[EL] Emergency electoral system reform
David O'Brien
dobrien at represent.us
Wed Jan 27 12:36:22 PST 2021
Whatever your view on the merits of the voting methods he mentions, I don't
see how Michael's proposal that legislatures be elected on a roughly
proportionally basis so that minority groups can be fairly represented in
accordance with their vote share could be fairly read to mean "the rules
must be changed to ensure the voters don’t make the 'wrong' choice."
David O'Brien
Policy Counsel
Represent.Us <http://represent.us/>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:23 PM <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
> I imagine there is a unanimous consensus on the listserv that we need
> parties that are committed to the rule of law and democracy. I just find
> fascinating the suggestion that in order to do so, the rules must be
> changed to ensure the voters don’t make the “wrong” choice. A better
> approach, IMO, might be to ensure that we have a system of government that
> is able to put a brake on majority impulses that are seen as undemocratic
> (which I think we more or less have – federalism, checks and balances, a
> Bill of Rights, etc. – though it could always use a bit of shoring up,
> though I doubt there’s much consensus on what that shoring up looks like).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:57 PM
> *To:* sean at impactpolicymanagement.com;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Emergency electoral system reform
>
>
>
> Not elected, sorry. I assumed that there was consensus on this listserv
> that we need parties on the left and the right that are committed to the
> rule of law. I think if you read Matt’s piece you will see that he is
> making just such an argument.
>
> ML
>
>
>
> Professor Michael Latner
>
> Political Science Department, California Polytechnic State University
>
> Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned
> Scientists
>
> Faculty Scholar, Cal Poly Institute for Advanced Technology and Public
> Policy
>
> @mlatner
>
> https://www.mikelatner.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:50 AM
> *To: *sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>,
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Emergency electoral system reform
>
> My view is that in order to save democracy, the rules need to be changed
> to ensure that a majority that is not committed to the rule of law and
> electoral democracy is elected to the House in 2022, despite what voters
> want.
>
> ML
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:44:19 AM
> *To:* Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Emergency electoral system reform
>
>
>
> Am I understanding correctly your view is that in order to save democracy,
> the rules need to be changed to ensure that voters don’t elect a Republican
> majority to the House in 2022? That is… fascinating. On numerous levels.
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Michael Latner
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:03 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Emergency electoral system reform
>
>
>
> Hi all, while the priority of VRA renewal is uncontested in the electoral
> reform community, there is growing recognition that a revised VRA and HR1
> address discriminatory voter suppression and dilution, but do not address
> the need to cordon off an anti-democratic faction from taking control of
> the House in two years.
>
> Rick reposted Matthew Shugart’s recommendation for Open List Proportional
> Representation (OLPR) for the House as a response that could be “easily”
> adopted (not politically, but administratively)
> https://fruitsandvotes.wordpress.com/2021/01/19/emergency-electoral-reform-olpr-for-the-us-house/
>
>
>
> Is there any clear consensus within the voting rights legal community as
> to whether a party list system, as opposed to something like ranked choice
> voting, at least for nominations, would be preferred? I know that MMP
> districting has gained some popularity (and would be optimal in my view). I
> believe that the use of existing/redistricted VRA districts as nominating
> districts to 3-5 seat Congressional districts would get close to MMP,
> preserving those VRA protections while empowering all voters of color
> regardless of where they live. I don’t know if the legal community has
> given this much thought, given the focus on existing rules, but I think it
> is a conversation worth having.
>
> ML
>
>
>
> Professor Michael Latner
>
> Political Science Department, California Polytechnic State University
>
> Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned
> Scientists
>
> Faculty Scholar, Cal Poly Institute for Advanced Technology and Public
> Policy
>
> @mlatner
>
> https://www.mikelatner.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 12:00 PM
> *To: *law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Law-election Digest, Vol 117, Issue 26
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Senate rules (Steve Kolbert)
> 2. Re: Senate rules (John Tanner)
> 3. Re: Senate rules (Steve Kolbert)
> 4. Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> citizen (Thessalia Merivaki)
> 5. Re: Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> citizen (Richard Katz)
> 6. Re: Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> citizen (Ben Berwick)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 02:46:32 -0500
> From: Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> To: "Gardner, Jim" <jgard at buffalo.edu>
> Cc: Election Law <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAA7gmAY06XuVB-nSzeyH9o2rYsFzEqQcGsr5-SzSR9HG9cVUbA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Jim, I imagine any judicial challenge to your proposals would fail for lack
> of justiciability. The federal court in D.C. recently held that the Speech
> or Debate Clause bars challenges to a congressional chamber's parliamentary
> rules--even challenges brought by members of that chamber. *McCarthy v.
> Pelosi*, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 20-1395, 2020 WL 4530611, at *8 (D.D.C.
> Aug. 6, 2020), *appeal docketed*, No. 20-5240 (D.C. Cir. oral argument held
> Nov. 2, 2020).
>
> Beyond the Speech or Debate Clause, it's not clear that there exists an
> appropriate defendant for a suit challenging your proposed reforms. A suit
> challenging Senate rules must be brought against the Senate itself and
> cannot be brought against an officer like the Vice President (*i.e.*,
> President of the Senate), the parliamentarian, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the
> Secretary of the Senate. *Common Cause v. Biden*, 748 F.3d 1280, 1285
> (D.C. Cir. 2014). A suit against the Senate itself (rather than its
> officers or members) would be barred by sovereign immunity. *Rockefeller
> v. Bingaman*, 234 F. App'x 852, 855-56 (10th Cir. 2007). A suit against
> individuals Senators (or all 100 of them) would face a Speech or Debate
> Clause challenge. *Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson*, 459 F.3d 1,
> 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
>
> And regardless of the named defendant(s), a judicial challenge to Senate
> rules seems likely to constitute a non-justiciable political question.
> *Common
> Cause v. Biden*, 909 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-31 (D.D.C. 2012), *aff'd on other
> grounds*, 748 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Is there any more "textually
> demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch" in the entire Constitution
> than the Rules of Proceedings Clause?
>
> Steve Kolbert
> (202) 422-2588
> steve.kolbert at gmail.com
> @Pronounce_the_T
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there any reason why the
> > Senate couldn?t adopt a cloture rule ending a filibuster upon the vote of
> > any number of senators representing, say, a minimum of 40% of the U.S.
> > population? For that matter, is there a reason the Senate couldn?t
> adopt a
> > rule providing that no legislation will be deemed approved except upon
> the
> > vote of a number of senators representing more than 50% of the
> population?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________
> >
> > James A. Gardner
> >
> > Bridget and Thomas Black SUNY Distinguished Professor of Law
> >
> > Research Professor of Political Science
> >
> > University at Buffalo School of Law
> >
> > The State University of New York
> >
> > Room 514, O'Brian Hall
> >
> > Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
> >
> > voice: 716-645-3607
> >
> > fax: 716-645-2064
> >
> > e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu
> >
> > www.law.buffalo.edu
> >
> > Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/d6002dd4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:17:04 -0500
> From: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> To: Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> Cc: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
> Message-ID: <CAE5573B-2F8B-4FC3-8C0F-CF643ACDCB03 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Steve, the challenge would be to any law enacted with fewer votes for
> rather than against.
> Oh, and Article V applies as well as Article I section 3.
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 26, 2021, at 2:47 AM, Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > Jim, I imagine any judicial challenge to your proposals would fail for
> lack of justiciability. The federal court in D.C. recently held that the
> Speech or Debate Clause bars challenges to a congressional chamber's
> parliamentary rules--even challenges brought by members of that chamber.
> McCarthy v. Pelosi, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 20-1395, 2020 WL 4530611, at
> *8 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-5240 (D.C. Cir. oral
> argument held Nov. 2, 2020).
> >
> > Beyond the Speech or Debate Clause, it's not clear that there exists an
> appropriate defendant for a suit challenging your proposed reforms. A suit
> challenging Senate rules must be brought against the Senate itself and
> cannot be brought against an officer like the Vice President (i.e.,
> President of the Senate), the parliamentarian, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the
> Secretary of the Senate. Common Cause v. Biden, 748 F.3d 1280, 1285 (D.C.
> Cir. 2014). A suit against the Senate itself (rather than its officers or
> members) would be barred by sovereign immunity. Rockefeller v. Bingaman,
> 234 F. App'x 852, 855-56 (10th Cir. 2007). A suit against individuals
> Senators (or all 100 of them) would face a Speech or Debate Clause
> challenge. Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 13 (D.C.
> Cir. 2006).
> >
> > And regardless of the named defendant(s), a judicial challenge to Senate
> rules seems likely to constitute a non-justiciable political question.
> Common Cause v. Biden, 909 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-31 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd on
> other grounds, 748 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Is there any more
> "textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch" in the entire
> Constitution than the Rules of Proceedings Clause?
> >
> > Steve Kolbert
> > (202) 422-2588
> > steve.kolbert at gmail.com
> > @Pronounce_the_T
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu>
> wrote:
> >> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there any reason why
> the Senate couldn?t adopt a cloture rule ending a filibuster upon the vote
> of any number of senators representing, say, a minimum of 40% of the U.S.
> population? For that matter, is there a reason the Senate couldn?t adopt a
> rule providing that no legislation will be deemed approved except upon the
> vote of a number of senators representing more than 50% of the population?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________
> >>
> >> James A. Gardner
> >>
> >> Bridget and Thomas Black SUNY Distinguished Professor of Law
> >>
> >> Research Professor of Political Science
> >>
> >> University at Buffalo School of Law
> >>
> >> The State University of New York
> >>
> >> Room 514, O'Brian Hall
> >>
> >> Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
> >>
> >> voice: 716-645-3607
> >>
> >> fax: 716-645-2064
> >>
> >> e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu
> >>
> >> www.law.buffalo.edu
> >>
> >> Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/ad0bbb0e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:04:40 -0500
> From: Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> To: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> Cc: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAA7gmAaRH4Fjc_VaoStR22uZmnCPfvZ-guCr_5vCC4R3_VGw1w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> John, looking at Jim's proposals, I don't think either reform authorizes
> passage of laws with fewer votes in favor rather than against.
> - The first would allow the Senate to *end a filibuster* with fewer
> Senators voting aye than nay, but it would not purport to authorize
> *passage of a bill* with fewer senators voting in favor than against. On
> final passage, the "aye" votes would still be required to be greater than
> the "no" votes, state population notwithstanding.
> - The second proposal merely *adds* an additional requirement--I'll call it
> a "population majority" requirement--on top of the normal, what I'll call
> "numerical majority" requirement. The proposal would not *replace* the
> numerical majority requirement. So under Jim's proposal, a bill would fail
> if it received a population majority in support but lacked a numerical
> majority in support.
>
> In other words, I don't think either of Jim's proposals could result in a
> law with fewer than a numerical majority of senators in support. Court
> challenges would have to target the Senate's rules, which (as I mentioned
> earlier) seem to be an uphill climb (at best).
>
> As for Article V, I don't take Jim's proposals to be amendments to the
> Constitution, but merely changes to Senate rules. Although I suppose they
> could be proposed as constitutional amendments, in which case certainly
> Article V would play some role.
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:17 AM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Steve, the challenge would be to any law enacted with fewer votes for
> > rather than against.
> > Oh, and Article V applies as well as Article I section 3.
> > John
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2021, at 2:47 AM, Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > Jim, I imagine any judicial challenge to your proposals would fail for
> > lack of justiciability. The federal court in D.C. recently held that the
> > Speech or Debate Clause bars challenges to a congressional chamber's
> > parliamentary rules--even challenges brought by members of that
> chamber. *McCarthy
> > v. Pelosi*, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 20-1395, 2020 WL 4530611, at *8
> > (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2020), *appeal docketed*, No. 20-5240 (D.C. Cir. oral
> > argument held Nov. 2, 2020).
> >
> > Beyond the Speech or Debate Clause, it's not clear that there exists an
> > appropriate defendant for a suit challenging your proposed reforms. A
> suit
> > challenging Senate rules must be brought against the Senate itself and
> > cannot be brought against an officer like the Vice President (*i.e.*,
> > President of the Senate), the parliamentarian, the Sergeant-at-Arms or
> the
> > Secretary of the Senate. *Common Cause v. Biden*, 748 F.3d 1280, 1285
> > (D.C. Cir. 2014). A suit against the Senate itself (rather than its
> > officers or members) would be barred by sovereign immunity. *Rockefeller
> > v. Bingaman*, 234 F. App'x 852, 855-56 (10th Cir. 2007). A suit against
> > individuals Senators (or all 100 of them) would face a Speech or Debate
> > Clause challenge. *Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson*, 459 F.3d
> > 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
> >
> > And regardless of the named defendant(s), a judicial challenge to Senate
> > rules seems likely to constitute a non-justiciable political question.
> *Common
> > Cause v. Biden*, 909 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-31 (D.D.C. 2012), *aff'd on other
> > grounds*, 748 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Is there any more "textually
> > demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch" in the entire
> Constitution
> > than the Rules of Proceedings Clause?
> >
> > Steve Kolbert
> > (202) 422-2588
> > steve.kolbert at gmail.com
> > @Pronounce_the_T
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there any reason why the
> >> Senate couldn?t adopt a cloture rule ending a filibuster upon the vote
> of
> >> any number of senators representing, say, a minimum of 40% of the U.S.
> >> population? For that matter, is there a reason the Senate couldn?t
> adopt a
> >> rule providing that no legislation will be deemed approved except upon
> the
> >> vote of a number of senators representing more than 50% of the
> population?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________
> >>
> >> James A. Gardner
> >>
> >> Bridget and Thomas Black SUNY Distinguished Professor of Law
> >>
> >> Research Professor of Political Science
> >>
> >> University at Buffalo School of Law
> >>
> >> The State University of New York
> >>
> >> Room 514, O'Brian Hall
> >>
> >> Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
> >>
> >> voice: 716-645-3607
> >>
> >> fax: 716-645-2064
> >>
> >> e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu
> >>
> >> www.law.buffalo.edu
> >>
> >> Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/371db5fe/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:34:09 -0600
> From: Thessalia Merivaki <liamerivaki at gmail.com>
> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> citizen
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAM-Di54JNCb4DrR7_WS6pQDmTwH+_GrRPCqrNHWsVvWd+Dgamg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear list,
>
> Any merit to Sen. Paul's argument that it is unconstitutional for Congress
> to try to impeach Trump after his term ended, because he now is a private
> citizen?
>
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK?il=0
>
> Thank you.
>
> Lia
>
> --
>
> *Thessalia Merivaki, PhD*
>
> *Assistant Professor in American Politics*
> 189 Bowen Hall
> Mississippi State, MS 39762
>
> P: 662.325.4160
>
> C: 352.871.5260
>
>
> lia.merivaki at pspa.msstate.edu
> <http://www.opa.msstate.edu/identity/assets.php#
> <http://www.opa.msstate.edu/identity/assets.php>>
> *www.msstate.edu* <http://www.msstate.edu/>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/e8269e7c/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:41:50 +0000
> From: Richard Katz <Richard.Katz at jhu.edu>
> To: Thessalia Merivaki <liamerivaki at gmail.com>, "law-election at UCI.edu"
> <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a
> private citizen
> Message-ID:
> <
> BL0PR01MB42592C657FB55715503049579ABC9 at BL0PR01MB4259.prod.exchangelabs.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Don't we need to make the distinction, generally forgotten in the press -
> and sometimes on this list, between impeachment (which is the voting of the
> charges, and which happened while Trump was still president) and the trial
> and possible conviction (which is what is happening after Trump left
> office).
>
> Dick Katz
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On
> Behalf Of Thessalia Merivaki
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:34 AM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> citizen
>
> Dear list,
>
> Any merit to Sen. Paul's argument that it is unconstitutional for Congress
> to try to impeach Trump after his term ended, because he now is a private
> citizen?
>
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK?il=0<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-trump-impeachment%2Ftrump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK%3Fil%3D0&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ExVXlloM04OHq7TeeKzvdpFHsMAfx1WbCrT8BHIjJS0%3D&reserved=0
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK?il=0%3chttps://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-trump-impeachment%2Ftrump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK%3Fil%3D0&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ExVXlloM04OHq7TeeKzvdpFHsMAfx1WbCrT8BHIjJS0%3D&reserved=0>
> >
>
> Thank you.
>
> Lia
>
> --
>
>
> Thessalia Merivaki, PhD
>
> Assistant Professor in American Politics
> 189 Bowen Hall
> Mississippi State, MS 39762
>
> P: 662.325.4160
>
> C: 352.871.5260
>
>
>
>
> lia.merivaki at pspa.msstate.edu<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opa.msstate.edu%2Fidentity%2Fassets.php%23&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BB1W4Fa1Mx2RLT01eFGTXITKSxxcHpak6PV04%2BxS1OA%3D&reserved=0
> <lia.merivaki at pspa.msstate.edu%3chttps://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opa.msstate.edu%2Fidentity%2Fassets.php%23&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BB1W4Fa1Mx2RLT01eFGTXITKSxxcHpak6PV04%2BxS1OA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> www.msstate.edu<
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msstate.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267383909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Q6fJWkKuxTuj2k0xfdWcdOTpg1SqB%2FIdyRUF8HbPBWg%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
> [http://www.opa.msstate.edu/identity/images/msstate_sig.png]
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/0f547515/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:51:24 -0500
> From: Ben Berwick <ben.berwick at protectdemocracy.org>
> To: Richard Katz <Richard.Katz at jhu.edu>
> Cc: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a
> private citizen
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAHX4fZLTCK56YPvaNpYBor_oQwyfXxRiijVCfgf2FNQnAHfszg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sharing a letter from a group of legal scholars that addresses this
> question (some on this list might have signed it):
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000
>
> Ben Berwick
> Counsel
> Protect Democracy
> ben.berwick at protectdemocracy.org
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:44 AM Richard Katz <Richard.Katz at jhu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Don?t we need to make the distinction, generally forgotten in the press ?
> > and sometimes on this list, between impeachment (which is the voting of
> the
> > charges, and which happened while Trump was still president) and the
> trial
> > and possible conviction (which is what is happening after Trump left
> > office).
> >
> >
> >
> > Dick Katz
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> > Behalf Of *Thessalia Merivaki
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:34 AM
> > *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> > *Subject:* [EL] Rand Paul argues Trump should not be tried as a private
> > citizen
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear list,
> >
> >
> >
> > Any merit to Sen. Paul's argument that it is unconstitutional for
> Congress
> > to try to impeach Trump after his term ended, because he now is a private
> > citizen?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/trump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK?il=0
> > <
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-trump-impeachment%2Ftrump-impeachment-trial-faces-challenge-from-republican-senator-paul-idUSKBN29V1UK%3Fil%3D0&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ExVXlloM04OHq7TeeKzvdpFHsMAfx1WbCrT8BHIjJS0%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lia
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > *Thessalia Merivaki, PhD*
> >
> > *Assistant Professor in American Politics*
> > 189 Bowen Hall
> > Mississippi State, MS 39762
> >
> > P: 662.325.4160
> >
> > C: 352.871.5260
> >
> >
> >
> > lia.merivaki at pspa.msstate.edu
> > <
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opa.msstate.edu%2Fidentity%2Fassets.php%23&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267373912%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BB1W4Fa1Mx2RLT01eFGTXITKSxxcHpak6PV04%2BxS1OA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > *www.msstate.edu*
> > <
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msstate.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7CRichard.Katz%40jhu.edu%7C5e9ec6d7ddc6484673de08d8c2186229%7C9fa4f438b1e6473b803f86f8aedf0dec%7C0%7C0%7C637472757267383909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Q6fJWkKuxTuj2k0xfdWcdOTpg1SqB%2FIdyRUF8HbPBWg%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210126/119ed689/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Law-election Digest, Vol 117, Issue 26
> *********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210127/59f60545/attachment.html>
View list directory