[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/27/21

[Rick Hasen]

“Supreme Court Wary of Donor Disclosure Requirement for Charities”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121829>
Posted on April 27, 2021 7:06 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121829> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Adam Liptak<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/supreme-court-charities-donors.html> for the NYT:

The Supreme Court on Monday seemed skeptical<https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-251_l537.pdf> of California’s demand that charities soliciting contributions in the state report the identities of their major donors.

A majority of the justices appeared to agree that at least the two groups challenging the requirement — Americans for Prosperity, a foundation affiliated with the Koch family, and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian public-interest law firm — should prevail in the case.

It was less clear whether the court would strike down the requirement entirely for all charities as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of association. And the justices gave few hints about whether their ruling, expected by June, would alter the constitutional calculus in the related area of disclosure requirements for campaign spending.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer repeated concerns expressed in supporting briefs that the case could have broad implications. “This case is really a stalking horse for campaign finance disclosure laws,” he said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121829&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Wary%20of%20Donor%20Disclosure%20Requirement%20for%20Charities%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Gov. Gavin Newsom to face recall election as Republican-led effort hits signature goal”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121827>
Posted on April 26, 2021 6:19 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121827> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LA Times:<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-26/california-governor-gavin-newsom-face-recall-election>

Propelled by growing voter frustration over California’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a Republican-led drive to remove Gov. Gavin Newsom from office collected enough voter signatures to qualify for the ballot, state officials reported Monday, triggering for only the second time in state history a rapid-fire campaign to decide whether to oust a sitting governor.

Recall backers submitted more than 1,495,709 verified voter signatures — equal to 12% of all ballots cast in the last gubernatorial election — meeting the minimum threshold to force a special recall election, according to a tally released by Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Barring intervention by the courts, Newsom will face a statewide vote of confidence by year’s end.

“We knew we gathered enough signatures, and now it’s time to turn it over to the voters,” said Dave Gilliard, one of the strategists leading the effort to oust Newsom. “We’re very confident that they’re going to want to change direction in California and remove Gavin Newsom and go with someone else.”

Newsom’s advisors expressed confidence that the governor will defeat the attempt to remove him from office and criticized the recall effort as the work of far-right supporters of former President Trump.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121827&title=%E2%80%9CGov.%20Gavin%20Newsom%20to%20face%20recall%20election%20as%20Republican-led%20effort%20hits%20signature%20goal%E2%80%9D>
Posted in recall elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>


“2020 Census: What the Reapportionment Numbers Mean”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121825>
Posted on April 26, 2021 6:00 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121825> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dave Wasserman<https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/redistricting/2020-census-what-reapportionment-numbers-mean> from Cook Political Report:

The power shift from the Frost Belt to Sun Belt and western states is a familiar trend. But even states without a gain or loss will have to redraw lines to adjust for population changes in time for 2022 (except the six states with only one district).

Republicans have the final authority to draw congressional lines in 187 districts, down from 219 seats in 2011. Democrats will have final authority in states totaling 75 districts, up from 44 in 2011. New bipartisan commissions passed by voters in Colorado, Michigan and Virginia bring the number of commission-drawn districts to 121 up from 88 ten years ago. And there are 46 districts in states where control is split between the parties, down from 77.

Republicans’ biggest redistricting weapons are Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina – and they could conceivably pick up all five seats they need for the majority from those four alone. Meanwhile, Democrats’ most prized states are Illinois and Maryland. The biggest wild cards? New York and Ohio, where lopsided state legislatures could conceivably ignore new reforms and impose deeply partisan gerrymanders.

But already, there are some plot twists. Earlier this month, Oregon’s Democrats relinquished exclusive authority to redraw maps in a deal struck to end legislative stalling tactics by the GOP minority — a deal that could cost Democrats at least one House seat.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121825&title=%E2%80%9C2020%20Census%3A%20What%20the%20Reapportionment%20Numbers%20Mean%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


“‘Never heard of them’: Republicans hire ‘ninja’ firm for Arizona vote audit; Almost no one involved in GOP politics in Florida, where the company is headquartered, has a clue about the firm conducting the review.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121823>
Posted on April 26, 2021 5:42 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121823> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Marc Caputo<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/26/republicans-arizona-vote-audit-florida-484737> for Politico.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121823&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Never%20heard%20of%20them%E2%80%99%3A%20Republicans%20hire%20%E2%80%98ninja%E2%80%99%20firm%20for%20Arizona%20vote%20audit%3B%20Almost%20no%20one%20involved%20in%20GOP%20politics%20in%20Florida%2C%20where%20the%20company%20is%20headquartered%2C%20has%20a%20clue%20about%20the%20firm%20conducting%20the%20review.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“Facebook Stopped Employees From Reading An Internal Report About Its Role In The Insurrection. You Can Read It Here.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121821>
Posted on April 26, 2021 5:41 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121821> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BuzzFeed News<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/full-facebook-stop-the-steal-internal-report>:

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed News revealed that an internal Facebook report<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-failed-stop-the-steal-insurrection> concluded that the company had failed to prevent the “Stop the Steal” movement from using its platform to subvert the election, encourage violence, and help incite the Jan. 6 attempted coup on the US Capitol.

Titled “Stop the Steal and Patriot Party: The Growth and Mitigation of an Adversarial Harmful Movement,” the report is one of the most important analyses of how the insurrectionist effort to overturn a free and fair US presidential election spread across the world’s largest social network — and how Facebook missed critical warning signs. The report examines how the company was caught flat-footed as the Stop the Steal Facebook group<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/stop-the-steal-facebook> supercharged a movement to undermine democracy,<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/maga-bus-tour-coup> and concludes the company was unprepared to stop people from spreading hate and incitement to violence on its platform.

The report’s authors, who were part of an internal task force studying harmful networks, published the document to Facebook’s internal message board last month, making it broadly available to company employees. But after BuzzFeed News revealed the report’s existence last week<https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-failed-stop-the-steal-insurrection>, many employees were restricted from accessing it.

“Is there a reason the Workplace Note has been taken down?” one employee wrote on the message board after the report became restricted. “I suspect employees would prefer to read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.”

“It’s pretty common that critical writing about the company gets removed under some trumped-up excuse if it gains any internal or external traction, it’s not about the public visibility but the morale effects I imagine,” another worker said.

Given the newsworthiness and historical significance of the report and its revelations about the events of Jan. 6, BuzzFeed News is publishing the full text below.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121821&title=%E2%80%9CFacebook%20Stopped%20Employees%20From%20Reading%20An%20Internal%20Report%20About%20Its%20Role%20In%20The%20Insurrection.%20You%20Can%20Read%20It%20Here.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Thoughts on Today’s Oral Argument in the AFP v. Bonta Case in the U.S. Supreme Court: California Will Lose, But the Question is How It Will Lose and What the Case Will Mean for Campaign Finance Disclosure<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121818>
Posted on April 26, 2021 8:54 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121818> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I just listened to the oral argument in this case (listen here<https://www.c-span.org/video/?510032-1/supreme-court-oral-argument-californias-charitable-donor-disclosure-requirement-free-association&live>). You can read my tweet thread<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1386681148261027847?s=20>. Here is my general takeway:

California is likely to lose. It collected donor information for law enforcement purposes but allowed the information to leak. Even the liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor seemed concerned about this, and will likely either vote that AFP wins its “as applied” challenge or will vote to remand the case to reconsider the as applied challenge.

But the question of where the Court’s conservative supermajority is likely to go in this case is the important one. The Court could apply strict scrutiny in this case and strike down the law facially (applied to everyone, not just to the plaintiffs), which would lead not only to California losing but calling into question the constitutionality of all campaign finance disclosure laws.

That result seems unlikely, as I believe only Justice Thomas (and perhaps Alito and Gorsuch) will be willing to go that far. But that’s mostly about appearances. It could well be that the other conservatives (Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) will say they are applying the mid-level “exacting scrutiny” and strike down the law facially. They could well pull the same stunt Roberts pulled in McCutcheon<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/04/the-subtle-awfulness-of-the-mccutcheon-v-fec-campaign-finance-decision-the-john-roberts-two-step.html>, redefining exacting scrutiny so it looks much more like strict scrutiny. That will lead to more campaign finance disclosure laws being struck down by the Court’s but without a dramatic, Citizens United-type blockbuster holding. It’s Roberts’ style, and we could well see it here.

People paint conservatives with a single brush, but that’s wrong. Justices Scalia and Kennedy were staunch conservatives on key issues, but understood the public value of disclosure in preventing corruption, providing valuable information to voters, and helping enforce other laws like the ban on foreign contributions in elections. They knew that people spending large money in elections did not face great dangers of harassment (and are entitled to a campaign disclosure exemption if they could), and that this is about trying to avoid accountability for influencing the political process. A system that allows unlimited spending without disclosure does not represent the “Home of the Brave,” as Justice Scalia said.

I expect a decision by the end of June.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121818&title=Thoughts%20on%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Oral%20Argument%20in%20the%20AFP%20v.%20Bonta%20Case%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%3A%20California%20Will%20Lose%2C%20But%20the%20Question%20is%20How%20It%20Will%20Lose%20and%20What%20the%20Case%20Will%20Mean%20for%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


“Gerrymandering, Redistricting and Developments in the Statehouses After the 2020 Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121816>
Posted on April 26, 2021 8:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121816> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I recently spoke with Georgetown SALPAL Executive Director Meryl Chertoff. Watch<https://vimeo.com/537280474/108952ebd5>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121816&title=%E2%80%9CGerrymandering%2C%20Redistricting%20and%20Developments%20in%20the%20Statehouses%20After%20the%202020%20Election%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/20210427/e2b8840d/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/20210427/e2b8840d/attachment.png>