[EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Oct 12 10:00:28 PDT 2012
I think this once again shows that no amount of evidence would be enough
to convince someone predisposed this happens: not the huge disparity in
the number of prosecutions or convictions, and not the illogic of this
kind of fraud compared to the kind of fraud which actually happens.
On 10/12/12 9:31 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <tel:310-825-5148>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From:JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> [JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:32 AM
>> To: Lowenstein, Daniel;rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:310-825-5148>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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 OfJBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> [JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>]
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:44 AM
>> To:rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
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
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121012/9a2f5ae0/attachment.html>
View list directory