New updated edition of BALLOT BATTLES now available

Uncategorized

Oxford University Press has published a revised and expanded edition of Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States. It’s also available in a Kindle version for those, like me, who prefer to read (and highlight) electronic copies.

The first edition of Ballot Battles was released in December of 2015, before Trump emerged as the transformative force in American politics that he has since become. (Although my son told me in the summer of 2015 that Trump would win the 2016 election, I did not believe him. When Trump said that John McCain was “not a war hero” and that he only “like[d] people who were not captured,” as he did in July of 2015, I assumed he had no chance of winning the presidency and could be crossed off the long list of Republican contenders at the time. How wrong was I, as were many others!) I’ve been extremely gratified by the first edition’s reception, including the honor of being a finalist for the Langum Prize for books in American legal history.

This second edition of Ballot Battles brings the nation’s experience with disputed elections up to date, with a new chapter focusing on Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat in 2020. In addition, the book’s Introduction and Conclusion have been thoroughly revised in light of the significance that Trump’s evidence-free denial of Biden’s victory has in relation to all previous disputes over the outcome of elections in the nation’s history. Likewise, other chapters have been revised insofar as discussion and analysis of them benefit from comparisons to Trump’s behavior in 2020.

Although I certainly hope that the results of this year’s elections are undisputed in any significant way, to the extent that any of them are–especially the presidential election–or to the extent that anyone wishes to prepare for that possibility in advance, I hope that the availability of this new edition now provides a useful service.

Share this:

[BREAKING] Hunter Biden guilty on federal gun charges

felon voting

A Delaware jury has just found Hunter Biden guilty on three federal gun charges. This was the first federal criminal trial involving the child of a sitting President.

Like former President Trump, I believe that Hunter will lose his voting rights only if actually incarcerated for the crime. I think Hunter is still a California resident, and California law suspends voting rights only for those actually serving time in prison for a felony conviction.

Share this:

“With a Democrat’s Help, the F.E.C. Goes From Deadlock to Deregulation”

campaign finance, federal election commission, political polarization

There’s a lot to drive discussion in this NYT piece on the FEC and Commissioner Lindenbaum’s role in a recent series of votes.  (Disclosure: I was serving at the White House when Commissioner Lindenbaum was nominated.)

I haven’t had the chance to dig into the substance of the specific rulings highlighted in the piece, including the recent advisory opinions (and including the important AO on canvassing and coordination that Ned and Rick flagged a little over a month ago).  I tend to think that some of the critique of commission action and inaction is sometimes directed at the desire to change laws or regs rather than working with what the regs actually say, and I’d want to actually read the underlying legal materials before opining on the policy decisions.

The piece does highlight that “Ms. Lindenbaum’s work in the trenches of campaigns, where lawyers sort through the law’s gray areas to decide what can and cannot be done, that her supporters and detractors alike say has informed her thinking.”  And I agree with the profoundly informative nature of that experience.

The piece also highlights Marc Elias’s role in the series of recent votes: “One surprising thread through many of Ms. Lindenbaum’s most consequential decisions is that they were sought by Mr. Elias, who has become the face of voting-rights litigation on the left.”  But I think that thread may only be surprising if you’re the type to anoint someone as the “face of voting-rights litigation” for a diverse and hazily defined coalition of millions of voters with a whole lot of distinct voting-rights interests.  (The unrelenting focus of American political reporting on branding star personalities is not the only way to understand policy decisions or present narrative.)  Lawyers bring matters forward for a lot of reasons, including the interests of their clients and/or funders.

Share this:

“Kentucky Supreme Court disqualifies Kulkarni in state House race”

primaries

Ooooof.  An incumbent Democratic state representative was disqualified, because candidacy papers had to be witnessed by two Democrats … but one witness was registered as a Republican and changed her registration after the deadline.  (The representative testified that she thought both witnesses were Democrats.) 

That was the pre-election decision by the state court of appeals, but the courts allowed her to compete in the primary as her case went up to the state supreme court — and in the primary, she shellacked her opponent.  Then the state supreme court affirmed the disqualification.  There was no opposition for the general election.  And now, with no qualified candidate, there will likely have to be a special election, but there are apparently limitations on the incumbent’s ability to compete in that election not that she’s been disqualified. 

Hard to see how any of this serves the voters of the district.

Share this:

“Millions of Americans Don’t Have Documents Proving Their Citizenship Readily Available”

Uncategorized

The Brennan Center, VoteRiders, U. Maryland’s Center for Civic Democracy and Engagement, and Public Wise are out today with an update on the 2006 study of citizens without ready access to documentation of that citizenship.  Turns out we don’t all emerge from the womb with paperwork.

NPR has more.

(Disclosure: I helped with the 2006 version, and I’m delighted to see more up-to-date research.)

Share this: