[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/24/19

[Rick Hasen]

“Mueller Warns of Russian Sabotage and Rejects Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ Claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106607>
Posted on July 24, 2019 9:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106607> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/trump-mueller-testimony.html>:

Robert S. Mueller III warned lawmakers on Wednesday that Russia was again trying to sabotage American democracy before next year’s presidential election, defended his investigation’s conclusions about Moscow’s sweeping interference campaign in 2016 and publicly rejected President Trump’s criticism that he had conducted a “witch hunt.”
The partisan war over Mr. Mueller’s inquiry reached a heated climax during nearly seven hours of his long-awaited testimony before two congressional committees. Lawmakers hunted for viral sound bites and tried to score political points, but Mr. Mueller consistently refused to accommodate them, returning over and over in a sometimes halting delivery to his damning and voluminous report<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html?module=inline>.

Mr. Mueller remained a spectral presence in Washington over the past two years as the president and his allies subjected the special counsel and his team of lawyers to withering attacks. Speaking in detail for the first time about his conclusions produced occasionally dramatic moments in which he ventured beyond his report to offer insights about Mr. Trump’s behavior.

When asked whether Mr. Trump “wasn’t always being truthful” in his written answers to the special counsel’s questions, Mr. Mueller responded, “I would say generally.” He called Mr. Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign “problematic” and said it “gave a boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”


A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.


He said that he and his team chose not to subpoena Mr. Trump out of concern that a battle over a presidential interview might needlessly prolong the investigation, and said that Mr. Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice after he leaves office.

Mr. Mueller also acknowledged that his investigators had explicitly declined to exonerate the president’s efforts to impede the inquiry. “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mr. Mueller said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106607&title=%E2%80%9CMueller%20Warns%20of%20Russian%20Sabotage%20and%20Rejects%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Witch%20Hunt%E2%80%99%20Claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“GOP blocks election security bills after Mueller testimony”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106605>
Posted on July 24, 2019 8:49 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106605> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Hill:<https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony>

Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller<https://thehill.com/people/robert-mueller> warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.

Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.

But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn’t give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Under Senate rules, any one senator can ask for consent to pass a bill, but any one senator is able to object.

The floor drama comes after Mueller warned about election interference during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election “as we sit here.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106605&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20blocks%20election%20security%20bills%20after%20Mueller%20testimony%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


In Interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Justice Ginsburg Reflects on Bush v. Gore<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106603>
Posted on July 24, 2019 8:46 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106603> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From an extensive interview<http://%20https/www.npr.org/2019/07/24/745028665/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-protecting-an-independent-judiciary>:

TOTENBERG: Ginsburg has learned to take one day at a time. Her work and the court are her passions now, along, of course, with opera, literature and modern art. The reason that she and other justices try so hard not to be partisan, she says, is really quite simple. The court’s only real currency is public confidence.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)

BADER GINSBURG: The court has no troops at its command. It doesn’t have the power of the purse. And yet, time and again, when the court says something, people accept it. One example in the not-so-dim past was Bush v. Gore. I dissented from that decision. I thought it was unwise. A lot of people disagreed with it. And yet, the day after the court rendered its decision, there were no riots in the streets.

TOTENBERG: That, she says, is why the independence of the courts is so important in a democratic society.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106603&title=In%20Interview%20with%20NPR%E2%80%99s%20Nina%20Totenberg%2C%20Justice%20Ginsburg%20Reflects%20on%20Bush%20v.%20Gore>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>


“Pharma contributions to politicians who support restricting abortions could reverberate”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106601>
Posted on July 24, 2019 8:45 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106601> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

STAT<https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2019/07/24/merck-pfizer-jnj-abortion-republicans/>:

Take the case of Pfizer (PFE<https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=706&tbm=fin&ei=gK40XaKzOfCc_QbtzJjoBw&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKuyq0yLeQCy18LdOgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+PFE&oq=NYSE%3A+pfe&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81i8k1l2.13190.13910.0.15177.6.6.0.0.0.0.120.470.3j2.5.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..1.5.465...81i5k1.0.QlJhOabehbI>), Merck (MRK<https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=754&tbm=fin&ei=kXMwXceYHYq5tQa39Ii4Bw&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKuyq8oNeADakoh1OgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+MRK&oq=mrk&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81l3.56265.58499.0.59634.18.11.1.0.0.0.254.864.6j1j1.8.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..11.7.697.0..81i8k1.0.U7r_-jWkzRI>), and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ<https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=706&tbm=fin&ei=ka40XdiCDtCa_Qa1w4P4BQ&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKtyzE0KeAC2snMsOgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+JNJ&oq=NYSE%3A+jnj&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81i8k1l2.11050.12097.0.13409.6.6.0.0.0.0.95.472.6.6.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..0.6.470...81i5k1.0.HT4xBveyWTk>). Each company sells contraceptive products. Pfizer markets Depo-Provera, Merck sells Nexplanon, and J&J markets Ortho-Novum.
But last year, all three drug makers donated large sums to the Republican State Leadership Committee, a political group that helps conservatives gain control of state legislatures. Those contributions ranged from around $24,000 by Merck to $325,000 by Pfizer, with J&J giving roughly $52,000, according to Political MoneyLine data.
T<https://www.statnews.com/most-popular/>
Eventually, the RSLC helped elect, directly and indirectly, numerous candidates in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. In each state, the legislatures have passed bills that greatly restrict abortion. And many lawmakers who oppose abortion also object to contraception.
“There’s really no daylight between being anti-abortion and being anti-birth control, because an attack on abortion is really an attack on women’s health writ large,” said Michelle Kuppersmith, director of Equity Forward, an advocacy group that champions women’s reproductive rights….

For this reason, it would seem the companies acted against their own financial interests, according to Bruce Freed, who heads the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that studies corporate donations. What he calls “under-the-radar” donations are often not known to shareholders, consumers, and employees, but can quickly go viral in a “polarized and hyper-charged” political environment.

“Companies give to third-party groups and don’t always pay attention to how their money is used,” Freed explained. “However, they can be associated with consequences that are controversial or conflict with their core values, positions, product lines, and business strategies.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106601&title=%E2%80%9CPharma%20contributions%20to%20politicians%20who%20support%20restricting%20abortions%20could%20reverberate%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


“Miami Officials: Most People Who Owe Fines and Fees Can Vote”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106599>
Posted on July 24, 2019 8:39 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106599> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Appeal reports.<https://theappeal.org/miami-officials-most-people-who-owe-fines-and-fees-can-vote/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106599&title=%E2%80%9CMiami%20Officials%3A%20Most%20People%20Who%20Owe%20Fines%20and%20Fees%20Can%20Vote%E2%80%9D>
Posted in felon voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>


Breaking: In Major Decision, 3-Judge Federal District Court Unanimously Rejects Motion to Put Texas Back Under Federal Supervision over Voting, Despite Continuing Concerns About Texas’s Intentional Racial Discrimination<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106596>
Posted on July 24, 2019 7:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106596> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A three-judge federal district court, which earlier had found that Texas engaged in intentional racial discrimination against African-Americans and Latinos in passing its 2011 redistricting plan has refused<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-3c-order.pdf> to put Texas back under federal supervision for voting.

Before the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Texas had to submit all changes in its voting rules for federal approval (or preclearance) before making those changes. The state had to demonstrate that the changes would not make protected minority voters worse off. Shelby County held that this preclearance regime in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional because it was based upon outdated data about which jurisdictions were engaged in intentional racial discrimination.

But another part of the Voting Rights Act, section 3c, allowed courts to put states back under such preclearance for up to 10 years upon a finding of intentional racial discrimination.

Today’s court found that Texas had engaged in racial discrimination. But given the Supreme Court’s finding that Texas cured its racial discrimination in the 2013 plan, and the general hesitancy of courts to impose this “bail in remedy,” the court declined bail in. The court added, however: “To be clear, however, the Court has grave concerns about Texas’s past conduct. During the 2011 legislative session, Texas engaged in traditional means of vote dilution such as cracking and packing in drawing districts, and also utilized newer methods of dilution and suppression such as using the “nudge factor” and passing voter ID requirements.”

This is a major victory for Texas and a major loss for voting rights plaintiffs as we head into the 2021 round of redistricting. I’ll have more to say about this ruling at a later time.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106596&title=Breaking%3A%20In%20Major%20Decision%2C%203-Judge%20Federal%20District%20Court%20Unanimously%20Rejects%20Motion%20to%20Put%20Texas%20Back%20Under%20Federal%20Supervision%20over%20Voting%2C%20Despite%20Continuing%20Concerns%20About%20Texas%E2%80%99s%20Intentional%20Racial%20Discrimination>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


--
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_270751691]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190725/384a3b9e/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/20190725/384a3b9e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190725/384a3b9e/attachment-0001.png>