The State Bar of Texas on Wednesday moved to drop its lawsuit against Attorney General Ken Paxton for his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, extending a cascade of legal and political wins for the once-embattled Republican leader.
In a court filing, lawyers with the bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline asked the Texas Supreme Court to dismiss the suit, citing the high court’s December decision to toss a separate state bar lawsuit against Paxton’s top aide, Brent Webster, for working with Paxton to challenge the 2020 outcome in battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden.
The state bar had sought to sanction Paxton, which could have carried a punishment ranging from a private reprimand to disbarment. Lawyers from the bar — which regulates law licenses in Texas — have argued that Paxton, in falsely claiming to have uncovered major evidence of election wrongdoing, forced the battleground states “to expend time, money, and resources to respond to the misrepresentations and false statements.”
The bar’s dismissal motion effectively ends a case that dates back to May 2022. It is Paxton’s second personal legal victory within the last year: In March, prosecutors dropped long-running felony securities fraud charges against Paxton under an agreement that required the attorney general to perform 100 hours of community service and take 15 hours of legal ethics courses. Paxton also agreed to pay around $271,000 in restitution to those he was accused of defrauding more than a decade ago when he allegedly solicited investors in a McKinney technology company without disclosing that the firm was paying him to promote its stock….
In its decision to dismiss the lawsuit against Webster last month, the Texas Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling by a Williamson County district judge who said that taking Webster’s law license would violate the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. In their motion to drop Paxton’s case, state bar lawyers acknowledged that their lawsuit against the attorney general “raises identical separation of powers issues” as those at issue in Webster’s case.
Category Archives: election law biz
“BREAKING: SCOTUSblog Publisher Tom Goldstein Indicted In Tax Case”
Tom Goldstein, a publisher of SCOTUSblog and one of the most experienced U.S. Supreme Court lawyers in the country, was indicted Thursday in Maryland federal court on charges he schemed to evade taxes for years and used funds from his boutique law firm to cover gambling debts.
The indictment, which describes Goldstein as an “ultrahigh-stakes poker player” who played poker games involving “stakes totaling millions, and even ten of millions of dollars,” alleges that between 2016 and 2022 he carried out a scheme to “evade the assessment of taxes, file false tax returns and fail to pay his tax obligations when they were due.”
Goldstein allegedly used millions of dollars in funds from Goldstein & Russell, a boutique law firm in Bethesda, Maryland, that he solely owned, to cover gambling debts and other personal debts and falsely understated his gambling winnings by millions of dollars in tax filings, according to the indictment.
He also is accused of entering into sham employment arrangements with at least a dozen women who he was in “intimate personal relationships with” or was pursuing. Goldstein allegedly listed the women as “employees” of his law firm, paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars and set them up with health insurance policies through the firm, while they “performed little or no work for the firm.”…
Here is the indictment.
“The Good Lawyers of January 6”
W. Bradley Wendel has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Much of the response by the community of legal ethics and professional responsibility scholars to the 2020 presidential election has been focused on the wrongs committed by lawyers like John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Kenneth Chesebro, who created the alternate elector scheme to throw the decision regarding the election to the House of Representatives. Yet there was a group of lawyers, that I will refer to as the good lawyers of January 6, who forcefully and unequivocally opposed this plan, refused to cooperate in its execution, advised Vice President Mike Pence that it was not legally supportable, and in some cases threatened to resign in protest if President Trump went forward with it. These lawyers are, almost without exception, card-carrying movement conservatives, with pedigrees including clerkships for conservative Supreme Court Justices, membership in the Federalist Society, and service in prior Republican administrations. They include Greg Jacob, counsel to Vice President Pence; White House Counsel Pat Cipollone; White House Senior Advisor Eric Hershmann; retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig; Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen; and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue.
As a normative legal ethics theorist I am interested in whether there a coherent and attractive ideal or set of principles of ethical conduct by lawyers that would align with the refusal of these lawyers to advice or assist in the overthrow of the election. The answer to this question may inform the way we regulate lawyers and seek to educate and inspire law students to promote the highest ideals of the profession.
Granting that this is somewhat speculative, my hypothesis is that a commitment to the rule of law is central to the professional identity of the lawyers who refused to lend their assistance to Trump’s “Stop the Steal” efforts. Of course, each of these lawyers may have acted for his own unique reasons, but the normative commitment shared by all of them is fidelity to the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law is, of course, a contested one in legal philosophy. Debates continue over matters such as formal or substantive definitions of the rule of law, the relationship between democracy and the rule of law, the problem of legal injustice, and whether a state that purports to respect the ideal of the rule of law must also respect certain substantive human rights. However, there may be sufficient agreement on key features of the rule of law as it bears on the ethical obligations and professional identity of lawyers. The actions of the good lawyers of January 6 serve as a kind of ostensive definition of the ideal of the rule of law as a principle of ethical lawyering. The basis for these lawyers’ advice to Vice President Pence was a judgment that the constitution and federal election law, properly interpreted, simply did not support the position urged by Eastman, Clark, and Chesebro.
“Olivas Award Goes to Harvard Law Professor Guy-Uriel Charles”
Congrats Guy and so well deserved! Release:
Guy-Uriel Charles, Faculty Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice and Charles Ogletree, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, is the recipient of the Michael A. Olivas Award for Outstanding Leadership in Diversity and Mentoring in the Legal Academy, a joint recognition by four AALS sections.
“I am thrilled to receive the Olivas Award,” Charles said. “It is both a privilege and responsibility to be associated with this brilliant scholar who has done so much for the legal academy and particularly for legal academics of color. I endeavor to do my best as one of the keepers of the flame.”
The annual award serves to honor the legacy of Michael A. Olivas, who died in April 2022 after an illustrious career in law, most recently serving as William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law Emeritus at the University of Houston Law Center and the Director of the University of Houston’s Institute for Higher Education Law & Governance. In 2018, Olivas was awarded the AALS Triennial Award for Lifetime Service to Legal Education and the Law, the association’s highest honor.
The Olivas Award is presented by the AALS Sections on Civil Rights, Education Law, Minority Groups, and Student Services. It is awarded annually to law faculty member or members who most vividly exemplify Olivas’s devotion to mentoring junior and aspiring faculty from underrepresented communities and promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity in the legal academy….
Remembering Jimmy Carter and His Legacy for Election Law
President Jimmy Carter died at 100. He was a moral, decent man, committed to the cause of justice. One of his passions was for democracy. His work with the Carter Center helped to ensure fair elections around the world.
He was involved in two commissions in the United States to improve American elections following the disputed 2000 elections that revealed serious flaws with American election administration, the Carter-Ford Commission after 2000 and the Carter-Baker commission after 2004. I had the privilege to testify before the Carter-Baker commission.
The Carter-Baker Commission report had many sound recommendations for reforms; its endorsement of voter identification laws proved controversial, and my friend Spencer Overton and others dissented in part from the recommendations (see page 89 of the report). The recommendation itself only supported voter id if if could be done in ways that did not overly burden voters and was coupled with efforts to get voters registered, a sensible basis for some bipartisan compromise.
After the attempted election subversion of the 2000 election, President Carter wrote an essay in the New York Times, I Fear for Our Democracy. His steps forward also seemed quite sensible:
First, while citizens can disagree on policies, people of all political stripes must agree on fundamental constitutional principles and norms of fairness, civility and respect for the rule of law. Citizens should be able to participate easily in transparent, safe and secure electoral processes. Claims of election irregularities should be submitted in good faith for adjudication by the courts, with all participants agreeing to accept the findings. And the election process should be conducted peacefully, free of intimidation and violence.
Second, we must push for reforms that ensure the security and accessibility of our elections and ensure public confidence in the accuracy of results. Phony claims of illegal voting and pointless multiple audits only detract from democratic ideals.
Third, we must resist the polarization that is reshaping our identities around politics. We must focus on a few core truths: that we are all human, we are all Americans and we have common hopes for our communities and our country to thrive. We must find ways to re-engage across the divide, respectfully and constructively, by holding civil conversations with family, friends and co-workers and standing up collectively to the forces dividing us.
Fourth, violence has no place in our politics, and we must act urgently to pass or strengthen laws to reverse the trends of character assassination, intimidation and the presence of armed militias at events. We must protect our election officials — who are trusted friends and neighbors of many of us — from threats to their safety. Law enforcement must have the power to address these issues and engage in a national effort to come to terms with the past and present of racial injustice.
Lastly, the spread of disinformation, especially on social media, must be addressed. We must reform these platforms and get in the habit of seeking out accurate information. Corporate America and religious communities should encourage respect for democratic norms, participation in elections and efforts to counter disinformation.
He was a wise man with a great love for the United States and for the people of the world, committed to democracy and fair voting. Condolences to his family and friends.
Anna Massoglia: “A New Chapter: Why I Am Leaving OpenSecrets – And What’s Next”
I’ve long been a huge fan of Anna Massoglia and her data work at Open Secrets.
With the contraction of Open Secrets, Anna is out on her own, including with the new Influence Brief.
Looking forward to seeing her upcoming work!
“Open-Government Nonprofits Are Dying Off Just When They’re Needed Most”
Daniel Schuman for The Bulwark:
OPENSECRETS, THE NONPROFIT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION dedicated to disclosing the role of money in politics, laid off one-third of its staff last month due to financial difficulties. This sparked understandable concern in newsrooms, think tanks, and research institutions that rely on OpenSecrets to transform government information into usable data.
But OpenSecrets is just the latest in a series of open-government groups to decline or die off over the last decade—a trend that bodes ill for the health of our politics.
Let’s count the bodies.
The Sunlight Foundation, launched in 2006 with the mission of increasing government transparency, peaked in 2013 with $9 million in donations and 40+ staff, was pronounced dead in 2020 although the body had been cold for some time. Sunlight combined technologists, policy advocates, journalists, and organizers all under one roof.
OMBWatch, founded in 1983 in part to increase government transparency and accountability, with a focus on the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, died in 2016. In 2010 the organization’s funding peaked at $3 million, with 28 staff, including two people at OpenTheGovernment.org (OTG). The remains of OMBWatch are interred at the Project on Government Oversight, an accountability organization.
Another group almost as old, the Center for Public Integrity, founded in 1989, is apparently on its last legs as well: It’s down to just a handful of staffers, and, after mass layoffs this past May, laid-off employees launched a GoFundMe hoping for some help to tide themselves over…
The ultimate cause of their demise is simple: reprioritization by foundations and high-net-worth individuals away from financially supporting this overarching, public-informing, community-building work. In their place we have seen a boom in partisan-aligned nonprofit organizations that use similar tools and techniques, but as auxiliaries for the parties in their trench warfare over political power.
The result is a tragedy of the public commons. Open government is essential to a flourishing democracy. It helps the public identify waste, fraud, abuse, and malfeasance. But even more importantly, it provides insight into whether policies are working as intended—and allows for course corrections. If you think transparency is a bad idea, try driving a car with the windows painted black….
“Trump Picks Strident Supporter for Civil Rights Post at Justice Dept.”
President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he would nominate Harmeet K. Dhillon, a California lawyer who has long championed Mr. Trump in public, in court cases and on social media, to run the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
In declaring his choice on social media, Mr. Trump said Ms. Dhillon “has stood up consistently to protect our cherished civil liberties.” He praised her legal work targeting social media companies, restrictions on religious gatherings during the pandemic and “corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers.”
Ms. Dhillon has been a conservative activist so devoted to Mr. Trump that she was willing to attack not only Democrats but also fellow Republicans, including her ultimately unsuccessful challenge last year to the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee at the time….
It is not unusual for Republican administrations to significantly scale back the work in the Civil Rights Division. In Ms. Dhillon, however, Mr. Trump has chosen a lawyer active in the culture wars whose firm specializes in championing the right’s causes.
“I’m extremely honored by President Trump’s nomination to assist with our nation’s civil rights agenda,” Ms. Dhillon posted on social media. “It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by” Pam Bondi, Mr. Trump’s choice for attorney general.
The division, which enforces voting rights laws, investigates police departments and brings charges for violations of people’s civil rights, is spending the final days of the Biden administration finishing as much work as possible on cases involving patterns or practices of police misconduct.
“Richmond’s top election official resigns after critical IG report”
Welp.
“10 most-cited Election Law faculty in the U.S., 2019-2023”
Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the ten most-cited election law faculty in the U.S. for the period 2019-2023 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May/early June of 2024, and that the pre-2024 database did expand a bit since then). Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten. Faculty for whom roughly 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of “other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area.”
Election Law
| Rank | Name | School | Citations | Age in 2024 |
| 1 | Richard Pildes | New York University | 790 | 67 |
| 2 | Richard Hasen | University of California, Los Angeles | 780 | 60 |
| 3 | Samuel Issacharoff | New York University | 750 | 70 |
| 4 | Pamela Karlan | Stanford University | 560 | 65 |
| 5 | Heather Gerken | Yale University | 550 | 55 |
| 6 | Richard Briffault | Columbia University | 480 | 70 |
| 7 | Nathaniel Persily | Stanford University | 330 | 54 |
| 8 | Nicholas Stephanopoulos | Harvard University | 320 | 44 |
| 9 | James Gardner | University at Buffalo, State University of New York | 250 | 65 |
| 10 | Guy-Uriel Charles | Harvard University | 220 | 54 |
| Daniel Tokaji | University of Wisconsin, Madison | 220 | 57 | |
| Runner-up for the top 10 | ||||
| Michael Kang | Northwestern University | 210 | 51 | |
| Justin Levitt | Loyola Law School, Los Angeles | 210 | 50 | |
| Other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area | ||||
| Adam Cox | New York University | 330 | 50 |
Sad News: Ted Olson Has Passed Away
Leading attorney Ted Olson of Gibson Dunn has passed away. He argued many important cases at the Supreme Court, including (most relevant to election law) Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. He was an excellent lawyer, serving as well as the Solicitor General. In my few interactions with him he was always gracious and generous with his time.
Condolences to his family and friends.
News via Lawrence Hurley.
Open Secrets Lays Off Researchers, in Blow to All of Us Who Work with Their Excellent Data
Very sad to see this. Their work is indispensable.
There needs to be adequate funding for nonpartisan entities like this doing such important work. They are providing a key public good.
And of course on a personal level I am sorry to see these excellent researchers losing their positions.
“Former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn sets post-election talk to anti-Trump conservatives”
Don McGahn, Donald Trump’s first White House lawyer and architect of his judicial appointment strategy, is turning heads in the legal world after agreeing to speak at a gathering of never-Trump conservatives the week after the election.
McGahn is set to join a Nov. 13 panel hosted by the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by vocal anti-Trump lawyers like George Conway, retired federal appellate judge Michael Luttig and former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), all of whom have all labeled Trump a danger to the republic.
Asked about the appearance, McGahn said via email that he was “just doing a panel” and called it an “academic” event. He didn’t directly address a question about who he’s supporting in the presidential race, but suggested that the meeting’s organizers are likely to be unhappy with the outcome of the election.
“I think those folks in that camp will be disappointed next week, whereas I’m feeling alright right now,” McGahn said.
The society’s executive director, Gregg Nunziata, confirmed that McGahn is set to speak alongside former White House counsels Bob Bauer, who worked under Barack Obama, and Alberto Gonzales, a Bush-era administration official and former attorney general who recently endorsed Harris….