[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/21/20

Thu Feb 20 20:56:36 PST 2020

“Bloomberg’s manipulated debate video earns Four Pinocchios”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109649>
Posted on February 20, 2020 8:53 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109649> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/bloombergs-manipulated-debate-video-earns-four-pinocchios/>:

In anticipation of the presidential election season, The Fact Checker last year worked with The Washington Post video department to produce a guide to manipulated video<https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/fact-checker/manipulated-video-guide/?tid=lk_inline_manual_4&itid=lk_inline_manual_4>. The goal was to produce a common language to identify and label video that is designed to mislead viewers.

Well, in the wake of a widely panned debate performance, Bloomberg’s campaign produced a doozy.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109649&title=%E2%80%9CBloomberg%E2%80%99s%20manipulated%20debate%20video%20earns%20Four%20Pinocchios%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Political ads are flooding Hulu, Roku and other streaming services, revealing loopholes in federal election laws”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109647>
Posted on February 20, 2020 8:51 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109647> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/20/hulu-roku-political-ads-streaming/>

The ad that interrupted some Hulu subscribers as they watched the NBC comedy “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” this month opened with a clip of President Trump speaking.

“The ‘deep state’ is trying to inject our health system with socialist price controls,” a narrator then interjected, before a banner flashed at the bottom of the screen: “TEXT ‘SOCIALISM SUCKS’ TO 41490.”

But neither FreedomWorks, the conservative group behind the ad, nor Hulu, a television-and-movie streaming giant, is required to reveal much more to the public about the 30-second spot or whom it targeted, leaving watchdogs and regulators fearful that federal election laws aren’t fit for the digital age — and that voters remain vulnerable to manipulation.

Four years after Russian agents exploited popular online platforms<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/?tid=lk_inline_manual_6&itid=lk_inline_manual_6> to push propaganda, sow unrest and promote the Trump candidacy, the U.S. government has made virtually no progress on bringing more transparency to paid political speech. The risks remain high that voters could be duped and deceived by foreign governments, U.S. candidates and advocacy groups — particularly online, where major regulatory gaps exist.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109647&title=%E2%80%9CPolitical%20ads%20are%20flooding%20Hulu%2C%20Roku%20and%20other%20streaming%20services%2C%20revealing%20loopholes%20in%20federal%20election%20laws%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109645>
Posted on February 20, 2020 2:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109645> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/russian-interference-trump-democrats.html>

Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.

During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109645&title=%E2%80%9CRussia%20Backs%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Re-election%2C%20and%20He%20Fears%20Democrats%20Will%20Exploit%20Its%20Support%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Is Los Angeles County’s New “Poll Pass” QR Code from the Smartphone for Prepopulating Voting Choices a Problem?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109643>
Posted on February 20, 2020 12:54 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109643> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Holtzman makes the case<https://www.laprogressive.com/qr-code/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109643&title=Is%20Los%20Angeles%20County%E2%80%99s%20New%20%E2%80%9CPoll%20Pass%E2%80%9D%20QR%20Code%20from%20the%20Smartphone%20for%20Prepopulating%20Voting%20Choices%20a%20Problem%3F>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“After a congressional briefing on election threats, Trump soured on acting spy chief”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109641>
Posted on February 20, 2020 12:32 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109641> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/after-a-congressional-briefing-on-election-threats-trump-soured-on-acting-spy-chief/2020/02/20/1ed2b4ec-53f1-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html>

Maguire had been considered a leading candidate to be nominated for the DNI post, White House aides had said. But Trump’s opinion shifted last week, after he heard from a GOP ally that the intelligence official in charge of election security, who works for Maguire, gave a classified briefing last Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee on 2020 election security.

It’s unclear what the official, Shelby Pierson, specifically said at the briefing that angered Trump, But the president erroneously believed that she had given information exclusively to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, and it would be helpful to Democrats if released publicly, the people familiar with the matter said. Schiff was the lead impeachment manager, or prosecutor, during Trump’s Senate trial over abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109641&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20a%20congressional%20briefing%20on%20election%20threats%2C%20Trump%20soured%20on%20acting%20spy%20chief%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Reconstructing Racially Polarized Voting”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109639>
Posted on February 20, 2020 12:21 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109639> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Travis Crum has posted this draf<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3541863>t on SSRN (forthcoming, Duke Law Journal). Here is the abstract:

Racially polarized voting makes minorities more vulnerable to discriminatory changes in election laws and therefore implicates nearly every voting rights doctrine. In Thornburg v. Gingles, the Supreme Court held that racially polarized voting is a necessary—but not a sufficient—condition for a vote-dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court, however, has recently questioned the propriety of recognizing the existence of racially polarized voting. This colorblind approach threatens not only the Gingles factors but also Section 2’s constitutionality.

The Court treats racially polarized voting as a modern phenomenon. But the relevant starting point is the 1860s, not the 1960s. Prior to the Fifteenth Amendment’s passage, Republicans had already received overwhelming support from newly enfranchised black voters in the former Confederate States and expected that support to continue. The Reconstruction Framers were thus attentive to the realities of racially polarized voting and openly recognized that extending the franchise would empower blacks to mobilize politically and protect their own interests. Racially polarized voting was a feature—not a bug—in the passage and ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. Accordingly, this Article argues that the Court’s treatment of racially polarized voting as a constitutional taboo is historically unfounded and doctrinally incoherent.

There are significant implications for acknowledging the role of racially polarized voting during Reconstruction. This historical insight moves vote-dilution claims—and their predicate finding of racially polarized voting—far closer to the heart of the Reconstruction Amendments and undermines the Court’s hostility to race-based redistricting. It is powerful evidence that Congress is well within its enforcement authority to remedy and deter dilutive measures that exploit racially polarized voting. Finally, reconstructing racially polarized voting helps re-orient voting rights doctrine toward a Fifteenth Amendment framework.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109639&title=%E2%80%9CReconstructing%20Racially%20Polarized%20Voting%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/20200221/106e66b6/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/20200221/106e66b6/attachment.png>