[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/3/20

[Rick Hasen]

Rep. Kelly Has Apparently Withdrawn His Emergency Request for a SCOTUS Injunction to Reverse Pennsylvania Results, As He Awaits PA Supreme Court Ruling on Stay<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119247>
Posted on December 2, 2020 8:30 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119247> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From the opposition<http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10807.pdf?cb=89b73f> to the stay request filed in the PA Supreme Court:

Once again, Petitioners are asking the courts to take expedited action in response to an emergency of Petitioners’ own making. This Court dismissed the Petition for Review because Petitioners had waited far too long—until weeks after the second election carried out under Act 77—to bring it. Petitioners then submitted an Emergency Application for a Writ of Injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 1, only to withdraw it the next day. Now, Petitioners return to this Court to ask it to address issues of federal law that Petitioners have never raised before. If Petitioners believed that this case raised issues of federal law, they had every opportunity to present those issues to the Commonwealth Court and to this Court. Nonetheless, in their voluminous filings, which included a 98-paragraph Complaint and more than 155 pages of briefing, Petitioners never once argued that the U.S. Constitution provides a basis for the relief Petitioners now seek. It is simply too late to invoke the U.S. Constitution now; they have waived their arguments. For this reason, and because the fatal flaws in Petitioners’ original case mean that the Supreme Court of the United States is highly unlikely to grant relief, this Court should deny Petitioners’ Application.

Presumably Rep. Kelly will refile at SCOTUS once this the PA Supreme Court denies a stay.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119247&title=Rep.%20Kelly%20Has%20Apparently%20Withdrawn%20His%20Emergency%20Request%20for%20a%20SCOTUS%20Injunction%20to%20Reverse%20Pennsylvania%20Results%2C%20As%20He%20Awaits%20PA%20Supreme%20Court%20Ruling%20on%20Stay>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Census officials discovered data issues that could delay its completion, internal documents show”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119245>
Posted on December 2, 2020 8:22 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119245> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN:<https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/politics/census-high-complexity-problems/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29>

Census Bureau officials discovered data issues while working through 2020 Census responses, which include several “high complexity” problems and threaten to delay completion of a key tally<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/politics/census-undocumented-immigrants/index.html> until February, according to a new set of internal Census documents shared by House Democrats on Wednesday.

That delay would mean the Trump administration would be unable to implement its plan to exclude undocumented immigrants when dividing seats in the US House of Representatives, as President Donald Trump leaves office on January 20. Several federal courts have blocked this policy, and on Monday the Supreme Court heard arguments over the matter.Several of the issues are of “high complexity” and incorrect handling would skew the count smaller or larger in some areas, the documents say.

The issues include the ways the Census Bureau accounts for multiple responses and responses that are not linked to a specific address.The documents do not specify the precise extent of the largest issues. But the documents estimate an additional 20 days are needed for data processing, putting completion in late January or early February.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119245&title=%E2%80%9CCensus%20officials%20discovered%20data%20issues%20that%20could%20delay%20its%20completion%2C%20internal%20documents%20show%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>


“Trump escalates baseless attacks on election with 46-minute video rant”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119243>
Posted on December 2, 2020 5:15 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119243> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_politics>

Escalating his attack on democracy from within the White House, President Trump on Wednesday distributed an astonishing 46-minute video rant filled with baseless allegations of voter fraud and outright falsehoods in which he declared the nation’s election system “under coordinated assault and siege” and argued that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

Standing behind the presidential lectern in the Diplomatic Reception Room and flanked by the flags of his office and of the country whose Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, Trump tried to leverage the power of the presidency to subvert the vote and overturn the election results.

The rambling and bellicose monologue — which Trump said “may be the most important speech I’ve ever made” and was delivered direct-to-camera with no audience — underscored his desperation to reverse the outcome of his election loss after a month of failed legal challenges and as some key states already have certified Biden’s victory.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119243&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20escalates%20baseless%20attacks%20on%20election%20with%2046-minute%20video%20rant%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“Election officials warn Trump’s escalating attacks on voting are putting their staffs at risk”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119241>
Posted on December 2, 2020 5:12 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119241> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-workers-threats-trump/2020/12/02/d3e14d78-34c2-11eb-8d38-6aea1adb3839_story.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119241&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20officials%20warn%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20escalating%20attacks%20on%20voting%20are%20putting%20their%20staffs%20at%20risk%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Mike Pence Backs Away From the Trump Election ‘Fraud’ Train Wreck”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119239>
Posted on December 2, 2020 5:10 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119239> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Daily Beast:<https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-pence-backs-away-from-the-trump-election-fraud-train-wreck>

But several high-level sources say that the graphics change, along with Pence’s disappearance from the headers of President Donald Trump’s increasingly frantic and conspiratorial pleas, are not actually coincidental. According to four people with knowledge of the matter, they reflect an effort by the vice president and his team to distance Pence from some of the president’s more outlandish claims about a conspiracy to undermine the election and illegally deny him a second term in office.

“It is an open secret [in Trumpworld] that Vice President Pence absolutely does not feel the same way about the legal effort as President Trump does,” said a senior administration official. “The vice president doesn’t want to go down with this ship…and believes much of the legal work has been unhelpful.”

The Trump campaign declined to comment on this story. Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for Pence, said Wednesday night, “As he has for the last four years, the Vice President is proud to stand with the president—in this case to ensure every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is rejected. The Daily Beast’s anonymous sources have no real insight into what the Vice President thinks on these matters.”…

“Pence deeply understands the position that [Ohio Gov. Mike] DeWine, [Arizona Gov. Dave] Ducey and [Georgia Gov. Brian] Kemp are in. He has tried to be an effective mediator and communicator between those parties and the president back and forth,” said one Pence ally. “Any time he’s played that role, it’s gone well. The president is satisfied with the facts they’ve provided. And then somehow, without hours or days, the president is publicly attacking them by being fed inaccurate information from other White House sources, which frustrates the VP. It’s not a good look for the president. And it’s only created division in the party at a time when unity is very important.”
·
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119239&title=%E2%80%9CMike%20Pence%20Backs%20Away%20From%20the%20Trump%20Election%20%E2%80%98Fraud%E2%80%99%20Train%20Wreck%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Why Did AG Barr Speak About Lack of Evidence of Voter Fraud Now? Barr “Associate” Offers Some Self-Serving Responses<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119237>
Posted on December 2, 2020 4:44 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119237> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-barr-election-fraud/2020/12/02/5717626c-34e2-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html>

Barr has been one of Trump’s most loyal and effective Cabinet secretaries, often drawing intense criticism for controversial moves at the Justice Department that seem to benefit the president’s friends or allies. But on Tuesday, Barr became the highest-ranking administration official to break with Trump over his election fraud claims, speaking with the AP to say he had not seen evidence of fraud so widespread that it could actually change the outcome.

The interview did not deter Trump. On Wednesday, the president posted to his Facebook page a 46-minute video in which he gave a speech doubling down on his unfounded claims.

Barr’s comments carried caveats. He did not rule out any instances of fraud or election irregularities, and he said the Justice Department had launched some inquiries. But he said most of the claims of fraud that had come to the department generally were “very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. They are not systemic allegations.”

After the interview, a Justice Department spokesperson noted in a statement that Barr had not “announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election,” and added, “The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

But Barr’s comments nonetheless won some credit with those who have been skeptical in the past.

“Barr’s confirmation that the Department of Justice found no evidence of widespread voter fraud was welcome, especially after he had suggested before the election the potential for such fraud,” said Richard Hasen, an election law expert who has criticized the attorney general’s past statements about the election. “Barr’s statement can be seen as a belated recognition that Trump’s fraud charges are hurting the country, or perhaps a way to prevent Trump from continuing to pressure Barr to produce evidence where none exists.”…

An associate of Barr’s, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail private conversations, said Barr decided to speak to the AP in part because he knew questions about the election would continue well beyond his departure from the Justice Department.

“He has to leave, and he does not want there be questions about whether the department was sitting idly by under his watch with respect to investigating fraud,” the associate said.

The person said that there might have been some level of fraud or other irregularities with the election but that the Justice Department’s role was to look for crimes, not to conduct audits or assess the efficacy of the voting process. The associate said Barr thought Congress should examine the matter to “look into what he would say is sloppiness with this election” and to “clean it up going forward.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119237&title=Why%20Did%20AG%20Barr%20Speak%20About%20Lack%20of%20Evidence%20of%20Voter%20Fraud%20Now%3F%20Barr%20%E2%80%9CAssociate%E2%80%9D%20Offers%20Some%20Self-Serving%20Responses>
Posted in Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


“Timing Key In Arguments Against Trump’s Wisconsin Election Lawsuit”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119235>
Posted on December 2, 2020 4:39 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119235> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wisconsin Public Radio<https://www.wpr.org/timing-key-arguments-against-trumps-wisconsin-election-lawsuit>:

Democrats fighting the Trump campaign’s efforts to overturn Wisconsin’s election results called the lawsuit<https://www.wpr.org/trump-campaign-asks-state-supreme-court-overturn-bidens-wisconsin-victory> “an affront to the voters of Dane and Milwaukee Counties” and a “shocking and outrageous assault on democracy” in briefs filed Tuesday with the state Supreme Court.

But the heart of their case could rest on a much simpler argument: The president’s lawsuit was filed in the wrong place, and at the wrong time.

The Trump campaign seeks to throw out more than 220,000 absentee ballots cast in Dane and Milwaukee counties, including more than 170,000 ballots that were cast in person before Election Day.

Clerks who accepted those ballots relied on guidance handed down by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, some of which had been in place since 2011.

In a brief filed on behalf of Gov. Tony Evers, attorney Jeff Mandell argued that the time to challenge those guidelines was before the election, not after.

“President Trump chose to lie in the weeds for months nursing unasserted grievances with WEC, county, and municipal policies, and even a decision of this Court, only to spring out after the election and invoke those grievances in an effort to nullify the exercise of the right to vote by more than 200,000 Wisconsinite(s) who cast their ballots in good faith,” Mandell wrote. ” Nothing could be more damaging to the exercise of a critical constitutional right than retroactively nullifying that right entirely.”

University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen said state and federal courts have typically respected what’s known as the “laches” principle when it comes to election disputes.

Put simply, “laches” prevents parties from retroactively bringing lawsuits for issues that could have been disputed ahead of time.

“I think courts have shown themselves properly to be very skeptical of arguments that voters should be disenfranchised because of a potential problem that could have been called to the attention of the courts well before the election but wasn’t,” Hasen said….

Hasen said the problem with challenging those votes now and not before the election is that it punishes voters who did nothing wrong.

“Voters proceeded under the rules that they were given,” Hasen said. “Voters assumed that what they were doing was legal and there’s both federal and Wisconsin authority that says you don’t disenfranchise voters for a fault of someone else.”

While the Wisconsin Supreme Court isn’t bound by precedent set in other states, Hasen noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had rejected<https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/11/29/939859062/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rejects-republican-suit-to-throw-out-ballots> one of Trump’s lawsuits, partly on the grounds that it was filed too late.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119235&title=%E2%80%9CTiming%20Key%20In%20Arguments%20Against%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Wisconsin%20Election%20Lawsuit%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“In video, Trump recycles unsubstantiated voter fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119233>
Posted on December 2, 2020 4:31 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119233> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-media-social-media-elections-71d5469ac0bbccbfe601528a2517b239?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter>

 Increasingly detached from reality, President Donald Trump stood before a White House lectern and delivered a 46-minute diatribe against the election results that produced a win for Democrat Joe Biden, unspooling one misstatement after another to back his baseless claim that he really won.

Trump called his address, released Wednesday only on social media and delivered in front of no audience, perhaps “the most important speech” of his presidency. But it was largely a recycling of the same litany of misinformation and unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud that he has been making for the past month.

Trump, who spoke from the Diplomatic Room, kept up his futile pushback against the election even as state after state certifies its results and as Biden presses ahead with shaping his Cabinet in advance of his inauguration on Jan. 20.

Trump’s remarks raised questions about how far he may be willing to go in his campaign to overturn Biden’s win, including whether he might press Republicans in Congress to block certification of the vote, a move that’s been floated by the president’s allies.

Biden received a record 81 million votes compared to 74 million for Trump. The Democrat also won 306 electoral votes compared to 232 for Trump. The Electoral College split matches Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton four years ago, which he described then as a “landslide.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119233&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20video%2C%20Trump%20recycles%20unsubstantiated%20voter%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Iowa Democrat to challenge 6-vote loss in appeal in US House”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119231>
Posted on December 2, 2020 1:37 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119231> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-iowa-city-3e6af839aca5c2c802e746d7348d7206>

A Democratic congressional candidate in Iowa who trailed by six votes after a recount said Wednesday she will forgo further legal challenges in the state and instead appeal directly to the U.S. House for review.

Rita Hart’s campaign had until Wednesday afternoon to contest the election under Iowa law following Monday’s certification <https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-e3f235f217707a78fcec059f8e0b4ffa> of results in which Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks was declared the winner of the closest House race in decades.

An election contest in Iowa would have triggered the formation of a five-judge panel that would have been required to rule on who won the race by Tuesday, Dec. 8.

Hart’s campaign said that quick timeline would not allow enough time to review the ballots, including thousands of unexamined undervotes and overvotes and others that were not counted for a variety of reasons.

Instead, the campaign said that Hart would file an election contest with the U.S. House under the Federal Contested Elections Act in the coming weeks.

Such a filing, due within 30 days after Monday’s certification, will trigger a proceeding in front of the House Committee on Administration that would allow Hart to offer testimony and evidence.

The Democratic-controlled House could also direct the committee to conduct its own investigation and recount, a process that in the past has included reviewing election records and examining disputed ballots.

Ultimately, the committee would file a report to the full House with its findings on who won the most votes and recommending who should fill the seat representing southeast Iowa. The House could act on a simple majority vote.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119231&title=%E2%80%9CIowa%20Democrat%20to%20challenge%206-vote%20loss%20in%20appeal%20in%20US%20House%E2%80%9D>
Posted in legislation and legislatures<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, recounts<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>


Dec. 7 CAP Event: Fortifying Our Electoral System Against Attacks: Lessons Learned From the 2020 Presidential Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119228>
Posted on December 2, 2020 10:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119228> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

What a lineup<http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/es.aspx?s=785&e=1394042&elqTrackId=784a0bf36fa6421992c5ab9e234172e3&elq=0b1869ce4f344bf18315f9c8ea87e2d5&elqaid=43219&elqat=1>:

Fortifying Our Electoral System Against Attacks: Lessons Learned From the 2020 Presidential Election

Washington, D.C. — The 2020 election saw unprecedented attacks seeking to undermine public confidence in our elections. Central to these attacks were the repeated assertion of false claims about widespread voter fraud, concerted attempts to disenfranchise voters, and well-publicized efforts to convince state legislatures to ignore the popular vote.

With the December 8 safe harbor deadline for states to appoint their electors approaching, please join the Center for American Progress for an online event with some of the nation’s foremost experts in election law and governance, including Benjamin Ginsberg, Norman Ornstein, and Janai Nelson. This group of panelists will discuss the November election’s unprecedented strain on the U.S. election system and its resiliency; what worked and what did not; and what we can do to fortify the system to ensure that all Americans entitled to cast a vote are able to do so easily and with full public confidence.

If you have questions for our panel, please submit them on Twitter using the hashtag #FortifiedElections<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=vgPU0L08DtdYS96St647-2FWr-2BWVlPs6QjB3eEyquUkpI7lRMuydLp1YwOdN0NWREiw0UZCOzQ-2BJbTO16hiW2CM8A1Lr6p6TTZATaN-2B0jsih1K5fkWUTLsGw6ZcosvpofE9wpwvlVTxCbPbpFT2xOVNaYeHT3W9hVehZgNfkEmjJDxy95tM0NJpkxYyTHeJIjqrbXuNMfI6vmvcNYHW5SoGwuXDYBhJvFIndSguZ-2Fm1l0-3DRLH2_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7c11wbR8tCJ-2Fpz2w93y52D0r5lpneKWQorIzMBJxB0FnkNJkDd-2FBPCG96N2j5oNAXNKu5RWG4nbth6S-2FWHTKBoHdTDOH4HZPvvbPOzSzwtAgX4GB0VYaDHeqJZNhIfEhFAUWlOW-2BwGpG7v2J-2B9KWpVfoR7ziav5Tntrr-2F5e78-2BEc-3D> or via email to CAPeventquestions at americanprogress.org<mailto:CAPeventquestions at americanprogress.org>.

WHO

Distinguished panelists:
Benjamin Ginsberg<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=vgPU0L08DtdYS96St647-2FWr-2BWVlPs6QjB3eEyquUkpI7lRMuydLp1YwOdN0NWREiw0UZCOzQ-2BJbTO16hiW2CM0yuPchvvS9fYQP3BPUVorgI6n2DB0zRzwGwy2-2B6TpoJkXVfYN6AX0UI1F6UYyBbvR2LCVOKQhyA1EzQC9J8rqz6dnvWRe0G43YDByb8L9dqbKBdnj099AB14m0FnSa6k5xdQLT4Wndr6rlbtTJjj-2BQjWzgA6vxvzUN4TCXb5nLkUE2QHOoukrPJR8C31S9fZSa5WVQnZvH8OXCsSmbH8uY88w1mZoRkG8EPdzYGeHDQ7zxstCAJU0Uxiu6NIoGSLw-3D-3DmB4Y_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7m8g8cHyXtokoxl76uzXet-2Bes1eoZb8CPowSqygi3fMXNzDaUiDIsCfCnnTAXgVKB4DhiCJ6Ni53Hw1ykJGdg7fgbUW4sHgFLmC6-2BmtspTLAjaxvaCcikXy-2F6vxRNZar8h-2Fa5Dp5fyIkBY0dU1ww0mrA6Kc5N-2Fb8q57MFnQZSTJk-3D>, Counsel to multiple presidential campaigns; former co-chair of the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Janai Nelson<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=vgPU0L08DtdYS96St647-2FWr-2BWVlPs6QjB3eEyquUkpI7lRMuydLp1YwOdN0NWREiw0UZCOzQ-2BJbTO16hiW2CMwijNCmpAlKaJ12WXopmsbtf-2FZ-2FqKBFsVD61O6NbrzsuoybaA-2Brig5IXknewbZhVvGSHs3NCyfBuQpTweuuNXog2-2B1ievXzyMsUEgPjfaliftyLQu2tOXbiRd3XWPVWGyB3ogB7pKrzlHYOulwBhcmo-3D3X0n_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7q4HbqkrnENFmTQCmK13zI5IUIY4cz9CXcQYP9L6ocdc9aA7qeXp-2F27C-2FfFCJRZgfSBN4b24ZQdoJo60RjPQejR4qe3h8bO3e3ir-2BP6Miw2wfc1ExqOXKyqQwaDcyTi-2Fp0UUXw1RLVu7Juqd3RBkTXLeJBKuo0NnNnF9BiDNtHXo-3D>, Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
Norman Ornstein<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=vgPU0L08DtdYS96St647-2FWr-2BWVlPs6QjB3eEyquUkpI7lRMuydLp1YwOdN0NWREiw0UZCOzQ-2BJbTO16hiW2CM41L3OzwjobJYIBhvZsnoBer-2BKsZcVb43LFnjPDmWxqvoTeKKf5h7GQrX2VEgb7gJmhJg3MHJPkTenu9P1MO4AaRSAFZMw6z9z9t5RPfeyLRvSIb3YrBP5GvOyArhLWKJdFCpDdZjUNoTFW098f-2FnSY-3D91Cz_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7BDA3b8jfm49tAGlcN95ksAZfssib69sLgkAKtenf5pKEsHboKES1Qr-2F5AHk-2B3oXVXj7Z4qYSnDFzKMPo2z0bEc5mvU4fb40vihcJ6bJX-2FSsFvMSQ5fNp-2BbdsauxJt8cFwQw3Rq1Szcq99Wb0e3mTVf1fCXohbgE5dUN5Gq3wxEU-3D>, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Board Chair, Campaign Legal Center

Moderator:
Mara Rudman<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=vgPU0L08DtdYS96St647-2FWr-2BWVlPs6QjB3eEyquUkpI7lRMuydLp1YwOdN0NWREiw0UZCOzQ-2BJbTO16hiW2CM9-2BnjTHyi9fd6F9Z7ymy1yQAoXj7kJOsMnKkfCHb4dB4EiwUGFszKPIukI-2B5xhEDkCK6HnyHxvR5uq4aI13WjvYDadH7siKncSfFCIkixckK7nDl4l5DzS9hPTHA7erdWuEABSEP4RfVBOQrFMkNsck8Q-2Bb9udfNEXrMyH-2F6jmVLALdwp7LIRhe74fVRpsHh6RxsIN6bS9XcnT41Vo6VSjIqmDnibvpeEygrw30XeqREngmBZ04lp1yC0Cru3W0Xqw-3D-3DfD6w_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7DOw-2BHG9jJtefHSSldQj88fHXs6cQ3zUag4RHhSwsOYONLF3lcFjYIrbuGy3uSkAmb7sUw3bj2tTJiRzCE7hAq3c193ne0T3VZBTuhMIq9HN1XPePUX9-2Bh4PnheyuZzjhdH3pWPp7Npb-2FlD6tNwSk5bZeTesZq4zei-2B-2BrbMCujR4-3D>, Executive Vice President for Policy, Center for American Progress

WHEN

Monday, December 7, 2020
11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. ET

WHERE

You must RSVP to watch the livestream event by clicking this link<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUUFNAsOdP4-2BsF0cQ-2FVlXCxvrjE1t9ifMW-2BBsnMf1eFiLbtUd0aHi8EHXk6StxqmPZIwalyJa7ubAfFH8bwhmQn1Q5lPCB1cpRRbccYz9i8iqEViXdxCTJYVvMXroYe0BNOADU8KdybLh8boz70oslwAIRh1NtMgg-2FY4YGn0oJk2OOO5hRjckCu3InWAh6t2W2dS3HbKtHftv97By4MVoQ8GSzR8hoYLOo7QURdrLpGUaPliY_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9V2bi4syjoupoQJvEoUhB6ux2bTJmgDxa-2BPGiND-2Bg6pVHYPjgHjeZx2-2Bi41kx0O7TxLvYDqlSTOAv7DTVli-2FbH7923nbgGTBSl7oBkgKseIbZX7cC0G1K6cZscvN-2FjXOCpc3aw8ffk1FrQ1nG3xzBmld-2BGaFPeqnAr6kuNzW-2B8d101CjG0yO5pg-2Fnb-2FGCwVXVyRJIfO31wt3z8hOTPb7JjTBO0RMgDSZ85jxAGtD7katA5olRC2TJPYlvMIOY41UAg-3D>. An email will then be sent with instructions on how to watch.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119228&title=Dec.%207%20CAP%20Event%3A%20Fortifying%20Our%20Electoral%20System%20Against%20Attacks%3A%20Lessons%20Learned%20From%20the%202020%20Presidential%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Rep. Kelly Belatedly Seeks Stay from PA Supreme Court While SCOTUS Filing is in Limbo<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119226>
Posted on December 2, 2020 10:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119226> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the stay request here<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Ancillary-Application-for-Stay.pdf>. Yesterday I posted about the Supreme Court petition, Perhaps the Dumbest Argument Ever Made in Emergency Petition to the Supreme Court Appears in Pennsylvania Election Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119196>. That petition has not yet been accepted for filing, and perhaps it is because the plaintiffs did not first seek the stay request.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119226&title=Rep.%20Kelly%20Belatedly%20Seeks%20Stay%20from%20PA%20Supreme%20Court%20While%20SCOTUS%20Filing%20is%20in%20Limbo>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Unanimous 4th Circuit Panel Applies “Presumption of Good Faith” in Upholding 2018 North Carolina Voter ID Law, Despite Finding That 2013 Voter ID Law Was Passed with Racially Discriminatory Intent<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119223>
Posted on December 2, 2020 9:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119223> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the 29-page opinion at this link<https://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/state/nccapitol/2020/12/02/19410792/Voter-ID-Decision_4th-Circuit_Dec-2_2020-DMID1-5p24n9b1f.pdf> (via WRAL).

The opinion leans heavily on the Supreme Court’s use of a presumption of legislative good faith in Abbott, despite an earlier history of racially discriminatory conduct.

I recently wrote about how this presumption, along with other recent Supreme Court apparently procedural rules, help pave the way for courts to uphold more suppressive voting laws. See The Supreme Court’s Pro-Partisanship Turn<https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/07/Hasen-The-Supreme-Court%E2%80%99s-Pro-Partisanship-Turn.pdf>, 109 Georgetown Law Journal Online 50 (2020).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119223&title=Unanimous%204th%20Circuit%20Panel%20Applies%20%E2%80%9CPresumption%20of%20Good%20Faith%E2%80%9D%20in%20Upholding%202018%20North%20Carolina%20Voter%20ID%20Law%2C%20Despite%20Finding%20That%202013%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Was%20Passed%20with%20Racially%20Discriminatory%20Intent>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voter id<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>


Sidney Powell Filing in Federal Court in Wisconsin Seeking to Delay Presidential Elector Certification Fails to Follow Basic Requirements for Seeking an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order under FRCP 65(d)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119219>
Posted on December 2, 2020 9:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119219> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read the court order<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rule-65.pdf>. Astounding.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119219&title=Sidney%20Powell%20Filing%20in%20Federal%20Court%20in%20Wisconsin%20Seeking%20to%20Delay%20Presidential%20Elector%20Certification%20Fails%20to%20Follow%20Basic%20Requirements%20for%20Seeking%20an%20Emergency%20Temporary%20Restraining%20Order%20under%20FRCP%2065(d)>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Florida Election Scandal Reveals Bigger Problems”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119217>
Posted on December 2, 2020 8:21 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119217> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rob Richie and Perry Waag:<https://www.insidesources.com/florida-election-scandal-reveals-bigger-problems/>

Election steal” took on a whole new meaning in Florida this year — and it has exposed a vulnerability in how we vote that invites more hacks in the future without an election method upgrade.

Democrat Jose Javier Rodriguez’s state Senate re-election campaign was certain to be close. Rodriguez’s challenger, Ileana Garcia, was well-funded and the co-founder of Latinas for Trump. Still, Rodriguez was optimistic and garnered key endorsements from police unions and teachers unions alike.

Then a third “independent” candidate materialized. Intriguingly, Alex Rodriguez shared a surname with the incumbent. But little else could be determined about him.

He did not appear for candidate forums or debates or have a campaign website. He didn’t raise a single dollar other than a small loan from himself. When a local TV station asked him for a picture, he didn’t respond.

It’s almost as if Alex Rodriguez wanted to run for office without anyone knowing who he was. It’s as if Alex Rodriguez appeared on the ballot to potentially confuse supporters of Jose Javier Rodriguez, and perhaps siphon away crucial votes in a competitive contest.

Sure enough, Ileana Garcia defeated Rodriguez by the tightest of margins — just 34 votes. Alex Rodriguez, meanwhile, received more than 6,000 votes despite not running a campaign.

Now Florida prosecutors are looking into whether Alex Rodriguez might have been a shadow candidate, propped up by people looking to spoil the race. He now claims <https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article247288694.html> he doesn’t even live in the district…..

A better approach would be ranked choice voting, a proven tool that gives voters the power to rank candidates in order rather than just pick one. Already the law in Alaska and Maine for presidential elections, ranked choice voting is fair to candidates and voters alike and makes this kind of democracy-damaging mischief-making impossible.

Boosting “spoilers” only works because in a single-round system, it’s possible for a candidate to win with less than half the vote when more than two candidates run. Ranked choice voting gives voters an insurance policy. If a candidate wins 50 percent of the vote, they win, like any other election.

But if no one reaches that mark, an instant runoff takes place. The candidate in last place is eliminated, and his or her votes are counted for each voter’s next choice.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119217&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20Election%20Scandal%20Reveals%20Bigger%20Problems%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Army Hits Back Against False Claim that Soldiers Died in CIA Op to Nab Election Servers”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119215>
Posted on December 2, 2020 7:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119215> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Military Times<https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/12/01/no-kraken-refer-military-intelligence-unit.hmtl>:

A retired Air Force<http://www.military.com/air-force> three-star general reignited baseless conspiratorial claims about U.S. troops’ involvement in clandestine missions in the wake of the presidential election — claims an Army official said are 100% false.

No Special Forces<http://www.military.com/special-operations> soldiers were killed while seizing computer servers in Germany as part of a CIA operation after the presidential election. There was, in fact, no mission of the sort.

And members of the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion are not “the Kraken” that an attorney for President Donald Trump said last month she’d be unleashing. The unit is not involved in any post-election missions supporting the White House — a move that would be highly unlikely considering it’s an entry-level training battalion where new soldiers who haven’t yet picked up their military occupational specialty are assigned.

“The allegations are false,” an Army official told Military.com.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119215&title=%E2%80%9CArmy%20Hits%20Back%20Against%20False%20Claim%20that%20Soldiers%20Died%20in%20CIA%20Op%20to%20Nab%20Election%20Servers%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“GOP candidate says he was used without permission as a plaintiff in lawsuit to overturn Wisconsin election results”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119213>
Posted on December 2, 2020 7:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119213> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/01/wisconsin-republican-says-he-used-without-permission-trump-suit/3786051001/>

A Republican candidate for Congress who lost his election on Nov. 3 says his name is being used without permission as a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to make President Donald Trump the winner of Wisconsin’s presidential election, despite receiving fewer votes than President-elect Joe Biden.

Derrick Van Orden, who narrowly lost to U.S. Rep. Ron Kind<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/ron-kind-derrick-van-orden-wisconsin-3rd-congressional-district-race-us-house/6130509002/>, said Tuesday he learned through social media posts about the lawsuit that his name was being used.

“I learned through social media today that my name was included in a lawsuit without my permission,” Van Orden said in a statement. “To be clear, I am not involved in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Wisconsin.”‘

Former Trump attorney Sidney Powell filed a lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday on behalf of Van Orden and La Crosse County Republican Party chairman Bill Feehan. The suit seeks, among other relief, a new election for Van Orden and wants Gov. Tony Evers to certify the election for Trump instead of Biden.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119213&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20candidate%20says%20he%20was%20used%20without%20permission%20as%20a%20plaintiff%20in%20lawsuit%20to%20overturn%20Wisconsin%20election%20results%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Rep. Mo Brooks Plans Mischief at Congressional Session Counting Electoral College Votes<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119211>
Posted on December 2, 2020 7:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119211> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico:<https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2020/12/02/the-gops-electoral-mischief-491033>

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has been telling colleagues and allies that he plans to challenge the Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, as long as a Senate Republican joins him in the long-shot effort, sources tell your Huddle host.

Brooks confirmed his plans in a phone interview, adding that he is still considering objecting to the vote-counting process even if no one joins him — though he acknowledged that would be more of a symbolic protest. Brooks, echoing President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud without providing evidence, argued that the election was “badly flawed” and that most mail-in voting is “unconstitutional.”

“In my judgment, if only lawful votes by eligible American citizens were cast, Donald Trump won the Electoral College by a significant margin, and Congress’s certification should reflect that,” Brooks said. “This election was stolen by the socialists engaging in extraordinary voter fraud and election theft measures.”

Brooks, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said he has had “indirect communication” with some senators about potentially joining forces, though he declined to elaborate further. He also said he’s discussed the procedural maneuver with some members of GOP leadership, but they gave him neither a “thumbs up” nor a “thumbs down,” Brooks said.

As we noted<https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/30/republicans-overturn-electoral-college-441459> here yesterday, one lawmaker from both the Senate and House needs to challenge the results in order to force a deliberation on the matter. And even then, the gambit to overturn the election results in Congress is almost certain to fail, given the makeup of the House and Senate.

But Trump’s Hill allies can still cause some mischief — and force a politically toxic vote for some in the GOP. Brooks said he hasn’t had any conversations with the White House about the issue, but it’s not hard to imagine the whole thing turning into a Trump loyalty test for Republicans.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119211&title=Rep.%20Mo%20Brooks%20Plans%20Mischief%20at%20Congressional%20Session%20Counting%20Electoral%20College%20Votes>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=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/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201203/44f88e9c/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/20201203/44f88e9c/attachment.png>