[EL] 8th Circuit 2-1 decision cuts back Minnesota deadline; more news and commentary

Samuel Bagenstos sbagen at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 06:54:55 PDT 2020 

Assuming the conclusion again!

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu> wrote:

> I made no claim about what methodologies are appropriate here.
>
> As for the other, assuming such cases are justiciable, I think Martin
> settled the question of the position of the Supreme Court relative to state
> courts on matters of federal law.
>
> Jonathan H. Adler
> jha5 at case.edu
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 9:39 AM Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But where in Article II's use of the word "legislature" do we find the
>> principle that state legislation must be read according to a textualist
>> methodology?  More generally, what in Article II says that SCOTUS, rather
>> than another entity, gets to decide what the "objectively discernible
>> meaning" of state legislation is?  It seems to me that the very arguments
>> that say that the state courts (or other state entities) can't decide this
>> question mean that SCOTUS can't, either.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I made no comment about the Eighth Circuit's decision.  I was merely
>>> responding to Sam's point.
>>>
>>> JHA
>>>
>>> Jonathan H. Adler
>>> jha5 at case.edu
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 9:18 AM Marty Lederman <
>>> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As it happens, the statute in question *does *have a rather
>>>> "objectively discernible" meaning, and it's one that *supports *the
>>>> Secretary here.  Section 204B.47 provides: “When a provision of the
>>>> Minnesota Election Law cannot be implemented as a result of an order
>>>> of a state or federal court, the secretary of state *shall* adopt
>>>> alternative election procedures to permit the administration of any
>>>> election affected by the order.”
>>>>
>>>> The statutory receipt deadline here can't be implemented because of an
>>>> order of a state court (the approval and entry of the consent decree), and
>>>> therefore the Secretary was using a Nov. 10 deadline, in conformity with
>>>> that court order, just as Section 204BB.47 *requires *him to do
>>>> ("shall").  For a federal court to conclude that this reasonable (indeed,
>>>> objectively discernible) state judicial and executive reading of a state
>>>> statute is so unreasonable as to require an injunction, well, I'm not even
>>>> sure how to describe that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only if one concludes that the state statute lacks an objectively
>>>>> discernible meaning or range of permissible meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Jonathan H. Adler
>>>>> Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law
>>>>> Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law
>>>>> Case Western Reserve University School of Law
>>>>> 11075 East Boulevard
>>>>> Cleveland, OH 44106
>>>>> ph) 216-368-2535
>>>>> fax) 216-368-2086
>>>>> cell) 202-255-3012
>>>>> jha5 at case.edu
>>>>> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995
>>>>> Blog: https://reason.com/people/jonathan-adler/
>>>>> Web: http://www.jhadler.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 8:28 AM Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I ask a naive question?  If SCOTUS is telling us that a state
>>>>>> court or other state entity impermissibly deviated from a state statute,
>>>>>> isn't SCOTUS violating Article II by displacing the role of the state
>>>>>> legislature?  I think this Article II theory logically cannibalizes
>>>>>> itself.  Not that logic means anything, especially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 8:25 AM Lori A Ringhand <ringhand at uga.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is striking to me how much these opinions (and the debate
>>>>>>> surrounding them) have surpassed even the three-justice plurality in *Bush
>>>>>>> v. Gore*.  Justice Rehnquist's opinion in that case decidedly did
>>>>>>> not say that decisions of the state supreme court, the secretary of state,
>>>>>>> or the Florida canvassing boards were invalid simply because these bodies
>>>>>>> are not "the legislature." Instead, the opinion rested on the idea that the
>>>>>>> state supreme court's interpretation of state law was unreasonable and
>>>>>>> therefore exceeded its authority, *not *that the Constitution
>>>>>>> requires that it or any other of these entities need to be cut out of the
>>>>>>> regular state law process as a matter of course. The opinion even talks
>>>>>>> (approvingly) of how state law vests discretion over recounts in the
>>>>>>> canvassing boards, and how the state supreme court opinion deviated from
>>>>>>> established practice "prescribed by the Secretary."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lori A. Ringhand
>>>>>>> Fulbright Scotland Visiting Professor, University of Aberdeen
>>>>>>> J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law, University of Georgia
>>>>>>> Athens, GA 30601
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ringhand at uga.edu
>>>>>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=332414
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>>>>> on behalf of Schultz, David <dschultz at hamline.edu>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:29 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
>>>>>>> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] 8th Circuit 2-1 decision cuts back Minnesota
>>>>>>> deadline; more news and commentary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [EXTERNAL SENDER - PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all:
>>>>>>> Justin basically gets the analysis right for Minnesota and it sets
>>>>>>> up a potential duality between state and federal races.  There is state law
>>>>>>> that mandates the requirements for absentee ballots and early voting that
>>>>>>> require signature requirements and as the Frankencase stipulated, strict
>>>>>>> compliance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should also be noted that many of the ballots already in are from
>>>>>>> DFL areas and that any of ballots still to come in may be from Republican
>>>>>>> areas.  This decision may well hurt GOP voters more than Democrats,
>>>>>>> especially with the delays in mail especially from  rural areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 7:59 PM Levitt, Justin <
>>>>>>> justin.levitt at lls.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the Coleman-Franken contest, as I recall, the Minnesota Supreme
>>>>>>> Court said that Minnesota law required *that the voter* maintain
>>>>>>> “strict” compliance with all statutory requirements (for absentee
>>>>>>> ballots).  In contrast, the court traced a 144-year history of finding that
>>>>>>> if a voter complies with the law, his vote “should not be rejected because
>>>>>>> of irregularities, ignorance, inadvertence, or mistake, or even intentional
>>>>>>> wrong on the part of the election officers.”  767 N.W.2d 453, 462 (2009).
>>>>>>>  The original 1865 case refused to invalidate an election when certain
>>>>>>> pollworkers didn’t take an oath, despite facially plausible arguments based
>>>>>>> on the statutory structure that by declaring that elections shouldn’t be
>>>>>>> invalidated for X and Y reason, the legislature implied elections
>>>>>>> *should* be invalidated based on a failure of the oath.  That logic
>>>>>>> was based on the state constitution … and seems (I’d hope) uncontroversial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Eighth Circuit today, citing SCOTUS dicta, says that the
>>>>>>> legislature’s power in Presidential elections can’t be modified by state
>>>>>>> constitutions.  And the Coleman-Franken court didn’t cite a state statute
>>>>>>> for its interpretation (maybe a Minnesota expert will let me know if one
>>>>>>> exists).  So barring a state statute on point, I presume that that line of
>>>>>>> caselaw in Minnesota is now invalid in the Eighth Circuit for federal
>>>>>>> elections.  I’d hope that the principle is still a part of federal law.
>>>>>>> But as a matter of state law under the Eighth Circuit’s decision, when the
>>>>>>> ballots go to be counted in Minnesota, doesn’t this mean that
>>>>>>> election-official mistakes in statutes that purport to be mandatory,
>>>>>>> however minor, don’t invalidate a ballot for state races, but maybe might
>>>>>>> invalidate a ballot for federal races?  Does that latter conclusion depend
>>>>>>> on an interpretation of the state statutory structure based on something
>>>>>>> other than background state legal principles (and if so, where does it come
>>>>>>> from?), for rules that state statutes purport to make mandatory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There’s still an oath requirement in Minnesota law – 204B.24
>>>>>>> requires “each” poll worker to sign a very specific oath and attach that
>>>>>>> statement to the election returns of the precinct, which implies that the
>>>>>>> oath is of some significance specifically related to the validity of the
>>>>>>> returns.  If there’s a printing error on the oath paper so that the oath
>>>>>>> isn’t exactly as prescribed in statute, or if one of several poll workers
>>>>>>> fails to sign the oath, I certainly hope that doesn’t invalidate the
>>>>>>> election-day precinct returns for all of the federal candidates on the
>>>>>>> ballot there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, that conclusion would be absurd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But would it be absurd based on the actual text of the state
>>>>>>> statutes passed by the state Legislature, or based on something else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>>>>> *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2020 4:05 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [EL] 8th Circuit 2-1 decision cuts back Minnesota
>>>>>>> deadline; more news and commentary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Outrageous 2-1 Decision Ignoring Reliance Interests and Rejecting
>>>>>>> the Purcell Principle, 8th Circuit Panel Orders Segregation of Late
>>>>>>> Arriving Ballots in Minnesota, With Strong Hints Late Arriving Ballots Will
>>>>>>> Be Excluded from The Count <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117784>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 4:03 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117784> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is hard to know where to start with this opinion
>>>>>>> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7278436-8th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-MN-absentee-ballot.html>.
>>>>>>> The majority suggests that a consent decree extending the deadline for
>>>>>>> absentee ballots in Minnesota, entered into by the Secretary of State and
>>>>>>> plaintiffs and approved by a state court, usurps the power of the state
>>>>>>> legislature under article II of the Constitution (under a theory a majority
>>>>>>> of the Supreme Court has not endorsed—at least not yet). The court reached
>>>>>>> this conclusion despite the fact that the Legislature did not object (the
>>>>>>> court found that Electors have standing, quite a dubious proposition that
>>>>>>> they could assert the rights of the legislature), that the Legislature
>>>>>>> delegated the power to the Secretary of State to take these steps, and
>>>>>>> despite the fact that we are on the eve of the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This timing issue is doubly troubling. First, the Supreme Court has
>>>>>>> said that federal courts should be very wary of changing election rules
>>>>>>> just before the election. This Purcell Principle is controversial but it
>>>>>>> has been applied very heavily by the Supreme Court this election season
>>>>>>> especially.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More importantly, think of the reliance interests of Minnesota
>>>>>>> voters, who have been told until today that they have extra time to mail
>>>>>>> their ballots. Now there is the very real chance that those late-arriving
>>>>>>> ballots won’t count through no fault of their own. Both the plaintiffs and
>>>>>>> courts could have moved much sooner if they had this concern. It is voters
>>>>>>> that are going to be on the short end of things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether the state goes to the Supreme Court at this time or not, and
>>>>>>> whether they are successful at getting a majority to overturn this (I’d
>>>>>>> give it a fair shot given the reliance interests), things are so uncertain
>>>>>>> that the only advice to people in Minnesota is not to vote by mail at this
>>>>>>> point. Do NOT put your ballot in the U.S. Mail. Use official government
>>>>>>> drop boxes or vote in person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117784&title=In%20Outrageous%202-1%20Decision%20Ignoring%20Reliance%20Interests%20and%20Rejecting%20the%20Purcell%20Principle%2C%208th%20Circuit%20Panel%20Orders%20Segregation%20of%20Late%20Arriving%20Ballots%20in%20Minnesota%2C%20With%20Strong%20Hints%20Late%20Arriving%20Ballots%20Will%20Be%20Excluded%20from%20The%20Count>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in absentee ballots <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden
>>>>>>> conspiracy deluge” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117781>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 3:35 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117781> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NBC News
>>>>>>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387>
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Nine month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden’s
>>>>>>> laptop, a fake “intelligence” document about him went viral on the
>>>>>>> right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving
>>>>>>> former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and business in China.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by
>>>>>>> close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a
>>>>>>> fake “intelligence firm” called Typhoon Investigations, according to
>>>>>>> researchers and public documents.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security
>>>>>>> analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis
>>>>>>> by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen’s profile
>>>>>>> picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The
>>>>>>> intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer told NBC News
>>>>>>> that no one by that name had ever worked for their company, and no one by
>>>>>>> that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social
>>>>>>> media searches.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and
>>>>>>> professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of the
>>>>>>> document when asked about it by NBC News, and said that Aspen does not
>>>>>>> exist.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Despite the document’s questionable authorship and anonymous
>>>>>>> sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the
>>>>>>> Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese
>>>>>>> government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse
>>>>>>> candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The document and its spread have become part of a wider effort
>>>>>>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/inside-campaign-pizzagate-hunter-biden-n1244331> to
>>>>>>> smear Hunter Biden and weaken Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, which
>>>>>>> moved from the fringes of the internet to more mainstream conservative news
>>>>>>> outlets.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *An unverified leak of documents including salacious pictures from
>>>>>>> what President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Delaware Apple
>>>>>>> repair store owner claimed to be Hunter Biden’s hard drive were published
>>>>>>> in the New York Post on Oct. 14. Associates close to Trump, including
>>>>>>> Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, have since
>>>>>>> promised more blockbuster leaks and secrets, which have yet to materialize.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The fake intelligence document, however, preceded the leak by
>>>>>>> months and helped lay the groundwork among right-wing media for what would
>>>>>>> become a failed October surprise: a viral pile-on of conspiracy theories
>>>>>>> about Hunter Biden.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117781&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20a%20fake%20persona%20laid%20the%20groundwork%20for%20a%20Hunter%20Biden%20conspiracy%20deluge%E2%80%9D>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in cheap speech <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>,
>>>>>>> chicanery <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Ruling Revision ‘Doesn’t Go Far Enough’, Vermont Secretary of State
>>>>>>> Tells Justice Kavanaugh” <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117779>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 3:33 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117779> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jess Bravin
>>>>>>> <https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/election-live-updates-trump-biden-2020-10-29/card/yw4eyads0C0mLKh5tfcJ> for
>>>>>>> the WSJ:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos isn’t satisfied with Justice
>>>>>>> Brett Kavanaugh’s revision to a recent voting-rights opinion that Mr.
>>>>>>> Condos said misstated his state’s election rules.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *On Wednesday, Justice Kavanaugh revised a Monday opinion
>>>>>>> <https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/election-live-updates-trump-biden-2020-10-28/card/DPUm2bTc6zMFE7HPfyKS> that
>>>>>>> originally said Vermont hadn’t changed its “ordinary election rules” in
>>>>>>> response to the coronavirus pandemic to state that it hadn’t changed its
>>>>>>> “ordinary election deadline rules,” after Mr. Condos complained that the
>>>>>>> justice overlooked a host of other measures the state took to help voters
>>>>>>> limit exposure to Covid-19.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *“I’m glad he admitted a mistake and modified his opinion, but a
>>>>>>> one-word addition doesn’t go far enough,” Mr. Condos, a Democrat, said
>>>>>>> Thursday. “I will not sit idly by while Justice Kavanaugh uses factually
>>>>>>> incorrect information about the Green Mountain State as cover to erode
>>>>>>> voting rights in the middle of a pandemic-distressed election.”*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117779&title=%E2%80%9CRuling%20Revision%20%E2%80%98Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Go%20Far%20Enough%E2%80%99%2C%20Vermont%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Tells%20Justice%20Kavanaugh%E2%80%9D>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “How The 2020 Election Could End Up In The Courts”
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117777>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 3:31 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117777> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WMFE
>>>>>>> <https://www.wmfe.org/how-the-2020-election-could-end-up-in-the-courts/167846> talks
>>>>>>> to Ciara Torres-Spelliscy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117777&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20The%202020%20Election%20Could%20End%20Up%20In%20The%20Courts%E2%80%9D>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ariane de Vogue and I Joined John King on CNN to Talk About Latest
>>>>>>> Supreme Court Rulings on Voting (Video)
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117775>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 3:23 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117775> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can watch here:
>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKLik6Ptpc&feature=youtu.be>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117775&title=Ariane%20de%20Vogue%20and%20I%20Joined%20John%20King%20on%20CNN%20to%20Talk%20About%20Latest%20Supreme%20Court%20Rulings%20on%20Voting%20(Video)>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in Supreme Court <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “So, Russia, You Want to Mess With Our Voting Machines? The United
>>>>>>> States should threaten to retaliate — and I’m not talking about economic
>>>>>>> sanctions or legal indictments.”
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117773>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 2:47 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117773> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Wu
>>>>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/opinion/election-interference-russia-iran.html> for
>>>>>>> NYT Opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I made the same point in Election Meltdown. An attack on our
>>>>>>> election infrastructure or power grid on Election Day should be seen as an
>>>>>>> act of war and declared that in advance by the President.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117773&title=%E2%80%9CSo%2C%20Russia%2C%20You%20Want%20to%20Mess%20With%20Our%20Voting%20Machines%3F%20The%20United%20States%20should%20threaten%20to%20retaliate%20%E2%80%94%20and%20I%E2%80%99m%20not%20talking%20about%20economic%20sanctions%20or%20legal%20indictments.%E2%80%9D>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted in Election Meltdown <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=127>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Did Justice Alito Not Address the Huge Standing Issue in
>>>>>>> Yesterday’s Pennsylvania Case?
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117766>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Posted on October 29, 2020 12:09 pm
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117766> by *Rick Hasen*
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I wrote <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117673> about the
>>>>>>> Supreme Court order in the Pennsylvania case and Justice Alito’s separate
>>>>>>> statement strongly suggesting the PA Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally
>>>>>>> in taking power away from the state legislature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s a controversial theory but I want to put that to one side and
>>>>>>> raise the point that the PA Legislature did not file this cert. petition
>>>>>>> nor did legislative leaders (who were on an earlier stay request, but not
>>>>>>> this cert. petition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn’t the lack of standing, which I flagged earlier
>>>>>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=117413>, reason enough to defeat
>>>>>>> this claim? That is, how can the party complain about the loss of the
>>>>>>> Legislature’s purported rights?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: Share]
>>>>>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D117766&title=Why%20Did%20Justice%20Alito%20Not%20Address%20the%20Huge%20Standing%20Issue%20in%20Yesterday%E2%80%99s%20Pennsylvania%20Case%3F>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> David Schultz, Distinguished University Professor
>>>>>>> Hamline University
>>>>>>> Department of Political Science and
>>>>>>> Department of Legal Studies
>>>>>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>>>>> MS B 1805
>>>>>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>>>>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>>>>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>>>>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>>>>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
>>>>>>> My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
>>>>>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marty Lederman
>>>> Georgetown University Law Center
>>>> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>> 202-662-9937
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Bagenstos
>> He/Him/His
>> sbagen at gmail.com
>> Twitter: @sbagen
>> University of Michigan homepage:
>> http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Samuel Bagenstos
He/Him/His
sbagen at gmail.com
Twitter: @sbagen
University of Michigan homepage:
http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201030/640209f1/attachment.html>

View list directory