Interesting story in The Verve. “’It’s essentially a way for [Zuckerberg] to spend the company’s money on his political choices, whereas at a company like Google, there’s not a single person who’s a majority shareholder who can dictate what the company does,’” Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor specializing in election law, told The Verge. “’It’s interesting, because Zuckerberg could just spend his own personal money to do this. But instead, he’s doing it through the company.’ …

“But Zuckerberg could also play a role in state elections with implications far beyond tech. In November, Californians will vote on whether to redraw California’s congressional map to add five more Democrat districts — a direct response to Texas Republicans redrawing their own map to gain a five-vote advantage in the House of Representatives. And next year, with Newsom ineligible to run for reelection due to term limits, Californians will have to vote for a new governor — a person that any tech corporation, Meta included, would love to directly influence.

“’It doesn’t mean [Zuckerberg has] made the choice” to do that, Hasen added. “But since he controls the company, if [a super PAC] is something he didn’t want to do, I’m sure they wouldn’t be doing it.’”

AP reports. DOJ claims that the states are violating the NVRA, HAVA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Both states are vigorously opposing DOJ’s efforts to get access to the state’s unredacted voter registration database, citing privacy concerns. This is a lawsuit worth watching.

At NYU’s Democracy Project, Professor Wojciech Sadurski, Challis Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney and Professor at the University of Warsaw Center for Europe, has an important essay on the struggle of how democrats should respond, once back in power, to the institutional remnants of authoritarian regimes. An issue worth reflecting on.

Some excerpts:

What happens when authoritarian populists lose to their democratic opponents in democratic elections? A process of restoration of democracy and the rule of law, following the best international practices, will take place, you might say.

Much easier said than done. Especially when the populists have deeply undermined the fundamental institutions of democracy, such as legislative processes, the separation of powers, the system of justice, and public prosecution. The process of reform is arduous and lengthy; rather than a broad highway with clear signposts, it is a narrow, bumpy country road, with no signs indicating the destination, and plenty of potholes along the way. Or to change the metaphor, a minefield left by the former incumbents to their democratic successors. Or, to change the metaphor once again, a Sisyphean democracy….

The answer seems to be obvious – however, it is anything but. If the rule of law is understood as faithful, strict compliance by the authorities with the language of all the statutes in force, then the call for compliance with the rule of law equals a recipe for paralysis. It is how a Sisyphean democracy was supposed to work, as envisioned by the populist predecessors. On the other hand, disregarding the legal provisions in force subjects the democratic government to the predictable accusation, both by local rule-of-law NGOs and the international community (in Europe, the Venice Commission in particular), that their successors are simply replicating the infamous practices of the populists, except this time against them.

Poland is currently grappling with this issue. The essay concludes:

How Polish democrats will handle the dilemma just outlined, against all odds, is likely to carry important lessons for democratic forces engaged (today and in the future) in post-populist transitions elsewhere in the world.

Wall Street Journal editorial. It begins: “Is a basic understanding of the First Amendment too much to expect from the nation’s Attorney General?”

The Wall Street Journal reports. The article points out that Trump has already endorsed Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s opponent for the Republican nomination, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones. The state AG, Chris Carr, is also in the race for the GOP nomination. Georgia law requires a runoff in the GOP primary if no candidate initially wins a majority of the vote.

POLITICO has a story that is mostly about Bondi but what it says about Trump struck me as most significant. It begins with Bondi:

“Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday appeared to walk back comments promising to target broadly defined “hate speech” following the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, after facing significant backlash from both conservative and liberal circles over her threat to curb free speech.”

But this is what it says about Trump:

“Asked by reporters about the attorney general’s remarks Tuesday, Trump returned to a suggestion he has previously floated — that members of the media should be targeted for their coverage of his administration — which he claimed was ‘hate.’”

“’We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart,’ Trump said, responding to a question from ABC’s Jonathan Karl.”