[EL] Brnovich

Thu Jul 1 13:24:14 PDT 2021

The WA state info in the NSCL doc reports: 
"Wash. Admin. Code § 434-262-032 
A provisional ballot is rejected when: 
Not registered 
Already voted a regular ballot 
Signature on provisional ballot envelope does not match the voter registration record and/or they do not present a proper ID" 
I'm quite sure this info is incomplete for answering John T's question. 
I know I've seen WA statutory language laying out that when a ballot is voted out of precinct, but in all other ways valid (acceptable), WA counts only (and all) ballot lines appearing on that voter's correct precinct ballot. 
For an accepted ballot from a voter they are unable to precinct, they count only the state-wide ballot lines, or, if they can identify the county, WA counts only (and all) ballot lines common to all county ballots. 
Thank you. 
Tim White 

From: "Brianna Lennon" <briannalennon at gmail.com> 
To: "sfsinger" <sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> 
Cc: "Election Law Listserv" <law-election at uci.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 12:40:24 PM 
Subject: Re: [EL] Brnovich 

Here’s the best reference I could find: 
[ https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots.aspx#Accept/Reject | https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/provisional-ballots.aspx#Accept/Reject ] 

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:12 PM Stephanie F Singer < [ mailto:sfsinger at campaignscientific.com | sfsinger at campaignscientific.com ] > wrote: 

NCSL is another good source for election law by topic across jurisdictions. 

BQ_BEGIN

On Jul 1, 2021, at 10:15 AM, John Tanner < [ mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com | 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 

BQ_BEGIN
On Jul 1, 2021, at 10:38 AM, Rick Hasen < [ mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu | rhasen at law.uci.edu ] > wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN

[ https://electionlawblog.org/?p=123065 | 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/?author=3 | RICK HASEN ] 

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. 

[ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf | Opinion.  ] ‘[This post has been updated.] 
-- 
Rick Hasen 
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science 
UC Irvine School of Law 
[ https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g | 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000 ] 
[ https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+Irvine,+CA+92697-8000?entry=gmail&source=g | Irvine, CA 92697-8000 ] 
949.824.3072 - office 
[ mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu | rhasen at law.uci.edu ] 
[ http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ | http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ ] 
[ http://electionlawblog.org/ | http://electionlawblog.org ] 
_______________________________________________ 
Law-election mailing list 
[ mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu | Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu ] 
[ https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election | https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election ] 

BQ_END
_______________________________________________ 
Law-election mailing list 
[ mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu | Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu ] 
[ https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election | https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election ] 

BQ_END

_______________________________________________ 
Law-election mailing list 
[ mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu | Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu ] 
[ https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election | https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election ] 

BQ_END

_______________________________________________ 
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/20210701/c8587859/attachment.html>