempts to move the debate forward by examining how precisely Voter ID works on the ground. It investigates the precise mechanics of Voter ID in North Carolina, one of the states at the heart of the controversy, and scrutinizes precisely how a low-income voter of color without ID could obtain one. It finds not only that prospective low-income votes will face a series of debilitating costs in gaining the required ID, but that the mechanism of voter suppression turns on the creation of chaos and the transformation of a voter from a rights-holder into a bureaucratic supplicant.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108433&title=%E2%80%9CJim%20Crow%20As%20Kafka%3A%20Voter%20Suppression%20on%20the%20Ground%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>

“Constitutional Law and the Presidential Nomination Process”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108431>
Posted on December 16, 2019 10:50 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=108431> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Richard Briffault has posted this draft<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3499733&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_u.s.:constitutional:law:separation:of:powers:federalism:ejournal_abstractlink> on SSRN (forthcoming, The Best Candidate: Presidential Nomination in Polarized Times (Eugene D. Mazo and Michael R. Dimino, eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2020)). Here is the abstract:

The Constitution says nothing about the presidential nominating process and has had little direct role in its evolution from congressional caucuses to party national conventions to our current primary-dominated system. Yet, constitutional law is a factor in empowering and constraining the principal actors in the nomination process and in shaping the framework for potential future changes.

The constitutional law of the presidential nomination process operates along two axes: government-party, and state-national. The government-party dimension focuses on the tension between the states and the federal government in writing the rules for and administering the electoral process – which may include the primary elections that determine the nominees of the political parties – and the right of the parties to determine how to pick their nominees. Doctrinally, this involves Supreme Court’s efforts to reconcile the power of the states to write the rules for state-run elections, including the primary elections that decide party nominations, with the freedom of political association guaranteed to the parties under the First Amendment.

This government-party axis affects all nominations for state and federal office. Presidential nominations, however, are distinct. For most elections, federal as well as state, most of the rules are determined by state law. But presidential nominations involve a national-level party decision for a nation-wide office. As a result, national party rules and federal laws factor into shaping the nomination process and add the possibility of conflicts between national- and state-level rules to the more common government-party tensions. Key Supreme Court rulings have held that national party rules and the decisions of the national party conventions take precedence over conflicting state laws and state party decisions. To date, Congress has played a minimal role in this area, and its authority to regulate the nomination process has been contested, but its powers need to be understood if Congress is to be involved in reforming this process.

The chapter concludes by suggesting that although the multiplicity of constitutionally-empowered actors may be – and has been – a source of conflict and complexity in the presidential nomination process, it may also be a strength. By permitting so many avenues for change, the constitutional framework creates multiple openings for reform.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D108431&title=%E2%80%9CConstitutional%20Law%20and%20the%20Presidential%20Nomination%20Process%E2%80%9D>
Posted in political parties<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>

--
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/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20191217/17145e71/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/20191217/17145e71/attachment.png>