[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/16/21

[Rick Hasen]

“New emails detail Trump’s efforts to have Justice Department take up his false election-fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122673>
Posted on June 16, 2021 7:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122673> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-emails-doj-election-fraud-claims/2021/06/15/638ab654-cdc9-11eb-8014-2f3926ca24d9_story.html>

President Donald Trump’s staff began sending emails to Jeffrey Rosen, the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, asking him to embrace Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election at least 10 days before Rosen assumed the role of acting attorney general, according to new emails disclosed Tuesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

On the same day the electoral college met to certify the election results — which was also the day Trump announced that William P. Barr would be stepping down as attorney general — the president’s assistant sent Rosen an email with a list of complaints concerning the way the election had been carried out in Antrim County, Mich.

The file included a “forensic analysis” of the Dominion Voting Systems machines the county employed, alleging they were “intentionally and purposefully” calibrated to create fraudulent results. It also included “talking points” that could be used to counter any arguments “against us.”

“It’s indicative of what the machines can and did do to move votes,” the document Trump sent to Rosen reads. “We believe it has happened everywhere.”

The claims were false, based on a report compiled by Allied Security Operations Group, a company led by a Republican businessman who pushed<https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/trump-election-fraud-texas-businessman-ramsland-asog/?itid=ap_emmabrown&itid=lk_inline_manual_8> baseless allegations that the 2020 election was stolen.

The email — one of several previously undisclosed records released by the Oversight Committee — sheds light on the type of pressure Trump put on the Justice Department to take up his crusade against Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

The documents show how the president’s allies contacted multiple Justice officials as part of a campaign to reverse the outcome of the race, and how Trump sought to influence Rosen even before he stepped into the top role at the Justice Department. Once in that post, he contended with repeated attempts by the White House to use the department’s power to challenge the election results — efforts he resisted — before the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122673&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20emails%20detail%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20efforts%20to%20have%20Justice%20Department%20take%20up%20his%20false%20election-fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


California: “Federal judge tosses local lawsuit that echoed Trump claims of election fraud; Judge scolds GOP group and several failed congressional candidates for ‘undermining’ election confidence.” (Includes link to opinion)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122670>
Posted on June 16, 2021 7:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122670> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

OC Register:<https://www.ocregister.com/2021/06/15/federal-judge-tosses-local-lawsuit-that-echoed-trump-claims-of-election-fraud/>

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit filed by California Republicans that echoed false allegations made by former President Donald Trump about the validity of the 2020 election.

The lawsuit, filed in January by a conservative election watchdog group and 10 failed GOP congressional candidates against a slew of state and county elections officials, claimed the November election in California was rife with “mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud.”

The plaintiffs argued that such conditions have been brewing in California for years, but were exacerbated by changes made last year to make sure all voters in the state had access to a ballot during the COVID-19 pandemic.

But those arguments, similar to claims made in dozens of other lawsuits disputing the 2020 election, were rejected.

Federal Judge Andre Birotte wrote in a 13-page ruling published Tuesday that the plaintiffs didn’t offer concrete evidence that problems affected the outcome of California’s November elections. Birotte also said he agreed with the defendants’ statement that the lawsuit amounted to “an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.”

Defendants in the case — including officials who run elections in many California counties — welcomed the ruling and Birotte’s reasoning for the decision.

“I think the judge is concurring with what we certainly have known all along, and that is that this election was done with the most intense scrutiny I’ve ever faced,” said Neal Kelley, who has been Orange County’s Registrar of Voters for 18 years and was one of 13 county registrars named as defendants in the suit.

“All of the audits and checks and balances we have in place showed that the will of the voters was carried out,” Kelley added….

The original claim asked the judge to decertify the results of the November election. But the plaintiffs later dropped that request in an amended complaint, though they still sought an audit of paper ballots (similar to the controversial third-party audit now underway in Arizona) and a repeal of emergency orders that sent ballots to all registered voters.

The 44-page suit contains no specific claims about ballots falsely counted or harm done to any particular candidate. Instead, the plaintiffs argued that votes could have been diluted because of the potential for invalid votes to be counted.

I have posted the district court’s order at this link<https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/eip-dismiss.pdf>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122670&title=California%3A%20%E2%80%9CFederal%20judge%20tosses%20local%20lawsuit%20that%20echoed%20Trump%20claims%20of%20election%20fraud%3B%20Judge%20scolds%20GOP%20group%20and%20several%20failed%20congressional%20candidates%20for%20%E2%80%98undermining%E2%80%99%20election%20confidence.%E2%80%9D%20(Includes%20link%20to%20opinion)>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“One in Three Election Officials Report Feeling Unsafe Because of Their Job”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122668>
Posted on June 16, 2021 6:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122668> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/one-three-election-officials-report-feeling-unsafe-because-their-job>

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and the Bipartisan Policy Center today published a report<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/election-officials-under-attack> on the state of the election official profession and the toll of the unprecedented attacks on these officials’ authority, credibility, and personal safety that surged in the run-up to the 2020 election and have not stopped. The report features a survey finding that one in three election officials report feeling unsafe because of their job, and one in six reported having been threatened due to their job. The authors provide solutions for the various problems facing election officials, with calls to action for local, state, and federal governments as well as social media companies and other institutions.

“Threats of violence, smear campaigns, laws and lawsuits undermining election officials at every turn – this is what the professionals who uphold our elections and democracy are facing every day,” said Lawrence Norden<https://www.brennancenter.org/experts/lawrence-norden>, director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and co-author of Election Officials Under Attack: How to Protect Administrators and Safeguard Democracy<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/election-officials-under-attack>. “The attacks will keep coming – and succeeding – unless there is a multipronged intervention across government and society to stop the purveyors of the Big Lie from making it impossible for election officials to do their jobs: conducting free and fair elections without partisanship.”

Election Officials Under Attack: How to Protect Administrators and Safeguard Democracy<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/election-officials-under-attack> identifies four factors making election officials’ work more difficult and dangerous: threats of violence and other safety concerns; increased disinformation being spread about elections, especially online and often by public officials; rising pressure to prioritize party interests over a democratic process; and unsustainable workloads. For each problem, the authors present multiple, urgent solutions.

“The continued threats against election officials and attempts to undermine their independence months after the presidential election are antithetical to a free and fair democracy,” said Matthew Weil<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/matthew-weil/>, director of the Election Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “There are reasonable, implementable solutions that will safeguard our elections going forward and the recommendations in this report are developed with the direct input and participation of election officials from across the country.”

The authors, election officials, and other experts will gather today online at noon ET for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s “Virtual Summit: Continuing Threats to Free and Fair Elections.” Please click here<https://bipartisanpolicy.org/event/virtual-summit-continuing-threats-to-free-and-fair-elections/> for more information or to RSVP. And click here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FoUQu6PNdA> to view a video that will be featured at the event, of election officials discussing their experiences firsthand….
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122668&title=%E2%80%9COne%20in%20Three%20Election%20Officials%20Report%20Feeling%20Unsafe%20Because%20of%20Their%20Job%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


“California elections chief: Recall candidates must share tax returns”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122665>
Posted on June 16, 2021 6:52 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122665> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/06/15/california-elections-chief-recall-candidates-must-share-tax-returns-1386480?nname=california-playbook&nid=00000150-384f-da43-aff2-bf7fd35a0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=641189>:

Recall candidates seeking to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom must furnish five years of tax returns, Secretary of State Shirley Weber said on Tuesday.

Weber’s advisory cemented the state’s position on a disputed piece of California election law. While some legal experts believe a law that compels candidates to release tax information does not apply to recall elections, Weber concluded that it does.

The reasoning: While courts struck down<https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2019/11/21/california-supreme-court-xxx-trump-tax-returns-law-1228830> the parts of a 2019 law<https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2019/07/30/californias-newsom-signs-bill-to-force-trump-tax-returns-1122154> that would have required presidential candidates to release their taxes, the sections covering gubernatorial candidates are still on the books.

The law’s language specifically covers gubernatorial candidates “on a direct primary election ballot.” Some legal experts have concluded<https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/05/gavin-newsom-taxes/> that shouldn’t cover recalls, which are technically special elections.

But a representative for Weber’s office said that because the state constitution and elections code do not delineate recall candidate requirements, the state would base recall candidate qualifications on primary election requirements, following a precedent set in 2003.

See also: California local elections officials: Don’t hold recall before Sept. 14.<https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/06/15/california-local-elections-officials-dont-hold-recall-before-sept-14-1386478?nname=california-playbook&nid=00000150-384f-da43-aff2-bf7fd35a0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=641189>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122665&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20elections%20chief%3A%20Recall%20candidates%20must%20share%20tax%20returns%E2%80%9D>
Posted in recall elections<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>


Georgia: “Could there be a takeover of the Fulton election board? Raffensperger says state is ‘frustrated'”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122662>
Posted on June 15, 2021 9:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122662> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Savannah Morning News:<https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2021/06/14/secretary-state-raffensperger-talks-fulton-takeover-new-georgia-elections-law/7634282002/>

There are plenty of hoops to jump through before that can happen, though. In order to remove and replace a superintendent, the performance review board would have to find that the superintendent violated Georgia elections law three times in the last two general election cycles, or “demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in the administration of the elections for at least two elections in a two-year period,” the bill reads.

“No one wants to take over a county election board. But when you have a situation that’s gone on for 25 years, at some point, people say enough is enough,” Raffensperger said. “The rest of the state is getting frustrated. So are Fulton County residents. They want the results. They want them accurate. They want them on time.”

Raffensperger did note that a takeover would be a “nonpartisan” and “methodical” process, and “it probably wouldn’t happen before 2022.”

“And so that would be something that the state election board would consider, perhaps, doing an investigation — a thorough investigation, bipartisan, nonpartisan, you want to make sure you do it with a methodical process,” Raffensperger said. “If you really look at the structure of SB 202. I think that’s what you’ll find. It supports a very methodical, careful, measured response.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122662&title=Georgia%3A%20%E2%80%9CCould%20there%20be%20a%20takeover%20of%20the%20Fulton%20election%20board%3F%20Raffensperger%20says%20state%20is%20%E2%80%98frustrated%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


The Brennan Center’s Myrna Perez Expected to Be Announced for Second Circuit Seat<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122660>
Posted on June 15, 2021 9:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122660> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Inspired choice.<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/politics/biden-judges.html> I’ve known Myrna for years and she is smart, careful, and committed to justice. The Second Circuit would be lucky to have her as a member.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122660&title=The%20Brennan%20Center%E2%80%99s%20Myrna%20Perez%20Expected%20to%20Be%20Announced%20for%20Second%20Circuit%20Seat>
Posted in election law biz<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


Ludicrous, Audacious, and Incredibly Dangerous: Read the Draft “Bill of Complaint” That President Trump Pressured the Department of Justice to File to Steal and Overturn the 2020 Presidential Election<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122658>
Posted on June 15, 2021 8:31 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122658> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It begins on page 33 <https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf> of these documents released by the House Oversight Committee. It’s very similar to the dangerous, awful brief filed by Texas in the Supreme Court that was summarily rejected by the Court. Yes it cites debunked conspiracy theories and dubious legal theories and the Epoch Times as authority. But let’s not let the ludicrous nature of the complaint overshadow how dangerous this was: here is the President of the United States directing a lawyer to pressure the Department of Justice<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/us/politics/trump-justice-department-election.html> into filing a brief in the Supreme Court that would have enjoined the appointment of presidential electors by 5 states that Biden won (and that had already appointed electors pursuant to legal state process). This is nothing less than an attempt to use the courts to steal the election. It is brazen, and dangerous, and an affront to the rule of law. We are lucky that enough election administrators, elected officials, judges, governors and members of Congress blocked these attempts from going forward.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122658&title=Ludicrous%2C%20Audacious%2C%20and%20Incredibly%20Dangerous%3A%20Read%20the%20Draft%20%E2%80%9CBill%20of%20Complaint%E2%80%9D%20That%20President%20Trump%20Pressured%20the%20Department%20of%20Justice%20to%20File%20to%20Steal%20and%20Overturn%20the%202020%20Presidential%20Election>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


Jack Rakove: “The framers would have been fine with sweeping national election reforms”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122656>
Posted on June 15, 2021 8:06 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122656> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo opinion piece:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/15/people-act-framers/>

The fate of the For the People Act is growing ever more precarious. It remains vulnerable to the whims of two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona; to the massive hurdle of the filibuster; and to its own sweeping purposes. With its 10 titles and numerous subtitles, the bill offers the most ambitious program for comprehensive electoral and political reform that Americans have ever witnessed. It also marks a direct response to the turmoil that has disrupted the U.S. political system and a preemptive federal strike against the panoply of “securing the vote” laws that Republican-dominated state legislatures are considering — with the fate of American democracy seemingly resting on the outcome.

That ambition has made the legislation an easy target for criticism. (One recent example was George F. Will’s column denouncing the act<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/02/democrats-big-voting-bill-is-proposal-ignore-constitution/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3> as a case of “constitutional vandalism.”) In its opponents’ view, the bill encroaches too much on the legislative power of the states to comport with basic principles of federalism. The Constitution, by default, left most of the key decisions about national elections to the state legislatures. They would decide who could vote in federal elections, how members of the House and presidential electors would be selected, and how elections would be conducted.

There was one main exception to this devolution of authority: the Times, Places, and Manner Clause of Article I (or the TPM clause), which empowered Congress to “make or alter such Regulations” as the states enacted to govern congressional elections. Even that Clause could be read narrowly, though, to imply, say, that Congress might intervene when individual states failed to provide for the election of representatives, but not to design a universal scheme for the design of districts.

As a matter of historical fact, however, this tailored view does justice neither to the reasons the clause became part the Constitution nor to the larger set of problems the framers were confronting. Looking at those factors, the argument for a robust historical view of the clause grows stronger — and also the argument that the sweeping reforms Congress is considering should pass constitutional muster.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122656&title=Jack%20Rakove%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20framers%20would%20have%20been%20fine%20with%20sweeping%20national%20election%20reforms%E2%80%9D>
Posted in voting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


“In the Ocean State, a legal dispute centers on voting rights and beach cabanas”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122654>
Posted on June 15, 2021 8:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122654> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Boston Globe:<https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/06/14/metro/ocean-state-legal-dispute-centers-voting-rights-beach-cabanas/>

In the rich annals of Rhode Island legal battles, this case lacks the high-society intrigue of the Claus von Bülow murder trial or the envelope-full-of-cash evidence unveiled during the “Operation Plunder Dome” investigation of Providence City Hall.

But it’s tough to find more quintessentially Rhode Island litigation than a current lawsuit involving Bonnet Shores and its cabanas, which for generations have symbolized summer living at the beach in Narragansett.

A group of residents is suing the Bonnet Shores Fire District<http://www.bonnetshores.org/>, claiming it’s unconstitutional for the district to prevent residents from voting if they own less than $400 worth of property. They say that restriction prevents some year-round residents from voting while giving voting rights to nonresidents who own beach cabanas — including 16-square-foot bathhouse units.

The residents first filed the suit in March 2020, but the case drew renewed attention this week when the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a legal brief, tracing the history of voting restrictions in Rhode Island and blasting the idea of limiting voting rights to property owners.Get Rhode Map in your inboxA weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.Enter EmailSign Up

“The charter of the Bonnet Shores Fire District appears caught in a time loop that has ignored the evolution of voting rights in the United States and Rhode Island since it was first enacted in 1932,” ACLU lawyers wrote. “This relic of a period of widespread disenfranchisement is unconstitutional and cannot endure.”

But Thomas M. Dickinson, a lawyer for the Bonnet Shores Fire District, said the case hinges on whether the fire district fits into the category of government entities where a one-person-one-vote rule applies, and he argued that it does not. Rather, he said, the district is more akin to a condominium association or neighborhood association.

“The Bonnet Shores Fire District is not a fire district at all,” Dickinson said. “It does not do things that a municipality does, notably such as fighting fires, and it is not responsible for the school system, the police, or sewage disposal.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122654&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20the%20Ocean%20State%2C%20a%20legal%20dispute%20centers%20on%20voting%20rights%20and%20beach%20cabanas%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/20210616/f0d5e948/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/20210616/f0d5e948/attachment.png>