All posts by Rick Hasen

“Brazil’s Former President Was Convicted of Plotting a Coup. What Comes Next?; Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for conspiring to cling to power after losing the 2022 elections.”

election subversion risk

NYT:

Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison on Thursday for overseeing a failed coup plot after losing the 2022 elections, a landmark ruling for Latin America’s largest nation.

Mr. Bolsonaro was convicted of orchestrating a vast conspiracy that included overturning the vote, dismantling courts, handing special powers to the military and assassinating the president-elect, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who won the election.

Mr. Bolsonaro denied plotting a coup or planning to kill his political rival. He accused the Supreme Court justice who oversaw his trial, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, of unfairly targeting him and his right-wing movement.

The ruling marks the first time that Brazil, a nation with a long history of coups, has held accountable a leader who tried to subvert its democracy. But it is far from clear whether Mr. Bolsonaro will actually end up behind bars.

His conviction could also worsen the diplomatic tension between Brazil and the United States, which escalated after President Trump’s tried to help Mr. Bolsonaro, an ally, by applying tariffs and sanctions on Brazil….

Share this:

“Missouri lawmakers give final approval to map targeting a Democratic House seat”

direct democracy, redistricting

CNN:

Missouri’s Republican-controlled Senate on Friday passed a new congressional map, taking final legislative action to target one of the state’s Democratic seats in the US House and boost the GOP’s chances of retaining its fragile majority in the chamber.

The 21-11 vote came just two weeks after the state’s GOP Gov. Mike Kehoe first unveiled the map and ordered a special legislative session to approve it. It targets longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by carving up his Kansas City-area district and stretching its boundaries into rural, Republican-friendly areas of central Missouri.

Cleaver has pledged to fight the map in court and has said he plans to seek reelection. Opponents also intend to attempt to put the map before voters in the form of a referendum. They have 90 days after the map is signed into law to collect the signatures needed to force a statewide vote….

Share this:

“As Political Violence Rises, Trump Condemns One Side”

political violence

NYT:

After the assassination of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk, President Trump released a four-minute video from the Oval Office in which he condemned the killing as the “tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day.”

Then, instead of calling for Americans of all political stripes to lower the temperature, Mr. Trump rattled off a list of political violence only targeting Republicans or perpetrated by those he views as on the left: the assassination attempts against him; attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers; the assassination of a health care executive in New York; and the mass shooting of Republicans at a congressional baseball practice that nearly killed Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

Even though the authorities had not identified a suspect or motive, Mr. Trump placed the blame squarely on his political opponents.

“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,” Mr. Trump said. “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”

Missing from Mr. Trump’s list was any reference to political violence targeting Democrats or perpetuated by those on the right.

The president made no mention of the recent killings in Minnesota of a Democratic state lawmaker and her husband, who were on a hit list of dozens of left-wing figures; the arson attack on the home of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, while he and his family slept; a shooter’s attack on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; a hammer assault on the husband of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi; the shootings at an Arizona campaign office of Kamala Harris; or the Jan. 6 pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol that injured roughly 150 police officers.

In doing so, experts said, Mr. Trump captured the raw sentiment of his conservative base — the feeling of being under constant threat from the left in a country that is abandoning them. But the remarks addressed only part of the seemingly endless cycle of political violence America is experiencing.

Share this:

“America enters a new age of political violence”

political violence

WaPo:

A Minnesota state legislator killed in her home in June. The Pennsylvania governor’s house set afire in April. Candidate Donald Trump facing two apparent assassination attempts during last year’s campaign. And now conservative activist Charlie Kirk gunned down and killed Wednesday during a talk at Utah Valley University, horrifying a live audience and those who saw the shooting online.

America is facing a new era of political violence reminiscent of some of its most bitter, tumultuous eras, including the 1960s, which saw the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“We are going through what I call an era of violent populism,” said Robert Pape, who heads the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago. “It is a historically high era of assassination, assassination attempts, violent protests, and it is occurring on both the right and the left.”

He added: “This is way beyond the usual minor ebb and flow of militia group violence we have seen for 20 years. This is a different level, a different historical period of political violence, and that is what you see. This is a demonstrable fact.”…

Share this:

“Republicans invoke ‘nuclear option’ in push to change Senate rules”

legislation and legislatures

WaPo:

Republicans moved Thursday to speed up Senate confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominees by changing the chamber’s rules over the objections of Democrats.

Senators voted 53-45 to allow themselves to change the rules with a simple majorityinstead of 60 votes — a move known as the “nuclear option.”

The rules change will allow the Senate to confirm multiple people at once, helping to clear a backlog of nearly 150nominees awaiting floor votes. Republicans argue it is necessary because Democrats have held up the confirmation process by forcing time-consuming votes on each nominee rather than allowing some of them to be confirmed by voice votes, which is faster.

The change excludes Cabinet officials, Supreme Court justices and federal judges, who must be confirmed one by one.

“Democrats and their political base cannot deal with the fact that the American people elected President Trump,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) said Thursday on the Senate floor. “And so they’re dragging out every confirmation in retaliation.”

The rules change is the latest instance of the majority party using the nuclear option to make it easier to confirm nominees without the consent of the minority. Senate Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority rather than 60 votes. Senate Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees in 2017 when they held the majority. The also reduced debate time for most nominees in 2019.

Some Democrats said they agreed that the nominations process was broken. But they said they had stalled Trump’s nominees becausethey believe they are “historically bad.”

Democrats argued that they tried to negotiate with Republicans last month to confirm more nominees in exchange for the Trump administration releasing some funding that it had held up. But Trump torpedoed the deal, encouraging Republicans to go home for their summer break and telling Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) on social media to “GO TO HELL!”…

Share this:

““Modernizing Voter List Maintenance: An Evidence-Based Framework for Access and Integrity”

voter registration

Michael Morse, Rachel Orey, and Joann Bautista have published a Bipartisan Policy Center report on list maintenance, based on Morse’s earlier article. Here’s an excerpt of the executive summary:

Voter registration lists are widely regarded as the backbone of election administration. To keep these lists up to date, election officials are responsible for identifying when voters move, die, or otherwise become ineligible to vote. The bureaucratic process known as “list maintenance” has long been a quiet feature of election administration, but has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Some advocacy groups equate the removal of voter registrations with disenfranchisement, labeling it voter purging; others maintain that voter lists are plagued by errors, characterizing them as “dirty,” and argue that registrations aren’t being canceled often enough.

In reality, list maintenance doesn’t need to be a trade-off between access and integrity. Rather, well-crafted, evidence-based policies can advance both goals simultaneously. This report discusses two of the most salient topics in list maintenance policy discussions today:mobility and citizenship.

Mobility and citizenship present fundamentally different types of problems for election officials. Although voters move frequently, audits have found that very few registered voters are not citizens. Nonetheless, identifying when voters move and verifying citizenship present similar types of administrative challenges for election officials, who must coordinate with other officials in their state, between states, and in the federal government to gather the most up-to-date information.

Drawing on Michael Morse’s 2023 law review article, this report first addresses the recurring problem of voter mobility for list maintenance and suggests targeted reforms. It then turns to nascent efforts to verify the citizenship of voters, highlighting emerging challenges and urging caution to avoid premature policymaking.

Share this:

The Despicable Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Uncategorized

Once again I condemn the use of political violence. It is equally repugnant when directed at liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, governors, presidents, or activists like Kirk.

I have had to post sentiments like this far too often in the last few years, and I fear this will not be the last.

A democracy cannot fairly function with political violence and fears of violence becoming routine.

My condolences to Kirk’s family, friends, and supporters.

Share this:

I Spoke to NPR’s Fresh Air: “An election law expert weighs in on Trump’s effort to reshape our democracy” (Link to Audio)

authoritarian threats in US, election administration, election subversion risk

Had a great conversation with Tonya Mosley for NPR’s Fresh Air: “Before 2026’s midterms, President Trump wants to ban mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines, and change voting rules. Legal expert Richard Hasen discusses the future of free and fair elections.”

Listen.

Share this:

“Michigan dismissal highlights the challenges in prosecuting cases against Trump’s 2020 fake electors”

chicanery, election subversion risk, electoral college

AP:

 Before the abandoned federal attempt to prosecute Donald Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, state and local prosecutors brought cases against his fake electors.

The term referred to the people who, in several of the swing states won by former President Joe Biden, declared themselves to be the rightful electors who would vote for Trump in the Electoral College. It was part of Trump’s long-shot bid to push Congress to reject Biden’s electors and throw the election to him.

Democratic prosecutors filed indictments against them before Trump himself was charged by a special prosecutor appointed by Biden’s Department of Justice, making the fake electors the most prominent example of how those who helped Trump faced consequences for their attempt to reverse the election results. Many of those cases have now hit a dead end or are just limping along.

The charges against Trump were dropped after he won the election, following last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting presidents immunity for much of their conduct in office. While the fake elector cases ground on, several have hit legal roadblocks — most dramatically on Tuesday when a Michigan judge dismissed charges against 15 Republicans who had been charged by that state’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel.

Judge Kristen Simmons said prosecutors had not shown that the defendants intended to defraud the public.

“Right, wrong or indifferent, it was these individuals and many other individuals in the state of Michigan who sincerely believed — for some reason — that there were some serious irregularities with the election,” said Simmons, who was originally appointed by the state’s Democratic governor and then won reelection to the bench.
….

Marian Sheridan, one of the people charged in Michigan whose case was dismissed, said Tuesday that the group’s plan was to act as a “backup” or “lifeboat” in case the election results were overturned.

“We were not fake,” she said. “We were alternate.”

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said such arguments were part of the reason he viewed the fake elector cases as some of the “weaker” criminal ones filed after the 2020 election.

But he said the combination of the failures of those prosecutions, coupled with Trump’s avoiding liability and his pardons of more than 1,500 people convicted of crimes in the cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, are a grim combination.

“All of it fits together to create really bad incentives for a system of free and fair election and peaceful transitions of power,” Hasen said.

Share this:

“Trump Administration Quietly Seeks to Build National Voter Roll”

authoritarian threats in US, election subversion risk

NYT:

The Justice Department is compiling the largest set of national voter roll data it has ever collected, buttressing an effort by President Trump and his supporters to try to prove long-running, unsubstantiated claims that droves of undocumented immigrants have voted illegally, according to people familiar with the matter.

The effort to essentially establish a national voting database, involving more than 30 states, has elicited serious concerns among voting rights experts because it is led by allies of the president, who as recently as this January refused to acknowledge Joseph R. Biden Jr. fairly won the 2020 election. It has also raised worries that those same officials could use the data to revive lies of a stolen election, or try to discredit future election results.

The initiative has proceeded along two tracks, one at the Justice Department’s civil rights division and another at its criminal division, seeking data about individual voters across the country, including names and addresses, in a move that experts say may violate the law. It is a significant break from decades of practice by Republican and Democratic administrations, which believed that doing so was federal overreach and ripe for abuse.

“Nobody has ever done anything like this,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Marymount University’s law school and a former Justice Department official.

The Justice Department has requested data from at least 16 Republican-controlled states, including Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. It has also sent more formal demands for data to at least 17 mostly Democrat-controlled or swing states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin and New York.

Nearly every state has resisted turning over voter files with private, personally identifiable information on voters like driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers. Last week, a local judge blocked South Carolina from releasing private voter information to the Justice Department.

In a private meeting with the staff of top state election officials last month, Michael Gates, a deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division, disclosed that all 50 states would eventually receive similar requests, according to notes of the meeting reviewed by The New York Times. In particular, he said, the federal government wants the last four digits of every voter’s Social Security number….

Mr. Levitt likened the effort to sending federal troops to bolster local police work. “It’s wading in, without authorization and against the law, with an overly heavy federal hand to take over a function that states are actually doing just fine,” he said, adding that “it’s wildly illegal, deeply troubling, and nobody asked for this.”

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman, Gates McGavick, said, “Enforcing the nation’s elections laws is a priority in this administration and in the civil rights division.”…

Share this:

“Democrats pick members for new GOP-led committee on Jan. 6 Capitol attack”

election subversion risk

WaPo:

Democrats named the members of their caucus to serve on a new subcommittee reinvestigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — a Republican-led probe that threatens to reignite tensions over one of the most divisive events in American political history.

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) announced Monday that Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-California), Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) will participate in the eight-member committee and Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) will serve as an ex officio member….

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) is tasked with choosing the Republican members who will serve on the subcommittee, but has yet to announce who will represent the GOP on the panel. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia), who spearheaded a report as a subcommittee chair under the House Administration Committee last Congress is expected to lead the new subcommittee.

The new subcommittee will have subpoena power and is “authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation” of the events on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol to prevent the certification of Biden’s election.

It is intended to be a response to the 117th Congress’s original Jan. 6 select committee, which held high-profile public hearings and released an 845-page report after 18 months of work including reviewing emails, text messages, call logs and White House records, and conducting more than 1,000 interviews….

Share this: