Op-ed in Time by Hannah Fried, executive director of All Voting is Local.

My month-long fellowship at the University of Melbourne this summer taught me, among many other things, that if voting is compulsory–as it is in Australia–then there is no reason for political parties to fight over voting rules to secure any kind of relative turnout advantage. Compulsory voting also has the advantage of focusing on voting as a civic obligation and not just a civic right. Obviously, however, compulsory voting is not a reform coming to America any time soon.

The Ninth Circuit today issued a ruling with two parts: (1) it reversed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the “Canvass Provision” of the Arizona Secretary of State’s Election Manual , which states: “If the official canvass of any county has not been received by this deadline, the Secretary of State must proceed with the state canvass without including the votes of the missing county,” thereby vacating the district court’s injunction against that provision; and (2) affirmed the district court’s injunction against the “Speech Provision” of the manual, which prohibited “[a]ny activity by a person with the intent or effect of threatening, harassing, intimidating, or coercing voters (or conspiring with others to do so) inside or outside the 75-foot limit at a voting location,” after concluding that plaintiffs had standing to challenge that provision.

A new paper by Ryan Claassen and Michael Easley with this abstract:

The voting wars rank among the most rancorous and active partisan battles in an era defined by extreme partisan animus. The current battle lines formed decades ago, but neither party has a monopoly on protecting voting rights or preventing fraud. Instead we theorize partisan positions in voting wars reflect beliefs about assembling winning coalitions. Sometimes elections are won by turning out supporters and sometimes elections are won by preventing opponents from voting. Which brings us to the current conventional wisdom about turnout: the Democrats would win if everyone voted. The turnout myth is as strong as it is flawed and we investigate whether it is at the heart of the current voting wars. The turnout myth has received extensive scholarly attention, but public belief in the myth has never been examined nor has its role in public attitudes about restrictive voting laws. Toward that end we fielded a series of surveys with new measures of belief in the turnout myth. We find that Democrats’ turnout myth beliefs shape their positions on restrictive voting laws, but Republican support for restrictive voting rules is dominated by beliefs that voting fraud is a major problem. In addition to beliefs having different effects, further analyses reveal vast partisan differences in beliefs as well. Protecting the integrity of American elections will require finding common cause among partisans with very different beliefs and motivations.

Discussing vote-by-mail (not surprisingly, given Paul’s expertise on the topic).

Nick Corasaniti in The NY Times on the retention elections for three seats held by Democrats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: “What’s at stake is nothing less than control of the highest court in the most important swing state in the country.”

I would point out that previous rulings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, including in 2020, raised suspicions on judicial overreaching among SCOTUS members and potentially provoked invocation of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, which eventually led to Moore v. Harper. If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were to stray too far in its interpretation of relevant state laws, including the state’s constitution, in 2028, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a majority of SCOTUS intervening based upon the standard it announced in Moore v. Harper.

It’s not exactly election law news, narrowly defined, but it seems significant enough to worth noting: Trump has filed a Florida state-law defamation complaint against the New York Times, several of its star reporters, and also Penguin Random House and… Continue reading

I’m looking forward to listening to this Odd Years podcast, given David Wasserman’s unsurpassed expertise on congressional redistricting.

ABC4 [Salt Lake City] reports, stating that the state supreme court’s order “means that unless another stay is granted, presumably by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Utah Legislature will need to draw new congressional maps by September 25.” I’m… Continue reading

The Guardian reports. I doubt that defying court orders is the best way to combat election denialism. The story discusses Democrats in Georgia who were found in contempt of court for refusing to appoint Republican election commissioners on the ground… Continue reading

I will be at the O’Connell conference. Details here.

I’ve posted this new article on SSRN. Here’s the abstract: This essay, a contribution to the Ohio State Law Journal symposium on the important new book Aligning Election Law by Nicholas Stephanopoulos, addresses the value of the alignment principle for… Continue reading

In our first week, we published three additional essays with views on several ways to address the toxic political culture of our era, in addition to Randy Kennedy’s essay excerpted earlier here entitled: NOT By Any Means Necessary. From John … Continue reading

Courthouse News Service (via Electionline).