[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/11/20

[Rick Hasen]

“In Blistering Retort, 4 Battleground States Tell Texas to Butt Out of Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119524>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:57 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119524> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/trump-election-lawsuit-states.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

In blistering language denouncing Republican efforts to subvert the election, the attorneys general for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf> that seeks to overturn the victories in those states by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., calling the audacious effort an affront to democracy and the rule of law.

The lawsuit, filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas and backed by his G.O.P. colleagues in 17 other states and 106 Republican members of Congress, represents the most coordinated, politicized attempt to overturn the will of the voters in recent American history. President Trump has asked to intervene in the lawsuit as well in hopes that the Supreme Court will hand him a second term he decisively lost.

The suit is the latest in a spectacularly unsuccessful legal effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the results, with cases so lacking in evidence that judges at all levels have mocked or condemned them as without merit. Legal experts have derided this latest suit as well<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/technology/texas-election-lawsuit-legality.html>, which makes the audacious claim, at odds with ordinary principles of federalism, that the Supreme Court should investigate and override the election systems of four states at the behest of a fifth.

The responses by the four states — represented by three Democratic attorneys general and, in Georgia, a Republican one — comprehensively critiqued Texas’s unusual request to have the Supreme Court act as a kind of trial court in examining supposed election irregularities with the goal of throwing out millions of votes….

“The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf> said.

“Let us be clear,” the brief continued. “Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected.”

Christopher M. Carr, Georgia’s attorney general, seemed particularly taken aback by Texas’s suit….

“This election cycle,” he wrote<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163383/20201210145849997_Georgia%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf>, “Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do: it implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119524&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Blistering%20Retort%2C%204%20Battleground%20States%20Tell%20Texas%20to%20Butt%20Out%20of%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Two reasons the Texas election case is faulty: flawed legal theory and statistical fallacy.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119522>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119522> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/technology/texas-election-lawsuit-legality.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119522&title=%E2%80%9CTwo%20reasons%20the%20Texas%20election%20case%20is%20faulty%3A%20flawed%20legal%20theory%20and%20statistical%20fallacy.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Here’s what happened when a Georgia lawmaker scrutinized the Trump campaign’s list of allegedly illegal votes”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119520>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119520> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heres-what-happened-when-a-georgia-lawmaker-scrutinized-the-trump-campaigns-list-of-allegedly-illegal-votes/2020/12/10/1400d628-3b06-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html>

When Georgia state Rep. Bee Nguyen (D) reviewed a list of voters who President Trump’s campaign claimed cast illegal ballots in the state, three names caught her eye: two friends and a constituent.

For days, Nguyen pored over public records, spoke with voters by phone and even knocked on doors in person to vet the Trump list. She found that it included dozens of voters who were eligible to vote in Georgia — along with their full names and home addresses.

On Thursday, when a data analyst who compiled the list told a panel of state lawmakers that it proved thousands of voters cast ballots in Georgia who should not have, Nguyen was ready.

“I do want to share with you some of the things that I found that appeared to be incorrect to me,” the two-term lawmaker told Matt Braynard, whose research has been cited<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/thomas-more-jenna-ellis/2020/12/07/09057432-362d-11eb-b59c-adb7153d10c2_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_6> in numerous suits filed by Trump and his allies, several of which have been tossed out of the courts.

Nguyen’s 10-minute dissection of the data offered a rare real-time fact check of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud that the president’s allies have promoted in state hearings around the country, largely before friendly Republican audiences.

“If you are going to take the names of voters in the state of Georgia and publish their first, middle and last name, their home address, and accuse them of committing a felony, at the very minimum there should have been an attempt to contact these voters,” she said in an interview after the hearing. “There was no such attempt.”

Braynard said in an email to The Washington Post that he “appreciated her feedback and look forward to getting her records that are questionable. I was happy to make a statement and happy to hear feedback and questions.”AD

The episode shows how quickly the allegations by Trump and his supporters have fallen apart under scrutiny, particularly in the courts, which have consistently rejected assertions that rampant irregularities tainted the vote.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119520&title=%E2%80%9CHere%E2%80%99s%20what%20happened%20when%20a%20Georgia%20lawmaker%20scrutinized%20the%20Trump%20campaign%E2%80%99s%20list%20of%20allegedly%20illegal%20votes%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“With time running out, Trump and GOP allies turn up pressure on Supreme Court in election assault”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119518>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:39 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119518> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-time-running-out-trump-and-gop-allies-turn-up-pressure-on-supreme-court-in-election-assault/2020/12/10/4268511a-3b03-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html>

With his legal options dwindling and time running out before a key electoral college deadline, President Trump on Thursday ramped up pressure on the Supreme Court to help overturn Joe Biden’s victory, gaining the support of more than 100 congressional Republicans in the unprecedented assault on the U.S. election system.

In a morning tweet, Trump called on the court to “save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States,” repeating his baseless claims of widespread fraud. He had a private lunch at the White House with some of the attorneys general from 18 Republican-led states asking the court to dismiss the results in four swing states that Biden won, an effort supported by the Trump administration.

By late afternoon, 106 GOP House members<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-election-republicans-trump/2020/12/10/2cba806e-3b43-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_4> — a majority of the 196-member Republican caucus — had signed on to an amicus brief <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-trump-lawsuit/2020/12/10/a075271c-3b38-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_4> to support the Texas-led motion, among them Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) and Rep. Tom Emmer (Minn.), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.AD

“78% of the people feel (know!) the Election was RIGGED,” Trump falsely declared in his Twitter post.

In fact, his campaign’s legal team has suffered more than three dozen defeats<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/10/trump-team-throws-towel-proving-voter-fraud/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8> in federal and state courts, including the high court’s ruling Tuesday denying a motion<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-pennsylvania-election-results/2020/12/08/4d39e16c-397d-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_8> to block Pennsylvania from certifying Biden’s win in that state.

Democrats denounced the last-ditch legal effort — filed this week by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a staunch Trump supporter who attended the White House lunch — to negate 10.4 million votes in favor of Biden in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The appeal to the Supreme Court came days before the statutory deadline Monday for electoral college representatives in each state to vote on final certification of the results and send them to Congress for ratification early next month. The justices could decide as soon as Friday whether to accept the case, which seeks to take advantage of the allowance that lawsuits between states may be filed directly at the Supreme Court.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119518&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20time%20running%20out%2C%20Trump%20and%20GOP%20allies%20turn%20up%20pressure%20on%20Supreme%20Court%20in%20election%20assault%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“More than half of House Republicans support Texas lawsuit challenging election results”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119516>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:36 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119516> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-trump-lawsuit/2020/12/10/a075271c-3b38-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html>

A majority of House Republicans have signed onto an amicus brief in a Texas lawsuit seeking unprecedented judicial intervention in disallowing millions of votes and the election results from four key swing states that went for President-elect Joe Biden.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, spearheaded the effort to round up support on Capitol Hill. Johnson emailed all House Republicans on Wednesday to solicit signatures for the long-shot Texas case after Trump called. The congressman told his colleagues that the president “will be anxiously awaiting the final list to review.”

In all, 106 of the 196 House Republicans signed on to the amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court. They include most of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill but notably few members of House Republican leadership. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) is the only GOP leader in the chamber to sign on to the brief.

Hours after the filing, Rep. Jackie Walorski (Ind.) tweeted that she supported the lawsuit but wasn’t included on the list due to a clerical error.

The GOP response underscores the party’s fealty to the lame-duck president and Republicans’ fear of drawing his wrath and that of his supporters ahead of midterm elections in 2022 — and potential primary challenges from the right.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119516&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20than%20half%20of%20House%20Republicans%20support%20Texas%20lawsuit%20challenging%20election%20results%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


WSJ Editorializes Against Texas’s Attempt to Steal the Election at the Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119514>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:27 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119514> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read it here<https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-tries-an-election-long-shot-11607644280?st=sujltfh202hht85&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119514&title=WSJ%20Editorializes%20Against%20Texas%E2%80%99s%20Attempt%20to%20Steal%20the%20Election%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


The Great Matt Masterson Leaving CISA for Stanford Internet Observatory<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119512>
Posted on December 10, 2020 3:58 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119512> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Thanks to Matt’s leadership<https://www.cyberscoop.com/matt-masterson-cisa-resigns-stanford-election/> on election issues in government. I look forward to important work from him within academia and otherwise going forward.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119512&title=The%20Great%20Matt%20Masterson%20Leaving%20CISA%20for%20Stanford%20Internet%20Observatory>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


Standing, Today and in the TX Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119508>
Posted on December 10, 2020 3:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119508> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

The Supreme Court today in Carney v. Adams turned back a suit for lack of standing. The Court quoted from an earlier opinion by Justice Powell, in words that might be thought to have some bearing on the case Texas wants the Court to hear:

In other words, a plaintiff cannot establish standing by asserting an abstract “general interest common to all members of the public,” id., at 440, “no matter how sincere” or “deeply committed” a plaintiff is to vindicating that general interest on behalf of the public, Hollingsworth, supra, at 706–707. Justice Powell explained the reasons for this limitation. He found it “inescapable” that to find standing based upon that kind of interest “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.” United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166, 188 (1974) (concurring opinion). He added that “[w]e should be ever mindful of the contradictions that would arise if a democracy were to permit general oversight of the elected branches of government by a non-representative, and in large measure insulated, judicial branch.” Ibid.; see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 222 (1974); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 500 (1975).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119508&title=Standing%2C%20Today%20and%20in%20the%20TX%20Case>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


NYT: “There’s Still a Loaded Weapon Lying Around in Our Election System”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119505>
Posted on December 10, 2020 11:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119505> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Here’s my latest piece on the election for the NY Times. I want to thank a number of other election-law experts who contributed their insights to this:

The 2020 election revealed longstanding fractures in the foundation of our system for conducting presidential elections. Before these lead to an earthquake in a subsequent presidential election, we need to shore up that foundation.

The single most dangerous threat the election exposed was the prospect of legislatures directly appointing a state’s electors and overriding the vote of the people in that state. No state legislature has attempted to do this since at least the Civil War. But in the run-up to the 2020 election, this seemed the most likely means that might circumvent the voters and subvert the election. This concern has been proven warranted: After the Trump campaign’s post-election lawsuits failed around the country, its strategy was precisely to get state legislatures in key swing states to appoint the electors themselves. . . .

There is no legal basis for what the president is urging, but it calls attention to a previously obscure provision in federal election law. This provision, known as the “failed election” provision, lies around like a loaded weapon. It is the only place in federal law that identifies circumstances in which, even after a popular vote for president has been taken, a state legislature has the power to step in and appoint electors….

When Congress was creating the Presidential Election Day Act, the “failed election” provision was added at the insistence of representatives from New Hampshire and Virginia. At the time, New Hampshire required that a candidate had to receive a majority of all votes cast to be elected. A candidate who finished first but with only a plurality of the vote was not elected. The backup process in New Hampshire, as in other states that similarly required a “majority of votes” to win, was either that the legislature would appoint the office holder or that a second election would be held. Thus, these states would not be able to choose their presidential electors on Election Day, whenever no candidate received a “majority” of the votes — which would happen with third-party candidates on the ballot. When the bill was next debated<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2007-title3/html/USCODE-2007-title3-chap1-sec2.htm>, the House responded by adding the “failed election” provision now found in current law<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2007-title3/html/USCODE-2007-title3-chap1-sec2.htm>.

The history of why federal election law includes this “failed election” provision is part of the story of how democracy was understood early in American history. Many state constitutions initially included<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3563257> these “majority” vote provisions. This reflected the link between democracy and “majority rule” as that was understood early on. But as experience with democratic elections developed, states soon discovered that many elections involved a candidate winning a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes. That would trigger a backup provision in state laws — a provision that provided either that the election would be held repeatedly until someone received a majority of votes, or that the legislature was empowered to bypass an election and appoint the officeholder (the current Georgia Senate runoff elections are a remnant of this history)….

The adoption of these “plurality vote” rules eliminated a major reason for the “failed election” provision. Two different, contemporary purposes might still warrant retaining a version of this provision, but if so, the provision needs to be rewritten to address these two specific situations in safer, narrowly defined terms.

First, a natural disaster or similar event might make it temporarily impossible for a state to vote on general Election Day. But in many contexts, states will be able to recover from these disasters quickly enough to hold the election within a week. State laws, enacted in advance, should provide for these foreseeable emergencies. Federal law, in turn, should permit a state to choose its electors after Election Day in this rare circumstance when it is impossible for a state to hold elections on Election Day.

Second, it is possible a state might not be able to certify its vote before the date the Electoral College must vote, which would risk depriving the state of its vote. That could happen if unresolved litigation raises legitimate challenges and the judicial process cannot be finished in time to certify a winner before the electors must vote. Leaving open a small window to account for this rare possibility might be necessary, but the scope of this power must be extremely limited. Indeed, one strategy of the Trump campaign was to exploit this possibility by dragging out court cases long enough for state legislatures to “have” to step in….

The American people, not state legislatures, should choose the president. The “failed election” provision, which lies around as one of the greatest threats to that principle, was created in significant part for reasons that no longer apply. To preserve the integrity of presidential elections, Congress needs to modernize that provision and define clearly the extremely limited, highly unlikely circumstances in which it might ever legitimately come into play.

This essay builds off an article I wrote with Michael Parsons, The Legality of Ranked-Choice Voting.<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3563257>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119505&title=NYT%3A%20%20%E2%80%9CThere%E2%80%99s%20Still%20a%20Loaded%20Weapon%20Lying%20Around%20in%20Our%20Election%20System%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Pennsylvania Skewers Texas in Supreme Court Filing in Which Texas Seeks to Overturn Election Results in 4 States (including PA)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119503>
Posted on December 10, 2020 11:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119503> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From the filing<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf>:

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.

The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President-Elect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119503&title=Pennsylvania%20Skewers%20Texas%20in%20Supreme%20Court%20Filing%20in%20Which%20Texas%20Seeks%20to%20Overturn%20Election%20Results%20in%204%20States%20(including%20PA)>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


Dec 16 NYC Bar Event: “NYS Election Reform 2021: The Three Most Important Things”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119501>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119501> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great lineup<https://services.nycbar.org/EventDetail?EventKey=ELE121620> on a very urgent topic.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119501&title=Dec%2016%20NYC%20Bar%20Event%3A%20%E2%80%9CNYS%20Election%20Reform%202021%3A%20The%20Three%20Most%20Important%20Things%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


Brnovich amicus brief<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119498>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119498> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

I helped to author an amicus brief in Brnovich, the Supreme Court’s pending case on racial vote denial claims under Section 2 of the VRA. Consistent with a recent article<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3232079> of mine, the brief<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1257/163240/20201209160605713_19-1257%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Professor%20Nicholas%20Stephanopoulos.pdf> argues that the burden-shifting framework already used under Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and several more statutes could also be applied to Section 2 vote denial claims. Here are some excerpts from the brief’s introduction:

Over the nearly four decades that have passed since Congress enacted Section 2 in its current form in 1982, this Court has never decided a racial-vote-denial case under the provision. (In contrast, the Court has decided many racial-vote-dilution cases under Section 2.) To rule in this matter, then, the Court will have to determine the standard for liability that applies to Section 2 vote-denial cases. The Court should consider alternatives to the two-part test, recently embraced by several lower courts, that asks (1) whether an electoral regulation causes a disparate racial impact, and (2) whether this disparity is attributable to the regulation’s interaction with historical and ongoing discrimination. In particular, the Court should consider adopting the disparate-impact framework used for decades under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“CRA”), the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), and many more laws. The first step of this framework is the same: whether a particular practice causes a significant racial disparity. But the defendant then has the opportunity to show that the practice is necessary to achieve a substantial interest. And if that showing is made, the plaintiff may still prevail by demonstrating that this interest could be attained in a different, less discriminatory way.

This approach (the “usual disparate-impact framework,” or “usual framework” for short) applies to voting as naturally as to employment, housing, or other activities that are subject to antidiscrimination laws. Consider the most familiar theoretical account of disparate-impact law: that it smokes out racially discriminatory motives that cannot be proven directly. This theory works perfectly well in the voting context. When an electoral regulation differentially affects minority and nonminority citizens—and this disparate impact is unnecessary or could have been mitigated—a discriminatory purpose may reasonably be inferred. Absent such a purpose, after all, why would the regulation have been enacted in the first place? . . .

Turning to doctrine, the usual framework has a major practical advantage. Because it has been employed for so long, many contentious issues have been resolved under it. For example, must litigants establish a large disparate impact or will any discriminatory effect do? Lower courts have disagreed in Section 2 vote-denial cases. But under the usual framework, it has been clear for decades that, to make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that a policy has “significantly different” effects on minorities and nonminorities. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425 (1975) (emphasis added). . . .

Beyond settling doctrinal issues, the adoption of the usual framework would bolster Section 2’s constitutionality. Section 2 enforces the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Both of these provisions are generally violated only if a racially discriminatory purpose is established. Such a purpose can seldom be deduced from a racial disparity alone. But an invidious aim can be inferred more readily when a disparate impact is unnecessary and could have been reduced by a different policy. In that case, “disparate-impact liability under the [usual framework] plays a role in uncovering discriminatory intent.” Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). Accordingly, the usual framework would tighten the fit between Section 2 and the underlying constitutional violations it seeks to prevent or remedy. . . .

Lastly, the adoption of the usual framework would be consistent with Section 2’s text and history. On its face, Section 2 forbids one type of racial disparity from leading automatically to liability. “[N]othing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b). The usual framework dovetails nicely with this disclaimer since, under it, neither this nor any other disparate impact would suffice, alone, to invalidate an electoral regulation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119498&title=Brnovich%20amicus%20brief>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Great Bipartisan Policy Center Event on Dec. 15: “The 2020 Voting Experience and Goals for Reform” (One Featuring SOS Panel with Benson, Boockvar, Raffensperger, and WI Election Director Wolfe)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119495>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119495> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This whole day<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/event/the-2020-voting-experience-and-goals-for-reform/> looks great. I’ll be on the final panel, on election litigation. You need to register to attend.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119495&title=Great%20Bipartisan%20Policy%20Center%20Event%20on%20Dec.%2015%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%202020%20Voting%20Experience%20and%20Goals%20for%20Reform%E2%80%9D%20(One%20Featuring%20SOS%20Panel%20with%20Benson%2C%20Boockvar%2C%20Raffensperger%2C%20and%20WI%20Election%20Director%20Wolfe)>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“As Trump Disputes Election Results, Republicans Target Voting by Mail”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119492>
Posted on December 10, 2020 8:06 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119492> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/mail-voting-absentee.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

President Trump’s barrage of losses in court cases trying to undermine the election has not stopped Republicans from turning to battles they might be able to win — attempts to limit or undermine the future use of the vote-by-mail ballots that so infuriated Mr. Trump.

Absentee ballots constituted nearly half the votes cast in the 2020 election, and the experiment in mass voting by mail has been viewed by election experts as a remarkable success, one that was less prone to errors than expected and had almost no documented fraud. But that has not stopped Republican critics eager to follow the president’s lead.

This week in Georgia, as the president rages against the election he lost and the members of his party who oversaw it there, Republican state senators promised to make getting and casting mail ballots far more difficult.

The Georgia state senators pledged on Tuesday to eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, require a photo ID to obtain a ballot, outlaw drop boxes and scrap a court agreement to quickly tell voters about signature problems on ballots so that they could be fixed….

And Georgia has company. In Pennsylvania, Republicans preparing for the legislative session that convenes on Jan. 11 are seeking co-sponsors for bills to stiffen identification requirements for mail ballots, tighten standards for signature matching and, in one case, to repeal the law that allows anyone to vote absentee without an excuse.

Michigan Republicans have signaled that they want to review a 2018 ballot initiative approved by two-thirds of voters that authorized no-excuse absentee balloting as well as same-day registration and straight-ticket voting….

“The campaign to delegitimize and overturn the election has become a convenient justification for those who want to restrict access to voting,” said Wendy R. Weiser, who directs the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “Even those who acknowledge that the president lost the election are using the same kinds of allegations to roll back voting rights.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119492&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20Trump%20Disputes%20Election%20Results%2C%20Republicans%20Target%20Voting%20by%20Mail%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Donald Trump has lost dozens of election lawsuits. Here’s why”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119490>
Posted on December 10, 2020 7:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119490> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Useful overview<https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/10/donald-trump-has-lost-dozens-election-lawsuits-her/> from Politifact.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119490&title=%E2%80%9CDonald%20Trump%20has%20lost%20dozens%20of%20election%20lawsuits.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20why%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


Supreme Court Ducks Issue from Delaware About Whether States Can Mandate Partisan Balance on Their Courts<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119488>
Posted on December 10, 2020 7:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119488> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Court in Carney v. Adams<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf> found that the plaintiff lacked standing because he was not ready and able to serve as a judge.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119488&title=Supreme%20Court%20Ducks%20Issue%20from%20Delaware%20About%20Whether%20States%20Can%20Mandate%20Partisan%20Balance%20on%20Their%20Courts>
Posted in judicial elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“GOP senators ready to acknowledge Biden won but struggle with Trump’s refusal to concede”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119486>
Posted on December 10, 2020 6:26 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119486> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN:<https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/republican-reaction-trump-refusal-to-concede/index.html>

A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to publicly acknowledge what’s been widely known for weeks but what they’ve refused to say: Joe Biden won the presidency <https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/07/politics/joe-biden-wins-us-presidential-election/index.html> and will be sworn in on January 20.What they’re less certain about: What President Donald Trump will do after the Electoral College <https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-us-election-news-12-09-20/h_a6111cb96da2c64caf2707157ebe84c0> votes on Monday and how they plan to respond if he won’t concede after Biden is the official winner.

“Trump’s going to do what Trump is going to do,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has asserted that Biden will be the President-elect once the Electoral College votes on Monday, but told CNN that it’s Trump’s call on conceding the race. “That’s the only answer I’m going to give you.

“For weeks, Republicans in the House and Senate have refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/08/politics/biden-victory-congressional-republican-reaction/index.html>, arguing that Trump has a right to pursue his case in court and staying mostly silent as the President wages a rhetorical assault on a foundation of democracy by arguing baselessly that the election was “stolen” and “rigged.”

And after interviews with more than two dozen Republican senators, many of them have pointed to December 14 as the defining moment — when electors meet in their state capitals to make the results official. Yet they are also confronting a new reality: Biden will officially clinch the necessary electoral votes to assume the presidency and the President is showing no signs of letting up<https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-supreme-court/index.html>.

Many Republicans won’t say if they’ll acknowledge the electoral reality next week. But others are ready to move on and acknowledge Biden won.

“It is unhealthy for the well-being of our country, and our relations around the world if we spend time debating the outcome of the election once the presidential race has been determined,” Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, said in an interview. “The country is so divided today that it is not helpful that we would continue to have a debate about the process. Fix any problems with the process, but the outcome of an election can’t be something that is debated for the next four years.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D119486&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20senators%20ready%20to%20acknowledge%20Biden%20won%20but%20struggle%20with%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20refusal%20to%20concede%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


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/20201211/4f74401c/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/20201211/4f74401c/attachment.png>