[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/20/21

Tue Apr 20 07:41:07 PDT 2021

Watch Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Happening Now: “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121735>
Posted on April 20, 2021 7:39 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121735> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Watch here<https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/jim-crow-2021-the-latest-assault-on-the-right-to-vote>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121735&title=Watch%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Hearing%20Happening%20Now%3A%20%E2%80%9CJim%20Crow%202021%3A%20The%20Latest%20Assault%20on%20the%20Right%20to%20Vote%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Georgia Faith Leaders to Urge Boycott of Home Depot Over Voting Law”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121733>
Posted on April 20, 2021 7:37 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121733> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/politics/georgia-home-depot-boycott.html>:

A major coalition of Black faith leaders in Georgia, representing more than 1,000 churches in the state, will call on Tuesday for a boycott of Home Depot, arguing that the company has abdicated its responsibility as a good corporate citizen by not pushing back on the state’s new voting law<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html>.

The call for a boycott, led by Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who oversees all 534 African Methodist Episcopal churches in Georgia, represents one of the first major steps to put significant economic pressure on businesses to be more vocal in opposing Republican efforts in Georgia and around the country to enact new restrictions on voting.

“We don’t believe this is simply a political matter,” Bishop Jackson said in an interview. “This is a matter that deals with securing the future of this democracy, and the greatest right in this democracy is the right to vote.”

Home Depot, Mr. Jackson said, “demonstrated an indifference, a lack of response to the call, not only from clergy, but a call from other groups to speak out in opposition to this legislation.”

While boycotts can be challenging to carry out in ways that put meaningful financial pressure on large corporations, the call nonetheless represents a new phase in the battle over voting rights in Georgia, where many Democrats and civil rights groups have been reluctant to support boycotts, viewing them as risking unfair collateral damage for the companies’ workers.

But the coalition of faith leaders pointed to the use of boycotts in the civil rights movement, when Black voters’ rights were also threatened, and said their call to action was meant as a “warning shot” for other state legislatures.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121733&title=%E2%80%9CGeorgia%20Faith%20Leaders%20to%20Urge%20Boycott%20of%20Home%20Depot%20Over%20Voting%20Law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Dozen Megadonors Gave $3.4 Billion, One in Every 13 Dollars, Since 2009”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121731>
Posted on April 20, 2021 7:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121731> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/politics/megadonors-political-spending.html>:

A dozen megadonors and their spouses contributed a combined $3.4 billion to federal candidates and political groups since 2009, accounting for nearly one out of every 13 dollars raised, according to a new report<https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Issue-One-Outsized-Influence-Report-final.pdf>.

The report, produced by Issue One, a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce the influence of money in politics, shows the top 12 donors split equally between six Democrats and six Republicans. The list includes multiple Wall Street billionaires and investors, a Facebook co-founder, a shipping magnate and the heir to a family fortune dating back to the Gilded Age.

The study quantifies the intensifying concentration and increasing role of the super rich in American politics following the loosening of restrictions on political spending by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago….

The growing influence of multimillion-dollar megadonors has been accompanied by another, competing trend: a surge of small online donations to politicians of both parties. Those contributions — in $5, $10 and $25 increments — have given Democrats and Republicans an alternate source of money beyond the super rich.

Still, the study found that the top 100 ZIP codes for political giving in the United States, which hold less than 1 percent of the total population, accounted for roughly 20 percent of the $45 billion that federal candidates and political groups raised between January 2009 and December 2020. The study used data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiles figures from the Federal Election Commission….

The single biggest spender on federal campaigns from 2009 to 2020 was Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, who spent $1.4 billion. Of that, $1 billion went toward his own failed campaign for president in 2020 and $314 million went to other federal candidates, super PACs and political groups.

He is the only donor to spent more than $1 billion. The No. 2 contributor is another Democrat, Tom Steyer, who, like Mr. Bloomberg, lost his bid for president in 2020. Mr. Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, have spent $653 million, with more than half going toward his own presidential campaign and $311 million to other federal candidates and committees.

The report does not include giving to state-level campaigns or politically connected nonprofit groups, which can often remain undisclosed.

The largest Republican contributor was Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, and his wife, Miriam Adelson, a physician. The Adelsons have contributed $523 million to Republican candidates and committees since 2009.

Mr. Adelson’s death in January 2021, at age 87, leaves a potential major shortfall for Republicans who have come to rely upon his largess. Republican operatives have privately fretted that while Ms. Adelson has been politically engaged, she may not have the same appetite for political giving as her late husband.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121731&title=%E2%80%9CDozen%20Megadonors%20Gave%20%243.4%20Billion%2C%20One%20in%20Every%2013%20Dollars%2C%20Since%202009%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Why Business Leaders Are Taking Political Stands”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121729>
Posted on April 20, 2021 7:20 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121729> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gerald Seib<https://www.wsj.com/articles/political-systems-failures-compel-corporate-activism-11618842598?reflink=desktopwebshare_twitter> for the WSJ:

But if what business leaders are doing in the political arena is pretty obvious, why they’re stepping into that arena is less clear.

In part, this business activism is simply a sign of the times, and of the national environment. In a hyper-politicized climate, citizens increasingly expect or even demand political positions from everybody—celebrities, sports figures and, yes, business leaders. The cacophony from social media makes it harder to duck the tough political questions.

That expectation of corporate stand-taking is particularly high among younger Americans, so businesses are feeling the pressure from both younger customers and their own employees to take stands. Companies hoping to recruit young, tech-savvy talent know that corporate culture and reputation now are part of the equation potential employees consider when deciding where to land.

And because younger Americans tend to be on the left side of the political equation on political and racial-justice issues, they are pushing U.S. corporations in that direction. The Harvard Business Review last year published the results of a survey of 168 managers and MBA students, 80% of whom were under age 40, and found that 42% of them identified as liberal<https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumers-feel-when-companies-get-political> and just 27% as conservative—and that their views of a hypothetical company dropped significantly when they were told it held conservative values.

Yet there’s another factor that is less obvious: The very failures of the political system itself are forcing corporate leaders off the sidelines

“In some ways, the breakdown in the political system and the polarization has created this vacuum,” says Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a former top Republican aide in the House. “Issues arise that are passionate, that can inflame both sides, and the political system used to have a way of dealing with those. You had senior statesmen who could bridge the divide and cool temperatures. You don’t have that today.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121729&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Business%20Leaders%20Are%20Taking%20Political%20Stands%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Cooper, Whitmer lead national call for businesses to ‘speak out’ on voter restrictions”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121727>
Posted on April 20, 2021 7:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121727> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

McClatchy<https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article250787154.html>:

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooperand Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have helped organize a bipartisan letter calling on businesses to speak out against a flurry of bills introduced across the country that would restrict voting access.

The open letter, obtained by McClatchy, was signed by more than 50 current and former governors, lieutenant governors, state attorneys general and secretaries of state, who described themselves as “deeply concerned about the wave of voter restrictions sweeping the country.”

“We are asking the business leaders in our states, and throughout the country, to add their voices to the growing chorus of corporations standing on the right side of history,” the letter reads.

Politico posted the letter<https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-ed13-d112-a97e-ffbb40670000&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318> and link to the new group’s website<https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121727&title=%E2%80%9CCooper%2C%20Whitmer%20lead%20national%20call%20for%20businesses%20to%20%E2%80%98speak%20out%E2%80%99%20on%20voter%20restrictions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Gerry Hebert: Tribute and Remembrance of Chandler Davidson<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121724>
Posted on April 19, 2021 8:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121724> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You should read Gerry’s tribute to a great scholar of voting rights,<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Tribute-to-CHANDLER-DAVIDSON-FINAL.pdf> which begins:

 Every once in a while in life, a rare person comes along who inspires you, educates you, and shows you how to be a genuine human being in the world in which we live. Franklin Chandler Davidson, who died April 10, 2021, was one such person and he was one of my dearest friends for over 40 years.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121724&title=Gerry%20Hebert%3A%20Tribute%20and%20Remembrance%20of%20Chandler%20Davidson>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>

Seventh Annual Salmon P. Chase Distinguished Lecture, April 22: Martha Jones on the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121722>
Posted on April 19, 2021 7:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121722> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Looking forward to this<https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/chase-lecture-and-colloquium/chase-lecture-colloquium/registration-salmon-p-chase-distinguished-lecture/>, from the Georgetown Center for the Constitution:

To register, please click the “register” button on the top right of the page or fill out the following form. <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cGpQYsCidh_e9nWF5dHvO260uSp_UCnlKeK73Fsx6UE/edit>

Hosted by the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and cosponsored by the Supreme Court Historical Society.

Together with the Supreme Court Historical Society<https://www.supremecourthistory.org/>, the Center sponsors the annual Salmon P. Chase Distinguished Lecture and Faculty Colloquium<https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/chase-lecture-and-colloquium/chase-lecture-colloquium/> to commemorate important anniversaries and neglected figures in our constitutional history. On Thursday evening April 22nd, 2021, Professor Martha Jones<https://history.jhu.edu/directory/martha-jones/> of Johns Hopkins University will be delivering the Seventh Annual Salmon P. Chase Distinguished Lecture commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. The event will be held virtually. Our previous Chase lecturers have included James Oakes, Eric Foner, Colleen Sheehan, William Ewald, Charles McCurdy, and Sandy Levinson.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121722&title=Seventh%20Annual%20Salmon%20P.%20Chase%20Distinguished%20Lecture%2C%20April%2022%3A%20Martha%20Jones%20on%20the%20100th%20Anniversary%20of%20the%2019th%20Amendment>
Posted in 19th Amendment<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=128>

“Justin Levitt Named White House Senior Policy Advisor”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121719>
Posted on April 19, 2021 3:59 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121719> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great news<https://www.lls.edu/thellsdifference/facesoflls/justinlevittnamedwhitehouseseniorpolicyadvisor/justinlevittnamedwhitehouseseniorpolicyadvisor.html> for our country about co-blogger Justin Levitt:

LMU Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt, a nationally recognized scholar of constitutional law and the law of democracy, has been appointed White House Senior Policy Advisor for Democracy and Voting Rights by President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Levitt will assist the President in his efforts to ensure every eligible American has secure, reliable access to a meaningful vote; to provide equitable representation in federal, state and local government; to restore trust in a democracy deserving of that trust; and to shore up and expand the avenues by which all Americans engage in robust civic participation.

“We are proud that one of LMU’s distinguished faculty members will serve in a White House role essential to our democracy and to creating the world we want to live in,” said LMU President Timothy Law Snyder, Ph.D. “Justin embodies our university’s commitment to social justice through his work and will ensure equitable engagement of underrepresented communities.”

Levitt is a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he supported the DOJ’s work on voting rights and protecting against employment discrimination. As a full-time White House senior policy advisor, Levitt will take a leave from Loyola Law School, where he is the Gerald T. McLaughlin Fellow.

Levitt’s work to involve the LLS community in the electoral process included forging a first-of-its-kind partnership with Los Angeles County that trained students and alumni to serve as volunteer election poll workers. Additionally, Levitt is the founder of All About Redistricting (redistricting.lls.edu), a comprehensive website that tracks the drawing of electoral lines nationwide.

Levitt, who began teaching at LLS in 2010, served previously as associate dean of research. During his tenure, he established the law school’s Practitioner Moot Program<https://www.lls.edu/academics/experientiallearning/mootcourttrialadvocacyprograms/practitionermootprogram/>, a complimentary service to the community allowing attorneys with pending appellate matters to practice their arguments before faculty experts and experienced advocates. The student body has twice selected Levitt for the school’s Excellence in Teaching award, and he plans to return to teach following his government service.

“Justin is one of the most influential legal voices of our time. For years, our students, alumni and broader community have directly benefited from Justin’s expertise in all things election law,” said LLS Dean Michael Waterstone. “We are thrilled that those in the highest levels of government will now have regular access to the brilliance that has illuminated our classrooms for more than a decade.”

Levitt’s research has been cited extensively in the media and the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has been invited to testify before committees of the U.S. House and Senate, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, several state legislative bodies, and both federal and state courts.

He served in various capacities for several presidential campaigns, including as the National Voter Protection Counsel in 2008, helping to run an effort ensuring that tens of millions of citizens could vote and have those votes counted.  He has sued, advised and represented officials of both major parties and neither, and those whose partisan preference he does not know.

Levitt holds a law degree and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University.

More thoughts.<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1384277040837189637?s=20>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121719&title=%E2%80%9CJustin%20Levitt%20Named%20White%20House%20Senior%20Policy%20Advisor%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Eric McGhee, Jennifer Paluch, and Mindy Romero: Did mail voting reforms in 2020 raise turnout or help Democrats?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121717>
Posted on April 19, 2021 9:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121717> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post from  Eric McGhee, Jennifer Paluch, and Mindy Romero:

The pandemic forced a lot of states to consider expanding access to voting by mail (VBM) in a way they hadn’t before to lower the risk of viral transmission at in-person voting sites. But President Trump charged that the practice was rife with fraud and designed to hurt Republicans, and criticized it at every opportunity. The result was a profound polarization over VBM among elected officials and voters alike and a crisis of confidence in our elections.  In the wake of this election, state legislatures across the country have considered scaling back VBM or have already done it.

What are the effects of increasing VBM access? Before the 2020 pandemic election, research generally showed it increased turnout at least a little, and did not favor one party or the other. But the pandemic election might have been different for a whole host of reasons, not least because a wider range of states experimented with these reforms than ever before. Some approaches were even tried that had rarely been used. Were the results any different?

Jennifer Paluch, Mindy Romero, and I have a new working paper<http://ssrn.com/abstract=3825939> that explores just this question. We look at the effect on turnout and partisan outcomes from three VBM reforms—opening VBM to anyone who wants it (no-excuse VBM), mailing all voters a VBM application (VBM applications), and mailing every voter a ballot (universal VBM)—and extend the research to the pandemic election itself.  In the process, we account for the complex mix of factors at work in the election:  including COVID, competitiveness, and other election reforms.

As was true in the research before 2020, universal VBM increased turnout in the 2020 election about 4 percentage points, while the other reforms had smaller and more contingent effects (turnout was actually lower in states that adopted no-excuse VBM).  The reforms didn’t help Democrats, either—in fact, if anything we found a modest effect in favor of Republicans.

There are caveats, of course. States and counties adopting these reforms were shifting strongly Democratic before the reform, and we accounted for that in our analysis. So these “pro-Republican” effects were measured against a baseline of steadily increasing Democratic support. In fact, almost all the results were at least a little sensitive to the exact way we sliced and diced the data. The big exception is mailing every voter a ballot:  the turnout boost from this reform seemed consistent across a wide range of approaches.

On balance, then, we think the effect of mailing a ballot on turnout is clear, but otherwise these reforms do not produce substantial increases in turnout or Democratic support, and in 2020 there is some evidence of the opposite in each case. Policymakers should change the lens through which they view this issue:  the question is not who gets an advantage from reform, but whether one wants more people to participate or not.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121717&title=Eric%20McGhee%2C%20Jennifer%20Paluch%2C%20and%20Mindy%20Romero%3A%20Did%20mail%20voting%20reforms%20in%202020%20raise%20turnout%20or%20help%20Democrats%3F>
Posted in absentee ballots<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>

--
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/20210420/a03388c0/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/20210420/a03388c0/attachment.png>