[EL] Interview request

Wed Jan 11 15:21:28 PST 2012

Heaven knows journalists have never pushed legal
boundaries<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAJhQAyJ34Q>to prove a
point. Book 'em, Danno.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I never said there was no crime.  I'm with Justin.  And I've urged<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27771>prosecutors to investigate, which they now
> apparently are<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/election_law_experts_say_james_okeefe_accomplices_could_face_charges_over_voter_fraud_stunt.php?ref=fpnewsfeed>
> .
>
>
> On 1/11/2012 3:09 PM, Justin Levitt wrote:
>
> 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> <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> <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  90015213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.com/author=698321
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120111/878fe9a4/attachment.html>