[EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots

Tue Oct 18 12:30:58 PDT 2011

This is all very serious -- much more so than a leader of one of the two
major political parties counseling supporters to do what they can to
suppress the opposition vote, including deflating the air out of voters'
tires and giving voters the wrong date for election day.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Scarberry, Mark <
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:

>  The problem goes beyond harassment, at least right now, and at least in
> California. As several of us have pointed out before on the list, groups
> that oppose initiatives have been running ads warning that petition signers
> may have their identities stolen. Disclosure of names and addresses of
> petition signers may not in fact facilitate identity theft, but it would
> allow unscrupulous opponents to scare people.****
>
> ** **
>
> On the harassment front, there have been instances of physical obstruction
> of petition signing tables here in California, of conduct that could be
> understood as threatening, and of verbal abuse directed toward those who are
> signing petitions or gathering signatures, all apparently by organized
> groups. (Public employee union groups, I think, but I’m not sure. Greece,
> anyone?) That kind of harassing conduct also may make potential signers
> reluctant to sign if their names and addresses will be disclosed.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark S. Scarberry****
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law****
>
> Malibu, CA 90263****
>
> (310)506-4667****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Winger
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:35 AM
> *To:* EugeneVolokh; Vince Leibowitz
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots****
>
>   ** **
>
> California validates more signatures than any other state in the typical
> election cycle, and California does very well at validating signatures.  Yet
> in California, the names and addresses of people who sign petitions are
> private.
>
> If the proponent or an opponent of a ballot measure in California feels
> that the measure has been incorrectly invalidated, he or she is free to
> examine the work of election officials and to see which signatures have been
> validated and which have been invalidated.  It doesn't follow logically that
> just because that is permitted, therefore the general public can see the
> names and addresses of all the signers.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Tue, 10/18/11, Vince Leibowitz <vince.leibowitz at gmail.com>* wrote:
> ****
>
>
> From: Vince Leibowitz <vince.leibowitz at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots
> To: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at UCI.EDU>
> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 10:38 AM****
>
> "...why exactly should the answer be different *as a policy matter* for
> signing an initiative petition as opposed to voting on the petition?"
>
> Why? First and foremost, because good public policy dictates that
> petitions--for ballot access or initiative--should be able to be verified
> independently to ensure that legitimate support exists for the candidate,
> party, or ballot measure. Without independently verifiable petitions, we are
> all at the mercy of the certifying authority to determine whether or not the
> petitions are legitimate. If I'm not mistaken, "sampling methods" are
> sometimes used to do this. Because of this, it is very important that both
> the supporters who signed the petition (independent of the
> organization/candidate collecting) as well as those who oppose have the
> right to determine whether or not the certifying authority's count or
> "sample," or whatever is correct.
>
> From my perspective, the two are completely different things. One is an
> actual vote you are casting to elect a person or persons to public
> office--something that, going back to ancient times, has been viewed as
> private for various reasons, many of which would still hold true today. The
> second is essentially a request to the government to take some specific type
> of action (at least, in the domain of election law), or actually
> articulating a grievance (such as the anti-slavery petitions to Congress in
> the 1800s.
>
> Perhaps this requires looking at the issue from a historical perspective
> first to determine why various policy positions have been formulated over
> time.
>
> I believe there is a certain school of thought that traces the "right to
> petition the government" to the Magna Carta, specifically the section about
> four barons "coming to us, or to our justiciar" laying out the
> transgression, and petitioning for it to be corrected. As no privacy
> concerning the petitioners was included or implied there, one would assume,
> as other key documents and listings of rights were created, and as
> philosophers pontificated on various and sundry rights and duties of
> government and citizenry, they may have taken from that there was no
> inherent right to privacy tied to the right to petition.
>
> The secret ballot, on the other hand, dates back to ancient Greece and
> ancient Rome's Lex Cassia Tabellaria (or something similar). The secret
> ballot has been around far longer than the perceived right to petition,
> which in this country I believe was derived from British precedent
> (presumably, dating to the Magna Carta and later Blackstone's *
> Commentaries*).
>
> Not being a historian by trade, I don't portend that my facts are 100
> percent correct, but I believe I'm close, thanks to a little Google-aided
> recollection of what I recollect from undergraduate history and political
> science years ago.****
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu<http://mc/compose?to=VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>>
> wrote:****
>
>                 I thought I’d pose two questions to the list ; the
> questions are related, but I hope people might consider them.****
>
>  ****
>
>                 1.  Say that we’re deciding whether to adopt the secret
> ballot, and there are two options on the table: (a) the secret ballot, and
> (b) a regime in which people’s votes are recorded, but employers and other
> institutions are barred from discriminating based on a person’s vote.  Which
> do we think might be superior, considering both****
>
> (i) the possibility that the antidiscrimination regime won’t be easily
> enforceable and thus might not give much assurance to voters that they need
> not fear discrimination, and ****
>
> (ii) the interest of some employers, contracting parties, and others in,
> for instance, not employing someone who is known to them and to their
> customers as a supporter of some hypothetical KKK Party, or of a militantly
> anti-American party (whether Communist or otherwise), or a ballot measure
> whose content undermines confidence in the employee’s commitment to his job?
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> 2.  Assuming that your answer to the first question is (a), because the
> secret ballot gives voters more confidence that their vote won’t be held
> against them, while at the same time diminishing the burden on employers,
> why exactly should the answer be different *as a policy matter* for
> signing an initiative petition as opposed to voting on the petition?  Both
> involve voters exercising their lawmaking power, and not just speaking.
> Both involve each voter having only a very minor effect on the election
> (unlike legislators, whose impact on a result is likely to be much
> greater).  Both involve voters being potentially deterred from expressing
> their true views by fear of retaliation.  To the extent one thinks that some
> retaliation, such as remonstrances or even boycotts, is valuable, both
> involve that equally as well.  Why should we treat one form of voter
> participation in the lawmaking process differently from the other?****
>
>  ****
>
>                 Eugene****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________
> Vince Leibowitz
> Principal Consultant
> The Dawn Group
> vince.leibowitz at gmail.com <http://mc/compose?to=vince.leibowitz@gmail.com>
> vince at dgtexas.com <http://mc/compose?to=vince@dgtexas.com>
> DGTexas.com
> 512.705.7001 (m)
> 512.861.2370 (f)
> 512.318.2432 (o)
> *
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work-product immunity or
> other legal rules. If you are not the named addressee, you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender
> immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete
> this email from your system. *****
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@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
>

-- 
Jonathan Singer
http://www.polising.com
Cell: (503) 705-2952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111018/872c8bc9/attachment.html>