[EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent in Rucho

[Ruth Greenwood]

What Eric suggests doesn't have to be rooted in PR, it can be based on
symmetry. The example that he gives shows both asymmetry and a lack of PR,
but you can imagine if one side gets 55% of the vote and 70% of the seats,
but also the other side gets 70% of the seats for a 55% vote share then
symmetry would hold (while PR does not). And so you could find that there
is no constitutional violation, if it's symmetry that you care about.

I think the question of baselines is fascinating one. I always preferred a
"how far from zero" baseline (with my preference for measuring zero being
the EG or declination) rather than a "how far from the median in simulated
maps" baseline. But that's because I think zero works doctrinally as an
expression of the equal protection clause - equal treatment for voters of
both parties. Though one could argue that in a system of SMDs, that there
is normative value in a baseline at the median of simulated maps given the
geographic distribution of voters. I would have loved to litigate this
question - it never came up in NC because the median simulated maps were
almost exactly at zero EG.

Illinois may have been great place for a discussion of baselines in
litigation, because I suspect that it, unlike WI or NC, has a slightly
pro-Republican median EG, but Democrats like to draw pro-Democratic EG
plans. The question of whether/when a large EG becomes unconstitutional is
really interesting (one standard deviation from the median? one standard
deviation from the median AND one standard deviation from zero? Multiple
SDs?). But alas, that question will not come before the federal courts
unless/until Rucho is overruled.

Ruth

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:42 PM Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
wrote:

> This kind of analysis makes it appear that the real goal is proportional
> representation, and that's a non-starter.
>
> Mark
>
> Prof. Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 2, 2019 11:28 AM
> *To:* Chambers, Hank; Smith, Brad; Nicholas Stephanopoulos
> *Cc:* Michael Latner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> dissent in Rucho
>
>
> I’m not an attorney so I can’t offer an opinion on the legal issues here.
> But in my mind the absence of symmetry in Kagan’s dissent is problematic
> from a logical standpoint.  The pure sampling approach she advocates is
> great for the cases that have been in front of us:  PA, NC, WI, etc.
>  These are cases where the median outcome in the sampling is pretty fair,
> and the adopted plan is an unfair one way out in the tails of the
> distribution.  But imagine if the median is pretty **unfair**—say, a plan
> that gives the majority party 40 percent of the seats for 55 percent of the
> vote.  Could a minority party sue to force the median plan, or does this
> majority party have the right to draw a plan out in the tails—like one that
> gives them 55 percent of the seats instead?  In my opinion, it’s absurd to
> say the median of a sampling distribution has any per se normative force,
> which is why Kagan ends up talking about seats-votes discrepancies.  She
> has a symmetry-ish notion of fairness in her head whether she knows it or
> not.  (I suspect she does know it, and also knows it’s not worth fighting
> to promote her particular version at this point.)
>
>
>
> Would the solution offered in the Kagan dissent be a disaster?  No.  It
> would definitely be an improvement on the status quo.  Would the court
> eventually have to address symmetry-type issues anyway?  Probably.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *Chambers, Hank
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 30, 2019 6:34 AM
> *To:* Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>; Nicholas Stephanopoulos <
> nicholas.stephanopoulos at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> dissent in Rucho
>
>
>
> It is fair to say every justice believes that extreme partisan
> gerrymandering is thoroughly inconsistent with important constitutional
> principles. To some, inconsistency with constitutional principles is the
> definition of unconstitutionality; to others, it is not.  I suspect some of
> the justices who agree extreme partisan gerrymandering is inconsistent with
> important constitutional principles do not believe that extreme partisan
> gerrymandering violates the Constitution.
>
>
>
> Many actions may be inconsistent with important constitutional principles,
> but not unconstitutional.
>
>
>
> -Hank
>
>
>
> Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
>
> Austin E. Owen Research Scholar and Professor of Law
>
> University of Richmond School of Law
>
> 203 Richmond Way
>
> Richmond, Va. 23173
>
> (804) 289-8199
>
> hchamber at richmond.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 29, 2019 10:18 PM
> *To:* Nicholas Stephanopoulos
> *Cc:* Michael Latner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> dissent in Rucho
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that every justice has made that decision at all, but for
> argument's sake, it doesn't much affect my point--the Constitution protects
> against some forms of political equality in some cases. It's a big jump
> from there to "therefore gerrymandering--as defined by symmetry, efficiency
> gaps, or any other particular criteria-- is unconstitutional."
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Nicholas Stephanopoulos [nicholas.stephanopoulos at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 29, 2019 10:02 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* Michael Latner; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> dissent in Rucho
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ** [This email originated outside of Capital University] **
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> But that's a jump the Court has already made. Every Justice agrees that
> sufficiently extreme gerrymandering is unconstitutional. The only debate is
> whether it's possible to distinguish constitutional from unconstitutional
> gerrymandering.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:38 PM Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> wrote:
>
> The Constitution protects against some forms of political inequality in
> some cases. There is a very, very, very big jump in going from "the
> Constitution protects political equality" to "therefore gerrymandering is
> unconstitutional."
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Law-election [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on
> behalf of Michael Latner [mlatner at calpoly.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 29, 2019 4:08 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> dissent in Rucho
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ** [This email originated outside of Capital University] **
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> Nick, Guy, Marc and others raise important points that I believe highlight
> a tension between the legal and scientific theory employed in
> gerrymandering cases. On the one hand the legal consensus is that the
> Constitution protects political equality but does not require PR as a
> remedy, so we (social scientists) employ metrics that are alternatives to
> proportionality.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, social choice theory shows that equally weighted votes
> do indeed imply proportional outcomes. And the racial gerrymandering case
> remedies imply this as well if viewed from the level of the state. Perhaps
> this is the underlying reason so many legal academics are focusing on the
> quantitative work, because it has yet to be fully engaged within legal
> theory.
>
>
>
> One reason I was particularly impressed by the Gaddie/Grofman brief that
> essentially reformulated the Gingles Test for partisan gerrymandering,
> going under the hood of asymmetry to define what it looks like sub-state
> (as Kagan did in her dissent), was that it pointed out that dilution is
> dilution, and single-seat systems provide a uniform method of reducing bias
> (though one that will still fall short of proportionality).
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Latner, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor of Political Science
>
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>
> www.michaellatner.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.michaellatner.com&c=E,1,m8yEfwnDw7M_gf9SGUNLdwiCcpVUEQWA0F-M8E0LLobDNh20CKmMbz7sRi6xYToajMoUvUyw3I-jtaJqaRkVF-X7A74hAhNR4Zh77EDmCKQC&typo=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gerrymandering in America:  <http://www.amazon.com/dp/110714325X>The
> House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular
> Sovereignty  <http://www.amazon.com/dp/110714325X>
>
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/dp/110714325X>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 29, 2019 12:00 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Law-election Digest, Vol 98, Issue 32
>
>
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
>         law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,atvSaoXkyAx6q94jO8q9q4LsqP4gUTQzHv9xD5oCnGmuLTdNrXq7reAXAGkDvJe8vXacZ-OYB23EPtGxAdcJ-tvlUFeXHa-6RNP43c2IGBRMUwA,&typo=1>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Partisan gerrymandering and state courts: discover your inner
>       Federalist! (Wang, Samuel S.)
>    2. symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent in
>       Rucho (Pildes, Rick)
>    3. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Nicholas Stephanopoulos)
>    4. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in        Rucho (Guy-Uriel E. Charles)
>    5. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in        Rucho (Pildes, Rick)
>    6. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in        Rucho (Guy-Uriel E. Charles)
>    7. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Michael Parsons)
>    8. more news 6/28/19 (Rick Hasen)
>    9. Re: Equalizing CVAP without citizenship question (Jeff Wice)
>   10. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Greg Warrington)
>   11. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie))
>   12. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie))
>   13. Scalia?s Last Laugh (Michael Latner)
>   14. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Chambers, Hank)
>   15. Re: symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>       in Rucho (Mark)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:43:14 +0000
> From: "Wang, Samuel S." <sswang at Princeton.EDU>
> To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
>         <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] Partisan gerrymandering and state courts: discover your
>         inner Federalist!
> Message-ID:
>         <
> BN8PR04MB60204F1D8F6F23253A1A1EC8C9FC0 at BN8PR04MB6020.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Law-election Digest colleagues:
>
>
> The Supreme Court decisions in Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone
> are a severe disappointment, of course. But they left a second avenue wide
> open, and even invited it: state courts.
>
>
> In a forthcoming article in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of
> Constitutional Law, my colleagues Rick Ober, Ben Williams, and I review the
> provisions for bringing such a lawsuit in all fifty states:
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335622
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpapers.ssrn.com%2fsol3%2fpapers.cfm%3fabstract_id%3d3335622&c=E,1,WibS5udTUPWfbFPf2s1ZIO0eTfit0UXf3a6d3AojW587ThU2hrl4I5jX330XOkiJpkTPOO1WQOdCh7JED224XbT5E9S6uVmnMYIcF_h1Xwl66UBPoajKNZQZyw,,&typo=1>
>
>
> In this article, we catalogue provisions that resemble the
> First-Amendment-like freedoms of association, Fourteenth-Amendment-like
> equal protections, and other protections such as "free and fair elections"
> clauses. Overall, we see many promising avenues. In addition, we review
> close to a hundred cases in which state laws or constitutions were used to
> force the redrawing of district lines. So there is ample precedent for
> taking a federalist path.
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sam
>
>
> >>>
>
> Samuel S.-H. Wang, Ph.D.
>
> Professor, Neuroscience Institute
>
> Director, Gerrymandering Project
>
> Princeton University
>
> Princeton, NJ 08544
>
>
>
> Neuroscience: synapse.princeton.edu
>
> Elections: election.princeton.edu
>
> Redistricting: gerrymander.princeton.edu
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/18ce9474/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f18ce9474%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,meQK7KHJS-qG7Ys_-plBL94rGnZVkYP9v_bF7wiC3SVCLKYf4e8Z7j8W8LvIYva3kZUi1hfzbICld0ttZ9Rt5Xzd6PsNHlfZnzM1Kybv&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:08:22 +0000
> From: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> To: "Levitt, Justin" <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
>         in      Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <09C6C9D5F3987B4DAB90809228F227FAEA6E1C06 at XCHMB01.ad.law.nyu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,jDBGOarFX8RCDu2f1CJLsPcLMLPm51Ao3tyWy8NRU5WxKVHAuPVB8fbllMYBo9U2ELQyeff-0dVBiccMNEdY6kpDMeuQ__QJYFtj8yEHU41pWiEzA8swu-5E0Ro8&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,VYcrteY-px9BhoR9gBBZ8wmJQXDPEmDRpZLDiHkrz9FCPRSxSO1b1z8QJ1Sqm4A8WSRP8ZPCVqukQBKtghzNk37UJKJ-6zky6w42sJuI-sPuUZk,&typo=1>
> >
> [signature_1987881029]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,j9vK9fwSVCJbjfJvMStB0_edmg6QnJfkhuJYdQ9JgC2wjcqdDcyHYg6ayQdy8Yn4bs_yzhtcvwdruMj9eKaej6dO07mTyVhxNAvbahGwxJsxY5C7FnaY19U,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/21883fbf/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f21883fbf%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,M58f6oGvG7luGwqD_wyj9pT0RW1VBopQNPSbnJR9hGLlOGJuUsDGIdr1kINDeEkPy5BdOK7jGHNY-6QnR7mEnoOHxodcZLCzQB1xkxfx&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 6817 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/21883fbf/attachment-0001.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f21883fbf%2fattachment-0001.png&c=E,1,uR028Qky4Q09JyzR6NcDmMF9_TzDRbxGqV4ilc2CCKVD7FpbBnZ1VYOyLPaO-p4CTnhNp8OAihemeZb25IGpU1NgtuoRfirPlX9EJ7nzvMP4_6fAAqut3jBpGz3W&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:29:40 -0500
> From: Nicholas Stephanopoulos <nicholas.stephanopoulos at gmail.com>
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAKZh_81VepH49vVO-_DH+mT66aohsU38hu1S95a-dY+y4CPM8w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Though note that Kagan extensively discusses the seat and vote figures from
> which asymmetry metrics are calculated -- and not just in order to compare
> these figures to the performance of the computer-generated maps.
>
> -----------------
>
> In 2012, Republican candidates won 9 of the State?s 13 seats in the U. S.
> House of Representatives, although they received only 49% of the statewide
> vote. In 2014, Republican candidates increased their total to 10 of the 13
> seats, this time based on 55% of the vote.
>
> In 2016, Republican congressional candidates won 10 of North Carolina?s 13
> seats, with 53% of the statewide vote. Two years later,Republican
> candidates won 9 of 12 seats though they received only 50% of the vote.
>
> In the four elections that followed (from 2012 through 2018), Democrats
> have never received more than 65% of the statewide congressional vote. Yet
> in each of those elections, Democrats have won (you guessed it) 7 of
> 8 House seats.
>
> Take Pennsylvania. In the three congressional elections occurring under the
> State?s original districting plan (before the State Supreme Court struck it
> down), Democrats receivedbetween 45% and 51% of the statewide vote, but won
> only5 of 18 House seats.
>
> Or go next door to Ohio. There, in four congressional elections, Democrats
> tallied between 39% and 47% of the statewide vote, but never won more than
> 4 of 16 House seats.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:13 PM Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests
> did
> > or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention
> that
> > these tests received *no *attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.
> > When she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> > unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies
> entirely
> > on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> > enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> > direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
> >
> >
> >
> > The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> > relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> > on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about
> whether
> > she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description
> of
> > what the District Court did.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard H. Pildes
> >
> > Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> >
> > NYU School of Law
> >
> > 40 Washington Sq. So.
> >
> > NYC, NY 10012
> >
> > 212 998-6377
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> > *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Stephanopoulos
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> > *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> >
> >
> > He clearly understood; see all his passages in *Whitford* last year
> > discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> > interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could
> just
> > return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and
> votes
> > (much like Scalia did in *Vieth*).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> > proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing
> how
> > the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each
> . .
> > . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> > KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> > ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on
> unfair
> > results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at
> 420.
> > Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no
> light
> > on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> > therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> > unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
> >
> >
> > Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> > gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> > Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473
> (opinion
> > concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> > himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the
> utility
> > of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> > to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of
> redistricting
> > and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and
> dissenting
> > in part).
> >
> >
> >
> > Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> > had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of
> Republicans.
> > This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was
> derived
> > from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> > plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> > symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> > [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for
> Appellees
> > 37.
> >
> >
> >
> > We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> > purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> > address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> > citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> > something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> > fortunes of political parties.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> > require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> > Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> > *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> >
> >
> > It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> > gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference
> between
> > proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> > just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> > couldn?t have made it clearer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> > http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,h9jY4n02uaM0rZI27kpAb4H8DGm4KQOmegvZo0-mEeElNAF9IWyHbHgpCUuflls2smbkkghpG6zgiBEuNeAmsxTa8h-mN5P9gttwCwttUmjAdl4,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,LfQzGyeq4nLnnEYsMfo73jSXBe__XIkqERl17kY9yPIQeMvxokfxwTHS3XXlL8h-n0eiZffTzuYFxHc2LQOJcyTn9B06RkvTI-Js49jpREc,&typo=1>
> >
> >
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org&c=E,1,04cm7P3KFMhDILx6tb-jWLZMBqRRPr8BZSkGq8rqouBxJagNH8zZ_qCQPHEQrNAo6bfhM3X6kDg-MU7lAOXY-kuY2UgOqe7_mf3YEa15xsW5p9yCWf0,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,BC6sXrrgUQNNy8HNrGVvkvGZ5u4n6YKmr_38mU8j-7ZCMa73GSkrIK4vQxaZ5-9knj2pD8Dk034ESWk29bNGEgw1wW-RSMV-WvejOP8v5qmk9ZCeSQpX&typo=1>
> >
> >
> > [image: signature_1987881029]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,sV-liNtyCRjFZCJY6bGcXLl4Jo0jO9o8ppSIuHcO0So8evOnqG3ABrcYukuL76KfGPHMXDjA2odrd60XjUHXnckDp03_tSQ-mMpp2Om9usfuaQ,,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,Mft9NKH_iEyic5kyIrcvYZmNvI9HwSSIMCgTd6-QBJ8xOOnMmu80EQj6ErbxzntxbqCLv1QEZo-yog1JlcIMj1bvjT3LE9MnWLzBpxgo3wR9J-J6izbOo68FSJP7&typo=1>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> > Professor of Law
> >
> > Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> > University of Chicago Law School
> > nsteph at uchicago.edu
> > (773) 702-4226
> > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dTRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ%26e%3d&c=E,1,oE7v3hi_-LK57IWh9FdE-LsJ7i21Y2dx7SLKc-vfRwJ8vXUZiSIRFzKwwD--KZp_P3FGkuJL3ldpZTLkP_X3vsU9mOzJTMjps73uyUQQ8EDwMQ,,&typo=1>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,atEsZD5gaVB3VDjpMCeCnpW48vPP8tcsaFqH_jTX6MMr5w8IKURjmzVN0uiTQ0pmXk6f-eVAu3taKliLxv7LuTl3UlHOQal2Y_tCKA15FQuVnx_eJQ,,&typo=1>
>
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu
> (773) 702-4226
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/5fee8cea/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f5fee8cea%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,ZxGIGQfDW98PojnNd7r2oPJdeIL2jcnIrAkEskQqylw8NEjbiD1_4rP-Sg9vIst3qtFJ0b8rshWpSjxJ7vtkSLEH9q2UUPrh9LfGmjEEZH8EURhvFA,,&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 6817 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/5fee8cea/attachment-0001.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f5fee8cea%2fattachment-0001.png&c=E,1,NZKmabTj00ImZdJCGopJ6YsuceWA6UIJxSg52p7sQwWseNWUmIGNrFtqaz1UDttpTZ4zApDuQK_D1gwUSAnDHZgMmmB6CVTtLiod_uTg&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:36:50 +0000
> From: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in      Rucho
> Message-ID: <31B0B949-D6DE-42BF-BBCB-F9372E65DF48 at law.duke.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,J-VO2_IN0wWcNGUdJaqF1ytEY9F1KvAJAdwz-rIK4lPPPBZWbpnAGQDP1OQr0yOCv0N0OKCbOf8qQh-QIAsY8ClnxVzoXWkhWVVwtQPjTZmCT5rZt0lqcQ,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,eFSs-N6zCuYAMLWrQbtTB_KccaD2Y04dZzR3fDshhF3E4Z0HLLI_RR8HX_7Fq5anY-8nPyneOnSNa1p-bvy0h5mmk64ovvh-RG4ZgOPf5Q,,&typo=1>
> >
> <image001.png>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,qNhJrEub4JjOkPu_8pOPZtOvCd_pcB2oYCwfuHuESycf2opLlO9gvKHowmgKxhQDeBmzmbYIitVILeNM9Kbszp-6bAh7Z8Aoyf6HkmBIkSw5rJm6Plt3&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,XMWiF_sdg33x3VhrXheANONEiQpfvZqjNFFZ1Hnd2EQAXeTht-d9lVoRXkM1rz6w4nmBcjSOYBhibmrLlqCf817-P1MW21v6pnEU8f3h0Ad41t0Fk1A,&typo=1>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/a2bab49e/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fa2bab49e%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,3d8vf72EOAiyTeJbOCGXLi_5UmOh-sdwpqP7b72ZKynhdBvM9SXNH_VYAM1SQPtRKKMdZ-wZfCDQTfqctFlQXYN4aKPKOoSIdmRa5mN_nUynWMDjrBU,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:23:56 +0000
> From: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> To: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in      Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <09C6C9D5F3987B4DAB90809228F227FAEA6E2313 at XCHMB01.ad.law.nyu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Guy,
> As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly and
> directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
>
>
> From: Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,nuLg_vfxy3cs4wDnLeHuP6n0ACN7PXc31hKoeYdog9t4HxAGJ4nIUvvvzsHKKOUoTaS_J9XIBL5QHFcNEkpDyoXoAZju2o3bZvKyS987ss3ASDPZOEGNAA,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,wQntDoUsBEOHf78vvht5_kdS_-i0IsInZm0FnN2mPdGjSZsh3r0_6vXLuACI_uUv08GP0WsxDmLBmXAxPhOQJUWJFV-SlEtzAtJ_n1RwWSXlwMNTmRfXNedKCA,,&typo=1>
> >
> <image001.png>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,MAo1sJM-TOwydEWpmQ_sT-Ai4K_qBKtYhX0bRHtUti2fL8BF4Czt8WwPYNOFhBYQblyiZAOGYAUZvWVVkKQOsAMbCAp79CcyN3AgcnqE&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,IaN3l-7smAkzf9F_3LluLObOH2AvkopWr8Qfz1KT_WpQaB2z5wI0BTgOD3cboxHfOpQ2rBZQRk8NX0RwiUGN4-5f6O0s9BNL0rKRbwVv3Am5DIKpThY,&typo=1>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/49d3e5b5/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f49d3e5b5%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,o8RPPEroAbr2adl2RUU5CLRO7xcnlcBMN6Jdmf8P88DqI40fIuxrRA9Ka4SnStoT6D4joP7o_NdDN2hZmVEWaYJqjCDNFgbNTUvh4bPFPg,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:26:25 +0000
> From: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in      Rucho
> Message-ID: <C9A3A04A-ADDF-4A2D-BC84-C77FA13516C1 at law.duke.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> My point is not about lawyering.  It?s about scholarship and specifically
> about legal scholarship.
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> Guy,
> As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly and
> directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
>
>
> From: Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,8sIzXlx0hluCz1_xY998uiKtppzljOBNtw3I-AKokfe1YLGR9e4jagFpHkSXxRHZykmx1Nuy8Osv5X6wf0uL0vZy9lRFrq7htzyyvhw44FqvQ1-f_LWq&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,lQCGbd7bQIGnR3-gXVxytCqylnXHeIIgEsDYQgt2iUrszyhxDp9q4_CyNVP14YQjew-TEibteKg2KR9aTRY5Pd7UWSVziq1Krn2mJrmzU2A3PQ,,&typo=1>
> >
> <image001.png>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,59C56GnFcJvROCluuIRrI_T3hb4riIL3FLLEAs3ILB0sO40SfccczFN_bIWZ__D4wT-snxnbA5GUvvsOygFh1Gs2FIHzdA155tK7TmsgjrtadnTa2atAF7w,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,u8HNH1tCXg_hlU-D5hxMwTYMt_yV5oek50-x9pZW0eCGktEQHbpjxnWWM_USlZtdMyKOj2dKVba4SotQX-6_-FPyK3eIKHChwB4tZmm10e0,&typo=1>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/dd8c058e/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fdd8c058e%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,gaU2NyFR6FhngWGupAbgS1-3PMCT2xnYwUxLwy67lPLFh7gALE9I8zc6tfrgsxa1gqHppGKmcmZXBNBKteewwQMfhjlMCuBUaRkKi0whpCn3Y6Mb5kAOo2ym6taQ&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:31:49 -0400
> From: Michael Parsons <michael at parsons.net>
> To: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <CAEBUvCHWO27=
> n0xJXYPOPEgNHQv60deh9q0LxzQ8e6KWwr5+Tg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> To be honest, I think Nick's earlier point -- i.e., that Roberts' opinion
> is fundamentally disingenuous in its arguments and reasoning -- maybe
> addresses this point too.  Roberts feigned ignorance about the meaning of
> the outlier method and he feigned ignorance about symmetry, but he also
> took "partisan advantage is a legitimate/permissible interest" as a
> starting point for his analysis even though the legal/theoretical arguments
> contesting this assumption were before him as well (both in the briefs and
> in the underlying legal scholarship).  Kagan points out in her dissent that
> this assumption is unjustified and that all of the "neutral" examples of
> "competing visions of electoral fairness" differ in type, not degree.
> Roberts attempts to ground this starting-point assumption in precedent
> (e.g., *Gaffney*) so that he doesn't have to try and justify it on its own
> terms, but (1) the precedent doesn't truly support this position (as
> Levitt, Kang, and I have argued), and (2) given the contested state of the
> law, the majority could have decided otherwise in *Rucho* anyway since the
> arguments were before it.
>
> At the end of the day, I think Roberts wanted this outcome, and so he said
> whatever he felt he needed to say, and he declined to engage with any
> arguments that might complicate that outcome.  I think both the lawyers
> involved and the underlying scholarship (legal and otherwise) split in
> different directions based on reasonable disagreements over theoretical
> first principles *and* lawyering strategies, but the majority opinion
> ignores the inconvenient parts from all camps while focusing on the
> weaknesses of all camps in a way that's internally inconsistent and
> dishonest in its portrayal of what those in each camp were arguing.
>
> Apologies for the cynicism -- reading this opinion really got to me.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:27 PM Guy-Uriel E. Charles <charles at law.duke.edu
> >
> wrote:
>
> > My point is not about lawyering.  It?s about scholarship and specifically
> > about legal scholarship.
> >
> > On Jun 28, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Guy,
> > As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> > tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly
> and
> > directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
> >
> >
> > *From:* Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> > <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> > *To:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> > *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
> > dissent in Rucho
> >
> > Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> > between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> > academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> > attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> > focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> > precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> > what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> > questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> > Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> > tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias
> in
> > this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an
> asymmetry
> > (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> > literature.
> >
> >
> > On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests
> did
> > or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention
> that
> > these tests received *no *attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.
> > When she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> > unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies
> entirely
> > on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> > enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> > direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
> >
> > The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> > relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> > on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about
> whether
> > she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description
> of
> > what the District Court did.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rick
> >
> > Richard H. Pildes
> > Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> > NYU School of Law
> > 40 Washington Sq. So.
> > NYC, NY 10012
> > 212 998-6377
> >
> > *From:* Law-election [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> > <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas
> > Stephanopoulos
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> > *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> > He clearly understood; see all his passages in *Whitford* last year
> > discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> > interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could
> just
> > return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and
> votes
> > (much like Scalia did in *Vieth*).
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> > proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing
> how
> > the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each
> . .
> > . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> > KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> > ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on
> unfair
> > results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at
> 420.
> > Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no
> light
> > on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> > therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> > unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
> >
> > Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> > gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> > Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473
> (opinion
> > concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> > himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the
> utility
> > of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> > to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of
> redistricting
> > and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and
> dissenting
> > in part).
> >
> > Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> > had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of
> Republicans.
> > This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was
> derived
> > from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> > plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> > symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> > [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for
> Appellees
> > 37.
> >
> > We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> > purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> > address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> > citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> > something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> > fortunes of political parties.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> > require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
> >
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> > Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> > *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> > It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> > gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference
> between
> > proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> > just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> > couldn?t have made it clearer.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,abeeo293V_YJmLgnL4wnqm3ZwuMwLCBOcaThlhJ9fwbhRwkLmfeuJU6cjagHM94D5Bs_iFK6X80VVQwezCE5tPfGjer_Zjxe9bjDdwZv0_xjknU,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,UDJMQzUHpU_m-V2Khe2srIVXC7d9upbQ1NVqyx-bFYRAcPkWIZu94W2BlJn2dDIkfBZeNeTz9mwhumnSvAwFF5xR1dPXFPGRQMo2Vpv-81s,&typo=1>
> >
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org&c=E,1,tbUtIz7oYjDmZyRIwD0UDu_bFhMhSFzIw2QI39iu_1AtnWcbLi5oj-E9lLQaru08LUHYu2ue5dSk9Zsg21or5GvdCAfQF0BsQPwjEhOGu1hHpRy0pw,,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,5u8Dep2lcGLNzThH08PUPkQedfFDU9EHc8y8-YUliqWsQPy0crCylC-D9Bk5vjKLQpHafIgvY9xhSnpR6QEQ6LCmW0fhPNwOav4z0wV3Cjz1eZYyOg,,&typo=1>
> >
> > <image001.png>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,nJuEkQeBvs7DjxuDJSPHYcSyOQ5sl1vHDwL6hDUW_1YEWMfuo1Ch7RcAqNNjFV5NMKEUstsO58-oCCy08-JpMLnaEmeAWiqG9Al_2c2uT2kGkwy6&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,4RgYSwm8RAUUTxDERtvNOO9eluCdlVXsom51KosJI-B0khH7Dez1tyoWFwZapXgcOY4KAfvtMTQsZNzEISdSyEBUabOFgaGMejajczTn1F91JumlniJr&typo=1>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> > Professor of Law
> > Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> > University of Chicago Law School
> > nsteph at uchicago.edu
> > (773) 702-4226
> > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dTRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ%26e%3d&c=E,1,lDrQzAWRvPl2Wq7bi8MoKBn38rQhYRW8fYEAmmVZtNgjk0rX7C6J-WivEDDR_9Hccb6p1if4ZIa1zIhNBMla5PgQPt1bqAXP8kpLNXQ_g3nMt_Jq1PY36STQQg,,&typo=1>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,qiEcyr28-3NMowwywwf0DhGhtIu1zpU689TD57kz29w1LkzY58n2_H6S-4owgvob7y79YEEoDm_nhptxYV0WJ3S8RazvehligwbRgFTvO-tVe286J3I,&typo=1>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,hwjOE7C9NLuNEw-UAWNj7h8w-88JesQqjJ5N4jj7uSOc5Tv4EGczdV17t4XjykT3aVkIVr5VSCal6yajyTjdb5ISu7ZR2faePeS8dfloMyG6BcpoqMvE7A,,&typo=1>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/2f8195fb/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2f2f8195fb%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,qrLksO5WWJE4Ba0IJQRvbZM6_0s3Ys92YqshvaG4uI8snx2XmJt7Nu_hd-TulVR2MBpnU2A6uhsjWdYmDPbVAHdWNLv9ZAJLyJctDzHAjg,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:31:30 +0000
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>
> Subject: [EL] more news 6/28/19
> Message-ID: <B7D20C23-A5E8-4E42-BD37-855576EB7C86 at law.uci.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Florida Governor Signs SB 7066, Making It Harder for Felons Who Have
> Completed Time Served to Get Their Voting Rights Restored, And Thinks
> Amendment 4, Restoring Such Rights, Was Too Generous<
> https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105866
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105866&c=E,1,jzx1iBe0V1t26htPvD0xVkqh516cTgKyPfHIhRQ45DVh2-QgS7qv6KiIMcIhEu1_ffWSldTwyV1flhD7HY8xAtSDuU99eZj8E0fnhY2QOeR1BqYc&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 3:30 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105866
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105866&c=E,1,yEUuqgdEvAL9UKVO7xCZ8kokH7EXycdZHrCz9FhD6B8_AmC2oTstcx-29DQkx8w94kZ9rluaLXKDhEhaz5c2JODLnnrAG1OeiPdP6JESnJghKG96yg,,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,eY-wLpCIj_UGgJTyzE1wwSZZciykBKXzZm-Xjsv_BYr_RTcLUX4yhGvD2d_Sqm-CSwxHYCj2e8fD7PRAgN_kOFoNayU8Y6kxX2QUCk838w,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> From the Governor?s signing statement<
> https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6.282.pdf
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.flgov.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f06%2f6.282.pdf&c=E,1,jDW8OLsTldsxIQE-4EHWIUTqNJD-Xo_QcYCjcclOaaqeRgyJ3bu4XkkZTWyRijxZZTtieyJWxboyY6iLwri_0TH8BD5lVwVX1co5AaXyHHAbfyiJtdNUMPQ,&typo=1>>
> (via Steve Bosquet<
> https://twitter.com/stevebousquet/status/1144731377432236039>) issued
> late on a Friday afternoon:
> [
> https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2019-06-28-at-3.29.02-PM-1024x216.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fScreen-Shot-2019-06-28-at-3.29.02-PM-1024x216.png&c=E,1,Pv1spEqclleirBh6ncrI24m7Ui6z7QRiLOR6Vhg8l6mGUXvAIFGDKsXU3TcLf_0ixPjmkqIJ4YjDhLlW22zISMSBfvxqnozrQWM4CKmSIHA,&typo=1>
> ]
>
> I am sure the lawsuits will be filed almost immediately.
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105866&title=Florida%20Governor%20Signs%20SB%207066%2C%20Making%20It%20Harder%20for%20Felons%20Who%20Have%20Completed%20Time%20Served%20to%20Get%20Their%20Voting%20Rights%20Restored%2C%20And%20Thinks%20Amendment%204%2C%20Restoring%20Such%20Rights%2C%20Was%20Too%20Generous
> >
> Posted in felon voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d66&c=E,1,P-Cy_wla-vApbDOSry3g8-UUFd1PMgJtfc9FYtOyul2fs4Nf6QIpTekmMuEyqjDKBvfMJCaZm62brLN5K5GSEBd2C3VMbXqgrmuuJGak0eYj3dJpgmSkQ6-V&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> Justice Thomas?s Ugly Accusation (Joined by Justices Gorsuch and
> Kavanaugh) in the Census Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105862
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105862&c=E,1,C2vDI4eLvsW0wob84BB_qQ8yM-gWQNGzIjxESBLcMmapOJ4gzd2u_z_VyFBYQ9KINYgYErSyRxhjhQwvYCAzd08IyVLSvC6tsbI8Nbz6&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 12:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105862
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105862&c=E,1,lLr8Q7trsJifAVzsrYNCFCGT6OIvUp75ZGKYFSEGWCIJsAb12pZBoTVJ12y9S0whZ6z7ANz6wPlyiadK6_q4IP9td3W1clCVeMbLMvwWUHN-WAidyVpoIPKk8-4,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,pWoP1iRDYCA29fAONwd9YrZeoy7IQLYyTjl-teZeU2-UnWQK0coQpibQseF5FPmRjNm0PS35NQvc4-B2pxJWPVHz6cGY7e1ngXepRGnArUOaRAMStQTHZtsdYA,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> Others have made<https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1144359892158951424>
> this point, but I wanted to flag this gratuitous and unsupported impugning
> of district court judge Furman in the census case<
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2fopinions%2f18pdf%2f18-966_bq7c.pdf&c=E,1,iSRtIdpY9RDo5bc6vY8GnJmrUUuBlKesFnsUPa122zdQ68pNMx_5yuUEHOTEShA6nKQeZ7nNaXcv0sEjSDgoO02Qbzik8rB--vQoTOyyd2uzw-CqtHkKynILXM8h&typo=1>>.
> Thomas painted Furman as a conspiracy theorist in his partial dissent
> (joined by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh):
>
> The District Court?s lengthy opinion pointed to other facts that, in its
> view, supported a finding of pretext. 351 F. Supp. 3d, at 567?572, 660?664
> (discussing the statements, e-mails, acts, and omissions of numerous people
> involved in the process). I do not deny that a judge predisposed to
> distrust the Secretary or the administration could arrange those facts on a
> corkboard and?with a jar of pins and a spool of string?create an
> eye-catching conspiracy web. Cf. id., at 662 (inferring ?from the various
> ways in which [the Secretary] and his aides acted like people with
> something to hide that they did have something to hide?). But the Court
> does not rely on this evidence, and rightly so: It casts no doubt on
> whether the Secretary?s stated rationale factored into his decision. The
> evidence suggests, at most, that the Secretary had multiple reasons for
> wanting to include the citizenship question on the census.
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105862&title=Justice%20Thomas%E2%80%99s%20Ugly%20Accusation%20(Joined%20by%20Justices%20Gorsuch%20and%20Kavanaugh)%20in%20the%20Census%20Case
> >
> Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d125&c=E,1,XNFfTiIYFCLIpRr9l6HbYVvfPWobs3hH-kOAjEphVPItoeIBJQZk6hrRFL893Ejnb_4ertAjDW-917ReokWSXhG3yEV-TW8Hknm1qs5RflS4xG0Klq0mli712fhQ&typo=1>>,
> Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d29&c=E,1,yTni-kMawHd326Qgqzqzs8Sc_4a9c0fRNEzVhKyitOZfrUy79Yd_zISb4WyvgwttkJxDxLL2X14TSRkn6EU7yHW_wOpGWn5Cn3-5Su2jDqfj&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> ?Why the Supreme Court?s Rulings Have Profound Implications for American
> Politics?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105860
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105860&c=E,1,ZUG17OzWUm05ZkdR2eKjPrkFbufAFWDpC8c96pR8l2repAjwQpBeluej6PwxSUJc2uZt5QKUi8gqQE9a39FUS8LaGuPqE38H5HZqfC74IKbz2U-QxKWdmx4,&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 11:47 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105860
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105860&c=E,1,vncxtotdXICMIkG8ggtMC4_kkxinYImXEV15QAWMaZ8vxC-keyvFEme2vg2NTHMWdkhQ7dBUYHuAlzzSP_TPVDYQACd-DoSSv74WgT9OAeiCkQ,,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,5uU8EI0-JEGY8g1fixIUeuXCvcXLyklik1M0fQmh3pNZ5GEclFnLhzDU97PKkUV9hxpywgT9PWAZCHeyssyIbqKhI3HbGyw1JeOIDRglQJ6cbdKsf21dlh0,&typo=1>
> >
>
> Michael Wines for the NYT.<
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/supreme-court-gerrymandering-census.html
> >
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105860&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Rulings%20Have%20Profound%20Implications%20for%20American%20Politics%E2%80%9D
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,2dGiLhGLDrji8lejgggVM6Z8kWCKx5gqpOr7kfy-35FMcHQvELsg2CEXcsHJO1iwWoe1AYG-FEq7xGj3CONK0uOZFfYIJFdrjwGLGxX1TQ,,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> ?With No Supreme Court End to Gerrymandering, Will States Make It More
> Extreme??<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105858
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105858&c=E,1,5R9IzmOZVdmI2kFB6IZfcAJ-ou_x2DjnjSSdrY1JEZRn6KZ6V3RZ6vI36iINv4Kc5cSIllQ9dETGWQv1Ht5x61h0FFSuwP6IAVbPTAJJ&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 11:18 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105858
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105858&c=E,1,PnmnRWdG8UBoHh28a7fysTuf5WRCb-fzjHPH1kBkgel0upjoLKqcPjsfcSdZ1eohzJsZX2EonfY4Ppx5Hh378Qd9Q3AdjkEX3ZH9ZWw94BxZewqvqDI-5x6S&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,86vkg6W2tg8H6jCf1MVYH7sIXAK9DPHEaqng-VaWer3WUwdV6XKEFK39W7kUFVna1os6hGzaz4j-Z7cK1_Gkp16btW3PXwIJtjR2K-2sQCUcEQ,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> NYT<
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/supreme-court-gerrymandering-north-carolina.html
> >:
>
> Thursday?s 5-4 ruling means that North Carolina?s current Republican-drawn
> map delineating its 13 Congressional districts ? a map that critics have
> said is among the country?s most egregious examples of hyper-partisanship ?
> will stand. The decision could also embolden lawmakers around the country
> to continue to push the envelope and craft seats for their respective
> parties with the aid of increasingly sophisticated computer mapping tools.
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105858&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20No%20Supreme%20Court%20End%20to%20Gerrymandering%2C%20Will%20States%20Make%20It%20More%20Extreme%3F%E2%80%9D
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,7sMAj203MVZXsph9fjagQwvIHFh152C58VHkBrVNdHKvDn2dU7uMcKoo8tKBWI_kdlD1MYT99qXP8gy3tjbFO8kq0o3_K3nAvwsYDSuMXtHYHd8CWWdfX5U,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> The Erasure of Racial Vote Dilution Doctrine<
> https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105855
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105855&c=E,1,8DRswrapdkkXLcVvOELDs3bTrHy89rBGFD87NMH5aFKfhzdzMxdWUwqeaM20LA8b3QQs370jpoA57cjK6IdgpxHlEKsDtpPt1HYC0fMeme01OITv&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 10:18 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105855
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105855&c=E,1,1RS2zdkyQKw5qdGyrrfK9cfCmIUbHGvFxX7nT8wApSvgejctxP-yL6NaKkTw7MH3g6AiFk87Yn_gOJttmAlvz26k91CA8NOyd5vDxhowHL9vSvY,&typo=1>>
> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d12&c=E,1,2yy5KuZf7RvCskSF1mvWm--iW0ZU3XwgmQB9pOcLIUSfgmVBfyn_B2BRkyMk0KY-1gXaacAWO7CWvodZsswMcybtCodnX6KUarFLmsnNbtBpcOAc4uy_5aBmlpON&typo=1>
> >
>
> I?ll have more to say about the Court?s appalling opinion in Rucho in
> Rick?s symposium next week. But I want to flag one point now: the Court?s
> erasure of racial vote dilution doctrine. This is the doctrine that allows
> groups of minority voters to challenge electoral arrangements (including
> district lines) on the ground that the policies dilute the plaintiffs?
> votes. When such claims are brought under the Constitution, they require
> both discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect in the form of
> cracking and packing that reduce the plaintiffs? electoral influence. And
> crucially, the claims can be brought under the Constitution, not just the
> Voting Rights Act. Landmark precedents like White v. Regester and Rogers v.
> Lodge involve exclusively constitutional?and successful?racial vote
> dilution suits.
>
> But you wouldn?t know any of this from Rucho. The Court discussed the two
> other kinds of redistricting claims that can be raised under the
> Constitution: one person, one vote, and racial gerrymandering. According to
> the Court, neither of these theories supports the justiciability of
> partisan gerrymandering claims. That?s because one person, one vote is an
> individualistic theory from which claims about group power can?t be
> derived, while racial gerrymandering suits don?t ?ask for a fair share of
> political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that
> entails.? In contrast, the Court didn?t say a word about racial vote
> dilution. It didn?t cite White or Rogers or any other racial vote dilution
> decision. It didn?t mention the standard for liability in these cases. It
> didn?t even acknowledge that the doctrine exists.
>
> This omission couldn?t have been accidental. In their briefs, the
> plaintiffs focused relentlessly on racial vote dilution precedents, arguing
> that they provided an analytical structure that could be used for partisan
> gerrymandering claims too. As the League of Women Voters plaintiffs put it,
> ?that [partisan gerrymandering claims] are not political questions . . .
> follows from the undisputed justiciability of racial vote-dilution cases.
> Racial vote dilution, just like partisan vote dilution, works by cracking
> and packing disfavored voters and thus abridging their electoral influence.
> The former cannot be justiciable and the latter not.? It was thus bitterly
> ironic when the Court asserted that ?Appellees contend that if we can
> adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims, we can also assess partisan
> gerrymandering claims.? After all, that was never Appellees? contention.
> Their actual argument, which the Court studiously refused to acknowledge,
> was that if the Court can adjudicate racial vote
>   dilution claims, it can also assess analytically identical partisan
> gerrymandering claims.
>
> Why did the Court refuse to recognize the plaintiffs? actual position?
> Probably because of its force. The parallels between partisan vote dilution
> and racial vote dilution go on and on, and make it impossible to
> distinguish between the doctrines? justiciability. First, both doctrines
> require proof of discriminatory intent. Second, the vote dilution condemned
> by both doctrines operates through the cracking and packing of groups of
> disfavored voters. Third, this dilution can only occur when members of both
> the favored and disfavored groups are politically cohesive. Fourth, the
> dilution can only be discerned by looking beyond the boundaries of a single
> district to the entire region where the disfavored group?s influence is
> abridged. And fifth, and most fundamentally, both claims ?ask for a fair
> share of political power and influence? for the targeted group. Both
> claims, that is, ask for the very thing that, in the Court?s view, poses
> unsolvable ?justiciability conundrums.?
>
> Rucho?s silence about racial vote dilution, then, is extremely ominous.
> Does the Court no longer believe the doctrine exists? If so, decades of
> precedent would have to be discarded and the constitutional foundation of
> Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would crumble into nothing. Or, only
> slightly less radically, does the Court think the doctrine exists but is
> nonjusticiable because it too involves ?reallocating power and influence
> between political [groups]?? Then constitutional racial vote dilution
> claims would be unavailable but Section 2 suits might still be allowed to
> proceed. Or, probably most plausibly, did the Court fail to mention the
> doctrine because its existence complicated the Court?s effort to shut the
> door on partisan gerrymandering claims? Then these dire consequences
> wouldn?t necessarily follow?but Court?s bad faith would be crystal clear.
> It?s the epitome of motivated, lawless reasoning to ignore a whole body of
> precedent just because it points in an awkward directi
>  on.
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105855&title=The%20Erasure%20of%20Racial%20Vote%20Dilution%20Doctrine
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,TrW41AOsqcxL9tiv90WAXi24RIG_rxb6CbK9WIFnEt2YdsnHOWO4La3oVo7VSx6vK_YIIbk8Qk47c2YVDjabTqlWe_khH-X_YIXNWX_QHA,,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> ?The Census Decision: Institutional Realism, Institutional Formalism, and
> Judicial Review?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105849
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105849&c=E,1,88iUe65GuRZFxJcx7KJtOTVA7go5vx4eeyqtTR1u3XU6QgGIGvZdYZALL6TA7ZZbfwy_FoXrvdJHZtO6CQkhXsmbP29XmHgOH5nS4sJwd6w,&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 9:57 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105849
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105849&c=E,1,d_-B5ZsXmds82LrgJ7b_Wbi6Nf-LRPI2lhaVO_vWhs3prIca7AxZIHCEGpB6j8hNft1kv1X3mseNZoICZXcAVkJwau8FNQvk1aWjhyDv2rjPwZAt1So,&typo=1>>
> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d7&c=E,1,XT4vizJqiiuGjgJSHqrIeqKnn0OqGcrQem1uhyk3LzCTkXcnA1WLq7YR7q2RUcKWwDvv_hpmr2FdfKJ1gWWTE_toecfYSSfN05OaZR2EngQEboWJVF4LYI1MpL4,&typo=1>
> >
>
> Yesterday at the Balkinization blog, I put up this<
> https://balkin.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-census-decision-institutional.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbalkin.blogspot.com%2f2019%2f06%2fthe-census-decision-institutional.html&c=E,1,PC6Cc4HygwHWnJ4yeudY067lvZykX-t_3Re9HPlkIabrZyPGGka7Qqv6cs_MO7zQXsaMTiR8JZz7kU0Bw05zLXqHjNqGx-qH0A2n3Fa9Z5K6Lw,,&typo=1>>
> perspective on the Court?s Census decision. Here is a bit of that analysis:
>
> Today?s decision in the Census case is a powerful example of what I call
> an ?institutionally realist? approach to judicial review of executive
> branch action.  The Court not only probed deeply beneath the surface of the
> formal administrative record, which it rarely does, to conclude that the
> administration?s justification for the citizenship question was ?contrived?
> and pretextual.
>
> In various other ways, the Court concluded that the ?unusual
> circumstances? of the case warranted the approach the Court was taking.
> For example, the Court also concluded that, even though the district judge
> was wrong to permit discovery outside the record at the stage he did so, it
> turned out after the fact that there were good reasons for doing, and the
> Court was therefore willing to rely on the information generated in this
> way.  That the stakes are far higher regarding the Census than ordinary
> administrative law issues undoubtedly played a major role in why the Court
> was willing to approach the case as it did.  The ?unusual circumstances?
> that justified a more aggressive application of administrative-law
> doctrines were thus a realistic recognition of the (1) magnitude of the
> issues and (2) the signs that there was nothing regular about the processes
> that led to the Commerce Department?s decision.
>
> I want to put this way of looking at the Census decision in a larger
> context concerning how courts review the actions of governmental
> institutions more generally.  Back before the Trump administration was a
> gleam in the eye of American politics, I wrote an article called
> Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law<
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411141
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpapers.ssrn.com%2fsol3%2fpapers.cfm%3fabstract_id%3d2411141&c=E,1,28sWCHjs9lGXjj_xHs0RnUXbwawPNIUI22nG67ByzXEP-SAVdt9i7xYY-fBZsVHF-wCO-JHwkg_utegcqFO-_ExDCqg3ih1Yhv9k5qCfhvany2yp&typo=1>>.
> I mention when the piece was written to indicate that it was not written
> (or gerrymandered) for the Trump administration.  But I think it frames the
> central, underlying issue the courts confront in reviewing many of the
> actions of the Trump administration, including in today?s Census case.
>
> The central idea of Institutional Formalism and Realism is  that, when
> courts are called up to judge the actions of other governmental
> institutions or actors, they implicitly confront a choice about whether to
> adopt a more formalist or more realist stance towards the institution or
> actor involved.   When courts are institutionally formalist, they treat the
> government institution involved largely as a black box, to which the
> Constitution (or other sources of law) allocate specific powers or
> functions.  In this mode, courts do not open up that black box to attempt
> to make more realist assessments of what underlies the way those
> institutions exercise their powers at any particular moment in time, or how
> those institutions might function differently in different eras.
>
> This is reflected in doctrines like ?the presumption of regularity,? which
> courts ordinarily apply in reviewing agency action ? and which Justice
> Thomas relies heavily on in his critical dissent today.  Institutional
> realism entails the opposite stance:  in assessing the legality of
> government decision-making, courts do take into account their judgments
> about how specific institutions are actually functioning (or failing to
> function) at particular moments in time.   ?
>
> Today?s Census decision, and the conflict between Chief Justice Roberts
> and Justice Thomas? dissent, nicely illustrates how strongly this tension
> between institutional formalism and realism underlies major Court
> decisions.  But the tension is pervasive and inescapable.
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105849&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Census%20Decision%3A%20Institutional%20Realism%2C%20Institutional%20Formalism%2C%20and%20Judicial%20Review%E2%80%9D
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,fNx15Ba8FD6oTGIOOTvP4Zb_pWKk5Dc3ZW6WRMYwqL5TbSy9uIrvJ3xXPcV0sCuxblBC2rBDVhjt8PYakfQufMV5JJx5g2AL_xX7wv9QPLgFR2-4&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> ?Trump jokes to Putin: ?Don?t meddle in the election'?<
> https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105847>
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105847%26gt%3b&c=E,1,xjEyWlTUNcnaaF6o8fCuFsdNXfCL0zoAYg4akG97EY0zKQfIyiWevqtwKwp427DXnKQKs1YJKw6vQtJTLhDgXLlb5sjVQaEY-rH7f73dCKZp8iI,&typo=1>
> Posted on June 28, 2019 9:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105847
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105847&c=E,1,RZbewKEN7EeMYpPLldn_U0ijh0yTrs7ehk7XtKePhSr-oex5l_z7C6dlA2BiQeWm05_Umz8OwQuYXwSFhgkbzPQDbWIyWbHy_97GGN5IMboSqaCGGkLHWjym2NE,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,VqtrvD0N4hbxE7qe11GxEh95JW6uagUXdDRIVpjpY33v72qQ1byAbl1gtbjMjY7oLR1LQoaxr5plpjBFIrW9ncPjgREgPTZ67yFG0NAa3PKukWKFuF_1JS0,&typo=1>
> >
>
> Politico<
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/trump-putin-meeting-1386123>:
>
> Trump spoke to reporters briefly before he and Putin were scheduled to
> talk for an hour to discuss a series of national security issues, including
> Iran?s recent aggression<
> https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-1385148>,
> the civil war in Syria, where the United States and Russia are backing
> opposing sides, and a new arms control treaty with China.
>
> When Trump did not bring up to reporters whether he would mention election
> interference, a reporter asked him if he would talk to Putin about it.
>
> ?Yes, of course I will,? Trump told reporters. Then he turned to Putin,
> smiling and wagging his finger in the Russian president?s direction at one
> point, and said: ?Don?t meddle in the election, president. Don?t meddle in
> the election.?
>
> But it?s unclear whether Trump actually pressed Putin on Mueller?s
> findings. A readout from the White House did not include the subject
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105847&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20jokes%20to%20Putin%3A%20%E2%80%98Don%E2%80%99t%20meddle%20in%20the%20election%27%E2%80%9D
> >
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d8&c=E,1,qVyo0zqioM-NVcP2vwY-qruizNyv6l9ZOyE25VuozjOwPmqhJyDsOj2QK5KClyTXItbXhqr9qSF88Zm6wJjJgS8-huChWVVEFejHQOl0cA8,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> ?Editorial: N.C. can and must act for fair districts even if high court
> won?t stop gerrymandering?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105845
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105845&c=E,1,xioWm2nzrFawLSKK-HwRctleRvha_QljW1Ugz8JQeD-jySrAXcRbAEMGMKd4pDwEoZ7oAuOfPTj6TvXqKqzj_G3KK2eeYvYvPgAY5S-cgCoM&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 9:38 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105845
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105845&c=E,1,rdpKMf3Ty269cp31-CIlir-ftI_nkxklvdliKozbp_GNe3Uvicr54zRuSQNz-H7kZgdOPNjeGVujAEP2Jy2z9YWaHJHDp6dacraDYKmGemABTw,,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,cbZCEi1tScGfF3gL9k4FquleDiTDJl1R0Mleywpjn4XBVjhDqm0Am4meOPONvl-Oq4N6odyZYiGkX8P6mtlCCw4di5jti7h0SuScN-x0Om4,&typo=1>
> >
>
> WRAL editorial.<
> https://www.wral.com/editorial-n-c-can-and-must-act-for-fair-districts-even-if-high-court-won-t-stop-gerrymandering/18478283/
> >
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105845&title=%E2%80%9CEditorial%3A%20N.C.%20can%20and%20must%20act%20for%20fair%20districts%20even%20if%20high%20court%20won%E2%80%99t%20stop%20gerrymandering%E2%80%9D
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,vJYgaTfCwqGWS5FyC1NwEs_FgV49XRygc1Ft2js8-dbkLx2i1DFeAOS4AYBvUleihjHUOLfUHOwQuQmkaRWO79wbBaO0M1ZqDlAfrLUfEw,,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> Thank You to Peter Overby<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105843
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105843&c=E,1,Mtgzt0qM-H6B7prvW5K6xXWcL5ipjf3YK9_h-bxPKUvkfnaCEiur0YG6QyCPRSAYdtz7WfcsC4qOC48Yv32vsf5Fn_BQL5YlnC0l99j7K3e2iLvI01ZwONAelvAW&typo=1>
> >
> Posted on June 28, 2019 9:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105843
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d105843&c=E,1,omJz_pNvMtxiaM0VurlQI9ZhpXK5gdrmTO5UJRaKpD1rU_Bj4S4M5VqQkAYMgMez1z7uqrcx6Et1Gp-EuNk5eUi9qOeDBWZo_yK7RjlbCUo5igw41kQcFgA,&typo=1>>
> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,uO3nj9roajWrvZJifn9b14zFbvuvaBJLKtPTR-LaaTU0-20vOHZeB93fhwKuGN0cNt5CmJ7xhTDLh0-UYBcn62s8nS26BUtyTz120NkFtg1L7rgIxw,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> Peter is retiring as the Money and Politics reporter at NPR after a great
> run. I?ve always benefitted from Peter?s tenacity and his excellent
> reporting skills.
>
> Happy Retirement and we will miss you on the beat!
> [Share]<
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105843&title=Thank%20You%20to%20Peter%20Overby
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,kalY7ZJewDvSTMCMvIdRRDIuSDfn7JK_V84HzrIi5u8TT9Waxptp0pzZNVIJ_A70O-83Bah55u0zeO755xwDJSYW9A6VYcDtX2qYkGLgQB-Msgk,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,Md_bGFgzSqscu_kt5iol8fuPS9uFfoWoJERcQjnlCzxsBkrkoxY5ZugAOuRRF5z3mPtmuiLpYDx4mj_CuqgJVeVNNfMYBp8wKM4Js8RViKqkHw,,&typo=1>
> http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttp%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f&c=E,1,c965-f9aTyouZaYdRWwzwtbdpYtNYIypbrvsr2uiQ6sVSvzHU9hnecODBXI6Q-Lws3f7jjmkiaQgAlZxD5TDQZ4YJCWHRF3szeatc8b8&typo=1>
> >
> [signature_1783277613]
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/a8cc2a39/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fa8cc2a39%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,3XxovH9wgCElNf-2Yz8VCmplPmIely-7oSFa2pshDv74YS-HUVaY7G1aoqerqtFNy_MRlU6naiwvdTlmIvsCDOj39MexjWJ6_h_wWWT8sncmjFHf3ll8&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 221574 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/a8cc2a39/attachment-0003.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fa8cc2a39%2fattachment-0003.png&c=E,1,TltBI4lOHs3aKKR7nGXR8djUPNaEcOT2rjYgLjgfdejg-rx_aFfAFRUZy9r5zH2is9qU09pGNbngoYseeJATg3dk27mghoLLAw2OKJZY5O-c&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 2021 bytes
> Desc: image002.png
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/a8cc2a39/attachment-0004.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fa8cc2a39%2fattachment-0004.png&c=E,1,1TUuUvxs9oFiny3IWdA-9BFTqWhJgxTVv4UxmT0exerf-3vTEM_yxVcXgGDEoXUqBAyEY3iRDaANtJ5Q8UmIvSMBXAtOpVkppL2f-5P0VhJcv6rjAbA,&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 25207 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/a8cc2a39/attachment-0005.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fa8cc2a39%2fattachment-0005.png&c=E,1,ZPxFYDlOR6uvcokGoG4H5qjevy3JWJB_vecWaCv-rd2viHSIVI86NDnboDO3wPJ172EYPJPzcbcDqBGsXa4PL-WnvrTmAli1NMUyYsApUIuk7gWcK3SbA-eH&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:35:04 -0400
> From: Jeff Wice <jmwice at gmail.com>
> To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Equalizing CVAP without citizenship question
> Message-ID: <3fb8bdc9-885c-4c7e-a0e8-3b2545b5d449 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The Census Bureau informed participants at a recent National Conference of
> State Legislatures (NCSL) redistricting seminar that it has been asked by
> the Commerce Department to look into providing citizenship data derived
> from the ACS in the PL 94-171 datafile provided to the states. No decision
> has yet been made.
> I recently came upon an expert statement submitted to a New York federal
> district court by the late Tom Hofeller where he said: "When the Census
> Bureau initiated the ACS process, it was made clear that the ACS data were
> not intended for use in redistricting and were certainly not included in
> the details? small area tabulations to be released in conjunction with the
> Public Law 94-171 data generated for the Census Bureau?s Redistricting Data
> Program.?
> Tom elaborated on this in detail in his report submitted to the New York
> eastern district federal court in the case Boone et al v. Nassau County
> Legislature et al (see document no. 44-4 in case 2:11-cv-02712). Readers
> who are interested in reading the entire explanation can email mail me
> directly for a copy.
> Jeff Wice
> via Newton Mail [
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.18&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcloudmagic.com%2fk%2fd%2fmailapp%3fct%3ddx%26cv%3d10.0.18%26pv%3d10.14.5%26source%3demail_footer_2&c=E,1,I9driV-t7tpNZsk2Vh9BVG8Kzzj4qtOKXm-kdSkmhy0AZAvfVq1Jt0g6T0GvCmZKBiZwnaIrrktc1-COeEpY_rBq2TsMnnBuQ7VOnWSiJ9eytrR-&typo=1>
> ]
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:50 PM, Douglas Johnson <
> djohnson at ndcresearch.com> wrote:
> All of those options include both measurable and unmeasurable margins of
> error, the former of which could be calculated and used to determine the
> odds that all the districts are within the allowed spread. For Congress,
> that?s near-impossible. It might work for some legislative plans.
> - Doug
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:53 PM Kogan, Vladimir < kogan.18 at osu.edu [
> kogan.18 at osu.edu] > wrote:
> Relatedly, is there anything that would prevent the Trump administration
> from directing the Census Bureau to put out block level CVAP estimates by
> appending Census counts to other administrative data (which critics of the
> citizenship questions have argued all along provide more accurate
> citizenship info) for easy redistricting use?
>
>
>
> From: Kogan, Vladimir
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:15 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv < law-election at uci.edu [law-election at uci.edu] >
> Subject: Equalizing CVAP without citizenship question
>
>
>
> Question: Suppose that (1) the citizenship question stays off the 2020
> census and (2) at least one state decides to redistrict by equalizing CVAP
> anyway using the American Community Survey citizenship estimates (combined
> with the 2020 population counts).
>
>
>
> Have any courts ruled on the question of how to navigate population
> equality requirements with data subject to considerable statistical
> uncertainty due to sampling? I know CVAP is used all the time in the
> context of VRA compliance; are there any cases from that area that speak to
> this question? (I realize Evenwel left open the question of whether
> equalizing CVAP was permissible, but it seems like there are five votes on
> that question.)
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Vlad
>
>
>
>
> Vladimir Kogan , Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science
>
> 2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 [
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/154+N.+Oval+Mall,+Columbus,+OH+43210?entry=gmail&source=g]
> -1373
>
> 510/415-4074 Mobile
>
> 614/292-9498 Office
>
> 614/292-1146
>
> http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/ [http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/]
>
> kogan.18 at osu.edu [kogan.18 at osu.edu]
>
> @vkoganosu [https://twitter.com/vkoganosu]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu [
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu]
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,iR4hIDm_ifwM0XHRHm9vX2CUYrXQaKUeN5bxD8Va6_sWIYqiLqzY-Rt8RsPA4Kp5VUiuwZb2d7IIVHokMSZMh7Kk9j_qQTKgxLKwUNugksayitbr8GgaFIrrVVc,&typo=1>
> [https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,20ke6V6HvZc_vKeqot9D7wyZBq__QD06m90a_KlhkC-VcP38jlPmnP4ZMmT_E9q5-LJEeZg9QZ3LRXVb-9dkZWhxPv_TZqJg_5My18id4Wc,&typo=1>]
> --
> - Doug
>
> Douglas Johnson
> National Demographics Corporation
> djohnson at NDCresearch.com
> phone 310-200-2058
> fax 818-254-1221
> _______________________________________________ Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,tNq58wsLJ5A14QzJ2S9ZBxoLzv3qU8nw-ASLcKx_yw6fK616_z8DjM9yw7opMHb0v63P-5qkn_n-1e1CwQK0NIrX_rHw6IY42QM7uLBE--oIEn-xVYfh&typo=1>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/cabffb9b/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fcabffb9b%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,tXYK8VOD8-UzTfdnKG18523oK8H5Je31NVVUm23aZUXgL8ynzUZkcU1-UMTmxnulstjpmis76eh7Ey26vM3xaHL5KZb30-Xlg-zsa6PHU4DvlByi&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/cabffb9b/attachment-0001.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fcabffb9b%2fattachment-0001.png&c=E,1,sR3w8H2kh9xYiDggwko8i7z64Z3XZkR8N8ns75NmZbdiUgvSR2tDTdgHw_xNePqkza7fsTyFm-wGheQR_vdW-OjYvZmms3kiVDajQnGNc41OmtU9&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.gif
> Type: image/gif
> Size: 1351 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/cabffb9b/attachment-0001.gif
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190628%2fcabffb9b%2fattachment-0001.gif&c=E,1,XU93ORghcjUnsK7XRGy2jb-XNfMfqnTmdT_6nuc6LH091pRrBr5kf7Vyk9cJe7ftjM1Hk3qyPMr9sYzTxmmW6FEfMa3IHKxUAzQisUUlwdPd9iECAadU&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 21:07:32 -0400
> From: Greg Warrington <gregory.warrington at uvm.edu>
> To: Nicholas Stephanopoulos <nicholas.stephanopoulos at gmail.com>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID: <20190629010731.GC28077 at gswarrin-XPS-13-9350>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Unfortunately, the bare recitation of seats-votes outcomes plays into
> the narrative of the majority that a gerrymander exists through the
> resulting deviation from proportionality.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:29:40PM -0500, Nicholas Stephanopoulos wrote:
> > Though note that Kagan extensively discusses the seat and vote figures
> from
> > which asymmetry metrics are calculated -- and not just in order to
> compare
> > these figures to the performance of the computer-generated maps.
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > In 2012, Republican candidates won 9 of the State?s 13 seats in the U. S.
> > House of Representatives, although they received only 49% of the
> statewide
> > vote. In 2014, Republican candidates increased their total to 10 of the
> 13
> > seats, this time based on 55% of the vote.
> >
> > In 2016, Republican congressional candidates won 10 of North Carolina?s
> 13
> > seats, with 53% of the statewide vote. Two years later,Republican
> > candidates won 9 of 12 seats though they received only 50% of the vote.
> >
> > In the four elections that followed (from 2012 through 2018), Democrats
> > have never received more than 65% of the statewide congressional vote.
> Yet
> > in each of those elections, Democrats have won (you guessed it) 7 of
> > 8 House seats.
> >
> > Take Pennsylvania. In the three congressional elections occurring under
> the
> > State?s original districting plan (before the State Supreme Court struck
> it
> > down), Democrats receivedbetween 45% and 51% of the statewide vote, but
> won
> > only5 of 18 House seats.
> >
> > Or go next door to Ohio. There, in four congressional elections,
> Democrats
> > tallied between 39% and 47% of the statewide vote, but never won more
> than
> > 4 of 16 House seats.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:13 PM Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests
> did
> > > or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention
> that
> > > these tests received *no *attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.
> > > When she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> > > unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies
> entirely
> > > on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> > > enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> > > direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which
> she
> > > relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional
> reliance
> > > on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about
> whether
> > > she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief
> description of
> > > what the District Court did.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard H. Pildes
> > >
> > > Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> > >
> > > NYU School of Law
> > >
> > > 40 Washington Sq. So.
> > >
> > > NYC, NY 10012
> > >
> > > 212 998-6377
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Law-election [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> > > *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Stephanopoulos
> > > *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> > > *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > > *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He clearly understood; see all his passages in *Whitford* last year
> > > discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> > > interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could
> just
> > > return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and
> votes
> > > (much like Scalia did in *Vieth*).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC
> plaintiffs
> > > proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing
> how
> > > the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they
> each . .
> > > . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion
> of
> > > KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> > > ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on
> unfair
> > > results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at
> 420.
> > > Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no
> light
> > > on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> > > therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> > > unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
> > >
> > >
> > > Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> > > gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> > > Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473
> (opinion
> > > concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> > > himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the
> utility
> > > of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be
> devoted
> > > to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of
> redistricting
> > > and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and
> dissenting
> > > in part).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act
> 43
> > > had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of
> Republicans.
> > > This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was
> derived
> > > from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC.
> The
> > > plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> > > symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> > > [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for
> Appellees
> > > 37.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> > > purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> > > address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> > > citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> > > something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> > > fortunes of political parties.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution
> doesn?t
> > > require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *On
> > > Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> > > *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > > *Subject:* [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> > > gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference
> between
> > > proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> > > just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs?
> They
> > > couldn?t have made it clearer.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,X1iwE25SS8Ib6Exkp-WNyiLMpeaxQclILkDbm3V2wjrLh3oD1tebYLsccc82zESJONV2ujaBHRIsBhwcsgjec9yk0yFvlmzrOQwN_bCj3O6w8XJa&typo=1>
> > > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,oAMfteceuB4lC_jAFUJbj4oXWavVHsiy4lFEKgjWPzFc_BUYk2PrEdPoYxSKR-jT8lhOkPIVBrG7mPBhnf8Xyic578Y2mv0b5M7BJyjGKIxzbqXR6w,,&typo=1>
> >
> > >
> > > http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org&c=E,1,hGCpGvmWpCUD1GtGzdDd36GwbEwIhCshGB0EBr3aVCtH82apfZc0QI8tJ-4ZktTmBhJhDw2SQYb2eZqsfvW3rF-_88jcA3d8mkdaxzIQ3g,,&typo=1>
> > > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,R6zL25khysxtYUpDjhrQOmUrMy_rl1zsY6cyms8d1XH--0EgCGhTfGGRN--UmZaXAeKOCyQ0gZoAiDLegbYnfTuvxvz15Z2AiufQHpF6tVgFuhS-LUKhAFTH&typo=1>
> >
> > >
> > > [image: signature_1987881029]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Law-election mailing list
> > > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,s85a86QPT1eU0F5EdTkUXvWYN64-4vSyWFDygL81i7WlyDJ4lmj4SegV-8uWzrOaopnNU7JDNVLLLBVNlj8LC-djXG-3Nus6qkUqlJjK8GnX&typo=1>
> > > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,Vap0r_dMXWIy4jPKiY3Cw6YGNDRpShi3l2TXucc5Lw-3PXEMC7pTWSeoHra-H1NhLOh1FC9IgjhzPaEERY18Ylhrtps6ZVBI7QN9SM3RDpMC302i4dXn6doYFA,,&typo=1>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> > > Professor of Law
> > >
> > > Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> > > University of Chicago Law School
> > > nsteph at uchicago.edu
> > > (773) 702-4226
> > > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> > > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dTRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ%26e%3d&c=E,1,UMTXZh7YJ4PtdgeZjy5GFrzK9NRzD5weome-5-27NWgV7y17bRXoTsD3-_-5EhRjHazs1H5upMWBEiz4rglzFj5QdhRLYaOApzxgNmVQ6YkV9b0,&typo=1>
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Law-election mailing list
> > > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,tYtML9-kMUaTffU1bRzUvaDNINO5FOpPsvMLSGUJTBoEOBiVZziYRa_2YsDCkegpiTrQ3-wHI4cPrJoAcI1ogIWlip8Qf4fCZxZq732iZa6IiGcCPcOM4g,,&typo=1>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> > Professor of Law
> > Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> > University of Chicago Law School
> > nsteph at uchicago.edu
> > (773) 702-4226
> > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,2LcjD4WPAj5cEKYo_jojgzKdDqoPFMPJ_ifTCM5o6c4ySLvGGONqY4osX3IaamCxNVqzg2zXg4q6kKBsLUsHIFbFqFfKAXkrfJJ5MkOfxt8cyrzLsi-Xoijhe-Ci&typo=1>
>
>
> --
> Greg Warrington
> Associate {Chair,Professor}
> Department of Mathematics & Statistics
> University of Vermont
> gswarrin at uvm.edu
> http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~gswarrin/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cems.uvm.edu%2f~gswarrin%2f&c=E,1,noEE00o1nSQZRQmZilS3lLBRGL5TLm54mXsziOaYb7XKM0QA0RltKv0zaX1w5w73qa0_GHPCpskluWxFk7cv8t8iNq9uE7Hud9Q_p_PvNMGsf1Q,&typo=1>
> (802) 656-2195
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 02:45:04 +0000
> From: "Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie)" <MElias at perkinscoie.com>
> To: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>, "Pildes, Rick"
>         <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID: <DD2C2BC4-D316-485C-A5E1-68270123BBD4 at perkinscoie.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> As a practicing lawyer with four recent Supreme Court cases involving
> racial gerrymandering, I think Guy is exactly right.  As an observer to the
> partisan gerrymandering claims, I was struck at how much the law professors
> morphed into quantitative social scientists ? like the ones lawyers
> typically use as expert witnesses.  While political scientists play an
> essential role in these cases, it?s not clear why the legal scholars didn?t
> spend more time bolstering a coherent legal theory and let the political
> scientists handle the math.  That is not to say that the legal theories
> advanced in these cases were not coherent (they largely were), but the
> contribution by law professors seemed less legal and more quantitative.
>
> --
> Marc E. Elias
> Perkins Coie LLP
> 700 13th St, NW
> Washington, DC 20005
> 202-434-1609
> melias at perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias at perkinscoie.com>
> @marceelias<https://twitter.com/marceelias>
>
> For scheduling assistance, or if its urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com<mailto:ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com> or
> 908-377-7531.
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Guy-Uriel Charles <charles at law.duke.edu>
> Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:27 PM
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> My point is not about lawyering.  It?s about scholarship and specifically
> about legal scholarship.
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> Guy,
> As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly and
> directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
>
>
> From: Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,GlV08O9eL0FPvJQUUs_usFU3sQlfTtyttWR1xIEqG3U-3qpHyPEzlrJqIFLLWi0fxw0ECm9rxhsIlPFXUmmRaULoDqIXak7vZHlTpmCPq7uSX-6h372cp5OMoeQ,&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,dbK9TeArvSUkT4-uYPvEIIgSw4HwuDB4cF8YaZ9EqinKaNwN501pIKIAKlmxwokWaD6XrjRscxVID8hsOF0o5N2BXoUeSde26cKFXud25OVaI_wX61b3Xt9-&typo=1>
> >
> <image001.png>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,vWu2N9gZ16gBNTui7iGxuo0nIWy7obtWJZ3-qApD1-t8y-W5AzRbBtIqCiV8Ik7LlEAjXxnoFkztWBc3Mr36EumhAXMma6VlnMjiUTfi&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,cx_jseQE9pja-H2PX1rHecVeBaJArJ-l-pBhDwQYaLvHQhHm_atESDgjLRZQxZAfrhFbJHG2KG68zmI3N6QonBcozxux7plwjB7e28D6If4,&typo=1>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/0ba8581b/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2f0ba8581b%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,KAPgWtLqQBuPEh8GR9bAdf_fJt5jZElUTQ5Z4li6Q_dCbkdMljDIlvJdU9YpzXzukGG17ykOnJIt4KfcSdi_fgvU24Rp_IS-YnbJ0U_SWZS7kOiB&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 02:48:51 +0000
> From: "Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie)" <MElias at perkinscoie.com>
> To: "Guy-Uriel E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>, "Pildes, Rick"
>         <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID: <C027B133-F960-4889-ABC3-55D86522E2C2 at perkinscoie.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> And to clarify?I don?t mean the law professors acting as counsel in the
> cases.  I mean the legal scholarship?as Guy suggests.
>
> --
> Marc E. Elias
> Perkins Coie LLP
> 700 13th St, NW
> Washington, DC 20005
> 202-434-1609
> melias at perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias at perkinscoie.com>
> @marceelias<https://twitter.com/marceelias>
>
> For scheduling assistance, or if its urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com<mailto:ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com> or
> 908-377-7531.
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Marc Elias <MElias at perkinscoie.com>
> Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 10:45 PM
> To: Guy-Uriel Charles <charles at law.duke.edu>, "Pildes, Rick" <
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> As a practicing lawyer with four recent Supreme Court cases involving
> racial gerrymandering, I think Guy is exactly right.  As an observer to the
> partisan gerrymandering claims, I was struck at how much the law professors
> morphed into quantitative social scientists ? like the ones lawyers
> typically use as expert witnesses.  While political scientists play an
> essential role in these cases, it?s not clear why the legal scholars didn?t
> spend more time bolstering a coherent legal theory and let the political
> scientists handle the math.  That is not to say that the legal theories
> advanced in these cases were not coherent (they largely were), but the
> contribution by law professors seemed less legal and more quantitative.
>
> --
> Marc E. Elias
> Perkins Coie LLP
> 700 13th St, NW
> Washington, DC 20005
> 202-434-1609
> melias at perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias at perkinscoie.com>
> @marceelias<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_marceelias&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=mJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI&m=kDH7VpJONBhs91InBj33amSfJRKGPmGlofCF9_-tHyo&s=OTZSSX9J6vTNt0Ossu-HiGu9W8h9y6yX_HRrtIw6gPY&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__twitter.com_marceelias%26d%3dDwMGaQ%26c%3dXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3dmJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI%26m%3dkDH7VpJONBhs91InBj33amSfJRKGPmGlofCF9_-tHyo%26s%3dOTZSSX9J6vTNt0Ossu-HiGu9W8h9y6yX_HRrtIw6gPY%26e%3d&c=E,1,hvLO3IJq2il1IdM2sd4B2I4jkMyPtDjPA42f8Cv9gyZQp0smcN27j9SXDBuwjfrIyVSR2h5Ify118KMUOxFCbrrK-gXEw1vLGAA6G-btMX_jL70hlBdtww,,&typo=1>
> >
>
> For scheduling assistance, or if its urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com<mailto:ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com> or
> 908-377-7531.
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Guy-Uriel Charles <charles at law.duke.edu>
> Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:27 PM
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> My point is not about lawyering.  It?s about scholarship and specifically
> about legal scholarship.
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> Guy,
> As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly and
> directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
>
>
> From: Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
> --
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,WZytlQEdN0JjR5rgSP3rrlUR1AsIGwy07ZxEK99zAdXtjzuNZP1TxJ18ANodcwHAwl0IS4fe3Or1uevm9fygEFC3hJ4e0PrBIJaC8cTpMhM3bo0F1fSw&typo=1>
> >
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,6wyNVAczhVMO5jbVEVjsJAMEY7PpUe-kwJ6kHKloxv6fOxMWjkalgHB0oGI0ZVxTO1IIJLMdDcaVeuuW4u8CXuNj3ycYsFvYT_QnwmmCiHcF&typo=1>
> >
> <image001.png>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,vR1NkCUOhnZHnhBL6unzJCueiwN8W73H9rgw2H-0gIPOXPDNA0l1Dlh9VJ5RMJj-SdUCxLrv-S7doX0RL4WVthyEex3l1v4zAqMEguUkgfHW&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,e8iY3DSKB4MVgU4s9cDkb8RdmAYEtfOXpZQ5DLHi7df8EmScMAf2pyEbZ2YgD8wUSLZaYoR4nSaCXN-ULcqVuJZI7cofn_P3T2d99ypGR4hdljibA-rTfuT-GQ,,&typo=1>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/8e798431/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2f8e798431%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,U2GqhTbBD6freccNbeoSf93AKQm4zWc-o7zUVdlOI1-ndivLG8tFRe6nU3KPLLQcB1avYXGj_jRn5B1lSFxpANpVvnwuqAQnhdqb-wLEojg,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 15:00:50 +0000
> From: Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>
> To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
>         <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] Scalia?s Last Laugh
> Message-ID:
>         <
> BYAPR08MB47261C7D869D09E39D45F6B8A9FF0 at BYAPR08MB4726.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Our response to Rucho
>
> https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/06/28/the-supreme-courts-partisan-gerrymandering-decision-is-justice-scalias-last-laugh-democratic-restoration-now-depends-on-the-people-alone/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblogs.lse.ac.uk%2fusappblog%2f2019%2f06%2f28%2fthe-supreme-courts-partisan-gerrymandering-decision-is-justice-scalias-last-laugh-democratic-restoration-now-depends-on-the-people-alone%2f&c=E,1,rSOmKpDP1Ata6Ye2ioNPcFAaMNmuE0WbUAgn81QbeMboiZ0JTQky4WREZomxvUW2aiSlTAqWPX9DLog0c7k_Gs3aDydP8EP6e00XBwV1TzphneYxxP89Fw,,&typo=1>
> ML
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2faka.ms%2fo0ukef&c=E,1,6HsyXmGJKTQieQMyGMOGN5BNCbwfhnxPlYsIaLq--UDKY1uQk6KwaUP6NzkjUX-RgSSGSGFyO-x8oy07ihuH7rRyF5wi07wGTJGibhLOSX-5IoYJOg,,&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/b8814b3a/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2fb8814b3a%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,qN9ZCgKPzIHtjdKnTHQOLSO7y1pKrDguLTVClfG_OJdntSq5fiim8lwqMaTxbxlwmD46vt5n96R-rw7xeTEufhpOMebB4GCk_USQeEBfC7wUgv2ElYlX3TQ,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 15:28:35 +0000
> From: "Chambers, Hank" <hchamber at richmond.edu>
> To: "Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie)" <MElias at perkinscoie.com>, "Guy-Uriel
>         E. Charles" <charles at law.duke.edu>, "Pildes, Rick"
>         <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <
> SN6PR13MB23992B8007F292D832F0EB6AA2FF0 at SN6PR13MB2399.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I tend to agree with Marc and Guy about the mismatch.  I always prefer
> that courts give a nod to or engage with legal (and other relevant)
> scholarship, but I am not sure what shrift the symmetry literature should
> get in the majority opinion (or even the minority opinion) in Rucho.
>
> Assume Chief Justice Roberts fully agrees that the scholarship on symmetry
> provides evidence/proof of partisan gerrymandering and its severity, but
> that partisan gerrymandering - even severe partisan gerrymandering - is not
> unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment/equal protection clause.  Assume
> that CJ Roberts further believes that even if some severe gerrymandering is
> unconstitutional, symmetry analysis can tell us how severe the gerrymander
> is, but does not help a court draw the line between a severe and
> unconstitutional gerrymander and a severe and constitutional gerrymander.
>
> If CJ Roberts believes what is in the paragraph above - the opinion seems
> to provide justification to think he may - I am not sure he needs to engage
> the literature on symmetry in his opinion. At least, he is no more derelict
> in declining to engage the symmetry literature than the Court is in many
> other opinions where it declines to engage relevant legal scholarship.
>
> -Hank
>
>
> Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
>
> Austin E. Owen Research Scholar and Professor of Law
>
> University of Richmond School of Law
>
> 203 Richmond Way
>
> Richmond, Va. 23173
>
> (804) 289-8199
>
> hchamber at richmond.edu
>
> ________________________________
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie) <MElias at perkinscoie.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 10:48 PM
> To: Guy-Uriel E. Charles; Pildes, Rick
> Cc: Election Law Listserv
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
>
> And to clarify?I don?t mean the law professors acting as counsel in the
> cases.  I mean the legal scholarship?as Guy suggests.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc E. Elias
>
> Perkins Coie LLP
>
> 700 13th St, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> 202-434-1609
>
> melias at perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias at perkinscoie.com>
>
> @marceelias<https://twitter.com/marceelias>
>
>
>
> For scheduling assistance, or if its urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com<mailto:ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com> or
> 908-377-7531.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Marc Elias <MElias at perkinscoie.com>
> Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 10:45 PM
> To: Guy-Uriel Charles <charles at law.duke.edu>, "Pildes, Rick" <
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
>
>
> As a practicing lawyer with four recent Supreme Court cases involving
> racial gerrymandering, I think Guy is exactly right.  As an observer to the
> partisan gerrymandering claims, I was struck at how much the law professors
> morphed into quantitative social scientists ? like the ones lawyers
> typically use as expert witnesses.  While political scientists play an
> essential role in these cases, it?s not clear why the legal scholars didn?t
> spend more time bolstering a coherent legal theory and let the political
> scientists handle the math.  That is not to say that the legal theories
> advanced in these cases were not coherent (they largely were), but the
> contribution by law professors seemed less legal and more quantitative.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc E. Elias
>
> Perkins Coie LLP
>
> 700 13th St, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> 202-434-1609
>
> melias at perkinscoie.com<mailto:melias at perkinscoie.com>
>
> @marceelias<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_marceelias&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=mJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI&m=kDH7VpJONBhs91InBj33amSfJRKGPmGlofCF9_-tHyo&s=OTZSSX9J6vTNt0Ossu-HiGu9W8h9y6yX_HRrtIw6gPY&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__twitter.com_marceelias%26d%3dDwMGaQ%26c%3dXRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0%26r%3dmJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI%26m%3dkDH7VpJONBhs91InBj33amSfJRKGPmGlofCF9_-tHyo%26s%3dOTZSSX9J6vTNt0Ossu-HiGu9W8h9y6yX_HRrtIw6gPY%26e%3d&c=E,1,4uQqGFMMgqqhL1dhac6JJBcn-blGroGxUqIFz-hYeDy1affCXJO5n_TlX9yBxGOlk8GFrY38zmDmL37sY4hl-ovljgET63tNkLVJtXb1LYXX8eQrWYha3w,,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
>
> For scheduling assistance, or if its urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com<mailto:ARothenberg at perkinscoie.com> or
> 908-377-7531.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Guy-Uriel Charles <charles at law.duke.edu>
> Date: Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:27 PM
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
>
>
> My point is not about lawyering.  It?s about scholarship and specifically
> about legal scholarship.
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Guy,
>
> As part of the Common Cause legal team in the North Carolina case, I can
> tell you that the work of Michael Kang and Justin Levitt significantly and
> directly influenced the structure of arguments Common Cause made.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Guy-Uriel E. Charles [mailto:charles at law.duke.edu
> <charles at law.duke.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's dissent
> in Rucho
>
>
>
> Rick raises an interesting point.  I?ve been struck by the mismatch
> between the substantive focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal
> academic literature.  I wonder if legal academics were insufficiently
> attentive to the legal/theoretical questions raised by the cases and too
> focused on the empirical/political science issues.  To be a bit more
> precise, I wonder if the focus on EG and symmetry standards overshadowed
> what should have been a healthy debate about the legal/theoretical
> questions that a number of legal academics, (C. Elmendorf, M. Kang, J.
> Levitt, Charles/Fuentes-Rowher among others) attempted to raise. We all
> tend to see Rucho through our own priors.  And I will admit to that bias in
> this case.  But again, I was surprised by what seemed to me to an asymmetry
> (sorry) between the focus of the opinions in Rucho and the legal academic
> literature.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests did
> or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention that
> these tests received no attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.  When
> she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies entirely
> on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
>
>
> The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about whether
> she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description of
> what the District Court did.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Nicholas
> Stephanopoulos
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> To: Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
>
>
> He clearly understood; see all his passages in Whitford last year
> discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could just
> return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and votes
> (much like Scalia did in Vieth).
>
>
>
> ---------------------
>
>
>
> Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing how
> the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each . .
> . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair
> results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at 420.
> Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no light
> on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
>
> Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473 (opinion
> concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the utility
> of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting
> and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting
> in part).
>
>
>
> Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of Republicans.
> This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was derived
> from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for Appellees
> 37.
>
>
>
> We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> fortunes of political parties.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu
> <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>> wrote:
>
> A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
>
>
>
> It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference between
> proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> couldn?t have made it clearer.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 <rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,Ontq1TKpDXwjRvilLXIqV_LyKfZf4DzOBjgQQLwLLVE9tfeAtv5kWIHqHH6KG8Ce8HEb9DhivCv7M9wmDhOCUBZPqF8B4e8qN1rb13Cawl92FGNlLwbA&typo=1>
> >
>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,dode31AYa0hY3tmMdOCrkoId5ujsiCAVIsdpK4dADlsrQWaiHXvZZxw2EXDMo1cbt5iuo2ZowQVM_SFXzYtosRw9CKXr-l_r2-Qu9_EuJluSLPXDZKED_I5tcus,&typo=1>
> >
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election%3chttps%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,gZlE4BSXmxUrj9DUanWlrGCB-8fkkE7W3gY20Pt0PeswoNuMDCWpYI0Ci1fZWxYG43JACQW2iK0Sbtga8G_D-iC6QwvvDs9Q_6bDIbPRHpRaOZiovuIYhEvKTuM,&typo=1>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
>
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu<mailto:nsteph at uchicago.edu <nsteph at uchicago.edu>>
> (773) 702-4226
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwICAg&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=d0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A&m=NFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU&s=guma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwICAg%26c%3dimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc%26r%3dd0QtrWt2UsK3E_3jflzx-PHJlNtl73NzZkWTMFdtu-A%26m%3dNFLyjmnx_FdjXYcFt1Cwwp7LbJBiyku5HCCwTpRTEEU%26s%3dguma7dE7STKBjdGc6A5BNNkQD4hAOmPfLkj7ipgxNvg%26e%3d&c=E,1,NXZhMuAKud5xhCIWBxGQxkc1WOA1p_XmeM-GTtV5DliZ3fCFaUGjhfwsdkKcDBKvfnah4gsudi58fLEQ92o516X3Ug4qUrVPPMnPhldQs04v&typo=1>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/82110455/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2f82110455%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,C2b9xSV6DklxFAMeMzDRiLwt7iTzjvMd89hHB7KThl-GJ1H6HaLhU6-Sm7VU1ysn97VdQKvLGJKbDBeQzOtYQ3AJW23P6q48V70dTt82i4H3WJnZ5kcJ&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:31:30 -0400
> From: Mark <markrush7983 at gmail.com>
> To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] symmetry got no shrift at all in Justice Kagan's
>         dissent in Rucho
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CACsASVtgbBf_24_9p5f3w_aySHk2j9qOKwho+sBNxgDoOPPriA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Is it not even remotely possible that those symmetry tests (and other
> similar statewide tests) that SCOTUS rejected in Gill and rejected again in
> Rucho need some work?  They are based on the assumption that partisan votes
> in one district are equatable to partisan votes in another.  I know it
> takes on the entire profession to say this, but  poli sci research has
> shown that this is not true.
>
> Getting rid of the single member district  and moving to nonpartisan
> commissions would go a long way towards resolving our collective concerns
> about gerrymandering.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:13 PM Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In light of the exchanges here about how much attention symmetry tests
> did
> > or didn?t receive in the Roberts opinion, it seems odd not to mention
> that
> > these tests received *no *attention at all in Justice Kagan?s dissent.
> > When she lays out her approach for how the courts should determine when
> > unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has occurred, she relies
> entirely
> > on the use of alternative, non-partisan maps to determine whether an
> > enacted plan is enough of an outlier to be unconstitutional (of course,
> > direct evidence of intent is also relevant).
> >
> >
> >
> > The only time she even mentions symmetry tests is in note 4, to which she
> > relegates a brief description of the District Court?s additional reliance
> > on such tests.  Even then, she does not actually say anything about
> whether
> > she endorses this approach.   The note just provides a brief description
> of
> > what the District Court did.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard H. Pildes
> >
> > Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> >
> > NYU School of Law
> >
> > 40 Washington Sq. So.
> >
> > NYC, NY 10012
> >
> > 212 998-6377
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> > *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Stephanopoulos
> > *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 AM
> > *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> >
> >
> > He clearly understood; see all his passages in *Whitford* last year
> > discussing symmetry. But that was a concept in which Kennedy was
> > interested, not Roberts. So with Kennedy off the Court, Roberts could
> just
> > return to calling everything proportionality if it involved seats and
> votes
> > (much like Scalia did in *Vieth*).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs
> > proposed a ?symmetry standard? to ?measure partisan bias? by comparing
> how
> > the two major political parties ?would fare hypothetically if they each
> . .
> > . received a given percentage of the vote.? 548 U. S., at 419 (opinion of
> > KENNEDY, J.). JUSTICE KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of
> > ?adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on
> unfair
> > results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs.? Id., at
> 420.
> > Aside from that problem, he wrote,the partisan bias standard shed no
> light
> > on ?how much partisan dominance is too much.? Ibid. JUSTICE KENNEDY
> > therefore concluded that ?asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of
> > unconstitutional partisanship.? Ibid.
> >
> >
> > Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan
> > gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on
> > Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466?467, 471?473
> (opinion
> > concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for
> > himself and JUSTICE GINSBURG, noted that he would not ?rule out the
> utility
> > of a criterion of symmetry,? and that ?further attention could be devoted
> > to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of
> redistricting
> > and its review.? Id., at 483?484 (opinion concurring in part and
> dissenting
> > in part).
> >
> >
> >
> > Third, the plaintiffs offered evidence concerning the impact that Act 43
> > had in skewing Wisconsin?s statewide political map in favor of
> Republicans.
> > This evidence, which made up the heart of the plaintiffs? case, was
> derived
> > from partisan-asymmetry studies similar to those discussed in LULAC. The
> > plaintiffs contend that these studies measure deviations from ?partisan
> > symmetry,? which they describe as the ?social scientific tenet that
> > [districting] maps should treat parties symmetrically.? Brief for
> Appellees
> > 37.
> >
> >
> >
> > We need not doubt the plaintiffs? math. The difficulty for standing
> > purposes is that these calculations are an average measure. They do not
> > address the effect that a gerrymander has on the votes of particular
> > citizens. Partisan-asymmetry metrics such as the efficiency gap measure
> > something else en- tirely: the effect that a gerrymander has on the
> > fortunes of political parties.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:50 PM Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > A vote for willful misrepresentation.  Claiming ?the Constitution doesn?t
> > require proportionality? is a handy strawman.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> > Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 9:46 PM
> > *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* [EL] symmetry really got short shrift in Rucho
> >
> >
> >
> > It is like a reprise of the Gill oral argument and sociological
> > gobbledygook: does the Chief Justice not understand the difference
> between
> > proportional representation arguments and symmetry arguments, or did he
> > just willfully misrepresent the position of many of the plaintiffs? They
> > couldn?t have made it clearer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> > http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,urpeo990-_Kh_WqjhforwsmTR12OOQCToTbXuBilRxZgLZghdFLsbMm4W_q07tn7kHfk6T_G4nAoh0taHHzySd3lKUOrxyYCl0iWvxG1HjOYs8mlzCuZVhCN&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=xMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252fwww.law.uci.edu-252ffaculty-252ffull-2Dtime-252fhasen-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CqtVSaqz0B2vqt8S376CZOFPX50l2RU-2D16hFdm12bdSVFFWLXvDTIRzQteCOd86SOl11mYnJU7mTfRu0e6As7F3gncxMycvRutVI9hNZQACeKM-5Fs1qYAt-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dxMY5VaxLZKqE-YVQgnXQNRyuPMM5dp3TWd9gLPs9pbc%26e%3d&c=E,1,zBiYSOaAc_bvt9VHh_fR9n28EDYGeYsj_cND5SNm0f80cdLgtBHYK-0CjtxxIBy2WlRadP6cl-XxeTN2iwEZ-ePdgr_Rri2DqOQi1rBhJgJ2lA,,&typo=1>
> >
> >
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org&c=E,1,qDyIuoMxuAVx95dJT1EPMh1EV4hKyoshuvhqX92bKP_2WZPKlcsxp4LhuzKWeF-7jDOH1Umbnn8gCBPLYZudaFOcGJ1E6OF6_z5Xdnt3EhB-GqW7rg,,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=JVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-26c-3DE-2C1-2CwtR1Y0Xj7USme-5FfcDKZNy7w0ckB-2Dpx6BsOza8yHM-2D6dwvJY6VDddHbtYL6A9PCQt3-5FxVba1WoUf6x8qRMl1H2H2-5F0JaOBocWgzekvcE-2DkJVOCMftav-5F2-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dJVzFWZ-VlzC6-wbJMuDrEzNH8lkFT2ouXFCEsjs9uKA%26e%3d&c=E,1,4bbSPzj43pDR5S6s3313DNv2sLTaVa41X3Bsnpuw1-GDqRa5FollfRJyJsn-4w-rSCDxRML1EC23en1lvUC0wek7r3r68Tomyg3M3dzRVV_UWWiU&typo=1>
> >
> >
> > [image: signature_1987881029]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,Lekex9xxyx_hjPDtD8qgDYWe1TadZewFzv_cx-A9M4ifxR3YtPUaQxlSXba54nAA1i2PRi9ajYlXf7avZsXv9b4ItCSKZU3tTRza6arlLNaI8xvNshLXQHxfvuc,&typo=1>
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=H8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dH8NfkuN4rFrf_phzEWvZRKUafWfz2N4smkAOsRlwPaU%26e%3d&c=E,1,CkGlyM8_PEgkNqO6T2GNjnccPwDrocNAy5wKbkEPgEcQqBv8DrN3YKIEML4CKy3cs3PVjgqpJeBfNXMRpe-GOG7wd0h_gJ1PL9_q8R5YorHYpswp&typo=1>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> > Professor of Law
> >
> > Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> > University of Chicago Law School
> > nsteph at uchicago.edu
> > (773) 702-4226
> > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> > <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=YRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs&s=TRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ&e=
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.law.uchicago.edu_faculty_stephanopoulos%26d%3dDwMFaQ%26c%3dslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ%26r%3dv3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk%26m%3dYRlwV86RY-mwyXsfqi6g2w2X8myY2mhCpppM56JpQQs%26s%3dTRODn1WRXAll25_zgZjF2UJOg5HPgGnUkgehJxxClRQ%26e%3d&c=E,1,z11DcpHVDX7gpSDiJcxIM5nu77Cf6FdxWIYRndrTtGbJTuwijK0DrtszU-LXi7GwTeV4rm3Mk6cQMyIiv0DsBDFC5r35yxuhFIJsdnPJ1bJx&typo=1>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,LJOFGX2-k80RcCfv6kcNemwS6p4RpAJyg6lt02ZhsbinXh_xp4MY8v6eaGg1iO19IO8jKAae0zFbHOQv9U0M4Dv1PjMfTXy3QY4i3V3_LUcbct_c0R7zx3xvqYZX&typo=1>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Rush
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/72358e32/attachment-0001.html
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2f72358e32%2fattachment-0001.html&c=E,1,gXMWUjLzLHA5CqscIDFDUJ-oQPE0kfsVKjWuZ9_XYud38bUz819Thl5_IZItvhTwdKZWlK7hE_s5kYCmfp-e5gFSMLspflBVPzm35YjlSV9P&typo=1>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 6817 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190629/72358e32/attachment-0001.png
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fpipermail%2flaw-election%2fattachments%2f20190629%2f72358e32%2fattachment-0001.png&c=E,1,xZLWrpYUBQa1-H5eojDtOv4G_qll2U8mGFaD9xzxkURgT-_LG5kgiFVCA6DV3EXYz3RuLyGOQ4TNkIKUfmkNKgVMXnY0Ztapdb7JNLI9C0r2mzIGc1G48BCws64,&typo=1>
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,h9wT2niglhX742jMUNWX8PMgUjxy3zW4PgzY99mZczi2Aq4kNNLc1WJjXB8OM45Z5tiR_Dq_pIXpvQcghsLhnMiXhclowPoaJn3aTn_-uod8UKLlJWL-2B7Wyeg,&typo=1>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Law-election Digest, Vol 98, Issue 32
> ********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2flaw-election&c=E,1,wFy3gay_1f_Ah-3ZGSe0yF6curWDVfW4KFdx4N5JHbLcxVRmpZtWcRpSzzoDkyxhM52BoPqdhHJ8Y9y8u6viN3duj9eW2YtnUn1g5E3G5dLY2czZdPd3&typo=1>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos
> Professor of Law
>
> Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar
> University of Chicago Law School
> nsteph at uchicago.edu
> (773) 702-4226
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stephanopoulos
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



-- 
Ruth Greenwood
email: ruthgreenwood2 at gmail.com
cell: 202-560-0590
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190702/7a16caf5/attachment.html>