[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/28/19

[John Shockley]

Dear Listserve:

I haven't read the gerrymandering decision, but am I correct that now North
Carolina Republicans can draw legislative districts to ensure Republican
control in perpetuity?  The Democratic Governor plays no role in
redistricting there.  The Republican-gerrymandered legislature can do
whatever it wants.  By packing Democrats into as few districts as possible,
can't they make sure that no matter how big a wave ever comes, they can be
sure of maintaining their control?  And they can keep doing it every ten
years (or possibly more often) as needed.  The same can happen in Texas and
wherever Republicans have their "trifecta." (For sure in states that allow
no initiative process).  Wisconsin would not be in that category, because
the Democratic Governor also plays a role in the process, and the
Republicans don't have a super-majority, although they have strong
dominance.

Am I basically correct that now North Carolina legislative elections are
basically pointless, except in the sense that they will be in and out
supermajorities depending upon how extreme they can distort the process?
There is no way Democrats could ever re-take the legislature. I suppose the
only way out would be for the state Supreme Court to declare the
gerrymandering unconstitutional under the state constitution, as happened
in Pennsylvania.  I'm guessing that the Supreme Court Republicans won't
intervene in state court interpretations of state constitutions on
gerrymandering, but I could be wrong here.

Does this seem like an accurate conclusion?

John Shockley
Political Science, Retired
Augsburg College
Minneapolis, MN






On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:45 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Coming Next Week: #ELB Symposium on Partisan Gerrymandering After Rucho
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105841>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:42 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105841>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This should be good.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105841&title=Coming%20Next%20Week%3A%20%23ELB%20Symposium%20on%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20After%20Rucho>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “House Passes Election Security Package, With an Eye on Mitch McConnell”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105839>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:39 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105839>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/election-security-mitch-mcconnell.html>
>
>
>
>
> *The House on Thursday approved expansive election security legislation
> that would mandate the use of backup paper ballots and postelection vote
> audits to guard against potential foreign meddling, seeking to pressure
> Senator Mitch McConnell to lift his blockade of election legislation in the
> upper chamber. Timed to coincide with the July 4 holiday, the House bill
> <https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hr-2722>, which passed 225 to 184,
> largely along party lines, is the first and most expansive in a blitz of
> new measures that House Democrats say they will pass to address
> vulnerabilities highlighted by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
> His report concluded that Russia had conducted “sweeping and systematic”
> interference
> <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html?module=inline> in
> the 2016 presidential election, and members of both parties fear that not
> enough is being done to prevent that from happening again next year. Other
> legislation could include a requirement that political campaigns report to
> the F.B.I. any offer of assistance from a foreign power, new sanctions to
> punish Russia and other foreign powers that interfere with the American
> democratic processes, and bipartisan mandates for social media platforms
> like Facebook to disclose the purchasers of political advertisements. But
> with the Senate in Republican hands, Democrats have another, more immediate
> target in mind: trying to shame Mr. McConnell, the majority leader, into
> dropping his opposition to proposals — even bipartisan ones — and allowing
> his chamber to consider measures to better protect the vote*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105839&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Passes%20Election%20Security%20Package%2C%20With%20an%20Eye%20on%20Mitch%20McConnell%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Decision on gerrymandering brings new urgency to Democratic fight to win
> state seats” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105837>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:36 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105837>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-white-house-hopefuls-decry-court-ruling-on-gerrymandering-vow-to-counter-it/2019/06/27/f0ee383e-98f8-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html?utm_term=.09a1e6c2406c>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105837&title=%E2%80%9CDecision%20on%20gerrymandering%20brings%20new%20urgency%20to%20Democratic%20fight%20to%20win%20state%20seats%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Supreme Court’s approval of partisan gerrymandering raises 2020 election
> stakes” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105835>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:32 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105835>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> LAT reports.
> <https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-partisan-gerrymandering-republicans-20190627-story.html>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105835&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20approval%20of%20partisan%20gerrymandering%20raises%202020%20election%20stakes%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> Roundup of News and Commentary on Census Citizenship Decision
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105833>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:30 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105833>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2019/06/27/#95549> at Howard.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105833&title=Roundup%20of%20News%20and%20Commentary%20on%20Census%20Citizenship%20Decision>
>
> Posted in census litigation <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> Crum: “Rucho and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105831>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 4:18 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105831>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The following is a guest post from Travis Crum
> <https://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/crum>:
>
> *In Rucho v. Common Cause
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf>, the
> conservatives on the Supreme Court finally prevailed on their decades-long
> effort to declare partisan gerrymandering a non-justiciable political
> question. Rather than add to the legion of voices condemning Rucho on its
> own terms, I want to focus on its worrisome implications for racial
> vote-dilution claims and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.*
>
>
> * The Rucho Court condemned partisan gerrymandering claims for “invariably
> sound[ing] in a desire for proportional representation.” In so doing, the
> Court cited a racial vote-dilution case—the plurality opinion in City of
> Mobile v. Bolden <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/446/55>—for
> the proposition that proportional representation is not mandated by the
> Equal Protection Clause. Building off this point, the Court turned to the
> question of fashioning a judicially manageable standard for apportioning
> political power in the context of partisan gerrymandering. The Court
> observed that “it is not even clear what fairness looks like” and proceeded
> to identify numerous visions of “fair” representation, from competitive
> districts to an “‘appropriate’ share of ‘safe’ seats” to maps based on
> traditional redistricting criteria.*
>
>
> * Now, if this argument sounds familiar, that’s because it mirrors the
> long-running debate between scholars like Sam Issacharoff and Rick Pildes
> <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1229320.pdf> who advocate the creation of
> competitive districts and academics like Heather Gerken
> <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/02a5/071a7e3dc874e2cd3e263cb6f3c621f22500.pdf>, Michael
> Kang
> <https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/race-and-democratic-contestation>,
> and Pam Karlan
> <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=wmlr> who
> are far more comfortable with race-conscious redistricting. What’s
> troubling about Rucho’s logic is that it outlines an analogous debate and
> then throws its hands up and says there’s no judicially manageable
> standard. In this way, Rucho channels concerns similar to those articulated
> in Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Holder v. Hall
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2012.ZC1.html>, where he
> criticized Section 2 for lacking a legitimate and manageable benchmark.*
>
>
> * And therein lies Rucho’s relevance to the VRA. To be sure, Section 2
> expressly disclaims a right to proportional representation, but ever
> since Johnson v. De Grandy
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-519.ZS.html>, the Court has made
> “rough proportionality” a central part of Section 2’s
> totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry. Given this, Rucho’s criticism of
> proportionality standards should be a warning sign for Section 2’s
> constitutionality, especially when combined with the Roberts Court’s
> colorblind instincts and its outright hostility to race-conscious
> redistricting.*
>
>
> * If you think I’ve stared at the tea leaves for too long, consider the
> ways the Rucho Court deployed and distinguished other election-law
> precedents. The Court greenlit Reynolds’s
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/377/533> one-person,
> one-vote principle as “relatively easy to administer as a matter of math.”
> As for the Shaw
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-357.ZS.html> line of cases, the
> Court observed that racial gerrymandering claims seek the “elimination of a
> racial classification” and “do[] not ask for a share of political power and
> influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails.” Put
> simply, the Court went out of its way to preserve those precedents—indeed,
> with a rationale for Shaw that is at cross-purposes with Section 2—but only
> invoked a racial vote-dilution case as a sword to undercut a claim for
> proportional representation.*
>
>
> * To be clear, I’m not predicting that the Court is going to determine
> that racial vote-dilution claims are non-justiciable political
> questions—such a holding wouldn’t make much sense for a variety of reasons.
> Rather, my point is that the Court’s intuitions tend to sublimate across
> numerous doctrinal contexts.*
>
>
> * Thus, in defending Section 2’s constitutionality, civil rights advocates
> and the academy should emphasize that proportionality is just one factor in
> a Section 2 case and that the touchstone is rough proportionality, not
> perfect proportionality. The Gingles
> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/30> factors, moreover,
> have functioned as an effective gatekeeping mechanism and a de facto sunset
> provision for Section 2, thus limiting the situations where proportionality
> concerns even enter the equation. And, of course, the Court has long viewed
> Congress’s Reconstruction Amendment enforcement authority to be at its
> zenith when seeking to remedy and deter racial discrimination in voting.
> Race was not directly at issue in Rucho, and for the plaintiffs to have
> prevailed, the Court would have had fashion its own standard for
> adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims without congressional guidance.*
>
>
> * The Court’s decision in Rucho will have profound and disastrous
> implications for the 2020 redistricting cycle and beyond. But it may also
> foreshadow the endgame for Section 2.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105831&title=Crum%3A%20%E2%80%9CRucho%20and%20Section%202%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
> “Judge Wants To Know By Monday If Gov’t Will Fold On Census Citizenship
> Fight” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105829>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 4:11 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105829>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM
> <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-wants-to-know-by-monday-if-govt-will-fold-on-census-citizenship-fight>
> :
>
>
>
> *If the Trump administration does not want another round of discovery into
> whether its census citizenship question was discriminatory, it has until
> Monday to tell the judge who is currently considering the claim that it is
> backing down from trying to add the question. That is according to
> Denise Hulett, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense and
> Educational Fund, who was on teleconference hearing that U.S. District
> Judge George Hazel held Thursday afternoon with the parties in the census
> citizenship case in Maryland. A second source with knowledge of the call
> also gave TPM that read out.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105829&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Wants%20To%20Know%20By%20Monday%20If%20Gov%E2%80%99t%20Will%20Fold%20On%20Census%20Citizenship%20Fight%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> Quote of the Day <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105827>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 4:02 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105827>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “We are in Mad Max territory now, there are no rules.”
>
> –Justin Levitt to NPR
> <https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com>,
> “Supreme Court Rules Partisan Gerrymandering Is Beyond The Reach Of Federal
> Courts.”
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105827&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “Judge Dismisses Effort To Accelerate Special Election For Arizona’s U.S.
> Senate Seat” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105825>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 3:59 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105825>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Arizona’s Law reports.
> <https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2019/06/breaking-judge-dismisses-effort-to.html>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105825&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Dismisses%20Effort%20To%20Accelerate%20Special%20Election%20For%20Arizona%E2%80%99s%20U.S.%20Senate%20Seat%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “The Supreme Court’s Green Light to Partisan Gerrymandering Will Drag It
> Down Further Into the Mud” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105823>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 3:30 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105823>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this oped
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/gerrymandering-rucho-supreme-court.html>for
> the *New York Times*. It begins:
>
>
>
> *The Supreme Court decision on Thursday in Rucho v. Common Cause
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf> purports to
> take federal courts out of the business of policingpartisan gerrymanders
> and leave the issue for states to handle. But the decision will instead
> push federal courts further into the political thicket, and, in states with
> substantial minority voter populations, force courts to make logically
> impossible determinations
> <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3754&context=wmlr> about
> whether racial reasons or partisan motives predominate when a party
> gerrymanders for political advantage. It didn’t have to be this way. …*
>
> *Second, we are in an era of hyperpartisanship, when a politician pays no
> political consequences (and indeed gets rewarded) for publicly declaring a
> partisan purpose. Indeed, Rucho involved a Republican gerrymander of North
> Carolina’s 13 congressional districts, and David Lewis, one of the
> Republican legislative leaders, said in 2016
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court.html?module=inline> that
> even though the state was about evenly divided between the parties, he was
> proposing a map drawn with the aim of electing 10 Republicans and three
> Democrats — and that was only because he didn’t “believe it was possible to
> draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”*
>
>
>
> * Mr. Lewis’s conduct will now become de rigueur, not only because naked
> partisanship has been approved by the court, but because his outrageous
> comment gave him legal cover for the gerrymander. North Carolina was forced
> to redistrict in 2016 because the Supreme Court found its earlier
> congressional map to be a racial gerrymander. Since 1993, the Supreme Court
> has held that making race the predominant factor in drawing district lines
> without a compelling reason for doing so violates the equal protection
> clause of the 14th Amendment. By so openly declaring he was engaged in
> partisan politics, Mr. Lewis was trying to prove that race did not drive
> the North Carolina General Assembly’s decisions.’ The entire exercise is
> nonsensical
> <https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/> in
> a place like North Carolina, where about 90 percent of African-American
> voters support Democratic candidates and about two-thirds of white voters
> support Republicans. One cannot discriminate against Democrats without
> discriminating against African-Americans in North Carolina, and vice versa.*
>
>
>
>
> * So we know what we can expect in North Carolina in 2021, if Republicans
> still control the legislative branch and thus redistricting (in that state,
> the governor, who now is a Democrat, plays no role in approving the plans).
> Republicans will use sophisticated technology to draw a very effective
> partisan gerrymander. They might even keep redrawing lines every few years
> to keep their advantage. They will proclaim loudly and often that their
> purpose is to help the Republican Party. They will all be instructed not to
> talk about race. Democrats and minority voting advocates will sue in
> federal court and claim that this is a racial gerrymander in disguise. And
> federal courts will have to figure out whether it was race or party that
> motivated the decision of the state’s Legislature.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105823&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Green%20Light%20to%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Will%20Drag%20It%20Down%20Further%20Into%20the%20Mud%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “What do redistricting advocates do now?”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105821>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 2:42 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105821>
> by *Richard Pildes* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> From this
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/27/what-do-redistricting-advocates-do-now/?utm_term=.a9bef0b8160f> Washington
> Post piece by Amber Phillips:
>
> *That’s what redistricting advocates in North Carolina plan to do next.
> “North Carolina can’t force redistricting reform on its legislature, but it
> can take it to the state courts, and we will go to the state courts,” said
> Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the Southern Coalition for
> Social Justice, which argued the North Carolina redistricting case at the
> Supreme Court.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105821&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20do%20redistricting%20advocates%20do%20now%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> “The Supreme Court just body-slammed democracy. More is coming.”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105819>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 1:16 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105819>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent for WaPo.
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/27/supreme-court-just-body-slammed-democracy-this-is-only-beginning/?utm_term=.6552cb1deb58>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105819&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20just%20body-slammed%20democracy.%20More%20is%20coming.%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “Chief Justice Roberts’s ‘proportional representation’ error”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105817>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 1:14 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105817>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Sam Wang blogs.
> <http://election.princeton.edu/2019/06/27/chief-justice-robertss-proportional-representation-dodge/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105817&title=%E2%80%9CChief%20Justice%20Roberts%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98proportional%20representation%E2%80%99%20error%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in redistricting <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “When You Use Campaign Funds To Pay For Your Pet Rabbit’s Trip, You’re
> Doing It Wrong” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105815>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 1:11 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105815>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ciara Torres Spelliscy
> <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/when-you-use-campaign-funds-to-pay-for-your-pet-rabbits-trip-youre-doing-it-wrong> for
> TPM.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105815&title=%E2%80%9CWhen%20You%20Use%20Campaign%20Funds%20To%20Pay%20For%20Your%20Pet%20Rabbit%E2%80%99s%20Trip%2C%20You%E2%80%99re%20Doing%20It%20Wrong%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> “How’s This for a Radical Campaign-Finance Proposal? Follow the Existing
> Rules.” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105813>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 1:06 pm <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105813>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eliza Newlin Carney writes.
> <https://prospect.org/article/hows-radical-campaign-finance-proposal-follow-existing-rules>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105813&title=%E2%80%9CHow%E2%80%99s%20This%20for%20a%20Radical%20Campaign-Finance%20Proposal%3F%20Follow%20the%20Existing%20Rules.%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
>
>
> President Trump Tweets Indicate that Battle Over Citizenship Question on
> the Census is NOT Over <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105809>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 10:56 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105809>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I indicated in my Slate piece
> <http://%20https/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-trump-census-question-supreme-court-october.html> that
> this is not over, and here’s more proof
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298734311878657>:
>
> [image:
> 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/1144298731887628288>
>
>
>
> Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot
> ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and
> important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they
> can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the.....
>
> <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1144298731887628288>
>
> 96.8K <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1144298731887628288>
>
> 10:37 AM - Jun 27, 2019
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298731887628288>
>
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> <https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
>
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298731887628288>
>
> 39.2K people are talking about this
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298731887628288>
>
>
>
> [image:
> 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/1144298731887628288>
>
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298731887628288>
>
>
>
> Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot
> ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and
> important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they
> can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the.....
>
> [image:
> 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>*
>
>
>
> .....United States Supreme Court is given additional information from
> which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical
> matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able
> the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!
>
> <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1144298734311878657>
>
> 89.3K <https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1144298734311878657>
>
> 10:37 AM - Jun 27, 2019
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298734311878657>
>
> Twitter Ads info and privacy
> <https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
>
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298734311878657>
>
> 35K people are talking about this
> <https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144298734311878657>
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105809&title=President%20Trump%20Tweets%20Indicate%20that%20Battle%20Over%20Citizenship%20Question%20on%20the%20Census%20is%20NOT%20Over>
>
> Posted in census litigation <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, Supreme
> Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
>
> “How John Roberts Might Allow Trump to Resurrect the Census Question”
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105807>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:37 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105807>
> by *Rick Hasen* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have posted this piece
> <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-trump-census-question-supreme-court-october.html> at
> Slate. It begins:
>
> *Despite a favorable ruling for opponents of the census citizenship
> question on Thursday, the Supreme Court did not definitively decide to
> exclude citizenship question from the 2020 census. Indeed, I expect that
> the Trump administration’s Commerce Department and Department of Justice
> could well be back before the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October
> arguing for the question’s inclusion, and they could well win and include
> the question.*
>
> It concludes:
>
>
> *The majority opinion and the separate conservative opinions, however,
> have given the agency plenty of non-pretextual things to say about why it
> would want to include the citizenship question. Administrative law
> professor Jennifer Nou even ponders
> <https://twitter.com/Jennifer_Nou/status/1144259250899816448> that they
> could argue they were doing it for partisan reasons, following the decision
> in Thursday’s partisan gerrymandering case giving such conduct the green
> light. But whatever the reason, the agency will likely act quickly to
> rehabilitate its pretexual ruling. The agency has said that printing had to
> begin in July, but plaintiffs challenging inclusion of the question have
> long claimed the real deadline is October. The government will surely
> concede now that October is doable. The agency could come back with new
> reasons, and the part of Roberts’ opinion joined by the conservatives which
> recognizes the broad agency discretion to include the question for
> non-pretextual reasons will be front and center.*
>
>
>
>
> * If the agency moves to include the question again, the case will be back
> before the Supreme Court. It would likely be joined by the other case
> coming out of the Fourth Circuit arguing that the inclusion of the question
> violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based on a racially
> discriminatory purpose. The court did not address the equal protection
> holding Thursday, despite the outrageous urging
> <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/census-case-john-roberts-bush-v-gore-tragedy.html> of
> the Solicitor General for the Court do to so without briefing. Assuming the
> Commerce Department moves forward with trying to include the question on
> the 2020 census, the Fourth Circuit could well keep this case alive to
> create a record of the racial motivations for inclusion of the original
> question. On this question, I expect that any new agency decision to
> include the citizenship question would be found by the court’s
> conservatives to have cleansed the decision of any racial animus. (The
> court made just such a finding last year in a Voting Rights Act
> redistricting case from Texas, Abbott v. Perez
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-586_o7kq.pdf>.)*
>
>
> * So we may see a rare September argument where these issues will be back
> before the Supreme Court, and John Roberts, who gave the Republicans a
> green light to gerrymander to their hearts content in today’s Rucho
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf> case, may
> give them yet another tool to solidify their grasp on power despite
> demographic forces moving against them.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105807&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20John%20Roberts%20Might%20Allow%20Trump%20to%20Resurrect%20the%20Census%20Question%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
> The Dark Future of Gerrymandering <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105805>
>
> Posted on June 27, 2019 9:15 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105805>
> by *Nicholas Stephanopoulos* <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>
>
> After today’s disastrous decision, here are some things that line-drawers
> could do in the future:
>
> ·         Instruct a computer algorithm to generate huge numbers of maps
> that comply with all nonpartisan criteria *and* produce as large and
> durable an advantage as possible for the line-drawing party. Then pick an
> actual plan from this array of potential gerrymanders. This plan will be
> close to impregnable if it’s challenged on nonpartisan grounds. But it will
> still massively benefit the line-drawing party, probably more than any
> human-drawn map could.
>
> ·         Revise districts after each election to optimize their
> performance in the next election. Any districts slipping away from the
> line-drawing party could have some copartisans added to them. Any districts
> becoming overly safe could have some copartisans subtracted. Decennial
> redistricting, in other words, could become a thing of the past.
> Redistricting every two years is so much more effective.
>
> ·         Design noncontiguous districts in order to avoid the
> constraints of political geography. A state with many Democrats
> concentrated in cities (like my Illinois) could join clusters of urban
> Democrats with slightly smaller clusters of rural Republicans hundreds of
> miles away. These clusters wouldn’t have to be connected since no federal
> law, and no other law in many states, mandates contiguity. A state could
> even adopt entirely nongeographic districts, e.g., by assigning a
> representative (and sufficiently numerous) sample of the state’s population
> to each district.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105805&title=The%20Dark%20Future%20of%20Gerrymandering>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=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
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> [image: signature_117500650]
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/d4d97ce2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/d4d97ce2/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/d4d97ce2/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/d4d97ce2/attachment-0003.png>