[EL] Dan 1-Line Sig
Larry Levine
larrylevine at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 22 16:05:39 PDT 2012
Let's see what the opposition does with it in the runoff.
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: Sunday, July 22, 2012 3:17 PM
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Dan 1-Line Sig
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
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
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> 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 on behalf of David A.
Schultz
Sent: Sat 7/21/2012 8:22 AM
To: 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-bachm
ann.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 (voice)
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-polit
ical-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge
<http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-poli
tical-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge,> ),
<http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-poli
tical-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
<tel:614.236.6317> 614.236.6317
<http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
_____
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Ben Adler
[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> 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] 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
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
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Ben Adler
Contributing Writer, The Nation
Federal Policy Correspondent, Next American City
<tel:347-463-0429> 347-463-0429
_______________________________________________
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/20120722/9480261e/attachment.html>
View list directory