[EL] MD robo-calls

[James V Grimaldi]

from the context, he is not saying that robo-calls are unusual. He is 
saying that it is unusual to have an alleged "smoking gun," ie, the 
evidence to prove intent.


James V. Grimaldi
The Washington Post
grimaldij at washpost.com
202-334-6000 
http://www.facebook.com/wpjamesvgrimaldi
Follow me @jamesvgrimaldi



From:   Chandler Davidson <fcd at rice.edu>
To:     law-election at uci.edu
Date:   06/17/2011 01:23 PM
Subject:        [EL] MD robo-calls
Sent by:        law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu




“Md. robo-calls: Ehrlich aide, consultant accused of trying to suppress 
black vote”
Posted on June 16, 2011 by Rick Hasen



Regarding the 2010 rob-calls attributed to the aide, WaPo says the 
following:


The indictments might be the first in the country involving Election Day 
attempts to suppress voting using robo-calls, experts said. The case also 
appears to be a rarity nationwide, one in which prosecutors might have the 
physical evidence necessary to prove intent to commit voter suppression, 
experts said.
“I have taught elections law for decades, and never in my life have I seen 
anything like this,” said Larry S. Gibson, a professor at the University 
of Maryland Law School. “It’s the unusual case of having a smoking gun. 
Usually intent has to be implied by a person’s conduct. . . . Here, it 
is in writing.”

 I find this a bit surprising.  My memory--admittedly fallible--is that 
robo-calls intended to suppress votes are reported in most election years. 
 Perhaps Prof. Gibson is referring to an existent script, rather than to 
the practice itself?
Chandler Davidson
_______________________________________________
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/20110617/d822605f/attachment.html>