[EL] deaths after voting by mail -- last post, arguably off-topic in response to Dr. Hess -- read only if interested

Fri Aug 3 12:45:56 PDT 2012

That's right, and I'll end my postings on this point, which is arguably off-topic, by saying that there also may be substantial benefit to future generations from actions that Dr. Hess might disapprove of. Economic growth is often cumulative; lack of economic growth today may have a permanent effect on future generations. Unemployment today may create social pathologies within a family that may last for generations. Also, public works projects (e.g., dams and highways) may later become impossible to build due to cost increases and regulatory changes; environmental concerns, current and future, should be considered, but permanence of a degree of environmental harm is not necessarily a trump card.

Lots of effects on future generations (and on current non-voters like children) should be considered by a voter or public official who is concerned about the common good (including the common good of our society over multiple generations). In come contexts this used to be called virtual representation, but that concept was misused (sometimes grossly misused) in various ways.

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: Doug Hess [mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 12:24 PM
To: Scarberry, Mark
Cc: Lowenstein, Daniel; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] deaths after voting by mail

Future generations arguably do benefit from some social spending now. Sometimes by quite a bit.

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
202-955-5869
douglasrhess at gmail.com<mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com>

The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited and may be unlawful.

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
Or incurring of debts or creation of effectively-nonrepealable entitlement programs that they will have to pay for.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Doug Hess
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Lowenstein, Daniel

Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] deaths after voting by mail

Well, we can go one step further: in cost-benefit analysis there are also debates about what future citizens may value (not the same as voting, but for a Friday we'll count expressions of economic preferences as "voice"). So, if you destroy something that cannot be restored (e.g., extinction of an animal, bulldozing a pristine forest, or putting a town on a natural landmark) what is the cost to future generations locked in by your decision? Or just say nuts to them? :)

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
202-955-5869<tel:202-955-5869>
douglasrhess at gmail.com<mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com>

The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited and may be unlawful.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
        I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton, who observed that some so-called democrats (small "d," of course) took pride in believing that participation in government should not be determined by the accident of birth, but went further by insisting that participation should not be determined by the accident of death.

             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<tel:310-825-5148>

________________________________
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 Ken Mayer [kmayer at polisci.wisc.edu<mailto:kmayer at polisci.wisc.edu>]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 9:59 AM
To: 'Steve Kolbert'; 'Doug Hess'
Cc: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] deaths after voting by mail
Short answer: not enough votes to worry about, there's nothing that could be done if there were, and even if something could be done, it wouldn't be right.  By any reasonable definition, a vote is a vote when it is cast, no matter what happens to the voter subsequently.
In Oregon, according to the Public Health division, about 2,500-2,900 people die in a typical month<http://public.health.oregon.gov/BirthDeathCertificates/VitalStatistics/FinalData/Documents/10/deathmo.pdf>, with about 98% of those deaths occurring in the voting age population<http://public.health.oregon.gov/BirthDeathCertificates/VitalStatistics/FinalData/Documents/10/deathage.pdf>.   Turnout as a percentage of VAP in 2008 was 63% according to Michael McDonald's United States Election Project<http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html>.  If we assume that deaths over a month are evenly distributed, and that votes are cast roughly evenly over the month, that gives an estimated approximate upper limit  (back of the envelope calculation; the actual numbers will be slightly different, but not by enough to worry about) of the number of votes potentially cast by people who died before election day as:

2,900*.98*.63*.5 = 895 votes

The key quantity here isn't this number, but the margin of victory for the winning candidate among these voters.  An election would have to be pretty close for this to make a difference, but let's say these voters went 60%-40% for a candidate in a two candidate race.  That 20% margin reduces this 895 votes to 179 votes.  That could make a difference in a really tight race, but there aren't many statewide races decided by this margin.

But it doesn't really make any difference, because for these votes to be rejected, you'd have to hang on to every vote until  you got confirmation that the voter had actually died, which is not workable.

This isn't different than a voter who casts a ballot on election day, but who dies (or moves to another state)  before the results are certified.

Ken Mayer

Kenneth R. Mayer
Professor, Department of Political Science
Affiliate Faculty, La Follette School of Public Affairs
University of Wisconsin - Madison
110 North Hall/1050 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI  53706
(608) 263-2286<tel:%28608%29%20263-2286> (voice)/ (608) 265-2663<tel:%28608%29%20265-2663> (fax)

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Steve Kolbert
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Doug Hess
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] deaths after voting by mail

You can find a discussion of the applicable Virginia law in Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 10-104 (Oct. 26, 2010), available at http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-104-Lind.pdf

SUMMARY:
When a general registrar knows an absentee voter has died prior to election day, but after having voted by absentee ballot, the registrar must cancel that voter's registration, and the absentee ballot should not be counted; but that in those circumstances in which absentee ballots are cast prior to election day in a manner by which the absentee ballot no longer can be set aside, the general registrar who knows of the voter's death shall cancel that voter's registration, but election officials are not otherwise required to perform the impossible task of not counting the deceased voter's ballot.

Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588<tel:%28202%29%20422-2588>
steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com><mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com<mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>>
@Pronounce_the_T
On Aug 3, 2012 11:54 AM, "Doug Hess" <douglasrhess at gmail.com<mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com><mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com<mailto:douglasrhess at gmail.com>>> wrote:

Let's say you vote by mail and then kick the bucket before ballots are counted or before election day. Assuming election officials notice this about you and spot your ballot, do laws or regulations address counting that ballot? I assume that if you were eligible to vote when you did, that dieing before ballots are counted doesn't matter.

If an election is entirely by mail and you can get ballots 30 days in advance (is that standard?), just how many adults go six feet under in that period. I'm wondering--for Friday amusement partially--if the number or percentage is enough that the dead can determine an outcome?

Doug

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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/20120803/2dedf958/attachment.html>