ACSBlog

  • August 17, 2017

    by Franita Tolson, Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law

    Under the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”), states can remove an individual from the voter rolls if the person confirms, in writing, that he or she has moved, or if he or she has failed to respond to an address verification notice and has failed to vote in two consecutive federal elections.  52 U.S.C. 20507(d).  The NVRA is clear, however, that individuals cannot be removed solely for failing to vote.  52 U.S.C. 20507(b)(2). At issue in A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted, which will be argued this fall before the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether a state can use a person’s failure to vote as a trigger to send the address verification notice required by section 20507(d).  Under 20507(c), states are free to contract the post office to obtain the names of those individuals who have filed a change of address form and then send notices to those individuals.  In addition to obtaining names from the post office, Ohio also sends notices to those voters who have not engaged in any “voter activity” for two years, such as filing an address change on a voter registration card or with a state agency, or voting, either provisionally, through an absentee ballot, or in person on election day.

  • August 16, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Mark Rumold

    *This piece was originally posted on EFF.org

    We’ve already written about problems with the government’s investigation into the J20 protests—a series of demonstrations on January 20, the day of President Trump’s inauguration—which resulted in the arrest of hundreds of protesters.

    But prosecutors in DC are still at it. And they’re still using unconstitutional methods to pursue their investigation.

  • August 16, 2017

    by Caroline Fredrickson

    Over the past few days, Trump succeeded in uniting much of the nation against himself.

    On Saturday at the “Unite the Right” rally, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke told a reporter that the event would allow participants to “fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.” Echoing that sentiment, an armed militia – some wearing the president’s “Make America Great Again” hats – marched in Charlottesville, later leaving one dead and 19 injured.

  • August 16, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Dan Froomkin

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog symposium: The Department of Injustice

    Over the summer, Donald Trump’s political combativeness and anti-regulatory zeal have increasingly made their way into legal filings by the Department of Justice that represent dramatic reversals from the Obama era.

    The department’s starkest and most politically motivated reversal came in a case about how voters are purged from voting lists in Ohio, a crucial swing state.

  • August 15, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Dan Froomkin

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog symposium: The Department of Injustice

    It took nearly five years of public hearings and private wrangling for the Obama administration to do it, but in March 2015, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management finalized a new rule regarding hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands.

    Although the fracking rule was considered fairly toothless by environmentalists, it was immediately caught up in a pitched legal battle. Oil and gas interests sued, and a federal judge enjoined it before it could take effect, on the grounds that the BLM had overreached.