[EL] Interview request

[Scott Bieniek]

Absentee ballots is a straw man. We are talking about in-person fraud, or
the appearance thereof, and a solution to that problem.

If you want to discuss absentee ballot fraud, and whether it is a bigger
problem, that is fine. But it is not a reason for not attempting to solve a
separate problem.

It's like saying we should try and prevent bank robberies because it
doesn't prevent credit card fraud.


On Jan 11, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Howard Brown <hbrown at jamestownr.com> wrote:

  Mr. Bieniek's argument collapses for the lack of controls over absentee
ballots.
By the way, is anyone aware of who's funding O'Keefe?
H Brown

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Scott Bieniek <sbieniek at bienieklaw.com>
*To:* law-election at uci.edu
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:53 PM
*Subject:* Re: [EL] Interview request

“Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who
would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome
of the election and (2) remain undetected?” Hasen wrote.
I'm not buying this argument. You could make the same argument against
quid-pro-quo corruption, and the need for contribution limits and compelled
disclosure.

Quid-pro-quo corruption is typically a felony, and yet we have contribution
limits and compelled disclosure, in part, because the risk of prosecution
is deemed insufficient to deter the conduct, or at least prevent the
appearance thereof in the eyes of the public.

If the appearance of corruption is sufficient to support contribution
limits and compelled public disclosure, why isn't the appearance of
in-person voter fraud sufficient to justify voter ID?

In return for Voter ID, we get:
1. Restored public confidence that it is harder for O'Keefe and others to
pull off a stunt like this.
2. A method of detecting in-person voter fraud at the time of the crime.

And because wagers are all the rage this cycle, I'd be willing to wager
that a higher percentage of the public believe that Voter ID prevents
in-person fraud than those that believe limits or disclosure prevent
corruption.

Scott Bieniek



On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:54 PM, "Ryan J. Reilly" <ryan at talkingpointsmemo.com>
wrote:

  I'm writing a story about James O'Keefe's new video in which his
associates obtained ballots using the names of recently deceased New
Hampshire voters and was hoping someone would be available for an interview
on short notice. As far as I can tell this is the largest coordinated
attempt at in-person voter impersonation fraud, and it was conducted by a
group to show why voter ID laws were necessary. I'm at 202-527-9261.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded#!

Thanks,

-- 
Ryan J. Reilly
Reporter, TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ryanjreilly
(202) 527-9261 (cell)
http://www.twitter.com/ryanjreilly

 _______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120111/0f491aee/attachment.html>