[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/25/19

Mon Feb 25 07:51:11 PST 2019

Democrats Put Forward Bill to Restore the Preclearance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Killed by the Supreme Court in Shelby County) to 11 States, Including California<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103744>
Posted on February 25, 2019 7:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103744> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Guardian<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/24/we-should-be-outraged-alabama-congresswoman-tackles-voter-suppression>:

But Sewell and her colleagues are playing a long game in the hope that Democrats, should theyregain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress as they did most recently in 2008, would then be able to drive HR4 into law. In anticipation of that day, and in expectation that it would then be rigorously opposed by Republicans through the courts, she is working with peers on the judiciary and house administration committees to create a record of voter suppression in culprit states.

“We have to develop a public record that is strong enough to withstand litigation and challenge,” she said.

Under the terms of the bill, some 11 states have been identified as meriting a return to federal oversight of any electoral changes they want to make. Under the modernized formula proposed in the legislation, any state that has had 15 or more violations over the past 25 years – whether by restricting early voting hours, introducing ID-card barriers, making it harder for voters to register, carrying out inaccurate purges of voting lists, or a slew of other trickery – would find themselves back under the beady eye of the US justice department for 10 years.

The 11 states are: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103744&title=Democrats%20Put%20Forward%20Bill%20to%20Restore%20the%20Preclearance%20Provisions%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20(Killed%20by%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20in%20Shelby%20County)%20to%2011%20States%2C%20Including%20California>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Elizabeth Warren to Forgo Receptions and Fund-Raisers With Big Donors”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103742>
Posted on February 25, 2019 7:45 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103742> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-donors-fundraising.html>:

Senator Elizabeth Warren on Monday escalated her presidential campaign’s battle against big money in politics, announcing that her bid for the Democratic nomination will forgo traditional fund-raising methods meant to cultivate a candidate’s relationships with the wealthy.
The Massachusetts senator said she would no longer hold the private fund-raisers and one-on-one meetings with big donors that have become typical for Democrats and Republicans….

Since Ms. Warren was unlikely to receive the majority of support from big donors, the announcement’s most important function could be its political impact. In a crowded field where the slightest factor could influence a voter’s decision, Ms. Warren is seeking to separate herself from other Democrats in the race, including Senator Kamala Harris of California and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who have both benefited from high-priced fund-raising events and could now be under more pressure to disavow them.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103742&title=%E2%80%9CElizabeth%20Warren%20to%20Forgo%20Receptions%20and%20Fund-Raisers%20With%20Big%20Donors%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Three lessons from North Carolina’s tainted election — and what comes next”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103740>
Posted on February 25, 2019 7:42 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103740> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Bitzer<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/25/three-lessons-north-carolinas-tainted-election-what-comes-next/?utm_term=.6eb99fbf034d> for The Monkey Cage.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103740&title=%E2%80%9CThree%20lessons%20from%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20tainted%20election%20%E2%80%94%20and%20what%20comes%20next%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

According to New Book on Justice O’Connor, J. Scalia Thought Equal Protection Rationale of Bush v. Gore Was “as We Say in Brooklyn, a Piece of Shit”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103737>
Posted on February 25, 2019 7:07 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103737> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New book <https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545137/first-by-evan-thomas/9780399589287/> is “First” by Evan Thomas and here’s the excerpt, courtesy of Mike Sacks:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/976260270048907264/W5T4NPGE_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
Mike Sacks<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
✔@MikeSacksEsq<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>

 · 1h<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100034493493272578>
<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100034493493272578>

Stone Cold RBG. Kennedy hadn’t even retired yet when she told this to Evan Thomas for his upcoming biography of O’Connor:
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100034493493272578/photo/1>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/976260270048907264/W5T4NPGE_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
Mike Sacks<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
✔@MikeSacksEsq<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>

Some behind the scenes detail of Bush v Gore:
-O’Connor backfired her bestie Breyer’s bid for Kennedy’s vote
-Scalia went along with what he thought was a BS rationale
-SOC wrote the famous ticket-for-one-ride-only line. pic.twitter.com/HCZk8haTyz<https://t.co/HCZk8haTyz>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1100047464567058432>
4<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1100047464567058432>
6:58 AM - Feb 25, 2019<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100047464567058432>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100047464567058432/photo/1>[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100047464567058432/photo/1>[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100047464567058432/photo/1>[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1100047464567058432/photo/1>
<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>
See Mike Sacks's other Tweets<https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103737&title=According%20to%20New%20Book%20on%20Justice%20O%E2%80%99Connor%2C%20J.%20Scalia%20Thought%20Equal%20Protection%20Rationale%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%20Was%20%E2%80%9Cas%20We%20Say%20in%20Brooklyn%2C%20a%20Piece%20of%20Shit%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>, Scalia<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Republican Cries Against Voter Fraud Go Mostly Quiet After Scheme Tied to Party”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103735>
Posted on February 23, 2019 9:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103735> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/republican-voter-fraud.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103735&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Cries%20Against%20Voter%20Fraud%20Go%20Mostly%20Quiet%20After%20Scheme%20Tied%20to%20Party%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Today’s Must Read: Mark Harris Deep Dive in News & Observer<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103733>
Posted on February 23, 2019 9:13 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=103733> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brian Murphy profiles<https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article226628829.html> the NC09 candidate. Assuming the new law requiring a primary holds up to any legal challenge, I’d be shocked if Harris runs again. (If the new primary law is challenged and ruled illegal, and Harris has to be listed on the ballot again, I’d look into the rules for withdrawing candidates.)

It is also possible that Harris could face criminal liability here, though I don’t think we don’t know enough yet to know.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D103733&title=Today%E2%80%99s%20Must%20Read%3A%20Mark%20Harris%20Deep%20Dive%20in%20News%20%26%20Observer>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

--
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_778392786]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/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/20190225/b0b77698/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2617 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 102817 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 66372 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84031 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 67370 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 61262 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190225/b0b77698/attachment-0001.png>