All of a sudden from @BartonGellman's excellent @TheAtlantic piece, people are learning that we only get to vote for President because state legislatures give voters that right, and they can take it away. The risk of this happening in 2020 is not new but also not likely. /1
Here's @mjs_DC writing about this issue in March, and I've picked up on this theme in a number of my writings about the risks of the election with extensive normbreaking and constitutional hardball. /2 slate.com/news-and-polit…
The fact that we don't have a direct right to vote for President in the Constitution is a travesty (just like the potential for faithless electors to change electoral outcomes). In the long run we need constitutional change. /3 nytimes.com/2020/06/29/opi…
But what about the short term risk that Republican legislators in key swing states would take away the right to vote for President and appoint electors directly? It's not a big risk (but it is still A risk) for a few reasons. /4
First, states have ALREADY started voting, and that means state legislatures have already chosen the "manner" for choosing presidential electors this season. I don't see how state legislators take it back now legally. /5
The play instead is more complex, and I lay it out in my @Slate piece yesterday. The argument of the legislatures would be that vote count is SO uncertain/marred by fraud that we don't know what the voters want so we are choosing electors directly. /6
This play may not work for a number of reasons. 1. Some states have Dem governors who would reject the move. There's a dispute what role governors play here, but better argument is they can veto (affecting a state like PA). See fn 13 of this article /7 liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.108…
2. Even in states with unified control like Florida, Florida legislators would incur the wrath of voters and national protests (and potential violence) for seeking to disenfranhchise voters in this way. And they'd be calling their own elections into question. /3
3. If state election officials say Biden won but Fla. legislature said they were sending their own slate of electors for Trump, this would potentially end up in Court, or in the (likely Democratic) House of Representatives, triggering not necessarily a Trump win but a crisis. /9
The bottom line: The Gellman scenario is extremely unlikely. But it's not impossible. And it is just one of many ways that the 2020 elections can go south (as described in that @slate piece). We are dealing with a low risk of a real catastrophe, and that deserves attention. 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Making a million dollar prize contingent on registering to vote is illegal. See 52 USC 10307(c) govinfo.gov/content/pkg/US… Also, with PA registration soon closing for this election it may not accomplish what Musk wants. x.com/hugolowell/sta…
The DOJ election crimes manual specifically mentions lotteries for voters as prohibited vote buying under that statute. . See pages 44-45justice.gov/criminal/file/…
Blog post at #ELB: Elon Musk Veers Into Clearly Illegal Vote Buying, Offering $1 Million Per Day Lottery Prize Only to Registered Voters electionlawblog.org/?p=146397
Rick Hasen’s Live Blog of the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument Over Trump’s Claim of Immunity in the Federal Election Subversion Case (Refresh this page frequently for updates) electionlawblog.org/?p=142644
Today under the auspices of @UCLA_Law #SafeguardingDemocracyProject, an ad hoc cross-ideological diverse committee has issued a major report: "24 for ’24: Urgent Recommendations in Law, Media, Politics, and Tech for Fair and Legitimate 2024 Elections." /1 law.ucla.edu/sites/default/…
Back in March, the UCLA Law Safeguarding Democracy Project held a conference, Can American Democracy Survive the 2024 Elections? /2law.ucla.edu/academics/cent…
Following the conference some of the participants met as an ad hoc committee to consider recommendations in law, politics, media, and tech for fair and legitimate elections in 2024. /3
About to be done producing free content for Elon here. Might just keep up automated tweets linking to blog posts. Find me @rickhasen@mastodon.online
Gonna need a lot of help here. Thank you all
I had started posting @rickhasen@mastodon.online yesterday and the posts were automatically coming here as tweets too thanks to the mastodon-twitter cross-poster. I've turned that off. So follow me over there if you want my content.
Garland has a lot of control over who gets appointed as special counsel. He can pick someone with integrity and respect on both sides of the aisle. And someone who can act quickly. He understands how Mueller faltered.
Garland also will have ultimate control over what happens. Better to appoint the counsel quickly, as it was inevitable that Trump was going to run for office and claim a witch hunt no matter what.
I do not believe anything in the RNC consent decree prevented the RNC from pursuing litigation over election rules.
There are other reasons by election litigation has exploded, nearly tripling in the period since Bush v. Gore in 2000.
A few explanations:
1. The 2000 election taught political operatives that in close elections, it may be possible to litigate to victory. That's especially true in a system that is decentralized and partisan, where there are lots of discretionary decisions to be made over how elections are run. /2
2. As @derektmuller has shown, recent changes in federal campaign finance law allow political parties to raise special funds for litigation. They have millions to spend, so why not sue over election rules? /3