[EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots

[Doug Hess]

Sorry for the confusion ...what were the other reasons?

Doug


On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel
<lowenstein at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>       I did not suggest eliminating circulators and having petitions signed at government-controlled locations as a solution to possible problems of bribery and intimidation.  I said I favored that change for other reasons.  As it is, I tend to agree that bribery and intimidation are not likely to be widespread means for obtaining signatures.  It simply isn't necessary, as Bob Stern and I showed in an article on Meyer v. Grant in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, I believe in 1988.
>
>             Best,
>
>             Daniel H. Lowenstein
>             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>             UCLA Law School
>             405 Hilgard
>             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>             310-825-5148
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Hess [douglasrhess at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:51 PM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots
>
> One other thought: Is there any recent evidence of substantial intimidation to get people to sign or not sign? Arguments about solutions for policy problems that don't include some empirical investigation means we don't know if there is a problem nor the true nature, scale, and consequences of the problem. After all, Dan's solution (have petitions at government controlled locations) might be a solution worse than the problem.
>
> -Doug
>
>  From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu<mailto:VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:16 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Secret signatures and secret ballots
>
>       I appreciate Dan's point, and if indeed the main reason for the secret ballot is preventing voters from being bribed to vote in favor of an initiative, then I agree that there's a difference between secrecy of the ballot and secrecy of initiative/referendum/recall signatures.
>
>       But it seems to me that at least a very large part -- perhaps the largest part -- of the modern support for the secret ballot is that it lets people vote their conscience without fear of retaliation (not just from signature gatherers but also from others, including initiative opponents).  This is both seen as fairer to voters, and more likely to reflect actual public sentiment, unaffected by the fear of retaliation.  In this respect, the worry isn't just that people will be intimidated into signing a petition (I agree that this risk remains present regardless of whether either ballots or initiative signatures are kept secret).  The worry is that people will be intimidated into not signing a petition, and not voting for the initiative.
>
>       And this concern, it seems to me, counsels equally for secrecy of signatures as it does for secrecy of ballots.  Again, perhaps the recall example might be especially helpful:  We have a secret ballot as to candidates partly because we don't want incumbents to intimidate people into voting for them.  (We also don't want challengers to do the same.)  Likewise, we have a secret ballot on the recall for precisely this reason.  Wouldn't having secrecy of signatures as to the recall petitions likewise serve the same goal, to pretty much the same extent?  True, such secrecy wouldn't prevent intimidation of voters into *signing* the petition; but it would minimize the intimidation of voters into *not signing* the petition.  And if that's so as to recalls, it seems to me it's comparably so as to initiatives and referenda.
>