Election Policy Roundup #28: China Data Concerns, Voting Rights, and Maryland’s Redistricting Battle
Number 28 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy:
“When more than a third of the [House] seats see no competition at all, polarization and gerrymandering can explain some of the problem, but not all,” said [Olson]. And none of the other likely explanations “are exactly good signs for democracy.” [Eric Boehm, Reason]
Did the Chinese collection of American voting data constitute a huge security breach? States say federal authorities never notified them about it [Washington Post via ELB] Hard to discern any new resultant chill on relations with China [Phelim Kine, Politico] or with Russia, for that matter [Alan Feuer and Dustin Volz, New York Times]
Regarding selective declassification of election-security intel: “The intelligence committees should obtain less-redacted versions of the released documents [and underlying reports]. They should hear first from the analysts and technical specialists who evaluated the intelligence, not only the officials who selected it for release.” [Brian O’Neill, Just Security]
Supreme Court did not annihilate the Voting Rights Act: “The case for Callais” [Brian Fitzpatrick, SCOTUSBlog]
Desirous of flattering the big guy’s claims that his 2020 loss was other than fair and square, FBI Director Patel surges hundreds of agents into a new Election Georgia Operation, call it the EGO squad for short [MS NOW]
I submitted this written testimony opposing the Maryland General Assembly’s scheme for a constitutional amendment (HB 2100) to overturn state court precedent so as to enable extreme partisan gerrymandering of the state’s House map [Free State Notes]