Experts have already raised a number of problems with the Trump administration’s voter fraud commission and its request for voter registration information from the states. At the outset, the commission's request may have violated the law by failing to follow federal regulations relating to requests for information. Rick Hasen has raised concerns relating to privacy and federalism, among other issues, and Josh Douglas has argued persuasively that the commission is designed to make "the public think[ ] there is a problem where none exists"—while distracting from real and serious problems infringing on the right to vote.

One of many such problems is that of felony disenfranchisement. More than six million Americans are unable to cast ballots due to laws that prevent those who have committed felonies from voting. The precise terms of the laws vary from state to state: 12 states disenfranchise at least some felons permanently; 22 disenfranchise during prison and parole; 15 during prison. Only two states—Maine and Vermont—do not disenfranchise felons at all, even while they are in prison.

State laws disenfranchising people who have committed felonies can have national consequences. In the 2000 presidential election, for example, George W. Bush ultimately won Florida by just 537 votes, yet almost 950,000 people were unable to vote due to felony convictions. Florida's laws literally could have determined the result of the election. Indeed, demographic data suggest that they probably did. At the time of the election, nearly twenty percent of black men in Florida—a demographic that votes strongly democratic—were unable to vote due to a felony conviction.

Diluting the power of the black vote was in fact the original purpose of many felony disenfranchisement laws. During the Jim Crow era, at the same time that legislatures enacted poll tax laws with the purpose of preventing black people from voting, they also developed laws disenfranchising people who had committed felonies. Such laws were often targeted at felonies for which black people were more likely (or were believed to be more likely) to be convicted.

The authors of the felon disenfranchisement laws would have been pleased with those laws' consequences today. Given the racial disparities throughout the criminal justice system, it is unsurprising that the racial disparity in felon disenfranchisement persists. The numbers are sobering. Nationwide, one in 13 black people has lost the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction, while the same is true of only one in 56 white people. In four states, more than 20% of black people cannot vote due to a past felony conviction: Kentucky (26.2%), Virginia, (21.9%), Florida (21.3%), and Tennessee (21.3%). The trend is particularly consequential given that both Virginia and Florida are often important swing states.

U.S. Rep. Al Green, a Houston Democrat, said he plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would prevent President Donald Trump from pardoning himself.

Trump said in a Twitter post Saturday that he has “the complete power to pardon,” an apparent reference to his ability to pardon himself and other associates as federal officials investigate Russian interference in Trump’s election.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Trump’s lawyers are considering the president’s ability to grant pardons in an effort to “limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.”

As the Post reported:

One adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation

“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

It’s not yet clear when the court will rule. At least one of the judges said earlier this week that his calendar is pretty packed for the next couple of weeks. But at least in theory given the limited number of remaining issues, it might even be possible to get a ruling before the month-long special session of the Texas Legislature that begins July 18 ends. But in any event, the redrawing of the Texas state house and congressional maps - and there will be a redrawing if for no other reason than to remedy the carryover violations - seems at long last to be in the horizon.

Ty Cobb, a longtime Hogan Lovells partner based in Washington, D.C., has joined President Donald Trump's legal team as special counsel. His last day at Hogan Lovells will be July 30, the firm's chairman said in an all-firm email sent Friday afternoon.

The White House had not officially announced the appointment as of late Friday afternoon, and several leaders and a spokesman for Hogan Lovells did not respond to requests for comment. Cobb's email was set to an out-of-office auto reply Friday, saying he's currently on travel.

The National Law Journal obtained a copy of the email written by Hogan Lovells chair Stephen Immelt announcing Cobb's departure from the firm and confirmed his move with two other sources.

Bloomberg News, which first reported Cobb's hire, said he would serve as traffic cop, enforcer of discipline and public spokesman for the president's legal team as it grapples with simultaneous congressional and Justice Department investigations into the Trump campaign's Russia contacts, which are consuming the president's politics more every day.

zodiacPAC is a political action committee founded by young Houstonians, out of a belief that there are lots of Texans who don't feel represented by the likes of Ted Cruz. Many of the most conservative and senior leaders in Congress come from our great state; the November 2018 election is an important opportunity to challenge conservative Republicans' support for Donald Trump's racist, sexist, elitist agenda. In this exhausting political climate, we're keeping the pressure on Ted and his cronies.
​

The federal judge in Hawaii who initially put President Trump's revised travel and refugee ban on hold on Thursday placed limits on the administration's recent rules enforcing a limited version of that ban.

The US Supreme Court allowed a portion of Trump's March 6 executive order to go into effect in a June 26 ruling. Hawaii, though, had argued that the federal government's interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling — which exempted those with a "bona fide relationship" with people or entities in the US from being banned — was too narrow.

The federal government cannot use the executive order to "exclude grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States," US District Judge Derrick Watson ruled, agreeing with Hawaii.

Watson also placed additional restrictions on which potential refugees can be excluded under the order. Specifically, Watson ruled that a potential refugee's "assurance from a United States refugee resettlement agency" constitutes the sort of "bona fide relationship" that bars enforcement of the executive order against that would-be refugee.