[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/14/19

Thu Feb 14 09:30:13 PST 2019

More Entries Posted at SCOTUSBlog Symposium on Partisan Gerrymandering Cases<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103617>
Posted on February 14, 2019 9:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103617> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Date

Author

Post Title

02.11.19

Justin Levitt<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/justin-levitt/>

Symposium: Clarity of the record should bring clarity of purpose<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-clarity-of-the-record-should-bring-clarity-of-purpose/>

02.08.19

Tyler Green<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/tyler-green/>

Symposium: 1 First Street, NE, Punxsutawney, PA<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-1-first-street-ne-punxsutawney-pa/>

02.07.19

Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/guy-uriel-e-charles-and-luis-e-fuentes-rohwer/>

Symposium: Precedent dictates a win for the plaintiffs in this term’s partisan-gerrymandering cases<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-precedent-dictates-a-win-for-the-plaintiffs-in-this-terms-partisan-gerrymandering-cases/>

02.07.19

Kaylan Phillips<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/kaylan-l-phillips/>

Symposium: Much ado about partisan gerrymandering<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-much-ado-about-partisan-gerrymandering/>

02.06.19

Daniel Tokaji<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/daniel-tokaji/>

Symposium: How to win the partisan-gerrymandering cases<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-how-to-win-the-partisan-gerrymandering-cases/>

02.05.19

Derek Muller<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/derek-muller/>

Symposium: Why not continue the political struggle in partisan-gerrymandering cases?<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/symposium-why-not-continue-the-political-struggle-in-partisan-gerrymandering-cases/>

02.04.19

Amy Howe<https://www.scotusblog.com/author/amy-howe/>

Justices to tackle partisan gerrymandering … again: In Plain English<https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/justices-to-tackle-partisan-gerrymandering-again-in-plain-english/>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103617&title=More%20Entries%20Posted%20at%20SCOTUSBlog%20Symposium%20on%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Cases>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“ACLU sues to block NH voter fraud law deriding it as a ‘poll tax'”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103615>
Posted on February 14, 2019 9:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103615> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Union Leader<https://www.unionleader.com/news/courts/aclu-sues-to-block-nh-voter-fraud-law-deriding-it/article_c93279c3-babe-59da-903f-d44ad93ae878.html>:

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the state on behalf of two college students who claim a new law that requires a New Hampshire driver’s license to vote violates their constitutional rights and represents a 21st-century “poll tax.”

Caroline Casey is originally from Louisiana and Maggie Flaherty is from California. Both women are sophomores at Dartmouth College who voted in the 2018 primaries and general elections in New Hampshire but maintain driver’s licenses from their home states, according to the lawsuit.

Under HB 1264<http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Results.aspx?q=1&txtbillnumber=hb1264&txtsessionyear=2018>, which was signed into law last year but doesn’t take effect until July, anyone who votes in New Hampshire must obtain an in-state driver’s license and vehicle registration within 60 days of casting their ballot.

“Under this law, I have to pay to change my California license to be a New Hampshire one. If I vote and don’t change my license within 60 days, I could even be charged with a misdemeanor offense with up to one year in jail. Make no mistake — this is meant to deter young people from participating in our elections, and students are an important voting bloc here,” Flaherty said in a statement provided by the ACLU of New Hampshire.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103615&title=%E2%80%9CACLU%20sues%20to%20block%20NH%20voter%20fraud%20law%20deriding%20it%20as%20a%20%E2%80%98poll%20tax%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Texas secretary of state apologizes for how he rolled out voter citizenship review. But he still supports the effort.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103613>
Posted on February 14, 2019 9:03 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103613> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Tribune<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/14/david-whitley-delivered-texas-lawmakers-apology-forcitizenship-review/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1550152293&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter>:

Facing an uncertain path to confirmation<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/06/david-whitley-could-face-tough-confirmation-texas-secretary-state/> after ordering a deeply flawed voter citizenship review that seemingly focused on naturalized citizens, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley is now apologizing to state lawmakers for the way his office bungled its roll out of the review — but he is still holding firm behind the overall effort.

In a letter sent to state lawmakers late Wednesday, Whitley largely defended the review efforts as a legally sound exercise, and he did not admit that his office had erred when it mistakenly threw into question<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/29/texas-voter-citizenship-list-problems-state-tells-counties/> the eligibility of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens or when it sent counties lists of voters they knew very likely included <https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/11/texas-ags-office-said-it-was-investigating-voters-citizenship-review-l/> naturalized citizens.
Instead, Whitley vaguely admitted there were some shortcomings to the data his office used to flag almost 100,000 registered voters for citizenship reviews and noted his office should have devoted more time to “additional communication” with local and state officials to “further eliminate anyone from our original list who is, in fact, eligible to vote.”

“After close consultation with the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), the counties, and members of the Texas Legislature, I have discovered that additional refining of the data my office provides to county voter registrars, both in substance and in timing, is necessary to ensure a more accurate and efficient list maintenance process,” Whitley wrote in the letter obtained by The Texas Tribune.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103613&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20secretary%20of%20state%20apologizes%20for%20how%20he%20rolled%20out%20voter%20citizenship%20review.%20But%20he%20still%20supports%20the%20effort.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Gerrymandering & Justiciability: The Political Question Doctrine After Gill v. Whitford”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103611>
Posted on February 14, 2019 8:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103611> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mike Parsons has posted this draft<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3334370> on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Partisan gerrymandering claims occupy a unique purgatory in constitutional law, floating between justiciable and nonjusticiable. This term, the Supreme Court will finally decide. The issue said to divide the Justices is whether these claims pose a “political question” due to a lack of “judicially manageable” standards. To resolve this, the Court has interrogated numerous gerrymandering standards, questioning whether they can be made administrable or whether they would require the courts to play an inappropriate role in our constitutional scheme.

But the Justices are focused on fixing the wrong set of standards. The problem is not with political gerrymandering claims, but with the political question doctrine itself. No Supreme Court majority has ever found “judicial unmanageability” alone sufficient to render a constitutional claim nonjusticiable under the doctrine. And for good reason: doing so would violate the limits and duties imposed by Article III.

Contrary to Justice Scalia’s characterization in Vieth v. Jubelirer, manageability is not an “independent test” of jurisdiction. It provides no coherent constitutional standard for controlling judicial power. Such an interpretation of the political question doctrine would invite federal courts to opine about abstract questions untethered from actual cases (an arrogation of judicial power) and to refuse jurisdiction over cases for purely discretionary reasons (an abdication of judicial obligations). This should be unacceptable to a Court increasingly disciplined about its jurisdictional jurisprudence and sensitive to its constitutional role.

This Article evaluates the modern political question doctrine, examines its tension with Article III, and recommends that the Court adopt a more limited and precise interpretation of the doctrine. This view of the doctrine reveals the Supreme Court’s debate about partisan gerrymandering claims and the proper role of the federal courts to be a practical (and resolvable) one over constitutional construction rather than a principled (and intractable) one over constitutional meaning. The Article then proposes and explores four paths that the Supreme Court might take this term in Rucho v. Common Cause, and what they mean for the future of partisan gerrymandering claims and the political question doctrine.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103611&title=%E2%80%9CGerrymandering%20%26%20Justiciability%3A%20The%20Political%20Question%20Doctrine%20After%20Gill%20v.%20Whitford%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“BPC Launches 3 New Task Forces to Improve Voting Experience”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103609>
Posted on February 14, 2019 8:57 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103609> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release via email:

The Bipartisan Policy Center today launches three new task forces to develop recommendations that improve the voting experience in three key areas: voter registration, casting a vote, and counting the vote.

“Having the people around the table who are charged with actually administering elections is vital when crafting smart election policy that can be implemented in any jurisdiction,” said Matthew Weil, senior associate director of the Democracy Project at BPC. “As we have seen over and over again, the challenges are many, but we remain optimistic that these bipartisan deliberations will improve the voting experience for all American voters.”

The Task Force on Voter Registration will tackle the need for an accurate and secure list of eligible voters by looking at the entire registration process from start to finish. The primary focus will be to improve the ways voters get on the list, including the availability of registration options, the verification of voter eligibility, and the maintenance of voter rolls to keep lists accurate, which improves election administration.

The Task Force on Casting a Vote will analyze various methods for casting votes in an evolving, modern American voting system. These could include voting by mail, early voting, and vote centers.

The Task Force on Counting the Vote will produce recommendations that serve to ensure a full, transparent, and accurate count within a timeframe the public can understand with confidence. That will include looking at post-election audits, recounts, and certification.

Participants in the three task forces are still being finalized and will include a bipartisan group of local and state election officials as well as election lawyers from across the country.

EARLY PEEK: BPC’s Voting Lines Project will release its results from the 2018 elections in the spring. So far, line data have been received from 3,736 polling places in 108 jurisdictions in 14 states, representing a total of 8.3 million registered voters. Stay tuned.

WATCH<http://elink.clickdimensions.com/c/4/?T=MTE3NDM3Mzc%3AMDItYjE5MDQ1LWMzNTNiNjliYmYwZjRlNGQ4OGY3NTgwMWRmZjRiMTE0%3Acmhhc2VuQGxhdy51Y2kuZWR1%3AY29udGFjdC0yZGQ5Y2VkMjViYThlMjExYjEzYTc4ZTNiNTA4MzRiOC1mOTlmZmY5NjgyNGU0ZDljODAwNGMxMTcwYmI2NmE0Yw%3AZmFsc2U%3AMg%3A%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&K=Smy4gDpUQLfeRHL4arkf-g> today’s event “The Voting Experience: 2018 and the Future”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103609&title=%E2%80%9CBPC%20Launches%203%20New%20Task%20Forces%20to%20Improve%20Voting%20Experience%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Travis Crum: A Lone Star Bail-in?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103606>
Posted on February 14, 2019 8:52 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103606> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from Travis Crum<https://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/crum> [cross-posted at Take Care]:

Last August, the three-judge district court overseeing the Texas redistricting litigation issued<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=100925> a briefing order on whether the State of Texas should be “bailed-in” under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act for its unconstitutional conduct during the 2011 redistricting cycle. Earlier this week, that briefing was finally completed. In a previous series of posts, I argued<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101135> in favor of bailing-in Texas. Building off those posts, here’s the major takeaways from the briefs.

1.         Targeted and Temporally Limited Bail-in Requests: At the outset, there are two sets of plaintiffs’ briefs. All plaintiffs limit their bail-in request to redistricting plans, following the approach of previous targeted bail-ins like New Mexico. The “joint plaintiffs’ brief” filed by nearly all the plaintiffs asks for bail-in to last “no less than five years.” By contrast, the plaintiffs represented by MALDEF (“the MALDEF plaintiffs”) expressly request that bail-in last through 2030. To be sure, a longer bail-in is more vulnerable to challenge, but a twelve-year bail-in is well-within the historical norm and is sensible given Texas’s brazen and discriminatory mid-decade redistricting<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/399/> in the 2000s. This targeted, temporally limited bail-in is statutorily sound, constitutionally appropriate, and strategically prudent.

2.         The United States Now Opposes Bail-in: As Justin Levitt<https://takecareblog.com/blog/the-civil-rights-division-bails-out-of-bail-in-in-texas> has highlighted, the United States changed its position in this litigation and now opposes bail-in. Given the Trump DOJ’s prior actions in the Texas voter ID case<https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/DOJ%20motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf>, this development is not surprising, just disappointing. The DOJ’s brief is a toned-down version of Texas’s argument and invokes an intervening Fifth Circuit decision as an excuse for its about-face. Nevertheless, I expect the Solicitor General to get tough questions<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html> about this reversal if the case reaches the Supreme Court.

3.         The Threshold Arguments against Bail-in: Pointing out that its 2011 redistricting plans were never used for an election, Texas asserts that bail-in cannot be premised on those plans. Although masquerading under different labels like ripeness and mootness, Texas’s argument boils down to a “no harm, no foul” mantra. In a related vein, Texas and the United States invoke the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Veasey v. Abbott<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/vease-opinion.pdf> to argue that the enactment of the 2013 redistricting plans precludes bail-in based on the 2011 plans. Recall<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101137> that in Veasey the Fifth Circuit concluded that bail-in was unwarranted because Texas had passed a less stringent voter ID law.

These threshold arguments are unavailing for four reasons. First, the district court has already rejected Texas’s mootness argument because the plaintiffs can still obtain some relief, namely bail-in. Second, as the joint plaintiffs’ reply brief aptly notes, Texas’s “no harm, no foul” argument would preclude equitable relief whenever a preliminary injunction is granted. Such a result would be absurd. Third, Texas didn’t just sit on its hands in the run-up to the 2012 election. Texas relentlessly sought to use its intentionally discriminatory 2011 redistricting plans. But for the ancien preclearance regime and this ongoing litigation, Texas would have used those plans. Texas, moreover, would have never enacted the 2013 redistricting plans but for this litigation. Texas’s invocation of the VRA’s deterrent effect to preclude bail-in is simply bewildering. Finally and as I argued<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101139> previously, the situation here differs from Veasey because the Fifth Circuit presumed that the revised voter ID law would apply for the foreseeable future whereas Texas must enact new redistricting plans after the 2020 census.

4.         The Statutory Standard for Bail-in: Unsurprisingly, the parties disagree on the appropriate statutory standard for bail-in. The plaintiffs rely on a list of equitable considerations first identified in Jeffers v. Clinton<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7592504423905884776&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>, a 1990 decision bailing-in the State of Arkansas. The Jeffers Court looked to the persistence, frequency, and recency of constitutional violations and whether those violations were likely to recur but for preclearance. On this front, the plaintiffs convincingly canvas Texas’s lengthy and recent history of enacting racially discriminatory redistricting plans and focus on the sheer scale of constitutional violations in the 2011 plans.

For its part, Texas declines to engage with the Jeffers factors. Instead, Texas argues that preclearance is justified only to combat the flagrant gamesmanship of the 1960s. After reading Texas’s brief, one could be forgiven for thinking that the coverage formula was enacted in 1965, upheld in 1966, and then invalidated in 2013. Texas’s narrative, however, skips some important history. Texas seems blissfully unaware that the Court upheld the coverage formula’s 1970 re-authorization in 1973<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/526/>, its 1975 re-authorization in 1980<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/446/156/>, and its 1982 re-authorization in 1999<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/266/>. Blatant defiance of federal court decrees was no longer the norm for these latter reauthorizations, as covered jurisdictions had shifted to more subtle means of disempowering minority voters. Preclearance, therefore, is not contingent on Jim Crow-style gamesmanship.

5.         Constitutional Violations that Qualify for Bail-in: Another flashpoint is what types of constitutional violations count under Section 3(c). Here, all parties agree that Section 3(c) encompasses intentional racial vote dilution, though the severity and frequency of those violations that trigger bail-in is hotly contested.

Most prominently, the parties dispute whether Shaw violations can trigger bail-in. This issue is important because the sole constitutional violation in the 2013 redistricting plans was a Shaw violation. But that Shaw violation occurred because Latino voters were added to a district in response to a complaint made by one of the MALDEF plaintiffs—who now argue that the Shaw violation mandates bail-in. It’s not hard to imagine the Roberts Court viewing a bail-in request based on that fact pattern skeptically.

Preclearance and Shaw, moreover, employ diametrically opposed methods of inquiry. Preclearance injects race into the decision-making process whereas Shaw seeks to root it out. As both Texas and the United States correctly note, these divergent approaches are reflected in the Section 5 regulations, which never authorized objections based on a Shaw violation. The Shaw line of cases and Section 2’s discriminatory-effects test have long been viewed as on a collision course<https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=fss_papers>; Section 3(c) should not be pushed onto the same path.

Another point of contention is whether violations of the one-person, one-vote principle qualify for bail-in. The plaintiffs don’t push this argument too hard, but they strongly imply that these findings are relevant because race often lurks just beneath the surface in those cases. That may well be true, but bail-in should not be premised on malapportionment violations. Indeed, in Blackmoon v. Charles Mix County<https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071090505fsupp2d58511045>, a district judge in South Dakota reasoned that granting Section 3(c) relief based on such violations would be “nonsensical” because it imposed a race-conscious remedy without a predicate finding of intentional racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs also identify the recent bail-in of the City of Pasadena<https://www.texastribune.org/2017/10/03/pasadena-remain-under-federal-oversight-election-laws/>, Texas, as additional evidence favoring bail-in. As the plaintiffs explain, Section 3(c)’s plain text looks to whether the relevant constitutional violations “occurred within the territory of such State.” Given this language, the fact that a jurisdiction within Texas has violated the Fourteenth Amendment is persuasive evidence that the district court should consider in balancing the equities and the likelihood that future constitutional violations will occur, even if Pasadena’s bail-in does not itself require that Texas should also be bailed-in.

Put simply, Texas is a poster child for bail-in. Given the number of times that Texas engaged in intentional racial vote dilution in the 2011 redistricting plans, the district court need not overreach by relying on Shaw and one-person, one-vote violations to justify bail-in. And because any bail-in of Texas will almost certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court, the decision should be bulletproof and not create an easy target for reversal.

6.         No Constitutional Challenge to Bail-in: As I predicted<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101141>, Texas did not raise a facial challenge to Section 3(c). Rather, Texas’s strategy appears to be a redux of Northwest Austin—invoke constitutional-avoidance concerns to implausibly re-write the statute. But as discussed above, Texas’s attempt to limit preclearance to Jim Crow-era gamesmanship is a grave misreading of Section 3(c) and the Court’s precedent

.7.         Looking Ahead: There’s currently no indication on the district court’s docket whether there will be a bail-in hearing, so we don’t have a reliable timeline as to when a decision will be issued. Given this litigation’s history, I expect<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101144> a split decision bailing-in Texas, along with a vociferous dissent from Judge Smith. But at the end of the day, a Lone Star bail-in will almost certainly be resolved by the Supreme Court
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103606&title=Travis%20Crum%3A%20A%20Lone%20Star%20Bail-in%3F>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Trump’s DHS Guts Task Forces Protecting Elections From Foreign Meddling”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103604>
Posted on February 14, 2019 8:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103604> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Daily Beast<https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dhs-guts-task-forces-protecting-elections-from-foreign-meddling>:

Two teams of federal officials assembled to fight foreign election interference are being dramatically downsized, according to three current and former Department of Homeland Security officials. And now, those sources say they fear the department won’t prepare adequately for election threats in 2020.

“The clear assessment from the intelligence community is that 2020 is going to be the perfect storm,” said a DHS official familiar with the teams. “We know Russia is going to be engaged. Other state actors have seen the success of Russia and realize the value of disinformation operations<https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-no-evidence-that-russia-is-messing-with-campaign-2018yet>. So it’s very curious why the task forces were demoted in the bureaucracy and the leadership has not committed resources to prepare for the 2020 election.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103604&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20DHS%20Guts%20Task%20Forces%20Protecting%20Elections%20From%20Foreign%20Meddling%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

Federal Court Finds Mississippi State Senate District Violates Voting Rights Act, Gives State Legislature a Chance to Correct<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103602>
Posted on February 14, 2019 8:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103602> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Court order<https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.100103/gov.uscourts.mssd.100103.60.0.pdf> (via BAN<http://ballot-access.org/2019/02/13/u-s-district-court-strikes-down-mississippi-state-senate-boundaries/>).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103602&title=Federal%20Court%20Finds%20Mississippi%20State%20Senate%20District%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%2C%20Gives%20State%20Legislature%20a%20Chance%20to%20Correct>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

The Virginia Remedy<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103598>
Posted on February 13, 2019 8:20 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103598> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

The federal court redrawing portions of Virginia’s House of Delegates map recently announced<https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/federal-court-picks-redrawn-va-house-map-that-boosts-democrats/article_6b727239-4d46-592d-99c7-f2b544c5e045.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share> the new configuration of the district lines. PlanScore evaluated both the old plan<https://planscore.org/plan.html?20190211T174955.576234137Z> and the new one.<https://planscore.org/plan.html?20190211T163806.676050824Z> As you can see below, the improvement is dramatic. The new plan has a projected efficiency gap of just 1% (compared to 7% previously), a projected partisan bias of just 1% (compared to 4%), and a projected mean-median difference of almost exactly 0% (compared to 3%). These gains are especially impressive since it was racial — not partisan — gerrymandering that was being remedied.
[https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/image-1024x297.png][https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/image-1-1024x289.png]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103598&title=The%20Virginia%20Remedy>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Manafort-Linked PAC Failed To Report $1 Million And The FEC Wants To Know Why”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103596>
Posted on February 13, 2019 1:43 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103596> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TPM<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/manafort-linked-pac-failed-to-report-1-million-and-the-fec-wants-to-know-why>:

A super PAC closely linked to Paul Manafort is facing questions about why it failed to report a $1 million contribution received just before the 2016 presidential election.

In a Tuesday letter, the Federal Election Commission asked the Rebuilding America Now PAC for more information about the contribution, which the PAC first disclosed in an amended report in November 2018—some two years after the fact.

The FEC letter raises new questions about the murky financial operations of the PAC, which was operated by two Manafort deputies. Special counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly investigating whether Rebuilding America Now illegally received foreign funds<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/trump-inauguration-investigation.html> and was connected to a scheme that Manafort allegedly lied about while purportedly cooperating with Mueller.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103596&title=%E2%80%9CManafort-Linked%20PAC%20Failed%20To%20Report%20%241%20Million%20And%20The%20FEC%20Wants%20To%20Know%20Why%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Aprill On LIBERAL SUPPRESSION: Viewing Section 501(C)(3)’S Speech Restrictions In Their Tax Context”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103594>
Posted on February 13, 2019 10:09 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103594> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Histphil:<https://histphil.org/2019/02/13/aprill-on-liberal-suppression-viewing-section-501c3s-speech-restrictions-in-their-tax-context/>

Editors’ Note: Ellen P. Aprill reviews Philip Hamburger’s Liberal Suppression: Section 501(c)(3) and the Taxation of Speech. Hamburger introduced his book’s central arguments in a previous HistPhil post<https://histphil.org/2019/02/11/hamburger-on-liberal-suppression-how-section-501c3s-speech-restrictions-undermine-constitutional-rights/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103594&title=%E2%80%9CAprill%20On%20LIBERAL%20SUPPRESSION%3A%20Viewing%20Section%20501(C)(3)%E2%80%99S%20Speech%20Restrictions%20In%20Their%20Tax%20Context%E2%80%9D>
Posted in tax law and election law<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

On Third Anniversary of Justice Scalia’s Death, His Influence is Greater Than Ever<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103592>
Posted on February 13, 2019 7:13 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103592> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095700916450148352>

On the third anniversary of Scalia's death, here's a piece I wrote for @Slate<https://twitter.com/Slate> last year that is even truer today: Scalia’s legacy is stronger than ever: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/scalias-legacy-is-stronger-than-ever.html …<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt> via @slate<https://twitter.com/Slate>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095700916450148352>
11<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095700916450148352>
7:07 AM - Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095700916450148352>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1095700918899625986/Tmt7F4Uk?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
Scalia’s Legacy Is Stronger Than Ever<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>

His aim was to argue that any justices who did not follow his methods were not legitimate. It has worked.<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
slate.com<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
See Rick Hasen's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

 · Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095700916450148352>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095700916450148352>

On the third anniversary of Scalia's death, here's a piece I wrote for @Slate<https://twitter.com/Slate> last year that is even truer today: Scalia’s legacy is stronger than ever: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/scalias-legacy-is-stronger-than-ever.html …<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt> via @slate<https://twitter.com/Slate>
<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1095700918899625986/Tmt7F4Uk?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
Scalia’s Legacy Is Stronger Than Ever<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>

His aim was to argue that any justices who did not follow his methods were not legitimate. It has worked.<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>
slate.com<https://t.co/qCLYLPv7bt>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

The @Slate<https://twitter.com/Slate> piece on how Justice Scalia's influence is greater in death than in life sounds themes I explore in much greater detail in my @yalepress<https://twitter.com/yalepress> book, #JusticeofContradictions<https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeofContradictions?src=hash> https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption/dp/0300228643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516904231&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+l.+hasen …<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701291550953472>
4<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701291550953472>
7:08 AM - Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701291550953472>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1094885441898110981/Mmv9xY5e?format=jpg&name=800x419]<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>

Engaging but caustic and openly ideological, Antonin Scalia was among the most influential justices ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court. In this fascinating new book, legal scholar...<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
amazon.com<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
See Rick Hasen's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

 · Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701291550953472>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701291550953472>

Replying to @rickhasen<https://twitter.com/_/status/1095700916450148352>

The @Slate<https://twitter.com/Slate> piece on how Justice Scalia's influence is greater in death than in life sounds themes I explore in much greater detail in my @yalepress<https://twitter.com/yalepress> book, #JusticeofContradictions<https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeofContradictions?src=hash> https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption/dp/0300228643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516904231&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+l.+hasen …<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1094885441898110981/Mmv9xY5e?format=jpg&name=800x419]<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>

Engaging but caustic and openly ideological, Antonin Scalia was among the most influential justices ever to serve on the United States Supreme Court. In this fascinating new book, legal scholar...<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>
amazon.com<https://t.co/gCEY8TlBMF>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

And I wrote this related piece on Justice Scalia as a proto-Trumpian disruptor of the legal world in @washingtonpost<https://twitter.com/washingtonpost> @PostEverything<https://twitter.com/PostEverything> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/13/antonin-scalias-disruption-of-the-supreme-courts-ways-is-here-to-stay/?nid&utm_term=.0303995c88ec …<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701596183252992>
5<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701596183252992>
7:09 AM - Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701596183252992>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1093650249044975616/PojwqTHW?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
Perspective | Antonin Scalia’s disruption of the Supreme Court’s ways is here to stay<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>

The conservative justice, who died two years ago this week, gave right-wing judges an ideological role model.<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
washingtonpost.com<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
See Rick Hasen's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

 · Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701596183252992>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701596183252992>

Replying to @rickhasen<https://twitter.com/_/status/1095701291550953472>

And I wrote this related piece on Justice Scalia as a proto-Trumpian disruptor of the legal world in @washingtonpost<https://twitter.com/washingtonpost> @PostEverything<https://twitter.com/PostEverything> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/13/antonin-scalias-disruption-of-the-supreme-courts-ways-is-here-to-stay/?nid&utm_term=.0303995c88ec …<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1093650249044975616/PojwqTHW?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
Perspective | Antonin Scalia’s disruption of the Supreme Court’s ways is here to stay<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>

The conservative justice, who died two years ago this week, gave right-wing judges an ideological role model.<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>
washingtonpost.com<https://t.co/7AgP50NalN>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

And @TPM<https://twitter.com/TPM> I explored Justice Scalia's troubling (and increasingly influential) views on voting rights and elections: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalias-goal-of-unwinding-voter-protections-is-becoming-a-reality …<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701883916759041>
8<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1095701883916759041>
7:11 AM - Feb 13, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1095701883916759041>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1095701886441730048/QCEVL8oE?format=jpg&name=600x314]<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>
Scalia's Goal Of Unwinding Voter Protections Is Becoming A Reality<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>

Scalia's Goal Of Unwinding Voter Protections Is Becoming A Reality<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>
talkingpointsmemo.com<https://t.co/u1DoZWTH7C>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
See Rick Hasen's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103592&title=On%20Third%20Anniversary%20of%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Death%2C%20His%20Influence%20is%20Greater%20Than%20Ever>
Posted in Scalia<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Josh Douglas Takes on Mitch McConnell Again over Whether Democrats’ H.R. 1 Reform Bill is Good or Bad for American Democracy<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103590>
Posted on February 13, 2019 7:03 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103590> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tweet thread starts here<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1094718286472859651>:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1088265489913126912/6f1OE3wB_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas>
<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas>
Josh Douglas<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas>
✔@JoshuaADouglas<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas>

<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1094718286472859651>

. at senatemajldr<https://twitter.com/senatemajldr> has doubled down on his falsehoods and inaccuracies about H.R. 1, the "For the People Act" (which he derisively calls the Democrat Politician Protection Act), this time in response to a @heraldleader<https://twitter.com/heraldleader> Op-Ed. Senator, you *really* need an Election Law lesson. 1/
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1094718286472859651>
279<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1094718286472859651>
2:02 PM - Feb 10, 2019<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1094718286472859651>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1094718286472859651>
218 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas/status/1094718286472859651>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103590&title=Josh%20Douglas%20Takes%20on%20Mitch%20McConnell%20Again%20over%20Whether%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20H.R.%201%20Reform%20Bill%20is%20Good%20or%20Bad%20for%20American%20Democracy>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

--
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_393907199]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/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/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 184333 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 146752 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28871 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19607 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 26877 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23864 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image009.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190214/30bb39f5/attachment-0003.png>