[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/26/21

[Rick Hasen]

“Prosecutor in Trump criminal probe convenes grand jury to hear evidence, weigh potential charges”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122326>
Posted on May 26, 2021 8:53 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122326> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-investigation-grand-jury/2021/05/25/5f47911c-bcca-11eb-83e3-0ca705a96ba4_story.html>

Manhattan’s district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or the business itself, should prosecutors present the panel with criminal charges, according to two people familiar with the development.

The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Generally, special grand juries such as this are convened to participate in long-term matters rather than to hear evidence of crimes charged routinely.

The move indicates that District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s investigation of the former president and his business has reached an advanced stage after more than two years. It suggests, too, that Vance thinks he has found evidence of a crime — if not by Trump, by someone potentially close to him or by his company.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122326&title=%E2%80%9CProsecutor%20in%20Trump%20criminal%20probe%20convenes%20grand%20jury%20to%20hear%20evidence%2C%20weigh%20potential%20charges%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


“Mike Lindell kicked out of Republican governors event after vowing to confront GOP leaders on false election fraud claims”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122324>
Posted on May 26, 2021 8:51 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122324> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/26/mike-lindell-republican-governors-election/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122324&title=%E2%80%9CMike%20Lindell%20kicked%20out%20of%20Republican%20governors%20event%20after%20vowing%20to%20confront%20GOP%20leaders%20on%20false%20election%20fraud%20claims%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


“Michigan’s top election official and Dominion warn counties about the risks of vote audits by outside groups”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122322>
Posted on May 26, 2021 8:48 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122322> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michigan-election-audit-warnings/2021/05/25/d00b8802-bd62-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html>

Michigan’s top election official and the company whose voting equipment has been the subject of baseless claims of fraud are cautioning local governments in the state that outside audits of the 2020 election results like the one underway in Maricopa County, Ariz., would be illegal and would void the machines’ security warranties.

The warnings come amid a growing campaign <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-arizona-recount/2021/04/29/bcd8d832-a798-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_4> by former president Donald Trump and his supporters to pressure county governments to launch audits reviewing ballots cast in the last presidential election, which they claim without evidence was tainted by large-scale fraud and votes manipulated on equipment purchased from Dominion Voting Systems.

The Arizona recount, which has been denounced <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/maricopa-county-2020-audit/2021/05/17/28292932-b74a-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_5> by election experts as unprofessional and insecure, is being touted <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-false-claims-fallout/2021/05/19/87aeacc4-b7f9-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_5> as an inspiration by small cohorts of angry residents across the country. State leaders, Dominion officials and local residents are now trying to block such examinations sought by activists in several Michigan counties.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122322&title=%E2%80%9CMichigan%E2%80%99s%20top%20election%20official%20and%20Dominion%20warn%20counties%20about%20the%20risks%20of%20vote%20audits%20by%20outside%20groups%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“He Fought Trump’s 2020 Lies. He Also Backs New Scrutiny of Ballots.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122320>
Posted on May 26, 2021 8:46 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122320> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/us/politics/brad-raffensperger-georgia-trump.html>

Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, earned widespread praise for his staunch defense of the election results in his state last year in the face of growing threats and pressure from former President Donald J. Trump.

As Mr. Trump spread falsehoods about the election, Mr. Raffensperger vocally debunked them, culminating in a 10-page letter<https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/Letter%20to%20Congress%20from%20Secretary%20Raffensperger%20(1-6-21).pdf> addressed to Congress on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol riot, in which he refuted, point by point, Mr. Trump’s false claims about election fraud in Georgia.

But after a Georgia judge ruled late last week that a group of voters must be allowed to view copies of all 147,000 absentee ballots<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/us/politics/georgia-election-recount.html> cast in the state’s largest county, in yet another disinformation-driven campaign, Mr. Raffensperger voiced his support for the effort, saying that inspecting the ballots would provide “another layer of transparency and citizen engagement.”

As Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods continue to hold sway over many lawmakers and voters, with efforts to review ballots still underway in states across the country, we spoke with Mr. Raffensperger about why he supported the new review ordered by the judge and how he thinks about public trust, or mistrust, in the electoral process. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed….

Greg Sargent:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/brad-raffensperger-ga-recount-nyt/>

Raffensperger explained his support for the recount in a long interview with the New York Times<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/us/politics/brad-raffensperger-georgia-trump.html>. Showing as much “transparency” as possible, he said, will help restore “voter confidence” in the 2020 outcome.

But this perfectly captures the core problem. It presumes that those claiming the election was stolen from Trump can be reasoned into accepting his 2020 loss via more transparency and a continuing appeal to facts.

This misses the whole point of such efforts, which is to manufacture ways to cast doubt on electoral outcomes in conscious and deliberate defiance of what full transparency and the facts reveal. We need to forthrightly confront whether a broader movement is developing, in which such moves are really dry runs at manufacturing fake justifications for subverting future electoral losses by any means necessary.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122320&title=%E2%80%9CHe%20Fought%20Trump%E2%80%99s%202020%20Lies.%20He%20Also%20Backs%20New%20Scrutiny%20of%20Ballots.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Kristen Clarke is the first Senate-confirmed woman of color to lead the Justice Dept.’s civil rights division.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122318>
Posted on May 26, 2021 8:44 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122318> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/us/politics/kristen-clarke-justice-dept-civil-rights-division.html>

Ms. Clarke was confirmed by a vote of 51 to 48, largely along party lines. Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, broke with her party to support Ms. Clarke’s confirmation. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, did not vote.

A number of Republicans took to the Senate floor to argue Ms. Clarke supported reducing police department budgets. But Ms. Collins said that she believed that Ms. Clarke would not support such efforts, after studying Ms. Clark’s professional record, including her work as a prosecutor during the George W. Bush administration.

Ms. Collins said that Ms. Clarke gave her a letter saying she was “committed to to ensuring that law enforcement officers have the resources that they need.”

The daughter of Jamaican immigrants who rose from a Brooklyn housing project to earn degrees from Harvard and Columbia Law School, Ms. Clarke is best known as a leading advocate for voting rights protections. Her expertise will make her a key player in the administration’s effort to push back on laws that could restrict access to the ballot box.

During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Clarke, 46, said that she would use all of the tools at her disposal, including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Citizens Voting Act, to ensure that eligible Americans continued to have the right to vote.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122318&title=%E2%80%9CKristen%20Clarke%20is%20the%20first%20Senate-confirmed%20woman%20of%20color%20to%20lead%20the%20Justice%20Dept.%E2%80%99s%20civil%20rights%20division.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


NY State Board of Elections Approves Software Needed for Ranked-Choice Voting in June<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122316>
Posted on May 26, 2021 5:36 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122316> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

With New York City’s ranked-choice voting primaries coming up on June 22, it’s good news that the state has now approved the technology needed to manage the vote tabulation process. Story here<https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2021/05/25/state-approves-vote-counting-software--allowing-city-to-avoid-hand-tally-in-primary-elections>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122316&title=NY%20State%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Approves%20Software%20Needed%20for%20Ranked-Choice%20Voting%20in%20June>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Is the Voting Reform that Draws the Most Bipartisan Support Ranked-Choice Voting?<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122313>
Posted on May 25, 2021 2:03 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122313> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

The Virginia GOP used RCV in its nominating convention this year.

23 cites in Utah, including Salt Lake City, voted recently to adopt RCV.

Alaskan voters in 2020 adopted RVC for federal and statewide races.

Maine voters in 2018 adopted RCV for federal and state elections (in state elections, it is used only in primaries due to a court decision).

That’s along with liberal cities that have used RCV for a while, including San Francisco, Minneapolis, Oakland, and Cambridge.

To be sure, none of these changes have been adopted by state legislatures. But this list of places is fairly diverse.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122313&title=Is%20the%20Voting%20Reform%20that%20Draws%20the%20Most%20Bipartisan%20Support%20Ranked-Choice%20Voting%3F>
Posted in alternative voting systems<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>


“Tech company running Arizona ballot recount backs out: ‘They were done'”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122311>
Posted on May 25, 2021 12:09 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122311> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Arizona Republic:<https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/05/25/cyber-ninjas-subcontractor-strattech-solutions-takes-over-arizona-election-audit-hand-count/7429980002/>

The Pennsylvania-based IT company that was in charge of running the hand recount of Maricopa County ballots is no longer involved in the audit.

The contract with Wake TSI ended May 14, the original completion date for the hand count, and the company chose not to renew its contract, according to Randy Pullen, an audit spokesperson and former state GOP chair.

“They were done,” he said. “They didn’t want to come back.”

Wake TSI was the subcontractor that developed and oversaw the procedures for recounting the county’s nearly 2.1 million ballots, working under Cyber Ninjas, the state Senate’s main contractor performing the overall audit of the county’s general election results.

The audit was on break from May 14 until Monday, as high school graduations took place in the coliseum.

Pullen said that Scottsdale-based technology company StratTech Solutions took over Monday running the hand count, using Wake’s procedures.

The company has been involved in the audit since the beginning, Pullen said, including helping set up the technology for the hand count procedures. It’s unclear whether the company, which specializes in cybersecurity and other internet technology, has any election or auditing experience.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122311&title=%E2%80%9CTech%20company%20running%20Arizona%20ballot%20recount%20backs%20out%3A%20%E2%80%98They%20were%20done%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Democratic maps pit Republican lawmakers against each other in fights for political survival. GOP rips the plan as ‘kindergartner’s artwork.’”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122307>
Posted on May 25, 2021 6:27 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122307> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

More on the redistricting maps just released from the Illinois legislature for state legislative districts. From the Chicago Tribune:<https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-maps-republicans-20210524-wk5g7tearrcd7pbayv6nlzu6cq-story.html>

New state legislative boundaries proposed by Democrats<https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-democrats-legislature-new-map-plan-20210522-tzmkjn34mvhobasb2vpffzlome-story.html> would further cement the party’s dominance in Springfield by using a declining downstate population to pit House Republicans against each other in several areas.

“Make no mistake, these maps were drawn solely for the Democrats to maintain their political power in the state of Illinois,” House Republican leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said during a news conference Monday in which he ripped the Democratic map proposal….

Democrats already hold a 73-45 advantage over Republicans in the 118-member Illinois House. Under details emerging from a proposed legislative map unveiled by Democrats on Friday evening, the new boundaries would pit Republican incumbents against each other in eight House districts. In east-central and southern Illinois, the homes of four House Republicans are packed into a single district …

Republicans have been a minority party in the Illinois House since 1997, and Durkin said the new boundary lines are worse for his party than any previous redistricting under former House Speaker Michael Madigan….

Democrats dropped their map proposal with few details late Friday and have said little about it other than calling the redistricting plan “fair” and assuring it would be found to meet federal and state voting rights laws if subjected to a legal challenge, as is likely….

With their overwhelming majority, Democrats are rushing to have new legislative maps approved by the scheduled end of the spring session on May 31. They’re trying to avoid any delays that would push the process past June 30 — a constitutional deadline that would set the stage for a lottery giving Republicans a 50-50 chance at controlling the map.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122307&title=%E2%80%9CDemocratic%20maps%20pit%20Republican%20lawmakers%20against%20each%20other%20in%20fights%20for%20political%20survival.%20GOP%20rips%20the%20plan%20as%20%E2%80%98kindergartner%E2%80%99s%20artwork.%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Tierney Sneed, One of the Best Reporters Covering Voting Rights, Has a Free, New Newsletter, “The Franchise,” at Talking Points Memo<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122305>
Posted on May 24, 2021 5:06 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122305> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can use this link to sign up <https://talkingpointsmemo.com/newsletters> (no need to be a TPM Prime member, though if you can afford it, you should anyway!).

Tierney’s coverage is always terrific.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122305&title=Tierney%20Sneed%2C%20One%20of%20the%20Best%20Reporters%20Covering%20Voting%20Rights%2C%20Has%20a%20Free%2C%20New%20Newsletter%2C%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Franchise%2C%E2%80%9D%20at%20Talking%20Points%20Memo>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“Arizona Analysis Shows That Many Republicans Did Not Vote for Trump in 2020”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122303>
Posted on May 24, 2021 4:55 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122303> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Steven Rosenfeld<https://votingbooth.media/arizona-analysis-shows-that-many-republicans-did-not-vote-for-trump-in-2020/>:

About 75,000 Republican-leaning voters in Arizona’s two most populous counties did not vote to re-elect President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, according to an analysis of every vote cast by a longtime Arizona Republican Party election observer and election technologists familiar with vote-counting data.

The analysis<https://independentmediainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Larry-Moore-Analysis.png> from Maricopa and Pima Counties underscored that the Arizona state Senate’s ongoing audit<https://www.nationalmemo.com/arizona-audit--2653017048> of 2.1 million ballots from Maricopa County’s November 2020 election was based on a false premise—that Democrats stole Arizona’s election where Trump lost statewide to Joe Biden by 10,457 votes<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-arizona-president.html>.

“I am continuing my analysis of why Trump lost in Arizona,” Benny White<https://www.facebook.com/benny.white.969>, a former military and commercial pilot who has been a Republican election observer for years in Pima County and was part of the research team, said<https://www.facebook.com/benny.white.969/posts/4098848590201127> in a May 10 Facebook post. “Bottom line: Republicans and non-partisans who voted for other Republicans on the ballot did not vote for Trump, some voted for Biden and some simply did not cast an effective vote for President.”

The analysis<https://independentmediainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Larry-Moore-Analysis.png>, whose methodology is similar to academic research by political scientists, offers a counternarrative to Trump’s continuing claims<https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-michael-pence-electoral-college-elections-health-2d9bd47a8bd3561682ac46c6b3873a10> that he lost a rigged election. It also underscores that election experts can extract records from voting systems to affirm and explain the results, such as showing that at least 75,000 Arizonans voted for many other GOP candidates but not for Trump….

Bryan Blehm<https://www.facebook.com/bryan.j.blehm?comment_id=Y29tbWVudDo0MDk4ODQ4NTkwMjAxMTI3XzQxMDA3ODYzNTY2NzQwMTc%3D>, an Arizona attorney representing Cyber Ninjas, replied<https://www.facebook.com/benny.white.969/posts/4098848590201127?comment_id=4100786356674017> to White’s post on Facebook—without identifying that relationship—by saying that White was not working with reliable data and was angling for a job with Arizona’s Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

“Of course data facts matter,” Blehm wrote<https://www.facebook.com/benny.white.969/posts/4098848590201127?comment_id=4100786356674017> on May 10. “That is why Mr. White relies on data supplied to him by government buearocrats [sic] rather than the actual real data. Hence, he questions anyone actually working with the underlying real data. I think Mr. White is pushing for a job with the Secretary of State.”

However, a handful of political scientists who study voter turnout confirmed that using cast-vote records to analyze voting patterns, including voters who split their votes between major party candidates, was a standard research methodology.

“Yes, political scientists have done research using cast-vote records,” said Charles Stewart III<https://polisci.mit.edu/people/charles-stewart-iii>, who directs the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. “Last year, I published a co-authored article that looked at the 2016 election, and we concluded that Republicans were much more likely to abstain in that election than Democrats—and the Republicans who did abstain had been anti-Trump in the primary.”

“This approach is similar to research we have done,” said Matthew Thornburg<https://mthornburg.net/research/>, a University of South Carolina Aiken assistant professor of political science. “What we find in political science research is that voters are more likely to defect in races they know more about. In presidential races, everyone knows the candidates well by November and can be persuaded by factors other than partisanship.”

“Given that you have the data, you can make all kinds of analyses,” said Duncan Buell<https://cse.sc.edu/~buell/>, chair emeritus of the Computer Science and Engineering Department at the University of South Carolina, who has analyzed public election records in a half-dozen states. “This is not rocket science, and it is not partisan.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122303&title=%E2%80%9CArizona%20Analysis%20Shows%20That%20Many%20Republicans%20Did%20Not%20Vote%20for%20Trump%20in%202020%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


“The Democrats Are Walking Right Into a Trap on Voting Rights”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122301>
Posted on May 24, 2021 1:31 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122301> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Guy Charles and Larry Lessig<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/democrats-joe-manchin-voting-rights-trap.html> in Slate:

We strongly support H.R. 4, and firmly believe that the Constitution, properly interpreted, would support it. But we are also fully convinced that a clear majority on this Supreme Court would invalidate H.R. 4 — even more certainly with Joe Manchin’s amendment. And because the reasons for that invalidation are so clear in the opinions of those justices, we are not convinced that offers of bipartisan support for H.R. 4 are in good faith. We don’t doubt Manchin’s intentions—he has long signaled his strong support for both voting rights in particular and democracy reform generally. But we are convinced that at least some on the right see an expanded H.R. 4 as a simple way to give voting rights reform a temporary victory, but one certain to be undone by the Supreme Court after the sun sets on this Congress.

H.R. 4 is a response to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder sidelining Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision had required certain jurisdictions to preclear changes in voting laws, so as to give the Justice Department a chance to verify that those changes did not wrongfully impact minority voters. The Supreme Court rejected that system in 2013, finding, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, that “things had changed,” and that Congress could no longer simply presume the systematic racism that had justified the Voting Rights Act in 1965. To continue to regulate these jurisdictions in particular, Congress would have to make new findings to prove to the court that the racism of the past continues to this day.

That showing would be difficult enough, given the character of this Supreme Court. But even if it could be sustained in some jurisdictions, Manchin’s idea to extend the remedy to all of America would certainly fail the Supreme Court’s test. Thus, even if Manchin could make good on his promise and get his version through Congress, it would, in our view, certainly be struck down by this Supreme Court. And Congress would have squandered its best opportunity for much-needed democracy reform by passing a proposal that is precisely contrary to what the current court has determined is constitutional….

The alternative to H.R. 4 is H.R. 1 — an omnibus reform package that includes, among other provisions, much more comprehensive voting rights reform, also penned by John Lewis, as well as gerrymandering reform and, for the first time ever, a way for congressional candidates to fund effective campaigns with small-dollar contributions only.

This bill, though applying to federal elections only, is almost certain to survive Supreme Court review, because this bill builds upon an express power given to Congress in the Constitution, the elections clause, to protect its own elections. Roberts himself expressly invoked that constitutional authority when suggesting how Congress might address the problem of partisan gerrymandering. That same reasoning would support the voting rights provisions of H.R. 1 as well as the other critical reform that bill includes….

But what if the 50-state H.R. 4 were amended to apply to federal elections only? Even this, we don’t believe, the current Supreme Court would uphold. While the constitutional foundation for the regulation of federal elections is certainly stronger, the idea that every state would have to preclear changes in its election law through the Department of Justice would turn the Constitution on its head. The Constitution gives the states the first shot at determining election rules. Congress is free to override those rules; but we are certain that the Supreme Court would not permit Congress to force all states to seek permission from a federal agency before they can exercise a presumptively constitutional state power.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122301&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Democrats%20Are%20Walking%20Right%20Into%20a%20Trap%20on%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


Two new statutory interpretation decisions issued today<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122291>
Posted on May 24, 2021 10:02 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122291> by Anita Krishnakumar<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=16>

The Supreme Court today issued two short opinions interpreting two very different statutes:

United States v. Palomar-Santiago<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-437_bqmc.pdf> (Immigration statutes)

and Territory of Guam v. United States<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-382_869d.pdf> (CERCLA)

Both opinions were unanimous and highly textual in their analysis. Palomar-Santiago, authored by Justice Sotomayor, relied heavily on the use of the word “and” while the Court’s opinion in Guam v. United States opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, relied heavily on the “interlocking language and structure of the relevant text” and other whole act rule type arguments. Justice Thomas’ opinion in Guam v. United States also, notably, invoked the belt-and-suspenders canon<https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-105-issue-2/the-belt-and-suspenders-canon/> that James Brudney and Ethan Leib have written about to reject competing whole act rule (superfluity) arguments.

It’s early, but some analysis and coverage of the opinions can be found here:

Scotusblog<https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/unanimous-court-revives-guams-superfund-claim-against-u-s-navy/>:

Unanimous court revives Guam’s Superfund claim against U.S. Navy

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Guam in its dispute with the federal government over the cleanup costs of toxic waste on the island. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a unanimous court just four weeks after oral argument in the case.

Court rejects non-citizen’s challenge to “unlawful re-entry” charge<https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/court-rejects-non-citizens-challenge-to-unlawful-re-entry-charge/>

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled against a non-U.S. citizen who was contesting his indictment for unlawful re-entry into the country. The case, United States v. Palomar-Santiago, involved Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican citizen who obtained lawful permanent residency in the United States in 1990. Eight years later, he was deported on the basis of a California conviction for driving under the influence. But after his deportation, the Supreme Court ruled in Leocal v. Ashcroft that, under the relevant federal statute, DUI convictions do not provide grounds for the removal of people like Palomar-Santiago.

The Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-guam-can-pursue-160m-dump-cleanup-lawsuit/2021/05/24/bf8de1ee-bcab-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html>:

Supreme Court: Guam can pursue $160M dump cleanup lawsuit

The Supreme Court says the U.S. territory of Guam can pursue a $160 million lawsuit against the federal government over the cost of cleaning up a landfill on the island. The justices on Monday unanimously overturned a lower court decision that had said Guam had waited too long to pursue the claim.

Bloomberg News<https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-allows-guams-superfund-cost-claim-against-u-s>:

Top Court Revives Guam’s Superfund Cost Claim Against U.S.

Guam may pursue a Superfund cost recovery claim against the federal government for a $160 million landfill cleanup as its action was timely, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a significant victory for the territory. In a unanimous decision, the justices reversed a lower court and said Guam isn’t time-barred from pursuing the claim. “We are thrilled with the Court’s decision in favor of Guam today, which paves the way for the United States to pay its fair share for the cleanup of the Ordot Dump,” Latham & Watkins lawyer Greg Garre, representing Guam, said in an email.

Law & Crime<https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-justices-again-unanimous-twice-in-the-same-day/>:

Supreme Court Justices Again Unanimous Twice in the Same Day

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down two unanimous decisions Monday — making the total a whopping four 9-0 decisions in a week’s time.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122291&title=Two%20new%20statutory%20interpretation%20decisions%20issued%20today>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Tagged statutory interpretation<https://electionlawblog.org/?tag=statutory-interpretation>


“FEC Complaint Filed Against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for Illegal ‘Soft Money’ Solicitation for Super PAC”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122292>
Posted on May 24, 2021 9:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122292> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release<https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/fec-complaint-filed-against-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-for-illegal-soft-money-solicitation-for-super-pac/>:

Today, Common Cause filed a complaint<https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CC-v.-Rep.-MTG-Cmplt_5.21.21-FINAL_signed.pdf> with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) violated the ‘soft money’ ban in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by soliciting unlimited contributions for a super PAC raising money for use in the Georgia Senate runoff elections. The allegations, first published by ProPublica<https://www.propublica.org/article/marjorie-taylor-greene-appeared-in-a-super-pac-ad-asking-for-money-that-might-break-the-rules>, stem from a fundraising video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS9y4RgV7MU> that Rep. Greene recorded for the Stop Socialism NOW PAC, soliciting contributions to defeat candidates Rafael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s January Senate runoffs.

Under federal campaign finance law, super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited individual, corporate and labor union funds. But federal candidates and officeholders may not “solicit … funds in connection with an election for Federal office … unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of FECA. A federal candidate or officeholder must limit any solicitation for a super PAC to no more than $5,000 from an individual donor, and no corporate or union funds. Rep. Greene’s solicitation was not limited as required.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122292&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Rep.%20Marjorie%20Taylor%20Greene%20for%20Illegal%20%E2%80%98Soft%20Money%E2%80%99%20Solicitation%20for%20Super%20PAC%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


The Draft Plan for IL’s State Districts<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122283>
Posted on May 24, 2021 7:24 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122283> by Richard Pildes<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

As a follow-up to Nick’s post on the tradeoff between drawing reasonably compact districts and lowering the efficiency gap in a state like Illinois, this image of the districts in and around Chicago helps illustrate the district shapes the Democrats needed to use to ensure a more Democratic plan than drawing reasonably compact districts would have produced. On the tradeoff in general between districting that aims to generate particular outcomes (such as partisan “fairness”) and districting that is more process oriented (such as ensuring that neighborhoods stay together and districts are not highly contorted in shape), see here<https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/redistricting-reform-and-the-2018-elections/>.
[cid:image002.png at 01D7520E.611B0720]
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122283&title=The%20Draft%20Plan%20for%20IL%E2%80%99s%20State%20Districts>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


“Did a ‘Smooth and Secure’ 2020 Election Cost the Texas Secretary of State Her Job?”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122282>
Posted on May 24, 2021 7:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=122282> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Houston Chronicle<https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-Secretary-of-State-Ruth-Hughs-resigns-under-16195586.php>:

Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs announced her resignation Friday after Republicans in the Senate declined to confirm her appointment by Gov. Greg Abbott.

While Republicans have not publicly expressed any lack of faith in Hughs, Democrats point to her office’s assertion that Texas had a “smooth and secure” election in 2020.

“Apparently, that wasn’t what leadership wanted to hear,” said Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, in a tweet on Saturday.

The “smooth and secure” line became a highlight of the Democrats’ fight against a slew of Republican voting restrictions in the ongoing legislative session.

The Republican-led Senate is backing voting restrictions<https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Democrats-seek-to-chip-away-at-GOP-voting-16158453.php>, saying they are needed to prevent fraud at the polls, despite no evidence of widespread cheating.

In pushing against the legislation, Democrats pointed to testimony from one of Hughs’ top deputies, Keith Ingram, director of elections.

“In spite of all the circumstances, Texas had an election that was smooth and secure,” Ingram told lawmakers in March, referring to the effect of the pandemic. “Texans can be justifiably proud of the hard work and creativity shown by local county elections officials.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D122282&title=%E2%80%9CDid%20a%20%E2%80%98Smooth%20and%20Secure%E2%80%99%202020%20Election%20Cost%20the%20Texas%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Her%20Job%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>



--
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/20210526/3986e48b/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/20210526/3986e48b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 213318 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210526/3986e48b/attachment-0001.png>