[EL] DC's fake Holder

[Jack Santucci]

I am thinking more about this, having read the story Rick just linked,
particularly the following excerpt:

"Had O'Keefe's pal signed the book as Holder, he would have been in
violation of election law. The real Holder, if he voted at all, would have
been given a provisional—or "special" ballot—that would later be counted
and verified assuming the attorney general provided acceptable proof of
residency in his voting precinct."

The above is only true if the real Holder had voted out-of-precinct. In
that case, the real Holder probably would have had his special ballot
discarded once the BoEE reviewed the paper pollbooks' signatures from
election day. This is because a signature would have appeared next to
Holder's name in the paper pollbook, leading to the conclusion that he had
already voted in the precinct on election day.

And the O'Keefe agent would have committed fraud, but I don't know how one
would prove that ex post. Or link it back to the perp.

And/or the real Holder (or fake one) would have been suspected of voting
twice, but I don't know how one would adjudicate that ex post. Or determine
the perp, since there are no time stamps on special ballots or pollbook
signatures, nor any reliable indicator of who really signed either.

Otherwise, had the real Holder gone to his assigned precinct, the
volunteers running the precinct would have been in a pickle. The real
Holder shows up with proof of residency, but his signature is already in
the pollbook, thanks to the fake Holder who already came to vote.

Assuming my analysis is correct - it is based only on what I can infer from
having operated a precinct on election day - one can deduce a number of
policy recommendations. All that's clear to me is the inadequacy of
speculation in the DCist story linked below.

Jack

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012, Rick Hasen wrote:

>   “Excess McCain 2008 presidential funds went to charity, not 2012 race”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32846>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 9:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32846> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Interesting *Washington Times *report.<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/10/excess-mccain-2008-presidential-funds-went-charity/>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32846&title=%E2%80%9CExcess%20McCain%202008%20presidential%20funds%20went%20to%20charity%2C%20not%202012%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>   “Major corporations drop support of ‘stand your ground’ group”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32843>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 9:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32843> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Cox reports <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017951679.html>.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32843&title=%E2%80%9CMajor%20corporations%20drop%20support%20of%20%E2%80%98stand%20your%20ground%E2%80%99%20group%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>   “Activist’s Undercover Videos on Rules for Voter IDs Lead to an
> Investigation” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32841>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 8:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32841> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/us/activists-undercover-videos-on-rules-for-voter-ids-lead-to-an-investigation.html>
> .
>
> MORE <http://dcist.com/2012/04/dc_elections_board_unimpressed_by_j.php>from the DCist.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32841&title=%E2%80%9CActivist%E2%80%99s%20Undercover%20Videos%20on%20Rules%20for%20Voter%20IDs%20Lead%20to%20an%20Investigation%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent
> fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>   “Justice Dept.: S.C. voter ID law violates Voting Rights Act”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32839>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 8:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32839> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *USA Today* reports<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-04-10/south-carolina-voter-id/54159078/1>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32839&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Dept.%3A%20S.C.%20voter%20ID%20law%20violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights
> Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>   “NY’s Redistricting Process Continues in Legal Purgatory”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32836>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 8:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32836> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WNYC<http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/empire/2012/apr/10/nys-redistricting-process-continues-legal-purgatory/>:
> “Like a sequel to a horror movie most people never saw in the first place,
> New York’s redistricting saga continues to play out in court rooms and
> administrative offices from Washington, DC and Albany.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32836&title=%E2%80%9CNY%E2%80%99s%20Redistricting%20Process%20Continues%20in%20Legal%20Purgatory%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>   Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32833>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 11:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32833> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “What does it suggest when a man under three federal investigations can
> plan on spending up to $100 million dollars to elect the man with authority
> over the agencies conducting those investigations?
> –Rick Perlstein<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-gop-mega-donor-sheldon-adelson-is-mad-bad-and-a-danger-to-the-republic-20120410#ixzz1rfG4XXeS>,
> in *Rolling Stone* article on Sheldon Adelson
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32833&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
>   Does Mark McKinnon Want a Roemer-Lessig AE Ticket?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32830>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 11:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32830> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Check it out<http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/04/10/americans-elect-leaders-cant-stop-themselves-from-weighing-in-on-the-presidential-race/>(near bottom of post).
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32830&title=Does%20Mark%20McKinnon%20Want%20a%20Roemer-Lessig%20AE%20Ticket%3F&description=>
>   Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments
> Off
>   Major Computer Crime Case Turns on Meaning of “So”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32828>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 11:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32828> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> U.S. v. Nosal<http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/10/10-10038.pdf>,
> en banc Ninth Circuit Kozinski opinion:
>
> In its reply brief and at oral argument, the government focuses on the
> word “so” in the same phrase. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6) (“accesser is not
> entitled *so* to obtain or alter” (emphasis added)). The government reads
> “so” to mean “in that manner,” which it claims must refer to use
> restrictions. In the government’s view, reading the definition narrowly
> would render “so” superfluous.
>
> The government’s interpretation would transform the CFAA from an
> anti-hacking statute into an expansive misappropriation statute. This
> places a great deal of weight on a two-letter word that is essentially a
> conjunction. If Congress meant to expand the scope of criminal liability to
> everyone who uses a computer in violation of computer use restrictions
> —which may well include everyone who uses a computer— we would expect it to
> use language better suited to that purpose.3 Under the presumption that
> Congress acts interstitially, we construe a statute as displacing a
> substantial portion of the common law only where Congress has clearly
> indicated its intent to do so.
>
> Another snippet:
>
> Minds have wandered since the beginning of time and the computer gives
> employees new ways to procrastinate, by gchatting with friends, playing
> games, shopping or watching sports highlights. Such activities are
> routinely prohibited by many computer-use policies, although employees are
> seldom disciplined for occasional use of work computers for personal
> purposes. Nevertheless, under the broad interpretation of the CFAA, such
> minor dalliances would become federal crimes. While it’s unlikely that
> you’ll be prosecuted for watching Reason.TV on your work computer, you *
> could* be. Employers wanting to rid themselves of troublesome employees
> without following proper procedures could threaten to report them to the
> FBI unless they quit.6 Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite
> arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.7
>
> From the dissent:
>
> This case has nothing to do with playing sudoku, checking email, fibbing
> on dating sites, or any of the other activities that the majority rightly
> values. It has everything to do with stealing an employer’s valuable
> information to set up a competing business with the purloined data,
> siphoned away from the victim, knowing such access and use were prohibited
> in the defendants’ employment contracts. The indictment here charged that
> Nosal and his co-conspirators knowingly exceeded the access to a protected
> company computer they were given by an executive search firm that employed
> them; that they did so with the intent to defraud; and further, that
> they stole the victim’s valuable proprietary information by means of that
> fraudulent conduct in order to profit from using it. In ridiculing
> scenarios not remotely presented by this case, the majority does a good job
> of knocking down straw men —far-fetched hypotheticals involving neither
> theft nor intentional fraudulent conduct, but innocuous violations of
> office policy.
>
> The majority also takes a plainly written statute and parses it in a
> hyper-complicated way that distorts the obvious intent of Congress. No
> other circuit that has considered this statute finds the problems that the
> majority does.
>
> Did someone say “SCOTUS”?
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32828&title=Major%20Computer%20Crime%20Case%20Turns%20on%20Meaning%20of%20%E2%80%9CSo%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in statutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,
> Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>   “ReCoding Good: Part 4″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32825>
> Posted on April 10, 2012 9:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32825> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Stanford Social Innovation Review:<http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/recoding_good_part_4>
>
> On March 20, two-dozen scholars, practitioners, and policymakers met for a
> discussion around the theme “Are Nonprofits People, Too? Citizens United
> and the Future of the Social Sector.” Responding to the expanded roles that
> certain nonprofit organizations—501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, in
> particular—are now playing in electoral politics, the group discussed the
> potential effects of *Citizens United* on the philanthropic and nonprofit
> sector as a whole, beyond the particular actions now allowed by law.
>
> We opened a presentation by Professor Rick Hasen<http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/hasen-stanfordpacs-2.pdf>of UC Irvine, who studies election law and created the Election
> Law Blog <http://electionlawblog.org/>. He explained how the legal and
> political landscape has shifted for 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) nonprofit
> organizations since January 2010, emphasizing the role they can now play in
> making electioneering expenditures. From the perspective of campaign
> finance, 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) nonprofits offer donors a distinctive
> loophole (or, perhaps, advantage) over other organizations such as
> political action committees, political parties, and Super PACs: These
> nonprofits do not need to publicly disclose donors’ identities. Data
> comparing campaign finance expenditure reports from 2012 to previous
> presidential election years show a clear shift in dollars from PACs and
> other 527 groups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization> that do
> require donor disclosure to (c)(4) and (c)(6) nonprofits. Using data from
> the Center for Responsive Politics <http://www.opensecrets.org/>, Hasen
> found that outside spending in the 2012 presidential election through
> February was 264 percent greater than the same time in 2008 and more than
> 600 percent greater than in 2004.
>
> <http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/bonica_cu_data.pdf>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120411/22c1c4a4/attachment.html>