[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/29/19

[Rick Hasen]

“In Ukraine, Russia Tests a New Facebook Tactic in Election Tampering”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104436>
Posted on March 29, 2019 8:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104436> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/world/europe/ukraine-russia-election-tampering-propaganda.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage>:

Campaigning for Ukraine’s presidential election had just begun to heat up when the authorities announced they had thwarted a Russian plot to use Facebook to undermine the vote.

Unlike the 2016 interference in the United States, which centered on fake Facebook pages created by Russians in faraway St. Petersburg, the operation in Ukraine this year had a clever twist. It tried to circumvent Facebook’s new safeguards by paying Ukrainian citizens to give a Russian agent access to their personal pages.

In a video confession published by the S.B.U., Ukraine’s domestic intelligence service, a man it identified as the Russian agent said that he resided in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, and that his Russian handlers had ordered him “to find people in Ukraine on Facebook who wanted to sell their accounts or temporarily rent them out.”

“As I learned,” said the man, who was not identified by name, “their goal was to use those accounts to publish political ads or to plant fake articles.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104436&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Ukraine%2C%20Russia%20Tests%20a%20New%20Facebook%20Tactic%20in%20Election%20Tampering%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Reforming Elections Without Excluding Disabled Voters”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104434>
Posted on March 28, 2019 4:47 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104434> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Blog pos<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/news/2019/03/28/468019/reforming-elections-without-excluding-disabled-voters/#.XJ1YY4tdsPY.email>t at the Center for American Progress.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104434&title=%E2%80%9CReforming%20Elections%20Without%20Excluding%20Disabled%20Voters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voters with disabilities<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=71>


“Neil Gorsuch’s Bad-Faith Ploy to Save Partisan Gerrymandering and Doom American Democracy”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104426>
Posted on March 28, 2019 1:02 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104426> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mark Joseph Stern for Slate<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/neil-gorsuch-paul-clement-partisan-gerrymandering.html>:

As Talking Points Memo’s Tierney Sneed has observed<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/justices-weaponize-redistricting-reform-against-partisan-gerrymandering-foes>, Gorsuch’s question effectively weaponizes redistricting reform as an argument againstfederal court intervention. His solution—let the people solve the problem—is absurd for at least two reasons: The court may well strike down independent redistricting commissions, andeven if it doesn’t, at least 24 states<https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum> bar citizens from circumventing the legislature to enact gerrymander reform. In response to this problem, Paul Clement, the conservative attorney defending gerrymanderers, pointed on Wednesday to H.R. 1, the Democratic measure that would compel each state to adopt an independent redistricting commission. But as Clement hinted, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court would also strike down this central provision of H.R. 1. The upshot is that without the support of the federal judiciary, millions of Americans will be powerless to stop partisan redistricting….

That’s true in theory, even though the bill has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate. But Clement added a caveat. H.R. 1, he said, “was an effort to essentially force states to have bipartisan commissions. Now, query whether that’s constitutional.”
Wait—what? Remember, the elections clause states that Congress can “make or alter such regulations” regarding the “manner” of congressional elections. So why can’t Congress compel states to adopt independent redistricting commissions? The probable answer, as a white paper by Pack the Courts<https://www.packscotus.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Supreme-Court-H.R.-1.pdf> points out, is that this requirement could be struck down under the Supreme Court’s “anti-commandeering doctrine<https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-time-abandon-anti-commandeering-dont-count-supreme-court/>.” Under that principle, Congress can’t force state legislators to adopt or enforce a federal law. SCOTUS could easily cite the amorphous and ambiguous<https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-time-abandon-anti-commandeering-dont-count-supreme-court/> doctrine to justify invalidating the anti-gerrymandering provision of H.R. 1 on constitutional grounds.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104426&title=%E2%80%9CNeil%20Gorsuch%E2%80%99s%20Bad-Faith%20Ploy%20to%20Save%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20and%20Doom%20American%20Democracy%E2%80%9D>
Posted in citizen commissions<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“U.S. House committee investigating Texas voter roll review”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104424>
Posted on March 28, 2019 12:13 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104424> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Tribune<https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/28/texas-voter-roll-review-under-investigation-us-house-committee/>:

The U.S. House’s main investigative committee has opened an inquiry into the Texas secretary of state’s review of the voter rolls for supposed noncitizens.

In letters sent to top Texas officials on Thursday, U.S. Reps. Elijah Cummings, the Democratic chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, requested documents and communications from the secretary of state and the state’s attorney general related to the review through which state officials tagged almost 100,000 registered voters as suspect voters.

Texas officials rolled out the review effort in late January, shipping off lists of flagged voters to county voter registrars in what they described as routine maintenance of the state’s massive voter registration database. But state officials’ efforts have been dogged by errors in the data and litigation in federal court, which ground the entire review to a halt over concerns by a federal judge that it targeted naturalized citizens.

“We are disturbed by reports that your office has taken steps to remove thousands of eligible American voters from the rolls in Texas and that you have referred many of these Americans for possible criminal prosecution for exercising their right to vote,” the congressmen wrote to Secretary of State David Whitley.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104424&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20House%20committee%20investigating%20Texas%20voter%20roll%20review%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>


“Georgia likely to plow ahead with buying insecure voting machines”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104421>
Posted on March 28, 2019 10:41 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104421> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eric Geller<https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/28/georgia-voting-machines-safe-1241033> for Politico:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is poised to sign a bill to overhaul the state’s voting system with machines that are widely considered vulnerable to hacking.

The new equipment would replace the state’s paperless, electronic machines — technology so risky that a federal judge said<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-judge-denies-motion-to-force-georgia-to-adopt-paper-ballots-in-midterm-election/2018/09/18/086e45dc-bab8-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html> last year that its continued use threatened Georgians’ “constitutional interests.” But security researchers say similar risks exist<https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/01/election-vulnerable-voting-machines-1198780> in the new electronic machines that the GOP-led legislature has chosen, which would embed the voter’s choice in a barcode on a slip of paper.

The warnings from cybersecurity experts, election integrity advocates and Georgia Democrats are especially troubling given the abundant warnings from U.S. intelligence leaders that Russia will once again attempt to undermine the presidential election in 2020.

“The bill’s sponsors made false and misleading statements during the entire legislative session in hearings leading up to the vote, often flatly contradicting objective evidence or mischaracterizing scientific writing,” said Georgia Institute of Technology computer science professor Rich DeMillo, who testified throughout the process.

A Kemp spokesman declined to comment about lawmakers’ reliance on what experts called false information.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104421&title=%E2%80%9CGeorgia%20likely%20to%20plow%20ahead%20with%20buying%20insecure%20voting%20machines%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


“Election doping: The Supreme Court does not like gerrymandering; That does not mean the nine justices will stop it”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104417>
Posted on March 28, 2019 10:27 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104417> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Steve Mazie<https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/03/30/the-supreme-court-does-not-like-gerrymandering> for The Economist.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104417&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20doping%3A%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20does%20not%20like%20gerrymandering%3B%20That%20does%20not%20mean%20the%20nine%20justices%20will%20stop%20it%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


California Court of Appeal Puts on Hold New Elections in Santa Monica for Violations of California Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104413>
Posted on March 28, 2019 9:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104413> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

As I noted<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104131> on March 12, the parties in the Santa Monica California Voting Rights Act litigation have been having a side fight while the case is on appeal as to whether new district elections must take place this summer, as the trial court ordered, before the appeal is heard.

Yesterday the California Court of Appeal issued this stay order<https://electionlawblog.org/?attachment_id=104415>, meaning there will be no district-based elections in Santa Monica this summer while the appeal is resolved.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104413&title=California%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Puts%20on%20Hold%20New%20Elections%20in%20Santa%20Monica%20for%20Violations%20of%20California%20Voting%20Rights%20Act>
Posted in CVRA<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=124>


The Plight of the FEC<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104410>
Posted on March 28, 2019 7:58 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104410> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From an Eleanor Eagan Jeff Hauser analysis<http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/the-overlooked-executive-branch-scandal-of-the-trump-era-independent-agencies> of independent agencies:

Finally, the plight of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an example of how Trump’s slowdown can exacerbate pre-existing threats to the public good. All of the commissioners are serving expired terms<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fec-commissioners-terms-expired-long-ago-trump-congress-won-t-n870071>, a problem with its roots in pre-Trump Washington dysfunction. As no more than three members of the same party can be on the commission at any one time, the six member commission is generally split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. At the moment, however, there is only one <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/08/trump-inauguration-money-shell-companies-revealed> Democratic commissioner while there are two Republican commissioners and an Independent<https://www.fec.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/steven-t-walther/> often but not always aligned with the Democratic Commissioner. This 2-1-1 split has lead to outcomes such as the FEC deciding<https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/15/trump-self-enrichment-complaint-fec-campaign-629911> by a 3-1 vote to “not investigate President Donald Trump’s political campaign for enriching his businesses after considering a complaint from a liberal watchdog group, which alleged that Trump’s boasting about his hotels and use of his private jets constituted a violation of campaign law.” Weintraub has also been notably more concerned than Walther<https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342115-fec-wrestles-with-confronting-russian-influence-in-2018-elections> with foreign interference in US elections.

[This post has been updated in light of a correction posted there.]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104410&title=The%20Plight%20of%20the%20FEC>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election commission<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


“Senate Democrats push to match House’s ethics and election reforms”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104404>
Posted on March 27, 2019 8:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104404> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-democrats-push-to-match-houses-ethics-and-election-reforms/2019/03/27/a46a6880-50a4-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.7bd03f022df5>:

Responding to action in the House, Senate Democrats unveiled their own version of a sweeping election and ethics reform bill Wednesday — one that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed never to bring to a vote.

Dubbed, like the House bill, the For the People Act, the Senate legislation includes a vast suite of proposals — including measures meant to expand voting, provisions aimed at unmasking and diluting the power of moneyed interests, new ethical strictures for federal officials and a new public financing system for congressional campaigns.

The bill, according to its lead author, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), has the support of all 47 senators in the Democratic caucus. The House bill passed 234 to 193 this month with unanimous Democratic support, meaning every congressional Democrat is on record in support of the bill.

“Today we are seizing their momentum and the momentum of the American people,” Udall said at a news conference Wednesday. “Now the ball is in Senator McConnell’s court. . . . This should not be about Democrats versus Republicans, this is about people versus special interests.”

That is not the view of McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans, who have called the bill a Democratic “power grab” and vowed to resist its advance.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104404&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Democrats%20push%20to%20match%20House%E2%80%99s%20ethics%20and%20election%20reforms%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
[signature_286248364]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190329/e7e3de16/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/20190329/e7e3de16/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190329/e7e3de16/attachment-0001.png>