[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/3/19

Wed Jul 3 07:18:00 PDT 2019

Coming in Late Fall: Legislation, Statutory Interpretation, and Election Law: Examples and Explanations (2d Edition)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106014>
Posted on July 3, 2019 7:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106014> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I am pleased to announce that the fully revamped version of my Examples and Explanations book in Legislation, Statutory Interpretation, and Election Law will be available from Wolters Kluwer in the late fall. The first edition was from 2014, and so much has happened in both the field of Election Law and Legislation since then which is covered by the new edition.

The book is appropriate as a supplement or study aid (with mini-essay questions and answers) for courses in in Legislation, Leg/Reg, Statutory Interpretation, Election Law, Voting Rights, and Campaign Finance. It is also intended as a treatise for practitioners in the field and a resource for lawyers, professors and judges, summing up my basic approach to these subjects that I have been studying for many years.

More information on the publication date when things get closer.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106014&title=Coming%20in%20Late%20Fall%3A%20Legislation%2C%20Statutory%20Interpretation%2C%20and%20Election%20Law%3A%20Examples%20and%20Explanations%20(2d%20Edition)>
Posted in legislation and legislatures<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, pedagogy<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>, statutory interpretation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>

Coming Later in July: 2019 Supplement to Lowenstein, Hasen, Tokaji, and Stephanopoulos, Election Law–Cases and Materials (6th Edition)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106012>
Posted on July 3, 2019 7:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106012> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The 2019 Supplement to Election Law–Cases and Materials <https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781531004729/Election-Law-Sixth-Edition> (6th edition) will be online and posted free for instructors who have adopted the casebook and for their students. It will be current through the end of the Supreme Court’s October 2019 term, and include developments in the census and partisan gerrymandering cases (including an edited version of the Rucho case). It will also cover other recent developments on issues such as foreign interference in elections (Mueller report), campaign finance, voting rights, and bribery cases.

I’ll post again with details when the supplement is available.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106012&title=Coming%20Later%20in%20July%3A%202019%20Supplement%20to%20Lowenstein%2C%20Hasen%2C%20Tokaji%2C%20and%20Stephanopoulos%2C%20Election%20Law%E2%80%93Cases%20and%20Materials%20(6th%20Edition)>
Posted in pedagogy<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>

Coming Next Week, Teachers’ (and Students’) 2019 Update to Laycock & Hasen, Modern American Remedies (5th Edition)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106010>
Posted on July 3, 2019 7:07 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106010> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This supplement is current through the end of the Supreme Court’s term ending July 28. It will be free for use for instructors assigning the book and their students. There are separate versions for the regular<https://www.wklegaledu.com/Laycock-Remedies5> and Concise editions<https://www.wklegaledu.com/Laycock-RemediesConcise5> of the book.

I will post again soon with instructions for how to access the files.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106010&title=Coming%20Next%20Week%2C%20Teachers%E2%80%99%20(and%20Students%E2%80%99)%202019%20Update%20to%20Laycock%20%26%20Hasen%2C%20Modern%20American%20Remedies%20(5th%20Edition)>
Posted in Remedies<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=57>

Keith Gaddie: After Rucho: Fifty Thickets (Rucho Symposium)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105918>
Posted on July 3, 2019 7:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105918> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from Keith Gaddie<http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/faculty/gaddie>, part of the symposium on Partisan Gerrymandering after Rucho<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105878>:

Felix Frankfurter called redistricting a “political thicket” which the federal courts would do well to  avoid.  And, when the court did dive into redistricting issues in the 1960s, it did so to deal with equal protection issues that transcended politics, and to which there were no popular political solutions.  Having entered the fray, the courts stayed in the thicket for the next 57 years.

The Rucho decision definitively takes the federal courts out of the partisan redistricting debate. The majority rejects the notion that there are “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” to be applied by the courts. It lays aside the argument that political gerrymandering rises to being an equal protection problem. Through these conclusions it  sends the problem back to the realm of politics.

Those of us who crafted tests and standards for the court to apply clearly disagree with the argument that these standards are unmanageable. And, given the basic assumption that majorities should govern is foundational to American democratic theory, we also disagree that this is not a critical factor to consider in an equal protection claim. The scope of political polarization in the United States reaches from the local to the national level, making votes remarkably comparable from district to district regardless of incumbency.

The outcome is not surprising. The conservative majority has been signaling a retreat from aggressive federal intervention is representation issues ever since the NAMUDNO decision a decade ago. And that retreat will likely continue, including possibly narrowing the scope of application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, should a challenge arise.

So, let’s instead consider what this means for reining in partisan gerrymandering. The High Court has sent the gerrymandering problem back to the states. By making this a political issue outside the purview of the federal courts, the only remaining recourse is either in the state courts, or through state politics.  The former avenue was successfully pursued by plaintiffs in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But, to succeed requires a state constitution with provisions through which a claim might be pursued, and a state high court willing to rule against gerrymandering.

Lacking an existing standard or basis in the state constitution, voters might create such a standard, either through a general voting rights amendment, or via a constitutional amendment dealing specifically with redistricting. Herein resides redistricting standards amendments such as Florida’s Amendments 5 and 6 from 2010, and redistricting commissions such as Arizona’s Proposition 106 in 2000 and subsequent changes in several other states. But to achieve these goals requires a majority in the electorate willing to consider fairness to be more important than partisan advantage. This might be too much to ask a quarter-century into the era of partisan polarization.

The greater challenge comes in states where no mechanism exists for a popular majority to undo the will of the gerrymanderers. In Colegrove (328 U.S. 549 1946), Felix Frankfurter determined gerrymandering a political problem. The popular will of the people of Illinois could turn to politics and state questions for a solution. When the High Court overturned the Tennessee gerrymander in Baker (369 U.S. 186 1962), it was the lack of any political solution other than a gerrymandered legislature which helped fuel the equal protection claim. Tennesseeans had no political solutions available, so the courts were the only source of redress. Justice Roberts essentially tells disadvantaged parties, they must win to change things.  Yet, they must win on a rigged playing field where only extraordinary effort or performance – such as wave elections –overcomes the impact of clever line-drawing.

The only question remaining is whether or not the states, in their partisan camps, decide to follow different philosophies of redistricting and representation at the state legislative and congressional level?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105918&title=Keith%20Gaddie%3A%20After%20Rucho%3A%20Fifty%20Thickets%20(Rucho%20Symposium)>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Realism and Formalism in Rucho<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106005>
Posted on July 3, 2019 6:48 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106005> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

In a nice post<https://balkin.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-census-decision-institutional.html> about the Court’s Census decision, Rick Pildes noted that Chief Justice Roberts approached the case in a realist fashion, probing beneath the surface to figure out what actually did and would happen. This realism was entirely absent in the Court’s other end-of-term blockbuster. In Rucho, Roberts was as pure a formalist as can be imagined. He explained that several institutions other than the Court could do something about partisan gerrymandering. But not once did he ask whether it’s likely that they would take action. The answer, of course, is that it’s not likely at all. Gerrymanderers rarely stop gerrymandering voluntarily. That’s exactly why judicial intervention is needed—because the political process can’t be trusted to fix itself.

Consider Roberts’s examples from the states. Yes, it’s true that Florida now has a Fair Districts Amendment barring partisan favoritism in redistricting, and that “voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creating multimember [redistricting] commissions.” But these reforms were all enacted through voter initiatives, not by self-interested legislators. The legislators actually fought the initiatives tooth and nail, seeking to keep the mapmaking power for themselves. Moreover, while these particular initiatives succeeded, most<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494082> ballot measures aiming for redistricting reform fail. And they typically fail precisely because of the furious opposition of sitting politicians. In any event, more than half the states have no initiative process (including highly gerrymandered states like Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). In these states, there’s no way for people even to vote on anti-gerrymandering proposals.

Or take the “dozens of [congressional] bills [that] have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting.” As Justice Kagan pointed out, in her dissent for the ages, “what all these bills have in common is that they are not laws.” In its entire history, Congress has never directly curbed partisan gerrymandering. Very occasionally, it has regulated redistricting in other ways, such as by requiring the use of single-member districts. But not once has Congress limited the partisan intent or partisan effect of district maps. Nor is it apt to anytime soon, since, in Kagan’s words, “the politicians who benefit from partisan gerrymandering are unlikely to change partisan gerrymandering.”

Roberts’s reasoning in Rucho, then, is plainly formalist rather than realist—focused on what other responses to gerrymandering are possible rather than probable. But his opinion is actually worse than that. Most of the responses he identifies are ones that he himself has previously suggested are constitutionally questionable. His opinion therefore has the feel of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, only to take it away when he tries to kick it.

Consider the state reforms lauded by Roberts: state court decisions, state constitutional provisions limiting the discretion of mapmakers, and independent redistricting commissions. All of them are suspect under Roberts’s own dissenting opinion in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. That’s because all of them are typically instituted by actors other than the state legislature. In his Arizona State Legislature dissent (which may command five votes now that Justice Kennedy is off the Court), Roberts argued that the Elections Clause empowers the state legislature to design congressional districts—and forbids other state institutions, in particular commissions, from doing so.

Or take the congressional bills cited by Roberts. He’s the author of Shelby County v. Holder, the single decision in modern times most skeptical of Congress’s power to regulate the electoral process. It’s not much of a leap from discounting Congress’s authority to fight racial discrimination in voting under the Fifteenth Amendment to dismissing its right to combat partisan gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment. As if to confirm this suspicion, Roberts pointedly added, “We express no view on any of these pending [bills].” You can bet that when this view is expressed, it won’t be sympathetic.

Roberts’s approach in Rucho, then, is not the true formalism of a justice committed to analyzing institutions based on their official powers. Instead it’s faux formalism: an acknowledgement that other institutions could potentially act, which would be followed by a swift repudiation if they ever did so. “Go ahead and try to fix gerrymandering,” Roberts seems to be telling the states and Congress, aware they probably won’t. “And if you do try, you’ll find the Court blocking you at every turn.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106005&title=Realism%20and%20Formalism%20in%20Rucho>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Tam Cho: For Partisan Gerrymandering, an Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure (Rucho Symposium)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105985>
Posted on July 3, 2019 6:30 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105985> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from Wendy Tam Cho<https://pol.illinois.edu/directory/profile/wendycho>, part of the symposium on Partisan Gerrymandering after Rucho<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105878>:

We have been focused for some time on the Supreme Court’s role in regulating partisan gerrymandering.  Now that we know the Supreme Court will not intervene after a map is drawn, our focus must switch to preventing gerrymanders in the first place.  I have argued that the means of such prevention lies not with the courts but with technological advances.

Technology for redistricting has primarily fueled the entrenchment of power.  This idea was not lost on Justice Kagan, who commented in Gill that the 2010 redistricting cycle “produced some of the worst partisan gerrymanders on record.”  Her fear was that “the technology will only get better, so the 2020 cycle will only get worse.”  Clearly, over the last couple of decades, our ability to collect and analyze data has improved dramatically, leading to software that enables map drawers to synthesize many information sources to meticulously construct electoral maps to fulfill particular goals.

Redistricting illustrates Kranzberg’s first law well: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.”  Post-Rucho, we must be mindful that the information landscape is continually and rapidly evolving, and, more importantly, that the effect is malleable.  Moving forward, an essential task must be to harness the power of technology to ensure democracy.  The real promise of technology is to augment human capabilities to engage in productive, inclusive and contemplative decision-making about how society is governed.

Consider, for instance, independent redistricting commissions (IRCs) that have been touted by the reform community as well as the Justices.  IRCs are comprised of well-intentioned individuals who are given the monumental task of producing an electoral map that ensures political fairness—a concept that courts and political theorists have been grappling with for decades without clear resolution.  While IRCs may solve the conflict of interest problem, expertise is a concern.

Indeed, because our collective voice is composed of the individual voices of many distinct and diverse groups, political fairness is a complex phenomenon.  It requires compromise and the balancing of competing interests so that members of all groups are represented.  We are more than just Republicans and Democrats.  Political fairness is also hopelessly multidimensional so that even after competing interests are satisfactorily balanced on one dimension, consideration of other dimensions sends us back to the drawing board.

The work of independent commissions is enabled not by their good intentions, but by the quality of information at their disposal.  Their productivity, inclusiveness, and the value of their deliberations are firmly rooted in the ability to synthesize and analyze large stores of information.

Technology can identify and supply information that has been missing to re-orient and restructure the discussion as maps are being contemplated.  This is where intelligent computational algorithms play a part.  I have been working to create advances that explore and consider these wide and varied interests to identify electoral maps that are broadly acceptable.  This is no simple task.  The possibilities are legion, and none free of tradeoffs for some segment of society.  The data and algorithmic advances are non-trivial, but both are unquestionably on the rise.

To be sure, political obstacles remain.  IRCs are not a panacea, and, they do not exist in most states.  Moreover, in a number of states, one political party dominates both the legislature and the courts.  In these states, if politics forges ahead as usual, data and algorithmic advances can help shine a light on just how rotten the maps produced from them are.  The public knowledge of which will help filter the tendency toward extremes.  A thief, after all, is less likely to steal in well-illuminated places that are under many watchful eyes.

The information age has indisputably altered society in many ways, and it will likewise transform redistricting and governance.  Politics will not stop or even stall the information age.

The Supreme Court surely had a role to play in partisan gerrymandering.  It is a role that they shirked, but regardless of their decision, redistricting has and will change.  These are not your grandfather’s gerrymanders, but the tech savvy grandchildren are also now in play.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105985&title=Tam%20Cho%3A%20For%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%2C%20an%20Ounce%20of%20Prevention%20is%20Worth%20a%20Pound%20of%20Cure%20(Rucho%20Symposium)>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“‘Reverse Midas touch’: Kobach’s influence leads Trump to court loss in citizenship case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106003>
Posted on July 2, 2019 8:58 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106003> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Had missed this Bryan Lowry joint<https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article231762633.html> from last week.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106003&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Reverse%20Midas%20touch%E2%80%99%3A%20Kobach%E2%80%99s%20influence%20leads%20Trump%20to%20court%20loss%20in%20citizenship%20case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

After DOJ Says No Citizenship Question on 2020 Census, Trump Tweets About Doing What is “Necessary” to Bring Case to “Successful Conclusion”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106001>
Posted on July 2, 2019 8:49 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106001> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Not sure what this <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938> means:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
Donald J. Trump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
✔@realDonaldTrump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>

<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>

A very sad time for America when the Supreme Court of the United States won’t allow a question of “Is this person a Citizen of the United States?” to be asked on the #2020 Census! Going on for a long time. I have asked the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice....
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146245459268263938>
97.3K<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146245459268263938>
7:33 PM - Jul 2, 2019<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>
34.5K people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>

[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
Donald J. Trump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
✔@realDonaldTrump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>

 · 11h<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245459268263938>

A very sad time for America when the Supreme Court of the United States won’t allow a question of “Is this person a Citizen of the United States?” to be asked on the #2020 Census! Going on for a long time. I have asked the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice....
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
Donald J. Trump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>
✔@realDonaldTrump<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump>

....to do whatever is necessary to bring this most vital of questions, and this very important case, to a successful conclusion. USA! USA! USA!
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146245460035850241>
84.7K<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146245460035850241>
7:33 PM - Jul 2, 2019<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245460035850241>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245460035850241>
25.7K people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146245460035850241>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106001&title=After%20DOJ%20Says%20No%20Citizenship%20Question%20on%202020%20Census%2C%20Trump%20Tweets%20About%20Doing%20What%20is%20%E2%80%9CNecessary%E2%80%9D%20to%20Bring%20Case%20to%20%E2%80%9CSuccessful%20Conclusion%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>

All’s Well That Ends Well, or All’s Well That Evenwel? How the Commerce Department May Still Help States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voter Eligible Persons to Minimize Hispanic (and Democratic) Voting Strength<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105998>
Posted on July 2, 2019 7:08 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105998> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It is undeniably good news that the Trump Administration dec<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/trump-census-citizenship-question.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>ided to abandon the citizenship question in the face of evidence that it would depress turnout especially among those with noncitizens in a household and in light of the Supreme Court’s finding that the reason the Administration offered for including the question (to help pursue nonexistent Voting Rights Act claims on behalf of Hispanic voters).

The bad motive for including the question appeared to be two-fold: (1) to depress turnout in Hispanic (and likely Democratic) households and (2) to allow states to have citizenship data that would let them draw districts with equal numbers of people, not voters. As I explained at Slate<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/census-case-john-roberts-bush-v-gore-tragedy.html>, “The story of Ross’ actual motivation turns out to be much worse. Recently released documents<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/census-memo-supreme-court-conservatives-white-voters-alito.html> coming from the hard drive of the late Republican redistricting operative Thomas Hofeller indicate that the intention behind the inclusion of the question was to give Republican state legislatures a chance to draw districts that—by excluding a large number of noncitizens from the census count used to determine the number and location of districts in each state—would help Republicans gain more seats and minimize the power of Hispanic voters. One such Hofeller memo explicitly said the question would offer ‘a disadvantage to the Democrats’ and be ‘advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.'”

The Supreme Court expressly left the issue of whether it is permissible to redistrict on this basis inEvenwel v Abbot<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1873699076724766700&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>t. And the lack of a citizenship question could hinder states in doing so.

But as I understand it from people who have been following this closely than I am, the Census Department is still going to create citizenship data which can then be used for redistricting. Ross ordered the Census Bureau to compile citizenship data through existing administrative records, something bureau experts had told him would be cheaper and more accurate than a question anyway.

Now maybe by the time this data is compiled, a Democratic administration could block its release. But if Trump is reelected, these data could be made available, and states could try the Evenwelgambit.

It would then be up to the Supreme Court to decide if this kind of districting is kosher. I count at least 3 and likely 5 votes for this position, even if (after Rucho)<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf> the sole motivation for using this measure is to secure partisan (and overlapping racial<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/gerrymandering-rucho-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=2>) advantage.

This puts even more pressure on what happens in the 2020 elections, both for President and Congress, but also for state legislatures.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105998&title=All%E2%80%99s%20Well%20That%20Ends%20Well%2C%20or%20All%E2%80%99s%20Well%20That%20Evenwel%3F%20How%20the%20Commerce%20Department%20May%20Still%20Help%20States%20to%20Draw%20Districts%20with%20Equal%20Numbers%20of%20Voter%20Eligible%20Persons%20to%20Minimize%20Hispanic%20(and%20Democratic)%20Voting%20Strength>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

Breaking News: Government Caves, Will Print Census Form without the Citizenship Question<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105991>
Posted on July 2, 2019 1:30 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105991> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Never have I been happier to be wrong<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-trump-census-question-supreme-court-october.html>.

The real question is why the Trump Administration caved after the president said as recently as yesterday that he would delay the census if necessary to take another run at the Supreme Court.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

 · 17h<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1146158510712901632>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1146158510712901632>

Replying to @rickhasen<https://twitter.com/_/status/1146157938681139200>

Some are asking whether Trump, even with the printing started, could try to reverse his decision. I think that's possible, but really, really unlikely. The time to get this fixed is now. There really was no additional time to waste.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1027236869476573184/PFqQJu6__bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

Still, in cases like equal protection case in district court/4th circuit, if I were a lawyer for the plaintiffs I'd want more than just an indication the forms are being printed. I'd want a concession that there will be no further attempts to add citizenship question to census.
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146162982834991106>
63<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146162982834991106>
2:05 PM - Jul 2, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1146162982834991106>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1146162982834991106>
23 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1146162982834991106>

See this tweet:<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843574375894794241/d1LyZgWk_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
Daniel Jacobson at Dan_F_Jacobson<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>

<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>

HUGE CENSUS NEWS — the Government just advised that the decision has been made to print the the census questionnaire WITHOUT the citizenship question. We won.
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146153111393886208>
56.1K<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146153111393886208>
1:26 PM - Jul 2, 2019<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>
13.1K people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>

And this tweet<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146156516787052544>:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843574375894794241/d1LyZgWk_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
Daniel Jacobson at Dan_F_Jacobson<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>

 · 17h<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146153111393886208>

HUGE CENSUS NEWS — the Government just advised that the decision has been made to print the the census questionnaire WITHOUT the citizenship question. We won.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/843574375894794241/d1LyZgWk_bigger.jpg]<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>
Daniel Jacobson at Dan_F_Jacobson<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson>

Here’s the email from DOJ
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146156516787052544>
6,028<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1146156516787052544>
1:39 PM - Jul 2, 2019<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146156516787052544>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146156516787052544/photo/1>
<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146156516787052544>
2,553 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1146156516787052544>

This post has been updated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105991&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Government%20Caves%2C%20Will%20Print%20Census%20Form%20without%20the%20Citizenship%20Question>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>

Breaking: Federal Court On Its Own Motion Sets Expedited Telephonic Hearing in Challenge to Florida Law Making It Harder for Ex-Felons to Vote<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105988>
Posted on July 2, 2019 11:20 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105988> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Well this<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/desantis-order.pdf> shows a judge who is ready to do something.

This is a consolidated action in which Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of portions of S.B. 7066. While no motions have been filed, Plaintiffs seek a temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction against Defendants. A district court “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). The notice requirement “implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fai opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare such opposition.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 434 n.7 (1974); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) (recognizing hearing requirement). In short, this Court must hold a hearing on an expedited basis. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to set a telephonic status hearing on Friday, July 5, 2019.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105988&title=Breaking%3A%20Federal%20Court%20On%20Its%20Own%20Motion%20Sets%20Expedited%20Telephonic%20Hearing%20in%20Challenge%20to%20Florida%20Law%20Making%20It%20Harder%20for%20Ex-Felons%20to%20Vote>
Posted in felon voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
[signature_520254505]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3151 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 165172 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190703/f6d11d72/attachment-0001.png>