[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/22/20

[Rick Hasen]

“Twitter Takedown Targets QAnon Accounts”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113322>
Posted on July 21, 2020 7:42 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113322> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/technology/twitter-bans-qanon-accounts.html>:

Twitter said Tuesday evening that it had removed thousands of accounts that spread messages about the conspiracy theories known as QAnon, saying their messages could lead to harm and violated Twitter policy.

Twitter said it would also block trends related to the loose network of QAnon conspiracy theories from appearing in its trending topics and search, and would not allow users to post links affiliated with the theories on its platform.

It was the first time that a social media service took sweeping action to remove content affiliated with QAnon, which has become increasingly popular on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

The theories stem from an anonymous person or group of people who use the name “Q” and claim to have access to government secrets that reveal a plot against President Trump and his supporters. That supposedly classified information was initially posted on message boards before spreading to mainstream internet platforms and has led to significant online harassment as well as physical violence.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113322&title=%E2%80%9CTwitter%20Takedown%20Targets%20QAnon%20Accounts%E2%80%9D>
Posted in social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>


“Trump’s reelection effort has spent more than $983 million, a record sum at this point in the campaign”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113320>
Posted on July 21, 2020 7:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113320> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/21/trumps-reelection-effort-has-spent-more-than-983-million-record-sum-this-point-campaign/>

President Trump’s campaign, the Republican Party and two affiliated committees have spent more than $983 million since 2017, a record-breaking sum toward a reelection effort at this point in the presidential campaign, new filings show.

The Trump campaign alone has spent $240 million, and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s campaign has spent $165 million, as the two sides ramped up their general-election efforts, according to Federal Election Commission filings made public Monday.

Trump has raised and spent money for his reelection since 2017, earlier in his term than previous presidents. At this point in 2012, the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party and a joint fundraising committee had spent roughly half that amount, at about $552 million, federal records show. Trump’s 2016 campaign, run on a shoestring budget, cost $878 million<https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113320&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20reelection%20effort%20has%20spent%20more%20than%20%24983%20million%2C%20a%20record%20sum%20at%20this%20point%20in%20the%20campaign%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Judge Brasher Recuses from Florida Felon Disenfranchisement Case Being Considered En Banc by the 11th Circuit, But Not on Grounds Sought by Plaintiffs<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113317>
Posted on July 21, 2020 2:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113317> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
07.21.20-Brasher-Recusal<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/07.21.20-Brasher-Recusal.pdf>Download<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/07.21.20-Brasher-Recusal.pdf>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113317&title=Judge%20Brasher%20Recuses%20from%20Florida%20Felon%20Disenfranchisement%20Case%20Being%20Considered%20En%20Banc%20by%20the%2011th%20Circuit%2C%20But%20Not%20on%20Grounds%20Sought%20by%20Plaintiffs>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“With No Final Say, Trump Wants To Change Who Counts For Dividing Up Congress’ Seats”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113315>
Posted on July 21, 2020 2:52 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113315> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Hansi Lo Wang<https://www.npr.org/2020/07/21/892340508/with-no-final-say-trump-wants-to-change-who-counts-for-dividing-up-congress-seat?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social> for NPR:

President Trump releaseda memorandum<https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-excluding-illegal-aliens-apportionment-base-following-2020-census/> Tuesday that calls for an unprecedented change to the constitutionally mandated count of every person living in the country — the exclusion of unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to divide up seats in Congress among the states.

The memo instructs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Commerce Department, to include in the legally required<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141> report of census results to the president “information permitting the President, to the extent practicable” to leave out the number of immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization from the apportionment count.

But the move by the president, who does not have final authority over the census, is more likely to spur legal challenges and political spectacle in the last months before this year’s presidential election than a transformation of the once-a-decade head count.

Since the first U.S. census in 1790, both U.S. citizens and noncitizens — regardless of immigration status — have been included in the country’s official population counts.

The fifth sentence of the Constitution<https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript> specifies that “persons” residing in the states should be counted every 10 years to determine each state’s share of seats in the House of Representatives. The 14th Amendment<https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv> goes further to require the counting of the “whole number of persons in each state.”

It is Congress — not the president — that Article 1<https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei>, Section 2 of the country’s founding document empowers to carry out the “actual enumeration” of the country’s population in “such manner as they shall by law direct.”

In Title 2<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a> of the U.S. Code, Congress detailed its instructions for the president to report to lawmakers the tally of the “whole number of persons” living in each state for the reapportionment of House seats. In Title 13<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141>, Congress established additional key dates for the “tabulation of total population.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113315&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20No%20Final%20Say%2C%20Trump%20Wants%20To%20Change%20Who%20Counts%20For%20Dividing%20Up%20Congress%E2%80%99%20Seats%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>


“Facebook begins labeling, but not fact-checking, posts from Trump and Biden”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113313>
Posted on July 21, 2020 2:49 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113313> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CNN<https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/tech/facebook-label-trump-biden/index.html>:

After President Donald Trump posted an unfounded claim to Facebook (FB<https://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=FB&source=story_quote_link>) on Tuesday that mail-in voting could lead to a “corrupt election,” the social network slapped a label on it. But the label did not attempt to fact-check the post as true or false. Instead, it directed users to a government website to learn more about how to vote.

The response is part of Facebook’s new policy, announced by CEO Mark Zuckerberg last month<https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/facebook-zuckerberg-content-ad-policies/index.html>, to label posts about the November election. In recent days, Facebook has placed the same label beneath a mix of posts from Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, including one from the former vice president calling to “vote Donald Trump out this November” that does not make any factual assertions about voting.

This new approach has already been criticized by some industry watchers who worry the labels are confusing or could even be viewed as tacit endorsements of the President’s controversial posts.

“This warning seems pretty useless — it might even seem that Facebook is endorsing what Trump is saying and providing a path for more information,” Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on Twitter.<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1285585850508603394>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113313&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20begins%20labeling%2C%20but%20not%20fact-checking%2C%20posts%20from%20Trump%20and%20Biden%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>


“Sloppy handwriting could get your mail ballot tossed in California”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113311>
Posted on July 21, 2020 2:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113311> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

SF Chronicle<https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sloppy-handwriting-could-get-your-mail-ballot-15417280.php>:

Californians’ handwriting is getting worse and it’s causing increasing problems for election officials.

More than 14,000 mail ballots were rejected in the March 3 primary because the signature on the vote-by-mail envelope didn’t match the one on the voter registration card. Thousands more were counted only after voters were required to provide a new signature for scrutiny.

For voters in their 60s, the signature they put on that ballot envelope might be compared to the one they signed when they registered to vote at age 18. For younger voters, that comparison could be with an electronic signature they never really use, having replaced it in day-to-day transactions with a squiggle on a touch pad or just the tap of a phone or an Apple watch.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113311&title=%E2%80%9CSloppy%20handwriting%20could%20get%20your%20mail%20ballot%20tossed%20in%20California%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Want to vote absentee in Alabama? COVID-19 will be reason enough for general, municipal elections”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113309>
Posted on July 21, 2020 8:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113309> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Good news<https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/07/20/want-vote-absentee-alabama-covid-19-reason-enough-through-end-year/5473859002/> from Alabama:

Voters concerned about the COVID-19 outbreak will be able to vote absentee in the August 25 municipal elections and the November general election.

The move does not affect any other of Alabama’s strict absentee voting requirements, but could significantly expand the number of people eligible to vote before Election Day. It comes after six weeks of rising coronavirus caseloads and a statewide mask order aimed at controlling the outbreak.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113309&title=%E2%80%9CWant%20to%20vote%20absentee%20in%20Alabama%3F%20COVID-19%20will%20be%20reason%20enough%20for%20general%2C%20municipal%20elections%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Facebook Posts Useless, Even Counterproductive, Notice Below Trump’s Latest False Posts About Mail In Voting Fraud<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113307>
Posted on July 21, 2020 7:50 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113307> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

As I explained on Twitter<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1285585850508603394?s=20>:
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113307&title=Facebook%20Posts%20Useless%2C%20Even%20Counterproductive%2C%20Notice%20Below%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Latest%20False%20Posts%20About%20Mail%20In%20Voting%20Fraud>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>


“NC just changed election rules to expand early voting. Why GOP leaders say it’s unfair.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113305>
Posted on July 21, 2020 7:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113305> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

McClatchy<https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article244311942.html>:

Early voting sites should be easier to find in this fall’s elections, at least in North Carolina’s biggest cities, because of an order issued by the N.C. State Board of Elections on Friday.

North Carolina Republicans say the change to statewide voting rules is just a partisan ploy to help Democrats, but state officials say it’s necessary to help protect voters against coronavirus.

The order<https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/Orders/Executive%20Director%20Orders/Emergency%20Order_2020-07-17.pdf> came as Democrats have been criticizing the long lines people have had to wait in to vote — especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic — that made national news earlier this summer in Georgia and Wisconsin
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113305&title=%E2%80%9CNC%20just%20changed%20election%20rules%20to%20expand%20early%20voting.%20Why%20GOP%20leaders%20say%20it%E2%80%99s%20unfair.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“A Company Backs a Cause. It Funds a Politician Who Doesn’t. What Gives?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113303>
Posted on July 21, 2020 7:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113303> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT Dealbook<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/business/dealbook/corporate-political-donations.html>:

Walmart calls its employees “heroes”<https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2020/05/06/doug-mcmillon-how-the-pandemic-will-change-the-retail-industry-and-the-world> for putting their health at risk to work during the pandemic. AT&T champions L.G.B.T.Q. rights<https://watch.att.com/lgbtq/share-your-truth/>. Microsoft is undertaking one of the country’s most ambitious corporate efforts to eliminate its carbon emissions<https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/>.

At a time when Corporate America is speaking up on some of the most important issues of our time, there is a contradiction between companies’ words today and the role they played in helping create the moment we find ourselves in.

An examination of political spending over the past decade shows how those companies — and dozens of other Fortune 500 corporations — quietly funded political efforts that are antithetical to their public stances. They financed state attorneys general seeking to undo the Affordable Care Act, which has provided health insurance for millions of Americans during the pandemic; they provided funds that backed local legislators who tried to roll back L.G.B.T.Q. rights; and they gave money that supported candidates challenging federal climate change initiatives.

Uniquely, public companies are the biggest benefactors of key political committees supporting the campaigns, donating more than individuals or other groups.

The analysis <https://politicalaccountability.net/hifi/files/Conflicted-Consequences.pdf> of donations by the Center for Political Accountability, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political disclosures, reveals many of the contradictions: Walmart is among the companies that donated money to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which supported a group of state attorneys general including Ken Paxton of Texas, who was narrowly re-elected in 2018 and is now leading a group of Republican-run states in a Supreme Court case that seeks to overturn key aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113303&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Company%20Backs%20a%20Cause.%20It%20Funds%20a%20Politician%20Who%20Doesn%E2%80%99t.%20What%20Gives%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


--
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/20200722/3a719dca/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/20200722/3a719dca/attachment.png>