[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/3/20

[Rick Hasen]

“Biden campaign readying hundreds of lawyers in expansive vote protection effort”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112777>
Posted on July 2, 2020 8:33 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112777> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The “armies of lawyers” stories are coming earlier<https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/politics/biden-voter-protection-efforts/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29> this election season.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112777&title=%E2%80%9CBiden%20campaign%20readying%20hundreds%20of%20lawyers%20in%20expansive%20vote%20protection%20effort%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Supreme Court, on 5-4 Vote, Blocks Federal District Courts Rules Easing Voting in Alabama Primary in Light of COVID-19<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112775>
Posted on July 2, 2020 5:57 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112775> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Court’s order is here,<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070220zr_n7io.pdf> breaking along ideological/party lines.

I expected this. See my earlier post, Alabama Goes to Supreme Court to Reverse Lower Court Orders Making Voting Easier During Pandemic (and I Expect Alabama Will Win)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112696>

These changes are coming close to the election, so they implicate the Purcell principle<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>. But beyond that, they show the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is not going to put a thumb on the scale favoring voters in this election and instead will view the pandemic-created dislocations in the voting process as not enough of a reason to depart from usual voting rules when states fail to bend their rules to accommodate voter safety and convenience during the pandemic. It is of a piece with the 5-4 decision in RNC v. DNC.

I explore these themes, and the increasing party divide in the courts on the COVID cases, in Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them (manuscript under review) (June 2020 draft available)<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3604668> (forthcoming Election Law Journal). This is what I wrote there about RNC v. DNC:

Beyond the sloppiness, and most troubling, is the cavalier nature of the Supreme Court’s opinion. It ignored the pandemic and treated the situation as ordinary litigation in an ordinary time. It failed to even mention the voting rights that the plaintiffs were seeking to vindicate. The opinion sent a message that the Court cares little about the voting rights of people in the state, especially AfricanAmerican voters in Milwaukee who had been facing great risk related to the virus.

In this extraordinary time of a pandemic, the Supreme Court chose to vote remotely for safety reasons while denying some Wisconsin voters a chance to do the same. Not only did the Court’s opinion show a nonchalance about the importance of voting rights in the most dire circumstances. It demonstrated that the Court majority could not build a bridge for a unanimous compromise opinion. The signal it sends is that there may well be have partisan warfare at the Court over election issues in the upcoming election, which is already shaping up to be one conducted under conditions of deep polarization and a pandemic.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112775&title=Supreme%20Court%2C%20on%205-4%20Vote%2C%20Blocks%20Federal%20District%20Courts%20Rules%20Easing%20Voting%20in%20Alabama%20Primary%20in%20Light%20of%20COVID-19>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Why Are Federal Jurists Cheering on Voter Suppression in Wisconsin?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112773>
Posted on July 2, 2020 1:45 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112773> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

John Nichols<https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/early-voting-wisconsin-court/> for The Nation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112773&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Are%20Federal%20Jurists%20Cheering%20on%20Voter%20Suppression%20in%20Wisconsin%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Greg Sargent: “Why Facebook probably won’t police Trump’s lies about voting”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112768>
Posted on July 2, 2020 1:36 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112768> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Important piece<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/02/why-facebook-probably-wont-police-trumps-lies-about-voting/>:

Under pressure to combat the disinformation that politicians — most notably the president of the United States — are spreading on its platforms, Facebook recently announced<https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112048980882521> a new effort to combat lies geared in particular toward misleading Americans about voting.

Disinformation aimed at voting is a particularly pernicious form of it, especially right now. These days much of it is designed to cripple efforts to expand vote-by-mail, at a time when more and more Americans want to avail themselves of it so they can vote safely during a pandemic.

President Trump has been lying relentlessly about vote-by-mail for weeks, in an obvious effort to dissuade localities from scaling up for more mail voting, because he believes<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-voting-republicans/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5> more people voting this way makes his reelection less likely.

Unfortunately, even though Facebook is vowing a vigorous effort to clean up information about voting, it is unlikely to do much to prevent Trump from spreading his lies about vote-by-mail in particular.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112768&title=Greg%20Sargent%3A%20%E2%80%9CWhy%20Facebook%20probably%20won%E2%80%99t%20police%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20lies%20about%20voting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>


“Candidates Sue New Jersey Over Restrictions on Campaign Slogans”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112766>
Posted on July 2, 2020 11:39 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112766> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:

Two candidates for Congress in New Jersey today asked<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0018OM8-gruu32p6RescTEtWDn9QKPnPVbqGK5gSnjizTOtr6kTvffB0Tulf0XwoGbMEbuvCyylFsQGHAIsAEjjFEzkDDTCG4xKaTdK6cjA5rlqXm0j7mY5161013J9ZZWSwFxLCX_k6Oa0lE5FTG63PsQ7pZ8Wdu3Beu-8Rb83N2ax67mokIwM_tQbduNk5yBY6Svz5jKbKFypfr-OzxUhxY9Agx-6D3yCMeM15PNKn7hiAvSUvRb9w-uHMgVFE4GDt-dHmvmktIg=&c=jB_fhkXuGGPmHq4dMXnQmhEElOclizpjEAQ_Vr3Toaix38pwRHH_gg==&ch=9aFjEM7bRSZcXeMaS6gZ5ZYJ4JG1IcG0u_Xs-cYH4QbBitZt8OAp1A==> a federal court to declare the state’s restrictions on campaign slogans unconstitutional. The Institute for Free Speech is representing the candidates, Eugene Mazo and Lisa McCormick, in the First Amendment challenge.

“New Jersey’s regulation of campaign slogans is one of the country’s most blatant violations of candidates’ right to free speech. The state effectively allows groups to register slogans just to prevent candidates from using them. Campaigns must be allowed to speak to voters in their own words and with their own slogans,” said Institute for Free Speech Attorney Ryan Morrison.

New Jersey law allows candidates in primary elections for Congress to include a slogan of up to six words next to their name on the ballot. The law, however, prohibits slogans from naming or referring to any other person or any incorporated entity in New Jersey, unless the candidate receives their permission. This has fueled a competition in the state to incorporate entities in order to own the rights to their names for ballot slogans and exclude others from using them.

Eugene Mazo is a law professor who is seeking the Democratic nomination to the U.S. House of Representatives in New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District. Mazo submitted three slogans, but all were rejected by the state because each named an incorporated entity in New Jersey. To avoid having no slogan appear on the ballot, Mazo did what other candidates do: he registered corporations of his own in the state, named after slogans he wished to use. “I have studied American democracy as a scholar, a voter, and now as a political candidate. And what I can tell you is that New Jersey’s ballot restrictions are unconstitutional. Simply put, they violate the First Amendment. My goal in filing this lawsuit is to create an equal playing field for candidates of diverse political views who believe, as I do, that free speech is sacred. Under our Constitution, New Jersey has no right to regulate what a political candidate can say to his or her voters,” said Mazo.

Lisa McCormick is a small business owner who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the House in New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District. State officials denied her choice of slogan – “Not Me. Us.” – because McCormick did not have permission from the incorporated entity organized in New Jersey under that name. A second slogan naming Bernie Sanders was also denied because she did not have Sanders’ permission to use his name. Ultimately, McCormick was able to secure permission to use the slogan, “Democrats United for Progress.” Candidates have the right to use the rhetoric and language of their choice in their slogans. Yet New Jersey’s law allows anyone to claim ownership of a slogan simply by incorporating an entity under that name. This system is unwise and unconstitutional. The case is Mazo and McCormick v. Way, et al. It is before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division. Mazo and McCormick are represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and Walter M. Luers. To read the complaint, click here<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0018OM8-gruu32p6RescTEtWDn9QKPnPVbqGK5gSnjizTOtr6kTvffB0Tulf0XwoGbMEbuvCyylFsQGHAIsAEjjFEzkDDTCG4xKaTdK6cjA5rlqXm0j7mY5161013J9ZZWSwFxLCX_k6Oa0lE5FTG63PsQ7pZ8Wdu3Beu-8Rb83N2ax67mokIwM_tQbduNk5yBY6Svz5jKbKFypfr-OzxUhxY9Agx-6D3yCMeM15PNKn7hiAvSUvRb9w-uHMgVFE4GDt-dHmvmktIg=&c=jB_fhkXuGGPmHq4dMXnQmhEElOclizpjEAQ_Vr3Toaix38pwRHH_gg==&ch=9aFjEM7bRSZcXeMaS6gZ5ZYJ4JG1IcG0u_Xs-cYH4QbBitZt8OAp1A==>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112766&title=%E2%80%9CCandidates%20Sue%20New%20Jersey%20Over%20Restrictions%20on%20Campaign%20Slogans%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


I’ll Be Talking Voting Rights with The Texas Observer at Virtual Event 7/7<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112764>
Posted on July 2, 2020 10:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112764> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Announcement and registration link:<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/voting-in-a-pandemic-tickets-110864253968>

Voting in Texas has never been easy. Join the Texas Observer for a discussion of the voting challenges in Texas ahead of the July runoffs.

About this Event

Voting in Texas has never been easy. But with a pandemic and civil uprising sweeping across the United States, Texans may need to brace for even more chaos than usual. Important runoff elections for a U.S. Senate seat (and other offices) take place on July 14, with early voting starting on June 29 and ending on July 10. What can voters expect to face as they try to go to the polls in Texas—a state with a long history of voter suppression? How limited will mail-in voting be, as fights against expansion are waged in the courts? What other impacts might the onset, and second wave of COVID-19 deliver?

Texas Observer civil rights reporter Michael Barajas will tackle 2020 voting questions in conversation with national elections expert Rick Hasen, author of Election Meltdown, Joaquin Gonzalez, an attorney who monitored polls and complaints for the Texas Civil Rights Project, Clarice Caldwell, a teacher and voter in San Antonio, and Joshua Muhammad, a PVAMU alum, former individual plaintiff, and current Chairperson of organizational plaintiff The Panther Party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112764&title=I%E2%80%99ll%20Be%20Talking%20Voting%20Rights%20with%20The%20Texas%20Observer%20at%20Virtual%20Event%207%2F7>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Supreme Court Won’t Expedite Consideration of Texas Democrats’ Vote-By-Mail Challenge<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112762>
Posted on July 2, 2020 8:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112762> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Supreme Court (having already turned down emergency relief related to the Texas primary) has rejected<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/070220zor_apl1.pdf> early consideration in the case arguing that giving only voters over the age of 65 the ability to vote by mail without excuse violates the 26th Amendment.

The case will be back before the 5th Circuit, and at least theoretically could be back on another emergency petition before the Supreme Court before the November election.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112762&title=Supreme%20Court%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Expedite%20Consideration%20of%20Texas%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20Vote-By-Mail%20Challenge>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>


“Connecticut Groups File Federal Lawsuit to Expand Vote-by-Mail for 2020 Elections Due to COVID-19”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112760>
Posted on July 2, 2020 8:01 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112760> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release<https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/connecticut-groups-file-federal-lawsuit-expand-vote-mail-2020-elections-due?utm_source=PressRelease&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07022020>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112760&title=%E2%80%9CConnecticut%20Groups%20File%20Federal%20Lawsuit%20to%20Expand%20Vote-by-Mail%20for%202020%20Elections%20Due%20to%20COVID-19%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“We don’t have to have chaos when America votes this fall”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112758>
Posted on July 2, 2020 7:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112758> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Josh Douglas<https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/opinions/avoid-chaos-when-america-votes-douglas/index.html> on lessons from the Kentucky primary.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112758&title=%E2%80%9CWe%20don%E2%80%99t%20have%20to%20have%20chaos%20when%20America%20votes%20this%20fall%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


--
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/20200703/fa55e9e1/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/20200703/fa55e9e1/attachment.png>