Election Law Academics Update

Here’s my yearly roundup of election law academic hires, promotions moves, visits, accolades:

Ellen Aprill is Senior Scholar in Residence at the Lowell Milken Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofits at UCLA (and continues as the John E Anderson Professor in Tax Law Emerita at Loyola LA)/

Wilfred Codrington III will be joining the faculty of Cardozo School of Law as the Walter Floersheimer Professor of Constitutional Law and will serve as co-director of the Floersheimer Center on Constitutional Democracy.

David Froomkin will be starting as an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.

Anthony Gaughan will be a visiting professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

Ruth Greenwood was appointed as an Assistant Clinical Professor at Harvard Law School as of January 1 2024, and is still the Founding Director of the Election Law Clinic.

Rick Hasen was named the Gary T. Schwartz Endowed Chair in Law at UCLA and continues as the Director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project.

Manoj Mate joined the University at Buffalo School of Law, State University of New York as a Professor of Law.

Lia Merivaki will be Associate Teaching Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy, and an Associate Research Professor at the Massive Data Institute, Georgetown University (beginning August 1).

Michael Morse  won a teaching award for Election Law at Penn.

Spencer Overton returned to GW Law as the Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor of Law and the Faculty Director of the Multiracial Democracy Project.

Doug Spencer has been named the Ira C. Rothgerber Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Boulder. 

Franita Tolson is now Dean and Carl Mason Franklin Chair in Law at USC.

Congratulations all!

Share this:

“An Alabama Town’s New Mayor Was Locked Out. 3 Years Later, He Will Return.”

NYT:

Nearly four years after Patrick Braxton won the mayoral election for the small town of Newbern, Ala., in November 2020, he could soon get to serve his first term.

Mr. Braxton said in a lawsuit that, after he won the election, he never received access to manage the town’s finances, was barred from opening the municipal mailbox and was even locked out of the town hall, after the locks had been changed twice in six months.

Finally, on Friday, Newbern and Mr. Braxton filed a settlement agreement that, if approved by Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the Southern District of Alabama, will allow Mr. Braxton to begin his first term — three and a half years after it started.

“Every time I turned a corner, there was another obstacle in my way,” Mr. Braxton, a handyman who has long worked as a community volunteer, said in an interview.

A town of about 130 people, Newbern had not held an election for mayor since 1965 and instead allowed mayors to pick their successors. The town, where a majority of residents are Black, had never had a Black mayor. That more than five decade long streak without an election ended when Mr. Braxton filed the paperwork to run for mayor in the town’s 2020 election and, since he was the only person to do so, became the first Black mayor in Newbern’s history.

But over the next three years, the town’s incumbent leaders tried to bar Mr. Braxton from serving in the role, according to the lawsuit, in which he accused town leaders of racial discrimination. The lawsuit names the former mayor, Haywood Stokes III. Last week, the town and Mr. Braxton agreed on a settlement that would instate Mr. Braxton as the town’s rightful mayor, ensure the town holds regular elections, and require the town to admit to violating a series of laws, including the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

Share this:

“America needs a bigger House”

In the Detroit News, I have this op-ed with Michigan state representative Andrew Fink. It begins:

Michigan’s population grew by 2% in the last decade and now has more than 10 million inhabitants. But those Census figures couldn’t stop the state from losing a seat in the House of Representatives, dropping to 13 members.

When states grow in population, they shouldn’t lose influence in Washington. It’s time to expand Congress to represent the interests of a growing national population by amending the Constitution.

Representative Fink has introduced a joint resolution in the Michigan legislature to ratify the last pending amendment of James Madison, which would guarantee a representative in the House for every 50,000 people. (Fink is the first representative to introduce such legislation in any state in recent memory, but perhaps a reader with a longer memory can think of another instance!) That would expand the size of the House from 435 to around 7000. And it can be done without any congressional action.

I’m sure some readers would strongly oppose such a measure or think of it as absurd. We defend reasons to think why much more robust legislative oversight and a House much more closely connected to the people would be a good thing. (Professor Danielle Allen has been among those writing more recently on the topic and in defense of it, such as in this Washington Post piece.)

Congress approved the amendment in 1789, and 11 states ratified it. It would take 27 more for it to become an amendment to the Constitution. But if even one state ratified, we think it might spur serious reflection in Congress about what the appropriate size of the House ought to be–perhaps less than 7000, but something that would spur Congress to react.

Share this:

“New Pro-Trump Super PAC Quietly Spends Millions on G.O.P. Ground Game”

NYT:

Republicans have quietly formed a new super PAC that is preparing what appears to be a significant push to persuade former President Donald J. Trump’s voters to vote early or by absentee ballot.

The group, America PAC, was created last month and remains fairly secretive. But over the last two weeks, it has spent $6.6 million on behalf of Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to public filings, vaulting it suddenly into the top tier of pro-Trump outside groups in the general election.

On its little-publicized website, the group is collecting voters’ information and encouraging them to register to vote, to request an absentee or mail ballot, or to pledge to vote, calling the race “the most consequential election of our lifetime.”

People who enter their ZIP code are directed to the form on an official state election website where they can complete their voter-registration forms. Voters who put in their information for an absentee ballot are assured that they will be sent more information shortly. And those who pledge to vote are informed that the super PAC will “stay in touch” with them.

Share this:

On the Fulton County certification lawsuit

Rick H. posts the Washington Post story about the lawsuit from an official trying to guarantee the right to refuse to certify election results in Fulton County, Georgia. I confess, I have a somewhat different reaction to the litigation, a little different from the concerns about what the litigation might yield.

When I spoke to Rolling Stone about this litigation earlier this month, here was my take:

Adams’ lawsuit could also backfire and prove that the certification process — a previously mundane and “ministerial” task that election deniers have hijacked in recent years — is not up to the discretion of officials like Adams, says Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who has written about the issue of local certification of elections.

“[Adams] had no basis in law to refuse to certify the results,” Muller tells Rolling Stone and American Doom. “If anything, this lawsuit is likely to result in a legal decision that shuts down claims like hers well before the election in Georgia.”

You can see the complaint here. The complaint rightly notes that one portion of the Election Code empowers the Board to “inspect systematically and thoroughly the conduct of primaries and elections . . . to the end that primaries and elections may be honestly, efficiently, and uniformly conducted.” The complaint also rightly notes elsewhere that the Code allows refusal to certify in some circumstances: “If, upon consideration by the superintendent of the returns and certificates before him or her from any precinct, it shall appear that the total vote returned for any candidate or candidates for the same office or nomination or on any question exceeds the number of electors in such precinct or exceeds the total number of persons who voted in such precinct or the total number of ballots cast therein, such excess shall be deemed a discrepancy and palpable error and shall be investigated by the superintendent.”

But the complaint tries to conflate the two things. It asserts that if there is some dispute about the ability to “inspect” the election, then the board is empowered to refuse to certify and investigate. That’s not what the Code allows. The board might have power in other circumstances (e.g., in the months and years ahead of an election) to develop procedures about how to inspect conduct. But when it comes to certification, the scope of discretion is quite limited. To borrow an analogy I used in Election Subversion and the Writ of Mandamus:

Certifying an election is something like an automotive worker at the end of an assembly line, affixing windshield wiper blades to a vehicle. That worker might be able to stop the assembly line if the car has only three tires or if the doors are missing. But the worker is not permitted to stop the assembly line to investigate whether the inmost parts of the engine were fitted together to that worker’s satisfaction. Other workers are responsible for other stages in the process. There are other checks in the process—other managers and other supervisors tasked with those responsibilities; workers must know their roles and what responsibilities reside with someone else.

This complaint, filed well before Election Day, may actually serve to establish the kind of precedent that would help expedite certification in the event that disputes later arose, because I view it as exceedingly unlikely that a court grants the relief the plaintiff here seeks. And if there’s an affirmative order from Georgia courts well before Election Day that certification is a largely ministerial task and that refusal to certify can only occur under limited, enumerated terms, it would make any disputes this fall less likely and any resolution much faster. Perhaps I’m wrong, of course, and a court issues relief for the plaintiff or an adverse judgment doesn’t deter later actors. But I wanted to suggest it as a possible alternative way forward.

Share this:

Supreme Court Publishing Snafu Leads to Early Publication of Draft in Idaho Abortion Case Ending the Stay and Dismissing Case as Improvidently Granted; Some Thoughts on Justice Barrett’s Draft Concurrence

Unlike the Dobbs leak, this seems inadvertent. Bloomberg scoop: The US Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a copy of the opinion that was briefly posted on the court’s website. The… Continue reading