[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/12/20

Tue Feb 11 20:18:08 PST 2020

“Americans Were Already Primed To Distrust Elections. Then Came Iowa.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109507>
Posted on February 11, 2020 8:13 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109507> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

538<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-were-already-primed-to-distrust-elections-then-came-iowa/>:

When the Iowa caucuses went to hell in a handbasket last week, they probably took some of Americans’ last morsels of trust in the political system down too. But when I asked political scientists and psychologists about the impact of the bungled caucuses on overall political cynicism<https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-american-politics-everyones-a-cynic/>, they, by and large, weren’t particularly concerned. The vast majority of voters probably won’t care all that much, they said; instead, these experts are more worried about the indirect effects. Long after the shoddy apps have been forgotten, mistrust and bitterness could still be trickling down from political elites to everyone else.

We’re already primed to think something’s wrong with our voting system. Even before the caucuses, more than 40 percent of Americans<https://www.npr.org/2020/01/21/797101409/npr-poll-majority-of-americans-believe-trump-encourages-election-interference> felt the country wasn’t prepared to keep the November elections secure, and 45 percent thought it was likely that not all votes were going to be counted. Partisans of a losing candidate are less likely to believe their vote was counted correctly<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1065912918768006?forwardService=showAbstract&tokenAccess=QAhhsWrUqn2Idn2yjdGq&tokenDomain=eprints>, while winners get a boost in electoral confidence that can last for months.

But the Iowa debacle is important because it caused political elites to be as openly distrustful as some voters already are. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez tweeted an exasperated-sounding call for a recanvass<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/dnc-chair-calls-for-immediate-recanvass-of-iowa-after-botched-caucus.html> of the results. Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard railed against the lack of transparency and integrity<https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iowa-caucuses-live-results-coverage-2020/h_7e6f51aa1b915573f2ef55a3916b4f58> in the caucuses. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign has also questioned the integrity of the process<https://newrepublic.com/article/156458/iowa-caucus-media-debacle>. And President Trump’s two eldest sons both claimed that the caucuses had been rigged<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-campaign-shouts-rigged-iowa-caucuses-thrown-chaos-n1129636>. (There is no evidence to suggest the caucus results were altered — just that the reporting process was run incompetently<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-democratic-caucuses.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>.)

These are all people at the top of the political influence pyramid, who have fans who share their political ideology and who have the media attention necessary to make their opinions widely known. The public doesn’t just thoughtlessly follow what these political elites say<http://johnbullock.org/papers/elite/eliteFinalBeforePublication.pdf>, of course, but study<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584601003709381> after study<https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/61/2/425/4065443> has shown that what they say does matter.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109507&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20Were%20Already%20Primed%20To%20Distrust%20Elections.%20Then%20Came%20Iowa.%E2%80%9D>

Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
“PolitiFact California: There’s A Lot Of Misinformation About California’s March Primary Election. Here Are The Facts.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109504>
Posted on February 11, 2020 8:08 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109504> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here.<http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/02/11/theres-a-lot-of-misinformation-about-californias-march-primary-election-here-are-the-facts/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109504&title=%E2%80%9CPolitiFact%20California%3A%20There%E2%80%99s%20A%20Lot%20Of%20Misinformation%20About%20California%E2%80%99s%20March%20Primary%20Election.%20Here%20Are%20The%20Facts.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Should Members Of The Electoral College Be Allowed To Vote Their Conscience?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109502>
Posted on February 11, 2020 7:56 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109502> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Listen <https://www.tpr.org/post/should-members-electoral-college-be-allowed-vote-their-conscience> to Texas Public Radio:

The Electoral College has the ultimate decision-making power when choosing the next president and members are supposed to — and in some states required to — vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. But since the country’s founding, more than 180 so-called “faithless electors” have bucked the system and instead used their own discretion to select a candidate.

This spring<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-hear-whether-states-may-punish-electoral-college-members-who-ignore-popular-vote-results/2020/01/17/ba0283a2-3254-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html>, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not members of the Electoral College should be required to vote for their parties’ candidates in a presidential election. Lower courts have reached opposite conclusions on the issue.

Faithless electors have not yet changed an outcome, but they could. Only 10 rogue votes<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/supreme-court-electoral-college.html> could have flipped outcomes in five of the previous 58 presidential elections. More electors cast rogue votes in 2016<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer> than any previous election, including two in Texas <https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311107-two-texas-electors-abandoned-trump> who refused to vote for Donald Trump.

Should electors have a right to break from party lines? What impact could rogue electors have in 2020?

What impact could a SCOTUS ruling about faithless electors have on future presidential elections? If the high court rules in favor of more autonomy for electors, would states have any recourse to deal with electors who break rank?

Is the Electoral College still the best system for choosing a president? Does it work the way the country’s founders intended? What are the pros and cons? Is there a viable alternative?]

Guests:

George Edwards, political science professor at Texas A&M University<https://pols.tamu.edu/about-us/faculty-directory/george-c-edwards-iii-distinguished-professor/> and Electoral College expert

Jesse Wegman, New York Times editorial board member and author of forthcoming book “Let The People Pick The President<https://read.macmillan.com/lp/let-the-people-pick-the-president/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=orgpost&utm_term=na-post&utm_content=na-shopnow-buynow&utm_campaign=9781250221971>“

Eugene Mazo, election law scholar and visiting associate professor of law at Rutgers University<http://law.rutgers.edu/directory/view/em766>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109502&title=%E2%80%9CShould%20Members%20Of%20The%20Electoral%20College%20Be%20Allowed%20To%20Vote%20Their%20Conscience%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in electoral college<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>

KPCC Airtalk: “‘Election Meltdown’ Addresses Failures In American Elections, And Where We Go From Here”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109500>
Posted on February 11, 2020 2:25 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109500> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great discussion with Larry Mantle about my new book, Election Meltdown<https://www.amazon.com/Election-Meltdown-Distrust-American-Democracy/dp/0300248199/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=hasen+election+meltdown&qid=1565015345&s=digital-text&sr=1-1-catcorr>. Listen<https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2020/02/11/65308/election-meltdown-addresses-failures-in-american-e/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109500&title=KPCC%20Airtalk%3A%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Election%20Meltdown%E2%80%99%20Addresses%20Failures%20In%20American%20Elections%2C%20And%20Where%20We%20Go%20From%20Here%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>

“Foreign interference in elections is unacceptable. Congress must make it illegal.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109498>
Posted on February 11, 2020 2:23 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109498> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jeffrey Smith and John Bellinger WaPo oped<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/foreign-interference-in-elections-is-unacceptable-congress-must-make-it-illegal/2020/02/07/00d18268-49d6-11ea-bdbf-1dfb23249293_story.html>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109498&title=%E2%80%9CForeign%20interference%20in%20elections%20is%20unacceptable.%20Congress%20must%20make%20it%20illegal.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering on Political Parties”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109496>
Posted on February 11, 2020 10:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109496> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

My article<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsq.12276> with Chris Warshaw on how partisan gerrymandering impedes numerous party functions — candidate recruitment, fundraising, appealing to voters, and so on — is now up on the Legislative Studies Quarterly website. The abstract is below:

The relationship between votes and seats in the legislature lies at the heart of democratic governance. However, there has been little previous work on the downstream effects of partisan gerrymandering on the health of political parties. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive examination of the impact of partisan advantage in the districting process on an array of downstream outcomes. We find that districting bias impedes numerous party functions at both the congressional and state house levels. Candidates are less likely to contest districts when their party is disadvantaged by a districting plan. Candidates that do choose to run are more likely to have weak resumes. Donors are less willing to contribute money. And ordinary voters are less apt to support the targeted party. These results suggest that gerrymandering has long‐term effects on the health of the democratic process beyond simply costing or gaining parties seats in the legislature.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109496&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Impact%20of%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20on%20Political%20Parties%E2%80%9D>
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/20200212/83013775/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/20200212/83013775/attachment.png>