[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/26/21

[Rick Hasen]

“Texas Republicans Look To Curb Local Efforts To Expand Voting Access”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121337>
Posted on March 26, 2021 9:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121337> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR:<https://www.npr.org/2021/03/26/981308277/texas-republicans-look-to-curb-local-efforts-to-expand-voting-access>

In response to those local efforts, Republicans who control the state legislature filed a series of restrictive voting bills. Researchers last year<https://newsroom.niu.edu/2020/10/13/how-hard-is-it-to-vote-in-your-state/> said “Texas is the state with the most restrictive voting processes,” but it’s likely its laws will become stricter.

One measure that’s been proposed would make distributing ballot applications to voters who didn’t ask for one a felony. Others would outlaw drive thru-voting, and not allow polling locations to be open for more than 12 hours<https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB01115I.pdf#navpanes=0> — specifically beyond 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Another would require that election administrators put the same amount of voting machines<https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00007I.pdf#navpanes=0> in every one of their polling sites, no matter what.

That last one makes no sense to Chris Davis, the election administrator in Williamson County, a swing county in central Texas.

“If you have a smaller-size room in one part of your county that can only fit eight [voting machines],” he says, “well, by golly, eight is as many as you can have in an arena, or a lecture hall or high school gym.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121337&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Republicans%20Look%20To%20Curb%20Local%20Efforts%20To%20Expand%20Voting%20Access%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Why the Georgia G.O.P.’s Voting Rollbacks Will Hit Black People Hard”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121334>
Posted on March 26, 2021 9:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121334> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-black-voters.html>

Should the high court make changes to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows after-the-fact challenges to voting restrictions that may disproportionately affect members of minority groups, Democrats and voting rights groups could be left without one of their most essential tools to challenge new laws.

For decades, Georgia has been at the center of the voting rights battle, with Democrats and advocacy groups fighting back against repeated efforts to disenfranchise Black voters in the state.

As recently as 2018, Georgians faced hourslong lines to vote in many predominantly Black neighborhoods, and thousands of Black voters were purged from the voting rolls before the election. Now Republicans have again changed the state’s voting laws ahead of critical Senate and governor’s races in 2022.

Democrats, shut out of power in the Statehouse despite holding both United States Senate seats, were relatively powerless in the legislative process to stop the voting bill, though they do now have avenues through the courts to challenge the law.

The initial iterations of the bill contained measures that voting rights groups said would have even more directly targeted Black voters, like a proposal to restrict early voting on the weekends that would limit the longstanding civic tradition of “Souls to the Polls,”<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/us/politics/churches-black-voters-georgia.html> in which Black voters cast ballots on Sunday after church services.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121334&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20Georgia%20G.O.P.%E2%80%99s%20Voting%20Rollbacks%20Will%20Hit%20Black%20People%20Hard%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Voting Rights Act<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


“Sweeping changes to Georgia elections signed into law”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121332>
Posted on March 26, 2021 9:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121332> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AJC:<https://www.ajc.com/politics/bill-changing-georgia-voting-rules-passes-state-house/EY2MATS6SRA77HTOBVEMTJLIT4/?d>

Gov. Brian Kemp quickly signed a vast rewrite of Georgia’s election rules into law Thursday, imposing voter ID requirements, limiting drop boxes and allowing state takeovers of local elections after last year’s close presidential race.

Kemp finalized the bill just over an hour after it cleared the General Assembly, leaving no doubt about its fate amid public pressure<https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/voting-rights-advocates-plan-economic-boycott-to-pressure-georgia-firms/XNVL4QSSRBCMNA5BR6Y6M2F2YU/> against voting restrictions.

Republican lawmakers pushed the legislation<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-panel-passes-bill-to-limit-drop-boxes-expand-weekend-voting/NANGLLMWU5DCFGENMRLXUQPY64/> through both the House and Senate over the objections of Democratic lawmakers. The legislation passed along party lines in both chambers, with votes of 34-20 in the Senate and 100-75 in the House.

Protesters outside the Capitol said the bill will disenfranchise voters, calling it “Jim Crow 2.0.” State Rep. Park Cannon, D-Atlanta,<https://legislativenavigator.ajc.com/#members/4880> was arrested<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-representative-arrested-after-governor-signs-elections-bill/OTVKYHMIYBHRBOVYY5M6HRIVYI/> by state troopers after knocking on Kemp’s office door to try to witness the bill signing. The governor briefly interrupted his prepared remarks as Cannon was forcibly removed from the building by officers.

Supporters of the measure, Senate Bill 202<https://legislativenavigator.ajc.com/#bills/SB/202>, said it will protect election integrity.

“Significant reforms to our state elections were needed. There’s no doubt there were many alarming issues with how the election was handled, and those problems, understandably, led to a crisis of confidence in the ballot box here in Georgia,” Kemp said after signing the bill.

Several voting organizations filed a federal lawsuit<https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1375276793603760133> to stop the bill Thursday night, saying it creates “unjustifiable burdens” especially on minority, young, poor and disabled voters. The lawsuit by The New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter and Rise opposes absentee ID requirements, drop box limits, provisional ballot invalidations, and food and drink bans.

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

Outside the Statehouse in Atlanta on Thursday, a coalition of Black faith leaders assembled a protest, voicing their opposition to the bill and calling for a boycott of major corporations in Georgia that they said had remained silent on the voting push, including Coca-Cola.

The faith leaders also sought a meeting with Mr. Kemp and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, also a Republican. Mr. Duncan met with the group for three minutes; Mr. Kemp did not.

“I told him exactly how I felt: that these bills were not only voter suppression, but they were in fact racist, and they are an attempt to turn back time to Jim Crow,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who oversees all African Methodist Episcopal churches in the state
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121332&title=%E2%80%9CSweeping%20changes%20to%20Georgia%20elections%20signed%20into%20law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Fox News Faces Second Defamation Suit Over Election Coverage”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121330>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121330> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/business/media/fox-news-defamation-suit-dominion.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

Fox News and its powerful owner, Rupert Murdoch, are facing a second major defamation suit over its coverage of the 2020 presidential election, a new front in the growing legal battle over media disinformation and its consequences.

Dominion Voting Systems, an election technology company that was at the center of a baseless pro-Trump conspiracy about rigged voting machines, filed a lawsuit on Friday that accused Fox News of advancing lies<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/business/media/conservative-media-defamation-lawsuits.html> that devastated its reputation and business.

Dominion, which has requested a jury trial, is seeking at least $1.6 billion in damages. The lawsuit comes less than two months after Smartmatic<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/business/media/fox-smartmatic-defamation-lawsuit.html>, another election tech company, filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against Mr. Murdoch’s Fox Corporation and named several Fox anchors, including Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs, as defendants.

In a 139-page complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court, Dominion’s legal team, led by the prominent defamation firm Clare Locke, portrayed Fox as an active player in spreading falsehoods that Dominion had altered vote counts and manipulated its machines to benefit Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the election.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121330&title=%E2%80%9CFox%20News%20Faces%20Second%20Defamation%20Suit%20Over%20Election%20Coverage%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Michigan GOP leader reveals plans to go around Whitmer for voting law overhaul”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121328>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:45 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121328> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Detroit News:<https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/26/michigan-gop-chairman-plans-go-around-whitmer-voting-law-changes/7010417002/>

Michigan Republicans are crafting plans to work around Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to make changes to the battleground state’s voting laws after losses in the 2020 election.

Ron Weiser, chairman of the Michigan GOP, told the North Oakland Republican Club Thursday night that the party wants to blend together bills proposed in the House and Senate for a petition initiative.

If Republicans gathered enough signatures — more than 340,000 would be needed — the GOP-controlled Legislature could approve the proposal into law without Whitmer being able to veto it.

Senate Republicans unveiled 39 bills Wednesday <https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/24/republicans-seek-michigan-election-law-changes-after-2020-losses/6982647002/> to require applicants for absentee ballots to present a copy of identification, overhaul large counties’ canvassing boards and bar Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson from sending absentee ballot applications to voters unless they specifically request the applications.

“If that legislation is not passed by our Legislature, which I am sure it will be, but if it’s not signed by the governor, then we have other plans to make sure that it becomes law before 2022,” Weiser said, according to a video posted on social media….

The Senate bills would place restrictions on ballot drop boxes and would bar local governments from providing prepaid postage for absentee ballot return envelopes as some did to encourage participation last year. Another bill would require voters without photo identification to vote through a provisional ballot.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121328&title=%E2%80%9CMichigan%20GOP%20leader%20reveals%20plans%20to%20go%20around%20Whitmer%20for%20voting%20law%20overhaul%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“The Trailer: Election conspiracy theories are here to stay. Is the filibuster?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121326>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:42 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121326> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dave Weigel column<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/25/trailer-election-conspiracy-theories-are-here-stay-is-filibuster/>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121326&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Trailer%3A%20Election%20conspiracy%20theories%20are%20here%20to%20stay.%20Is%20the%20filibuster%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Under a Microscope: A New Era of Scrutiny for Corporate Political Activity”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121324>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:20 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121324> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New report<https://conference-board.org/publications/Under-a-Microscope-ES> from the Conference Board.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121324&title=%E2%80%9CUnder%20a%20Microscope%3A%20A%20New%20Era%20of%20Scrutiny%20for%20Corporate%20Political%20Activity%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Judge dismisses push for faster U.S. Census results”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121322>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121322> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Cleveland.com<https://epaper.daytondailynews.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=55c9136a-6cd4-4eee-b8b6-9344088e67d4&pbid=66ab59ea-5cfc-438d-83e4-dc9e4a34f79d&utm_source=app.pagesuite&utm_medium=app-interaction&utm_campaign=pagesuite-epaper-html5_share-article>:

A federal judge has dismissed Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s lawsuit that sought to force the U.S.

Census Bureau to provide its results by a March 31 legal deadline, six months earlier than Census officials said was possible.

Judge Thomas M. Rose cited legal precedent he said barred him from ordering someone to “jump higher, run faster, or lift more than she is physically capable.”

The court’s ruling is here<https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CensusDismissal.pdf>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121322&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20dismisses%20push%20for%20faster%20U.S.%20Census%20results%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>


Brennan Center Responds to Jessica Huseman Piece on Administrability Concerns About H.R. 1<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121320>
Posted on March 26, 2021 8:11 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121320> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read it here.<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/truth-about-people-act>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121320&title=Brennan%20Center%20Responds%20to%20Jessica%20Huseman%20Piece%20on%20Administrability%20Concerns%20About%20H.R.%201>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Republicans Aim to Seize More Power Over How Elections Are Run”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121318>
Posted on March 25, 2021 7:59 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121318> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/us/politics/republicans-election-laws.html>:

In the turbulent aftermath of the 2020 presidential contest, election officials in Georgia, from the secretary of state’s office down to county boards, found themselves in a wholly unexpected position: They had to act as one of the last lines of defense against an onslaught of efforts by a sitting president and his influential allies to overturn the will of the voters.

Now state Republicans are trying to strip these officials of their power.

Buried in an avalanche of voting restrictions currently moving through the Georgia Statehouse are measures that would give G.O.P. lawmakers wide-ranging influence over the mechanics of voting and fundamentally alter the state’s governance of elections. The bill, which could clear the House as soon as Thursday and is likely to be passed by the Senate next week, would allow state lawmakers to seize control of county election boards and erode the power of the secretary of state’s office.

“It’s looking at total control of the election process by elected officials, which is not what it should be,” said Helen Butler, a Democratic county board of elections member. “It’s all about turnout and trying to retain power.”

It’s not just Georgia. In Arizona, Republicans are pushing for control over the rules of the state’s elections. In Iowa, the G.O.P. has installed harsh new criminal penalties for county election officials who enact emergency voting rules. In Tennessee, a Republican legislator is trying to remove a sitting judge who ruled against the party in an election case.

Nationwide, Republican lawmakers in at least eight states controlled by the party are angling to pry power over elections from secretaries of state, governors and nonpartisan election boards.

The maneuvers risk adding an overtly partisan skew to how electoral decisions are made each year, threatening the fairness that is the bedrock of American democracy. The push is intertwined with Republicans’ extraordinary national drive<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/27/us/republican-voter-suppression.html> to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote, with legislative and legal attacks on early voting, absentee balloting and automatic voter registration laws.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121318&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20Aim%20to%20Seize%20More%20Power%20Over%20How%20Elections%20Are%20Run%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


“Georgia bill could shift power over elections to GOP appointees”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121316>
Posted on March 25, 2021 7:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121316> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AJC:<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-bill-would-shift-power-over-elections-to-gop-appointees/VPNVO2W4TBBTFKGA7Z2GZIEQEE/>

Decisions about Georgia elections, such as vote counting and polling place closures, could be made by appointees of Republican state officials empowered to take over local election operations, according to a bill awaiting final votes.

Under the proposal, the Republican-controlled State Election Board would be able to replace<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-state-legislature/georgia-bill-clears-senate-to-let-state-take-over-local-election-boards/JOMQA2LX3VH65MG4O44IXY2ADE/> struggling county election boards and install new management, with broad authority over elections and results.

State takeovers of local election offices could change the outcome of future elections, especially if they’re as hotly contested as last year’s presidential race between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump. County election boards decide on challenges to voters’ eligibility<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-voter-challenges-fall-short-with-few-ballots-thrown-out/SNPHXD4YXVB7LMIL5N5L3RZPLA/>, polling place closures<https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/voting-precincts-closed-across-georgia-since-election-oversight-lifted/bBkHxptlim0Gp9pKu7dfrN/> and certification of results<https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/fulton-certifies-january-runoff-ending-election-cycle-unlike-any-other/CEDAAYQMH5HGJGYALQCKPDGU3M/>.

Efforts to change election oversight in Georgia come after Trump made unsubstantiated claims that the election was stolen. Recounts, both by hand<https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/> and machine<https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-recount-confirms-biden-win-again-but-trump-still-battling/OZGAOQCMKVFG7G43L5PSF3BNHM/>, confirmed Biden won by about 12,000 votes in Georgia. State election officials have said there’s no evidence<https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-elections-chief-refutes-election-claims-in-letter-to-congress/RBZJQSTUOJECTO4EMSAXGXJSK4/> of widespread fraud.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121316&title=%E2%80%9CGeorgia%20bill%20could%20shift%20power%20over%20elections%20to%20GOP%20appointees%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Must-Read: “Secret until now, records reveal clash over the Trump DOJ’s demand for NC voter data”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121314>
Posted on March 25, 2021 7:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121314> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News and Observer<https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article250156185.html>:

Federal prosecutors have announced an end to a sweeping, four-year-long investigation into voter fraud in North Carolina, peeling back a veil of secrecy from a probe that pitted state and federal officials against each other over a massive demand for data on every one of the state’s registered voters.

The effort initiated by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District resulted in a range of charges related to immigration, registration and election rules against about 70 people — more than 40 of whom were accused of casting ballots illegally. Dates of those charges, which involved activity during the 2016 election and prior, range from July 2018 to mid-February 2021.

Many of the latest indictments were announced<https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-general-elections-elections-raleigh-voting-633ce0fd33f28ec627551b043ed423fd> for the first time Friday, but the totals fall far short of early suggestions by the federal government of “pervasive” or “systemic” fraud, suspicions the U.S. Attorney’s Office put before a federal judge in an effort to keep details of its inquiry secret for years.

Hundreds of pages of now unsealed court files — which WRAL News, The News & Observer and other media outlets fought in court for more than than a year to <https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article246659433.html> obtain — shed light on the contentious relationship State Board of Elections officials had with federal investigators from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The two sides repeatedly accused each other of either sabotage or incompetence, the court records show.

The filings also illustrate a shift in priorities for the then newly installed Trump Department of Justice, which grew increasingly focused on bringing criminal charges for voting irregularities among noncitizens. State officials, who relied on federal citizenship data for voter list maintenance, discovered that what once was a routine process could now spawn wide-ranging criminal investigations.

The fight wasn’t a partisan one.

Most of the back and forth came under U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District Robert Higdon, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump. The state’s election director for much of the DOJ’s probe was Kim Strach, named to the job during Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s tenure. And the agency’s attorney was Josh Lawson, who previously worked in President George W. Bush’s administration.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121314&title=Must-Read%3A%20%E2%80%9CSecret%20until%20now%2C%20records%20reveal%20clash%20over%20the%20Trump%20DOJ%E2%80%99s%20demand%20for%20NC%20voter%20data%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


“Democrats Begin Push for Biggest Expansion of Voting Since 1960s”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121312>
Posted on March 25, 2021 7:18 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121312> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/us/politics/democrats-voting-rights.html>

Democrats began pushing on Wednesday for the most substantial expansion of voting rights in a half-century, laying the groundwork in the Senate for what would be a fundamental change to the ways voters get to the polls and elections are run.

At a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders made a passionate case for a bill that would mandate automatic voter registration nationwide, expand early and mail-in voting, end gerrymandering that skews congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage and curb the influence of money in politics.

The effort is taking shape as Republicans<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/us/politics/republicans-election-laws.html> have introduced more than 250 bills to restrict voting in 43 states and have continued to spread false accusations of fraud and impropriety in the 2020 election. It comes just months after those claims, spread by President Donald J. Trump as he sought to cling to power, fueled a deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 that showed how deeply his party had come to believe in the myth of a stolen election.

Republicans were unapologetic in their opposition to the measure, with some openly arguing that if Democrats succeeded in making it easier for Americans to vote and in enacting the other changes in the bill, it would most likely place their party permanently in the minority.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121312&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Begin%20Push%20for%20Biggest%20Expansion%20of%20Voting%20Since%201960s%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


PR and the Israel Election<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121308>
Posted on March 25, 2021 5:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121308> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Israel’s election system requires a party to receive at least 3.5% of the vote to obtain any seats in the Knesset. With 91% of the vote in, 13 parties have won seats in the 120-seat parliament. Here is the current <https://www.timesofisrael.com/overnight-vote-count-fails-to-break-deadlock-over-90-of-ballots-tallied/> breakdown among the political parties. At the moment, it’s unclear whether a governing coalition that controls 61 seats will be able to be cobbled together, or whether Israel might have to hold yet another election to try to form a government:
[cid:image002.png at 01D72221.D0778D40]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121308&title=PR%20and%20the%20Israel%20Election>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Republicans set to quiz tech CEOs on election misinformation tweeted #StopTheSteal themselves”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121306>
Posted on March 24, 2021 5:11 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121306> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/tech-hearing-gop-misinformation/>:

House Democrats seeking to drill down on the spread of election fraud falsehoods on social media in advance of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot need to look no further than some of their Republican colleagues.

A Washington Post analysis found that seven Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who are scheduled to grill the chief executives of Facebook, Google and Twitter about election misinformation on Thursday sent tweets that advanced baseless narratives of election fraud, or otherwise supported President Donald Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the presidential election. They were among 15 of the 26 Republican members of the committee who voted to overturn President Biden’s election victory.

Three Republican members of the committee, Reps. Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), Billy Long (Mo.) and Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (Ga.), tweeted or retweeted posts with the phrase “Stop the Steal” in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Stop the Steal was an online movement that researchers studying disinformation say led to <https://www.justsecurity.org/74622/stopthesteal-timeline-of-social-media-and-extremist-activities-leading-to-1-6-insurrection/> the violence that overtook the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Graham Brookie, the director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, said the online Stop the Steal movement was “the coordinating function” for the Capitol riots. He said the lawmakers’ involvement in amplifying it undermined the committee’s efforts to scrutinize the tech companies’ handling of disinformation.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121306&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20set%20to%20quiz%20tech%20CEOs%20on%20election%20misinformation%20tweeted%20%23StopTheSteal%20themselves%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“Trumpworld’s next target: Building a dark-money machine”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121304>
Posted on March 24, 2021 10:49 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121304> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/24/gop-building-dark-money-machine-477756?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0000014e-f109-dd93-ad7f-f90d0def0000&nlid=964328>:

Liberals spent years building a massive dark-money machine. Now conservatives are trying to match them.

Major donors are convening at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort next month for a two-day gathering to talk about what went wrong in 2020 — and to build a big-dollar network to take back power.

The summit is being sponsored by the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization led by Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Trump is slated to headline the opening-night dinner, and the agenda includes an array of conservative luminaries and former Trump administration officials such as Stephen Miller, Russ Vought and Ric Grenell.

With the dust settling from the party’s 2020 defeat, senior Republicans say they’ve come to acknowledge a massive deficit: the lack of a dark-money infrastructure that can be pivotal to influencing elections and policy fights. Organizers say the gathering is aimed at creating a long-term blueprint for funding policy-focused nonprofits in order to compete with liberals who, through mega-donors like George Soros and Tom Steyer, have developed a well-oiled system for routing cash to a web of big-spending advocacy groups….

Republicans have long been active in creating super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. But in recent years they’ve been outmatched in the creation of nonprofits, which are more restricted in their ability to spend money on elections but can still raise vast sums to influence voters. According to a recent estimate from OpenSecrets<https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/03/one-billion-dark-money-2020-electioncycle/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=r%2F_darkmon-1b-03%2F12%2F20>, liberal groups directed more than $500 million in dark money to benefit Democratic candidates in the 2020 election, compared to only $200 million from conservative groups.

Conservatives point to the web of liberal nonprofits that played key roles in the 2020 elections, such as Fair Fight, an organization focused on voting rights. The Georgia-based group, which was founded by Democrat Stacey Abrams, has been credited with helping Democrats win a slate of victories there.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121304&title=%E2%80%9CTrumpworld%E2%80%99s%20next%20target%3A%20Building%20a%20dark-money%20machine%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Why Republican voter restrictions are a race against time”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121302>
Posted on March 24, 2021 8:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121302> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ron Brownstein CNN column:<https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/voting-rights-republicans-bills-demographics/index.html>

With their drive to erect new obstacles to voting, particularly across the Sun Belt, Republicans are stacking sandbags against a rising tide of demographic change<https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/post-millennial-wave-generation-change-voters-diversity>.

In many of the states where Republicans are advancing the most severe restrictions — including Georgia, Arizona and Texas — shifts in the electorate’s composition<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/southeast-swing-states-2020/index.html> are eroding decades of virtually uncontested GOP dominance<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/politics/southwest-swing-states-2020/index.html>.

In each of those states — and others such as North Carolina, South Carolina and, in a slightly different way, Florida — the GOP still holds a statewide advantage primarily because of its strong performance among older, non-college-educated and non-urban White voters. But in almost all those states, the Republican edge is ebbing amid two powerful demographic currents: an improving Democratic performance among white-collar voters in and around the states’ rapidly growing major cities<https://www.brookings.edu/research/in-2020-the-largest-metro-areas-made-the-difference-for-democrats/>, and the aging into the electorate of younger generations defined by kaleidoscopic racial diversity.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121302&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Republican%20voter%20restrictions%20are%20a%20race%20against%20time%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Must Read Jessica Huseman on HR 1<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121299>
Posted on March 24, 2021 7:14 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121299> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Jessica Huseman is one of the journalists who has covered election administration issues in great depth over recent years. Although she supports much of HR 1 in principle, she has published<https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-this-voting-rights-bill-could-turn-the-next-election-into-a-clusterfck> a blistering critique which argues that the bill would throw election administration into “chaos.” For this post, I didn’t want to use the headline of her Daily Beast piece because it’s so provocative, but the headline is How This Voting Rights Bill Could Turn the Next Election Into a Clusterf*ck.

I know a fair amount about election administration, but I do not speak to election administrators nearly as much as Huseman. As a result, I can’t independently assess the accuracy of the claims made in her piece, but I take her work seriously. Here are some excerpts — you really have to read the full piece to get all the details:

While the tenets of the bill are laudable—its provisions on redistricting and campaign finance are badly needed—and would help America grapple with the very real problem of voter suppression, it was written with apparently no consultation with election administrators, and it shows. While the overall message is positive, it comes packed with deadlines and requirements election administrators cannot possibly meet without throwing their systems into chaos….

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.

It empowers an agency—the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission—that was criticized less than a year ago for mismanagement and fecklessness by the same Democrats promoting this bill. And, perversely to its purpose, the bill would make elections less secure by forcing states to rush gargantuan changes on deeply unrealistic time frames. The fixes needed are many and are doable, so it’s unacceptable that the authors of the Senate bill bypassed the chance to improve it.

“I don’t know what they were thinking, honestly,” said the head of an elections nonprofit. “It’s a bad bill. The goals might be admirable, but it’s a fucking bad bill.” Election administrators used the F-word a lot during my chats with them, frustrated because they’ve eagerly sought federal funding and basic attention to their offices, only to be handed impossible goals they’ll be held individually responsible for meeting. This person isn’t the only one who declined to be named when I asked more than 15 election administrators—a mix of federal, state, and local officials—to comment on the bill. It’s easy to understand why they blanched at offering their candid opinions.

Most officials ardently agreed with the voting rights protections, and these administrators feel they may risk the bill’s chance of improving voting at all by speaking out against its more poorly conceived demands.

One example: The bill explicitly gives voters whose states and counties have not complied with the law the ability to sue their jurisdictions, leaving already-cash-strapped elections offices fearing that they’ll be slapped with expensive lawsuits for their failure to leap over goalposts set unrealistically high.

In addition, the bill requires states to purchase paper-backed voting machines that are compliant with the brand-new standards passed by the Election Assistance Commission only weeks ago. A laudable goal, and a necessary one. But the bill lays out conflicting deadlines for this requirement: by the start of 2022 in one section, and by the November general election in another section.

The larger problem, however, is that the machines the bill requires don’t even exist yet. The Election Assistance Commission’s testing labs say they need eight to 12 more months to develop and finalize their new process for certifying vote systems to the new standards. Certifying the equipment could begin only after that process is complete. Machines that are both paper-backed and certified to the new standards won’t be in heavy circulation until well into 2025. The bill was initially written prior to these guidelines passing, which offers little justification for refusing to update the bill to reasonable deadlines.

The bill also requires that states implement automatic voter registration (AVR) by 2023, a process by which a citizen who interacts with a department of motor vehicles or social services agency would also be instantly registered to vote. A commendable goal, but one that, again, takes far more time and far more resources than the bill affords. The process requires not only updating the voter registration system, but the systems of multiple other state and even federal agencies so that the agencies’ databases talk to each other.

The states that have effective AVR systems took years to implement them. When California and Illinois rushed the process<https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/history-avr-implementation-dates>, it led to errors like registering ineligible voters<https://www.modbee.com/news/california/article224696945.html>, eligible voters registered incorrectly, and security vulnerabilities<https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-motor-voter-problems-investigation-20190409-story.html>. Illinois still has not fully complied with its law more than three years later. These categorical failures of rushed policy have bolstered the opposition to AVR by Republicans, who<https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/06/america-doesnt-need-automatic-voter-registration-just-look-to-california/> routinely point<https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/17/glitches-in-california-embolden-automatic-voter-registration-foes> to those ineffective systems as a reason not to expand the practice. H.R. 1 asks us to make that same grave error in more states, potentially dooming AVR as a policy goal.

Similarly, the bill asks states to implement voter registration by “automated telephone-based system” —a wild, almost certainly nonsecure idea that no state currently uses and that election officials are baffled by. Currently, no voting vendor offers such a system, meaning that states would have to create this from scratch. The bill affords neither the time nor the means to implement this demand. Those responsible for drafting this provision say disability advocates requested it, but I cannot confirm this. I have yet to find a single disability organization involved in voter access saying they want or need a telephone voter registration option.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121299&title=Must%20Read%20Jessica%20Huseman%20on%20HR%201>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Under Israel’s PR System, An Islamist-Arab Party Might Determine Who Governs Israel<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121297>
Posted on March 24, 2021 6:40 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121297> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

While election numbers are still coming in, the current analysis<https://www.timesofisrael.com/updated-election-tally-pushes-raam-into-knesset-remaking-blocs/> is that the pro-Netanyahu bloc of parties would be able to muster at most 59 seats, and the anti-Netanyahu bloc 56 seats. In Israel’s 120-seat Knesset, control of 61 seats is necessary to choose the Prime Minister and decide who heads the government. In a result that defined pre-election polling, a new, more conservative Islamist party — Ra’am — broke off from the other Arab parties and appears to have won 5 seats. That would make Ra’am the kingmaker in deciding which bloc would get to the 61 votes needed to control the government (unless no governing coalition can be formed and yet another national election is required).

This is a familiar story in PR systems, though an unusually dramatic illustration of the point. Parties with small overall support can extract policy concessions and exercise power far above their level of popular support with the leverage they have if they are needed for larger parties to form governing coalitions. Even if the public overwhelmingly rejects certain policies, governments might be required to adopt them to bring in small parties necessary to form a government. The best recent critique of PR systems, for these types of reasons, is the excellent book, Responsible Parties, by Ian Shapiro and Frances Rosenbluth.

The situation in Israel is still fluid. Since Ra’am’s success was not anticipated, it’s unclear whether one, both, or neither of the blocs on the left or right would be willing to go into coalition with Ra’am; what Ra’am’s position on that would be; and what policies Ra’am would insist on to join a governing coalition. The process of attempting to form a coalition might also break down, with Israel forced to hold yet a fifth election to try to form a government — another risk PR systems can generate.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121297&title=Under%20Israel%E2%80%99s%20PR%20System%2C%20An%20Islamist-Arab%20Party%20Might%20Determine%20Who%20Governs%20Israel>
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/20210326/512f0e34/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/20210326/512f0e34/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 257668 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210326/512f0e34/attachment-0001.png>