[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/13/20

[larrylevine at earthlink.net]

How about we stop blaming absentee voting for the problems of late ballots and acknowledge that if voters would mail them in earlier they would stand more of a chance of being received on time. Elections officials could fix another of the problems, that of the length of time it takes to process ballots. We know they are going to come in late. How about staffing up for this labor intensive operation instead of telling the press it’s the fault of a high volume of absentee ballots. 

Larry

 

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, 13 July 2020 7:34 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/13/20

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113025> Must-Listen (or Read) NPR: “Signed, Sealed, Undelivered: Thousands Of Mail-In Ballots Rejected For Tardiness”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113025> July 13, 2020 7:30 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness> Pam Fessler and Elena Moore:

Mail-in voting, which tens of millions of Americans are expected to use this November, is fraught with potential problems. Hundreds of thousands of ballots go uncounted each year because people make mistakes, such as  <https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/865043618/need-a-witness-for-your-mail-in-ballot-new-pandemic-lawsuits-challenge-old-rules> forgetting to sign the form or sending it in too late.

An NPR analysis has found that in the primary elections held so far this year, at least 65,000 absentee or mail-in ballots have been rejected because they arrived past the deadline, often through no fault of the voter.

While the numbers are relatively small — around 1% in most states — they could prove crucial in a close election, especially one in which many more voters are  <https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-mail-suddenly-controversial-heres-what-you-need-to-know> expected to cast absentee and mail-in ballots to avoid going to the polls during a pandemic.

Those who use mail-in voting for the first time — especially young, Black and Latino voters — are more likely to have their ballots rejected because of errors, said Charles Stewart, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies election administration.

”That’s the sort of thing that makes me wary about what’s going to happen in November when we get an even larger influx of people who haven’t voted, or haven’t voted by mail in the past,” he says.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113025&title=Must-Listen%20(or%20Read)%20NPR%3A%20%E2%80%9CSigned%2C%20Sealed%2C%20Undelivered%3A%20Thousands%20Of%20Mail-In%20Ballots%20Rejected%20For%20Tardiness%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113023> “Texas runoff elections show stress of coronavirus pandemic on state’s voting systems”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113023> July 13, 2020 7:26 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/13/texas-runoff-election-coronavirus/> Texas Tribune:

If the primary runoff elections are a test run for November, cracks are becoming apparent in the state’s voting system as it struggles to function under the strain of rampant coronavirus spread.

Early voting is over, and Tuesday is election day in Texas for the low-turnout contests to finalize party nominations for the November general election. In-person voting has generally run smoothly in early balloting, in large part because only a small sliver of registered voters have shown up. But people trying to vote by mail, turning to what’s typically a lightly used system to avoid the risks of human contact at polling places, have faced a host of hurdles and challenges that may foreshadow greater disarray come November. The problems are most pronounced for voters with disabilities.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113023&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20runoff%20elections%20show%20stress%20of%20coronavirus%20pandemic%20on%20state%E2%80%99s%20voting%20systems%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=71> voters with disabilities

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113021> “Ready or not: Election costs soar in prep for virus voting”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113021> July 13, 2020 7:23 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/13/ready-election-costs-soar-prep-virus-voting/112163570/> AP reports.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113021&title=%E2%80%9CReady%20or%20not%3A%20Election%20costs%20soar%20in%20prep%20for%20virus%20voting%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113019> “Trump Claims Credit for 2018 Cyberattack on Russia”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113019> July 13, 2020 7:21 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-cyber-attack.html> NYT:

President Trump took credit late last week for a cyberattack on Russia’s Internet Research Agency two years ago, citing it as evidence that he has responded strongly to Russian provocations, despite considerable evidence that he has often excused Moscow’s aggressions in cyberspace and on European territory.

Mr. Trump’s statement came  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/10/trump-confirms-an-interview-us-cyberattack-russia/> in an interview with Marc A. Thiessen, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post who is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In the Oval Office interview, Mr. Thiessen asked whether Mr. Trump had launched the attack that shut down the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm in St. Petersburg, Russia, that was behind much of the 2016 election influence campaign that ran on Facebook and other social media sites.

“Correct,’’ Mr. Trump said, but he added no other details.

The move against the Internet Research Agency, though classified,  <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/us-cyber-command-russia.html> has been widely reported over the past two years.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113019&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Claims%20Credit%20for%202018%20Cyberattack%20on%20Russia%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> chicanery

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113016> “Bostock: Were the liberal justices namudnoed?”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113016> July 13, 2020 7:14 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://balkin.blogspot.com/2020/07/bostock-were-liberal-justices-namudnoed.html> Jason Mazzone at Balikinization, raising exactly a point I’d been pondering:

namudno (verb): to persuade one’s colleagues (esp. on a court) to sign onto an opinion with broader implications than they perceive and then accuse them of backtracking when they later resist said implications.

Many commentators wonder whether the current Supreme Court will overrule Roe v. Wade (by which they really mean Planned Parenthood v. Casey). My own view is that the Court is far more likely to do away with affirmative action than with the right to obtain an abortion. This term supports that prediction with the Court’s decisions in  <https://casetext.com/case/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo> June Medical Services (invalidating a Louisiana requirement that abortion providers have hospital admitting privileges) and  <https://casetext.com/case/bostock-v-clayton-county> Bostock (holding that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII).

Justice Gorsuch in Bostock lays some groundwork for a future decision holding sex- and race-based affirmative action in employment and university admissions (and other contexts) illegal as a matter of federal statutory law. Along the way, Gorsuch seems to have namudnoed the Court’s four liberals, who signed fully onto his opinion (and did not issue any opinions of their own).

As many readers will know,  <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-322.ZS.html> Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One [NAMUDNO] v. Holder is the 2009 decision in which the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts joined in full by all members of the Court except for Justice Thomas, held that a small utility district challenging the coverage and pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act was entitled to seek a bailout from the VRA’s provisions. In his opinion, Roberts highlighted the “federalism concerns” the VRA presented. However, in light of the statutory ruling, Roberts concluded that “[w]hether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.”

Four years later, Roberts authored the Court’s opinion in  <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> Shelby County v. Holder, ruling that the VRA’s coverage formula was unconstitutional and thus did not support the pre-clearance requirements. This time, the Court’s ruling was 5-4. In the course of his opinion, Roberts repeatedly invoked and quoted from Northwest Austin, which he presented as foretelling the outcome. “[W]e expressed serious doubts about the Act’s continued constitutionality,” Roberts wrote of Northwest Austin; “[e]ight Members of the Court subscribed to these views, and the remaining Member [Justice Thomas] would have held the Act unconstitutional.” In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg—fairly described as having been hoodwinked—complained about Roberts’ reliance on broad language from Northwest Austin.

In Bostock, the absolutist language in Gorsuch’s opinion (joined, recall, by all four liberals) about Title VII is readymade for a future ruling that Title VII prohibits sex-based affirmative action by covered employers. And if that is true, the same outcome may hold with respect to race and other Title VII categories—and extend also (under Title VI and Title IX) to university admissions and other practices (and those of other entities receiving federal funding) that take account in any way at all of race or gender (or other barred factors). In a nutshell, even if by enacting these statutory provisions Congress did not imagine it was making affirmative action illegal (say because it aimed instead to equalize the workforce and the university) that is what the plain statutory text does.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113016&title=%E2%80%9CBostock%3A%20Were%20the%20liberal%20justices%20namudnoed%3F%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113014> Paul Smith and Mark Gaber: “Florida Voters Ask Supreme Court to Lift Stay”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113014> July 13, 2020 7:09 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

The following is a guest post from Paul Smith and Mark Gaber of the Campaign Legal Center:

In a one-line decision issued on July 1, the en banc Eleventh Circuit stayed a district court order enjoining Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system for people with prior felony convictions. In so doing, they abruptly changed election rules that appeared settled after the same court declined to re-hear an earlier panel decision, which declared that Florida citizens could not be denied the right to vote based on legal financial obligations – such as court fees and costs – that they are unable to pay.

This move is certain to give rise to “voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls” – as the Supreme Court warned in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5 (2006). There, the Court cautioned appellate courts against intervening and issuing conflicting orders in election cases in the lead up to Election Day itself. If the Court is serious about the concerns it raised in Purcell – and not just about reflexively denying relief to voting rights plaintiffs in the lead up to elections – it must lift the Eleventh Circuit’s stay and allow the District Court’s order to stand pending the full hearing on appeal.

Prior to 2018, Florida citizens with past felony convictions were permanently disenfranchised. Then, with support from nearly 65% of voters, Florida enacted Amendment 4, which restored the right to vote to most citizens with past convictions (those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense were excluded) automatically upon completion of their sentence. In 2019, the legislature passed legislation defining “completion of sentence” to include payment of all legal financial obligations (“LFOs”), including all court costs and fees.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and other voting rights groups, quickly sued over the pay-to-vote requirement and obtained a preliminary injunction on behalf of the individual plaintiffs last October. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction in February of this year, finding that conditioning rights restoration on payment of LFOs discriminates on the basis of wealth as applied to those who cannot pay, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After an eight-day trial, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a 125-page decision in May, concluding that Florida’s pay-to-vote law unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of wealth, that the requirement to pay costs and fees conditioned voting on the payment of a tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and that Florida’s staggering inability to administer its system – including its inability to determine who must pay and how much they must pay – violated due process and rendered the law vague. After denying the state’s request to take the earlier panel decision en banc, the Eleventh Circuit took the unusual step of agreeing to take the case for initial hearing before the full court. At the same time, the en banc Court entered a one-sentence order staying the district court’s decision.

As a result, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of registered voters – including those who registered in reliance on earlier court orders in the case – may now be unable to vote. And, three-quarters of a million Florida citizens’ eligibility to vote hangs in the balance. But, precisely which voters are rendered ineligible due to the stay is anyone’s guess. As the district court found, election officials at the Florida Department of State are unable to identify which registered voters are actually eligible, and which are due to be denied the right to vote under the byzantine pay-to-vote law. Nor can they inform citizens who wish to register if they are ineligible due to outstanding legal financial obligations related to a past felony conviction.

Further, the stay order came after affected Floridians already received vote-by-mail applications and just as ballots were mailed to overseas voters. Local officials and voters have no way to know who is affected by the stay or how, and thus have no way to determine which ballots should be accepted and which rejected on the basis of unpaid court debt. The same process will begin soon for the November election. 

If Florida citizens guess wrong about how much (if anything) they must pay to vote, they may be subject to prosecution for a felony offense – the same process that stripped them of their right to vote in the first place. On the other hand, if otherwise eligible Florida citizens decide they are ineligible because they cannot afford to pay to vote, or because they are unable to determine what, if anything, they owe due to the state’s flawed recordkeeping, they will be denied their most fundamental right. And there will be no way for the Eleventh Circuit or any other court to redress that harm after the fact.

This is exactly the situation the Supreme Court warned against in Purcell. The Eleventh Circuit’s stay order has created voter confusion and increased the incentive for eligible voters to stay away from the polls by issuing an order directly conflicting with and suspending the court order that actually resolved the confusion caused by Florida’s incompetently administered pay-to-vote system. It did all of this just three weeks before the registration deadline for the August primary, with oral argument set to occur the same day as that election.

Filed just over a year ago, the litigation over Florida’s pay-to-vote system has moved at lightning speed, proceeding to trial on the merits in under a year, and with detours to the Eleventh Circuit and the Florida Supreme Court along the way. It is hard to see how plaintiffs could have moved any faster to obtain the relief necessary to vindicate their right to vote. At the same time, the Eleventh Circuit has dawdled, by declining to take the case en banc four months ago, and waiting instead until the eve of Florida’s August primaries, and with scant time to reach any resolution before the November presidential election is in full swing.

If the Supreme Court is serious about preventing the confusion and chaos that are certain to stem from conflicting court orders, and not simply about using the specter of an upcoming election to deny relief to plaintiffs in voting rights cases, then it must lift the Eleventh Circuit’s stay and allow the District Court decision to stand until the full appeal is heard.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113014&title=Paul%20Smith%20and%20Mark%20Gaber%3A%20%E2%80%9CFlorida%20Voters%20Ask%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Lift%20Stay%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66> felon voting,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113012> “One Billionaire vs. the Mail A new report details Charles Koch’s 50-year war on the U.S. Postal Service”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113012> July 13, 2020 7:05 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://prospect.org/power/one-billionaire-versus-the-mail/> TAP:

This year, the Postal Service will also be essential to the national elections, as more Americans than ever opt to vote by mail because of the coronavirus. Weakening, privatizing, or eliminating the Postal Service at this critical time could severely damage the right to vote, an alternative benefit to the Koch network, which is funding a dark-money network called the “ <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/27/honest-elections-project-conservative-voting-restrictions> Honest Elections Project,” designed to ramp up dubious concerns about voter fraud and ultimately suppress votes.

Even in states with well-established vote-by-mail systems, like in Washington, Secretary of State Kim Wyman  <https://prospect.org/politics/what-keeps-me-up-at-night-is-the-partisanship/> told the Prospect in May that there are concerns that their voting procedures could not be carried out by any other private service.

Without action from Congress, the financial problems of the Postal Service could mean problems for everyone and could even influence who serves as the next president. The current postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, has no experience in the Postal Service but instead was a major donor to the RNC and the Trump for Victory PAC. DeJoy was handpicked by Trump in May and is largely seen as  <https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-war-on-the-postal-service-continues/> an ally of the president’s and the anti–remote voting efforts.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113012&title=%E2%80%9COne%20Billionaire%20vs.%20the%20Mail%20A%20new%20report%20details%20Charles%20Koch%E2%80%99s%2050-year%20war%20on%20the%20U.S.%20Postal%20Service%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8> fraudulent fraud squad

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113010> “Why is Maryland’s governor making mail-in voting harder in November?”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113010> July 13, 2020 7:03 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/maryland-is-taking-unnecessary-risks-in-its-plan-for-the-november-election/2020/07/12/4c042baa-c2ee-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html?wpmk=MK0000200> WaPo editorial:

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) seems not to have learned them. He presided over a largely mail-in primary election in his state last month  <https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-hogan-fall-election-20200708-dnbvbgttsvhtdd4yo5fhicc75a-story.html> that saw strong turnout based on extremely high levels of absentee voting — but that also encountered some problems. Absentee ballots failed to reach everyone who wanted one, and polling place closures caused lines for those who sought to vote in person. So Mr. Hogan  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-election-hogan/2020/07/08/46e9e172-c12d-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_3> decided on Wednesday to reverse course and treat the November vote like a more routine election. His reaction may cause more problems than it solves.

Mr. Hogan’s most controversial decision was to decline sending mail-in ballots to all voters, and instead sending out absentee ballot request forms. Maryland election officials  <https://elections.maryland.gov/about/meeting_materials/June_30_2020.pdf> warned the governor that adding the extra step of processing absentee ballot applications would create a massive new burden with which the state may not be able to cope. This is what happened in Wisconsin’s disastrous April primary, in which many voters did not receive their absentee ballots in time to cast them, despite requesting them on time. The District saw similar problems in its June special election, and the city’s leaders have since decided to  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2020/06/18/the-cybersecurity-202-d-c-georgia-reflect-divergent-democratic-and-republican-approaches-to-mail-ballots/5eeab923602ff12947e8f30d/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4> ditch the application process and send out ballots directly.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113010&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20is%20Maryland%E2%80%99s%20governor%20making%20mail-in%20voting%20harder%20in%20November%3F%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113008> “Texas voter registration surges to 16.4 million, despite the pandemic”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113008> July 12, 2020 8:14 pm by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

San Antonio Express News  <https://www.expressnews.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-voter-registration-surges-to-16-4-million-15399835.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=share-by-email&utm_medium=email> reports.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113008&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20voter%20registration%20surges%20to%2016.4%20million%2C%20despite%20the%20pandemic%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113006> “Trump gets some good election news: GOP voter registrations outpace Dems”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113006> July 12, 2020 8:12 pm by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/11/trump-voter-registration-355152?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318> Politico:

It was a flicker of hope for Donald Trump in an otherwise dismal summer.

Late last month, the Democratic data firm TargetSmart found that while new voter registrations had plummeted amid the coronavirus pandemic, those who were registering in competitive states tended to be whiter, older and less Democratic than before…

Because overall registration numbers have been so low across the board during the pandemic, Republican gains during that period have been too small in most cases to make up for months of pre-pandemic Democratic advances. Tom Bonier, TargetSmart’s CEO, compared the registration shift to a footrace that was suddenly forced into slow motion. During that time, Republicans, though still behind, “got a couple of extra steps” closer to Democrats.

“It’s not like they’ve built the lead,” Bonier said. “It’s really something where neither side should be celebrating or panicking about.”

Looking at newer data this week, Bonier found Democrats increased their share of registrations in June over the previous month in several states that have reported registrations for that month. He also noticed an uptick in registrations after the George Floyd demonstrations began. In California, a heavily Democratic state, overall registrations spiked after the first weekend of demonstrations in late May and early June.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113006&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20gets%20some%20good%20election%20news%3A%20GOP%20voter%20registrations%20outpace%20Dems%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> voter registration

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113004> “There are two easy steps to avoiding chaos this election. We haven’t taken them yet.”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113004> July 12, 2020 8:09 pm by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

Kevin Johnson and Yuval Levin  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/10/there-are-two-easy-steps-avoiding-chaos-this-election-we-havent-taken-them-yet/> WaPo oped:

There is no easy way to avert such problems. The management of elections inherently raises concerns about politicization, with each party worrying that the other will try to manipulate the rules to gain advantage. We have been involved in Democratic and Republican politics, respectively, and we know electoral reforms don’t come easy.

But there are two kinds of steps that responsible leaders could take now to at least contain the danger without falling into partisan combat. The first is simply to speak to the problem in public. Elected officials and candidates — as well as journalists, commentators, scholars and others — should talk frankly about the challenges of running an election during a public health crisis, prepare the public for the possibility that we will not have results on election night, and that this does not mean that the results will be tainted when we do get them. Election officials must be given the time they need to count every vote.

Second, Congress can take a simple step to provide those officials with that time, particularly when it comes to the presidential election. Election Day, Nov. 3, should not be changed. But electing our president involves a series of steps following that day, which take place on a schedule established by law, not by the Constitution, and which Congress can adjust for this year’s special circumstances.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113004&title=%E2%80%9CThere%20are%20two%20easy%20steps%20to%20avoiding%20chaos%20this%20election.%20We%20haven%E2%80%99t%20taken%20them%20yet.%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127> Election Meltdown

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113002> Michigan Goes to Supreme Court to Reverse Laws Easing Initiative Signature Gathering Restrictions During Pandemic


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113002> July 12, 2020 8:06 pm by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

You can find the petition (No. 20A1)  <https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/advance-constitutional-change/electoral-college-reform> at this link.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113002&title=Michigan%20Goes%20to%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Reverse%20Laws%20Easing%20Initiative%20Signature%20Gathering%20Restrictions%20During%20Pandemic> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62> direct democracy,  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112978> “There are two easy steps to avoiding chaos this election. We haven’t taken them yet.”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112978> July 11, 2020 12:47 pm by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7> Richard Pildes

Glad to see more support for  <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3613163> my view that, for this fall’s election, Congress should move back the dates in the Electoral Count Act that govern the Electoral College process. From today’s Washington Post:

Second, Congress can take a simple step to provide those officials with that time, particularly when it comes to the presidential election. Election Day, Nov. 3, should not be changed. But electing our president involves a series of steps following that day, which take place on a schedule established by law, not by the Constitution, and which Congress can adjust for this year’s special circumstances.

The first significant date on that schedule marks the end of the “safe harbor” period established by federal law, during which states are assured their reported presidential election results will not be challenged in Congress. This year that deadline is Dec. 8. Six days later, on Dec. 14, the  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-electoral-college-faithless-electors/2020/07/06/cf88f706-bf8f-11ea-b178-bb7b05b94af1_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_14> 538 members of the electoral college meet in their state capitals to vote. Those votes are not officially tallied by Congress until three weeks after that, on Jan. 6, and the inauguration follows on Jan. 20.

That means 78 days pass between the election and inauguration, but states have only 35 of those days to process all the ballots and resolve all disputes and recounts — or 41 days if they forgo their safe-harbor protections.

If states confront serious logistical challenges, those 35 days could easily prove inadequate. Mailed ballots require signature verification, contacting voters whose handwriting is challenged and time for voters to respond. Some states already have efficient systems in place, including automated  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/10/20/georgias-exact-match-law-could-disenfranchise-3031802-eligible-voters-my-research-finds/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16> signature matching, but those procedures have been carefully built over several years. Other states are now trying to quickly set up new processes, equipment and training, and, inevitably, there will be problems and delays.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D112978&title=%E2%80%9CThere%20are%20two%20easy%20steps%20to%20avoiding%20chaos%20this%20election.%20We%20haven%E2%80%99t%20taken%20them%20yet.%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized

 

 

-- 

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

 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> rhasen at law.uci.edu

 <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/> 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/20200713/74ea368b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200713/74ea368b/attachment.png>