[EL] [Texas vote suppression

Wed Mar 27 05:23:23 PDT 2019

If it helps mitigate the problem, at least we now know that there is no possibility that vote suppression could ever affect the winner of the national popular vote plan for President. That's the worst defense of the electoral college one can imagine.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: Law-election [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of George Korbel [korbellaw at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 5:31 AM
To: Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/27/19

I have litigated in Texas for almost 50 years and the intensity of minority vote suppression is the worst

Get Outlook for iOS<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2faka.ms%2fo0ukef&c=E,1,KLFFvDERE5XPFjQpMwdSCTWWKjjuCUo9E2wjxVL9MrNBnsPgcZsv6z2z6wqQ8kgq7_7I8odNH0rEymcRxLLR5fD7Ma96tEaSpnY0VaL9NHJA2LP_YpU,&typo=1>

________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:32 PM
To: Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/27/19

“Report: 277,000 Texas voters vied with machine glitches, poor access to polls and other issues in 2018”<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104375&c=E,1,CmDB7grrey1SZzAL-MEq48gooJOi62eAdNDHXfAXQii5O0toMikc9wYTO_u1NQFPCuQpeA03m1vO0S9CNGDuW_SXobm8nKb_16R7avy4yt3E&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:26 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104375&c=E,1,DdfF1OoARcp1eFrKVBRWLq0a1CFHK2scYAORpHssq4qhsjAM85kMjbwsXvDDPOst-kcYgEtqFp22EDYQMfvZiPVTifYjaH7euNJikkXs1CrdNghv71KFb6LbIA,,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,D6Y1oJDUfuqnXTTB3kTdQYte1_uWGxSqp91RUbohXT6GkWqLvoMnfcCvK494I1gwgIJXphSHtZICM7YYQqCkK5VmFddBvPg968hzppTVI76GFimW&typo=1>

Houston Chronicle<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.houstonchronicle.com%2fnews%2fpolitics%2ftexas%2farticle%2fReport-277-000-Texas-voters-vied-with-machine-13716992.php%3ft%3db5bb117eac&c=E,1,6K0f8g5pYf0nb_6FqkvbhwUhtzkyVrk7Fe4LDIa0bfywhypSX6HN-RyZpxVmaTH-17QmbXpsC3fDzvd95u-vj2jJJ3gYa2WIKR3m6Yr2lQ,,&typo=1>:

Nearly 300,000 Texans in the 2018 midterms were hindered by problems at the polls in 2018, according to a statistical analysis released Tuesday by an advocacy group.
Because of voting machine malfunctions, lack of easy access to polling locations at Texas universities, and the state’s application of some voter registration laws — among other problems — at least 277,000 voters faced avoidable setbacks and problems, according to the study conducted by the Texas Civil Rights Project.
The number of voters affected by those issues is greater than the margin of votes in the 2018 U.S. Senate race between U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke, the report says. The advocacy group doesn’t suggest that enough votes were lost to change the results in the Senate race, but it cites the contest as an example of the potential impact of 277,000 votes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104375&title=%E2%80%9CReport%3A%20277%2C000%20Texas%20voters%20vied%20with%20machine%20glitches%2C%20poor%20access%20to%20polls%20and%20other%20issues%20in%202018%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,YCzP_Fidmz0UqgIsMWhCvr3jc0fZl1tOhmeOkifaoBjTgk_jXQDFD7DTGI51krcFOMn--rPIbwbNbPLm3J7F3B5c3TC7dtAZIZw8C_0DFr6BsmI86g,,&typo=1>

“Fact-checking Mark Walker’s video on HR 1’s campaign-finance provisions”<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104373&c=E,1,sXDWC__9z48En2AFwir04q2VgQX9_PwShnSmt3KtBsoBQW-qjhJFpzViMRH5epKeX54iypZm4akKykAvHv_ZmR-vpoQAY-fn4b7ogyOVXW1uD3hh7QMd3lEfyBfQ&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:23 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104373&c=E,1,Z-_HxXiGCJ5G8Dy8-FXjlzNsUgsTPM2xn9OwXJ_dIwEdEdyKgxVsxZ2ngvOZ2LuPPVMiEmzRih2Q_9_CPcJ6cA068GvbY-ASFLfNVFbKULzkspNqjQ,,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,FjV58-5UROTSjxfIKRusiWBqfFYQVQqPxwu4PsR7pkGd620HtNP8fhQNXaeT7dB2tDY6XpqT9VttbbWxMGup9R7CY5cQFYYBCrfV6selgjG71zI,&typo=1>

Politifact<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.politifact.com%2fnorth-carolina%2fstatements%2f2019%2fmar%2f26%2fmark-walker%2ffact-checking-mark-walker-hr-1s-campaign-finance-p%2f&c=E,1,7zJIfkUntLTePYyPoyNUWHhKCEVlYoRzp50YAE2u3sa7WMVxBPbYKGqjwtLANmUBjQ6AhaQLSrRzO_gw-5DQv8qrl4ce-wfAPyyUvENLSFcmj7pGPjqS0Q,,&typo=1> evaluates the statement: “HR 1 is going to take your hard-earned tax dollars and millions more and send them to (a political candidate’s) campaign so (they) can put ads on TV.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104373&title=%E2%80%9CFact-checking%20Mark%20Walker%E2%80%99s%20video%20on%20HR%201%E2%80%99s%20campaign-finance%20provisions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,8ZAlhCr982qNwi-4cGhdGfsJOS_M7q5xuaMn8LPNCdF2NXwOOxEXd-to7nQB8hd520IqgkbJ-ZaVzANStPR9FNDLDj-otTiythSLYDtrgt1A&typo=1>

“Ohio voter turnout ranks far behind many other states, despite contested governor’s race in 2018, study finds”<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104371&c=E,1,7kqJrgllSwwkT-zHe4zThbMHu3rDh2E1caX_1nsRVfVQP7DSNitpT_6i_IxemEpQdyrOdnnnLC7oe1XqeJzJ3QfRkE9Wap4bDF3bq0WGdf20Naix9HlYc96o&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:19 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104371&c=E,1,KbPwxf_tQu5lPGycDs2sQtNcL4Llw84ozfaalgm6Ixh0Vv4bskbECiZu_GMsYCDTMk6N6K9zPbxdOeWi6VaSJrO-CvracezaU_NzS8_nYDI,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,NUeM10zBKGUtXXsMiWLcRckvLIQ_gaelGhk4SLbrI8tRLU0QHPyBdICFsN3nnGf5pzTKgquszM2vRrat-jswOSgbSUQ74ztBfB9lk9MOF0VXlxebNN5yZys5PyHZ&typo=1>

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports<https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2019/03/ohio-voter-turnout-ranks-far-behind-many-other-states-despite-contested-governors-race-in-2018-study-finds.html>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104371&title=%E2%80%9COhio%20voter%20turnout%20ranks%20far%20behind%20many%20other%20states%2C%20despite%20contested%20governor%E2%80%99s%20race%20in%202018%2C%20study%20finds%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,sn7iGkNTxM9kzXXa-mHB7qiCrG3Je-JQRTILg7PltHSlRngqwELgfOiktALi8vi33zQTCTj78HX83UkIYIE2KbVwJ1Yyldk7pW6c5zRp&typo=1>

“Inside Kamala Harris’s Small-Dollar Fund-Raising Operation”<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104369&c=E,1,CcI1BdCZuoFzOOV17ecU49X5GmJH9TeJqEWWRwnbdAKUur2jT27uyZg2_k5Zig1duk1h9QZbme7jLBes9jqMRMQxPzC-BrKxUTcTqcyi7mH2aHCVMV0,&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:14 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104369&c=E,1,2ZXpzlNRHuTvB75QLdoilYMb35smyGPLyG-CQi2z_zs3hvztf66T43Jv5TG20O3kraTwHbwipCKSeGGHpSs_CRQeU98YUJEKrob7cDcMS61c&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,KIOAeI0YkSGRPtj2hGADUjOBlHKui1gX0-bwXqHjEJAYRoM3cXaXByDkUSahpKExtlx1GG0ho4HpRiUw_XHCZKdZ5h5YGotTJJwzUlA4yQ,,&typo=1>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/us/politics/kamala-harris-fundraising.html>:

Over the last two years, Ms. Harris has systematically constructed a database of donors and email addresses that raised several million dollars for her fellow Democrats, demonstrating an uncommon potency for a first-term senator, according to federal election records and interviews with numerous political strategists. Now, as she makes her own run for president, her digital following serves as a kind of stealth weapon, putting her in perhaps the best position to challenge the small-dollar fund-raising operations of two top rivals, former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/politics/beto-o-rourke-fundraising.html?module=inline> and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising.html?module=inline>.

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104369&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20Kamala%20Harris%E2%80%99s%20Small-Dollar%20Fund-Raising%20Operation%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,ohq-RvsUU3jksmETVNMzY_C9KHhU5AdUx-BQKWkvkLmxdwSJBHbwnptJNNAKCxzL9GVhidw-vPrXMqvcpX_XK3dNLXZzr5IBd2TmohaUwygqVKywk4IQGQ5LBy8g&typo=1>

How Appealing Mega-Roundup of Stories on Today’s Partisan Gerrymandering Oral Argument<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104367&c=E,1,eLIydTlV1ptkmLhCqGT8Rr50FyTS-Af5SpeW8aGF4jUyCPXJD4sITwECroO1XwDOERw6YszJgfLgraSKxNNXYF3Yc-MSxx-hxuSs98nfYcq2JOICCc6rZF82ryw3&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:07 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104367&c=E,1,4LJ7oyf16-RaS53HrACAPV4266IFtyK4bG2Hwa4NX3Dz0QogqpCO5Yn10Vm_GPtrm1jzsHREjZo1BZ2ZXZ82d4aWWI7hAp_G_iYbGbHPitrUX6I,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,Vm_qMFnswv-Z_uXenICRBoi-uDcZW6hqxbrKrqz_70yve8Pj_c0tT3j3-4_cGQlQXXLoyy73vV9CoUBNNpoxSx8jyKeyRi_cWuJa6a7yol0,&typo=1>

Thank you Howard<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhowappealing.abovethelaw.com%2f2019%2f03%2f26%2f%2389087&c=E,1,crdeHRzyYnjOvTj0i6JcluQY9kDWo1SSbPX__kSFPpyEgMDwtpZYmUuil89Jcsq1gvw5XuwrEHTFlT2fc6XM9SzxPtb5pWur_p1Sel6gtSP3Nv817w,,&typo=1>!
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104367&title=How%20Appealing%20Mega-Roundup%20of%20Stories%20on%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Oral%20Argument>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,IzcxV7df8ShgBup0UuUFCfk7T6ryBNBQ-58AFIAIRuxeIOge-U-ZEX9FrBYicskMukhMsXr51FCv2i6ccVThGlmj14IRZjx68BcXRnnIgQVSTfs,&typo=1>

“Why Trump probably won’t get in trouble for campaign finance violations”<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104365&c=E,1,WfyA-5-3brPIjGG72eZV4PeM0c5Z8xGKfvChAIxwZPDiDlPrB45EM0pqvepaTVp-otlgIFb3m1PHoQfDguJvgAXlma-8af2ohdMEUO8nEswwXyeV7eQMRvw,&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 8:02 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104365&c=E,1,2G26NnhUGWRA_ViZrb6SG76Mmx2DUf4xU6drMvyMqPeK0lxmt8JR6HEvKaAwremiBVEMNEpUVtfDCQAOwugMVJDVGItw2pka0cJ89X9LoMkqB8jsPQ,,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,95r84BUa9sBNkyYT6F68-GREvfsZ7S-b7ZYp2BdzvljtZ3DKnc5hb9X8D549u-tRNaDnY2LL0W-57-cM1z6i2sitHIUKaWQTNd5cSlMALHKMgBe5YrozIwax1wkK&typo=1>

I missed this Steve Weissman oped<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/07/why-trump-probably-wont-get-trouble-campaign-finance-violations/?utm_term=.f5351da786d1> in WaPo a few weeks ago.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104365&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Trump%20probably%20won%E2%80%99t%20get%20in%20trouble%20for%20campaign%20finance%20violations%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,3fxs-x2i3yBg0mBJDZ1w6Eq6vccOSwUGbO56akDYhLaH_7IXIHhShBwgEBeAl2KnqBisEmv_rKB0YKETlMxHZ0ZtEw6AVb99vyAtTH6M&typo=1>

Proportionality and the Oral Arguments<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104363&c=E,1,Xw7TYEluNspFobNPuqXwEx7-m1D6Lg4mK2UHezjfqA-4vnAIE3Z10fP-s_50H4b6_WEM-nUTyyb1Om3BN1Eu5sZc_EZaK_b4LvRpfgeHidCZ-AaUPftO&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 3:36 pm<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104363&c=E,1,dDgUHMTzZAa_OInNJLIKWZHavHI9LMnvyDbSo7X0WPFwM9p0Hv1B0TLxguXHQ7-6ZbJK08tcr8euAg5i1JFccm6etqNf0StDwkaiOZ9ddCPJ&typo=1> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d12&c=E,1,xlm4oGMsUod5Zlt-gV2NIFaM-t4Ap1UMFN3zy2a0gtwpIMB9RD-ft_xKcUva_qF3Ku3F5NagM7qNgV2xf3t_5eJ3eKZpumez4M-gYxp_T8xs7PUyl2NDa_j6&typo=1>

More than thirty years ago, Sandy Levinson wrote an article<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fheinonline.org%2fHOL%2fLandingPage%3fhandle%3dhein.journals%2fuclalr33%26div%3d16%26id%3d%26page%3d&c=E,1,i2VeAd37wP7hg2Qt1A1PtuLnvuOy_QPiI6QX3yf4jvN-q6oLziK8y8Xg-l9CTtc6sikUxiDLILxApA9d1ls8-Xszvkjis1JuRv9ZJbaGHMhe&typo=1> called “Gerrymandering and the Brooding Omnipresence of Proportional Representation.” The article is old but its title was as apt as ever in today’s oral arguments in Rucho and Lamone, in which the Justices asked question after question about proportionality. Justice Alito wondered if there was any way a legislature could pick among computer-generated maps except to “choose one that honors proportional representation.” Justice Kavanaugh inquired whether “proportional representation [is] a judicially manageable standard” and whether the Equal Protection Clause might “require something resembling proportional representation.” Justice Gorsuch asserted that any effect test would ultimately hinge on “how much deviation from proportional representation is enough.” In sum, the Justices and the advocates referred to proportionality almost seventy times.

In response to all this discussion, it’s important to be clear about two things. First, proportional representation is an entirely inappropriate benchmark for an electoral system like ours. And second, none of the Rucho or Lamone plaintiffs’ proposals would actually require proportionality. The reason proportional representation is an improper baseline for single-member districts is that—even if designed without any partisan intent—they rarely produce it. Rather, single-member districts (even if neutrally drawn) generally yield superproportional representation: a seat share for the majority party that is substantially larger than its vote share. Specifically, over the last half-century, American congressional and state legislative maps have averaged<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpapers.ssrn.com%2fsol3%2fpapers.cfm%3fabstract_id%3d3077766&c=E,1,n_SjrGy0Qlv_mX9fSkyqMh0lPku5B_66S7AERw7Lz1pXcBNiK2AAMM_RfyJktlh997QIWejSg22g05cQDc4uDE-Z0JQYdxOJtXp5QH-ZMA,,&typo=1> a seat-vote responsiveness of almost exactly two. That is, a one percent increase in a party’s vote share has typically led to a two percent rise in the party’s seat share (not the one percent boost required for proportionality).

What accounts for this pattern of superproportional representation? In brief, that most maps contain substantial numbers of competitive districts: indeed, enough such districts to make parties’ seat shares change at roughly double the rate of their vote shares. Suppose that a plan has ten districts, for example, of which Party A won five in the last election with 50% of the statewide vote. If Party A earns 60% of the vote in the next election, it should usually expect to claim 70% of the seats (not the 60% necessary for proportionality). This is because, on average, two of the seats previously won by the opposing party (not one) would flip to Party A as its vote share increases by 10%. Both of these seats would be competitive enough to change hands given an electoral shift of this size.

Proportionality is thus an unsuitable benchmark because it’s an unrealistic expectation for single-member districts. Fortunately, none of the Rucho or Lamone plaintiffs’ methods would insist on it. Start with the random generation of district maps by a computer algorithm: a powerful technique about which I’ll say more in a subsequent post. If an enacted plan is compared to an array of simulated maps, that is plainly different from measuring the plan’s “deviation from proportional representation” (to use Justice Gorsuch’s phrase). The median simulated map might be one that achieves proportionality. Or it might not be. It all depends on the state’s political geography and districting criteria, and how they affect the maps the algorithm produces.

In North Carolina, for instance, the median simulated map is roughly proportional. It includes seven Democratic districts out of thirteen, for a Democratic vote share slightly above fifty percent. In Maryland, on the other hand, the median simulated map (like most plans historically) exhibits hyperproportionality. It contains six Democratic districts out of eight (or seventy-five percent), for a Democratic vote share close to sixty percent. Accordingly, the comparison of enacted plans with randomly generated maps in no way amounts to the imposition of proportional representation. What the method does push states toward is the typical outcome of a redistricting process that takes into account their political geographies and legitimate line-drawing goals.

Next, consider the measures of partisan asymmetry on which some of the Rucho plaintiffs rely. None of them are equivalent to disproportionality either. The efficiency gap tallies the parties’ respective wasted votes, district by district. It doesn’t even examine the parties’ statewide seat and vote shares—let alone subtract one from the other (as disproportionality does). Likewise, partisan bias indicates how different the parties’ seat shares would be if they each earned the same share of the statewide vote. Any degree of disproportionality is acceptable, as long as each party receives the same “winner’s bonus” if it’s in the majority. And the mean-median difference simply compares a party’s mean vote share, across all of a map’s districts, to its median vote share. The party’s seat share plays no role in this calculation.

There’s a good reason why all these metrics are distinct from disproportionality. It’s that they’re rooted in the quite different concept of partisan symmetry. Symmetry, unlike proportionality, doesn’t require the parties’ seat and vote shares to be equal. Rather, it more flexibly asks that the parties be able to translate their popular support into legislative representation with approximately equal ease. Also unlike proportionality, symmetry is an appropriate aim for single-member districts. In fact, over the last fifty years, American congressional and state legislative maps have had<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpapers.ssrn.com%2fsol3%2fpapers.cfm%3fabstract_id%3d3077766&c=E,1,2SAC3F2QYcOtASE5ga7VSNigmqTgnm243ee4PgoW3XdRGnMvbGpStE6uITIa5ODwrjPidf9lJIe5aMKuf2ci4EKI7mwGrofKMYNrG62C3YjVz5Y,&typo=1> average efficiency gaps, partisan biases, and mean-median differences of almost exactly zero. This family of measures, then, is no surreptitious attempt to import foreign notions of proportional representation. It’s an effort, instead, to nudge American maps in the direction of their own historical norm—which has always been symmetry but not proportionality.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104363&title=Proportionality%20and%20the%20Oral%20Arguments>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d1&c=E,1,G_tFMijvPF9Vmyg_gwQrrpnPNIi9EiICjZGis6_twOeU9i4_5iyxDvTS9l-_0QFcpDdKgf9cnPRO68NyDvodmv720xy30zMFBxmQBAqP&typo=1>

Is Justice Kavanaugh in Play in the Partisan Gerrymandering Cases? Or is that Too “Big” of a “Lift”?<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104355&c=E,1,9jG7FN3zwRvwM99s61Lk94wjYVLb7jCq_7phAqcABNry6sD7crxeYOk2VAjpAy1y-1cfFgcRJ9WWN6ufyEKzDHSqIBaInxyBg9Cpq45V&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 11:00 am<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104355&c=E,1,z721BcJcCrnvLzS5l8dBJez_AzprMC67oc0-WJBj4vsK_TLsQNeDz6GMJDu9qLlL3nC2fpNJtUoL9T8BEwJ9VMdEuqOIyWXh_k55kVuTKujKTrrWy7WW5y55&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,AhXEXJAxo81lrPtraRYPudmralm9hQeBau68UjV5lqJMu6g_1v3oCE2-E9YJsgW8pr91FbP-QcLgjevYkHa5RaBIOLCfxkfnHBjGtQTbfR4D6N28hlBHEgE,&typo=1>

In my write-up of what’s at stake in the partisan gerrymandering cases over at Slate<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/john-roberts-supreme-court-gerrymandering-cases.html>, I focused on whether Chief Justice Roberts is in play. I dismissed whether Justice Kavanaugh is in play with a single sentence: “And while we don’t know where Justice Brett Kavanaugh will be on these issues because this is the first time he will consider them as a judge, his general jurisprudential disposition puts him firmly in a conservative camp that has long resisted judicial policing of partisan district lines.” That may have been too hasty, and Kavanaugh may well be in play, based upon the transcrip<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2foral_arguments%2fargument_transcripts%2f2018%2f18-422_5hd5.pdf&c=E,1,qUNY_0RSNOfIDFQfyVIRFgZDeVvELNtE22PJKeNQKt4TnBoCwpASkfYotknBdXRgJ5kECmrpkxPW7agRfpoGuKZlndIXxwoPBu30QJVz-xTdLbiZRdWc3lAc7K4,&typo=1>t in today’s Rucho case and Benisek case<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2foral_arguments%2fargument_transcripts%2f2018%2f18-726_9olb.pdf&c=E,1,-llSJ8B_ArMEnThUFYFf9Q2B33cNswZO6Nnj13_lJhPi6hJp_QG8VPdt-8krsTsfKJoXOe0_QQvS2i5LD9FKygi7Kar_mAX_sk6XEPhYpU70QtLelN7D8ao,&typo=1> involving partisan gerrymandering. I still would not bet on him siding with the liberals to police partisan gerrymandering though.

Let me begin with more than the usual caveats. Oral arguments are not always predictive of votes, Kavanaugh is a new Justice on the Court with a general conservative disposition, and I was not present at the oral argument; I’m going only off the transcripts.

But Kavanaugh seemed to seriously question whether the Equal Protection Clause required intervention, even perhaps some kind of requirement of proportional representation (although that question struck me as kind of an intellectual exercise rather than a serious question). He repeatedly returned to the proportional representation question in the Benisek case, at one point asking the state’s lawyer: “Equal Protection Clause does not suggest to you something where political groups are treated roughly equally?”

The most telling exchange was this with plaintiffs’ lawyer Allison Riggs:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I took — I took some of your argument in the briefs and the amicus briefs to be that extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy — and I’m not going to dispute that — and that the Court, even though it might be a problem to get involved in all these cases, should, in essence, recognize the emergency situation from your perspective. But what about, to pick up on something Justice Gorsuch said earlier, that there is a fair amount of activity going on in the states on redistricting and attention in Congress and in state supreme courts? In other words, have we reached the moment, even though it would be a — have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this Court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?

MS. RIGGS: The North Carolinian plaintiffs in front of you can do nothing to solve this problem. And —

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But I’m thinking about more nationally. Your — your — the amicus briefs are certainly referencing a — a problem in many states. And the idea, I think in the briefs, is this Court and this Court alone can step in. And — and there is a fair amount of activity going on in the states, recognizing the same problem that you’re recognizing.

This strikes me as someone seriously grappling with the question. Is the Court’s involvement necessary. Can redistricting commissions and state Supreme Courts (North Carolina’s just gained a lopsided Democratic majority, a point no one seemed to bring up) pick up if federal courts are out of the game?

There’s an irony in relying on commissions of course, at least those established against legislative wishes. The Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote upheld the use of these commissions in congressional elections, but Justice Kennedy the swing vote is gone and this case could in fact be reversed in a few years, as I explained in The Atlantic.<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/supreme-court-will-rule-gerrymandering-md-and-nc/579550/>

What will Kavanaugh do? It is a more interesting question than I thought before, but I still wouldn’t bet on him being a fifth vote to create a new constitutional claim. And there’s no fully counting out the Chief Justice either.

[This post has been updated.]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104355&title=Is%20Justice%20Kavanaugh%20in%20Play%20in%20the%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Cases%3F%20Or%20is%20that%20Too%20%E2%80%9CBig%E2%80%9D%20of%20a%20%E2%80%9CLift%E2%80%9D%3F>
Posted in redistricting<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d6&c=E,1,IdmgJILn9jvJ7N4A1vXOlyOYG8u00ecX-ZW9KRkCvP-etLRY0L7lixPxlO4aKGUATklORrcR7jIgPZ9HcuIHk-dT19_w3_aJVukxxqaSmtg-7Q,,&typo=1>, Supreme Court<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d29&c=E,1,STBOGgAoighFzYnF4igdG-Z4CBOW32CCCHBCis8InmHFDk3tAmZ_vzNb--B8d3latZdrDPvtYk8aj3hsVIYFP_ttWvfKLBQ62gSBalfpSisu5yYJ&typo=1>

Read the Transcripts in the Partisan Gerrymandering Cases<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104352&c=E,1,zlyzhejrRt9A55mR70CdZZGBzRJRSgoFSF1JWwdlXB3a9HZzCvRBos_St1n0xZNfKix3joLiOgbxyv9lPVnr_-repZIgGViYoKbfiKhOSQ,,&typo=1>
Posted on March 26, 2019 10:11 am<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fp%3d104352&c=E,1,Xfv7Wo33G1_qfpPQlLubFOCkJ8wXk61TPwbEfjSSBhEgyE77pYjpilrxNc75FxwKleLb1XU9BH_dKp7kbBdgcydc4Qrs3k2CFpUtuHVmMg,,&typo=1> by Rick Hasen<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,K5Pcq2fE26Y1oJMZrSe_vmX7i1idyLOzP13E6I5YbDPc5S2d6AeKMCqwSktRILscFO4TQ217vYhLI07p25tv6eBKMbLBdef1dq3DI24iX1whu6hYIegClW8,&typo=1>

Rucho <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2foral_arguments%2fargument_transcripts%2f2018%2f18-422_5hd5.pdf&c=E,1,5Me5zAudKdLNiM1Wwsy7ooQVZUxEaPZRnKMfXacL41MES6_PrEWd6a4pLm5TEXaCeML1s_SEhfqsG0o3y7-B9Y5W3Ph5z5eMUP57niEM1YQ3xwdZxA,,&typo=1> (North Carolina case)

Benisek<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.supremecourt.gov%2foral_arguments%2fargument_transcripts%2f2018%2f18-726_9olb.pdf&c=E,1,haNZ2Fwpb9P6cy9VMoR6wahJyqNgmyQKFlmAOhBkHo6g8s4GFaG6DhO76LYsnHthg_DzWsc-ykrzBUiEUWObTGY2hOq9dp2X4q3efaVJvytOA-sC-gAWvr5xZw,,&typo=1> (Maryland case)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104352&title=Read%20the%20Transcripts%20in%20the%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Cases>
Posted in redistricting<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d6&c=E,1,CvZGsoCPUaexooWP2mgFn5npiketGkfRbATgwGTcbiCizpfOpgnHsRKkBOVGXErAK9t53G9xTPhK_gITp4CMBUj0Pwk2vmAEWcdL1jQ9zzugQiLV8HoGHfmoK4qO&typo=1>, Supreme Court<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f%3fcat%3d29&c=E,1,_UsiYrIkXCJyM9KtnzgFJtSh1k6mnUibwOsH_0BItpKlVxJiI5lXV_wIcX8QvGMHh2Yr5qKgjjbgs9spOV-BOG0oGTgdRuxN4YhCVO-wW5KSRpQzO7kMtw,,&typo=1>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.law.uci.edu%2ffaculty%2ffull-time%2fhasen%2f&c=E,1,-RnEJvjU9Z_qEiHLvB96OLanpA8nTzBwIVFyqbzDZh5eZ72b_lD-cfktJn8mFxFmTZwiJnz7ISmhCv0KWMMoyk5lQfj52nRvUELUONFReVT2X4T9saM,&typo=1>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2felectionlawblog.org%2f&c=E,1,OoxuNHBX69jrg_QRwIW2RRVgyXyioMbFbjDGptbCfhj2C47vA10ChHOGDPKos0Rumb74ZNlO8d92B1ar33EQN6lRan_wiw17AfDPc6tPrltHEg,,&typo=1>
[signature_2101233640]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190327/d57e35d1/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/20190327/d57e35d1/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/20190327/d57e35d1/attachment-0001.png>