[EL] deaths after voting by mail
Adam Morse
ahmorse at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 12:46:42 PDT 2012
I wouldn't be confident of this. In the 2006 election, my grandfather was
very determined to get his absentee ballot in, despite knowing that he was
in ill-health and might die within a few days. He was much more concerned
about this than his children, despite them all sharing the same general
political outlook. As I recall, he's an actual example of someone who died
between posting his absentee ballot and election day. I have no idea of
whether his vote was counted, and it didn't matter anyway--none of the
races in which he could have voted were close. But I wouldn't assume that
people who are very ill or likely to die would necessarily not care about
voting. It might, of course, reduce the already very low numbers of
posthumous ballots.
--Adam Morse
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dan Meek <dan at meek.net> wrote:
> Also, I would think that most voters who die during the vote-by-mail
> period are probably very ill or in the hospital or otherwise so debilitated
> that they would not be voting anyway. Patients on life support are not
> likely to insist on opening and completing their ballots. And it is a
> felony for anyone else to do so.
>
>
> Dan Meek
> 503-293-9021 dan at meek.net 866-926-9646 fax
> On 8/3/2012 12:21 PM, Dan Meek wrote:
> Deaths among vote-by-mail voters in Oregon are far less significant than
> postulated by Ken Mayer.
>
> First, ballots are mailed to voters, by law, within a window of 14 to 18
> days prior to the election date, not 30 days in advance. So voters receive
> them from 17-12 days before the election date.
>
> Second, ballots are not returned ratably over that period. They arrive
> more slowly, with the median ballot returned usually on the 3rd day prior
> to election day. So the impact would be about 1/10 of his estimate. In
> other words, most folks who die during the vote-by-mail period will not
> have voted before death, anyway, assuming that they die at an even rate
> over that 12-17 day period.
>
> Dan Meek
> 503-293-9021 dan at meek.net 866-926-9646 fax
>
> On 8/3/2012 11:36 AM, Scarberry, Mark 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<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
> 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> 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
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Mayer [
> 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 (voice)/ (608) 265-2663 (fax)
>
>
>
>
> From: 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 <%28202%29%20422-2588>****
>
> 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>> 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>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120803/d50374a8/attachment.html>
View list directory