COVID-19 Resources for Lawyers
Featured Guest
Rick Hasen

Professor Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. Hasen...

Your Host
Joe Patrice

Joe Patrice is an Editor at Above the Law. For over a decade, he practiced as a litigator at...

Episode Notes

Professor Rick Hasen is synonymous with election law, and in his new book, Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy sounds the alarm about the growing threat of Americans losing faith in the electoral process. A combination of incompetence and bad faith has worn away at public trust in the system and cynical actors have taken advantage to exploit this for their own gain. Plus we get a chance to talk about the Iowa Caucuses.

Special thanks to our sponsor, Logikcull.


Above the Law – Thinking Like a Lawyer

Election Law Special With Rick Hasen





Intro: Welcome to Thinking Like a Lawyer with your hosts Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice, talking about legal news and pop culture all while thinking like a lawyer, here on Legal Talk Network.




Joe Patrice: Hello, welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I’m not joined by any guest host today which means that we’re not going to be able to have any of that playful banter that all of you enjoy so much or maybe you don’t, and so this is the greatest episode ever for you.


But we are going to jump right on in then and talk a little bit about some elections because I’m joined by Professor Rick Hasen of UCI Law who is going to talk to us a little bit about elections but in particular about his new book, which is, ‘Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy Hardcover.’ So welcome back to the show, I guess you’ve been on before.


Richard L. Hasen: Yeah, great to get back with you.


Joe Patrice: Great. Well, so we were actually talking — I was talking with your people originally about doing the show a little bit earlier but I had to go to a conference and just getting quite work out. I’m kind of glad that it didn’t because by doing this later we now have the fortuitousness to discuss speaking of distrust. Let’s talk about Iowa.


Richard L. Hasen: Yes.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: Iowa was great for my book but terrible for the country, I would say.


Joe Patrice: Right. So, yeah, I mean, Iowa is not quite the same as many of the elections that we have. It’s not really run by like a Secretary of State or anything like that if it’s like State parties run them, it’s like — is it fair to call them like Mini Conventions?


Richard L. Hasen: Well, in convention everyone’s in the same place, so.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: It’s a caucus where — or series of caucuses where people are meeting in high school gyms and in other places and then they’re supposed to aggregate the results and it was the aggregation where things went south.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, it seems as though there were potentially many issues. It seems as though there was some new app that was being used?


Richard L. Hasen: Right, so what happened in Iowa was that they changed both the technology they were using to report results as well as kind of the rules themselves where it used to be a just report of the end result. What happens is people get into a room and then they ship their way around as you figure out which candidates have the least support and you re-align yourself.


This time according to reporting in ‘New York Times’ the local people had to report 36 different pieces of information to headquarters and they were going to do that with an app, an app that had not been adequately tested, an app that had not even been downloaded by some of the precinct people before they were supposed to be using it. So just really a kind of disaster in the making, which we all kind of knew was going to be a problem.


And then, there was a mischief after that which was there was a backup phone number and apparently the phone number was posted online and it was on 4chan and people are jamming the phone lines to mess things up more. That was like one thing after another, and rather than fess up to it initially, the Iowa Democratic Party issued a cryptic statement that they were having “quality control problems” which caused people to be more —


Joe Patrice: Suspicious.


Richard L. Hasen: — concerned about what was going on and then it took — it’s a couple of days and then when they finally started issuing returns they had to issue corrections, which is always a bad thing. Better if you’re going to be late to just wait till it’s all lined up and then give us the actual results that you’ve got.


In the meantime the Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party has resigned and I expect that there’s going to be a very serious discussion about whether democrats are not going to use caucus in Iowa anymore.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, I don’t know. I have kind of a mixed feelings on caucuses. I understand all of the problems with them, obviously because people have to be in a physical location and they’re known and it leads to all sorts of pressures, potential; but I’ve always had a soft spot for the idea that people can congregate together and talk about what they want to do, have discussions that say, oh, if you like that person, have you considered this person like all happening kind of in real-time as people try to bring folks over after the first viability test. But I get the problems and I think maybe this is the end of it, but I don’t know. I’d be sad to see it go because I think it’s such a quirky weird thing that, I don’t know, I have a soft spot. You probably think the other problems that way but —




Richard L. Hasen: Well, it’s not only that. I also think that they’re not only do we see screw-ups in every caucus year. I’ve written pieces in 2012, 2008 on this. Not only do we have that, but we also had, it’s very exclusionary. I think turnout was something like 10 percent, if you have to work or you have to be out of town. You have a disability and it’s very hard to participate in the caucus and I don’t know how much deliberation there really in a typical caucus. I’m reminded of an article that one of my election law colleagues wrote, a guy named Jim Gardner, it was called Shut Up and Vote.


Oh you have the idea, celebration is somewhat overrated in terms of actually convincing people what they should be doing and especially there’s no secret ballot there, so you know there is a lot of social pressure.


Joe Patrice: Right.


Richard L. Hasen: I know that that’s like you’re having an honest discussion amongst equals. It might just be, oh come on, come over here because you like me.


Joe Patrice: It’s one of those places where I always kind of felt like it makes sense in Iowa as a process but not in other states that go later because to the extent deliberation has any value I think it would only be as like the primary winnowing sort of situation where you stab people who are still supporting Michael Bennett or something, and so you need to have that kind of conversation, but once you have a solidified set, like when you talk about Washington caucuses and stuff like that, by then you’re down to who’s left, and I’ve never really understood it there, but oh well —


Richard L. Hasen: Well, Nevada is going to be using a caucus too.


Joe Patrice: True.


Richard L. Hasen: They were going to be using the same app or they were going to be using the same companies that designed an app for them because they’re now rolling out early voting to try to deal with some of the other problems with caucuses, and so now they’ve scrapped the app and they have a brand-new system they’re going to use Scantron Forms and #2 Pencils which is probably a better way to go at least to have a paper record —


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: — but it’s an untested system. So, oh boy, —


Joe Patrice: Okay.


Richard L. Hasen: We’ll hold our breath.


Joe Patrice: That’s exciting. Well, all right — well, let’s transition now to talking about some more things for the book, but I’ll take a break here to just thank our sponsors.


So today’s episode is brought to you by your adorable ant farm, who is very mad at you, because you are still at the office, slogging through an endless doc review project. Make better decisions, keep your pets and work smarter with Logikcull, e-discovery software that gets you started in minutes. Don’t let outdated e-discovery be the hill that you die on, create your free account today at


Every week I try to — the original copy was a cat and every end with a pun and I’d spend every week now coming up with a new animal and a new pun to put in there. So I’m starting to run out of animals.


Richard L. Hasen: Yeah.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, after a while we start going like, huh, we really don’t keep a lot of different things, pets, but here we are.


So, I guess a good transition from Iowa to the subject of the book — one of the themes, and not just of this book but of all your work is that there’s kind of a crisis of confidence in the electoral system and that’s you would say where bad actors come in to try and exploit that, I suppose.


Richard L. Hasen: Well, that was true in Iowa even where you had the president’s campaign manager coming in and saying it was rigged against Bernie Sanders when all of the evidence was that it was just democratic incompetence, not someone trying to steal the election.


Yeah, the whole book is about the four reasons why trust in American elections is declining and why people no longer are confident that their ballots are going to be fairly and accurately counted, and that’s really troubling because the democracy depends on people believing that their results that are announced are accurate and the process was fair, and if you’re on the losing side, well, I’ll just fight another day.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: Let’s see how that goes.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, one of the problems with confidence that I kind of have noticed and it’s touched on a little bit in your book when you talk about Georgia is backtrack five years. We were already hearing mostly from the Republican side of the aisle claims of voter fraud and therefore we need to do XYZ thing to suppress vote, I mean, they wouldn’t call it “suppressing”, but all these other methods to deal with some phantom, even though there was no empirical evidence of widespread voter fraud deal with that, and then post 2016, and obviously, the Georgia example that I setting up for you to elaborate on from the book, it seems as though now the Democratic side has gotten into the discussion with everything being Russia’s fault or the shenanigans of Brian Kemp and instead of just saying “Hey, these things are bad”, they are saying — they are spreading the idea that maybe you can’t trust the results of elections too.


Richard L. Hasen: The usual debate we hear about voter fraud, voter suppression is, it’s kind of a tired one and in the first chapter of the book I talk about how — when it was finally put to a trial the evidence of voter fraud being a massive problem is not there, and I think that’s really been well-established.




Well, what the debate does is it convinces people on both sides that elections are being stolen, that Democrats are using fraud, that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote. And in fact, I do think that the Republicans have been passing laws, not everywhere but in some places, but they’re almost always passed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Laws passed in the name of preventing voter fraud or promoting voter confidence that are aimed at making it harder to register and vote.


And I talked about that in Kansas, I talked about that in Georgia as you mentioned, and then there’s other kinds of shenanigans as well and Georgia is a good example where you had Brian Kemp who was the Secretary of State, the Chief Election Officer of the State, running for Office as Governor, running his own election, and he had been in trouble for a long time for his incompetence in running the State’s voter registration database.


And one of the things that he did when somebody reported to the Democratic Party that there was a still a whole insecurity in the voter registration database, the Democrats went to some computer scientists at Georgia Tech to see if that was a legitimate concern, Georgia Tech went to some National Security Agency in DC. Next thing you know Brian Kemp is accusing the Democrats of trying to hack into election and puts that false claim on the front of the Secretary of State’s website on the Saturday before the Tuesday of the election, the website that people go into to figure out where they’re supposed to vote.


I mean, it was what I considered kind of the most Banana Republic moment in modern American electoral history, and just really terrible kind of hiding his malfeasance with misfeasance. Just really piling it on, and now of course he’s Governor of Georgia. And Democrats came in and said that he stole the election, and that’s another problem, is that how do we talk about elections and when is it proper to call “stolen” because I think when you do start throwing around terms like that, you run the risk of further causing people to lose confidence in the process, and even just talking about this is something that does cause people to worry, but I don’t think we can bury our heads in the sand. I think we have to ask what can we do in the next nine months to try and make things better?


Joe Patrice: Yeah, because — and I think this is a theme of a lot of what you’re talking about, because it’s not about — like it could be elections, this kind of election shenanigans stuff, it’s not only bad if the wrong person gets chosen, it’s bad that it happens and might even erase a “meaningless vote”, that’s still a problem for democracy.


Richard L. Hasen: Right, so rather than have a debate about whether or not elections are stolen, I think we should ask the question, “Why does a State get to make it harder for people to register to vote for no good reason —


Joe Patrice: Right.


Richard L. Hasen: — and really focus on the dignity of each voter?” Because — I did an interview with Nina Perales of MALDEF and she was talking about how she had a client who was a citizen who was falsely accused of being a narcissist, and by the time the stuff was over, she was just like, I don’t really feel like voting anymore, it really creates a kind of defeatism, whether or not it’s swaying election outcomes.


Joe Patrice: Oh, the example of Kansas that you used in the book, with soon to probably be Republican candidate, Kris Kobach is running again for Senate it seems like, but in that case you were talking about being falsely accused and how egregious the false accusations are. There was a person in a courthouse who I believe was identified on the stand as maybe not of America?


Richard L. Hasen: Well, so this was crazy.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: This is a case that didn’t get really enough attention. I consider it the most important voting rights case in the 21st Century so far, it’s called Fish v. Kobach and it was a case involving Kansas’ law that requires documentary proof of citizenship.


Show me your papers like your Naturalization Certificate, your Birth Certificate before we let you register to vote and this law before a Federal court temporarily enjoined it, this law prevented 30,000 people from registering to vote in the State of Kansas, and the case went back and forth among the different Federal courts, but at the point in the trial that I’m talking about Kris Kobach a notorious vote suppressor from the State of Kansas, the Secretary of State, the one who claimed that millions of people backed up Trump’s unsupported claims, millions of non-citizens voted in the 2016 elections.


He has to prove that non-citizen voting is a real problem and he had called it the tip of the iceberg and he puts on an expert and the expert comes up with various ways of trying to show how many non-citizens are voting, and one is worse than the next, and the one you were just referring to, was he took those 30,000 people on that list and he and his graduate assistant coded their last names as whether they were “foreign” or non-foreign sounding in order to figure out how many non-citizens they run with. It’s totally ludicrous way to do it.


There’s always talk about why did you code this Lopez is the citizen and this Lopez isn’t? But, Dale Ho of the ACLU is cross-examining this witness, and says “If I asked you the name Carlos Murguia, would you code that as foreign and non-foreign?” The expert says, “Can you spell that for me?” And Dale Ho spells it.




And they said, “Yeah, probably foreign” and then Dale comes back and says, “Are you aware that Carlos Murguia is a Judge who sits in this courthouse?”


Joe Patrice: Right.


Richard L. Hasen: And the expert says, “No, I’m not.” But it’s just like this absurd moment and the Judge at the end of the case, Federal District Court Judge, Julie Robinson, fourth-generation Kansan, first African-American woman appointed to that court by George W. Bush. She says, “There is no iceberg, there’s just an icicle made up mostly of administrative error.” I think it’s kind of more like a puddle of evaporated water. There really was nothing to it in the end.


So it’s demoralizing for the people, those 30,000 people unless the ACLU and the other plaintiffs and the Federal courts intervened those people would have been disenfranchised for no good reason.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. It’s just so weird to me, all of these excuses, one of the ones that I remember, can’t remember which State, but I think it probably was a theme in a lot of them. I remember but while ago somebody made some argument for some massive purge. It was Wisconsin maybe, some massive purge, because, oh, we think these people might have died based on not much as opposed to — I mean if that’s your real concern, then may as well just say everybody over the age of 70 must re-register every year, but they would never do that for obvious reasons.


And it just kind of made — when I heard it, I was just like, well, this makes no sense why would you assume these people died when there’s no like actuarial reason to assume these names on a list have a higher propensity of being dead than any other reason.


Richard L. Hasen: Well, just to play devil’s advocate for a minute, these lists of voters are in many places not kept up very well and so people move, people die and they’re not removed and things are not updated.


Joe Patrice: Right.


Richard L. Hasen: I mean, it’s not a surprise that we have incompetent government officials. I think things have gotten better, but there’s still a lot of resistance in part because I think that you do run the risk of disenfranchising people who are — they are still eligible voters, and that’s just a mistake. We just saw this come out very recently in Wisconsin.


Wisconsin is relying on this Interstate Cooperation Agreement called ERIC where states compare voter registration information to try and call the Deadwood and it’s pretty good, but it’s like 95% accurate, which means 5% of the people are going to be wrongly listed there, so you need to do some checks.


And in Wisconsin you have this conservative group that was coming in and saying, you need to remove people immediately that have been flagged by ERIC and a Trial Court, a State Trial Court agreed. It’s now up on appeal, the Appeals Court has put it on hold, but it turns out that most of the people that were on that list listed as potentially or many of the people I should say, were on that list, listed as potentially no longer living in Wisconsin, voted as recently as the 2016 Presidential Election.


So, you really have to do it carefully to make sure that you’re doing it right, because if you err on the side of just purging people without checking it out, you’re going to disenfranchise people, and that’s not as bad in Wisconsin as some other places because in Wisconsin there’s same day voter registrations, so if you’re kicked off you can re-register, but that may take time and that’s still going to make it harder for some people to be able to go and vote when they have an absolute right to. There’s no good reason for removing them from the voting roles.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, same day registration is definitely a saving grace in that situation, in New York.


Richard L. Hasen: But lots of states don’t have that.


Joe Patrice: Right, yeah. New York notoriously for a long time you had to be registered for — forever basically before you could — before the election it was really onerous.


Richard L. Hasen: Well, New York, if New York’s election administration occurred in a southern state you’d have Democrats protesting that it was vote suppression —


Joe Patrice: Oh yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: — because it’s just so terrible.


Joe Patrice: Well, I was actually a quasi-elected official when I lived in Brooklyn and we were a pre-clearance jurisdiction, like we were — it listed with all the Southern states as a jurisdiction that required pre-clearance if we made changes —


Richard L. Hasen: Yes.


Joe Patrice: — because New York is that bad.


Richard L. Hasen: Yeah, I mean — and there’s been some attempts to make things better in New York, but you have a lot of resistance from the political establishment, no question about that.


Joe Patrice: Yeah. So since we’re talking about different states doing different stupid things, and the inefficiencies that go along with it, one suggestion you are a big fan of historically is Nonpartisan Federal System, because this whole thing is expensive and complicated and maybe it’s too much for States. So how would something like that work and do you have any — any lingering hope that the powers that currently be could ever get to that?


Richard L. Hasen: Well, so I first floated that idea in book form, in my 2012 book, ‘The Voting Wars’, and I still stand by it, national nonpartisan election administration, centralized same machinery everywhere, national voter ID card, the whole way that you see other advanced democracies doing their job, whether that’s Australia, Canada, UK, Germany.




But my main focus in writing this book is not the long-term solutions, although I think they’re important, but triage, what can we do given that we’re worried that the losers might not accept the election results in the upcoming election? I mean, so what can you do in the next nine months?


Some people have said election meltdown sounds alarmist, and my response is, I’m trying to sound the alarm because I am concerned about things. I’m not trying to make people panic, but I want people to think about what are the steps that can be done by the media by election officials, by the average person, by campaigns before we get to the next major election? Because we’re so polarized right now that it’s going to be under a microscope and people are going to be very distrustful of the whole process.


Joe Patrice: Well, you put the media in that list and I think that’s one of the hardest ones to get moving I think, because it seems to me as though if we’re saying that there’s as bad as these attacks on confidence are, there are certainly the sorts of things that are being repeated by media, and the whole kind of — we need immediate results, anything that’s not immediate is a problem, which I guess in Iowa it was, but that mentality that kind of comes from a 24-hour news cycle, that’s one that it almost seems is going to be one of the most difficult blockades to getting anything done in the short term.


Richard L. Hasen: I absolutely think there has to be an education of the media and then the media educating the public about how long election results take to come in. This is especially important in this upcoming election because we’re going to be in a situation where the — for the first time Pennsylvania is going to have no excuse absentee balloting and there’s going to be a flood of ballots, we already know that those ballots take days to count, and so, it could be a while before we know who won in Pennsylvania.


We also know that those late counting ballots at least over the last few years have tended to be Democratic, so it’s possible that Trump is leading in Pennsylvania on election night and then it takes another few days before we find out that he actually didn’t win Pennsylvania, and that’s just a recipe for people believing that something was done in a crooked way.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: And so, I think — and it provides an opening for Trump to claim fraud, he did this very thing in 2018, in the very close race between the incumbent Bill Nelson and the challenger Rick Scott for the U.S. Senate race in Florida. And it should — must go with election night, the other ballots are massively infected, which is a claim that was completely unsubstantiated, but you can imagine those kinds of claims of fraud, if it’s a very close election, it could get very ugly very quickly.


Joe Patrice: Well, on the top, you’ve used the word “incompetent” a few times, that election, I think there are some specific places of incompetence within the Florida system. I think a lot of people remember Bush v. Gore incompetence, but that’s continued, like there hasn’t really been a fix to the incompetence in Florida since then.


Richard L. Hasen: So, I don’t want to over-generalize, because I think — what I would say in general I think election administration is a lot better now than it was in 2000. I don’t have to say that it’s good everywhere but it’s better, but there are still these pockets of incompetence, they often are in big cities, the example that you were alluding to was Broward County, Florida.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: With Brenda Snipes democratic elected official, a history of problems in one election she failed to mail out 58,000 absentee ballots to people who requested them in another election they left a medical marijuana initiative off some of the ballots that were printed, in another election she released early vote totals before she was allowed to, in another election she destroyed ballots before the 22-month period that Federal Law says you have to preserve them for.


And then in 2018 in this very close race, they are supposed to do a recount because it’s so close, they get to recount done in time as a very strict deadline, but because the election workers don’t know how to do it they don’t submit their results until two minutes after the deadline and so they’re not counted.


But those results were so bad that the Board later says, the Broward County Board of Elections later says, we trust the initial totals better than the recounted totals, there were 2,040 more votes in the initial total, so we’re going to report those.


I mean, just not the level of competence that you want and if it were a little bit closer between Nelson and Scott, it would have been just a disaster.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.




Richard L. Hasen: Really a disaster. And so these weak links really threaten our process, and of course, back to the media, the media is always paying attention to where the worse things are, and so that’s what we hear, and so that’s the information we tend to generalize from that.


Joe Patrice: Interesting, yeah. Well, one question that is not really about this election issue, but that I’m just fascinated by generally because it’s coming to New York City, the whole Ranked-Choice Voting idea obviously makes elections much more complex, because now you’ve got kind of a ranked choice, but New York is a big jurisdiction and is bigger than most states and is going to start going down this road, do you think like that sort of experimentation, obviously it could come with some issues, but it also — it might be the sort of thing that jumpstarts say you aren’t going to get your results as quickly as you want, and that’s okay?


Richard L. Hasen: Maybe, so you have to balance different factors. So one reason against, it might be the delay and other is — it’s more complex. But the benefit is you potentially get results that are — I don’t want to say “more accurate” because it’s not about how the votes are counted, but that better reflect popular will.


So if I go back to 2000, if you imagine that most of the Nader voters, the voters for a Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, if their second choice would have been Gore rather than Bush, I missed some controversy over this, but if that’s true, then what would have happened if neither Bush nor Gore got to 50% because of these third-party candidates, you take the bottom candidates and you reallocate the people who voted for those bottom candidates, you’d reallocate their votes to their second choice, and so if it’s true that most of those Nader voters would be going for Gore then he would end up winning as opposed to a majority of people getting their choice that they liked the least which would be George W. Bush with a third choice, and that’s the logic behind it. But it requires educating people and it requires more complexity, and we’re going to have that in the early vote part of the Nevada caucus.


Joe Patrice: Yeah.


Richard L. Hasen: We’ll see how that goes. I do like the fact that there’s experimentation with voting. I just don’t like to see it in really high stakes elections first. You’ve got to work out the kinks when people are beyond what the stakes are a little lower and people are not as hot about what’s going to happen.


Joe Patrice: It’s going to be interesting. Back to the national idea, I’m for it for a lot of reasons, but especially because I feel like the federalism model has not been taking advantage of what’s supposed to be good about federalism, but when main kind of wit started going down this right choice thing, I was like, oh, that’s actually somebody taking up the mantle of States’ rights and doing something interesting, doing some experimenting. This is what it’s supposed to be about, so —


Richard L. Hasen: Yeah, well, my colleague Ned Foley who’s at Ohio State he has a new book out about this in terms of the electoral college and he says that really what the people who passed the 12th Amendment wanted to do was to move to a system where you actually have a majority winner in each State. So we take those Gary Johnson votes and those Jill Stein votes and you reallocate them, and he thinks people should do that for 2020.


I don’t know if there’s any movement towards that in some of these states, but it eliminates the so-called spoiling the role of the third-party candidate, but it does complicate things and delay things, no doubt about it.


Joe Patrice: Interesting. Yeah, it’s all very interesting at all. Obviously, very fraught with media attention, and unfortunately, probably more recriminations and distrust, and all we can do is kind of always be vigilant in pointing out that the worst impulses that some people have aren’t accurate.


Richard L. Hasen: Yeah, well, I hope that there’s more we can do than that, to kind of really try to educate the public and make sure that election procedures are transparent, make sure that there are good backup plans, so what one of the things I talked about in an election meltdown is what if we had a cyber attack on the power grid and democratic city in a swing State like Detroit or Milwaukee? What’s plan B, are we running the election just in Milwaukee, like how’s that going to work? And so, we’ve been talking about those of us in the feel free years and yet there’s really not enough urgency in Congress or in the states to deal with these kinds of potential disasters that could affect our elections.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, and those are all sorts of problems that I fear aren’t going to be resolved in the next couple of months, but definitely things we’ve looked at.


Richard L. Hasen: Well, I’m sounding the alarm.


Joe Patrice: Yeah, sound the alarm now.


Richard L. Hasen: I think they are warned.


Joe Patrice: Yes, everybody listening you’ve been warned.


Richard L. Hasen: Yes, see what we can do.


Joe Patrice: Always good to have you on especially when we’re talking about something that’s pretty timely.


So, Professor Hasen is the author of ‘Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy’, so go out and grab that and learn about some of these issues that we touched on briefly here today.


Thanks for joining as always.


Richard L. Hasen: Thank you. I enjoyed it.


Joe Patrice: And for all you listening, thanks for listening. You should be subscribed, you should give reviews. That’s all important. I think you all get that by now.


You should also be reading Above the Law. You should be follow @JosephPatrice on Twitter. You should listen to the other shows of the Legal Talk Network. You should listen to The Jabot, which is our Above the Law editor Kathryn Rubino’s show and with all of that said — oh, and thank you to Logikcull for sponsoring, and with all of that said, I think we are done. We will talk to you soon.




Outro: If you would like more information about what you heard today, please visit You can also find us at,, iTunes, RSS, Twitter and Facebook.


The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer.



Brought to You by

Notify me when there’s a new episode!

Episode Details
Published: February 18, 2020
Podcast: Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law
Category: Legal News
Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law
Thinking Like a Lawyer - Above the Law

Above the Law's Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice examine everyday topics through the prism of a legal framework.

Listen & Subscribe
Recent Episodes
On The Passing Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A conversation with Neal Katyal about the late justice.

Begun The Bonus War Has

Firms are signaling their strength in a COVID impacted economy.

An Election So Nice, You Should Vote TWICE! (No, You Shouldn’t)

Despite Trump's urgings, you'd be risking possible felonies.

The Screwball Antics Of The Department Of Justice

Why doesn't the Attorney General know how many times we can vote?

Who Really Cares About The Hatch Act?

Taking stock of the law after a week of consistent violations.

Becoming A Bar Exam Whiz… Literally

Online exams have a bathroom break problem.