[EL] election crimes, registration fraud and voter fraud -- moral equivalence?
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Oct 13 20:26:08 PDT 2012
Marty,
I've addressed the false equivalence argument here:
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31719
Rick
On 10/13/12 10:24 AM, Marty Lederman wrote:
> P.S. As I wrote earlier, even if everyone involved were for some
> inexplicable reason sincerely convinced that voter impersonation is a
> "significant problem," I am much less concerned with motive than with
> effect. And since such impersonation is not, in fact, a problem, and
> the costs of voter ID are, by contrast, so severe, I think it is
> imperative to convey that message at every opportunity.
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Marty Lederman
> <lederman.marty at gmail.com <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Brad: I begin with a very strong presumption of good faith on the
> part of those contributing to this listserv. But please explain
> why "most proponents of voter ID believe very strongly that voter
> fraud is a significant problem" if in fact there is virtually no
> evidence of any such voter impersonation (and no incentive for
> anyone to organize or encourage such impersonation), let alone
> enough that might affect the outcome of any election?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Smith, Brad
> <BSmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
>
> Again, Marty, your assumption here: "On the one hand, we have
> people working to enact and defend laws that they know will
> eliminate, at best, a handful of cases of voter impersonation"
> is simply incorrect. They don't know that at all. Most
> proponents of voter ID believe very strongly that voter fraud
> is a significant problem, and that the ID requirement is a
> necessary step to starting to control the problem.
>
> Your continued assumption of bad faith doesn't advance the
> argument.
>
> /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 Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com
> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:44 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>;
> law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] election crimes, registration fraud and
> voter fraud -- moral equivalence?
>
> Thanks for those links, Rick. You're right that some of the
> claims in the reports appear to be hyperbolic.
>
> The Advancement Project Report asserts that "[t]here are 22
> states in which citizenship-based purges, registration
> barriers, and/or photo ID restrictions are in effect or could
> be in effect by the 2012 elections. There are more than 10
> million eligible Latino voters in these states who *could be
> *deterred or prevented from voting in the 2012 elections due
> to these barriers."
>
> While that hedged assertion ("could be" deterred) might
> literally be true -- especially taking into account the laws
> other than Voter ID that the report focuses upon -- it is
> almost surely not the case that more than 10 million eligible
> Latino voters will in fact fail to vote (or have their votes
> counted) as a result of those laws. The number is almost
> certainly smaller than that -- perhaps it's "only" on the
> order of tens or hundreds of thousands of Latino voters.
>
> The claim in the CAP Report (p.5) is that because over 21
> million eligible voters currently lack the required IDs, "it's
> clear that such laws /could have/ a disastrous effect," and
> "have /the potential /to exclude millions of Americans."
> Again, these hedged claims are literally true . . . but of
> course the relevant subset is the percentage of those 21
> million who (i) live in states with a voter ID law; (ii) who
> would have voted anyway; but (iii) who will not vote (or have
> their votes counted) as a result of the laws. That number
> /might be/ more than a million; but the study doesn't
> demonstrate that it would be; and it seems much more likely
> that the number would be in five or six figures, not seven.
>
> Fair enough. So these reports are guilty of hyperbole, or at
> least sloppiness.
>
> But how is that remotely comparable to what the proponents of
> voter ID laws are doing?
>
> On the one hand, we have people working to enact and defend
> laws that they know will eliminate, at best, a handful of
> cases of voter impersonation (and there's not even evidence of
> that), none of which could possibly have an effect on the
> outcome of an election, but that will result in tens or
> hundreds of thousands of eligible voters not voting or not
> having their votes counted. From all that appears, such laws
> are in fact designed to change the outcome of elections by
> lowering that vote, as the Pennsylvania GOP leader
> acknowledged. (And regardless of motive, such laws clearly
> have the potential to effect outcomes.) Moreover, most such
> proponents are not taking steps (as Rick described) to
> ameliorate the /actual/ voter fraud that occurs in
> registration and absentee balloting.
>
> On the other hand, we have organizations dedicated to
> /preserving/ the effective franchise of those eligible voters,
> but in doing so exaggerate the effect of the Voter ID laws by
> using the word "millions" when they should have referred to
> tens or hundreds of thousands.
>
> An equal pox on both their houses?
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rick Hasen
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> Here's an example suggesting that Republican supported
> laws could disenfranchise 10 million Hispanic voters:
>
> http://themoderatevoice.com/161344/report-voting-laws-may-disenfranchise-10-million-hispanic-u-s-citizens-study/
>
> Here's a report from Think Progress: Voter Suppression
> 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise
> Millions of Americans
> <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Qfc8Q7rwAD0J:www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/voter_supression.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiydHbM1GA4xbmC1GpkpUZL3rJTiCZwqHgzczR2Ku-TOw8kGFmcyZo5dSlru6Gu7CbWBEFEm6DZvYeqdKd9tnV3mf70ByAWZdpxHGIcpZ0FZ3B2IUkrMvSMcmb99lUKlRqxJ9BG&sig=AHIEtbRNcsRxBc3KgtommeujMEAaX-2fWQ>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/12 12:21 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
>> Marty, do you believe all or most of the Democrats and
>> progessives who have claimed millions of voters are
>> disfranchised by photo ID laws really believe that claim?
>> Do you believe most ordinary Democrats who profess to
>> believe those claims are speaking insincerely? If your
>> answer to both those questions is no, then (a) I don't
>> see any disagreement between us, and (b) I don't see what
>> is left of your argument against moral equivalence. 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:
>> Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com
>> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, October
>> 12, 2012 12:03 PM To: Lowenstein, Daniel Cc: Rick Hasen;
>> JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>;
>> law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] election crimes, registration fraud and
>> voter fraud Dan: Of course there are many "ordinary"
>> Republicans -- Dems and Independents, too! -- who
>> sincerely believe there is a high incidence of the sort
>> of voter fraud that a Voter ID law purports to address.
>> They have such a belief, in large measure, because they
>> have been told repeatedly that there is such an epidemic
>> of fraud by people who know better; because they are
>> unaware that there is no evidence to support such a view;
>> and because they haven't had any occasion to think
>> through (as Rick has) the fact that if one were going to
>> try to influence the outcome of an election, it'd be nuts
>> to try to do so through voter impersonation. Those aren't
>> the people who are acting in bad faith, Dan. It's the
>> sponsors, promoters, drafters and legal/public defenders
>> of such laws to which I'm referring. Some of those, like
>> Joe La Rue, repeatedly purport to believe that such fraud
>> exists (even though he now acknowledges it must be
>> "rare"), and claim not to want to prevent any eligible
>> voter from voting. I don't know Joe, and so would be
>> reluctant to accuse him of posting here in bad faith. But
>> I think it is very fair to say that the vast majority of
>> Voter ID sponsors, etc., know full well that the
>> vanishingly small if not nonexistent number of unlawful
>> "votes" that will be prevented by Voter ID laws pale in
>> comparison to the number of votes that will not be cast
>> or counted by virtue of such laws. Ultimately, of course,
>> I'm not very much concerned with the motives and
>> good-or-bad faith of the Voter ID proponents on this
>> listserv. I care instead about making sure that every
>> eligible voter who wishes to cast a ballot will do so,
>> and that all such votes are counted. And one way to try
>> to realize that result is to convince judges, and public
>> officials, and Republicans with a conscience who truly do
>> not wish any such votes to not be counted, and "ordinary"
>> citizens who have been confused into thinking that there
>> is a raft of voter impersonation to be addressed, that in
>> fact there is no such problem and that the cure is far,
>> far worse than the alleged disease. In that context, what
>> I find deeply unhelpful, and regrettable, are those who
>> would suggest that the motives of the disputants here are
>> in any sense equivalent, and who opine that although
>> there is no problem that needs addressing here, we really
>> should not worry about Voter ID laws because the number
>> of citizens who will not vote as a result of such laws is
>> insufficiently "significant." On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at
>> 12:54 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu
>> <mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu><mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>
>> <mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>> wrote: I do not believe
>> in moral equivalence as a general principle, but there
>> are situations to which it is apt, none more so, in my
>> opinion, than the controversy over photo ID. Marty's post
>> is the exact counterpart to the one earlier today by Jim
>> Bopp. (By the way, I have a high degree of respect for
>> both of them and appreciation for what they have
>> contributed to this listserv over the years.) Marty's
>> premise is that "the supporters of ID laws know" that
>> impersonation fraud is a negligible problem. In my
>> earlier post I agreed in part, saying that no doubt some
>> people whom I referred to as demagogues know that. Just
>> as their are some people on the other side whom I also
>> referred to as demagogues who no doubt know that photo ID
>> laws are not civil rights disasters that will
>> disfranchise millions of voters. But most "supporters of
>> ID laws" are not demagogues. Perhaps inside the Beltway
>> Marty does not have many discussions with ordinary
>> Republican voters who are interested in politics but do
>> not have any special knowledge of election law. I meet
>> many such people and based on my conversations with them
>> I am convinced that very many of them sincerely believe
>> voter fraud is a major benefit to Democratic candidates,
>> which is why Democrats oppose such laws. I also meet many
>> Democrats of the same description and I am similarly
>> convinced that they are equally sincere. As I see it,
>> there is cynicism among a few and sincere delusion among
>> many in both parties. I do not believe the parties differ
>> much in the ratio between the two. 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><tel:310-825-5148> <tel:310-825-5148>
>> ________________________________ From: Marty Lederman
>> [lederman.marty at gmail.com
>> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com><mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, October
>> 12, 2012 9:17 AM To: Rick Hasen Cc: Lowenstein, Daniel;
>> JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] election crimes, registration fraud and
>> voter fraud 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><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto: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>
>> <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
>> >
>> <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>
>> <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>
>> <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 dea
>> d, 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>
>> <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>
>> <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>
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=23053> to try to steal an
>> election.) Pointing to a few isolated
>> cases<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33751>
>> <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><tel:310-825-5148>
>> <tel:310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148<tel:310-825-5148>
>> <tel:310-825-5148>> ________________________________
>> From: JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> [JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto: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><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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><mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>
>> <mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu><mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto: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><tel:310-825-5148>
>> <tel:310-825-5148><tel:310-825-5148<tel: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><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<mailto: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><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<mailto: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><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> [JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com&
>> gt; <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><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>;law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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><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><tel:949.824.3072>
>> <tel:949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072>
>> <tel:949.824.3072>> - office 949.824.0495
>> <tel:949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495>
>> <tel:949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495>
>> <tel:949.824.0495>> - fax rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto: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><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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 <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
> 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/20121013/e7f8413f/attachment.html>
View list directory