[EL] Massive vote fraud defined

[Joe La Rue]

Abby,

I'm admittedly a bit out of my league because I've not done much work in the
VRA. Still, I can't help but wonder a few things. Recognizing that you have
some expertise in this area, I'm curious as to your thoughts on these three
questions:

1. If two uniformed members of the KKK went to a polling place in a precinct
with few black voters, should we assume that it was not with the intent to
intimidate the few black people in the precinct the way you seem to be
assuming the NBPs were not trying to intimidate the few white people?

2. Is it possible that the NBPs' agenda was to intimidate *voters*,
regardless of race? I have many black friends, some of whom are politically
conservative. I imagine they would have found the spectacle presented by the
NBPs intimidating had they voted in that district, even though they are
black. If the NBPs were there in full regalia to intimidate *voters*,
regardless of race, shouldn't that be a concern to us?

3. What purpose could wearing the uniform of a quasi-para-military
organization and carrying nightsticks serve other than voter intimidation?

Thanks,

Joe La Rue
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.
812-232-2434, ext. 25 (Office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.


On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Abigail Thernstrom <
thernstr at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>
>
> You are right to raise the question, and the answer is, no. It was sloppy
> of me to suggest otherwise; I'm just overdosed on tip-of-the-iceberg
> arguments that make more of that incident than it deserved. There was a
> serious imbalance between the gravity of the allegations and the strength of
> the evidence available to support the charges.
>
>   It's a violation of section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act. if the two
> Panthers intended voter intimidation.   But, it was an odd polling place to
> pick if they, in fact, wanted to scare voters -- presumably white voters,
> since the precinct contained almost no whites.
>
> And, btw, I did not mean to express an opinion on the extent of voter fraud
> -- a different issue. I have no expertise on that topic.
>
> Abby
>
> Abigail Thernstrom
> Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
> Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
> www.thernstrom.com
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 3:40 PM, James Woodruff wrote:
>
> Do voter intimidation cases actually require that a voter be intimidated?
>
> James J. Woodruff II, Esq.
> Associate Professor of Lawyering Process
> Florida Coastal School of Law
> 8787 Baypine Road
> Jacksonville, FL  32256
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Abigail
> Thernstrom [thernstr at fas.harvard.edu]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:36 PM
> *To:* Chandler Davidson
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Massive vote fraud defined
>
>
> And when two unappealing members of the New Black Panther Party showed up
> at a single Philadelphia polling place in November 2008, one of them
> slapping a night stick against his palm, there was "massive" voter
> intimidation, although no voters who had actually felt intimidated in that
> heavily black neighborhood could be found.
>
> Abby
>
> Abigail Thernstrom
> Vice-chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
> Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
> www.thernstrom.com
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Chandler Davidson wrote:
>
> The adjective I see most often applied by those making a fuss about the
> existence of vote fraud is "massive."  In such descriptions, it's difficult
> to get a sense of what massive fraud consists in, as distinct from mere
>  "significant" fraud.
>
> I now have a pretty good implicit definition of "massive," thanks to the
> article cited in the Daily Caller.  The author is Matthew Vadum, described
> as " a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think
> tank that studies the politics of philanthropy with a special focus on
> left-wing advocacy groups".    The article begins:
>
> While NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lashed out at new state laws
> requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced
> for carrying  out a massive voter fraud scheme.
>
> In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss.,
> jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently
> casting  absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a
> member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee. . . .
>
> Sowers was found guilty of voting in the names of Carrie Collins, Walter
> Howard, Sheena Shelton, Alberta Pickett, Draper Cotton and Eddie Davis. She
> was also  convicted of voting in the names of four dead persons: James L.
> Young, Dora Price, Dorothy Harris, and David Ross.
> Read more:
> http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/#ixzz1Th32w9za
>
> If ten instances of  fraud by one person constitute massive fraud, one  is
> entitled to ask what adjective would apply in the event that the perpetrator
> voted the names of twenty people rather than ten:  Humongous?
>  Mind-boggling?  Overwhelming?  Of biblical proportions?  Apocalyptic?
>
> I suppose those who believe the national photo ID movement is essentially a
> disfranchisement movement should feel free to adopt similar terms to
> describe its effects, assuming as many as ten people are unfairly kept from
> voting.
>
> Chandler Davidson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110731/da44499e/attachment.html>