[EL] response to Marty Lederman post on the Supreme Court's decision about Wisconsin's elections today

[Doug Spencer]

Justin points out that judicial restraint will inevitably lead to judicial
intervention as Guy Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer predicted 18 months ago
<https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/11/judicial-intervention-as-judicial-restraint/>
in their provocative piece in the *Harvard Law Review*. Let's hope other
state courts and state legislatures are paying attention. A
judicially-mandated rerun election would likely change the decision
calculus of officials in Nebraska (May 12), Georgia (May 19, having been
delayed from March 17), and the eleven primary elections scheduled for June
2. On the other hand, a rerun election may not change the calculus of
states with respect to their plans for November owing to their optimism
about contagion-abatement and the 3 U.S.C. §5 safe harbor Pam cites to
above.

And, of course, partisanship remains a helluva drug. The CDC Director
yesterday acknowledged that CDC models had baked in assumptions that 50% of
the population wouldn't pay attention to government guidelines. "Models are
only as good as their assumptions." In the current context, if the
Wisconsin case study accurately reflects assumptions about partisanship and
governance, then models of *Election Meltdown
<https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300248197/election-meltdown> *may be
spot on. I still think there's time to revise these assumptions before
November, but the calendar is shrinking fast.

Doug

[image: Screen Shot 2020-03-20 at 5.51.25 PM.png]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200407/6c165a61/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2020-03-20 at 5.51.25 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200407/6c165a61/attachment.png>