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

[Marty Lederman]

They "can" do so in the sense that no one will stop them--but they will be
acting unconstitutionally when they do.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Shockley <shockley1894 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



-- 
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190628/fb06ac19/attachment.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/fb06ac19/attachment.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/fb06ac19/attachment.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/fb06ac19/attachment-0001.png>