[EL] SCOTUS orders in Ohio, Michigan Redistricting Cases; More News

Fri May 24 13:57:53 PDT 2019

No Surprise: Supreme Court, Without Noted Dissent, Blocks Redraws of Ohio, Michigan Maps Found by Lower Courts to Be Partisan Gerrymanders<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105302>
Posted on May 24, 2019 1:56 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105302> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Today’<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr3_o758.pdf>s orders<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052419zr2_4357.pdf> are no surprise. Indeed, the Court often fails to give preliminary relief <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/28/the-supreme-court-is-in-no-hurry-to-protect-voters-from-gerrymandering/?utm_term=.d8601961513d> in redistricting cases even when the plaintiffs eventually win on the merits. Indeed, if the Court did allow the remaps to take place while the Maryland and North Carolina cases were pending, I would take that as a big sign the Court was ready to rein in partisan gerrymanders.

So now we wait, until likely the end of June, to see what the Court has in mind for those pending cases.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105302&title=No%20Surprise%3A%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20Without%20Noted%20Dissent%2C%20Blocks%20Redraws%20of%20Ohio%2C%20Michigan%20Maps%20Found%20by%20Lower%20Courts%20to%20Be%20Partisan%20Gerrymanders>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Facebook refuses to delete fake Pelosi video spread by Trump supporters”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105300>
Posted on May 24, 2019 10:40 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105300> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Guardian<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/24/facebook-leaves-fake-nancy-pelosi-video-on-site>:

Facebook says it will continue to host a video of Nancy Pelosi<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/nancy-pelosi> that has been edited to give the impression that the Democratic House Speaker is drunk or unwell, in the latest incident highlighting its struggle to deal with disinformation.

The viral clip shows Pelosi – who has publicly angered Donald Trump<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pelosi-v-trump-how-a-stable-genius-president-met-his-match> in recent days – speaking at an event, but it has been slowed down to give the impression she is slurring her words.

The president’s personal lawyer, the former mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, was among the Trump supporters who promoted the story. He tweeted – then deleted – a link to a copy of the video on Facebook<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook> with the caption: “What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Her speech pattern is bizarre.”

Despite the apparently malicious intent of the video’s creator, Facebook has said it will only downgrade its visibility in users’ newsfeeds and attach a link to a third-party fact checking site pointing out that the clip is misleading. As a result, although it is less likely to be seen by accident, the doctored video will continue to rack up views. Facebook only took the action following inquiries from the Washington Post, which first reported the story<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/23/faked-pelosi-videos-slowed-make-her-appear-drunk-spread-across-social-media/?utm_term=.131fda4bd7d7>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105300&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20refuses%20to%20delete%20fake%20Pelosi%20video%20spread%20by%20Trump%20supporters%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

“Judge Orders Voter Fraud Alarmist To Be Deposed Again After Docs Raise New Questions”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105298>
Posted on May 24, 2019 10:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105298> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

TPM<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/christian-adams-deposition-aliens-invasion>:

 J. Christian Adams — a former member of President Trump’s voter fraud commission who has been sued for defamation<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lawsuit-j-christian-adams> for his reports claiming mass fraud — will have to sit for another deposition in the case, after a last-minute discovery dump raised new questions about how the reports came together.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis said at a hearing Friday that he was granting the plaintiffs’ request to reopen the deposition. He said the topics should be limited to the materials  —some 1,000 pages of documents — that were turned over after Adams had initially been deposed. He declined Adam’s attorney’s request to narrow the deposition any farther than that, pointing to procedural rules designed to help parties avoid and deal with any disagreements within a deposition.
“That’s how the process works,” Davis sternly told Adams’ attorney, noting that the court does not have an “extrasensory” perception of what issues may arise during a deposition.

Adams and his group the Public Legal Interest Foundation were sued over reports<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lawsuit-j-christian-adams>released in 2016 and 2017 called Alien Invasion and Alien Invasion II, respectively. The reports alleged that thousands of noncitizens had been removed from Virginia’s voter rolls and included voting records, which showed the alleged noncitizens’ personal information such as addresses, birthdays and social security numbers. The lawsuit, which also alleges voter intimidation, was brought by people named in the report who were in fact citizens, as well as by the Richmond Chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
To argue for reopening the deposition, the plaintiffs in a filing last week pointed to an email from a volunteer who helped Adams assemble the report. In it, the volunteer Steven Albertson referenced a 10-15 percent rate<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/voter-fraud-report-aliens-invasion-donald-palmer> of people they identified as noncitizens who were actually citizens eventually re-instated on the rolls. Albertson said in a deposition that the source of that estimate was likely Adams — a claim Adams denies.
The plaintiffs also pointed to an email exchange<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/virginia-thomas-scotus-christian-adams-voter-fraud-campaign> — turned over the hour before the discovery deadline — that Adams had with other conservative activists including Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Adams’ attorneys in a filing Wednesday<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gOTuVAZ5x0g1fwSe5CM3AG5JI-58JNR1/view?usp=sharing> suggested that the exchange was made public by the plaintiffs in an effort to “silence and smear” anti-voter fraud advocates. The filing called out TPM by name for reporting on the Thomas emails. The emails came up only briefly at Friday’s hearing. The plaintiffs, represented on Friday by Zachery Martin, defended their inclusion of the emails in their filing because in them, Adams discussed the same Voting Rights Act voter intimidation provision he is now accused of violating.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

Ned Foley and Michael McConnell: “What if 2020 election is disputed?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105296>
Posted on May 24, 2019 9:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105296> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here’s their proposal<https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445410-what-if-2020-election-is-disputed> in The Hill:

To avoid that predicament, Pelosi and McConnell should jointly create a neutral referee to advise them, starting on Election Day, about any vote counting disputes that might arise once the polls are closed and the tabulating of ballots begins. In 2018, we saw some alarmist rhetoric<https://www.time.com/5450501/florida-recount-2018/> over the normal process of counting the provisional and absentee ballots while preliminary tallies were being verified. Were that same agitation to occur in 2020, a neutral referee to counsel the congressional leaders could help calm a jittery atmosphere and prevent partisan suspicions from spinning out of control. If, based on the advice of their neutral referee, Pelosi and McConnell jointly announce the election over, then as a practical matter it is.

We have thoughts on how to pick a neutral referee. Pelosi and McConnell could each choose one member of a panel of three people, and their two choices could pick the third. This approach, modeled after private sector arbitration, is the simplest method for finding an umpire whom both sides can accept as fair. Minnesota has used a version of this approach to settle some contentious statewide elections.

But whatever method of selection Pelosi and McConnell prefer, their chosen umpire should be ready before counting ballots begins. They should also pledge to accept the findings of the neutral arbiter unless both agree otherwise, a commitment that maintains the bipartisanship of their arrangement. They could make this commitment formal by putting it into legislation, but that step is unnecessary. As long as these two leaders stick to this deal, they can achieve the closure needed for a successful inauguration.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D105296&title=Ned%20Foley%20and%20Michael%20McConnell%3A%20%E2%80%9CWhat%20if%202020%20election%20is%20disputed%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in 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_2009024085]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190524/8da5db7f/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/20190524/8da5db7f/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/20190524/8da5db7f/attachment-0001.png>