[EL] Brnovich

Thu Jul 1 10:55:27 PDT 2021

There was litigation in NC to partially accept out of precinct
provisionals, not sure if the policy has changed. My guess is that the EAVS
policy survey will have this information.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 12:37 PM Brianna Lennon <briannalennon at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Missouri’s is 115.430
>
> 2.(3)  The voter shall have the duty to appear and vote at the correct
> polling place.  If an election judge determines that the voter is not
> eligible to vote at the polling place at which a voter presents himself or
> herself, and if the voter appears to be eligible to vote at another polling
> place, the voter shall be informed that he or she may cast a provisional
> ballot at the current polling place or may travel to the correct polling
> place or a central polling place, as established by the election authority
> under subsection 5 of section 115.115
> <https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=115.115>, where the
> voter may cast a regular ballot or provisional ballot if the voter's
> eligibility still cannot be determined.  Provisional ballots cast at a
> polling place shall be counted only if the voter was eligible to vote at
> such polling place as provided in subsection 5 of this section.
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 12:17 PM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m guessing that someone can send me a link to this information— Which
>> states don’t count any offices on ballots cast in the wrong precinct — by
>> statute?  Per court order?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2021, at 10:38 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court on 6-3 Vote Rejects Voting Rights
>> Act Section 2 Case in Brnovich Case— A Significant Weakening of Section 2
>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=123065>
>>
>> July 1, 2021, 7:07 am <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=123065>*RICK HASEN*
>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has severely weakened Section 2 of
>> the Voting rights Act as a tool to fight against laws that make it harder
>> to register and vote. Rather than focus on disparate impact—whether a law
>> leads to minority voters registering or voting in lower numbers—the court
>> applies a much broader totality of the circumstances test with a huge thumb
>> on the scale favoring the state and its restrictive law. If a law imposes
>> just a “usual burden of voting,” and the burden on minorities is not too
>> much, and the state can assert (but does not need to prove) a significant
>> interest in preventing voter fraud or another interest, then the law can
>> stand.
>>
>> When you couple this opinion with the 2008 ruling in the *Crawford* case,
>> upholding Indiana’s voter ID law against a Fourteenth Amendment equal
>> protection challenge, the 2013 ruling in *Shelby County* killing off the
>> preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act for states with a history
>> of discrimination, and today’s reading of Section 2, the conservative
>> Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after
>> voting restrictions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing
>> new restrictive voting law.
>>
>> The Court today also makes it harder to prove intentional racial
>> discrimination in passing a voting rule, making it that much harder for DOJ
>> to win in its suit against the new Georgia voting law.
>>
>> I’ll more more analysis later. This is not a death blow for Section 2
>> claims, but it will make it much, much harder for such challenges to
>> succeed.
>>
>> Opinion.  <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf>‘[This
>> post has been updated.]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick Hasen
>>
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 

*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#>
*www.msstate.edu* <http://www.msstate.edu/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210701/5ae74760/attachment.html>