[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/22/21

[Rick Hasen]

“Evidence in Capitol Attack Most Likely Supports Sedition Charges, Prosecutor Says”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121278>
Posted on March 22, 2021 8:33 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121278> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/21/us/politics/capitol-riot-sedition.html>

Evidence the government obtained in the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol most likely meets the bar necessary to charge some of the suspects with sedition, Michael R. Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who had been leading the Justice Department’s inquiry, said in an interview that aired on Sunday.

The department has rarely brought charges of sedition, the crime of conspiring to overthrow the government.

But in an interview with “60 Minutes,” Mr. Sherwin said prosecutors had evidence that most likely proved such a charge.

“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Mr. Sherwin said. “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”…

He reiterated assertions he made shortly after the attack that prosecutors were examining the conduct of former President Donald J. Trump<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/justice-department-trump-capitol.html>, who had told his supporters to attend the rally on Jan. 6 and egged them on with baseless claims that he had won the election.

“It’s unequivocal that Trump was the magnet that brought the people to D.C. on the 6th. Now the question is, is he criminally culpable for everything that happened during the siege, during the breach?” Mr. Sherwin said.

“We have people looking at everything,” he said.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121278&title=%E2%80%9CEvidence%20in%20Capitol%20Attack%20Most%20Likely%20Supports%20Sedition%20Charges%2C%20Prosecutor%20Says%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“NC federal attorneys: 24 more charged in voter-fraud probe in the 2016 general election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121276>
Posted on March 22, 2021 8:27 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121276> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/regional/article_980ff33a-8918-11eb-8592-a76529bd17e5.html>

A federal North Carolina prosecutor’s office that has been investigating allegations of voter-related fraud said on Friday that 24 more people have been charged over the past 18 months.

Two of the defendants were charged earlier this year with unlawful voting in the 2016 general election, a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for eastern North Carolina said.

More than 15 other defendants, including four whose indictments were unsealed Friday, were charged with falsely claiming U.S. citizenship to register to vote, according to a list the government released of those charged and their nationalities. The two charged with unlawful voting also are accused of false claims of citizenship.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121276&title=%E2%80%9CNC%20federal%20attorneys%3A%2024%20more%20charged%20in%20voter-fraud%20probe%20in%20the%202016%20general%20election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Trump urges Republicans to double-down on fake election fraud narrative”/H.R. 1 Friendly Critics<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121274>
Posted on March 22, 2021 8:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121274> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Zach Montellaro<https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-score/2021/03/22/trump-urges-republicans-to-double-down-on-fake-election-fraud-narrative-794145>:

Trump continues to cling to his lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent — and is pushing the rest of the Republican Party to join him. “Sadly, the Election was Rigged, and without even going into detail, of which there is much, totally game changing,” Trump said in a statement on Saturday, where he called much of the federal judiciary “gutless” (including the Supreme Court), for not backing his bunk claims. “No wonder so much money is being raised on this issue, and law-abiding people have every right to do so!”

Trump was responding to a story from The New York Times, which reported that right-leaning groups were finding that the “center of gravity in the party,” as one strategist put it, was pushing new restrictions on voters’ access to the polls, many of which have been predicated on Trump’s lie. The drive “is now at the heart of the right’s strategy to keep donors and voters engaged as Mr. Trump fades from public view and leaves a void in the Republican Party that no other figure or issue has filled,” The New York Times’ Jeremy W. Peters<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/politics/republicans-trump-voting-rights.html> wrote.

And while Trump may remain banned on Twitter, he has shown that he does not need it when it comes to his main focus of advancing his electoral fraud claims, and integrating them within the conservative movement at large<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/28/trump-gop-cpac-voter-integrity-restrictions-471831>. That includes everything from his CPAC speech last month<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/28/trump-cpac-2024-biden-471869>, where so-called “election integrity” efforts were one of the major topics of discussion throughout the event.

Expect Republican candidates’ stance on Trump’s lies to be among the most prominent litmus tests in GOP primaries. ….

One thing to watch: Is there a universe in which pieces of H.R.1 are chunked off and pushed through as standalone bills? Noted election law professor Rick Hasen floated the idea of a more targeted piece of legislation in an op-ed in The Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/16/hr-1-voting-reforms/>, writing that not doing so runs the risk of nothing getting passed. In conversations Score has had with aides and activists, not many seemed to be entertaining that idea yet. But the battle over S.1 in the Senate is just beginning — there is a Senate Rules hearing on Wednesday<https://www.rules.senate.gov/hearings/s1-the-for-the-people-act> — so any ultimate outcome isn’t close to being clear yet.

— Some who are supportive of the ethos of the bill are nevertheless raising concerns with it. VoteBeat’s Jessica Huseman<https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-this-voting-rights-bill-could-turn-the-next-election-into-a-clusterfck>, writing in The Daily Beast, touches on some election administrators’ complaints with deadlines and funding within the package: “The sections of the bill related to voting systems — wholly separate from its provisions on voting rights — show remarkably little understanding of the problems the authors apply alarmingly prescriptive solutions to. Many of the changes the bill demands of election administrators are literally impossible to implement. Others would significantly raise the cost of elections but provide no assured long-term funding.”

“The devil is in the details. There are aspects of HR1 that if they went into effect, wouldn’t necessarily affect states like mine. … We have to make sure, though, that we are not creating unintended consequences, and creating less opportunity,” one Democratic secretary of state told me last month. “Those of us that are in support of the principle of HR1, we want to work closely with Congress, to make sure that states that have very accessible election systems in place, that those are protected, that those aren’t unintentionally altered to the negative.”

The ACLU has also raised concerns with some of the speech-related aspects of the bill, first in 2019<https://www.aclu.org/aclu-letter-opposing-hr-1-people-act-2019>, and recently in an op-ed in The Post from Kate Ruane and Sonia Gill<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/03/aclu-lawyers-hr1-flaws-nonprofits/>, senior legislative counsels at the organization. The duo praised the bill’s sections on voting rights, public campaign financing and more, but said there are “significant flaws that are detrimental to the health of our democracy and will likely have unintended consequences on the political rights of noncitizen immigrants as well as many nonprofits.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121274&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20urges%20Republicans%20to%20double-down%20on%20fake%20election%20fraud%20narrative%E2%80%9D%2FH.R.%201%20Friendly%20Critics>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Trump looks to take down Raffensperger in Georgia; The former president is expected to endorse Rep. Jody Hice, who supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, against the Georgia secretary of state.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121272>
Posted on March 22, 2021 8:12 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121272> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/21/trump-raffensberger-georgia-jody-hice-477424?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=630318>:

Former President Donald Trump is expected to endorse Rep. Jody Hice in a campaign to unseat Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in next year’s Republican primary, according to three people familiar with Trump’s decision.

Trump publicly seethed about Raffensperger after the November election, when the secretary of state refused to support Trump’s false claims that Georgia’s 16 electoral votes were stolen from him. Top Raffensperger aides had publicly rebuked the president’s conspiracy theories, warning in early December<https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/01/georgia-election-official-condemns-trump-441879> that it would lead to potential violence.

The then-president aggressively pressured Raffensperger, including in an early January call when Trump told Raffensperger that he should “find” a specific number of votes<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/trump-georgia-election-454122> so that he could reverse Joe Biden’s victory in the state. The call has exposed Trump to potential legal consequences, with Georgia prosecutors investigating whether he improperly tried to influence the election results.

Hice, who first won election to his east-central Georgia seat in 2014, is a staunch Trump ally who supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. He derided the Democratic-led push to impeach Trump over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot as“bogus.”

Brendan Nyhan<https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/1373700091207413768?s=20>:
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121272&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20looks%20to%20take%20down%20Raffensperger%20in%20Georgia%3B%20The%20former%20president%20is%20expected%20to%20endorse%20Rep.%20Jody%20Hice%2C%20who%20supported%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20efforts%20to%20overturn%20the%202020%20election%20results%2C%20against%20the%20Georgia%20secretary%20of%20state.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Close GOP Win in Iowa Gets Second Look From House Democrats”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121270>
Posted on March 22, 2021 8:09 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121270> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WSJ:<https://www.wsj.com/articles/close-gop-win-in-iowa-gets-second-look-from-house-democrats-11616338814>

A House committee’s probe of a congressional race in Iowa<https://www.wsj.com/articles/close-races-to-determine-size-of-democrats-house-majority-11605878061?mod=article_inline> has become a flashpoint on Capitol Hill, forcing Democrats to explain how reviewing that election outcome differs from Republicans’ efforts last year to overturn several states’ presidential results.

GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks took office in January after the Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified her victory over Democratic candidate Rita Hart. She won by just six votes out of the nearly 400,000 total votes cast, following a recount of the entire district. Ms. Hart filed in late December to challenge the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act. It isn’t unusual for candidates to appeal to the House to review a race’s results, but such efforts rarely succeed.

Earlier this month, the House Administration Committee voted along party lines to review the case, and further filings from the candidates are due Monday to the panel. There isn’t a set timeline for the review.

The debate is emerging at a heated time in the House, when many Democrats remain deeply angered with Republicans for echoing former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims<https://www.wsj.com/articles/mcconnell-congratulates-biden-harris-on-election-win-11608048087?mod=article_inline> that the election was stolen from him. During a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, some GOP lawmakers unsuccessfully challenged results in several states that President Biden won and rioters mobbed the Capitol to protest the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory.

“The American people deserve to know who actually won this election and the people of Iowa’s second congressional district deserve to be represented by that person,” said House Administration Chairperson Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.).

In the House race, a successful challenge by the Democrats would bolster their narrow majority<https://www.wsj.com/articles/smaller-house-majority-poses-headaches-for-democrats-11605132137?mod=article_inline>, which currently stands at 219-211 with five vacancies.

The Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections, but says each chamber of Congress is the final judge of the elections and qualifications of its own members. The Federal Contested Elections Act sets out the procedures for the losing candidate in a general election to the House to contest the seat.

Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the committee, questioned why Ms. Hart hadn’t pursued her challenge through Iowa’s court system and said Democrats were being hypocritical.

“You cannot complain about anyone questioning election certificates again if you’re willing to do the same with a duly elected member, especially since Rita Hart did not finish the court process in Iowa,” he told reporters.

Ms. Hart’s lawyer, Marc Elias, said in a filing that exhausting the state judicial process isn’t a requirement for challenging the election in the House. The Hart campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment on its decision to not challenge the case in Iowa courts….

Ms. Miller-Meeks had initially led by 47 votes, but Ms. Hart asked for a recount in all 24 counties, which whittled the Republican’s lead to six votes. But the counties used different methods for the recount and Ms. Hart alleged they didn’t count all legal ballots. Ms. Miller-Meeks’s legal team said Iowa law gives counties flexibility in how they choose to count ballots and that Ms. Hart’s campaign pushed in each county for the method that would benefit the Democrat there.

Ms. Hart, a former state senator, is now asking for a “uniform recount” of the results. In investigating previous contests, the Administration Committee has impounded election records and ballots, conducted recounts, examined disputed ballots and interviewed election officials, according to the Congressional Research Service. The committee can issue a report and a resolution with its recommendation on who should hold the House seat, which the chamber votes on.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121270&title=%E2%80%9CClose%20GOP%20Win%20in%20Iowa%20Gets%20Second%20Look%20From%20House%20Democrats%E2%80%9D>
Posted in recounts<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>


“Assaulting the Truth, Ron Johnson Helps Erode Confidence in Government”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121268>
Posted on March 22, 2021 7:58 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121268> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/21/us/politics/ron-johnson-wisconsin-misinformation.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

Mr. Johnson has also become the leading Republican proponent of a revisionist effort<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/us/politics/antifa-conspiracy-capitol-riot.html> to deny the motives and violence of the mob that breached the Capitol. At a Senate hearing to examine the events of that day, Mr. Johnson read into the record an account from a far-right website<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/us/politics/ron-johnson-capitol-riot.html> attributing the violence to “agents-provocateurs” and “fake Trump protesters.” On Saturday, he told a conference of conservative political organizers<https://twitter.com/RicoReporting/status/1373370003181961224?s=20> in Wisconsin that “there was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber.” In fact, Trump supporters stormed the chamber<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/photos-capitol-building-protesters.html> shortly after senators were evacuated.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121268&title=%E2%80%9CAssaulting%20the%20Truth%2C%20Ron%20Johnson%20Helps%20Erode%20Confidence%20in%20Government%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Exclusive: Pro-Biden group won’t disclose donors”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121266>
Posted on March 22, 2021 7:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121266> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Axios:<https://www.axios.com/pro-biden-group-donors-disclosure-c8fc8ea3-9741-4734-94d5-99568814bd0e.html>

A Pro-Biden group, operating with the White House’s blessing, plans to raise unlimited funds — and grant donors anonymity — as it prepares to promote and protect the president’s agenda from the outside.

Why it matters: By not capping anonymous contributions, the group, called Building Back Together, will have an easier time raising money, ahead of its anticipated launch next month to defend Biden’s policies, including his $1.9 trillion relief package….

The big picture: The outside group is, in part, a facsimile of an earlier Democratic organization, The Common Purpose Project, that was created by allies of President Obama to coordinate the progressive movement early in Obama’s term.

However, Building Back Together differs from the Obama model in one crucial aspect: That group capped contributions at $50,000 and disclosed their names.

But allies of President Trump didn’t abide by those conventions when they established their groups four years ago, and raised unlimited funds from anonymous donors.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121266&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Pro-Biden%20group%20won%E2%80%99t%20disclose%20donors%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


“Voting rights becomes a new battleground for US companies”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121264>
Posted on March 21, 2021 3:38 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121264> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Financial Times<https://www.ft.com/content/a8eaa2bb-d221-422b-bfb7-d5bc365178f5?accessToken=zwAAAXhVh79YkdOo6qK70iFCK9O_t9W8NlF49Q.MEUCIApd6wlw6TBbhw5UceRAod9tYTODTUHgRwAd7PPTESJTAiEAq-9pCBHFXPc4tQEXfFpGs06zssiec370tuX6fZQnKXM&sharetype=gift?token=d4d72b4e-2a4c-4a4d-9be7-82f24fe08794>:

Voting rights activists in Georgia are piling pressure on companies including Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Home Depot and UPS to come out against Republican-led efforts to restrict early and mail-in voting in the southern state.

The campaign, which has included newspaper, billboard and online advertisements, as well as protests outside company headquarters, marks the latest test for corporate America after a year in which business leaders took high-profile stances against racism.

“Many of these same companies . . . made bold statements around racial equity. They had a commitment to racial equity, and healing a nation beyond racism,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, one of the groups leading the campaign.

“Now it makes me wonder: were their statements disingenuous? Were their statements just a marketing ploy?”…’

Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability said companies were “wide open to the charge of hypocrisy,” noting the threat this posed to consumer-facing brands’ profits.

Coca-Cola was among the donors to the Georgia state senators who sponsored the contentious bills, he said, while Home Depot was one of 46 corporate donors to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which funnelled $144,700 to candidates in Georgia in the last election.

Contacted by the FT, Delta and Home Depot emphasised their support for broad voter participation and for “secure” elections. UPS said it was “working to ensure equitable access to the polls and the integrity of the election process across the state”, and was supporting legislation that furthered those goals. Coca-Cola did not reply to a request for comment.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121264&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20rights%20becomes%20a%20new%20battleground%20for%20US%20companies%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Garland is the Last, Best Chance to Uncover Trump’s Role on January 6”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121262>
Posted on March 21, 2021 3:35 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121262> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Rohde in the New Yorker<https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/garland-is-the-last-best-chance-to-uncover-trumps-role-on-january-6th>:

If Garland hopes to revive Levi’s ideals, his course is apparent. A federal criminal investigation is a comparatively blunt instrument, but it is the last, best route to uncovering the truth about one of the most violent attempts to overthrow a Presidential-election result in American history. During his confirmation hearing, Garland said<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/merrick-garland-hearing-capitol-attack-questions.html>, of the siege, “This was the most heinous attack on the democratic processes that I’ve ever seen, and one that I never expected to see in my lifetime,” and vowed to pursue leads “wherever they take us.” The risks for the new Attorney General, though, are significant. Justice Department prosecutors could struggle to find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Stone, other Trump associates, and Trump himself have adeptly operated in legal gray areas for decades. Garland could be forced to announce that the investigation has concluded without charges being filed against them. In that event, he would likely be barred, by law, from revealing any evidence collected, because most criminal investigations are conducted in secret, via grand-jury subpoenas. Garland could also announce charges, go to trial, and fail to win convictions, a debacle that would reinforce claims from Trump that he is the victim—and the unbowed survivor—of another deep-state plot against him.

Yet facts, hopefully, remain weapons. That is why Garland should use his powers as Attorney General to exhaustively, and impartially, reconstruct the events of January 6th and the months that preceded it—to go, as prosecutors are supposed to, where the facts lead him, and then determine who deserves to be criminally charged. “You can’t make that decision without an investigation,” Gillers told me. “You follow the facts, you learn the facts, and then you make a decision.” Our increasing inability to agree on basic facts, of course, is the great challenge, and tragedy, of our time.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121262&title=%E2%80%9CGarland%20is%20the%20Last%2C%20Best%20Chance%20to%20Uncover%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Role%20on%20January%206%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“The Smearing of Kristen Clarke”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121260>
Posted on March 21, 2021 3:33 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121260> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Irin Carmon<https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/the-smear-campaign-against-bidens-civil-rights-nominee.html> on the despicable campaign to block Kristen Clarke, an excellent and principled civil rights lawyer, from a major appointment at DOJ.

“It’s impossible not to notice that women of color seem to be drawing fire for the wrong reasons,” says Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor and former Civil Rights division official. National Women’s Law Center president Fatima Goss Graves told me, “These types of campaigns against women of color, and the language that is being used, to portray these nominees as ‘radical’ are not being levied against men.”

The Senate has never confirmed a woman of any race to run the Civil Rights division. That role wields the authority to oversee police departments that abuse their power, an authority former Attorney General Jeff Sessions actively worked to thwart<https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/19/here-s-why-jeff-sessions-parting-shot-is-worse-than-you-thought>, and to see to it that laws and court decisions that protect people from discrimination are properly enforced. This will also be the first redistricting cycle since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013. “The civil rights division protects Americans from government,” Levitt notes. “It is the only part of the federal government tasked with suing other branches of governments.”

Nominees to run the branch tend to be civil rights lawyers who support the implementation of laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, which were once bipartisan but are unpopular with today’s Republicans. By now, that’s to be expected. What has been more disappointing for decades now is the skittishness of Senate Democrats to vote for, and White House Democrats to stand by, these nominees.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121260&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Smearing%20of%20Kristen%20Clarke%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


“‘It’s not a local issue anymore’: D.C. statehood moves from political fringe to the center of the national Democratic agenda”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121258>
Posted on March 21, 2021 3:27 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121258> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dc-statehood/2021/03/20/e7c7efb6-88ca-11eb-bfdf-4d36dab83a6d_story.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121258&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98It%E2%80%99s%20not%20a%20local%20issue%20anymore%E2%80%99%3A%20D.C.%20statehood%20moves%20from%20political%20fringe%20to%20the%20center%20of%20the%20national%20Democratic%20agenda%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Partisan Bias of the Electoral College Over Time<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121255>
Posted on March 21, 2021 9:34 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121255> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Just ran across this nice graph, from @davidschor<https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1348305282502418432>, which illustrates that from the 1960s until 2016, the Electoral College was more often biased toward Democrats, and by a larger amount, than toward Republicans. This also shows how dramatic the change was that began in 2016:
[cid:image002.png at 01D71EF6.9D88DF20]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121255&title=Partisan%20Bias%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College%20Over%20Time>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


When a Recall is Combined with Plurality-Vote Rules<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121253>
Posted on March 21, 2021 6:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121253> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

From Cal Matters<https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/03/recall-rules-gavin-newsom-trouble/>:

Voters are first asked whether they would like to give the incumbent the boot. Then, in a second question, they are asked who ought to be the replacement. Under California law, incumbents can’t run to replace themselves.

If more than 50% of voters opt for a “yes” on the recall question, whoever comes first on the replacement list is immediately hired as the state’s next chief executive. That’s where things can get weird. In a crowded field with no clear frontrunner, coming first could mean getting far less than 50% of the vote.

It might even mean getting far less support than the incumbent being ousted. …

A more recent example shows just how odd California recall math can be.

In 2016, Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman won a seat in a longtime GOP stronghold in north Orange County. In the summer of 2018, Republicans and anti-tax advocates mounted a recall campaign<https://calmatters.org/politics/election-2018/2018/06/nuclear-option-why-politicians-are-warily-watching-the-recall-election-of-sen-josh-newman/> over Newman’s support for an increase in the state gas tax. A fired-up conservative bloc of voters turned out en masse, Democratic voters did not, and Newman was replaced by Republican Ling Ling Chang.

In that race, 66,197 voters, or 42%, opposed the recall and backed Newman. Chang, running against five other candidates, received fewer votes, 50,215, but still won the seat with 34%. In the next regularly scheduled election in 2020, Newman reclaimed the seat.

A sufficiently crowded and disorganized field could produce similar results in a 2021 recall race.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121253&title=When%20a%20Recall%20is%20Combined%20with%20Plurality-Vote%20Rules>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Northern Michigan county accused of election fraud to count ballots by hand in May”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121251>
Posted on March 20, 2021 1:04 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121251> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/2021/03/20/antrim-county-vote-hand-fraud-election-northern-michigan/115583660/>

A northern Michigan county that was sued over its counting of the fall election will count paper ballots by hand in the May 4 primary.

Antrim County commissioners turned down a request from the county clerk for $5,080 to prepare Dominion voting machines for the upcoming election, the Traverse City Record-Eagle reported.

Commissioners instead said ballots will be counted by hand, though Clerk Sheryl Guy, the chief election officer, said it could be illegal.

“The state said we can’t. But let them come tell us that we can’t, given our circumstance,” said Commissioner Ed Boettcher.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121251&title=%E2%80%9CNorthern%20Michigan%20county%20accused%20of%20election%20fraud%20to%20count%20ballots%20by%20hand%20in%20May%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Why the effects of Republican efforts to limit voting aren’t clear”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121249>
Posted on March 20, 2021 1:00 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121249> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Harry Enten<https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/20/politics/republican-voting-analysis/index.html> for CNN:

Republicans’ response to losing control of the White House and Senate has been to try and make voting harder<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/voting-restrictions-republicans-states/> in a number of states. Most notably, perhaps, is Georgia, where they’re going after ways of voting that were popular for Black voters and Democrats in 2020 (e.g. mail voting).

Democrats and Black advocacy groups are, of course, up in arms and trying to stop the GOP.We can’t know how these changes, if they come to pass, would affect future elections. But by looking at two of the most prominent moves Republicans are trying to make, we can see it’s not at all clear that Republicans will succeed in helping their electoral prospects.

Let’s take a look at two ways of voting Republicans are trying to limit: vote by mail and early Sunday voting.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121249&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20effects%20of%20Republican%20efforts%20to%20limit%20voting%20aren%E2%80%99t%20clear%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“‘An all-hands moment’: GOP rallies behind voting limits”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121247>
Posted on March 20, 2021 12:54 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121247> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<https://apnews.com/article/legislature-voting-rights-ted-cruz-legislation-elections-6270306f67108ac16f4ee7b45a8afdb3>

In an invitation-only call last week, Sen. Ted Cruz huddled with Republican state lawmakers to call them to battle on the issue of voting rights.

Democrats are trying to expand voting rights to “illegal aliens” and “child molesters,” he claimed, and Republicans must do all they can to stop them. If they push through far-reaching election legislation now before the Senate, the GOP won’t win elections again for generations, he said.

Asked if there was room to compromise, Cruz was blunt: “No.”

“H.R. 1′s only objective is to ensure that Democrats can never again lose another election, that they will win and maintain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate and of the state legislatures for the next century,” Cruz said told the group organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed, conservative group that provides model legislation to state legislators.

Cruz’s statements, recorded by a person on the call and obtained by The Associated Press, capture the building intensity behind Republicans’ nationwide campaign to restrict access to the ballot. From statehouses to Washington, the fight over who can vote and how — often cast as “voting integrity” — has galvanized a Republican Party in search of unifying mission in the post-Trump era. For a powerful network of conservatives, voting restrictions are now viewed as a political life-or-death debate, and the fight has all-but eclipsed traditional Republican issues like abortion, gun rights and tax cuts as an organizing tool.

That potency is drawing influential figures and money from across the right, ensuring that the clash over the legislation in Washington will be partisan and expensive.

“It kind of feels like an all-hands-on-deck moment for the conservative movement, when the movement writ large realizes the sanctity of our elections is paramount and voter distrust is at an all-time high,” said Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action, an influential conservative advocacy group in Washington. “We’ve had a bit of a battle cry from the grassroots, urging us to pick this fight.”

Several prominent groups have recently entered the fray: Anti-abortion rights group, the Susan B. Anthony List, has partnered with another conservative Christian group to fund a new organization, the Election Transparency Initiative. FreedomWorks, a group formed to push for smaller government, has initiated a $10 million calling for tighter voting laws in the states. It will be run by Cleta Mitchell, a prominent Republican attorney who advised former President Donald Trump….

In a sign of the increasing attention to the issue last year, Leonard Leo, a Trump advisor and one of the strategists behind the conservative focus on the federal judiciary, formed The Honest Elections Project to push for voting restrictions and coordinate GOP effort to monitor the 2020 vote.

But the issue expanded beyond what many conservatives expected. As Trump groundlessly blamed fraud for his loss, and he and his allies lost more than 50 court cases trying to overturn the election, his conservative base became convinced of vague “irregularities” and holes in the voting system.

While Leo’s group, like other parts of the establishment GOP, kept a distance from such claims, state lawmakers stepped in quickly with bills aimed at fixing phantom problems and restoring confidence in the system.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121247&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98An%20all-hands%20moment%E2%80%99%3A%20GOP%20rallies%20behind%20voting%20limits%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“MAGA voters discovered a new home online. But it isn’t what it seems.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121245>
Posted on March 19, 2021 2:16 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121245> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/maga-safechat-falun-gong-epoch-476215>:

As former President Donald Trump’s supporters have flocked to alternative social media networks, many are turning to SafeChat, a fast-growing platform known for its tolerance of high-octane MAGA content.

In the nine weeks sincethe Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, SafeChat’s app has been downloaded more times than in all of 2020, quickly becoming a hotbed of conspiracy theories and disinformation that paints President Joe Biden’s new administration in the worst possible light.

But the once-obscure social network, which touts its security protections and respect for free speech,is not just MAGA-friendly. It’s also a conduit that enables fringe groups attacking the Chinese Communist Party to speak directly to — and influence — Trump supporters, creating a “Star Wars” barlike atmosphere where AR-15 enthusiasts and a growing number of white nationalists can mingle with Chinese dissidents.https://76461d8ffd156461bda97aae0397dfb2.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html?v=1-0-38

According to a review of corporate records and online activity by POLITICO, SafeChat has close links to The Epoch Times, an English-language media outletaffiliated with Falun Gong, the Chinese spiritual movement known for its antagonism toward the Chinese Communist Party and described by critics as a “cult.”

The Epoch Times saw its online readership grow fivefold, to 51 million monthly visitors to its website, during Trump’s time in the White House.

It’s part of a growing network of Falun Gong-affiliated media outlets that is creating its own far-right social media pipeline — one that amplifies MAGA themes while promoting the agenda of groups dedicated to the ouster of the Chinese Communist Party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121245&title=%E2%80%9CMAGA%20voters%20discovered%20a%20new%20home%20online.%20But%20it%20isn%E2%80%99t%20what%20it%20seems.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>


“Ex-Florida state senator paid bogus candidate to ‘siphon votes,’ police say, in race GOP narrowly won”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121243>
Posted on March 19, 2021 1:58 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121243> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/19/florida-fraud-artiles-rodriguez-election/>

When incumbent Democrat José Javier Rodríguez lost his Florida state senate seat<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/20/florida-election-trump-senator-rodriguez/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2> to Republican challenger Ileana Garcia by just 32 votes in November, the losing party and investigators began asking questions about a suspicious third candidate.

A man named Alexis “Alex” Rodriguez — who shared the incumbent’s last name — appeared on the ballotbut never campaigned, never spoke publicly, and could not be reached<https://www.local10.com/news/local/2020/11/16/miami-dade-state-senate-candidate-turns-out-to-be-shill-funded-by-dark-money-that-lives-two-counties-away/> by reporters after he took thousands of votes on Election Day.

Now, the mysterious candidate and a former Republicanstate senator are facing felony charges<https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article250015359.html> for crimes stemming from a plot to “confuse voters and siphon votes from the incumbent,” police said in an affidavit<https://www.local10.com/news/politics/2021/03/18/read-the-warrant-alleging-ex-florida-sen-frank-artiles-paid-shill-candidate-to-dupe-voters/> filed this week.

“It violates everything that should be honest and straightforward about our elections,” Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle (D) said on Thursday<https://apnews.com/article/miami-senate-elections-florida-elections-e8b70ce3270bd170e37a71ca80b5aaae>, noting that investigators are still probing the case as well as two other suspicious candidates in other state races. “Where it goes from here, we don’t know. We have not completed this investigation.”

The case is a rare instance when a criminal scheme may have changed an election outcome, helping the GOP flip a state senate seat. The investigation comes as Republicans in Florida have justified attempts to restrict mail-in voting<https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-florida-senate-republicans-restrict-mail-voting-20210310-7fg7ny2udjestlk323qadop2vi-story.html>, which would hamper Democrats, by suggesting tighter rules will make elections more secure — even though there is scant evidence<https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/02/17/florida-republicans-push-limits-on-vote-by-mail/> of voter fraud in mail-in ballots.

Miami Herald:<https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article250060609.html>

Florida Democrats on Friday called for Republican Sen. Ileana Garcia’s resignation and for a special election to be held in Miami-Dade Senate District 37, a day after state prosecutors accused a Miami GOP operative of planting a no-party candidate to sway the outcome of the racein November.

Garcia’s 2020 victory strengthened Senate Republicans’ decades-long control of the Florida Senate. But Democrats are calling into question the integrity of the election after a 25-page arrest affidavit laid bare an alleged scheme by former Republican state Sen. Frank Artiles that involved him paying an auto-parts dealer more than $40,000 to run and influence the race.

The sham candidate, Alexis “Alex” Rodriguez, shared the same surname as the incumbent, Democrat José Javier Rodríguez. The point of his candidacy, investigators said, was to “confuse voters and siphon votes from the incumbent.” Garcia won by 32 votes out of 215,000 ballots cast. Alex Rodriguez received more than 6,000 votes….

Investigators have not found evidence that Garcia knew of Artiles’ alleged scheme to influence the outcome of her race. Garcia told the Herald that she has never even met Artiles.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121243&title=%E2%80%9CEx-Florida%20state%20senator%20paid%20bogus%20candidate%20to%20%E2%80%98siphon%20votes%2C%E2%80%99%20police%20say%2C%20in%20race%20GOP%20narrowly%20won%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Trump’s chief of staff could face scrutiny in Georgia criminal probe”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121241>
Posted on March 19, 2021 1:20 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121241> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reuters:<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-georgia-meadows-insight-idUSKBN2BB0XX>

The Georgia secretary of state’s office said it had just 45 minutes notice of Meadows’ arrival in Cobb County, and it barred him from the room where state investigators were examining the absentee ballot signatures. A day earlier, Trump had publicly complained that the audit was moving too slowly after making baseless claims that Georgia’s signature verification system is rife with fraud.

Meadows’ trip set in motion a series of meetings and conversations in a pressure campaign by Trump and his allies that culminated in a Jan. 2 phone call in which Trump told Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” the votes he needed to win. That call, joined by Meadows and others, is now the central focus of an Atlanta investigation into whether Trump and his allies criminally interfered in the 2020 election in an attempt to overturn his Georgia loss to Democrat Joe Biden, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Meadows’ trip also highlights the top aide’s prominent role in the events under investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. He was among the eight participants identified in the Jan. 2 call, according to a transcript, and he kicked off the call with introductions of everyone on it. Meadows later pressed Georgia officials on the call for access to legally private voter information, a request they denied, the transcript shows.

A person with direct knowledge of the district attorney’s investigation told Reuters the office is likely to issue subpoenas for evidence to most or all of the call participants.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121241&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20chief%20of%20staff%20could%20face%20scrutiny%20in%20Georgia%20criminal%20probe%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“How the Biden Administration Can Increase Transparency for Corporate Political Spending”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121239>
Posted on March 19, 2021 7:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121239> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-biden-administration-can-increase-transparency-corporate-political>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121239&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Biden%20Administration%20Can%20Increase%20Transparency%20for%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“The Coming Redistricting Cycle Will Test Just What Biden’s DOJ Can Do With A Gutted VRA”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121237>
Posted on March 19, 2021 7:07 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121237> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tierney Sneed<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/biden-justice-department-voting-rights-act-redistricting-shelby-county> for TPM.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121237&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Coming%20Redistricting%20Cycle%20Will%20Test%20Just%20What%20Biden%E2%80%99s%20DOJ%20Can%20Do%20With%20A%20Gutted%20VRA%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“In Restricting Early Voting, the Right Sees a New ‘Center of Gravity’”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121235>
Posted on March 19, 2021 7:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121235> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/politics/republicans-trump-voting-rights.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

For more than a decade, the Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project have pursued cultural and policy priorities from the social conservative playbook, backing laws to ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat could be detected and opposing civil rights protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people. From their shared offices in suburban Virginia, they and their affiliated committees spent more than $20 million on elections last year.

But after Donald J. Trump lost his bid for a second term and convinced millions of Americans that nonexistent fraud was to blame, the two groups found that many of their donors were thinking of throwing in the towel. Why, donors argued, should they give any money if Democrats were going to game the system to their advantage, recalled Frank Cannon, the senior strategist for both groups.

“‘Before I give you any money for anything at all, tell me how this is going to be solved,’” Mr. Cannon said, summarizing his conversations. He and other conservative activists — many with no background in election law — didn’t take long to come up with an answer, which was to make rolling back access to voting the “center of gravity in the party,” as he put it.

Passing new restrictions on voting — in particular, tougher limits on early voting and vote-by-mail — is now at the heart of the right’s strategy to keep donors and voters engaged as Mr. Trump fades from public view and leaves a void in the Republican Party that no other figure or issue has filled. In recent weeks, many of the most prominent and well-organized groups that power the G.O.P.’s vast voter turnout efforts have directed their resources toward a campaign to restrict when and how people can vote, with a focus on the emergency policies that states enacted last year to make casting a ballot during a pandemic easier. The groups believe it could be their best shot at regaining a purchase on power in Washington.

Their efforts are intensifying over the objections of some Republicans who say the strategy is cynical and shortsighted, arguing that it further commits their party to legitimizing a lie. It also sends a message, they say, that Republicans think they lost mostly because the other side cheated, which prevents them from grappling honestly with what went wrong and why they might lose again.

Some also argue that setting new restrictions on voting could undercut the party just as it was making important gains<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/liberals-race.html> with Black and Latino voters, who are more likely to be impeded by such laws.

“Restricting voting is only a short-term rush. It’s not a strategy for future strength,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the Republican Party’s most prominent election lawyers, who has criticized<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/08/republicans-have-insufficient-evidence-call-elections-rigged-fraudulent/> Mr. Trump and other members of the party for attacking the integrity of the voting process.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121235&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Restricting%20Early%20Voting%2C%20the%20Right%20Sees%20a%20New%20%E2%80%98Center%20of%20Gravity%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“Is Democracy Possible Here?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121233>
Posted on March 19, 2021 6:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121233> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Thoughts from Jim Gardner.<http://www.buffalo.edu/baldycenter/multimedia/blog.html#gardner>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121233&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20Democracy%20Possible%20Here%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Most 2020 Nevada election integrity cases resolved without finding of fraud; recent Republican document drop under review”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121231>
Posted on March 18, 2021 5:05 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121231> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nevada Independent:<https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/most-2020-nevada-election-integrity-cases-resolved-without-finding-of-fraud-recent-republican-document-drop-under-review>

The vast majority of election complaint case files submitted to top Nevada election officials in the last six months regarding the 2020 election were closed without any findings that election laws were violated, even as many Republicans continue to assert that the election was rife with fraud and stolen from former President Donald Trump.

A log obtained by The Nevada Independent through a public records request shows there were 298 election integrity case files submitted to the secretary of state’s office from the beginning of September through Tuesday. It does not characterize the complexity of any individual case — such as whether a complainant suggested a single improper vote or submitted a spreadsheet alleging thousands of suspicious votes — or offer names of complainants or the accused.

Of those case files, 255 — or 86 percent — have been closed either because no violation was found, the underlying issue was resolved, or the case was referred to investigatory authority in the secretary of state’s office.

Only 41 of the roughly 300 files submitted for the 2020 election have not been resolved, which includes 15 submitted by the Nevada Republican Party earlier this month (many entries in the log list out several thousand alleged examples of voter fraud). The GOP and the state had widely varied public descriptions of the scope of their submission, with the party saying it submitted 122,918 records, and the state categorizing it as fewer than 4,000 distinct reports.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121231&title=%E2%80%9CMost%202020%20Nevada%20election%20integrity%20cases%20resolved%20without%20finding%20of%20fraud%3B%20recent%20Republican%20document%20drop%20under%20review%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Bob Bauer: “How to Counter the Republican Assault on Voting Rights”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121229>
Posted on March 18, 2021 1:01 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121229> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT oped<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/opinion/republicans-voting-rights.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage>:

In Washington, congressional Democrats have rallied around H.R. 1, which has already passed in the House and would establish specific voting rules that states would be required to follow for federal elections, empowered by Congress’s clear constitutional authority to “make or alter” state regulations governing the “Times, Places and manner” of holding such elections.

But as this legislation is pending, the Republican state legislative movement to burden the exercise of voting rights proceeds apace. Iowa has already done so, Georgia is poised to act shortly, and others may follow suit.

Congress should consider a targeted federal law to counter this march of these draconian state laws. And it could be designed in such a way that some Republicans would support it — or find it uncomfortable to explain why they wouldn’t.

This law would make clear that a state may not revise its rules to restrict voting access in federal elections in specified areas — including the withdrawal of existing vote-by-mail opportunities and reductions in early voting — unless it is done on a bipartisan basis.

A core objective of this legislation — to protect the right to vote from partisan manipulation of the rules — would be to enhance public perceptions of the fairness of the political process. With one political party unleashing a national movement to sharply limit access to the franchise, claiming contrary to fact that the presidential election it lost was corrupted by fraud, Congress is well justified in asserting its constitutional authority in federal elections and bringing a halt to it.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121229&title=Bob%20Bauer%3A%20%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Counter%20the%20Republican%20Assault%20on%20Voting%20Rights%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/20210322/22c21370/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/20210322/22c21370/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 90500 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210322/22c21370/attachment-0001.png>