[EL] Emergency electoral system reform

Wed Jan 27 12:36:32 PST 2021

Sean,
Perhaps you misinterpreted the question, there is no assumption or implication that voters will make a “wrong” choice, rather the question addresses the extent to which voters actually have a choice. It is precisely the majoritarian impulses of our electoral system that need to be tamed, specifically the manufacturing of a majority party without majority support.

But this is of course much worse, to the extent that this specific majority has demonstrated a lack of commitment to democracy. It is precisely this threat that justified all the separations of power you mentioned, but in this case the electoral system is the cause, which requires an electoral system solution.
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: sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:21 PM
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
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<mailto:mlatner at calpoly.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:50 AM
To: sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>, law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:44:19 AM
To: Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu<mailto:mlatner at calpoly.edu>>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>>
To: "Gardner, Jim" <jgard at buffalo.edu<mailto:jgard at buffalo.edu>>
Cc: Election Law <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
Message-ID:
        <CAA7gmAY06XuVB-nSzeyH9o2rYsFzEqQcGsr5-SzSR9HG9cVUbA at mail.gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
@Pronounce_the_T

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu<mailto: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<mailto:jgard at buffalo.edu>
>
> www.law.buffalo.edu<http://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<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
To: Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>>
Cc: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
Message-ID: <CAE5573B-2F8B-4FC3-8C0F-CF643ACDCB03 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> @Pronounce_the_T
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu<mailto: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<mailto:jgard at buffalo.edu>
>>
>> www.law.buffalo.edu<http://www.law.buffalo.edu>
>>
>> Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>>
To: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Cc: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Senate rules
Message-ID:
        <CAA7gmAaRH4Fjc_VaoStR22uZmnCPfvZ-guCr_5vCC4R3_VGw1w at mail.gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> @Pronounce_the_T
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gardner, Jim <jgard at buffalo.edu<mailto: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<mailto:jgard at buffalo.edu>
>>
>> www.law.buffalo.edu<http://www.law.buffalo.edu>
>>
>> Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:liamerivaki at gmail.com>>
To: "law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Richard.Katz at jhu.edu>>
To: Thessalia Merivaki <liamerivaki at gmail.com<mailto:liamerivaki at gmail.com>>, "law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>"
        <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:lia.merivaki@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<mailto:ben.berwick at protectdemocracy.org>>
To: Richard Katz <Richard.Katz at jhu.edu<mailto:Richard.Katz at jhu.edu>>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ben.berwick at protectdemocracy.org>

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:44 AM Richard Katz <Richard.Katz at jhu.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210127/fde7f221/attachment.html>