[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/24/20

[Rick Hasen]

“How to safeguard against the worst possible outcomes in November”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113392>
Posted on July 23, 2020 9:09 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113392> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Ignatius WaPo column<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-safeguard-against-the-worst-possible-outcomes-in-november/2020/07/23/4352d422-cd23-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html>:

What can U.S. citizens do to help protect the integrity of our November presidential election, after President Trump’s refusal last Sunday<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-with-president-trump> to pledge he’ll accept the outcome and his unfounded claims that the election could be “rigged”?

Be prepared, is the obvious first requirement. Knowing there’s likely to be a challenge to November’s results, state election officials should work diligently to provide safe and secure ways to count the votes, in-person and absentee. The coronavirus<https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/28/what-you-need-know-about-coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3> pandemic makes this planning harder — and more essential.

Be patient, is the second obligation. It may take a week after the Nov. 3 vote to confirm a reliable national tally. Partisans on both sides will be tempted to mount raucous demonstrations while the tense vote count continues. But that would play into Trump’s hands. As the country moves toward a possible political transition, law and order — and their essential companion, justice — will be the people’s friend….

The good news is that election-security experts have been working hard for months to prepare for November. Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, chairs an ad hoc committee that published a report<https://www.law.uci.edu/news/press-releases/2020/fair-elections-report.html> in April that included 14 practical recommendations for legal, political, media and technology preparations to foster election security. Hasen published a book on the problem earlier this year: “Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust and the Threat to Democracy<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300248199/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thewaspos09-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0300248199&linkId=069739dd8e7df28b1633e0e5436227c8>.”

Hasen said in an email Thursday that since the group’s report, “Lots of states have ramped up capacity to handle absentee ballots . . . and many are working on plans to run safe in-person polling places in the fall.” At least 76 percent of American voters will be able to cast mail-in ballots in November, The Post reported<https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/vote-by-mail-states/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11> Thursday. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have made recent changes to make voting by mail easier, according to The Post.

More states should adopt contingency plans in case of disruptions on Election Day, Hasen urged. “What if there’s a cyberattack that cuts the power in a city? What if the machines malfunction? States need to have back-up systems ready in case of election emergencies.” And the media should educate the public about the likelihood of delayed counting, with so many absentee ballots. “There need to be people speaking out if anyone tries to claim victory early,” he said in the email.

State and local election supervisors take their jobs seriously, but voters need to make sure their state authorities are ready for an avalanche of absentee ballots in November. Ballot places and counting centers need enough money, people and equipment to operate smoothly. The time to monitor this — and fix any problems — is now.

Because Trump has already signaled that he’ll raise vote-fraud issues, independent monitors and fact checkers should get ready now to weigh unsubstantiated claims that results have been manipulated. And state election officials should plan how to counter misinformation that might spread on social media, advises Hasen.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113392&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20safeguard%20against%20the%20worst%20possible%20outcomes%20in%20November%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Biden predicts that Trump will try to ‘indirectly steal’ the election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113390>
Posted on July 23, 2020 9:00 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113390> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-predicts-that-trump-will-try-to-indirectly-steal-the-election/2020/07/23/cc55fe98-cd3c-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics>

Joe Biden<https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/candidates/joe-biden/?itid=lk_inline_manual_1> on Thursday night warned donors that President Trump will try to “indirectly steal” the 2020 election by making a case against mail-in ballots, a voting method that many are expected to use to avoid exposure to the coronavirus<https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/28/what-you-need-know-about-coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_1> during November’s election.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee asked donors attending a virtual event to spread the word that “this president is going to try to indirectly steal the election by arguing that mail-in ballots don’t work.”

Trump will present mail-in ballots as fraud by making the argument that “they’re not real, they’re not fair,” Biden said.

During an appearance in June on “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah,”<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-warns-that-president-trump-is-going-to-try-to-steal-this-election/2020/06/11/a48f88cc-ab98-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html?arc404=true&itid=lk_inline_manual_5> Biden had previously warned that Trump might “try to steal” the election. He has also said that Trump might try to delay the election and that the president might not leave the White House voluntarily if he does lose.

Biden’s remarks on Thursday offered the most detail about how he believes Trump might unfairly influence the outcome of the presidential contest. Biden’s campaign has mounted an aggressive voter-access effort, including hiring a team of lawyers to challenge any irregularities.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113390&title=%E2%80%9CBiden%20predicts%20that%20Trump%20will%20try%20to%20%E2%80%98indirectly%20steal%E2%80%99%20the%20election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Michigan COVID Initiative Case Ends with a Whimper, Withdrawn at SCOTUS, Dismissed Below<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113387>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:51 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113387> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michigan withdraws<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A1/148555/20200723172044902_20A1%20Whitmer%20v.%20SawariMedia%20Withdrawal%20of%20Emergency%20Application.pdf> its request for emergency relief at the Supreme Court after plaintiffs dismiss their case with prejudice. Why? It appears<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/mich-declaration.pdf> that the plaintiffs inadvertently misrepresented how much signature gathering they had been able to do.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113387&title=Michigan%20COVID%20Initiative%20Case%20Ends%20with%20a%20Whimper%2C%20Withdrawn%20at%20SCOTUS%2C%20Dismissed%20Below>
Posted in direct democracy<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Ranking Member Davis Sends Ten Oversight Election Letters To Problematic Localities”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113385>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:29 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113385> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:<https://republicans-cha.house.gov/media/press-releases/ranking-member-davis-sends-ten-oversight-election-letters-problematic>

 Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) today exercised the committee’s oversight role of federal elections by seeking to engage with localities where significant issues occurred during recent primaries and where voters are likely to face significant hurdles to vote this November. Davis sent letters to ten different localities across the country seeking information regarding issues reported in recent primaries and other election administration violations.

Letters were sent to the following localities: City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Fulton County, Georgia; Harris County, Texas; Los Angeles County, California; Multnomah County, Oregon; New York City, New York; Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; Champaign County, Illinois; and City of Chicago, Illinois.

“Under Democrats’ control, this committee has seemed to forget one of its core responsibilities and that’s oversight of federal elections,” said Davis. “It’s not passing sweeping legislation to federalize our elections, it’s providing oversight of states and localities who run our elections. Today, Republicans on this committee are exercising this important oversight role by engaging with localities where we saw significant issues in recent primaries and where the risk of disenfranchising voters is great if changes are not made before November. States and local election officials are moving quickly to adapt to running elections during the middle of a pandemic and I want to make sure we are providing them the help and guidance they need to run a successful election this fall.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113385&title=%E2%80%9CRanking%20Member%20Davis%20Sends%20Ten%20Oversight%20Election%20Letters%20To%20Problematic%20Localities%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Eighth Circuit Reverses in Arkansas Initiative Qualification Case, Holding Trial Court Should Not Have Lessened Requirements Due to COVID-19: Weird Ideas about “Severe Burdens”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113383>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:26 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113383> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Opinion here. <https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/07/202095P.pdf> A snippet:

Robert Allen is a registered voter in Arkansas undergoing chemotherapy to treat his stage IV bladder cancer. With the exception of medical appointments, Allen’s doctors advised him to stay home and limit in-person contact to his wife and healthcare workers. Adella Gray is a registered voter living in an Arkansas retirement community with over 400 other residents, all of whom, including Gray, are particularly vulnerable to COVID–19 because of their age. Both Allen and Gray want to sign AVF’s initiative petition but claim they cannot comply with Arkansas’s in-person signature requirement without putting their health and the health of others at serious risk. This, they claim, prevents an AVF canvasser, like Bonnie Miller, from safely soliciting their signatures….

Even absent section 7-9-103(a)(1)(B), however, one can imagine relatively simple ways for individuals like Allen and Gray to safely comply with the in-person signature requirement during the COVID–19 pandemic. As Arkansas illustrates in its brief, for example, AVF can advertise its petition using traditional and social media and bring the sterilized petition to Allen’s and Gray’s homes where it can be safely transferred with little to no contact. No doubt, the in-person signature requirement imposes real burdens. We are just not persuaded it imposes severe burdens. Strict scrutiny is therefore not applicable.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113383&title=Eighth%20Circuit%20Reverses%20in%20Arkansas%20Initiative%20Qualification%20Case%2C%20Holding%20Trial%20Court%20Should%20Not%20Have%20Lessened%20Requirements%20Due%20to%20COVID-19%3A%20Weird%20Ideas%20about%20%E2%80%9CSevere%20Burdens%E2%80%9D>
Posted in direct democracy<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>


Oregon: “Ninth Circuit Denies Motion to Keep Redistricting Reform off the 2020 Ballot”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113380>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:16 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113380> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today declined to halt implementation<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUV5n9bE9kcaciJw1OkcBq889Ql4sZZoTJcgErq2UI2gd66MRKH8sRA9AFXaPLYGnw-2BJx0f7g-2Ffr8Hdjnpfg7LlgMTKS8bIb-2Bisrx5RBHxfG-2B3n7wsmgXZAoIlNReADdlLM6WY8v1C15UWALfht1no28-3DC602_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9WZc7IppvDsDVoWuv2w9O5jUd7018-2B2VbooSK9HkWHQUmDZSJ1ompZ-2BeG0LUtsipRyXBxRtRc053T05nLJxkekBMHjEBqVk-2BPhc91Z7scFCZLGZpSUUN6MoIsIjhTFo-2FP4ry4igia4gntPk4S4dwhK6LdBsA5Rg15MeqJlOC13eRdLDlRhP4SgVFQeiTx7ls4OV-2F7K0bfCXFugZkAlTwf6NTIDe5c-2BVGEs8I9w2JiEa1J6mFRczzqM6vTr4SuZGpKE-3D> of a Federal District Court decision, in People Not Politicians Oregon v. Clarno, giving redistricting reform advocates more time to gather signatures with a lower signature threshold to place Initiative Petition 57 (IP 57) on Oregon’s 2020 November ballot. ///

On July 10, 2020, Judge Michael J. McShane issued a preliminary order<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUV5n9bE9kcaciJw1OkcBq889Ql4sZZoTJcgErq2UI2gd66MRKH8sRA9AFXaPLYGnwwLPtlr9UyWgg4j-2BfsTNgcie3iStzQrEUxmDOJRrppb67oHVTXamlrQ37xDUP8umqQ-3D-3Dy9M6_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9WZc7IppvDsDVoWuv2w9O5jUd7018-2B2VbooSK9HkWHQUmDZSJ1ompZ-2BeG0LUtsipRyXBxRtRc053T05nLJxkekBwCSQ7uGGkR0bcdnTgT48GnVzagTdU2-2BHFVF2OJzQOU631pl2W7ZdoHCpN-2BceSmYZj8FjUX34VbZ97F3lhqIzMc5OiraAKmI7Qx8fVMTWOM3k5AMC-2FDkAHxWNbgGkCJR-2F9b-2FgK5oZZg9wG-2B9viZK5k5kToT40ocopGf7VKcsUV20-3D> stating that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their claim that the Oregon Secretary of State Bev Clarno’s strict enforcement of the signature-gathering requirements duringthe ongoing pandemic unconstitutionally burdened the rights of the People Not Politicians<https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUeR5k3poeFQM7Z-2BHLODPedO-2B26DoMoaNh6b4pZXtXmkR-2BuWi5BryoE26eoQE7xYyEg-3D-3DHzA5_LYw3uDP5U2cmeBBe07KqI8AzZYA0AXw8fCnkHEVTP6CkfRLHjg1cuOsDjSq4rOK2frZFOU9MKjFaw4dPHVdUzeE1pYlmhF6fDBaKBZuSK9WZc7IppvDsDVoWuv2w9O5jUd7018-2B2VbooSK9HkWHQUmDZSJ1ompZ-2BeG0LUtsipRyXBxRtRc053T05nLJxkekB0un8uMQWwfO6-2BI27a4OePFN7aQxbD339hpnfoXsfq0HyVhYveoM8joQwXTNrW2YB1U1ZNDWmPUB0P0v6O7Nhwnpsy4UuuJ3KD0Fo-2BUk9vRoZeXrqrmur-2FvI6eR3lTqK3Pe6Lpgbpalm-2BWnS7xwmWOsnO0vNIJTlfattVC4hXMSo-3D> campaign. Judge McShane ordered Secretary Clarno to choose between placing IP 57 on the ballot based on the approximately 64,000 signatures already collected or extending the deadline to August 17, 2020 and lowering the threshold to 58,789 verified signatures. Secretary Clarno chose the deadline extension and lower threshold. Despite the Secretary’s declaration that her office would not appeal the ruling, Oregon’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit requesting a stay of the District Court decision while the Ninth Circuit considers the case on its merits.

The Ninth Circuit denied Oregon’s DOJ motion today.

Judge Callahan dissented<https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-0723-Ninth-Circuit-Denial-of-Stay-Request.pdf>. Interesting footnote: “I similarly dissented from the denial of a stay motion in Reclaim Idaho v. Little, 20-35584. See Reclaim Idaho v. Little, 20-35584, CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 14 (July 9, 2020). Local press incorrectly reported that the Court’s denial in that case was unanimous. See Nathan Brown, Reclaim Idaho to resume signature
gathering on school funding initiative, POST REGISTER (July 9, 2020),
https://www.postregister.com/news/education/reclaim-idaho-to-resume-signaturegathering-on-school-funding-initiative/article_b548b864-aaf5-5702-a5eaf6769621fd17.html.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113380&title=Oregon%3A%20%E2%80%9CNinth%20Circuit%20Denies%20Motion%20to%20Keep%20Redistricting%20Reform%20off%20the%202020%20Ballot%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Ex-congressman from Abscam scandal faces new vote-buying charges”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113378>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:13 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113378> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ex-congressman-from-abscam-scandal-faces-new-vote-buying-charges/2020/07/23/f59bbc4a-ccf4-11ea-91f1-28aca4d833a0_story.html>:

An ex-congressman once convicted as part of the infamous Abscam investigation in the 1980s is facing new corruption charges for allegedly bribing a Philadelphia elections official to stuff ballot boxes.

Michael “Ozzie” Myers, who was famously caught on a hidden FBI microphone years ago declaring “money talks in this business and bulls— walks,” was charged with conspiring to violate voting rights, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in the same election and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors say Myers, 77, conspired to bribe a former election division judge, who has already pleaded guilty in the case….

Myers allegedly bribed the local elections judge to illegally add votes for Democratic candidates in primary elections. Myers has worked for years as a political consultant to judicial candidates, and the indictment alleges that he paid bribes to deliver more votes for his clients, as well as other candidates he favored.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113378&title=%E2%80%9CEx-congressman%20from%20Abscam%20scandal%20faces%20new%20vote-buying%20charges%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, vote buying<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>


“Why COVID-19 Threatens Student Votes in California”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113376>
Posted on July 23, 2020 8:09 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113376> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KQED reports.<https://www.kqed.org/news/11829370/why-covid-19-threatens-student-votes-in-california>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113376&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20COVID-19%20Threatens%20Student%20Votes%20in%20California%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


Race-Blind Redistricting and Minority Representation<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113372>
Posted on July 23, 2020 12:22 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113372> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>

I linked yesterday to my forthcoming article<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3658671> with Jowei Chen on the implications of race-blind redistricting. In this post, I thought I’d provide some additional detail about our methods and findings. First, to conduct a non-racial line-drawing process, we used a computer algorithm like the ones featured in several recent gerrymandering cases. For each state we examined (we analyzed nineteen in total), we instructed the algorithm as follows: (1) don’t use racial data; (2) don’t use partisan data; and (3) match or beat the enacted plan in terms of population equality, compactness, county splits, and municipality splits. The algorithm relied on the “recombination”<https://mggg.org/uploads/ReCom.pdf> MCMC method and generated 1000 distinct state house maps for each state.

Next, we compared the numbers of minority opportunity districts (districts where minority voters are able to elect their preferred candidates) in the simulated maps to the volume of these districts in each enacted plan. In most (though not all) states we considered, the enacted plan includes more opportunity districts than most of the simulated maps. Take Alabama, for example, alphabetically the first state in our dataset. As displayed below, there are 27 African American opportunity districts in the enacted plan. In the simulated maps, in contrast, black opportunity districts number anywhere from 18 to 27 with a median and mode of 23. The most common outcome of a race-blind redistricting process, in other words, is four fewer black opportunity districts—and four fewer black-preferred candidates elected to the legislature—than now exist.
[cid:image002.png at 01D66137.7A7F7FC0]

We further investigated the kinds (not just the numbers) of opportunity districts in the enacted plans and simulated maps. In most (though again not all) states in our dataset, the enacted plan’s opportunity districts tend to have larger minority populations than the corresponding opportunity districts in the simulated maps. Consider the below chart of Alabama’s enacted and simulated state house districts, sorted by the proportion of voters supporting the prevailing party who are African American. Almost all the enacted opportunity districts (indicated by red stars) have bigger—often much bigger—shares of black Democrats than the matching simulated opportunity districts (denoted by gray stars). Put another way, the enacted plan’s opportunity districts considerably overconcentrate black Democrats compared to the opportunity districts that emerge from a race-blind redistricting process.
[cid:image003.png at 01D66137.7A7F7FC0]

The implication of these results is that minority representation in American government would change significantly if district lines were drawn on a non-racial basis. (Non-racial redistricting has been proposed by Judge Easterbrook in a 2008 case<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1375584.html>, and may be on the Supreme Court’s agenda, too.) In particular, there would be fewer opportunity districts and so fewer minority candidates of choice elected. The opportunity districts that did arise from a race-blind line-drawing process would also be less heavily packed with minority voters.

Tomorrow I’ll switch gears from minority to partisan representation, and say a few words about how the major parties would be affected by a move from race-conscious to race-blind redistricting.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113372&title=Race-Blind%20Redistricting%20and%20Minority%20Representation>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Derek Mueller on Bush v. Gore and the Electoral Count Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113369>
Posted on July 23, 2020 11:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113369> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

In this short piece<https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3620140&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_law:society:public:law:constitutional:law:ejournal_abstractlink>, Derek Mueller makes an important point: the Supreme Court did not hold, in Bush v. Gore, that the Electoral Count Act mandates that all state counting or recounting processes in the presidential election must end by the so-called “safe harbor” date in the Act. Instead, the Court (rightly or wrongly) interpreted Florida law, as construed by the Florida Supreme Court, as reflecting a state policy that such processes end in Florida by that date.

Derek points out that lower federal courts are mistakenly taking Bush v. Gore as holding that the federal Act mandates the state voting process to be complete by the “safe harbor” date (this year, Dec. 14th). Given the likely volume of absentee ballots this fall and the delay in counting them, it’s possible that in some states the process will bump up against this date. I’ve urged, along with others, that Congress move back this date in light of that. But especially if Congress does not do that, it’s important that Derek has clarified this point well in advance of any context in which it might become significant.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113369&title=Derek%20Mueller%20on%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%20and%20the%20Electoral%20Count%20Act>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Democracy by Deterrence: Strategic Self-Entrenchment in U.S. Elections”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113366>
Posted on July 23, 2020 9:38 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113366> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gretchen Helmke, Mary Kroeger, and Jack Paine have posted this new draft paper<http://nebula.wsimg.com/ceab279eb94f62526740c2fadc1402d9?AccessKeyId=FD7670AEAE23BB8C3DAE&disposition=0&alloworigin=1>. Here is the abstract:

If politicians and their political parties generally want to stay in power, why would they ever forgo using anti-democratic tactics to win elections? We analyze a game-theoretic model to explain democracy by deterrence, which specifies how fear of retaliation by the opposition party can check the incumbent party, as well as describes the conditions for deterrence to break down. In our dynamic model, party leaders can strategically tilt electoral rules to their advantage. Asymmetric legal opportunities emergent in the constitutional order that enable a party to legally target certain groups of voters, combined with high partisan sorting, activate a party’s incentives for self-entrenchment. This mechanism does not require that politicians have short time horizons, nor that parties differ in anti-democratic sentiments. We apply this framework to illuminate the dynamics of gerrymandering and voter suppression, two key areas of contemporary American electoral politics that threaten fundamental democratic principles.

More about the paper here<https://sites.uw.edu/uwpoliticaleconomy/2020/07/02/paine-helmke-kroeger-on-whether-democracy-is-failing-in-the-u-s/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113366&title=%E2%80%9CDemocracy%20by%20Deterrence%3A%20Strategic%20Self-Entrenchment%20in%20U.S.%20Elections%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Democrats preparing for ‘nightmare scenario’ in which Trump challenges election results”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113364>
Posted on July 23, 2020 9:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113364> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reuters reports.<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-contested-democrats/if-trump-challenges-election-results-democrats-are-prepared-to-fight-idUSKCN24O184>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113364&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20preparing%20for%20%E2%80%98nightmare%20scenario%E2%80%99%20in%20which%20Trump%20challenges%20election%20results%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“New York’s Primary-Vote-Count Chaos Signals Trouble for November”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113362>
Posted on July 23, 2020 9:24 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=113362> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jeff Toobin<https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/new-yorks-primary-vote-count-chaos-signals-trouble-for-november> for The New Yorker.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D113362&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20York%E2%80%99s%20Primary-Vote-Count%20Chaos%20Signals%20Trouble%20for%20November%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/20200724/3f5b2a2e/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/20200724/3f5b2a2e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 220260 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200724/3f5b2a2e/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 81287 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200724/3f5b2a2e/attachment-0002.png>