Monthly Archives: January 2024

Amicus brief of former GOP members of Congress in the Trump-Colorado case

A dozen former Republican members of Congress have submitted an amicus brief in support of respondents, urging the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson to affirm the disqualification of Trump. Although the brief submitted on behalf of Ben Ginsberg, Rick Hasen, and me did not take a position on the merits of the disqualification issue (and thus was in support of neither party), there is a significant overlap between our brief and one aspect of this one. These former members of Congress argue forcefully that if the Court were to punt the merits of the disqualification issue to Congress, for potential resolution at the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2025, it would “invite another insurrection” (as the brief’s heading of its fourth point explicitly puts it).

Here are some portions of the brief that I highlighted on this point:

“Trump’s argument that Section 3 may be enforced only after the election and only by Congress is not only legally wrong but also dangerous. If the Court accepts Trump’s argument, Congress would be faced with the choice of disenfranchising millions of voters shortly after an election with limited process protections or allowing an insurrectionist to assume the most powerful office in our nation. Chaos would only be the beginning of what would come next.” (Page 22.)

“Requiring post-election enforcement has no basis in law and would gratuitously thrust the country into a historically unprecedented situation where the rules of the road are gravely unclear. Inviting this kind of chaos into our political system, in the election immediately after one marred by insurrection, runs the risk of eroding a fragmented public’s trust in the electorate process, in one another, and in the institution of U.S. democracy.” (Page 23.)

“[A]s former members of Congress, amici believe that, in asking for post-election enforcement of the Section 3 disqualification clause, Trump is attempting to back Congress into a corner where enforcement of the Constitution against him seems untenable. For the sake of our democracy, this Court should not allow Trump to force Congress into such a precarious position.” (Page 24.)

“Post-election enforcement of the Section 3 disqualification clause would seem like an act of political retribution to the ordinary American. And, to a lay voter, the semantics of constitutional interpretation would not outweigh the seemingly contradictory fact that a candidate who has been platformed for months as legitimate is suddenly barred from assuming office. Public resentment at this seeming erosion of the democratic process would only be propelled by the vitriol of a candidate who has already shown himself capable of violence against our democratic system. This is the perfect recipe for a repeat of January 6.” (Pages 24-25.)

“One can only conclude that if Congress is tasked with deciding Trump’s political fate after an election, he will not hesitate to turn his sights, and his mob, on Congress once more. The ongoing threats of violence and intimidation against political opponents emanating from Trump only heightens the necessity of pre-election enforcement to the perceived legitimacy of the American political process.” (Pages 25-26.)

Given that our brief also warned of the risks to political stability if Congress were to consider disqualifying Trump on January 6, 2025, I hope that the Court heeds this additional warning, which comes from individuals with special insight regarding the stakes involved.

Share this:

Weiser & Wolf: “Responding to Trump’s Moore/Independent State Legislature Theory Claim in Trump v. Anderson”

The following is a guest post from Wendy Weiser and Tom Wolf of the Brennan Center:

At the end of his merits brief in Trump v. Anderson, Trump argues that the Colorado Supreme Court violated the federal Electors Clause when it barred him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The argument is easy to miss: It’s the fifth of the brief’s five major arguments and only about four pages long, adding to its tacked-on, long-shot feel. It’s radical nonetheless. Trump is effectively trying to relitigate Moore v. Harper—which the U.S. Supreme Court decided just last term—via a call to the Justices to override a state high court’s straightforward interpretation of its own state’s statutory election code.

As regular ELB readers and Court watchers know, Moore affirmed that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause doesn’t give state legislatures carte blanche to set the rules for federal elections. Instead, they’re bound by the same state law systems of checks and balances that bind them when they make all other kinds of rules.

Trump is asking the Court to use Moore to undo the Colorado Supreme Court’s rulings on state statutory law. His ostensible hook is Moore’s language holding out the possibility of federal review when a state court “transgress[es] the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that [it] arrogate[s] to [itself] the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.” Of course, the facts underlying Trump v. Anderson – an alleged insurrection by a former president and current presidential candidate – and the underlying Fourteenth Amendment claims to bar him from the ballot are extraordinary.  But there’s nothing extraordinary about the Colorado high court’s decision-making process on the state law points that draw Trump’s fire (concerning the duties of the secretary of state regarding candidate qualifications): It’s all standard statutory interpretation, using canons of construction and other rules of thumb that are part of every court’s toolkit.

The gist of Trump’s argument is that Moore transformed the U.S. Supreme Court into a super-court with the power to review de novo all state court rulings on state law matters concerning federal elections.

Of course, that’s not what Moore did. To the contrary, in affirming that state law checks-and-balances apply to state legislatures, Moore emphasized the importance of state court review and reasserted the supremacy of state courts on matters of state law within our federalist system. The Supreme Court made clear that courts doing the work courts ordinarily do is simply the constitutional status quo and shouldn’t raise Elections Clause concerns for federal courts. To the extent that Moore gives federal courts anything to police, it’s only extraordinary behavior that amounts to a violation of the judicial role. That’s an extremely narrow aperture for federal intervention into state law disputes, if it’s any at all. Moore just isn’t the blank check for de novo federal court review of state court rulings that Trump wants it to be.

It also can’t be. A legion of amicus briefs filed in Moore v. Harper really hammered home that any ruling that would strip away state court checks on state legislative activity would wreak havoc with the elections system. For a sampling, see briefs from folks like Rick, Ben Ginsberg, the League of Women Voters, bipartisan groups of election officials, and our Brennan Center team.  The dangers described in these briefs would become very real if the Court adopted Trump’s Electors Clause theory in Anderson; it’s just a zombie iteration of the so-called “independent state legislature theory.”

We don’t think the Court is going to head down the state law route to resolve Anderson. And—as we said in the amicus brief we filed in the case with our partners Protect Democracy, Campaign Legal Center, and the League of Women Voters and our law firm counsel, Jenner & Block—we don’t take a position on how the Court should ultimately decide, or for whom. But ahead of this year’s elections, we think it’s important to beat back any attempts to revive the misguided and dangerous independent state legislature theory. We cannot afford the chaos that would ensue.

Share this:

W & L Symposium: “Voting in a Politically Polarized Era”

So sorry I’ll have to miss this:

On Friday, February 16, the Washington and Lee Law Review will host the 2024 Lara D. Gass Symposium, entitled “Voting Rights in a Politically Polarized Era.”  This Symposium will explore various issues related to voting rights and election-related litigation in federal and state court, organized around the following four topics:  the Future of the Voting Rights Act; Litigating Voting Rights; Remedies for Voting Rights Violations; and Current Issues in Election Administration and Voter Suppression.  The keynote speaker for the Symposium is Deuel Ross, Deputy Director of Litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., who led the litigation team and successfully argued Allen v. Milligan (2023) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Confirmed participants in the Symposium include (in alphabetical order):

  • Prof. Hank Chambers (Richmond Law)
  • Prof. Wilfred Codrington III (Brooklyn Law)
  • Prof. Travis Crum (Washington University in St. Louis Law)
  • Prof. Gilda Daniels (Baltimore Law)
  • Prof. Josh Douglas (Kentucky Law)
  • Prof. Rebecca Green (William & Mary Law)
  • Prof. Ruth Greenwood (Director, Election Law Clinic, Harvard Law)
  • Mr. Ernest Herrera (Western Regional Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund)
  • Mr. Caleb Jackson (Counsel, Sen. Laphonza Butler, Senate Judiciary Committee)
  • Ms. Danielle Lang (Senior Director, Voting Rights, Campaign Legal Center)
  • Ms. Sica Matsuda (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
  • Ms. Terry Ao Minnis (Vice President of Census and Voting Programs, Asian Americans Advancing Justice)
  • Prof. Michael Morley (Florida State Law)
  • Prof. Spencer Overton (GW Law)
  • Prof. Bertrall Ross (UVA Law)
  • Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulous (Harvard Law)
  • Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (Stetson Law)

This event is open to the public and will be held in W&L Law’s Moot Court Room.  We’d welcome any members of the election law community who would like to attend.  For questions regarding the event, please contact Alexis Smith, the Law Review’s Symposium Editor, at [email protected], or the Symposium’s faculty co-sponsors, Chris Seaman ([email protected]) and Maureen Edobor ([email protected]).

Share this:

Josh Douglas: “Democracy Optimist”

Josh passes along the following:

ELB readers may be interested to learn about my new radio series and podcast, Democracy Optimist, which is available on all of the podcast platforms and will air on NPR stations in Kentucky. 

Democracy Optimist is a thought-provoking public radio series and podcast that delves deep into the heart of democratic processes, elections, and voting rights to ask a simple but vital question: how do we sustain our democracy?  The series is hosted by University of Kentucky Election Law research professor Joshua Douglas, a passionate advocate for civic engagement, and produced by WEKU under the auspices of the Eastern Standard production team. From candid conversations with experts to engaging interviews with everyday champions of democracy, each episode offers a fresh perspective on the challenges and triumphs of the democratic process. Good news on voting rights is possible—if we take seriously the need to protect our democracy. We aim to amplify the diverse voices shaping our political landscape and seek to inspire informed, empowered citizens. 

The first episode, available now on the podcast platforms and airing on the radio later this week, features interviews with Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams. We also include an “election law of the day”; a “fun election fact”; and “one thing you can do to support democracy.”

You can learn more about Democracy Optimist here: https://esweku.org/democracy-optimist

Share this:

“Prosecutor on Trump Georgia Case Avoids Testifying in Divorce Proceeding”

NYT:

The special prosecutor leading the election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump will not have to testify this week about an alleged romantic relationship with his boss, Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, after reaching a temporary agreement in his divorce case on Tuesday.

The agreement between the special prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade, and his wife, Joycelyn Wade, leaves unanswered for the time being a question that has created potential peril for Ms. Willis’s high-profile prosecution of Mr. Trump and 14 of his allies.

Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade, a lawyer in private practice, in 2021 to help run the Trump case, saying that she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job. But a filing three weeks ago from one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Michael Roman, claimed that the two prosecutors were romantically involved and had taken vacations paid for by Mr. Wade.

Mr. Roman argues that this amounts to a conflict of interest, and is grounds for removing both prosecutors, as well as Ms. Willis’s entire office, from the case.

Share this:

“Bill targeting college IDs clears Kentucky Senate in effort to revise voter identification law”

AP:

 College-issued student ID cards won’t carry the same weight as a form of photo identification at polling places if a bill that advanced Tuesday in Kentucky’s legislature becomes law.

The Senate voted to revise the state’s voter identification law by removing those student IDs from the list of primary documents to verify a voter’s identity.

Senate Bill 80 — which would still allow those student IDs as a secondary form of identification — won Senate passage on a 27-7 vote and heads to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.

Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams, a key supporter of the state’s 2020 voter ID law, has expressed opposition to the new legislation.

Supporters of the bill insist that the change would be no impediment to students’ ability to vote.

Share this:

Presidential Elections, “Survivor”-style

As we watch this year’s presidential election develop, which is heading to the Biden-Trump rematch that most Americans don’t want, we should be thinking imaginatively of better ways to elect a president–ones that would let voters elect the candidate a majority of them most want to win. A new Common Ground Democracy column explores one such possibility, based on a format familiar to Americans from a popular TV show. Also, borrowing the idea of pooling electoral votes among states that collectively have at least 270 of them, this alternative electoral method could be adopted without needing a constitutional amendment. Ask yourself: would we really prefer keeping on using the current method rather than switching to this one? And if this reform proposal is not the best one to pursue for the sake of overcoming as quickly as possible the tribal polarization that is crippling American democracy, what would be a better idea?

Share this:

“Some Minnesota corporations quietly resume donations to election disputers”

Star Tribune:

In the aftermath of the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, many of Minnesota’s largest corporations publicly announced they were pausing campaign donations to all members of Congress, including those who joined Donald Trump’s push to block the certification of the 2020 election.

In the months and years that followed, most have quietly resumed donating to politicians who voted to overturn the results.

At least eight big companies with headquarters in Minnesota — including UnitedHealth Group, Target, U.S. Bancorp and Cargill — that initially suspended donations have since resumed contributions and have given more than $400,000 directly to the campaigns of members of Congress who disputed Joe Biden’s victory, according to a Star Tribune analysis of thousands of donations and Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

“They’ve quietly picked it back up,” said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, which advises corporations on responsible donations. “They’ve reverted to spending as usual, and they are engaging in spending for access.”

Share this:

“Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal Expenses in 2023”

NYT:

Donald J. Trump piled up legal expenses in 2023 as he was indicted four times, spending approximately $50 million in donor money on legal bills and investigation-related expenses last year, according to two people briefed on the figure.

It is a staggering sum. His lone remaining rival in the 2024 Republican primary, Nikki Haley, raised roughly the same amount of money across all her committees in the last year as Mr. Trump’s political accounts spent paying the bills stemming from his various legal defenses, including lawyers for witnesses….

Mr. Trump, who has long been loath to pay lawyers himself and has a history of stiffing those who represent him, has used funds in his political action committee, known as Save America, to underwrite his legal bills. The account was originally flooded with donations that were collected during the period immediately after the 2020 election when he was making widespread and false claims of voting fraud.

But with Save America’s coffers nearly drained last year, Mr. Trump sought to refill them through a highly unusual transaction: He asked for a refund of $60 million that he had initially transferred to a different group, a pro-Trump super PAC called MAGA Inc., to support his 2024 campaign.

In addition, Mr. Trump has been directing 10 percent of donations raised online to Save America, meaning 10 cents of every dollar he has received from supporters is going to a PAC that chiefly funds his lawyers.

Mr. Trump has paid legal expenses through both Save America and a second account, called the Make America Great Again PAC, which is an outgrowth of his 2020 re-election committee. In the first half of 2023, Save America transferred $5.85 million to the Make America Great Again PAC, which spent almost all of that sum on legal and investigation-related costs.

Share this:

Full Eighth Circuit, Over 3 Dissenting Judges, Won’t Rehear Case That Would End Most Cases Brought Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

The court’s decision not to grant rehearing en banc, a concurrence by Judge Stras, and a dissent by Judge Colloton, is here. The original panel decision held that Section 2 of the VRA contains no private right of action, which I’ve explained would essentially kill of much of the section (because DOJ brings very few suits). I fully expect the Supreme Court to take this case, given its importance and given how every wrong it is as a matter of text, legislative history, congressional intent, and justice.

But I would note a major potential concession (and potentially easy way around the ruling) by Judge Stras: “It may well turn out that private plaintiffs can sue to enforce § 2 of the Voting
Rights Act under § 1983.”

How stingy and uncharitable for Judge Stras and the rest of the majority not to send this case back to the district court to see if a case could properly be pleaded under section 1983, and not put the Voting Rights Act through tremendous stress unnecessarily yet again.

Share this:

“‘Serious consequences’: Company warns Johnson County sheriff over election investigation”

KC Star:

The election software company at the center of Johnson County Sheriff Calvin Hayden’s long-running elections investigation hit back on Monday, warning the sheriff that a baseless investigation results in “serious consequences.”

“I fully recognize that Sheriff Hayden has placed himself and his department in the awkward position of conducting a baseless investigation for the past several years into nonexistent election fraud in Johnson County,” attorney Rick Guinn, representing the company Konnech Inc. and its CEO Eugene Yu, wrote in a Jan. 29 letter to Hayden obtained by The Star.

“Sheriff Hayden should be very careful about making public statements concerning Konnech and Mr. Yu to somehow justify his obvious waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Guinn sent the letter to Hayden less than a week after Los Angeles County agreed to pay $5 million to Yu, who sued over civil rights violations after he was arrested there in 2022 on accusations that he illegally stored poll worker data in China. The case was dropped a few weeks later, with the district attorney citing “potential bias” in the investigation.

The attorney wrote in Monday’s letter that the multi-million settlement “should send a strong message to Sheriff Hayden of the serious consequences that result from a baseless investigation into nonexistent election fraud.”

Through his office’s spokesperson, Hayden declined to comment on Monday.

Hayden, a Republican, faces re-election this year if he chooses to run. He has so far not filed for reelection but his office has indicated he plans to do so. He would face a primary challenge from Doug Bedford, a former undersheriff, in the race that so far has drawn one Democratic candidate, Prairie Village Police Chief Byron Roberson.

Yu, the Chinese-American founder of the Michigan-based company, sued L.A. County and its district attorney’s office in September. His lawyers said in a news release that Yu was subjected to a wrongful, “politically motivated arrest” that was “based solely on utterly false conspiracy theories about Chinese election interference espoused by discredited, far-right extremists.”

Yu’s arrest in Los Angeles fueled right-wing conspiracies of election fraud across the country. And it propelled Hayden’s ongoing elections investigation in Johnson County, which afterward stopped using Konnech in 2022. Johnson County had used the software only to help manage election workers; the program had nothing to do with voting or voting information.

Share this:

Feb. 6 Safeguarding Democracy Project Webinar: “What Can We Do to Have a Fair and Safe Election in 2024?”

I’m very much looking forward to this event (free registration required):

February 6, 12pm – 1pm What Can We Do to Have a Fair and Safe Election in 2024?

Webinar Register here 

Renee DiResta (Stanford Internet Observatory), Kate Klonick (St John’s University Law School), Charles Stewart III (MIT), and Kim Wyman (Bipartisan Policy Center)

Moderated by Richard L. Hasen, Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project

Share this: