CA: “Gavin Newsom signs election ‘deepfake’ ban in rebuke to Elon Musk” (I Think It’s Likely Unconstitutional)

Politico:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the country’s toughest law banning digitally altered political “deepfakes” on Tuesday, following through on a vow to act after rebuking Elon Musk for sharing a doctored video of Vice President Kamala Harris.

The new California law — which will take effect before the November election — channels rising alarm about artificial intelligence’s capacity to disrupt elections by sowing misinformation, with voters increasingly confronted with deepfake images and audio impersonating candidates. Musk, who owns X, stoked that debate when he shared the AI-altered video of Harris in July, drawing Newsom’s public promise to prohibit similar practices.

I have strong concerns that this law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (In my book Cheap Speech, I talk about laws that require labeling of deepfakes that I do believe are consistent with the First Amendment, but this law does not follow my suggested model and requires government officials to decide what “parody” or “satire” is.)

Share this:

“Court may decide if Arizonans with missing citizenship records can vote in state races”

WaPo:

A key election official in Arizona’s Maricopa County plans to ask the state’s highest court as early as Tuesday to prohibitnearly 100,000 longtime residents from voting in state and local races this fall after discovering the state has no record of asking them for documents proving their citizenship.

Like other states, Arizona requires voters to swear that they are citizens when they register to vote. But for 20 years, Arizona law has gone further and required residents to show birth certificates, naturalization papers or other documents proving citizenship to vote in state and local elections.

At issue is a pool of voters who county and state officials have no record of submitting those documents. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) said the vast majority are likely longtime citizens who are eligible to vote in all races. He said more are registered as Republicans than as Democrats.

No matter how the court rules, the voters can provide the necessary documentation before Election Day and receive a full ballot.

While the group is a small fragment of the 4.1 million registered to vote in Arizona — and the issue will not affect federal races like the presidential contest or Arizona’s hotly contested race for the U.S. Senate — they could be decisive in close statehouse races, elections for countywide seats or a ballot measure that will decide the extent of access to abortion.

The lawsuit could also injecta new element of chaos into the presidential election in a battleground state just a month and a half before Election Day because of how it could be rhetorically used by former president Donald Trump and his allies. The lawsuit, to bebrought by the Republican county recorder who helps run elections, will ask the Arizona Supreme Court to act with lightning speed. County elections officials planned to mail ballots to military and overseas voters on Thursday….

“I have always told the truth, and we uncovered what is a design system flaw,” saidMaricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer (R), who plans to file the lawsuit. “That means that this pool of people who we thought had documented proof of citizenship on file with the motor vehicle division does not necessarily have documented proof of citizenship on file. So, therefore, we did what we thought was the only morally responsible thing, and we disclosed that.”

Share this:

“Elon Musk has often inflamed politically tense moments, raising worries for the US election”

AP:

Hours after an apparent attempt on Donald Trump’s life over the weekend, Elon Musk took to his social platform X to post a thinking emoji and a comment that “no one is even trying to assassinate” the Democratic president and vice president.

In the midst of anti-Muslim riots in the U.K. — which were ginned up by a false rumor — Musk declared that “civil war is inevitable” in the country.

And when an anonymous X user distorted data to claim a surge in sketchy voter registrations in three U.S. states, Musk amplified the false post and called it “extremely concerning.”

All three posts sparked quick backlash from public officials who called Musk’s words irresponsible and misleading. As his words amass millions of views and thousands of shares, they also illustrate the ability of one of the world’s most influential people to spread fear, hate and misinformation during fraught political moments around the world. That’s especially true because he owns the social platform that used to be Twitter, giving Musk the authority to shape how its content reaches users.

Musk’s inaccurate posts to his 200 million followers along with his site’s lack of guardrails are raising concerns about how he could manipulate public trust as Election Day in the U.S. draws nearer. He recently endorsed Trump’s presidential bid and has become more personally invested in politics — even agreeing to lead a government efficiency commission if Trump wins reelection….

Share this:

“Suspicious packages sent to election officials in at least 6 states”

ABC News:

Suspicious packages were sent to election officials in at least six states on Monday, but there were no reports that any of the packages contained hazardous material.

Powder-containing packages were sent to secretaries of state and state election offices in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Wyoming and Oklahoma, officials in those states confirmed. The FBI and U.S. Postal Service were investigating. It marked the second time in the past year that suspicious packages were mailed to election officials in multiple state offices.

The latest scare comes as early voting has begun in several states less than two months ahead of the high-stakes elections for president, Senate, Congress and key statehouse offices around the nation, causing disruption in what is already a tense voting season.

Share this:

“The other Jan. 6 Democrats are worried about”

Politico, expressing what I’ve also had as my biggest concern about the 2024 elections:

Democrats have spent much of the 2024 campaign reminding Americans of what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. But on Capitol Hill, some are already growing concerned about Jan. 6, 2025.

They are hoping that Kamala Harris will win in November and they’ll flip the House, too — meaning it would likely be Hakeem Jeffries holding the speaker’s gavel as the process of certifying a Harris victory gets underway.

But it’s another scenario that is nagging top House Democrats — that Speaker Mike Johnson might keep his majority as Harris wins and find himself in a position where he could obstruct the counting of electoral votes and possibly throw the election to the House under the constitutional provisions of the 12th Amendment.

Johnson, after all, led House Republicans in filing an amicus brief after the 2020 election asking the Supreme Court to essentially overturn swing-state results, an effort personally blessed by Donald Trump. Now, he’s leading a charge suggesting that undocumented immigrants are voting en masse in what Democrats view as a coordinated effort to sow doubt in the election and lay the groundwork for mischief….

Other Republicans close with Johnson told us they doubted the speaker would succumb to Trump’s wishes so easily. They noted he withstood MAGA pressure on Ukraine funding, and they drew a distinction between writing a legal brief as a back-bencher and moving to overturn the will of voters as a constitutional officer.

Other roadblocks are in place, as well: For one, it will be Harris, as vice president, who will actually preside over the certification of electoral votes, as Mike Pence famously did in 2021. And under a 2022 rewrite of the Electoral Count Act, the law governing the process, it’s now much harder to object to the counting of votes. Rather than a single member, it now requires 20 percent of each chamber to proceed with an objection.

Yet Democrats are still fearful, fretting over unresolved ambiguities in the Constitution and in the law surrounding the certification process, as well as the fact that Johnson could be in charge for Republicans come Jan. 6.

They fear his constitutional-law background, conservative movement bona fides and aw-shucks demeanor could make him uniquely formidable in a contested-election scenario — sharp enough to come up with novel legal arguments that could throw the election to the House and savvy enough to get his members on board.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Democratic constitutional law expert who tangled with Johnson over his 2020 brief, paraphrased the ancient Greek poet Hesiod: “He has the muses say something like, ‘We know how to tell the truth when we want to tell the truth. And when we want to tell lies, we know how to tell lies that seem like the truth.’ And that’s how I view Johnson’s jurisprudence.”

“He can state what the Constitution really says — and then he knows how to make polished arguments for Trump that are utterly false and would gut our constitutional system,” Raskin (D-Md.) said.

While Raskin and other Democrats were loath to speculate about how exactly Johnson and other Republicans could possibly wreak electoral havoc after voting is done, the following concerns have circulated on Capitol Hill…

Share this: