The opinion has some really interesting ballot initiative issues, including the timing of election contests, and pre-election v. post-election challenges, with some dissents largely on procedural issues. From Lucas v. Ashcroft (lightly revised):
Continue reading In election contest, Missouri Supreme Court throws out enacted state constitutional amendment on police funding for faulty ballot summaryThird Circuit, Over the Dissent of Four Judges, Won’t Take Up En Banc the Case Holding That It Doesn’t Violate the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act to Not Count Timely But Undated Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania (Corrected title)
May 7 CAP Online Event on Citizens United Includes Sheldon Whitehouse, Shana Broussard, Jamie Raskin, Sarah Haan and Tom Moore
“Meta Faces E.U. Investigation Over Election Disinformation”
Meta, the American tech giant, is being investigated by European Union regulators for the spread of disinformation on its platforms Facebook and Instagram, poor oversight of deceptive advertisements and potential failure to protect the integrity of elections.
On Tuesday, European Union officials said Meta does not appear to have sufficient safeguards in place to combat misleading advertisements, deepfakes and other deceptive information that is being maliciously spread online to amplify political divisions and influence elections.
The announcement appears intended to pressure Meta to do more ahead of elections across all 27 E.U. countries this summer to elect new members of the European Parliament. The vote, taking place from June 6-9, is being closely watched for signs of foreign interference, particularly from Russia, which has sought to weaken European support for the war in Ukraine.
The Meta investigation shows how European regulators are taking a more aggressive approach to regulate online content than authorities in the United States, where free speech and other legal protections limit the role the government can play in policing online discourse. A new E.U. law, called the Digital Services Act, took effect last year and gives regulators broad authority to rein in Meta and other large online platforms over the content shared through their services.
Trump in TIME Interview: “I Think a Lot of People Like” Talk of Dictatorship
Toward the end of our conversation at Mar-a-Lago, I ask Trump to explain another troubling comment he made: that he wants to be dictator for a day. It came during a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity, who gave Trump an opportunity to allay concerns that he would abuse power in office or seek retribution against political opponents. Trump said he would not be a dictator—“except for day one,” he added. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
Trump says that the remark “was said in fun, in jest, sarcastically.” He compares it to an infamous moment from the 2016 campaign, when he encouraged the Russians to hack and leak Hillary Clinton’s emails. In Trump’s mind, the media sensationalized those remarks too. But the Russians weren’t joking: among many other efforts to influence the core exercise of American democracy that year, they hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers and disseminated its emails through WikiLeaks.
Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. “I think a lot of people like it.”
“Why an Immunity Ruling in Trump’s Favor Might Not Alter the Shape of His Trial”
Charlie Savage in the NYT:
If the Supreme Court rules that Donald J. Trump is immune from being charged with crimes over official actions he took as president, it would be a momentous decision for the future of executive power and American-style democracy.
But it is far from certain that such a ruling would derail the election subversion case against him. In fact, there is a scenario in which the court could render such a ruling without altering the charges or the array of evidence that the special counsel, Jack Smith, wants to present to a jury.
Mr. Trump faces four criminal counts over his efforts to overturn his loss of the 2020 election, but none are exclusively centered on conduct Mr. Trump undertook in his capacity as president. Rather, the indictment tells a story that mixes both official acts with private ones, meaning actions Mr. Trump took in his role as a candidate for office. It then declares that each charge arises from the entire picture.
Among the accusations: Mr. Trump spread false claims of voter fraud, plotted to recruit false slates of electors from swing states, pressured Vice President Mike Pence to use their existence to block Congress’s certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory, and urged lawmakers to use the attack on the Capitol by his supporters to delay any vote.
As of yet, no court has decided which of Mr. Trump’s actions are considered official presidential conduct, versus private, unofficial campaign activity. But during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett floated the possibility that Mr. Smith could “just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct.”
Crucially, however, a lawyer for Mr. Smith, Michael R. Dreeben, said that even if the court ruled out basing charges on Mr. Trump’s official actions, prosecutors believed that they could still lawfully present evidence about the official conduct as relevant context that would help jurors understand Mr. Trump’s private acts.
“There’s really an integrated conspiracy here that had different components,” Mr. Dreeben said. Mr. Trump, he added, used his official powers to try to ensure his private efforts to overturn the election were more likely to succeed, and the jury will need to see the entire picture to understand the sequence, why each step occurred and the gravity of the conduct.
Mr. Dreeben added that the facts of Mr. Trump’s official acts are relevant for interpreting his “knowledge and intent” about his private conduct.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump, D. John Sauer, urged the court to adopt a very different remedy. Not only should it find that Mr. Trump had immunity for his official actions, he said, but it should omit them from the case. Still, he acknowledged that Mr. Trump could be charged over private actions while he was president.
“The official stuff has to be expunged completely from the indictment before the case can go forward,” Mr. Sauer maintained.
“How do you fix Congress?” (The missing answer.)
Twelve departing members of Congress offer their thoughts in a N.Y. Times opinion video. The responses focused on attempting to fix the culture of Congress–how members from opposite parties used to get along but now don’t. To the extent,… Continue reading
Louisiana Wants Entire 5th Circuit to Hear Its Appeal (Bypassing a 5th Circuit Panel) Arguing that Private Plaintiffs Don’t Have the Right to Sue Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Aggressive.
(via Hansi Lo Wang)
Federal courts toss challenges by state legislators in Pennsylvania, Michigan over lack of standing
The most recent edition of our federal courts casebook (with co-authors Arthur Hellman, David Stras, Ryan Scott, and Andy Hessick), I took some time reshape some of the focus of the chapter on “standing” to expound upon some increasing recurring… Continue reading
“Michigan AG executes search warrants on Google and X in ongoing 2020 fake electors probe”
Marshall Cohen for CNN:
Google and X, formerly Twitter, recently provided hundreds of files to Michigan prosecutors for their 2020 election subversion probe, complying with search warrants that investigators obtained after CNN revealed secret social media accounts belonging to pro-Trump lawyer… Continue reading
“Surprise Tactics and Legal Threats: Inside R.F.K. Jr.’s Ballot Access Fight”
NYT:
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential campaign mounts a bruising state-by-state battle for ballot access, he has often credited enthusiastic volunteers and grass-roots backers with driving the effort.
In fact, the operation has become increasingly reliant on consultants… Continue reading
“Wisconsin Republicans recruiting legion of monitors to observe polls, set stage for lawsuits”
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
The Republican National Committee and Trump campaign plan to deploy tens of thousands of volunteers and attorneys to monitor and challenge voting processes in battleground states, including Wisconsin — an effort rooted in the former president’s false… Continue reading
Important New Student Note: “Voting Wrongs and Remedial Gaps”
There’s a great new student note at the intersection of election law and remedies, authored by Delaney Herndon, in the Harvard Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Today, voting rights plaintiffs largely seek injunctive relief.1 This wasn’t always… Continue reading
California: “Many O.C. residents skeptical of election results, potentially swaying key races, poll finds”
LAT:
Alex Lopez doesn’t contest that Joe Biden was elected president in 2020.
His concern lies with how those results came to be.
“By the numbers? He absolutely won it. Ethically? Probably not,” said the 38-year-old Anaheim resident, who works… Continue reading