[EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud
Joe La Rue
joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 09:31:07 PDT 2012
The fact that Rick was unable to uncover evidence of in-person voter fraud
does not mean it doesn't occur. It just means that, if it occurs, it's goes
unreported. And that makes sense: in order for us to know about a
fraudulent in-person vote, the fraudulent voter must be caught. That's
difficult to do without picture ID requirements. In fact, it seems to me
the only way it would happen is if the real person whose identity the
fraudulent voter stole shows up to vote afterwards and finds he's been
disenfranchised, and then decides to press the issue. Given the
pathetically low number of Americans who vote, it is far from certain that
would occur.
I do agree with Rick that in-person voter fraud is likely rare. I also
agree with Marty (strangely enough) that any case of disenfranchment
because a person was unable to comply with the requirements to vote is one
too many. I reject, however, the underlying assumptions that (1) poor
people and minorities are too stupid or otherwise incapable to comply with
photo ID requirements (I happen to think they're very bright and capable),
and (2) Republicans are interested in disenfranchising people (we're not;
we're interested in protecting the vote).
Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>wrote:
> Rick: I don’t think the “there’s no problem on either end” meme holds up.
> It’s a case of false equivalence.
>
> As you note, there is virtually *no* evidence of any impersonation fraud
> that would be remedied by a voter ID law -- and the supporters of ID laws
> know this. That strongly suggests that they support such laws not in order
> to eliminate any voter fraud, but instead for the (wholly illegitimate)
> purpose of trying to prevent eligible voters from voting--a conclusion
> bolstered by the fact, which you emphasize, that they have done virtually
> nothing to address the sources of actual voter fraud.
>
> OK, but Dan says: Even if that is their motive, they’re not getting any
> bang for their buck -- don’t sweat it, because such voter ID laws will not
> prevent “significant numbers from voting.” And you add that it’s difficult
> for challengers of such laws to identify "real eligible voters who (1) lack
> id; (2) would have trouble getting the id; and (3) want to vote.”
>
> That may be true -- it might be difficult to identify *particular *willing
> voters who “would have trouble getting the id” -- in part because once we
> identify such a person, it might not be especially difficult to guide them
> through the steps they’d need to take to obtain the ID.
>
> But even so, there will in fact be some number of voters -- overwhelmingly
> less-well-to-do voters, who tend to vote Democratic -- who will not in fact
> obtain the ID, however “troublesome” we might consider it to be to do so.
> And thus they won’t be able to vote -- and their franchise will have been
> lost without *any* resulting gain in preventing voter fraud (or any other
> legitimate state interest).
>
> Is that number of voters “significant”? Well, since I think the franchise
> is very precious, I’d tend to say “yes,” no matter what the number is. But
> in any event, I think it’s safe to say that the proponents of the laws sure
> think the number would be significant -- in the sense of having a possible
> affect on the outcome of some races, perhaps even the presidential
> electoral votes in a particular state -- or else they wouldn’t go to the
> trouble of making such efforts to push through these laws.
>
> Is there any reason to think these very astute and dedicated political
> operatives are wrong -- that in fact virtually the same number of votes
> will be cast and counted with ID laws?
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think Dan is right on this, and I think the overheated rhetoric in
>> many of the posts which have come through this morning (please take a
>> breath and think before you hit send) is a sad illustration of his point.
>>
>> Here's what we know about in-person, impersonation fraud. Almost all the
>> fraud that occurs in relation to election falls into three categories:
>> election crimes committed by election officials (Cudahy<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html>is a recent colorful example), voter registration fraud (a la ACORN workers
>> and now apparently Sproul workers---though there is still an investigation
>> of those), and absentee ballot fraud. This usually occurs through vote
>> buying and there are examples of such fraud in every election. See Adam
>> Liptak's recent piece<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html>.
>> The Justice Dept. under Bush spent five years going after election crimes
>> and voter fraud, and almost all the cases it found (I believe it was
>> reported first as 86 and then as 120) fell into these categories. There
>> were *no cases* of in person, impersonation fraud---the primary type of
>> fraud which a state voter id law can prevent.
>>
>> For my book, I tried to find a single example of impersonation fraud at
>> the polls, done without the cooperation of election officials (because a
>> voter id law would not prevent that), in the last generation, where the
>> results could arguably have been called into question by such fraud. I
>> could not find one. Nor can those who tout the voter fraud claims find
>> one. Von Spakovsky pointed to what he called "extensive impersonation
>> fraud" in a Heritage report (and related FOX News oped) based upon a 1984
>> grand jury report <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23572> from Brooklyn.
>> He stonewalled on giving me the report and when UCI librarians tracked it
>> down it did not support his claim: the crimes were almost all by election
>> officials and party officials. (Note that crimes committed in the 1970s
>> are particularly relevant to what is going on today in any case....).
>>
>> News21
>> <http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed>did
>> a recent comprehensive study of all reports by prosecutors of election
>> crimes since 2000. They found only 10 prosecutions for impersonation fraud
>> across the country (leading to what looks like 7 convictions), with none of
>> them tied to any kind of conspiracy to steal the vote. This compares to
>> 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud.
>> There is no reason to believe that impersonation fraud would be *harder*to detect than these other kinds of fraud. Instead, because it would
>> involve a conspiracy among a number of individuals going to the polls and
>> claiming to be someone else listed on the polls (someone out of the area,
>> or dead, or false registered---though we don't see case of that), it should
>> be easier to detect. The reason this kind of fraud doesn't happen except
>> in very rare circumstances is that it is an exceedingly dumb way to steal
>> an election. Election official fraud and absentee ballot fraud are easier
>> and therefore more prevalent.
>>
>> There are cases of double voting across states, but state id laws are not
>> the best way to catch that. The best way is with a national id, which is
>> something I'd support if it were coupled with universal voter registration
>> done by the federal government.
>>
>> I've written too about how it is very hard for plaintiffs in the voter id
>> challenges (putting aside Pa., which did not have its act together in time)
>> to find real eligible voters who (1) lack id; (2) would have trouble
>> getting the id; and (3) want to vote. There are some, and the question is
>> one of cost and benefits: state voter id laws inconvenience a lot of people
>> without much anti-fraud payoff. And compare that to cutting back on
>> absentee ballots to prevent that kind of fraud. As I recently wrote<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/a-dtente-before-the-election/?ref=opinion>:
>>
>>
>> Recently, officials<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/cudahy-corruption-election-fraud.html>in Cudahy, Calif., admitted intercepting absentee ballots and throwing out
>> ballots not cast for incumbents. Every year we see convictions for absentee
>> ballot fraud. Not a lot, but enough to know it’s a problem.
>>
>> So you might think that Republicans, newly obsessed with voter fraud,
>> would call for eliminating absentee ballots, or at least requiring that
>> voters who use them show some need, like a medical condition. But
>> Republicans don’t talk much about reining in absentee ballots. Eliminating
>> them would inconvenience some voters and would likely cut back on voting by
>> loyal Republican voters, especially elderly and military voters.
>>
>> If only Republicans would apply that same logic to voter-identification
>> laws. The only kind of fraud such ID laws prevent is impersonation: a
>> person registered under a false name or claiming to be someone else on the
>> voter rolls.
>>
>> I have not found a single election over the last few decades in which
>> impersonation fraud had the slightest chance of changing an election
>> outcome — unlike absentee-ballot fraud, which changes election outcomes
>> regularly. (Let’s face it: impersonation fraud is an exceedingly dumb way<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23053>to try to steal an election.)
>>
>> Pointing to a few isolated cases <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33751>of impersonation fraud does not prove that a state identification
>> requirement makes sense. As with restrictions on absentee ballots, we need
>> to weigh the costs of imposing barriers on the right to vote against the
>> benefits of fraud protection.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/12 7:43 AM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
>>
>> Jim's second point illustrates the only aspect of the photo ID controversy that interests me. So far as I can tell, the opposing concerns that animate the opposing sides are utterly unfounded. Republicans are wrong that photo ID will prevent significant voter fraud and Democrats are wrong that the requirement will prevent significant numbers from voting. There are no doubt some demagogues on both sides who are whipping up these two forms of hysteria for partisan reasons, but I have spoken to many ordinary voters on both sides and I am convinced that they are utterly sincere in their belief in their own party's form of hysteria. But while each side believes what it believes, neither is willing to credit the other side for sincere belief. Thus, each side demonizes the other--Republicans believe Democrats are trying to steal elections with fraud, Democrats believe Republicans are trying to suppress voting by preponderantly Democratic groups.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Daniel H. Lowenstein
>> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>> UCLA Law School
>> 405 Hilgard
>> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>> 310-825-5148
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:32 AM
>> To: Lowenstein, Daniel; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping a...
>>
>> Before the controversy over the Voter ID, I thought the same thing -- that absentee voter fraud was the problem. But I have changed my mind for two reasons: (1) if someone, like these Obama campaign workers, would so willing commit voter fraud through the absentee process, why wouldn't they also do it on election day, if there were opportunities to do so without getting caught. A person is either a crook or isn't. So, for instance, if you have instant registration and then voting on election day, without a voter ID law, then in precincts dominated by one party this seems like a prime opportunity. (2) Has been the reaction of the opponents, particular the Democrats. I first thought that voter ID was a modest proposal all the way around: it was dealing with a modest threat of voter fraud, but also without a serious impediment to voting. What happened is that Democrat politician flipped out, calling it racist, claiming thousands would be disenfranchised, etc, without reason. In othe
>> r words, they "protest too much." I figured we were on to something -- in person voter fraud -- that was more serious than I thought.
>>
>> In person voter fraud in such cases as I have mentioned is very hard to prove, but that does not mean that it does not happen. From time to time, however, we see people like these Obama operatives who clearly are prepared to commit voter fraud and it is just reasonable to suggest that they would do it in person if they had a chance -- which voter ID laws, in large measure, prevent. Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 10/12/2012 10:08:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lowenstein at law.ucla.edu writes:
>> I think the more sensible Democrats have claimed there is no or virtually no voter fraud that can be avoided by a photo ID requirement, not that there is no significant voter fraud at all. I very much agree with Rick and others who have said the biggest concern about voter fraud arises from the widespread use of voting by mail, which gives rise not only to potential fraud problems but, I believe, even worse problems of intimidation and bribery. Indeed, the reporter in the video is representing to vote, fraudulently, in Florida by mail, not be impersonation.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Daniel H. Lowenstein
>> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>> UCLA Law School
>> 405 Hilgard
>> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>> 310-825-5148
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:44 AM
>> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
>> Subject: [EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist v
>>
>> Click here: New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist vote twice | The Daily Caller<http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts> <http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/new-okeefe-video-obama-campaign-staffer-caught-helping-activist-vote-twice/#ixzz293I3dEts>
>>
>> Obama campaign caught red handed participating in voter fraud by helping voters vote in two different states in this election. And some say there is no voter fraud! Jim Bopp
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20121012/6deba32c/attachment.html>
View list directory