[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/20/19

Mon May 20 07:46:35 PDT 2019

Social Media Pollution Could Be Worse in 2020 Election<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105212>
Posted on May 20, 2019 7:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105212> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jim Rutenberg NYT column<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/media/social-media-presidential-campaign-2020.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage>:

The rules now in place just don’t match up with how certain groups influence voters via the internet. Thanks to savvy lobbying by tech companies, online election campaign speech remains almost entirely unregulated.

The platforms won exemptions<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/us/politics/facebook-google-russia-meddling-disclosure.html?module=inline> from many campaign finance provisions by arguing that the rules would stifle their growth. They don’t have the legal requirements for ad disclaimers and disclosures — like keeping public logs of political sponsors — that television does.

That’s how the Internet Research Agency, a home for troll accounts in St. Petersburg, Russia, could spend money on Facebook pages that worked for Hillary Clinton’s defeat without having to reveal its identity.

The platforms are taking steps to change. They say they are screening and authenticating political advertisers, whose activity they are disclosing<https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&q=Donald%20J.%20Trump&view_all_page_id=153080620724> voluntarily through public databases. They have also added human moderators and artificial intelligence programs to remove fake accounts, an initiative that has lessened social media pollution.

But they started policing themselves only after months of denial and public pressure. And their efforts only go so far: Every week seems to bring reports<https://popular.info/p/trump-campaign-running-hundreds-of> of improper activity slipping through the cracks<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-tech-fakenews/google-facebook-twitter-rapped-for-not-doing-enough-in-eu-fake-news-fight-idUSKCN1SN121>….

The House recently passed a bill<https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/h-r-1-boosts-tv-campaign-ad-disclosures> requiring platforms to keep public logs of political advertisers and tightening restrictions on activity originating outside the United States. A similar bill<https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/graham-klobuchar-introduce-internet-ads-transparency-bill> is pending in the Senate, but it has little chance of becoming law ahead of 2020, given the opposition of<https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/433154-mcconnell-works-to-freeze-support-for-dem-campaign-finance-effort> the Senate leader, Mitch McConnell.

The recent legislative action may be a start, but it’s steeped in assumptions of how media works left over from the days when TV and radio were the dominant forms. Social media posts that cost nothing don’t count as paid political ads, although they may have been created by well-funded organizations or profitable businesses whose goal is to sway voters.

The Internet Research Agency, for instance, pumped out free content from accounts that appeared to belong everyday Americans. Real citizens shared — and amplified — this stuff, sometimes by the hundreds of thousands<https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/pavya8/here-are-russian-trolls-10-most-viral-facebook-posts-targeting-americans>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105212&title=Social%20Media%20Pollution%20Could%20Be%20Worse%20in%202020%20Election>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

“16-Year-Olds Want a Vote. Fifty Years Ago, So Did 18-Year-Olds.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105210>
Posted on May 20, 2019 7:39 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105210> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/us/politics/voting-age.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105210&title=%E2%80%9C16-Year-Olds%20Want%20a%20Vote.%20Fifty%20Years%20Ago%2C%20So%20Did%2018-Year-Olds.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>

“Controversial voter fraud bill dies in Texas House, but could be revived”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105208>
Posted on May 20, 2019 7:26 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105208> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Houston Chronicle<https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Controversial-voter-fraud-bill-dies-in-Texas-13858088.php?t=d50e8dae48>:

Sweeping voter reforms that Democrats and voting advocacy groups called nothing more than a tool for voter suppression appear to have died in the Texas Legislature.

The Texas House on Sunday night refused to schedule the controversial bill for a floor debate this week, a move that bars it from being voted on in the House.

Now the only way Senate Bill 9, championed by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, can pass is if portions of the legislation are amended onto other bills by May 27, the last day of the session. However, the author of the bill, Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, on Sunday night did not sound confident that he still has the time to go that route
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105208&title=%E2%80%9CControversial%20voter%20fraud%20bill%20dies%20in%20Texas%20House%2C%20but%20could%20be%20revived%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Let Businesses Donate to Candidates”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105206>
Posted on May 20, 2019 7:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105206> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-20/supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-let-businesses-donate-to-candidates>:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined an opportunity to give businesses broader rights to contribute money to political candidates and causes.

The justices, without comment Monday, refused to question a Massachusetts law that bars for-profit corporations from making campaign donations.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105206&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Rejects%20Bid%20to%20Let%20Businesses%20Donate%20to%20Candidates%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

University of Chicago Law Review’s Online Symposium on Posner and Weyl’s “Radical Markets” Now Available<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105204>
Posted on May 19, 2019 6:52 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105204> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/node/6076>:

RadicalxChange: An Academic Agenda<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/radicalxchange-academic-agenda>
E. Glen Weyl
87 U Chi L Rev Online 1 (2019).

A History for the Future: Radical Markets and the Work of History<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/history-future-radical-markets-and-work-history>
Ananya Chakravarti
87 U Chi L Rev Online 12 (2019).

A Decision Theoretic Approach to Understanding Survey Response: Likert vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/decision-theoretic-approach-understanding-survey-response-likert-vs-quadratic-voting>
Charlotte Cavaillé, Daniel L. Chen, and Karine Van der Straeten
87 U Chi L Rev Online 22 (2019).

Radical Markets or Conventional Politics? An Ambitious Guide to Reforming American Immigration Policy<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/radical-markets-or-conventional-politics-ambitious-guide-reforming-american-immigration>
Adam B. Cox
87 U Chi L Rev Online 44 (2019).

Property Attachments<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/property-attachments>
Lee Anne Fennell
87 U Chi L Rev Online 55 (2019).

QV or Not QV? That Is the Question: Some Skepticism about Radical Egalitarian Voting Markets<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/qv-or-not-qv-question-some-skepticism-about-radical-egalitarian-voting-markets>
Richard L. Hasen
87 U Chi L Rev Online 67 (2019).

Audits, Markets, and Patents<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/audits-markets-and-patents>
Daniel Hemel
87 U Chi L Rev Online 78 (2019).

The Technological Politics of Mechanism Design<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/technological-politics-mechanism-design>
Zoë Hitzig, Lily Hu, and Salomé Viljoen
87 U Chi L Rev Online 95 (2019).

Ownership and Punishment<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/ownership-and-punishment>
Matthew Prewitt
87 U Chi L Rev Online 109 (2019).

Property in Radical Markets<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/publication/property-radical-markets>
Katrina Miriam Wyman
87 U Chi L Rev Online 125 (2019).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105204&title=University%20of%20Chicago%20Law%20Review%E2%80%99s%20Online%20Symposium%20on%20Posner%20and%20Weyl%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CRadical%20Markets%E2%80%9D%20Now%20Available>
Posted in theory<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>

John Copeland Nagle, RIP<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105202>
Posted on May 19, 2019 10:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105202> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I am very sad to report that Notre Dame law professor John Nagle passed away after a brief illness. John wrote primarily in the area of environmental law, but he wrote occasionally in the field of election law and legislation. I got to know him a bit when he invited me to a symposium for the Journal of Legislation on a book of mine.

He was a kind and decent person, very generous with his praise and in sharing his wisdom. He was very smart and we all learned so much from him.

Here are remembrances from Derek Muller<http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2019/5/in-memoriam-professor-john-copeland-nagle> and Rick Garnett<https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2019/05/prof-john-copeland-nagle-rip.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter>.

Condolences<https://law.nd.edu/directory/john-nagle/> to his family and friends.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105202&title=John%20Copeland%20Nagle%2C%20RIP>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>

“Speaker Robin Vos gets temporary reprieve from appeals court in Wisconsin’s gerrymandering case”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105197>
Posted on May 18, 2019 9:02 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105197> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/18/speaker-robin-vos-gets-reprieve-wisconsins-gerrymandering-case/3718475002/>:

 A panel of federal judges late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court’s order that  Assembly Speaker Robin Vos sit for a deposition in Wisconsin’s gerrymandering case.

In their brief order, the judges wrote that they were suspending the requirement that Vos testify and turn over documents until they further study the case. Vos had been scheduled to testify on May 29.

The lawsuit by Democratic voters challenges the election maps Vos and other Republican lawmakers drew in 2011 that have helped them keep large majorities in the years since then.

Vos, of Rochester, fought the deposition request, arguing he didn’t have to sit for one because lawmakers are generally immune from civil lawsuits during the legislative session.

The initial panel of federal judges hearing the case determined in a 2-1 ruling this month that Vos had to sit for a deposition because “this is an exceptional case that raises important federal questions about the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s plan for electing members of the Assembly.”

Vos asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to review that ruling and a three-judge panel there issued Friday’s order temporarily blocking the deposition. Those judges did not indicate when they would issue a final ruling.

Update: There is a serious question<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/15.-Response-in-Opposition-to-Mandamus-Petition-and-Motion-for-Stay.pdf> whether the 7th circuit has jurisdiction to issue such an order in an interlocutory mandamus request (or whether only the Supreme Court can do so).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105197&title=%E2%80%9CSpeaker%20Robin%20Vos%20gets%20temporary%20reprieve%20from%20appeals%20court%20in%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20gerrymandering%20case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

Must Read from Tierney Sneed: Ginni Thomas, Wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Discussed Anti-“Voter Fraud” Campaign in Virginia Which Could Have Intimidated Minority Voters<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105195>
Posted on May 18, 2019 8:02 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105195> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Scoop from Tierney<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/virginia-thomas-scotus-christian-adams-voter-fraud-campaign> Sneed at Talking Points Memo (you’ve got to read the whole thing):

Ginni Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, wanted to “target” the “most questionable” precincts in Virginia with an anti-voter fraud campaign, according to an October 2016 email exchange she had with a prominent voter fraud alarmist and other conservative activists.

The emails were made public Friday in the litigation over a sensational report released by the group of the alarmist, J. Christian Adams, who also served on President Trump’s short-lived voter fraud commission.

Even Adams was skeptical of the idea — which was also being pushed by a conservative media consultant, Demos Chrissos — but not necessarily because he thought it would cross into the realm of illegal voter intimidation.

“It is possible to do without violating federal law if done correctly,” Adams wrote. “It is NOT possible to do without unleashing a leftist whirlwind that will be designed to boomerang on us and will JUICE leftwing turnout but [sic] threatening voter suppression (a made up term with no basis in law).”

Also of interest is the involvement of the same PR firm that tried to come up the cockamamie story of an alternative attacker of Dr. Ford during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105195&title=Must%20Read%20from%20Tierney%20Sneed%3A%20Ginni%20Thomas%2C%20Wife%20of%20Supreme%20Court%20Justice%20Clarence%20Thomas%2C%20Discussed%20Anti-%E2%80%9CVoter%20Fraud%E2%80%9D%20Campaign%20in%20Virginia%20Which%20Could%20Have%20Intimidated%20Minority%20Voters>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

--
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_117851507]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190520/4dd672f8/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/20190520/4dd672f8/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/20190520/4dd672f8/attachment-0001.png>