[EL] Dan 1-Line Sig
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Sun Jul 22 15:17:18 PDT 2012
Political stupidity is apparently not a barrier to election. This
candidate finished first in the nonpartisan primary for Mayor of
Portland conducted on May 15, with 37% of the vote in a field of 16
candidates. His "tax residence v. voting residence" situation has been
known for over a year. The press in Oregon has mentioned this situation
only briefly, and it has not been a central topic in the campaigns.
Dan Meek
503-293-9021 dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net> 866-926-9646 fax
On 7/22/2012 9:10 AM, Larry Levine wrote:
Clearly a case of political stupidity. Unless there is a constitutional
flaw in the Oregon laws, it would appear he either committed voter fraud
or tax fraud. Probably not a great idea to be running for office.
Larry
*From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
*Dan Meek
*Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:59 PM
*To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
*Subject:* Re: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
As the topic has turned to vote fraud, I would appreciate the views of
the list members on this case:
A person (currently a candidate for Mayor of Portland) residing in
Portland, Oregon, moved in with his girlfriend in Washington and began
in 2004 to file Oregon nonresident income tax returns. He continued to
file Oregon nonresident income tax returns through 2009 (6 years). This
substantially reduced his income tax bill by allowing him to pay on only
his "Oregon source income," which was a small fraction of his total
income. Washington has no state income tax. If he had filed his Oregon
returns as an Oregon resident, he would have paid a lot more in Oregon
income tax.
But, during those 6 years he continued to vote in Oregon elections.
Oregon has 4 regular elections per year, so he could have voted in up to
24 elections during those 6 years. It is known that he voted in many of
them.
A person who files an Oregon nonresident income tax return is required
by law to swear that he is not a "resident" of Oregon. Oregon law
defines "resident of this state" for income tax purposes as "An
individual who is domiciled in this state." Oregon tax regulations
define "domicile" as "the place an individual considers to be the
individual's true, fixed, permanent home." Thus, he swore to the State
of Oregon on his 2004-09 income tax returns that his "true, fixed,
permanent home" during all of those years was in Washington. Yet, he
voted in Oregon elections during those years.
Is this a case of vote fraud?
For details, see
http://swoolley.org/files/hales_complaint.pdf
http://swoolley.org/files/hales_articles.pdf
Thank you.
Dan Meek
503-293-9021
dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net>
866-926-9646 fax
On 7/21/2012 7:42 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
I should think that the cause of degeneration on these issues, both
publicly and privately, is the standard operation of human
reasoning...amplified. This isn't a problem of bleeding hearts on
the left or stodgy conservatives on the right, but an insight into
human reasoning and rhetoric.
Standard analytical methods include numerous psychological
disruptions that make for the acceptance of new data, evidence, or
paradigm-shifting entirely difficult. As Michael Shermer points out
rather well in /Why People Believe Weird Things/ (like campaign
finance), in making guesses about the world, people ordinarily:
1. Immediately form a hypothesis and look only for examples to
confirm it.
2. Do not seek evidence to disprove the hypothesis.
3. Are very slow to change the hypothesis even when it is obviously
wrong.
4. If the information is too complex, adopt overly-simple
hypotheses or strategies for solutions.
Observe the usual operations of confirmation bias and polarization
of opinion through likeminded seeking behavior, and everything gets
clearer. I might fancy people speaking freely and laugh in
abundance at many reform lobby press releases I read about new
boogeymen and corrupting schemes around the next psychological
corner. But I also understand how deep-seated fear, a need for
simplicity and consistency in understanding the world, and human
refusal to change can fuel these concerns. I suspect those
operating well left of the political spectrum might also apply a
similar model in the context of voter fraud and conservatives'
concerns. Boogeymen are everywhere; just look under your bed.
If we feel we're above the fray on this venerable list-serve--that
we're well educated and intelligent enough to overcome these
hinderances--think again. Educated, intelligent, and successful
adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions.
Psychologist David Perkins has found that the greater your IQ, the
greater potential for this sort of "ideological immunity."
As for me, I'll stick with the absolute guarantees of the First
Amendment, firmly in the/ a priori/ tradition. After all, it's only
in such a setting where the tremendous human faults noted above can
be overcome--that is to say, through the robust protection of
conflicting ideas, norms, and perceptions...exercised by fat cat and
pauper, conservative and liberal alike, allowing a truly civil
society to emerge.
Forward,
First Amendment Ben
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Roy Schotland
<schotlan at law.georgetown.edu <mailto:schotlan at law.georgetown.edu>>
wrote:
'[T]he debate here degenerate[s]". Couldn't agree more with David,
re both "vote fraud" and much of the earlier exchanges on disclosure.
What's happening?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of
David A. Schultz
*Sent:* Sat 7/21/2012 8:22 AM
*To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
*Subject:* Re: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
I will concur with Brad on the point of saying the the public is
badly informed on so many points and that so much of our policy and
political debate is poorly informed by good (social) scientific
evidence. DellaCarpini and Keeter in WHAT AMERICANS DON'T KNOW
ABOUT POLITICS well captures this point. Too much of what goes for
political and policy debate in this country seems more captured by
ideology and myth than by facts. Sadly, as one of the first members
of this listserv years ago, I have witnessed the debate here
degenerate in the same direction. So much of the listserv is
political positioning or Trojan Horses for parties, positions, and
litigation that I often feel that I feel the dialogue here has been
captured by same interest groups and ideologies that exist in our
society.
I half-kid with my students and say the world is divided between
those who believe there was a second shooter in 1963 and those who
do not. I am of the latter.
For anyone who wants to read about my latest thoughts on paranoid
and il-informed politics, please see:
The Paranoid Style of Michele Bachmann
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-paranoid-style-of-michele-bachmann.html
I note two wonderful quotes here.
"In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most
important government departments, is thoroughly infested with
communists."
--Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950.
"Information has recently come to light that raises serious
questions about Department of State policies and activities that
appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by
individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."
--Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 2012.
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 <tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
651.523.3098 <tel:651.523.3098> (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors
>>> "Smith, Brad" 07/21/12 6:55 AM >>>
In recent years it has become a bit of a liberal parlor game to take
polls of conservatives to show their "shockingly ignorant and
conspiratorial beliefs" on various issues. This is not a game,
however, that people on either side should want to play.
Why? Because those of us who deal regularly with public opinion and
knowledge, as many on this list do, know that the public has
"shockingly ignorant and conspiratorial" beliefs on an amazing array
of subjects, and that this is not limited to either side of the
spectrum. For example, one poll found that 35 percent of Democrats
believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 in advance (only
39% disagreed).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance
. In fact, polls have long shown that Republicans tend to be better
informed than Democrats about political issues (see one of the most
recent examples here:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge
<http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge,>),
<http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge%29,> which
I mention only to point out how silly Mr. Adler's comments are, not
how well-informed Republicans are.
The voter ID debate is a very sad debate for me to watch, because I
think the people who ought to be opinion leaders have, and again I'm
referring to both sides, put out lots of bad information and
rhetoric about the issue - the extent of voter fraud on one hand,
the impact of ID laws on voting on the other.
BTW, significant minorities aren't terribly well informed on many
non-political matters, too: for example, a 1999 Gallup poll found
that 18% of Americans throught that the sun revolved around the
earth. But to our credit, we did better than the Germans and the
Brits on the question.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx.
/Bradley A. Smith/
/Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault/
/Professor of Law/
/Capital University Law School/
/303 E. Broad St./
/Columbus, OH 43215/
/614.236.6317 <tel:614.236.6317>/
/http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of
Ben Adler [benadler1 at gmail.com <mailto:benadler1 at gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 6:25 PM
*To:* Scarberry, Mark
*Cc:* Election law list
*Subject:* Re: [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
"No conservative that I know has any difficulty believing that a
majority of voters in New York, for example, vote for candidates who
support liberal policies, or that President Obama received more
votes than Sen. McCain."
I am so sick of conservative intellectuals pretending that the vast
majority of actual conservatives, with their shockingly ignorant and
conspiratorial beliefs, don't exist, so as to dispense with any need
to defend actual conservatism as opposed to your idealized version
of it. If no conservative you know has any difficulty believing
Obama received more votes McCain, then either you don't know many
conservatives, or the ones you know are an extraordinarily
unrepresentative sample. Here's some actual data, as opposed to your
anecdotal assertion:
According to a 2009 Public Policy Polling survey, a majority (52%)
of Republicans believe that ACORN stole the 2008 election on behalf
of Obama. See here:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-gop-base-thinks-obama-didnt-actually-win-2008-election----acorn-stole-it.php
If you've watched Fox News or listened to right wing talk radio over
the last few years, you'll know why this is. But I suppose you would
say you don't know any conservatives who watch Fox News or listen to
Rush Limbaugh either.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Scarberry, Mark
<Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
In response to Jim: Conservatives generally have no problem
believing that people may act foolishly for various reasons.
Conservatives tend to have a more realistic view of human nature
than do some liberals. Conservatives may believe it is foolish for
people to support liberal policies, but conservatives generally are
quite willing to believe that people do so in large numbers. No
conservative that I know has any difficulty believing that a
majority of voters in New York, for example, vote for candidates who
support liberal policies, or that President Obama received more
votes than Sen. McCain. Conservatives also think that there are a
lot of people who benefit from a large government who are likely to
vote in favor of govt expansion. Conservatives are not at all
surprised, for example, that a lot of government workers would do
so. Whether or not that is a foolish decision depends on the factors
that it may be reasonable for people to take into account in voting.
With regard to real reasons why at least some people who support
voter ID laws do so: There is a concern that fraud may occur in the
future. Perhaps it is analogous to the fear that electronic voting
systems may be hacked so as to change voting results. Even if there
is no evidence that it has occurred, there is a system vulnerability
that can reasonably be considered in deciding what action may be
appropriate, in part to prevent the vulnerability from being
exploited and in part to help assure voters that the system has
integrity.
Discussions on this list have persuaded me that there is little
current voting fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws, and
that there should be more concern about absentee voting, voting by
mail, and new Internet voting systems. I also have an innate
distrust of non-transparent systems like electronic voting and would
prefer that we use paper ballots that can be recounted manually.
That does not mean that it is unreasonable to take into account
other vulnerabilities of the system that could be exploited in the
future. Explanations about why voter ID laws are not needed or
helpful to address a potential vulnerability will be more persuasive
than data showing a lack of current fraud that would be prevented by
voter ID laws.
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
*From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf
Of *Jim Gardner
*Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2012 12:08 PM
*To:* Election law list
*Subject:* [EL] Vote fraud -- evidence vs. belief
The lack of evidence to support charges of vote fraud raises a more
interesting and profound question: Why do people continue to believe
in it? The answer, it seems to me, has nothing to do with evidence
-- so arguing about the evidence is probably a waste of time -- and
a lot to do with culture, specifically the culture of contemporary
politics.
I think the problem here is that many on the right have managed to
convince themselves that it is impossible -- literally impossible --
for people in any kind of numbers to support liberal policies.
Since people can't possibly support such policies, they can't
possibly vote for liberal candidates. Consequently, if liberal
candidates win, it can only be the result of fraud because nobody
could actually vote for such people.
This problem is cultural. It reveals a very sad fact about our
current politics, namely that the views, beliefs, and experiences of
other human beings are so completely dismissed and devalued in some
quarters that many find it impossible to take seriously the
possibility that their fellow citizens could actually hold certain
views (much less actually take those views seriously or engage with
them on the merits).
I hasten to add that the political valence does not always run in
the same direction. For example, the "What's the Matter with
Kansas" analysis holds that working class voters couldn't possibly
support candidates who support policies that disadvantage them
economically, although proponents of this view explain it by
brainwashing rather than vote fraud. But this explanation doesn't
take seriously the possibility that social and symbolically resonant
issues could actually be more important than economic ones to some
segments of the population.
Until we start taking each other seriously as political agents,
we're not going to extract ourselves from the current impasse.
Jim
________________________________
James A. Gardner
Joseph W. Belluck and Laura L. Aswad
SUNY Distinguished Professor of Civil Justice
SUNY Buffalo Law School
The State University of New York
Room 316, O'Brian Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
voice: 716-645-3607
fax: 716-645-5968
e-mail: jgard at buffalo.edu <mailto:jgard at buffalo.edu>
www.law.buffalo.edu <http://www.law.buffalo.edu/>
Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=40126
_______________________________________________
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
--
Ben Adler
Contributing Writer, The Nation
Federal Policy Correspondent, Next American City
347-463-0429 <tel:347-463-0429>
_______________________________________________
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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120722/c9c117ea/attachment.html>
View list directory