[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/19/20
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Oct 19 08:47:13 PDT 2020
“What if there’s no winner on November 4?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117066>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117066> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have written this piece<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/19/opinions/election-us-close-trump-biden-hasen/index.html> for CNN. It begins:
What will the United States and the world wake up to on November 4, 2020, the day after Election Day? And could the US endure a close election in which Joe Biden is declared the winner but President Donald J. Trump refuses to concede?
Given current polling <https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/politics/joe-biden-election-2020-best-electoral-path/index.html> of the presidential race, it is possible to imagine three scenarios<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/2020-election-projections-explained/index.html>, either on November 4 or on days soon thereafter: a narrow Trump victory in the Electoral College, with a huge loss in the popular vote; a Biden landslide in which Trump claims he lost because of a “rigged” election; or a very close and potentially flawed election going into overtime that could lead to a prolonged struggle over the presidency and the country. Each of these presents its own set of challenges for American democracy….
If Trump loses<https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/08/14/donald-trump-joe-biden-electoral-college-math-enten-analysis-vpx.cnn> by up to 5 million votes in the popular vote, as he could well do, and he remains in office thanks to an Electoral College victory after a divisive first term, it would vindicate his strategy of catering to a fervent white, rural and older base of voters while spurning a more multi-cultural and eclectic American majority. The American left would view such a narrow victory as the product of political manipulation, especially after Republicans over the last two decades played<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/upshot/the-gerrymandering-ruling-and-the-risk-of-a-monopoly-on-power.html> hardball on gerrymandering and restrictive<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html> voting laws. But if history is any indication Democrats are unlikely to do more than loudly complain unless there is evidence that Trump engaged in actual electoral tampering to ensure his victory.
A Biden landslide in both the popular vote and the electoral college, which seems plausible given current polling, would raise its own set of challenges. It is hard to imagine Trump accepting a loss with grace and giving a magnanimous concession speech wishing Biden and the country well. The best-case scenario under this potential outcome is that Trump grumbles on his way out, ready to rebuild<https://us.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/trump-election-legal-reckoning/index.html> his business empire and perhaps start Trump TV while a number of lawsuits and investigations play out.
Should Trump decide not to go quietly following a Biden landslide, there’s good reason to believe that American institutions as well as Republican election leaders would accept his defeat and refuse to allow him to make an authoritarian power play. Trump has tested American norms since his candidacy in 2016, and has on multiple occasions refused to commit<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/presidential-debate.html> to a peaceful transition of power….
But what if it is close? This is the scenario that keeps me up at night. The race could come down to Pennsylvania or Michigan, two battleground states with a history of poor election administration in big cities including Philadelphia<https://fusion.inquirer.com/politics/philadelphia/trump-debate-philadelphia-elections-history-20200930.html> and Detroit<https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/12/18/detroit-ballots-vote-recount-election-stein/95570866/>.
If the race is close, Trump and his campaign could file lawsuits and use evidence of election administrator incompetence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.latimes.com_opinion_story_2020-2D09-2D25_absentee-2Dballots-2Dluzerne-2Dcounty-2Dpennsylvania-2Dwilliam-2Dbarr-2Ddepartment-2Dof-2Djustice&d=DwMGaQ&c=tq9bLrSQ8zIr87VusnUS9yAL0Jw_xnDiPuZjNR4EDIQ&r=a2r_ZTH_g0_qKDqpXT7ymrkmCum0glYX4aNzFl5Ayyw&m=Bw29oOpNsOgE6Mz6TtlV3wd8-YqPUWQeSahkZ15g2zg&s=tX7qRf6wsqp9Qman6yYaMQHo5QbnRaNlbKndA8QQ6ns&e=> to convince key segments of the American right that Democrats stole the election through deliberate fraud. Trump has already sowed distrust in the results by saying<https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the> without evidence that the only way he loses is if the election is “rigged.”
I am most worried about a race that is too close to call — especially in states struggling to count a torrent of mail-in ballots, such as Pennsylvania, whose legislators so far have refused to give election officials a head start as they do in other states like Florida to process<https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2020/10/pennsylvanias-election-officials-should-have-more-time-to-process-absentee-ballots.html> absentee votes.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117066&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20if%20there%E2%80%99s%20no%20winner%20on%20November%204%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
“Early Voting Analysis: Huge Turnout By Democrats”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117064>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117064> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NPR:<npr:>
Early voting turnout continues to shatter records, as sky-high voter enthusiasm meets the realities of the United States’ creaky machinery of democracy amid a pandemic. That means long lines in some places and administrative errors with some mail ballots, but a system that is working overall, according to experts.
“Despite some of those concerns, things are going at this point reasonably well,” said former Deputy Postmaster General Ronald Stroman, speaking specifically about the expansion of voting by mail.
More than 26 million people had voted as of Saturday, according to the U.S. Elections Project<https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html>, a turnout-tracking database run by University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald. That’s more than six times the number of votes cast<https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/> by the same point in 2016.
While there are still more than two weeks to go before Election Day, here are some takeaways from the votes that have already been cast.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117064&title=%E2%80%9CEarly%20Voting%20Analysis%3A%20Huge%20Turnout%20By%20Democrats%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Democrats hatch plans to counter Trump’s attempts to cast doubt on election results”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117062>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117062> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CNN<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/19/politics/election-results-2020-democratic-plans-trump/index.html>:
Democratic sources say that they are taking the President at his word. The Biden campaign is preparing for any number of legal contingencies that could arise if the vote is close, while lawmakers are preparing for plausible — and also quite implausible — scenarios that could arise if the presidential election were kicked to Congress to decide a winner. Democrats are also readying a response to Trump’s claims of fraud — which could cause his voters to doubt the legitimacy of the result, even if it’s a Biden landslide — with plans underway for nationwide protests should Trump try to dispute the result. They’re also working with social media companies to try to discourage a premature declaration of victory on election night.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats released a report on Sunday titled, “Counting Votes & What to Expect on Election Day,” aimed at preemptively pushing back on Trump’s claims of fraud, which details how not all states are likely to finish counting their votes on November 3.”
Despite the President’s false claims, according to the leading election experts in our country, voter fraud is nearly nonexistent,” the report says. “In some states, we may not know the winner on Election Night. That’s OK.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117062&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20hatch%20plans%20to%20counter%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20attempts%20to%20cast%20doubt%20on%20election%20results%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Election Meltdown<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
“Voter confusion rattles election officials in Pennsylvania near Monday’s deadline to register”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117060>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117060> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voter-confusion-rattles-election-officials-in-pennsylvania-near-mondays-deadline-to-register/2020/10/19/87f9ab9c-0ff8-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html>
Elections officials in Pennsylvania are being inundated with complaints from first-time and absentee voters having difficulty registering to vote or requesting a mail ballot, fueling anxiety in the critical swing state just as the 5 p.m. Monday deadline approaches to join the voting rolls in time for the November election.
College students in at least three counties in Pennsylvania who attempted to register to vote online had their applications rejected, and were notified that they must provide documentation in person or by mail to meet the Monday deadline, raising concerns among voting-rights advocates that an unknown number of students may not be able to register in time.
Meanwhile, other voters are receiving rejection notices for their absentee ballot requests without a clear explanation. County officials said the vast majority of these rejections were due to a technical problem: The voters had already requested a general-election ballot when they were applying to vote by mail for the primary election, so they didn’t need to request one again for the fall.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117060&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20confusion%20rattles%20election%20officials%20in%20Pennsylvania%20near%20Monday%E2%80%99s%20deadline%20to%20register%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“How Prepared Are These 7 Battlegrounds for the Election? A Readiness Report”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117058>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:15 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117058> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/us/politics/how-prepared-are-these-7-battlegrounds-for-the-election-a-readiness-report.html>
In Georgia, the state’s voting machines have malfunctioned in three consecutive elections this year alone.
In Pennsylvania, election officials are staring down possibly the biggest ballot processing backlog in the country, with no means of even touching the ballots until polls open on Election Day.
And in North Carolina, thousands of submitted absentee ballots are currently in purgatory, neither rejected nor accepted but “under review,” amid a back-and-forth court battle over so-called ballot curing<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/23/upshot/mail-ballots-states-disqualification.html>.
Short on money, overworked and under enormous pressure, many battleground states are still in the process of standing up their electoral systems, a building-a-plane-midflight reality for a democratic process that is being challenged daily by court cases, new laws and surges in the coronavirus….
Few states are still facing more litigation-driven uncertainty than Pennsylvania.
The state has had its plans to install drop boxes hung up in the courts for months; the question of whether it will be able to accept ballots that arrive after Election Day has been similarly stalled. The state legislature still hasn’t decided on allowing election officials to begin processing ballots early. And Kathy Boockvar, the secretary of state, is still awaiting guidance from the state Supreme Court as to whether election officials have to perform signature matching checks on absentee ballots.
“Pennsylvania is the one everyone is worried about,” said Charles Stewart III, a professor of political science at M.I.T. who runs the university’s Election Data and Science Lab.
While all of this uncertainty might seemingly depress enthusiasm for mail ballots, Pennsylvania voters are still requesting them at a record clip. More than 2.7 million ballots have been requested, and about 683,000 have been returned. Yet at the moment, election officials in the state’s 67 counties cannot touch the ballots until Election Day, raising the likelihood that full results will not be known for days.
By law, Pennsylvania does not offer any form of in-person early voting. But Ms. Boockvar has worked with county officials to set up satellite elections offices where voters can come and vote by absentee ballot in person (as in, request a ballot in person, receive it, fill it out there and then drop it off). The offices are intended to expand voting options and help decrease an expected surge on Election Day. But so far, only five of the state’s 67 counties<https://www.votespa.com/Voting-in-PA/Pages/Early-Voting.aspx> — Philadelphia, Centre, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery — have set up offices.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117058&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Prepared%20Are%20These%207%20Battlegrounds%20for%20the%20Election%3F%20A%20Readiness%20Report%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Justice Kavanaugh Unlocked Ways to Fight Foreign Interference”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117056>
Posted on October 19, 2020 8:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117056> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ellen Weintraub NYT oped<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/kavanaugh-foreign-interference.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur>:
Among many other recent developments not likely on anyone’s 2020 bingo card, a Supreme Court decision about foreign aid and legalized prostitution has shattered perceived constraints on the authority of the United States to robustly defend its elections against foreign interference.
This summer, in U.S. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society Internatonal, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, ruled that the U.S. government can compel overseas public health organizations that receive U.S. foreign aid to publicly oppose prostitution.
Yet Justice Kavanaugh’s decree — that “foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution” — is so expansive that it spills into election law, giving federal and state governments ample authority to defend us against the full range of foreign political warfare, without fear of violating the First Amendment.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117056&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Kavanaugh%20Unlocked%20Ways%20to%20Fight%20Foreign%20Interference%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The hidden factors that could produce a surprise Trump victory”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117054>
Posted on October 19, 2020 7:55 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117054> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico<https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/trump-victory-democrats-election-430013?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318>:
By almost every measure that political operatives, academics and handicappers use to forecast elections, the likely outcome is that Joe Biden will win the White House.
Yet two weeks before Election Day, the unfolding reality of 2020 is that it’s harder than ever to be sure. And Democrats are scrambling to account for the hidden variables that could still sink their nominee — or what you might call the known unknowns.
Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation. Democratic turnout is surging in the early vote. But it’s unclear whether it will be enough to overcome an expected rush of ballots that Republicans, leerier of mail voting, will cast in person on Nov. 3.
There is uncertainty about the accuracy of polling in certain swing states, the efficacy of GOP voter suppression efforts and even the number of mail-in ballots that for one reason or another will be disqualified.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117054&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20hidden%20factors%20that%20could%20produce%20a%20surprise%20Trump%20victory%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“How to cover Election Day and beyond”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117052>
Posted on October 19, 2020 7:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117052> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vivian Schiller and Garrett Graff for CJR<https://www.cjr.org/politics/2020-election-day-coverage-delays-disinformation.php>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117052&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20cover%20Election%20Day%20and%20beyond%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Preregistration Is Taking Hold in California: State shows dramatic gains since 2018, despite the pandemic”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117050>
Posted on October 19, 2020 7:38 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117050> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest<https://thecivicscenter.org/blog/2020/10/19/preregistration-is-taking-hold-in-california-state-shows-dramatic-gains-since-2018-despite-the-pandemic> from the Civics Center.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117050&title=%E2%80%9CPreregistration%20Is%20Taking%20Hold%20in%20California%3A%20State%20shows%20dramatic%20gains%20since%202018%2C%20despite%20the%20pandemic%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voter registration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
Oct. 20 Event: “Navigating the Rapids: Swing State Secretaries and the 2020 Elections” (with Benson, Boockvar, and LaRose)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117048>
Posted on October 19, 2020 7:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117048> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Havard’s Ash Center<https://ash.harvard.edu/event/navigating-rapids-swing-state-secretaries-and-2020-elections>:
As we approach the final weeks of the election campaign, Secretaries of State – particularly in swing states – face tremendous pressures as they fulfill their responsibilities to provide a smooth, inclusive, and safe election that delivers a trusted result. The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation is privileged to bring together a bipartisan group of secretaries from the key swing states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. They will discuss the challenges they are facing, the pressures they are under, and what they are doing to make the November elections work for the citizens of their states.
This event is co-sponsored by the Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School.
Register for this event<https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/1116007146793/WN_lEeGMOmgSMuuR1FjBc-vPg>
Speakers include:
Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State, Michigan
Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania
Frank LaRose, Secretary of State, Ohio
Miles Rapoport (Moderator), Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy, Ash Center
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117048&title=Oct.%2020%20Event%3A%20%E2%80%9CNavigating%20the%20Rapids%3A%20Swing%20State%20Secretaries%20and%20the%202020%20Elections%E2%80%9D%20(with%20Benson%2C%20Boockvar%2C%20and%20LaRose)>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117046>
Posted on October 19, 2020 7:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117046> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steven Sholk:
I am pleased to announce that an updated version of my article, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, has been published by Practising Law Institute as part of its 2020 Course Handbook for the seminar, Tax Strategies for Corporate Acquisitions, Dispositions, Spin-Offs, Joint Ventures, Financings, Reorganizations & Restructurings.
You can find it here<https://media.gibbonslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/19090046/A-Guide-to-Election-Year-Activities-of-Section-5013c-Organizations.pdf>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117046&title=A%20Guide%20to%20Election%20Year%20Activities%20of%20Section%20501(c)(3)%20Organizations>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
The Possibility of a Blockbuster Supreme Court Decision in the PA Election Case<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117040>
Posted on October 19, 2020 5:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117040> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
The Supreme Court has taken an exceptionally long time – given the impending election — to address the legal challenges before it involving voting issues in Pennsylvania. Given that length of time, it’s reasonable to assume we are going to get a substantial opinion from the Court, which will likely include dissenting opinions as well. The opinions could well address one of the most important unresolved constitutional issues concerning state regulation of presidential elections and maybe national elections more generally. The ramifications of the Court doing so would go well beyond PA and well beyond this election as well.
Two principal issues are before the Court, as it reviews the decision from the PA supreme court. The first issue, a minor one, is whether the state court decision permits absentee ballots to be cast after Election Day and, if so, whether that would violate federal statutes that require the election to take place on Election Day. If that’s all the Court addresses, the decision would be of minimal legal and practical significance.
But given the length of time this case has been pending – the initial application for a stay was filed on Sept. 28th – it is reasonable to assume the Court is addressing the much bigger question. That issue is what the meaning of the term “legislature” is in the Constitution. More specifically, the question is the meaning of that term for purposes of the Elections Clause in Art. I — which applies to state regulation of national elections in general — and the Art. II provision that governs the Electoral College and the presidential elections process in particular.
The more immediate stakes in this issue focus on whether the PA supreme court violated the Constitution in ordering that absentee ballots be treated as valid votes even if received up to three days after Election Day. In PA, the Elections Code, enacted through the normal lawmaking process, requires that absentees must be received by 8 pm on Election Night to be valid. Around 40 states similarly require valid absentees to be received on or before Election Night, though some states permit later receipt. Based on the state constitution, the PA supreme court held that this three-day extension was required, in order to protect the right to vote, given potential delays in mail service.
If the Court holds that the PA court decision was itself unconstitutional, that would mean that courts – both state and federal – would not have the power to order extensions of these receipt deadlines. That could be consequential for this election, particularly in PA; it would also mean that any court decisions still intact that have extended these deadlines could now be challenged and possibly reversed. But by now, there are not many court decisions still in place that have ordered extension of these deadlines. Most decisions by lower courts, state or federal, that have done so have now been reversed on appeal.
Much more importantly, though, is the path by which the Court would have to get to this result. The term “legislature” appears in the Constitution seventeen times. And a major constitutional issue centers around whether that term is best understood to mean (1) the ordinary lawmaking processes of a state, as established by the state constitution, or whether it should mean only (2) the formal institution of the legislature itself. Put less legalistically, the issue is whether in regulating the presidential election process or national elections more generally, the state legislatures have exclusive powers that cannot be significantly constrained by the ordinary constraints on state lawmaking – such as the state constitution or the requirement that that the Governor be given an opportunity to veto proposed laws.
To hold that the PA court violated the Constitution, the Court would have to hold that “legislature” means the formal institution itself. That would mean the state constitution cannot control the substantive policy choices the legislature makes about the rules governing presidential elections (and perhaps all national elections, as well). The state legislatures would still be bound by the federal Constitution, of course, so that they could not enact rules that would violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, for example. But within the state, the legislature would have plenary and exclusive control over the ground-rules for presidential elections.
The ramifications of that ruling would spread far and wide. For one, would this mean that Governors would no longer be able to exercise vetoes over the “legislature’s” regulation of the presidential election process? That would, of course, be a profound change. Second, to what extent are various state constitutional provisions still binding on the legislature when it regulates the presidential election process – in other words, what would the boundaries be on the kind of rules the state constitution can or cannot impose on the legislature? As an example, suppose a state constitution requires ten days of early voting in presidential elections; if the legislature wants to have more or fewer days, would the Constitution now mean that the state legislature is free to decide for itself on matters like this, regardless of the state constitution?
Another major question would be whether the implication would be that the term “legislature” would mean only the institution itself all seventeen times it is used in the Constitution. The Court’s decision might expressly address only the “legislature’s” power over presidential elections, under Art. II. But what would the decision imply about the state “legislature’s” power to regulate all national elections, under the Art. I Elections Clause?
Three options exist here: (1) the term “legislature” always means simply the institution itself; (2) the word legislature always means the ordinary lawmaking processes of the state; (3) “legislature” sometimes means the institution and sometimes means the ordinary lawmaking processes of a state. As an example of how that third possibility might come about, the Court could hold that Art. II, on the presidential election process, is a special provision that was specifically designed to give the legislatures exclusive control over this essential process. But if we think the Court has a textualist majority, it is not hard to imagine textualists concluding that “legislature” must have the same meaning each time it appears in the Constitution.
Yet another question would immediately be what implications this has for the Court’s recent 5-4 decision upholding the right of voters, through the initiative process, to bypass the legislature and adopt independent commissions, or commissions of other designs, to do redistricting. That decision, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission – the title tells you exactly what’s going on in the case – held that “legislature” in the Elections Clause means the ordinary lawmaking processes of a state. As a result, if a state permits voter initiatives to regulate the national election process, that does not intrude, based on the AIRC decision, on any purportedly exclusive powers of the state legislature. But the decision provoked a vehement 4-Justice dissent, written by Chief Justice Roberts.
If the Court holds that the PA court has violated the federal constitution, that would certainly create obvious tensions with the AIRC decision. The Court is unlikely to say anything about the continuing validity of that decision. And it’s possible in later cases, the Court might conclude that, even if AIRC is in tension with the (forthcoming) PA decision, that the Court will respect the precedent of that decision, but will not extend it further to new contexts. But however the Court ultimately resolves the continuing validity of AIRC, there would certainly at least be tension between that decision and the PA decision that will, eventually, have to be resolved.
On top of all this, the Court would likely have to say something about the notoriously uncertain Purcell principle. Other than as a general admonition to courts to be wary of making last-minute changes to election laws, Purcell does not lay out clearly which types of last-minute changes courts can properly make and which not. If the Court overturns the PA supreme court decision here, the Court will have to provide a bit more clarity about Purcell and why it does not stand in the way here of the Court’s decision [Update: As I discussed earlier<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=115927> on this blog, the Purcell doctrine does not technically apply to decisions of state courts, so the Court might not feel an obligation to say anything about the doctrine]
Finally, a holding that “legislature” means only the formal institution would put the federal courts in the position of having to adjudicate a vast array of election-law issues previously thought to be solely within the purview of state law. That would be all the more true if the decision implies that “legislature” means only the institution for purposes not just of presidential elections, but state regulation of all national elections. Each time a state court interprets state law on these matters, the ruling would be easily transformed into one that implicates federal constitutional law. The losing side will always pursue the argument that the state court interpretation unconstitutionally interferes with “the legislature’s” exclusive power. Similarly, rulings of state executive officials on election law, such as from the Secretary of State, could easily be transformed into federal constitutional ones, for the same reason. The federal courts might eventually conclude that “reasonable” interpretations of the election code do not violate “the legislature’s” exclusive power – but that would put the federal courts in the position of judging, case by case, whether the actions of state courts or executive officials regarding state election law, for national elections, is indeed reasonable.
This essay just begins to unpack the range of questions that will arise should the Court hold that the PA supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution. That decision would be a blockbuster one, whose implications the federal courts would spend years sorting out.
We should find out any day now whether, in fact, that’s why the PA case has been pending so long.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117040&title=The%20Possibility%20of%20a%20Blockbuster%20Supreme%20Court%20Decision%20in%20the%20PA%20Election%20Case>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Voting Rights Groups Help Americans ‘Cure’ Rejected Ballots”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117038>
Posted on October 18, 2020 5:28 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117038> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Pam Fessler reports<https://www.npr.org/2020/10/16/924648168/voting-rights-groups-help-americans-cure-rejected-ballots?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social> for NPR.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117038&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Groups%20Help%20Americans%20%E2%80%98Cure%E2%80%99%20Rejected%20Ballots%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/20201019/50083b83/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/20201019/50083b83/attachment.png>
View list directory