[EL] Multi-member districts/VRA analysis
Michael Latner
mlatner at calpoly.edu
Thu Oct 8 11:38:49 PDT 2020
Hi all,
I'm looking for a recently published piece on multi-member districts in state legislatures and vote dilution/racial representation but can't seem to find it anywhere, if anyone has a link I would appreciate it, thanks.
ML
Professor Michael Latner
Political Science Department, California Polytechnic State University
Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
Faculty Scholar, Cal Poly Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy
@mlatner
https://www.mikelatner.com/
On 10/7/20, 12:00 PM, "Law-election on behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu> wrote:
Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (Hess, Doug)
2. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (Zach Montellaro)
3. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (John McCarthy)
4. more news and commentary 10/6/20 (Rick Hasen)
5. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (timwhite at rockisland.com)
6. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (larrylevine at earthlink.net)
7. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (Kelner, Robert)
8. ELB News and Commentary 10/7/20 (Rick Hasen)
9. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (Lisa Hill)
10. Montana Mail in Balloting in the Supreme Court (James Bopp Jr)
11. Issue One launches 'Count Every Vote' to defend election
integrity with $20 million public education campaign (Danielle Caputo)
12. (no subject) (Pildes, Rick)
13. Re: Rick Pildes question on party split over voting by mail
(Kousser, Thad)
14. Re: delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states (Hall, Adam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:12:51 +0000
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up
states
Message-ID:
<DM6PR05MB569128F9230D220D0A720252AD0D0 at DM6PR05MB5691.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello.
I'm wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be "close" presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don't check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
-----------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201006/dbc200fb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:22:49 +0000
From: Zach Montellaro <zmontellaro at politico.com>
To: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>,
"law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID:
<DM6PR01MB425048B5BB4F8E7E2E6D7EF5C50D0 at DM6PR01MB4250.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Not to just promote my own work, but I looked at 13 swing states last month on processing: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/15/swing-states-election-vote-count-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-414465
And Whitmer in Michigan signed a law to allow for some limited pre-processing today: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/06/michigan-early-mail-ballot-processing-426809
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 3:12 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments.
Hello.
I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close? presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
-----------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201006/419c2362/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:07:57 -0700
From: John McCarthy <john at verifiedvoting.org>
To: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>,
"law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID: <d1dbe16f-5c98-66aa-0b37-9d7aa7dd4f66 at verifiedvoting.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
See Andrew Appel's assessment in the final version of his blog article
"Vote-by-mail meltdowns in 2020?" published on Freedom-to-Tinker:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2020/09/20/vote-by-mail-meltdowns-in-2020/
<https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2020/09/20/vote-by-mail-meltdowns-in-2020/>
John McCarthy
On 10/6/2020 12:12 PM, Hess, Doug wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are
> certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after
> election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close?
> presidential-election states.
>
> If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am
> embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I
> should (mea culpa).
>
> Thank you.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Douglas R Hess
>
> On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
>
> Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
>
> http://www.douglasrhess.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201006/42978998/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 21:09:52 +0000
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] more news and commentary 10/6/20
Message-ID: <2CB29169-CFCD-41A6-BCAD-F6F4FC3E48AB at ad.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Wisconsin Supreme Court, ofn4-3 Party Line Vote, Holds that the State Legislature Can Represent Wisconsin?s Interest in Federal Litigation Expanding Vote by Mail Opportunities During the Pandemic<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116343>
Posted on October 6, 2020 1:58 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116343> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The opinion and dissent are here<https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=295046> on the question certified by the 7th Circuit. The action will shift back to federal court over the question of a federal court decision easing vote by mail during the pandemic in Wisconsin.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116343&title=Wisconsin%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20ofn4-3%20Party%20Line%20Vote%2C%20Holds%20that%20the%20State%20Legislature%20Can%20Represent%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Interest%20in%20Federal%20Litigation%20Expanding%20Vote%20by%20Mail%20Opportunities%20During%20the%20Pandemic>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Wisconsin: ?Fiserv Forum, Miller Park will not be used for early voting after all because of ?legal challenge concerns'?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116341>
Posted on October 6, 2020 1:53 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116341> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/06/fiserv-forum-miller-park-canceled-early-voting-sites-milwaukee/3637017001/>
Fiserv Forum and Miller Park will not be used for in-person absentee voting for the November election after all, the Milwaukee Election Commission announced Tuesday.
Election Commission Executive Director Claire Woodall-Vogg cited ?legal challenge concerns? as the reason behind the change.
In an interview with the Journal Sentinel, she cited a ruling in which U.S. District Judge William Conley rejected requests to expand early voting and a notice from the Wisconsin Elections Commission to clerks<https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/2020-10/Clerk%20Communication%20-%20In%20Person%20Absentee%20Sites%2010-05-2020.pdf> stating WEC has ?no ability to authorize? clerks to designate alternate or additional sites for in-person absentee voting for the November election. Those sites must have been designated by June 12, according to the WEC notice.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116341&title=Wisconsin%3A%20%E2%80%9CFiserv%20Forum%2C%20Miller%20Park%20will%20not%20be%20used%20for%20early%20voting%20after%20all%20because%20of%20%E2%80%98legal%20challenge%20concerns%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
The list of COVID-19 election cases hits 275<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116339>
Posted on October 6, 2020 1:49 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116339> by Justin Levitt<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Justin here. I?m tracking the litigation over election issues related to COVID-19 ? and the list of cases just hit 275<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=111962>. (The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project also has a really useful sortable database<https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/cases> of these cases, with more info.)
A reminder: the number in each state isn?t necessarily a good indication of the contentiousness of the issues: any individual case may be ?big? or ?small? ? or a good case or a shoddy one ? and some of these cases are essentially repeat claims of others. But overall, that?s still an awful lot of legal paper.
There?s an upside to some of this: with litigation brought in March, April, or May, as the pandemic reached the primaries, we got resolution of some pretty contentious issues in June, July, August, September, and squeaking into October. That?s less to fight about in November. Which is good for everyone. There are some new cases, mostly asking for very tailored relief, and a few bomb-throwers that will be tossed out of court. Most of the cases are now done.
These are just the cases I know of ? I?m sure I?m missing some. State court cases are particularly difficult to track. I think that five states have been spared so far (Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming) ? but if you know of a COVID-related election case I?m missing here<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=111962>, please let me know.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116339&title=The%20list%20of%20COVID-19%20election%20cases%20hits%20275>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, election law and constitutional law<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>, Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
Federal District Court Rejects Trump Campaign Challenge to New Jersey Accepting Mail-In Ballots That Arrive Within 2 Days of Election Day<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116336>
Posted on October 6, 2020 1:43 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116336> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can find the order at this link <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7222829/10-6-20-Trump-for-President-v-Way-Opinion.pdf> (via Zoe Tillman).
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116336&title=Federal%20District%20Court%20Rejects%20Trump%20Campaign%20Challenge%20to%20New%20Jersey%20Accepting%20Mail-In%20Ballots%20That%20Arrive%20Within%202%20Days%20of%20Election%20Day>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?Voters Should Not Be Intimidated?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116334>
Posted on October 6, 2020 1:05 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116334> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Brennan Center resource<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voters-should-not-be-intimidated>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116334&title=%E2%80%9CVoters%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Intimidated%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
?9th Circuit won?t block MT counties from mailing ballots?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116328>
Posted on October 6, 2020 12:40 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116328> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP<https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/9th-circuit-wont-block-mt-counties-from-mailing-ballots/article_5cd4debc-8710-5e01-a35f-efcb27f2caf8.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Billings_Gazette&fbclid=IwAR2ESt-h1EjrL01c24rq_A-YTUSCY6ADLMuOh_11qDPAma2X0c0NdemI_rA>:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a request for an emergency injunction to block most Montana counties from mailing ballots to active voters.
A three-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request filed by Joe Lamm, the Ravalli County Republican Central Committee and Republican voters, but said it would continue to hear the appeal. The first briefs are due in January.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116328&title=%E2%80%9C9th%20Circuit%20won%E2%80%99t%20block%20MT%20counties%20from%20mailing%20ballots%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?How We Vote and What It Means?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116326>
Posted on October 6, 2020 12:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116326> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New video:<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-jyqtyGEQw&feature=youtu.be>
On Wednesday, September 30, the Georgetown University Humanities Initiative and Georgetown University Press cosponsored a panel discussion on how we vote in the United States. Participants included How We Vote authors Kathleen Hale and Mitchell Brown and Georgetown University professors Robert Patterson, Hans Noel, and Diana Owen.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116326&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20We%20Vote%20and%20What%20It%20Means%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Federal District Court Won?t Issue Requirement that Ohio Secretary LaRose Expand Use of Drop Boxes Given Other Options for Collecting Ballots LaRose Has Offered, For Now<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116323>
Posted on October 6, 2020 12:37 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116323> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the ruling<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/10-6-20-a-Phillip-Randolph-Institute-v-LaRose.pdf>:
It is now settled law that off-site drop boxes are neither prohibited nor compelled in Ohio.
Yesterday, October 5, the Secretary issued Directive 2020-22. In his latest Directive, the Secretary authorized any board to deploy its staff to receive ballots at sites other than the board office. This means that the Cuyahoga County board may implement its intended plan to receive ballots at six public libraries, and that any other board in Ohio that votes to do so may deploy its staff to receive ballots off-site, so long as the board complies with the procedures set forth in Section II of Directive 2020-22.
While the off-site staff collection of absentee ballots may not have all the advantages of off-site drop boxes, such a program alleviates many of the concerns raised at the hearing. There is no evidence before the Court that Secretary LaRose is currently prohibiting any board from doing something it voted to do to protect the voting rights of its citizens with respect to off-site drop boxes or off-site delivery of ballots. Therefore, there is no problem that requires an injunction.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court fervently hopes that now that voting has begun, the litigation over drop boxes and off-site ballot collection will come to an end. Should it come to pass, however, that between now and November 3 any county board of elections votes to implement off-site drop boxes, Plaintiffs may refile their lawsuit, so long as the affected board is added as a party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116323&title=Federal%20District%20Court%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Issue%20Requirement%20that%20Ohio%20Secretary%20LaRose%20Expand%20Use%20of%20Drop%20Boxes%20Given%20Other%20Options%20for%20Collecting%20Ballots%20LaRose%20Has%20Offered%2C%20For%20Now>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>
?How Mail-in Ballots Might Affect Election Night?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116321>
Posted on October 6, 2020 12:24 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116321> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Latner blogs<https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-latner/how-mail-in-ballots-might-affect-election-night>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116321&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Mail-in%20Ballots%20Might%20Affect%20Election%20Night%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Fox News: ?Shift in Ohio vote tallies after election not a sign of ?something nefarious,? secretary of state says?; Fox Also Says: ?Trump has argued, without evidence, that mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116319>
Posted on October 6, 2020 12:10 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116319> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Notable that this story is at Fox News:<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-voting-results-mail-in-ballots-election-day-frank-larose>
More than two million Ohio residents requested mail-in ballot applications prior to the start of early voting on Tuesday, doubling the count at the same time in 2016 and 2012. Ballots in the state are counted for up to 10 days after Election Day ? as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 2 ? meaning that election results displayed on the night of Nov. 3 will be unofficial and include all votes received through any method by 7:30 p.m. local time.
LaRose, a Republican, said the state will have ?pretty conclusive? results on election night if early returns show President Trump or Democratic nominee Joe Biden winning the state by a wide margin.
But if the race is close, he acknowledged that it could take ?three weeks or more? to know the final results as elections officials work to tabulate mail-in and provisional ballots. LaRose added that the state is taking steps to be transparent about the process, such as publishing the number of outstanding mail-in ballots online.
?When the results on election night say one thing and then when the results change over the ensuing several weeks, that?s not a sign that something nefarious is happening. In fact, quite the contrary,? LaRose told Fox News. ?It?s a sign that the legal process is being allowed to play itself out so that every legally cast vote can be tabulated. That?s exactly what we need to do.??
Trump has argued, without evidence, that mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud and suggested that their widespread use could result in a ?rigged election.? During his debate with Biden last week, Trump said he would only accept the results of the vote ?if it?s a fair election.?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116319&title=Fox%20News%3A%20%E2%80%9CShift%20in%20Ohio%20vote%20tallies%20after%20election%20not%20a%20sign%20of%20%E2%80%98something%20nefarious%2C%E2%80%99%20secretary%20of%20state%20says%E2%80%9D%3B%20Fox%20Also%20Says%3A%20%E2%80%9CTrump%20has%20argued%2C%20without%20evidence%2C%20that%20mail-in%20ballots%20are%20susceptible%20to%20fraud%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
California Redistricting Commission Seeks Chief Counsel<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116317>
Posted on October 6, 2020 11:48 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116317> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Job announcement:
The 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission is seeking a Chief Counsel with min. 10 yrs. law experience. The Chief Counsel will advise the Commission on all aspects of the redistricting process and government affairs. The ideal candidate will have served as the principal legal advisor to a governing board, as well as government relations, redistricting and voting rights experience, and has a history of working closely with community organizations developing and maintaining relationships with diverse groups and coalitions. The Commission is charged with drawing the State?s legislative, Congressional, and Board of Equalization electoral lines. For additional information, refer to the Job Bulletin at https://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2020/09/Chief-Counsel_Recuitment-2020-Sept-30.pdf
Please note that the first round of interviews is scheduled for 13 October, but we will continue to accept applications until the position is filled.<webextlink://Please%20note%20that%C2%A0%20the%20first%20round%20of%20interviews%20is%20scheduled%20for%2013%20October,%20but%20we%20will%20continue%20to%20accept%20applications%20until%20the%20position%20is%20filled.>
Inquiries may be directed to voterfirstact at crc.ca.gov<mailto:%20voterfirstact at crc.ca.gov%3C/font%3E%3C/center%3E>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116317&title=California%20Redistricting%20Commission%20Seeks%20Chief%20Counsel>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Federal Court in Pennsylvania Vote by Mail Challenge is Going to Resolve Case on Summary Judgment, Without Taking Evidence<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116315>
Posted on October 6, 2020 11:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116315> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This order does not bode well for the Trump campaign?s federal claims (such as that Pa. court allowing drop boxes somehow creates a federal constitutional problem):
ORDER vacating 462 amended scheduling order. Upon careful consideration of the parties? cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court finds that there are no material disputes of fact on the remaining legal claims and defenses in this case. The Court intends to resolve all claims on summary judgment. As such, the remaining deadlines, obligations, and events in the amended scheduling order (ECF 462 ), including the evidentiary hearing, are hereby VACATED.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116315&title=Federal%20Court%20in%20Pennsylvania%20Vote%20by%20Mail%20Challenge%20is%20Going%20to%20Resolve%20Case%20on%20Summary%20Judgment%2C%20Without%20Taking%20Evidence>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Reply Brief Filed in Pennsylvania Voting Case, Teeing Up Case for Supreme Court Order at Any Time<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116286>
Posted on October 6, 2020 10:48 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116286> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here?<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A53/156957/20201006125831856_20A53%20Reply%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Emergency%20Application%20final.pdf>s the reply brief. Update: Here<https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A54/156989/20201006141940771_20A54%20-%20Reply%20Brief%20with%20Appendices%20-%20Republican%20Party%20of%20Pennsylvania.pdf>?s the other reply brief.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116286&title=Reply%20Brief%20Filed%20in%20Pennsylvania%20Voting%20Case%2C%20Teeing%20Up%20Case%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20Order%20at%20Any%20Time>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
?Georgetown created fact sheets on illegal militias at the polls and what to do if you spot them?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116284>
Posted on October 6, 2020 10:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116284> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CNN:<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/us/georgetown-militias-voter-intimidation-fact-sheets-trnd/index.html>
It?s illegal in all 50 states to engage in militia activity. Still, militia members will almost certainly appear at some polling places this election cycle<https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/voter-guide/>.To prepare voters for potential voter intimidation, Georgetown University Law Center created fact sheets for all 50 states<https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/> on illegal militias and what to do if voters encounter them.
A private militia engages in law enforcement activities without authorization by state or federal officials. Their members are often armed and wearing uniforms or identifying insignias, and they often believe they have legal authority to protect property or control crowds.
But no private militia has that authority. Every state bans unauthorized militias from taking on the activities of law enforcement.
So, Georgetown Law?s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, along with several pro bono law firms, created state-specific fact sheets about militias and the state statutes that ban their activities.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116284&title=%E2%80%9CGeorgetown%20created%20fact%20sheets%20on%20illegal%20militias%20at%20the%20polls%20and%20what%20to%20do%20if%20you%20spot%20them%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?Florida extends voter registration deadline after website failure?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116282>
Posted on October 6, 2020 10:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116282> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico:<https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/10/06/florida-extends-voter-registration-deadline-after-website-failure-1321509?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=964328>
Florida extended the deadline for voter registration after the state?s online portal crashed under the weight of heavy traffic hours before the Oct. 5 deadline.
Registration will be open for an additional seven hours, from noon to 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Secretary of State Laurel Lee said in a written statement.
The move should short-circuit a lawsuit that civil rights and voting groups were preparing to file early Tuesday.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116282&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20extends%20voter%20registration%20deadline%20after%20website%20failure%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voter registration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
Ninth Circuit Reverse Order that Would Have Allowed Arizona Voters Whose Mail Ballots Were Lacking Signatures to Have Up to 5 Days to Provide Signature<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116280>
Posted on October 6, 2020 9:52 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116280> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Another example <http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/10/06/20-16759.pdf> of a district court case favorable to voting rights gorups getting reversed on appeal.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116280&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20Reverse%20Order%20that%20Would%20Have%20Allowed%20Arizona%20Voters%20Whose%20Mail%20Ballots%20Were%20Lacking%20Signatures%20to%20Have%20Up%20to%205%20Days%20to%20Provide%20Signature>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
?After early victories, Democrats? voting lawsuits face tougher terrain in conservative-leaning appeals courts?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116276>
Posted on October 6, 2020 7:29 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116276> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marshall Cohen<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/democrats-republicans-election-lawsuits/index.html> for CNN:
After a string of early legal victories in voting rights cases, Democrats are now fighting on more challenging terrain in federal appeals courts across the country, and have seen some of their hard-fought victories wiped off the books by conservative-leaning judges.
There are hundreds of state and federal lawsuits <https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/index.php> related to the 2020 election, with cases brought by both political parties, trying to get the rules changed in their favor and rulings coming on a near-daily basis. But Democrats have celebrated a wave of early victories in some key battleground states.Many of those rulings have been appealed. Democrats now find themselves in more hostile territory, and Republicans are clawing their way back in some cases, experts say. President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans have reshaped the federal judiciary <https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/politics/trump-200-judicial-appointments-cory-wilson/index.html> by confirming more than 200 judges since 2017, and have filled dozens of vacancies specifically on appeals courts.
?The Republican side may be far more successful in blocking lower court orders sought by Democrats and voting rights groups seeking to expand voting by mail,? CNN election law analyst Rick Hasen wrote in a Slate op-ed <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-covid-voting-cases-pennsylvania-south-carolina.html> published Monday. ?Although Democrats in particular have crowed about some of their (sometimes partial) victories, things are far from over.?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116276&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20early%20victories%2C%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20voting%20lawsuits%20face%20tougher%20terrain%20in%20conservative-leaning%20appeals%20courts%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
October 13 Event: ?Waiting and Watching: What To Expect From Election Night 2020?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116274>
Posted on October 6, 2020 7:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116274> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CAP<https://www.americanprogress.org/events/2020/09/30/491036/waiting-watching-expect-election-night-2020/>:
The United States? electoral culture demands instant gratification when it comes to election results. Members of the public, candidates, and journalists have come to expect that they will know the winners and losers of electoral races within hours of polls closing on election night. This year, counting ballots will likely take longer than usual due to increased reliance on vote by mail in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This will be particularly true in states that do not begin processing absentee ballots until Election Day or after polling places close on election night.
The winners of the U.S. presidential election and other hotly contested races will almost certainly not be known on November 3, and results may not be announced for several days after Election Day. Experts worry that candidates will claim victory prematurely, before all ballots are counted, and that bad actors will propagate dangerous conspiracy theories to sow public confusion and challenge electoral outcomes. It is the responsibility of government officials, members of the media, and technology platforms to set realistic expectations now for members of the public about when election results will be finalized. Preparations must also be made for pushing back against distortions of legitimate electoral procedures and vote counts.
Please join the Center for American Progress for a discussion about ballot-counting processes in November and why electoral results may not be known until well after election night. Panelists will discuss the importance of responsible results reporting by the media and technology platforms, as well as best practices for preventing the spread of misinformation on election night.
We?d love to hear your questions. Please submit any questions you have for our distinguished panel via email at CAPeventquestions at americanprogress.org<mailto:CAPeventquestions at americanprogress.org> or on Twitter using #ElectionNightExpectations<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ElectionNightExpectations&src=typed_query>.
Distinguished Panelists:
Jocelyn Benson<https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1640_9105---,00.html>, Michigan Secretary of State
Adam Conner<https://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/conner-adam/bio/>, Vice President, Technology Policy, Center for American Progress
Benjamin Hovland<https://www.eac.gov/about/commissioner-benjamin-hovland>, Chairman, U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Amanda Terkel<https://www.huffpost.com/author/amanda-terkel>, Washington Bureau Chief, HuffPost
Moderator:
Daniella Gibbs L?ger<https://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/gibbs-leger-daniella/bio/>, Executive Vice President, Communications and Strategy, Center for American Progress
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116274&title=October%2013%20Event%3A%20%E2%80%9CWaiting%20and%20Watching%3A%20What%20To%20Expect%20From%20Election%20Night%202020%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?How Tana Mongeau?s offer to send nude pics to Biden voters violates election law?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116272>
Posted on October 6, 2020 7:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116272> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting twist<https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tana-mongeaus-nude-pics-biden-voters-violates-election-law-225755025.html> on the perennial problem of offering inducements for voting.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116272&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Tana%20Mongeau%E2%80%99s%20offer%20to%20send%20nude%20pics%20to%20Biden%20voters%20violates%20election%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in vote buying<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
?Voter fraud myth persists despite constant failure to prove claims?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116270>
Posted on October 6, 2020 7:10 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116270> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sherman Smith<https://kansasreflector.com/2020/10/06/voter-fraud-myth-persists-despite-constant-failure-to-prove-claims/> for the States Newsroom.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116270&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20fraud%20myth%20persists%20despite%20constant%20failure%20to%20prove%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
?Thousands of North Carolina ballots in limbo amid challenges over rule changes?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116268>
Posted on October 6, 2020 6:43 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116268> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ABC News:<https://abcnews.go.com/US/thousands-north-carolina-ballots-limbo-amid-challenges-rule/story?id=73432943>
A whirlwind of competing lawsuits and legal actions has thousands of ballots in North Carolina in limbo.
With just a few weeks left until the Oct. 27 deadline to request absentee ballots, the North Carolina State Board of Elections has no clear plan for fixing errors on voters? mail-in ballots.
As of Oct. 4, 7,272 ballots are classified as ?pending cure,? meaning there is missing information on the ballot or envelope. ?Currently the cure process is being considered by the courts. We will contact you soon with more information,? county election<https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/elections> board employees are being instructed to tell voters who call about the status of their ballot.
On Sunday, North Carolina State Board of Elections Executive Director Karen Brinson-Bell sent a memo<https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/numbermemo/2020/Numbered%20Memo%202020-28%20Court%20Orders.pdf> to local boards directing them to ?take no action? on ballots that come in with mistakes on the envelopes. Brinson-Bell said the decision is to avoid confusion while matters are pending in several courts. ?Envelopes with deficiencies shall be kept in a secure location and shall not be considered by the county board until future notice,? according to the memo.
The North Carolina state board announced last week new rules it says make it easier for voters to fix or ?cure? mail-in ballots. The changes were included in a joint settlement agreement with North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans after the group filed a lawsuit challenging several absentee voting processes.
Under the agreement, the NCSBE would allow voters who are missing witness signatures or addresses on their ballot envelope to correct the mistake by filling out an affidavit instead of completing a new ballot. The settlement also allows election boards to accept absentee ballots up to nine days after the election if they are postmarked by Nov. 3.
A county judge approved the settlement last Friday, but the next day a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order banning the NCSBE from enacting the changes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116268&title=%E2%80%9CThousands%20of%20North%20Carolina%20ballots%20in%20limbo%20amid%20challenges%20over%20rule%20changes%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
--
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/20201006/546f44be/attachment-0001.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/20201006/546f44be/attachment-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:58:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "timwhite at rockisland.com" <timwhite at rockisland.com>
To: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID:
<970849393.423033639.1602021534176.JavaMail.zimbra at rockisland.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
WA state prediction by SoS Kim Wyman on 9-22 :
90% of ballots to be counted & reported by Tuesday Nov 10.
WA notes:
All vote-by-mail.
Election-day postmark deadline (not a deadline that ballots arrive in official hands by election day).
Late-arriving ballots with valid postmark are counted if arrive through Monday Nov 23, the day before county certification.
That last 10 percent consists of the trickle of slow UOCAVA and snailmail arrivals, plus ballot envelope signature cures .
Wyman expects Nov turnout may exceed 90%.
She reports that in normal lower-turnout years, and with higher percent of ballots voted earlier, that 90% level would normally be reached on Friday Nov 6.
Sec Wyman explains her estimate's logistics and variables at play beginning at timestamp 50:50 at video below.
Thank you,
posted by Tim White, Okanogan WA
Stand with the facts - Voting security and what you need to know
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4 ]
WA SoS Wyman interviewed by Kim Malcolm
KUOW (Seattle NPR affiliate)
9-22-20
from minute 50:50
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
To: "law-election" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:12:51 PM
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
Hello.
I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close? presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
[ https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e= | http://www.douglasrhess.com ]
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201006/267f7c73/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:18:42 -0700
From: <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
To: "'timwhite at rockisland.com'" <timwhite at rockisland.com>, "'Hess,
Doug'" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID: <015f01d69c2e$a6e766e0$f4b634a0$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This is so easy and fundamental for those who want it to be. For those who put obstacles in the way, it?s either incompetence of willful obstruction. Can?t begin to process absentee ballots until election day? Come on. Why not? Don?t have enough staff to deal with the load? Come on. You?ve known about this for half a year. Sorry, folks, but my patience has worn thin with all the intellectualizing about this. Let?s call it what it is ? voter suppression by people who have admitted they can?t win if everyone votes.
Larry
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of timwhite at rockisland.com
Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2020 2:59 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
WA state prediction by SoS Kim Wyman on 9-22:
90% of ballots to be counted & reported by Tuesday Nov 10.
WA notes:
All vote-by-mail.
Election-day postmark deadline (not a deadline that ballots arrive in official hands by election day).
Late-arriving ballots with valid postmark are counted if arrive through Monday Nov 23, the day before county certification.
That last 10 percent consists of the trickle of slow UOCAVA and snailmail arrivals, plus ballot envelope signature cures .
Wyman expects Nov turnout may exceed 90%.
She reports that in normal lower-turnout years, and with higher percent of ballots voted earlier, that 90% level would normally be reached on Friday Nov 6.
Sec Wyman explains her estimate's logistics and variables at play beginning at timestamp 50:50 at video below.
Thank you,
posted by Tim White, Okanogan WA
Stand with the facts - Voting security and what you need to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4
WA SoS Wyman interviewed by Kim Malcolm
KUOW (Seattle NPR affiliate)
9-22-20
from minute 50:50
_____
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU <mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU> >
To: "law-election" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> >
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:12:51 PM
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
Hello.
I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close? presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201006/0846e214/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 00:14:30 +0000
From: "Kelner, Robert" <rkelner at cov.com>
To: "'larrylevine at earthlink.net'" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: "'Hess, Doug'" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>, 'law-election'
<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID: <ec10bc5fb85843eb83152046dba4fb8d at CBIvEX05EUS.cov.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Another way to look at it is that this reflects a misguided reliance on mass, mail-in voting, in numerous states that lack experience with mailed ballots on anything close to this scale. And if one wants to be cynical about, one could say that another reason not to experiment this year (of all years) with mass, mail-in voting is that it is easily disrupted through the kind of intentional mismanagement that you surmise is at play here -- though I don't necessarily agree it is intentional in all cases.
Robert Kelner
Covington & Burling LLP
One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
T +1 202 662 5503 | rkelner at cov.com
www.cov.com
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D69C1D.4BCAE0E0]
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of larrylevine at earthlink.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2020 6:19 PM
To: 'timwhite at rockisland.com' <timwhite at rockisland.com>; 'Hess, Doug' <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
[EXTERNAL]
This is so easy and fundamental for those who want it to be. For those who put obstacles in the way, it?s either incompetence of willful obstruction. Can?t begin to process absentee ballots until election day? Come on. Why not? Don?t have enough staff to deal with the load? Come on. You?ve known about this for half a year. Sorry, folks, but my patience has worn thin with all the intellectualizing about this. Let?s call it what it is ? voter suppression by people who have admitted they can?t win if everyone votes.
Larry
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of timwhite at rockisland.com
Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2020 2:59 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
WA state prediction by SoS Kim Wyman on 9-22:
90% of ballots to be counted & reported by Tuesday Nov 10.
WA notes:
All vote-by-mail.
Election-day postmark deadline (not a deadline that ballots arrive in official hands by election day).
Late-arriving ballots with valid postmark are counted if arrive through Monday Nov 23, the day before county certification.
That last 10 percent consists of the trickle of slow UOCAVA and snailmail arrivals, plus ballot envelope signature cures .
Wyman expects Nov turnout may exceed 90%.
She reports that in normal lower-turnout years, and with higher percent of ballots voted earlier, that 90% level would normally be reached on Friday Nov 6.
Sec Wyman explains her estimate's logistics and variables at play beginning at timestamp 50:50 at video below.
Thank you,
posted by Tim White, Okanogan WA
Stand with the facts - Voting security and what you need to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4
WA SoS Wyman interviewed by Kim Malcolm
KUOW (Seattle NPR affiliate)
9-22-20
from minute 50:50
________________________________
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
To: "law-election" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:12:51 PM
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
Hello.
I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close? presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/672054df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1959 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/672054df/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 03:48:23 +0000
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/7/20
Message-ID: <B1975DF0-D1D6-45FD-B1B9-B9D528A643C3 at ad.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
?Some 2,100 L.A. County voters got ballots missing one thing: a way to vote for president?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116370>
Posted on October 6, 2020 8:33 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116370> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LA Times:<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-06/presidential-candidates-left-off-about-2-100-l-a-county-absentee-ballots>
More than 2,000 Los Angeles County voters got mail-in ballots with a very egregious flaw: no way to vote for U.S. president.
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk?s office confirmed late Monday that about 2,100 ?faulty ballots? were mailed earlier that day to residents in the Woodland Hills area.
The botched effort was part of a campaign to mail 21 million ballots<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-04/california-ballots-mailed-voters-2020-presidential-election?_amp=true> to registered California voters. About 5.6 million of those voters are in L.A. County. State law mandates that absentee ballots be mailed 29 days ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
?While this has impacted a very small number of Los Angeles County voters ? we nevertheless apologize to those affected by the mistake,? said Michael Sanchez, a spokesman for the county clerk?s office.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116370&title=%E2%80%9CSome%202%2C100%20L.A.%20County%20voters%20got%20ballots%20missing%20one%20thing%3A%20a%20way%20to%20vote%20for%20president%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
?Countering Trump, US officials defend integrity of election?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116368>
Posted on October 6, 2020 8:29 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116368> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/06/countering-trump-us-officials-defend-integrity-election/114234204/>
Four weeks ahead of Election Day, senior national security officials provided fresh assurances about the integrity of the elections in a video message Tuesday, putting them at odds with President Donald Trump?s efforts to discredit the vote.
?I?m here to tell you that my confidence in the security of your vote has never been higher,? Chris Krebs, the director of the Department of Homeland Security?s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said in the video message. ?That?s because of an all-of-nation, unprecedented election security effort over the last several years.?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116368&title=%E2%80%9CCountering%20Trump%2C%20US%20officials%20defend%20integrity%20of%20election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?6 Reasons Not to Panic About the Election?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116366>
Posted on October 6, 2020 8:23 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116366> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Waldman and Wendy Weiser in Politico:<https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/05/6-reasons-not-to-panic-about-the-election-426415>
Every day we work on the policies and law underpinning our elections. We regularly point out the flaws in our electoral system. They are real. But when it comes to stealing a national election, let?s all take a deep breath.
To be sure, Trump is doing all he can to undermine the vote and foment chaos. All who care about our democracy should be angry ? and ready. It?s terrifying to think about an Election Day full of chaos and disinformation, followed by false claims of victory and attempts to swap out electors. But there are strong safeguards in place, and many ways for the system to block an illegitimate power grab. There may be a plot against America, but a lot of people would have to break laws for the plot to succeed. An all-out attack can work only if all the institutional checks fail and the American people let it happen.?
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116366&title=%E2%80%9C6%20Reasons%20Not%20to%20Panic%20About%20the%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
Montana Republicans Seek Supreme Court Order to Block Expansion of Montana Mail in Balloting<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116361>
Posted on October 6, 2020 4:04 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116361> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This petition<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20A61.pdf> faces an uphill battle. Note the attempted distinction between ?absentee? and ?mail in? ballots and the attempt to argue around the Purcell principle. Note too that this does not come from state defendants objecting to the expansion of mail-in balloting.
[This post has been updated.]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116361&title=Montana%20Republicans%20Seek%20Supreme%20Court%20Order%20to%20Block%20Expansion%20of%20Montana%20Mail%20in%20Balloting>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Justice Breyer Rejects Republicans? Attempt to Scuttle Maine?s Use of Ranked Choice Voting in Upcoming Presidential Vote<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116358>
Posted on October 6, 2020 3:52 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116358> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
He did not<https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a57.html> ask for a response. (I had thought<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=115568> there might be some interest at the Court in the issue presented there.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116358&title=Justice%20Breyer%20Rejects%20Republicans%E2%80%99%20Attempt%20to%20Scuttle%20Maine%E2%80%99s%20Use%20of%20Ranked%20Choice%20Voting%20in%20Upcoming%20Presidential%20Vote>
Posted in alternative voting systems<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
7th Circuit Panel Unanimously Rejects Equal Protection and Age Discrimination (26th Amendment) Arguments Against Indiana?s Restrictive Absentee Balloting System<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116356>
Posted on October 6, 2020 3:24 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116356> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Another case<http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2020/D10-06/C:20-2605:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2591610:S:0> with the ridiculous line that ?it?s the pandemic, not the State? to blame here. Also heavy on Purcell.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116356&title=7th%20Circuit%20Panel%20Unanimously%20Rejects%20Equal%20Protection%20and%20Age%20Discrimination%20(26th%20Amendment)%20Arguments%20Against%20Indiana%E2%80%99s%20Restrictive%20Absentee%20Balloting%20System>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
?After Trump?s call for poll watchers, officials in three states pledge to prosecute any who try to intimidate voters?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116354>
Posted on October 6, 2020 3:02 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116354> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.<https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/06/us/trump-vs-biden#after-trumps-call-for-poll-watchers-officials-in-three-states-pledge-to-prosecute-any-who-try-to-intimidate-voters>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D116354&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20call%20for%20poll%20watchers%2C%20officials%20in%20three%20states%20pledge%20to%20prosecute%20any%20who%20try%20to%20intimidate%20voters%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/20201007/c0bd5054/attachment-0001.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/20201007/c0bd5054/attachment-0001.png>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 05:20:37 +0000
From: Lisa Hill <lisa.hill at adelaide.edu.au>
To: "'timwhite at rockisland.com'" <timwhite at rockisland.com>, "'Hess,
Doug'" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>, "larrylevine at earthlink.net"
<larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID:
<MEAP282MB047007D07013D54BF02648B2A70A0 at MEAP282MB0470.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
I'm with you Larry. Its just voter suppression.
Professor Lisa Hill D.Phil. (Oxon.) FASSA
Department of Politics and International Relations
Room 411, Napier Building
School of Social Sciences
University of Adelaide
South Australia 5005
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of larrylevine at earthlink.net <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2020 8:48 AM
To: 'timwhite at rockisland.com' <timwhite at rockisland.com>; 'Hess, Doug' <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
This is so easy and fundamental for those who want it to be. For those who put obstacles in the way, it?s either incompetence of willful obstruction. Can?t begin to process absentee ballots until election day? Come on. Why not? Don?t have enough staff to deal with the load? Come on. You?ve known about this for half a year. Sorry, folks, but my patience has worn thin with all the intellectualizing about this. Let?s call it what it is ? voter suppression by people who have admitted they can?t win if everyone votes.
Larry
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of timwhite at rockisland.com
Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2020 2:59 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
WA state prediction by SoS Kim Wyman on 9-22:
90% of ballots to be counted & reported by Tuesday Nov 10.
WA notes:
All vote-by-mail.
Election-day postmark deadline (not a deadline that ballots arrive in official hands by election day).
Late-arriving ballots with valid postmark are counted if arrive through Monday Nov 23, the day before county certification.
That last 10 percent consists of the trickle of slow UOCAVA and snailmail arrivals, plus ballot envelope signature cures .
Wyman expects Nov turnout may exceed 90%.
She reports that in normal lower-turnout years, and with higher percent of ballots voted earlier, that 90% level would normally be reached on Friday Nov 6.
Sec Wyman explains her estimate's logistics and variables at play beginning at timestamp 50:50 at video below.
Thank you,
posted by Tim White, Okanogan WA
Stand with the facts - Voting security and what you need to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4
WA SoS Wyman interviewed by Kim Malcolm
KUOW (Seattle NPR affiliate)
9-22-20
from minute 50:50
________________________________
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
To: "law-election" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:12:51 PM
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
Hello.
I?m wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be ?close? presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don?t check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4&s=aHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE&e=>
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/0024596d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:32:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Bopp Jr <jboppjr at aol.com>
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu, law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Montana Mail in Balloting in the Supreme Court
Message-ID: <332617208.66547.1602073971918 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Rick linked the motion we filed in the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the actions of Montana Governor Bullock and the Montana Secretary of State, authorizing universal mail in balloting in the state, contrary to state election law, The following are a?few explanations about this.
?(1) Montana law prohibits universal mail in balloting in general elections.? On Aug 9th, Governor Bullock, using his emergency powers purportedly to fight COVID 19, suspended that prohibition and permitted counties to opt into a universal mail in balloting scheme, if approved by the Secy, which she initially did on Sept 9th. The Trump campaign and Montana Voters each filed separate suits challenging this "eve of an election" change in voting procedures by state officials contrary to Montana law.? I represent the Montana Voters in Lamm v. Bullock.?(2) The Voters claim four constitutional violations, a violation of (a) the U.S. Constitution Art. II, sec 1 cl 2, which confers on the Legislature, not the Governor, the authority to determine the "Manner" of elections, (b) the right to vote by vote dilution as a result of the mail in balloting scheme, which removes the vital fraud protection of the prior contemporaneous application provided in absentee balloting, and which floods the stat
e with ballots to all registered voters, (c) the right to vote by direct disenfranchisement because this flood of ballots will result in some absentee ballots not being counted because of overwhelmed election officials and the post office, and (d) equal protection because some counties have opted out of mail in balloting resulting in greater voting power in those that opted in.?(3) The District Court found standing for the Voters and republican party organizations to make these claim, but denied them on the merits.? Voters in Lamm unsuccessfully sought an injunction pending appeal in both the District Court and 9th Circuit. No appeal has been taken in the Trump case.?(4) The Lamm case involves the unique situation where state officials have overturned state election laws to fashion their own voting procedures and ironically, Governor Bullock is a candidate for U.S. Senate so he is fashioning the voting procedures for his own election. While historically this never happened as everyo
ne know that enacting state election laws was the job of the Legislature, this year, based purportedly on concerns about COVID 19, state officials throughout the country have suspended many state laws which guard against fraud and protect the integrity of elections, as the Montana Governor has. And state courts are doing the same.?(5) As the CDC and Dr. Fauci has explained, in-person voting can be conducted, and has been conducted, safely under CDC guidelines and Montana allows no-excuse absentee voting for anyone who does not want to go to the polls to vote.?(6) There are now 343 pending lawsuits involving efforts to overturn state election laws or challenging state officials who have done that themselves. This litigation flood is largely the result of a nation-wide well-funded effort by the Democrat Party, and its liberal allies, to nullify as many state election laws, that protect the integrity of elections, as possible. Many more such lawsuits can be expected leading up to the g
eneral election and afterwords. And when the Democrats are successful, election and vote counting chaos is created which they can further exploit through lawsuits. The Democrats are attempting to win this election in the courts, rather than the ballot box.?(7) Two of the many problems with this is (a) it threatens to overwhelm the courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving Democrat state officials with carte blanche to throw out any state election law that they think stands in the way of their electoral victory and lower courts without effective accountability to higher courts,?and (b) the courts are faced with the novel situation of state officials throwing out state election laws on the eve of an election. ?(8) In dealing with this situation, two question arise in the courts: should courts apply the deferential Anderson-Burdick test regarding the constitutionality of the actions of state officials or state courts overturning state election law, or the Purcell princip
le to shield these actions from constitutional challenge when they occur on the eve of an election.?(9) We argue in our Motion that (a) the deferential Anderson-Burdick test for constitutionality is designed only to apply to review of Legislative enactments of state election laws, not when state bureaucrats fashion their own election procedures contrary to state election laws, such as Governor Bullock has done, and (b) the Purcell principle is also designed to protect Legislative enactments from eve of an election court injunctions, not when state bureaucrats change state election laws on the eve of an election, as has happened in Montana.?(10) We urge the Court to decide these issues now, by adopting a unified analysis on how state election law cases will be decided, in order "to resolve this case, provide much needed direction to lower courts for now and after the election, substantially increase the likelihood that election law cases will be decided correctly under the Constituti
on, abate the flood, reduce the resulting chaos regarding election procedures and the uncertainty regarding the outcome of the election, and restore public confidence in our elections."?James Bopp, Jr.AttorneyThe Bopp Law Firm, PC | www.bopplaw.comThe National Building | 1 South 6th Street | Terre Haute, IN 47807voice: (812) 232-2434 ext. 22 | fax: (812) 235-3685 | cell: (812) 243-0825 | jboppjr at aol.com?Sent from AOL DesktopIn a message dated 10/6/2020 11:49:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:?
Montana Republicans Seek Supreme Court Order to Block Expansion of Montana Mail in Balloting
Posted on?October 6, 2020 4:04 pm?by?Rick Hasen
This petition?faces an uphill battle. Note the attempted distinction between ?absentee? and ?mail in? ballots and the attempt to argue around the Purcell principle. Note too that this does not come from state defendants objecting to the expansion of mail-in balloting.
[This post has been updated.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/d46d668f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:24:09 -0400
From: Danielle Caputo <dcaputo at issueone.org>
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Issue One launches 'Count Every Vote' to defend election
integrity with $20 million public education campaign
Message-ID:
<CAOr3Htp21jBdSKgZU1iiZJh7gFFW6hZB22ojuc=2SikjD3z0vw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all,
We are excited to announce the launch of Issue One?s $20 million Count
Every Vote <https://counteveryvote.org/> campaign devoted to defending the
legitimacy of our elections and ensuring that every American?s vote is
counted. Today, we?re launching a $4 million digital and TV ad buy, and a
major portion of the campaign will focus on the post-election period. The
campaign is centered around a grassroots and grasstops pledge
<https://counteveryvote.org/#pledge>. Read our press release
<https://counteveryvote.org/press-release-new-bipartisan-council-formed-to-defend-election-integrity-launches-20-million-public-education-campaign-to-count-every-vote/>
.
The campaign is anchored by The National Council on Election Integrity
<https://counteveryvote.org/members/>, a bipartisan group of former elected
officials, former Cabinet secretaries, retired military officials, and
civic leaders united around protecting the integrity of our elections.
Members including former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Bill
Frist (R-TN), former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (D), former
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats (R-IN), former Governor and
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (R-PA), former Secretaries of
Defense Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Leon Panetta (D-CA), Issue One ReFormers
Caucus Co-chairs Amb. Tim Roemer (D-IN) and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), retired
Adm. Bill Owens, UnidosUS President and CEO Janet Murgu?a, former Rep. Donna
Edwards (D-MD), former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R-KY),
former Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D-MO), former DNC
Chair Donna
Brazile, former RNC Chair Michael Steele, and many others.
Want to help amplify?
-
Sign and share our pledge <https://counteveryvote.org/>
-
Share our launch ad <https://youtu.be/5zqsV5QkZYk>
-
Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/CountEveryVoteUS/>,
Twitter <https://twitter.com/CountEveryVote1>, and Instagram
<https://counteveryvote.org/instagram>
Read our op-ed in the Washington Post
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/29/theres-no-reason-doubt-that-election-will-be-safe-secure/?fbclid=IwAR1NwJaIw6FchsicHDGvbxZb3bKAQfGdQhXbcEyoOyBTNGpf9F8Ddai6Fmc>
from Daschle and Frist, as well as these features in the Wall Street Journal
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/bipartisan-former-senate-leaders-cabinet-secretaries-aim-to-shore-up-trust-in-vote-11601631001>
and TIME <https://counteveryvote.org/bill-frist-in-conversation-with-time/>.
Thanks,
Danielle
--
*Danielle Caputo*
Legislative and Programs Counsel
Issue One/Issue One Action
1401 K St NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20005
Office: (202) 204-8555
Cell: (954) 821-0270
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/096b2062/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:38:31 +0000
From: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] (no subject)
Message-ID: <d557fabcc6ca4e51b55b6777f1136859 at nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hope someone can help out on this - I recall seeing a chart/graph a month or so ago that showed how much Rs and Ds started diverging on how they would vote (in-person or by absentee) once the President began criticizing mail-in voting. If anyone knows where I can find that chart that shows how these preferences shifted once the critiques began, I'd much appreciate it, since I can't manage to dig it up.
Thanks -
Best,
Rick
Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square So.
NYC, NY 10014
347-886-6789
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/485c523c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:52:18 +0000
From: "Kousser, Thad" <tkousser at mail.ucsd.edu>
To: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>, Election Law Listserv
<law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Rick Pildes question on party split over voting by
mail
Message-ID:
<BYAPR04MB527289203B270C42B33485E1940A0 at BYAPR04MB5272.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi Rick and All,
You can find such a chart in our paper, "America's electorate is increasingly polarized along partisan lines about voting by mail during the COVID-19 crisis," linked here<https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24640>, in PNAS. Figure 1 in that paper shows polarization on how eligible voters prefer to cast their ballots and their support for the policy of by-request absentee ballot voting between the nationally representative polls that we conducted in April and June. It also shows that when respondents read scientific projections about the pandemic (the "treated" cases in our graph), Democrats were significantly more likely to prefer to vote by mail while Republicans were not influenced by these projections.
We also conducted a similar survey in August, showing further polarization, and will go back into the field again next week to continue to chart changes in voters' preferences about how they want to cast a ballot, their comfort level with waiting in line at polling places, their trust in the integrity of different modes of voting, and their views on a range of policies. The paragraph below, from a forthcoming Monkey Cage piece, tracks the polarization that we have observed in the desire to vote by mail:
"We find a significant, growing gap over how citizens want to cast a ballot. In April, 40 percent of Democrats said they would like to vote by mail while only 30 percent of Republicans indicated the same. By June, that gap had grown to 20 percentage points, with 45 percent of Democrats saying they?d vote by mail to 25 percent of Republicans. By August, half of all Democrats said they want to vote by mail this election while only a quarter of Republicans said they would, for a gap of 25 percentage points."
<https://www.pnas.org/content/117/40/24640>
Best, Thad
Thad Kousser, Professor and Department Chair
Department of Political Science, UC San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0521
858-534-3239
http://polisci.ucsd.edu<http://polisci.ucsd.edu/>
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 8:38 AM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] (no subject)
Hope someone can help out on this ? I recall seeing a chart/graph a month or so ago that showed how much Rs and Ds started diverging on how they would vote (in-person or by absentee) once the President began criticizing mail-in voting. If anyone knows where I can find that chart that shows how these preferences shifted once the critiques began, I?d much appreciate it, since I can?t manage to dig it up.
Thanks -
Best,
Rick
Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square So.
NYC, NY 10014
347-886-6789
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/ee08c1f1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:35:58 +0000
From: "Hall, Adam" <Adam.Hall at leg.wa.gov>
To: Lisa Hill <lisa.hill at adelaide.edu.au>, "'timwhite at
rockisland.com'" <timwhite at rockisland.com>, "'Hess, Doug'"
<HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>, "larrylevine at earthlink.net"
<larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss
up states
Message-ID:
<BY5PR09MB564912182DC7B293E4622583D20A0 at BY5PR09MB5649.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
While plaudits are appreciated when it comes to Washington state elections, I will note that getting to this point has taken more than a decade's worth of hard work by election administrators as well as the political will to make voting access a top priority in the state legislature over the past three years.
I do agree that it is clear this simply hasn't been the case in many other states across the country.
Adam Hall
Policy Counsel | Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus
Committees: Law & Justice | State Government, Tribal Relations & Elections
E: adam.hall at leg.wa.gov<mailto:adam.hall at leg.wa.gov> | O: (360) 786-7078 | C: (206) 450-3073
Gender Pronouns: He/him/his
[2018 SDC LOGO_rectangle_270px]
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Lisa Hill
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:21 PM
To: 'timwhite at rockisland.com' <timwhite at rockisland.com>; 'Hess, Doug' <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>; larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Legislature. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm with you Larry. Its just voter suppression.
Professor Lisa Hill D.Phil. (Oxon.) FASSA
Department of Politics and International Relations
Room 411, Napier Building
School of Social Sciences
University of Adelaide
South Australia 5005
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2020 8:48 AM
To: 'timwhite at rockisland.com' <timwhite at rockisland.com<mailto:timwhite at rockisland.com>>; 'Hess, Doug' <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
Cc: 'law-election' <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
This is so easy and fundamental for those who want it to be. For those who put obstacles in the way, it's either incompetence of willful obstruction. Can't begin to process absentee ballots until election day? Come on. Why not? Don't have enough staff to deal with the load? Come on. You've known about this for half a year. Sorry, folks, but my patience has worn thin with all the intellectualizing about this. Let's call it what it is - voter suppression by people who have admitted they can't win if everyone votes.
Larry
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> On Behalf Of timwhite at rockisland.com
Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2020 2:59 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
WA state prediction by SoS Kim Wyman on 9-22:
90% of ballots to be counted & reported by Tuesday Nov 10.
WA notes:
All vote-by-mail.
Election-day postmark deadline (not a deadline that ballots arrive in official hands by election day).
Late-arriving ballots with valid postmark are counted if arrive through Monday Nov 23, the day before county certification.
That last 10 percent consists of the trickle of slow UOCAVA and snailmail arrivals, plus ballot envelope signature cures .
Wyman expects Nov turnout may exceed 90%.
She reports that in normal lower-turnout years, and with higher percent of ballots voted earlier, that 90% level would normally be reached on Friday Nov 6.
Sec Wyman explains her estimate's logistics and variables at play beginning at timestamp 50:50 at video below.
Thank you,
posted by Tim White, Okanogan WA
Stand with the facts - Voting security and what you need to know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2sReDH2h4<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dme2sReDH2h4&data=02%7C01%7Cadam.hall%40leg.wa.gov%7Cdea99087d2f040a933e608d86a80e4cc%7C848b0e6c94894d83b31e4fde99732b09%7C0%7C0%7C637376449428833214&sdata=PGHY8K5kbv51VLT%2Fq8gLKldYTirIazW1vDZ1HX984rU%3D&reserved=0>
WA SoS Wyman interviewed by Kim Malcolm
KUOW (Seattle NPR affiliate)
9-22-20
from minute 50:50
________________________________
From: "Hess, Doug" <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>
To: "law-election" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:12:51 PM
Subject: [EL] delays in ballot counting in presidential swing/toss up states
Hello.
I'm wondering if anybody has or has seen analysis on which states are certain (or very likely) to be counting mail-in ballots well after election day? From there, I can figure out which might be "close" presidential-election states.
If you respond, please keep my email address in the response as I am embarrassed to say that I don't check the list as regularly as I should (mea culpa).
Thank you.
-----------------------
Douglas R Hess
On sabbatical until Aug 31, 2021
Asst. Professor, Political Science/Policy Studies
http://www.douglasrhess.com<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DHUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk%26r%3Dxr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo%26m%3D1Su0W65D8QCtkZsJ9MBhqWnbMcCIi_d8PwyIITS_tY4%26s%3DaHRFhpmE6iq5wHSEeTCwBPdVAD0eUAghzYZAx_GUTyE%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cadam.hall%40leg.wa.gov%7Cdea99087d2f040a933e608d86a80e4cc%7C848b0e6c94894d83b31e4fde99732b09%7C0%7C0%7C637376449428843162&sdata=dTxjXXu5iGVnMsK1%2BWEoX3yaa7vI6PyWNh3bZKTMZLI%3D&reserved=0>
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cadam.hall%40leg.wa.gov%7Cdea99087d2f040a933e608d86a80e4cc%7C848b0e6c94894d83b31e4fde99732b09%7C0%7C0%7C637376449428843162&sdata=XG4cjPO2h9LvfxxRolislCyqv%2F4CEYkE71yVcsmDzLg%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/43a7cae4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7902 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201007/43a7cae4/attachment-0001.png>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
------------------------------
End of Law-election Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8
********************************************
View list directory