[EL] Interview request

[Scott F. Bieniek]

While the debate over the burdens of Voter ID is enjoyable, and
informative, I want to return to my original post, which questioned the way
that Rick dismissed the risk of in-person voter fraud in the TPM
article<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/election_law_experts_say_james_okeefe_accomplices_could_face_charges_over_voter_fraud_stunt.php?ref=fpnewsfeed>.
Unfortunately, I believe that it is an argument that is all too common from
the reform community on a number of issues.

>From the article:

“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.

My point is that the same could be said about quid-pro-quo corruption. The
underlying act, bribing a public official is illegal, in much the same way
that in-person voter fraud is illegal. Yet we have contribution limits AND
compelled disclosure to combat the "problem."

Moreover, compelled disclosure is often justified on the grounds that it
combats the "appearance of corruption."Corruption doesn't even have to be a
widespread problem, the public, or more correctly, the courts, merely have
to think that it exists. Compelled public disclosure will always be
justified as long as Common Cause is out there playing the role of Chicken
Little, and talking about how the public should be scared of monied
interests buying our elections. If enough voters believe that the sky is
falling, then we have compelled disclosure.

My point is that O'Keefe is playing the same role. His stunt demonstrates
that it is pretty easy to walk into a polling place and pull a ballot on
behalf of a deceased voter. If enough voters believe that it is a problem,
then it would appear that the problem is sufficient to warrant a
legislative solution.

My question is simple: If the "appearance of corruption" is sufficient to
support compelled disclosure, why is the "appearance of in-person voter
fraud" not sufficient to support Voter ID or some other remedy? (I'm open
to other alternatives to combatting the problem).

No one from the reform community has stepped up to answer this question.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120112/53ae056c/attachment.html>