[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/21/20

[Rick Hasen]

“The Lessons of the Elections of 1918; A nation ravaged by the Spanish flu figured out how to vote back then. Not without incident, but with democracy intact.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110160>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110160> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/1918-flu-pandemic-elections.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110160&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Lessons%20of%20the%20Elections%20of%201918%3B%20%20A%20nation%20ravaged%20by%20the%20Spanish%20flu%20figured%20out%20how%20to%20vote%20back%20then.%20Not%20without%20incident%2C%20but%20with%20democracy%20intact.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Mail voting could secure the November election. But can election officials make it happen in time?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110158>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110158> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mail-voting-could-secure-the-november-election-but-can-election-officials-make-it-happen-in-time/2020/03/20/9fedc2ea-69f1-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html>

The rapidly escalating coronavirus<https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/02/28/what-you-need-know-about-coronavirus/?tid=lk_inline_manual_2&itid=lk_inline_manual_2> pandemic has forced election officials to consider a sobering reality: The crisis could run headlong into November’s presidential election, and revamping America’s voting systems before then could be difficult and in some cases impossible.

Even as they postpone upcoming primaries, state and local officials are racing to find longer-term solutions to ensure that the public can safely vote on Nov. 3. While there is growing consensus that voting by mail is the safest way to cast ballots during a pandemic, implementing that system across the country is a huge undertaking that may not be possible, particularly in states where it is limited by law.

In the past week, elections officials have been swapping advice on what it would take: enormous orders of printed ballots and envelopes, high-speed scanners capable of counting the returns and in some cases constitutional amendments to lift restrictions on who may vote by mail — and hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it all….

“We have time to prepare, now, to ensure that these elections can take place, fairly, under any circumstances, and even if public health concerns prevent people from going to the polling booths to vote,” wrote more than 300 academics in an open letter to Congress<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSceYvQht71xf4Gb364HkqFXNKxD9R_KU0sTYerBIwK2gkfgsA/viewform?fbclid=IwAR3uIShIZ-aEDncvbvMakJCU2wLScNGKgf_did_mfuRQ0w9rfx-sI9r9F4s>. “In the entire history of the United States, there has never been a missed election.”

The group is urging Congress to establish national standards for preparing and modifying polling places, expanding early and mail-in voting, expanding online voter registration and educating voters.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced a new version of a bill this week that would require mail-in balloting and early in-person voting to be offered in every state, and would provide hundreds of millions in assistance for states to implement the changes.

“This country has a great tradition of being able to move really quick when our values are on the line, and I don’t know what’s more valuable than the right to vote,” Wyden, whose state pioneered mail voting in 1998, said in an interview this week.

So far, however, Republicans have not indicated support for the bill.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110158&title=%E2%80%9CMail%20voting%20could%20secure%20the%20November%20election.%20But%20can%20election%20officials%20make%20it%20happen%20in%20time%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Mike Bloomberg transfers his campaign assets to Democratic Party to fight President Trump in swing states”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110156>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:34 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110156> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-transfers-his-campaign-assets-to-democratic-party-to-fight-president-trump-in-swing-states/2020/03/20/43c62d60-6927-11ea-b313-df458622c2cc_story.html>

Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to donate significant components of his shuttered presidential campaign to the Democratic Party, a historic bequest that includes an $18 million cash infusion to organize for the general election in swing states.

The decision, which exploits a provision in campaign finance law available only to federal candidates, amounts to a shift in strategy for the billionaire political activist, who had previously promised<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-plans-new-group-to-support-democratic-nominee/2020/03/05/a2522c44-5f13-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_2&itid=lk_inline_manual_2> to personally fund ground staff and offices in six states through an independent expenditure effort.

He now hopes that much of the same operation will be run through the state and national Democratic Party, which would allow for it to directly coordinate with the Democratic nominee, whom he expects to be former vice president Joe Biden<https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/candidates/joe-biden/?tid=lk_inline_manual_3&itid=lk_inline_manual_3>. An independent expenditure campaign is barred from such coordination….

Under normal circumstances, federal rules allow individuals to give a maximum of $355,000 per year to the DNC. The party has set up a Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with state parties, that allows wealthy individuals to give $865,000 in one year. Bloomberg has already<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-wants-to-be-president-but-he-also-has-a-fallback-plan-defeat-donald-trump-and-remake-the-democratic-party/2020/01/12/8ebe580e-3346-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_19&itid=lk_inline_manual_19> donated the maximum allowed to this account.AD

But the new shift of resources means he is able to give more than 20 times the maximum a donor can give to the national party in one year, because of provisions that allow federal candidates to donate unlimited amounts of leftover money to national and state parties as they wind down their campaigns. This has effectively given Bloomberg a super-donor status because he self-funded his White House bid.

Campaign finance experts said such a mass transfer of personal money was uncharted territory.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110156&title=%E2%80%9CMike%20Bloomberg%20transfers%20his%20campaign%20assets%20to%20Democratic%20Party%20to%20fight%20President%20Trump%20in%20swing%20states%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


“Amid the coronavirus pandemic, a federal judge has reinstated online voter registration in Wisconsin”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110154>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:24 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110154> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/20/amid-coronavirus-judge-revives-wisconsins-online-voter-registration/2885699001/>

A federal judge reinstated Wisconsin’s online voter registration system late Friday to help people find ways to participate in the April 7 presidential election amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Wisconsin stopped allowing people to use the state’s online voter registration system Wednesday in accordance with a state law that limits online registration just ahead of an election. But U.S. District Judge William Conley ruled that the online portal must be put back in place because of the coronavirus outbreak that has disrupted everyday activities around the globe.

Conley, for now, declined to grant other requests made by the Democratic National Committee and the state Democratic Party, such as allowing absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive after election day. Conley raised the possibility in his 21-page ruling that he would allow that practice in a subsequent decision in the coming weeks.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110154&title=%E2%80%9CAmid%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic%2C%20a%20federal%20judge%20has%20reinstated%20online%20voter%20registration%20in%20Wisconsin%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Election limbo as coronavirus outbreak upends US primaries”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110152>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:19 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110152> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<https://news.yahoo.com/election-limbo-coronavirus-outbreak-upends-122758257.html>:

U.S. elections have been upended by the coronavirus<https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak> pandemic. At least 13 states have postponed voting and more delays are possible as health officials warn that social distancing and other measures to contain the virus might be in place for weeks, if not months.

The states that have yet to hold their primaries find themselves in a seemingly impossible situation as they look to balance public health concerns with the need to hold elections. While election officials routinely prepare for natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires, the virus outbreak poses a unique challenge.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110152&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20limbo%20as%20coronavirus%20outbreak%20upends%20US%20primaries%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Kentucky Republicans quietly tighten voter restrictions as US focuses on Covid-19”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110150>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:03 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110150> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sam Levine<https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-republicans-quietly-tighten-voter-194357881.html>:

As states around the country enacted emergency measures to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus, Kentucky lawmakers quietly tightened and approved<https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/19/voter-photo-id-bill-passes-legislature-head-gov-andy-beshear/2881374001/> a new photo identification requirement that would make it harder to vote.

Lawmakers eliminated<https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/20RS/SB2/FCCR1.pdf> a “catch-all” provision that allowed voters to give their own reason for being unable to obtain acceptable identification if they signed an affidavit swearing they were unable to obtain acceptable identification, according to Joshua Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky, who said he had reviewed the changes. Now voters have to provide one of the specific and approved reasons for lacking ID to vote. The legislators also tweaked the law so that IDs from other states were not acceptable.

Kentucky’s secretary of state, Michael Adams, a Republican, praised the measure in a statement. He noted that the bill would allow anyone who did not have an ID to get one for nothing and allowed people to vote if a poll worker recognized them. “I ran for this office to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” he said.

The lawmakers made the changes in a committee days after Kentucky’s governor, Andy Beshear, a Democrat, closed the state capitol to the public over coronavirus concerns. DMV offices, one of the most common places people would obtain a photo ID throughout the state are also closed as Kentucky deals with 47 cases of Covid-19 thus far<https://www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article241343376.html>. The Kentucky primary is scheduled to take place on 23 June (the state postponed it from 19 May amid the coronavirus outbreak) and the deadline to register is 20 April.

“It’s absurd,” Douglas, who has advised Adams on the legislation, said of the timing of the changes. “It makes me question how much the legislature really care about the Kentucky voters.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110150&title=%E2%80%9CKentucky%20Republicans%20quietly%20tighten%20voter%20restrictions%20as%20US%20focuses%20on%20Covid-19%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


Expanded Zuberi Allegations Show Problem of Foreign Influence in US Elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110148>
Posted on March 21, 2020 1:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110148> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mother Jones:<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/this-is-how-america-work-mind-boggling-new-allegations-about-a-donor-to-trumps-inauguration/>

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles this week described a dizzying array of secret foreign lobbying by a major donor to both political parties—a new twist in a case that could reveal whether there were foreign efforts to funnel money to President Donald Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee.“The Zuberi case explicitly verifies through evidentiary proof pervasive, corrupt foreign interference with our elections and policy-making processes.”

The donor, Imaad Zuberi, is a longtime Democratic backer who began lavishing funds on Republicans after Trump’s surprise 2016 electoral victory. His largesse included a $900,000 contribution to Trump’s inaugural committee. Zuberi agreed<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/imaad-zuberi-trump-inauguration-donor-foreign-influence-campaign-charges-los-angeles/> in October to plead guilty to tax evasion, to filing phony foreign agent registration materials, and to making almost $1 million in illegal campaign contributions, much of it secretly put up by foreign entities and people hoping to influence US politics. In their initial filings, prosecutors identified by name only one country, Sri Lanka, for which Zuberi had illegally lobbied. But in a new filing Tuesday that argues for Zuberi to receive significant prison time, prosecutors detailed his secret work for Turkey, Libyan officials, a businessman from Bahrain, and Dmitry Firtash—a Ukrainian oligarch who was deeply involved<https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/how-an-indicted-oligarch-became-a-key-player-in-trumps-ukraine-scandal/> in Trump’s Ukraine scandal.

Prosecutors say Zuberi’s activities show that the widespread public concern about foreign influence in US elections is warranted. “The Zuberi case explicitly verifies through evidentiary proof pervasive, corrupt foreign interference with our elections and policy-making processes,” prosecutors write, using italics for emphasis.

From 2011 to 2017, Zuberi lavished more than $3 million in campaign contributions on lawmakers in both parties. He supported the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.); and Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), and others. In 2015, he made donations backing Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), then the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a panel from which Zuberi sought various favors. (Engel now chairs the committee; Royce has retired from Congress.) Prosecutors say much of the money Zuberi used for donations came from foreign sources from whom he had solicited these funds—along with millions of dollars in fees—while promising to influence lawmakers on their behalf. There is no evidence members of Congress knew that Zuberi was using foreign funds to make donations.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110148&title=Expanded%20Zuberi%20Allegations%20Show%20Problem%20of%20Foreign%20Influence%20in%20US%20Elections>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Lessons From the Pandemic Primaries”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110146>
Posted on March 21, 2020 12:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110146> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gabrielle Gurley<https://prospect.org/coronavirus/lessons-from-the-pandemic-primaries/> for TAP:

At a minimum, holding elections going forward means that states should organize alternative polling locations; replace older poll workers with public-employee or student volunteers; and make sure that plenty of cleaning supplies are readily available well in advance of Election Day—whenever that happens. “All of this moving of elections makes me very nervous for November,” says Gleason. “The more stability we can provide, the better off we’re going to be.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110146&title=%E2%80%9CLessons%20From%20the%20Pandemic%20Primaries%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Citing coronavirus threat, Texas Democrats sue to expand mail-in voting”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110144>
Posted on March 20, 2020 4:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110144> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Tribune:<https://www.texastribune.org/2020/03/20/citing-coronavirus-threat-texas-democrats-sue-expand-mail-voting/>

Following fruitless negotiations over how to proceed with the upcoming primary runoff elections, Texas Democrats are looking to the courts to push for an expansion of voting by mail in the state.

In a lawsuit filed in Travis County district court<https://www.texasdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-03-20-TDP-et-al-POP-App-for-Temp-Injunction-Perm-Injunction-FINAL-1.pdf> late Friday, the Democrats are asking a judge to declare that a portion of the Texas election code allowing voters to cast a mail-in ballot if they suffer from a disability applies to any voter in Texas “if they believe they should practice social distancing in order to hinder” the spread of the new coronavirus.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Texas Democratic Party and two individual voters who would seek to vote by mail given the state of the coronavirus outbreak.

“Whatever happens from this moment forward with respect to the pandemic, numerous voters, including the two individual Plaintiffs herein, seek to avail themselves of the option of mail-in ballots,” the lawsuit reads. “Similarly, the Texas Democratic Party needs to know how state law permits local election officials to handle such ballots cast in the Texas Democratic Party Runoff Primary Election so the [party] can determine how it desires to proceed in selecting nominees who were facing a runoff.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110144&title=%E2%80%9CCiting%20coronavirus%20threat%2C%20Texas%20Democrats%20sue%20to%20expand%20mail-in%20voting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


Sue Halpern in New Yorker: “Voting in the Time of the Coronavirus”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110142>
Posted on March 20, 2020 3:36 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110142> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New Yorker<https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/voting-in-the-time-of-coronavirus-social-distancing>:

Lately, I’ve been hearing people point out that a Presidential election was held in the midst of the Civil War, which illustrates either the commitment of American voters or the unyielding calendar of our democracy. A pandemic, with its invisible enemy, presents a more miasmic challenge to voting, though. Microbes are indiscriminate: anyone and everyone is susceptible. But, while it is true that public polling places present a threat to public health, it is equally true that not voting is a threat to the health of the Republic. Could Donald Trump, who in the past has “joked” about staying in office past his term, use covid-19 to subvert the electoral process? A recent piece<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/trump-cancel-election-day-constitution-state-electors-coronavirus.html> in Slate lays out a frightening scenario where Trump could, in essence, hijack the Electoral College. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of “Election Meltdown<https://aax-us-east.amazon-adsystem.com/x/c/Qk9r5ctnPWRvwDEhyxpVNEQAAAFw-YKl2AEAAAFKAWziwug/https:/www.amazon.com/Election-Meltdown-Distrust-American-Democracy/dp/0300248199?creativeASIN=0300248199&linkCode=w50&tag=thneyo0f-20&imprToken=1PmBEcG5ewEqK4iZBRRgMA&slotNum=0>,” told me that, in such a scenario, “there would be rioting in the streets.”

The next general election is on November 3rd. Insuring free, fair, and safe elections will require providing everyone the ability to vote without having to step into the public sphere. Hasen’s solution is to give voters the option—though not the obligation—to vote by mail. This is also the goal of new legislation proposed by Senators Ron Wyden, of Oregon, and Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota. Wyden told me, “Every jurisdiction already allows absentee voting for members of the military or people who can’t make it to the polls, so we’re not starting from scratch.” Five states have universal vote-by-mail, and thirty allow voters to request an absentee ballot without having to provide an excuse. Even so, scaling up in time for the November election—Wyden believes we have no more than six months to get there—will present challenges. An earlier bill introduced by Wyden, the Resilient Elections During Quarantines and Natural Disasters Act of 2020, proposes five hundred million dollars in grants to help all fifty states institute mail-in voting. The Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University, estimates the real cost would range from $951 million to $1.4 billion. (The Klobuchar-Wyden bill does not suggest a specific allocation, but Klobuchar told me that Congress should make sure that this transition does not burden the states.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110142&title=Sue%20Halpern%20in%20New%20Yorker%3A%20%E2%80%9CVoting%20in%20the%20Time%20of%20the%20Coronavirus%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“A Pandemic, an Election, and a Census”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110140>
Posted on March 20, 2020 3:29 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110140> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/pandemic-election-and-census> at the Brennan Center.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110140&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Pandemic%2C%20an%20Election%2C%20and%20a%20Census%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Reducing One Source of a Potential Election Meltdown”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110137>
Posted on March 20, 2020 12:50 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110137> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Over at the Lawfare Blog (which is quickly becoming a go-to site for longer than op-ed length pieces on election law and the virus), I’ve posted this <https://www.lawfareblog.com/reducing-one-source-potential-election-meltdown> essay, which addresses one particular risk of mail-in voting.

If Congress or individual States go to all mail-in balloting this fall, it’s important we reduce the risk of large vote shifts occurring well after Election Night. Such shifts, even if the result of fair processes, could in our political climate quickly trigger charges of election manipulation, rigged elections, and worse. The way to reduce this risk is to reduce the number of ballots that cannot be counted until after Election Day. The idea is to reduce the gap between the election night count and the final count—and, in turn, reduce the risk of the perceived legitimacy of the election spinning out of control.

Here is an excerpt:

The first measure should be easy to adopt, yet many critical states have not done so. For absentee or mail-in ballots that arrive before Election Day, states should require the processing of these ballots before the polls close—determining whether the ballots are valid, then opening them and feeding them into scanners, without tabulating the count. The states would then be set up to immediately tabulate these ballots on Election Day and include those numbers in the count released after polls close. Some states sensibly do this already. In California<https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/elections-code/elec-sect-15101.html>, for example, processing these ballots begins up to 20 days before the election; the counting begins up to 10 days before in some jurisdictions or at 5 p.m. the day before the election in other jurisdictions.

But in several critical, large states—which already faced significant numbers of mailed-in ballots, even before the arrival of the virus—laws prohibit even starting to process these ballots before Election Day. . . .

In addition, some states prohibit the return of absentee ballots to polling places or even in-person at all. Those laws should also be changed and doing so should not be controversial. Voters should have the option of returning ballots to polling places, or at the very least, to the relevant election administrative body. That would also reduce the number of ballots that can’t be counted until after Election Day. …

The second measure moves into more controversial terrain. I’ll present the suggestion in a softer and a stricter form. Many states treat absentee ballots as valid if they are postmarked (or barcoded) on or before Election Day; this means that states will not be able to begin the processing, let alone the counting, of these ballots until several days after the election. Some states modify this a bit by requiring that the ballots arrive by a set time on Election Day. In the softer form of the proposal, to reduce the number of late-arriving ballots, states and the political parties should make major efforts to encourage voters to send in their absentee ballots well before Election Day, rather than at the last minute. There can be no objection to that.

The stricter form would be to require that mail-in ballots for the presidential election be postmarked (or barcoded) not by the time polls close on Election Day, but three or four days before then. This would be analogous to early voting, another means to make voting more convenient, which typically shuts down a day or more before Election Day to enable smooth administration of the election. …

There are still easy steps to take that reduce the risk of an election that sits unresolved for more than a week, or that involves a blue or red shift that appears to change the outcome. Other steps involve trade-offs. From the vantage point of 2020, the disputed 2000 Bush-Gore election looks like a time of innocence. Given the current political moment, it’s necessary to consider what trade-offs are appropriate to reduce the magnitude of a blue or red shift that would almost certainly destabilize the legitimacy of the election.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110137&title=%E2%80%9CReducing%20One%20Source%20of%20a%20Potential%20Election%20Meltdown%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“We Can’t Let Coronavirus Postpone Elections; Even in war, America has kept up its democratic traditions. We can’t stop now.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110133>
Posted on March 20, 2020 10:50 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110133> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jon Meacham NYT opinion.<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-election-primary-postpone.html?referringSource=articleShare>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110133&title=%E2%80%9CWe%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Let%20Coronavirus%20Postpone%20Elections%3B%20Even%20in%20war%2C%20America%20has%20kept%20up%20its%20democratic%20traditions.%20We%20can%E2%80%99t%20stop%20now.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>



Frank Wilkinson: “Democrats Must Act Now to Protect the Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110131>
Posted on March 20, 2020 8:47 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110131> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Important read<https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-20/coronavirus-imperils-november-election-unless-democrats-act-now?sref=MsfQQ8WD> at Bloomberg View:

With little but uncertainty ahead, Congress and the states must mobilize immediately<https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/on-fox-news-suddenly-a-very-different-tune-about-the-coronavirus/2020/03/16/7a7637cc-678f-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html> to shift the nation to a largely vote-by-mail system by November. There are two obstacles to that goal — one practical, one political. Lurking behind both is the fear that President Donald Trump will seek to disrupt the vote to maintain power, and that Republicans and right-wing media will help him<https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/on-fox-news-suddenly-a-very-different-tune-about-the-coronavirus/2020/03/16/7a7637cc-678f-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html> succeed.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110131&title=Frank%20Wilkinson%3A%20%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Must%20Act%20Now%20to%20Protect%20the%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“Coronavirus Stimulus Package Spurs a Lobbying Gold Rush”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110129>
Posted on March 20, 2020 8:40 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110129> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/us/politics/coronavirus-stimulus-lobbying.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110129&title=%E2%80%9CCoronavirus%20Stimulus%20Package%20Spurs%20a%20Lobbying%20Gold%20Rush%E2%80%9D>
Posted in lobbying<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


--
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/20200321/de287e94/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/20200321/de287e94/attachment.png>