[EL] Election Administrator's Prayer/more news and commentary 11/2/20

[Rick Hasen]

Lord, Let this election not be close. Amen.

Still Not Normal and Deeply Disturbing: President Trump Falsely States That Supreme Court Ruling on Pennsylvania Ballots Will Lead to Cheating and “will also induce violence in the streets”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118099>
Posted on November 2, 2020 6:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118099> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Hidden behind a Twitter warning that “Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process,” President Trump tweeted<https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1323430341512622080> the following:

It is hard to know whether this tweet is more ridiculous or more dangerous.

It is ridiculous because all that the U.S. Supreme Court did was allow the state of Pennsylvania to count ballots that arrive by Nov. 6 if they are postmarked by election day or lack a visible postmark. Many states have much greater deadlines for the receipt of mail-in ballots. In California, it can be 17 days. Even those who think that the U.S. Supreme Court should have rolled the Pennsylvania deadline back to November 3 don’t think it will lead to fraud; the objection has to do with the relative power of the state legislature and the state supreme court applying the state constitution to set election deadlines. There is absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud or cheating that comes from counting ballots in a public process, even if those ballots are counted after election day or arrive after election day.

But it is dangerous because here is the president, on his own, raising the specter of violence. We know stores are boarded up and people are very tense over this election, which both sides tend to view in existential terms. Rather than fan the flames or raise the risk of violence, the President should be calling for all Americans of good faith to come together in the midst of the pandemic and to exercise our sacred franchise.

I don’t expect violence tomorrow night, but Trump’s statements have made things so much worse. It shows you how much the public and media have become worn down and how this has been accepted as relatively normal that this tweet on the eve of the election is not covered in nonstop special reports on every network and news station. If any other President did this, it would surely be. But for Trump, it’s just another in a series of incendiary tweets.

People died for the right to vote and our election administrators and volunteers have worked tirelessly to insure that a record-setting number of Americans can vote safely and securely, even during the pandemic. We should put this despicable tweet to the side, put our heads down, and push forward into assuring we can have a fair election.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118099&title=Still%20Not%20Normal%20and%20Deeply%20Disturbing%3A%20President%20Trump%20Falsely%20States%20That%20Supreme%20Court%20Ruling%20on%20Pennsylvania%20Ballots%20Will%20Lead%20to%20Cheating%20and%20%E2%80%9Cwill%20also%20induce%20violence%20in%20the%20streets%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


District Court Written Ruling in Texas Drive-Thru Case Now Available as Plaintiffs Appeal to Fifth Circuit; Court Leaves Door Slightly Open to Another Court Throwing Out Drive-Thru Ballots Cast *on* Election Day<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118097>
Posted on November 2, 2020 6:28 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118097> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the order in two <https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1323442787774275584?s=20> parts<https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1323442925855035393/photo/1>. The reasoning was primarily about lack of standing and laches<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117751> in bringing suit, something I anticipated<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117889> would play a great role in this case: defendants knew this voting was going on for months, sat on their hands, while 120,000 Harris County voters relied upon a lawful means of voting. The public interest heavily favors letting people who are legally entitled to vote not to be disenfranchised.

The case is now on appeal at the 5th Circuit (No. 20-20574) where I expect the case to similarly fail.

There is one wrinkle that gives me pause. District Court Judge Hanen opined that state law authorization for voting ON election day using drive thru voting is illegal under Texas Law even if pre-election day voting was allowed. He only rejected an injunction as to election day because of the standing problems. He did not appear to order that ballots cast in drive-thru on election day be segregated, as seemed possible from the oral report of the hearing.

It’s unlikely drive-thru votes on election day would not be accepted, but it is at least conceivable that the 5th Circuit or another court could order drive-thru ballots segregated for further legal proceedings. For this reason, I would strongly caution against using this method of voting on Election Day.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118097&title=District%20Court%20Written%20Ruling%20in%20Texas%20Drive-Thru%20Case%20Now%20Available%20as%20Plaintiffs%20Appeal%20to%20Fifth%20Circuit%3B%20Court%20Leaves%20Door%20Slightly%20Open%20to%20Another%20Court%20Throwing%20Out%20Drive-Thru%20Ballots%20Cast%20*on*%20Election%20Day>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>


“Trump ‘army’ of poll watchers led by veteran of fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118095>
Posted on November 2, 2020 5:02 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118095> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP<https://www.startribune.com/trump-army-of-poll-watchers-led-by-veteran-of-fraud-claims/572953542/>:

A veteran Republican operative who got his start in politics by helping to persuade a judge to throw out hundreds of mail-in ballots is organizing an “army” of volunteers for President Donald Trump’s campaign to monitor voting in Democratic-leaning areas on Tuesday.

Mike Roman, Trump’s director of Election Day Operations, is a former White House aide from Pennsylvania who gathered claims in 1993 of voter fraud, resulting in a court ruling overturning election results and getting his candidate seated in the Pennsylvania State Senate.

It’s a strategy that Trump has been advocating on Twitter and on the stump.

For months the president has been trying to undercut the validity of mail-in ballots, a long-used method of voting that was up this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the last week, Trump has also suggested that any votes tabulated after Election Day are suspect, even as his campaign has opposed plans by elections officials to start counting mail-in ballots early.

Roman, who previously ran the secretive in-house intelligence unit for the political network led by GOP mega-donors Charles and David Koch, has organized a purported 50,000 poll watchers, many of them through an “Army For Trump” website that asks his supporters to “enlist” in his reelection fight. The campaign also has hired full-time staff in at least 11 battleground states to organize the effort, several of them young lawyers.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118095&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20%E2%80%98army%E2%80%99%20of%20poll%20watchers%20led%20by%20veteran%20of%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“What Will TV and Social Networks Do If Trump Prematurely Declares Victory?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118093>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118093> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brian Stelter<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/media/tv-networks-election-night-victory/index.html> for CNN:

If President Trump comes out and prematurely claims victory on Election Night<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/election-night-2020-guide/index.html>, what will television networks and social media websites do?The scenario — undemocratic and unthinkable in the past but a very real possibility with Trump seeking to stay in power<https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-kamala-harris-battleground-states/index.html> — is causing media and tech executives to debate potential responses.

For the major television networks, one question is paramount: Will they carry Trump live if he is giving a speech and making completely specious claims?

The short answer is yes. Though network executives are reluctant to talk publicly about such a hypothetical and disturbing scenario, five people at various networks said on condition of anonymity that they fully expect the President’s Election Night remarks to be shown live virtually wall to wall.

However, any premature claims by the President — or by Joe Biden, for that matter, though there is no equivalent fear of that happening — will be wrapped in televised context, with vigorous corrections and visual proof that the race is too close to call.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118093&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20Will%20TV%20and%20Social%20Networks%20Do%20If%20Trump%20Prematurely%20Declares%20Victory%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Pennsylvania could be a center of chaos this election. It didn’t have to be this way.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118091>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:52 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118091> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

The Washington Post has published this new op-ed<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/02/pennsylvania-could-be-center-chaos-this-election-it-didnt-have-be-this-way/> of mine. As readers here know, I made my efforts to change this situation, now all that’s left is to assign blame:

Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor and Republican legislature will both deserve blame for hurtling the country toward a potential election nightmare should the election be close. In a perfect example of the dysfunction that plagues so much of our governing process, their failure has made Pennsylvania a likely center of chaos in a close election….

Grasping this reality, many states changed their laws to permit election officials to tackle ballots earlier than normal…

But not Pennsylvania. The governor and legislature recently made sure of that by failing to reach any agreement on this issue, despite state election administrators from both parties pleading<https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/10/pa-election-mail-ballots-counties-legislature-talks/?utm_source=Spotlight+PA&utm_campaign=6eec0030e4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_27_09_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c1fbeb603-6eec0030e4-219434477&mc_cid=6eec0030e4&mc_eid=9f05e5795e> for them to do so. If only 5 percent of voters had cast their ballots by mail, as in past Pennsylvania elections, this would not be a problem. But with as many as 3 million absentee ballots on their way, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Both sides in Pennsylvania understood this problem and appeared to want to change it. Yet they failed in their public responsibility, to Pennsylvania and the country. The legislature was prepared<https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/election-reform-harrisburg-pennsylvania-20201019.html> to permit the process to begin three days<https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/09/pa-election-reform-mail-ballots-voting-drop-boxes/> before Election Day. This period would have made a significant difference in how quickly Pennsylvania could process these ballots and include many of them in the vote totals it released on election night. It would have been the difference between waiting two days for a full count or five days.

But Republicans in the legislature insisted<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pennsylvania-allow-ballot-processing-before-election-day/2020/10/15/49d69184-0e5b-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_15> on packaging this critical proposal with other voting policies they wanted changed. Meanwhile, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) argued that election officials be able to start 21 days<https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/gov-wolf-pass-legislation-to-enhance-secure-and-efficient-elections/> in advance and was not willing to accept the policy changes the legislature was demanding.

In states that permit early processing, such as Florida, it has been going on quietly for almost three weeks. That early start has minimized political struggles over the validity of ballots. When polls close in Florida, the state will be able quickly to include most of its absentee ballots in its election night count.

But Pennsylvania is sitting on a tinderbox. In a close election, the state will be critical. Scorched-earth struggles over absentee ballots will erupt, with incentives on one side to drag that process out as long as possible. I am doubtful the country will sit patiently if Pennsylvania takes a week to figure out its vote. All this brought to you by a governor and legislature who provide a textbook example of much of what’s wrong with our politics.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118091&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20could%20be%20a%20center%20of%20chaos%20this%20election.%20It%20didn%E2%80%99t%20have%20to%20be%20this%20way.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“November Surprise: Fewer Ballots Rejected by Election Officials”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118089>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:45 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118089> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/us/election-ballots-rejections.html?smid=tw-share>

With absentee ballots flooding election offices nationwide, the officials processing them are tentatively reporting some surprising news: The share of ballots being rejected because of flawed signatures and other errors appears lower — sometimes much lower — than in the past.

Should that trend hold, it could prove significant in an election in which the bulk of absentee voters has been Democratic, and Republicans have fought furiously, in court and on the stump, to discard mail ballots as fraudulent.

In Fulton County, Ga., home to Atlanta, just 278 of the first 60,000-odd ballots processed had been held back. In Minneapolis, Hennepin County officials last week had rejected only 2,080 of 325,000 ballots — and sent replacement ballots to all of those voters. In Burlington, Iowa, the number of rejected ballots on Monday was 28 of 12,310. And of 474,000 absentee ballots received in Kentucky, barely 1,300 rejects remain uncorrected by voters, compared to more than 15,000 during the state’s presidential primary in June.

The number of rejections could fall further. In those jurisdictions and many others, voters are notified of errors on ballots and can correct their mistakes, or vote in person instead.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118089&title=%E2%80%9CNovember%20Surprise%3A%20Fewer%20Ballots%20Rejected%20by%20Election%20Officials%E2%80%9D>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>


“Deceptively Edited Video of Biden Proliferates on Social Media”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118087>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118087> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/2020-election-misinformation-distortions#deceptively-edited-video-of-biden-proliferates-on-social-media>

A video of Joseph R. Biden Jr. deceptively edited to make it appear as though he were admitting to voter fraud was viewed more than 17 million times on social media platforms, according to Avaaz, a progressive human-rights nonprofit that studied the video.

The video was an edited clip from an Oct. 24 appearance by Mr. Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, on the podcast “Pod Save America.”<https://crooked.com/podcast/joe-biden-pod-save-america-interview/> When asked about efforts to bolster election security, Mr. Biden gave a long answer and discussed Obama administration efforts to protect against voter fraud. He added that he had put together “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

The deceptively edited video featuring that part of his statement — taken out of context to make it appear that Mr. Biden supported voter fraud — was shared on dozens of right-wing YouTube channels, Twitter accounts and Facebook pages. It was not clear on Monday who had made the edited video.

A spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign clarified that he, as seen in the full video, was discussing his efforts to prevent voter fraud.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118087&title=%E2%80%9CDeceptively%20Edited%20Video%20of%20Biden%20Proliferates%20on%20Social%20Media%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>


Rob Richie: “How to Stop Consultants from Weaponizing Voter Choice”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118085>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118085> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from Rob Richie<https://www.fairvote.org/rob> of FairVote:

A Super PAC called the True Kentucky Patriots has a message <https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnells-conservative-challenger-gets-a-boost-from-dems> for Bluegrass State voters that’s been all over local TV stations: The “true conservative” in the U.S. Senate race is Libertarian candidate Brad Barron, not Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Liberty SC in South Carolina takes a similar approach as it targets Sen. Lindsey Graham from the right. Constitution Party hopeful Bill Bledsoe, the $1 million ad buy proclaims, is the “only true conservative on the ballot.”

Liberty SC and the True Kentucky Patriots have something else in common. Both are Super PACs financed by Democrats hoping to siphon votes away from a Republican incumbent and direct them toward a potential third-party “spoiler.” The Kentucky group has the same treasurer as the pro-Amy McGrath Ditch Fund, as in “Ditch Mitch.” And while Liberty SC gives every impression that it’s conservative, its finances are run through a bank well-known for its connections to Democrats. Bledsoe, who endorsed Graham weeks ago after dropping out, has complained bitterly <https://wach.com/news/local/exclusive-dr-bill-bledsoe-says-latest-political-ads-using-his-name-are-fraud> about the ads

Both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in such expensive mischief for years, but it’s getting worse. In Minnesota this year, Republicans were caught<https://www.wsls.com/news/politics/2020/10/28/even-in-death-pot-candidate-upends-minnesota-us-house-race/> recruiting a candidate to split the Democratic vote in a tight congressional race. In Montana, Republican operatives qualified the Green Party<https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-rejects-republican-effort-to-restore-green-party-candidates-on-montana-ballot/> — especially odd since the Greens had not actually endorsed any candidates. Democrats then successfully sued to knock them off the ballot. In Kansas, meanwhile, Democrats sought to game <https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/15/kris-kobach-roger-marshall-2020-primary-364114> the plurality system in a crowded GOP U.S. Senate primary, creating the odd spectacle of a liberal Super PAC backing Kris Kobach.

In the presidential race, Republican lawyers and consultants have boosted Kanye West’s quixotic campaign in multiple states,<https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/901534846/heres-how-republicans-are-boosting-kanye-west-s-presidential-campaign> hopeful that the hip-hop star might keep young black voters from backing Biden in a state where fewer than 25,000 votes made the difference in 2016. Democrats helped kick Greens off the presidential ballot <https://news.wbfo.org/post/hawkins-disappointed-recent-rulings-removing-his-name-presidential-ballot-key-states> in the battlegrounds of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – just as they successfully did in state legislative races in Texas even as Republicans failed in their bid to remove Libertarians<https://thetexan.news/texas-supreme-court-rejects-gop-lawsuit-challenging-libertarian-candidates-ballot-eligibility/>. That different legal outcome could help tip control of the Texas house and its redistricting plans in 2021.

Weaponizing third parties and hoodwinking those inclined to back them may be ugly, but consultants are simply giving into a temptation enabled by policymakers who maintain a vulnerability permitting partisan hacks. Consider that in the 2016 presidential race — when Robert Mueller’s legal team found Russian agents<https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/ranked-choice-voting-and-russian-hacking/article_6b7c8324-bfd0-544a-8b2d-6a1239cb2690.html> sought to persuade idealistic young people to vote for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein — more than six million votes were cast for third parties. As Al Gore might remind us, Ralph Nader’s 97,421 votes in Florida in 2000 was far more than those lost due to long lines or hanging chads.

The good news is there’s at least one easy, proven and increasingly popular fix. Ranked choice voting <https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used> would put an end to plurality winners and corrosive tactics seeking to exploit them. If voters had the option to rank candidates in order, and a conservative in Kentucky could vote for Barron first and McConnell second, this sordid strategy would lose its power.

Maine already has ranked choice voting in place for its federal races, as do 20 cities and towns, to go with its use in five Democratic primary states this spring. A ballot question in Alaska would establish ranked choice voting for elections for president, congressional and state offices Massachusetts and five cities<https://www.fairvote.org/rcv_2020_ballot_measures> are also voting to adopt RCV.

In Maine, FairVote’s SurveyUSA poll<https://www.fairvote.org/maine_poll_october2020> last week found that ranked choice voting will likely avoid non-majority outcomes in both the U.S. Senate race and presidential race for the elector in the second congressional district. With a Green and Libertarian on the presidential ballot, RCV did not affect the presidential margin. But the strong first choice vote for Green Party independent Lisa Savage in the Senate race suggests RCV will improve Democrat Sara Gideon’s position in the instant runoff. Notably, rather than the usual acrimonious relationship between Democrats and Greens, Savage has endorsed Gideon as a second choice.<https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/30/the-independent-that-could-decide-the-senate-433629>

We’re polarized enough. Let’s remove the incentive for political parties and consultants to engage in negativity and chicanery. As long as candidates can win elections due to the majority splitting the vote, their consultants are incentivized to play dirty, pump money into surprising campaigns, and peel votes away from the opposition party. None of the ugliness of weaponizing third parties would happen with ranked choice voting: It removes both the incentive to furtively qualify a third party, as well as the spectacle of a major party suing to limit voter choices.

Let Kanye run. Let the Libertarians run. Let everyone run with the will and true support to get on the ballot. Just give voters the tools to sort it all out. They’re more than capable of determining the “true conservative,” and even putting them in order.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118085&title=Rob%20Richie%3A%20%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Stop%20Consultants%20from%20Weaponizing%20Voter%20Choice%E2%80%9D>
Posted in alternative voting systems<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>


“As Voting Ends, Battle Intensifies Over Which Ballots Will Count”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118083>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:35 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118083> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/us/politics/election-day-ballot-counting.html?referringSource=articleShare>

With the election coming to a close, the Trump and Biden campaigns, voting rights organizations and conservative groups are raising money and dispatching armies of lawyers for what could become a state-by-state, county-by-county legal battle over which ballots will ultimately be counted.

The deployments — involving hundreds of lawyers on both sides — go well beyond what has become normal since the disputed outcome in 2000, and are the result of the open efforts of President Trump and the Republicans to disqualify votes on technicalities and baseless charges of fraud at the end of a campaign in which the voting system has been severely tested by the coronavirus pandemic.

In the most aggressive moves to knock out registered votes in modern memory, Republicans have already sought to nullify ballots before they are counted in several states that could tip the balance of the Electoral College.

In an early test of one effort, a federal judge in Texas on Monday ruled against<https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/02/us/trump-vs-biden/a-federal-judge-denies-a-bid-by-texas-republicans-to-throw-out-more-than-127000-votes> local Republicans who wanted to compel state officials to throw out more than 127,000 ballots cast at newly created drive-through polling places in the Houston area. The federal court ruling, which Republicans said they would appeal, came after a state court also ruled against them.

In key counties in Nevada, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans are seeking, with mixed results so far, to force election board offices to give their election observers more open access so they can more effectively challenge absentee ballots as they are processed, a tactic Republicans in North Carolina are seeking to adopt statewide.

And everywhere, in a year that has seen record levels of early voting and a huge surge in use of voting by mail, Republicans are gearing up to challenge ballots with missing signatures or unclear postmarks.

In his last days of campaigning, Mr. Trump has essentially admitted that he does not expect to win without going to court. “As soon as that election is over,” he told reporters over the weekend, “we’re going in with our lawyers.”

Trailing consistently in the polls, Mr. Trump in that moment said out loud what other Republicans have preferred to say quietly, which is that his best chance of holding onto power at this point may rest in a scorched-earth campaign to disqualify as many votes as possible for his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

If there is a clear-cut outcome on Tuesday night that could not plausibly be challenged via legal action, all of the planning on both sides could become moot. But if there is no decisive result, the following days would likely see an intensifying multifront battle fought in a variety of states.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118083&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20Voting%20Ends%2C%20Battle%20Intensifies%20Over%20Which%20Ballots%20Will%20Count%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Misinformation Image on WeChat Attempts to Frighten Chinese Americans Out of Voting”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118081>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:15 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118081> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

ProPublica/KQED<https://www.propublica.org/article/misinformation-image-on-wechat-attempts-to-frighten-chinese-americans-out-of-voting>:

At least two dozen groups on the Chinese-owned social media app WeChat have been circulating misinformation that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is “preparing to mobilize” the National Guard and “dispatch” the military to quell impending riots, apparently in an attempt to frighten Chinese Americans into staying home on Election Day.

The misinformation, which takes the form of a photo of a flyer and is in both English and Chinese, also warns that the government plans to impose a national two-week quarantine and close all businesses. “They will announce this as soon as they have troops in place to prevent looters and rioters,” it states. The flyer originally appeared on WeChat during the first surge of the pandemic, and it later spread to other social media. It recently resurfaced on WeChat.

“I’m sure thousands of people have seen that. I’m sure that it’s pretty widespread,” said Shaw San Liu, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco, which has been tracking the flyer and other misinformation on WeChat. “We’re really concerned about making sure we get some good counterinformation, facts out there so that people are not discouraged because this is the last stretch.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118081&title=%E2%80%9CMisinformation%20Image%20on%20WeChat%20Attempts%20to%20Frighten%20Chinese%20Americans%20Out%20of%20Voting%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>


Eric Holder and Michael Mukasey: “If you can’t think of anything worse than the other side winning, imagine this”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118079>
Posted on November 2, 2020 4:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118079> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo oped<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/02/eric-holder-michael-mukasey-accepting-election-results/>:

Each of us served as attorney general of the United States, one for a Democratic president, the other for a Republican. Over the years, in the course of disputing matters of law and policy, each of us has said critical, even harsh, things about the other. Please do not conclude from our joint authorship of this article that either of us would retract or even reconsider any of those past statements.

Far from it.

Rather, we write jointly because we would like to continue to disagree the way we have in the past, the way Americans generally have in the past. That is: within a political system in which winners of elections get to execute their policies for a prescribed period, so long as those policies conform to the law. Within a system in which winners of elections do not face the threat of societal and political paralysis as they attempt to govern….

Of course, the First Amendment guarantees people the right to demonstrate their views to their fellow citizens and to try to garner support for the changes they would like to see. But it assuredly does not give them the right to use those demonstrations to impose their will on fellow citizens. It does not give them the right to act out the view that if they cannot get the political outcome they want, their fellow citizens should not be able to lead peaceful lives.ADhttps://ce5bcd08417e956e7d0f4311d8b609b2.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

This should not require saying, but we feel compelled to say it: nor should our political leaders stoke or condone violence.

It is not only violence that can undo us. Even before Election Day, disagreements about how to count votes have generated legal disputes, and of course those disputes have gone to the courts. But there is a difference between taking legal disputes to court when necessary and conducting a campaign of litigation that obstructs more than it resolves. We strongly agree that votes must be counted fairly and voices heard in a way that preserves peace and promotes confidence in our system.

Finally, there is the insidious danger posed by charges that have nothing to support them other than an accuser’s invitation to us to hallucinate evil. The widespread distrust of our institutions and processes that such rhetoric encourages can paralyze us just as surely as violence or the uncertainty generated by a torrent of litigation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118079&title=Eric%20Holder%20and%20Michael%20Mukasey%3A%20%E2%80%9CIf%20you%20can%E2%80%99t%20think%20of%20anything%20worse%20than%20the%20other%20side%20winning%2C%20imagine%20this%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>


“Changing the rules for choosing electors: Lessons from the election of 1800”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118077>
Posted on November 2, 2020 3:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118077> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gary Stein post.<https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/10641-changing-the-rules-for-choosing-electors-lessons/news/cerl-news>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118077&title=%E2%80%9CChanging%20the%20rules%20for%20choosing%20electors%3A%20Lessons%20from%20the%20election%20of%201800%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“What I Learned From Training to Be a Right-Wing Poll Watcher; Rule No. 1: Don’t let the Democrats slip you laxatives.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118075>
Posted on November 2, 2020 1:51 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118075> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great dispatch<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/true-the-vote-poll-observer-training.html> from Slate’s Jeremy Stahl who trained as a “True the Vote” poll watcher:

Alan Vera, ballot security chairman for Texas’ Harris County GOP, wants prospective poll watchers to keep an eye on their coffee.

“Here’s a tip that I almost hate to have to tell you, but: Do not accept coffee from the election judge or any of the clerks,” he warns early in a training video for volunteer poll watchers. “We’ve had too many instances in the past where laxatives have been hidden inside coffee and our poll watchers end up spending the day in the restroom instead of in the polls watching what’s going on.”

This first rule of poll watching speaks to the bigger lesson I learned from sitting through hours of conservative poll watching training videos over the past several weeks: These programs are more about instilling paranoia in the Republican Party faithful than about actually teaching them to successfully suppress votes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118075&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20I%20Learned%20From%20Training%20to%20Be%20a%20Right-Wing%20Poll%20Watcher%3B%20Rule%20No.%201%3A%20Don%E2%80%99t%20let%20the%20Democrats%20slip%20you%20laxatives.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“How to Use (or Not Use) Social Media During the 2020 Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118073>
Posted on November 2, 2020 1:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118073> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

From the WSJ’s excellent technology writer, Johanna Stern<https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-use-or-not-use-social-media-this-week-11604320273?mod=hp_lead_pos12>:

The first rule of election social media is: You do not use election social media. We should all take the occasional social-media break in our lives—right now’s a great time.

My colleague Christopher Mims inspired me to go this somewhat extreme route. He has entered into a friendly bet to stay off social media until Nov. 16. I’m planning to stay off for the next few days.

There are a couple of reasons for my decision. First, doomscrolling<https://www.wsj.com/articles/doomscrolling-why-we-just-cant-look-away-11591522200>. The algorithms have been designed to keep us hooked and in times of high, collective national anxiety I can’t look away. Not even with the help of screen and app timers that warn me when my time’s almost up.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-screen-time-wont-cure-your-iphone-addictionwithout-self-control-1536670800>

Second, even I have fallen for a manipulated video and a tweet with news that proved not to be true. In the next few days, where unvetted news will be moving faster, why even put myself in that situation? Luckily, there are reputable news outlets that can give us factual, up-to-the-minute information—and you’re already reading the best one right now…

Don’t share

OK, so if you can’t possibly leave behind 5,000 of your closest friends while the fate of our nation hangs in the balance, I urge you at least to stop sharing.

Sure, the platforms themselves have rolled out tools to try to prevent you from sharing misleading and inaccurate information. But why even take the risk right now? What does your link and meme sharing really do? Get you a few more likes? Finally change Cousin Fred’s mind?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118073&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Use%20(or%20Not%20Use)%20Social%20Media%20During%20the%202020%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“One big flaw in how Americans run elections”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118070>
Posted on November 2, 2020 1:23 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118070> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Kim Zetter<https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/one-big-flaw-in-how-americans-run-elections-433820> for Politico:

Stein’s experience is far from unique: Time and again, people seeking answers about perplexing results or election anomalies encounter obstacles. Often the only examination occurs if parties or candidates request a recount — which means voters are largely at the mercy of partisan actors to even raise the questions.

The truth is that two decades after the Florida 2000 election debacle created a rift in the country, and four years after Russian interference in the 2016 election profoundly deepened that divide, the U.S. lacks satisfactory, uniform mechanisms for resolving questions about elections and verifying results.

The U.S. lags behind most other countries in this regard, said David Carroll, director of the Democracy Program for the Carter Center, which has monitored foreign elections since 1989 — even if many reasons exist to have overall confidence in the American electoral process.

“The United States has many areas where we don’t meet core international standards,” he said.

Almost every other democracy, he said, has uniform, nationwide election procedures; a central, independent election commission to oversee them and conduct investigations; a single, national election system; and an unvarying system for resolving disputes. “Whereas in the United States, there [are] 50 different election processes, 50 different sets of state laws,” Carroll said.

Also uncommon elsewhere: The U.S. places large portions of its electoral process under the control of elected state and local politicians, raising the potential for partisan interference.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D118070&title=%E2%80%9COne%20big%20flaw%20in%20how%20Americans%20run%20elections%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


--
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/20201103/283d368f/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/20201103/283d368f/attachment.png>