[EL] Interview request

[Justin Levitt]

Are we sure?

Federal law 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_42_00001973--gg010-.html> 
prohibits fraudulently "procuring" ballots in addition to "casting" 
them, which might indicate that a crime is complete even if the ballot 
is not voted.
And state law 
<http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-34.htm> 
similarly prohibits "applying for" a ballot in a name other than your 
own, in addition to "voting".

I don't know whether either of those provisions have ever been enforced, 
much less construed, for ballots that have not been voted, and to me, 
the more natural reading is to construe them so as to apply to procuring 
ballots for other people to vote them.  But I could understand an 
alternative view.  And as I keep hearing with respect to this issue, 
whether the provision has been enforced in such circumstances isn't a 
particularly good gauge of whether criminal activity has occurred.

Justin

On 1/11/2012 2:46 PM, Frank Askin wrote:
> I agree with Rick Hasen.  It appears that none of O'keefe's actors was
> stupid enough to actually vote and risk a 5-year jail sentence.  I wish
> they had.... Also, it is unclear whether a voter in New Hampshire has to
> sign in before voting.  When I go to vote, no one asks me for ID but I
> have to sign the register so my signature can be compared with the one
> in the book.  FRANK
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law       and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687>>>  Scott Bieniek<sbieniek at bienieklaw.com>  1/11/2012
> 4:53 PM>>>
> “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,
>

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120111/9ea0cae4/attachment.html>