[EL] Fwd: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 09:14:48 PDT 2013
Note that it's not just retaliation. An employer can also compel you to
express the employer's own political views, as in the case of the Ohio
miners who were ordered to take an unpaid day to participate in a Romney
rally. In the case of a Hawaii employer (a union, as it happens) that
compelled staff to volunteer for a Democratic congressional candidate, the
three Republican commissioners on the FEC blocked action. Eugene Volokh's
review of state laws on employee protections for political speech (which
someone on this list pointed me to, thanks) indicated that only in a few
states would that employee have any protection against *compelled political
speech.*
I understand the idea of being more wary of the government. But to view
freedom *solely* in terms of government action, and not the other
structures that severely limit individuals' ability to express themselves,
is a very cramped view of the concept.
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forgot to reply-all again!
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Samuel Bagenstos" <sambagen at umich.edu>
> Date: Aug 30, 2013 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [EL] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
> To: "Brad Smith" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> Cc:
>
> Okay, I'll admit -- I knew you'd say that, and figured Jim would. Hey, I
> like freedom, too. The question is what will make ordinary folks more free
> -- saying that contributions are not to be disclosed, our directly
> protecting them against retaliation (including the retaliation that is
> often most consequential -- retaliation by their employers)? Given all the
> means by which my boss can find out about my political activity and views,
> I'd say it's the latter. But I wouldn't say it's an either-it choice. If
> you do, though, and you would choose nondisclosure but not direct
> protection against retaliation, I'm not that you're the one defending the
> freedom of ordinary people to participate in the political process and
> express their views.
> On Aug 30, 2013 9:38 AM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>>
>> I know I'm not Jim, but I will tell you my answer: no, I do not support
>> such a law. My goal is to maximize freedom and to promote efficient labor
>> markets. It is to simplify the law rather than make it more complex. It is
>> to allow for voluntary standards of behavior rather than compulsory
>> standards except in the most extreme circumstances. The employer should be
>> free to hire and fire on the basis of political ideology, and the employee
>> should not be compelled by the force of law to disclose his or her
>> political activities absent a compelling government reason.
>>
>> The big problem here, I think, is that there's just not a very
>> compelling government reason for requiring the disclosure of much that is
>> required to be disclosed. The disclosure debate too often seems to turn on
>> whether the victim has other remedies or a good reason (as determined by a
>> judge) to fear reprisal. In my view, it ought to turn on whether the
>> government has a strong reason to demand the disclosure. Only after the
>> government demonstrates such a reason should we get into any type of
>> balancing.
>>
>> My preference is more freedom, not less.
>>
>> *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*
>>
>> *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 Samuel
>> Bagenstos [sambagen at umich.edu]
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 8:21 AM
>> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com
>> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>>
>> In an article forthcoming in a couple of months, I argue that it
>> should generally be illegal for an employer to fire an employee for
>> off-work political activities like making a donation for or against Prop 8,
>> perhaps with exceptions for small or closely held businesses or for
>> high-level corporate officials or people hired specifically to engage in
>> political speech on behalf of a corporation (e.g., lobbyists). Jim, would
>> you support a law embodying those principles?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:03 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In the Prop 8 litigation, we got affidavits or verified through
>> newspaper articles over 250 incidents of harrassment of Prop 8 donors. I
>> don't remember a single one where the perpetrator was punished. Partially
>> because in some instances the harrassment is legal -- like firing the
>> person.
>>
>> And what if the perpetrators were caught? The donor has paint on his car
>> and the perpetrator gets a $50 fine. The donor is still discouraged from
>> donating again. Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 8/29/2013 3:15:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> mmcdon at gmu.edu writes:
>>
>> Do you have information that you wish to share with law enforcement
>> that she is being targeted through disclosure of a campaign donation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who has been following what is happening on reddit and other
>> social media these days wrt to say, the identity of the Boston
>> bombers, knows that campaign finance disclosure information is likely not
>> the source.
>>
>>
>> ============
>> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>> Associate Professor
>> George Mason University
>> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
>> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>>
>> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
>> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
>> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
>> twitter: @ElectProject
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Bill Maurer [wmaurer at ij.org]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
>> *To:* Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Paz Harassment
>>
>> Professor, I would say she’s probably being harassed *because* she
>> made a campaign donation—and then the government made a whole bunch of
>> information about her public that she probably now wishes very much that
>> they hadn’t. I don’t really care about the motivations of the
>> harasser—what I care about is that the government is helping harassment to
>> occur and providing significant disincentives for people (especially small
>> donors who have a lot to lose if their union steward, boss, neighbor,
>> neighborhood identity thief, etc. read the disclosure reports) to
>> participate in the country’s political life. And having a cop say, “Wow,
>> it’s a shame that happened” after the fact doesn’t fix that or make the
>> fact that the government is enabling this activity any less problematic.
>>
>>
>>
>> And to the extent that these are straw men, they are straw men accepted
>> by the courts as a justification for the disclosure of almost all political
>> activity in this country, regardless of how minute. The fact that we on
>> the side of anonymity have to counter some fairly silly arguments only
>> reflects the fact that the courts have fully bought into those arguments.
>>
>>
>>
>> *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>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Michael P McDonald
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:25 AM
>> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you guys ever get tired of punching straw men? No one ever said there
>> was no political harassment and several people gave examples of it, myself
>> included. The claim was the harassment *for a campaign donation* was a rare
>> thing, is terrible, but when weighed against other democratic values should
>> be properly handled through law enforcement. I don't think Ms. Paz is being
>> harassed for a campaign donation.
>>
>> ============
>>
>> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>> Associate Professor
>> George Mason University
>> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
>> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>>
>> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
>> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
>> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
>> twitter: @ElectProject
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Smith, Brad [
>> BSmith at law.capital.edu]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:03 PM
>> *To:* Bill Maurer; law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>>
>> Ah, so that explains why the President has urged higher taxes on the
>> wealthy - he's a captive of his donor base of IRS agents! Thank goodness
>> now we know. Had I know this 10 months ago, it would certainly have
>> influenced my vote, and helped me make sense of the campaign.
>>
>>
>>
>> By the way, Bill - you're not much good at using the databases - I got to
>> her street address in 25 seconds from the time I started looking, and it
>> took me that long because I kept hitting the "caps lock" key when I meant
>> to hit the "tab" key. I'm tempted to publish it here, because, like you
>> say, it's probably not worth worrying about, and it's important for people
>> to know. Otherwise, we couldn't be sure it was the right Holly Paz.
>> Besides, most people making death threats probably don't *really* plan to
>> kill her, they just want to harass her a bit, and a little harassment for
>> someone is, well, like Justice Scalia and a few others I could name always
>> say, it's a small price to pay when the alternative is not knowing which
>> politicians are beholden to Holly Paz.
>>
>>
>>
>> *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*
>>
>> *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 Bill Maurer [
>> wmaurer at ij.org]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:32 PM
>> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>>
>> I was wondering how people got Ms. Paz’s private information so they
>> could engage in the harassment discussed in story, given that I imagine
>> that most IRS officials are not all that forthcoming about where they
>> live. Then I did a search for her political donations and—Shazam!—there it
>> was, at least what state and city she lives in (had she given money in
>> Washington state, her street address would have been listed too).
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I’ve been told repeatedly that using this information to harass
>> people (i) doesn’t happen, (ii) isn’t that bad anyway, and (iii) it’s the
>> price of political courage, so I guess it’s all okay. Maybe she’ll be able
>> to get an exemption from reporting now that people have actually threatened
>> to kill her, but that will depend on whether a judge decides her fear is
>> “reasonable” in light of the need to “follow the money” right up to where
>> the yellow police tape starts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> *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>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:42 PM
>> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/29/13
>>
>>
>> “IRS official who scrutinized conservative groups facing harassment,
>> attorney says” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54904>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54904> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> WaPo:<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-official-who-scrutinized-conservative-groups-facing-harassment-attorney-says/2013/08/28/50577962-0ff6-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html>
>>
>> A top Internal Revenue Service official has faced harassment, including
>> threatening telephone calls and visits to her home, after being singled out
>> for criticism by Republicans, her lawyer alleges in a letter to lawmakers.
>>
>> The official, Holly Paz<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/17/what-did-top-irs-official-holly-paz-tell-congressional-investigators-here-are-the-highlights/>,
>> has been on administrative leave since June in connection with the
>> controversy<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html>over how the IRS scrutinized conservative groups applying for tax-exempt
>> status. Paz was involved in subjecting some tea party groups to scrutiny
>> and helped conduct an internal review of the program, but has not been
>> formally accused of wrongdoing.
>>
>>
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54904&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20official%20who%20scrutinized%20conservative%20groups%20facing%20harassment%2C%20attorney%20says%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
>> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
>> Tom Edsall Gets Major Republican Strategists, Top U.S. Political
>> Scientists to Weigh in On Chances for Republicans to Capture Presidency in
>> 2016 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54902>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54902> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Important perspectives<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/can-republicans-paint-the-white-house-red/?hp&_r=0>
>> .
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54902&title=Tom%20Edsall%20Gets%20Major%20Republican%20Strategists%2C%20Top%20U.S.%20Political%20Scientists%20to%20Weigh%20in%20On%20Chances%20for%20Republicans%20to%20Capture%20Presidency%20in%202016&descript>
>>
>> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>> “Obama: ‘We’re Not Going To Wait For Congress’ To Act On Voting Rights
>> Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54900>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54900> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Video<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/28/obama_were_not_going_to_wait_for_congress_to_act_on_voting_rights_act.html>from PBS News Hour interview.
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54900&title=%E2%80%9CObama%3A%20%E2%80%98We%E2%80%99re%20Not%20Going%20To%20Wait%20For%20Congress%E2%80%99%20To%20Act%20On%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, The
>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> “N.C. Lawmakers Meet Raucous Crowd at Charlotte Forum”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54898>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54898> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The backlash begins.<http://electionlawblog.org/N.C.%20lawmakers%20meet%20raucous%20crowd%20at%20Charlotte%20forum%20%20Read%20more%20here:%20http:/www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/28/4271194/nc-lawmakers-meet-raucous-crowd.html#storylink=cpy>
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54898&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20Lawmakers%20Meet%20Raucous%20Crowd%20at%20Charlotte%20Forum%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> “The True Cost of Free Voter I.D. in Texas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54896>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:17 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54896> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> This interesting item<http://texaselectionlaw.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-true-cost-of-free-voter-i-d-in-texas/>(and many other interesting items) appear at the new “Texas Election Law
>> Blog.” The blog is written by<http://texaselectionlaw.wordpress.com/about/>“Joseph Kulhavy – I am a licensed attorney in the State of Texas, and from
>> October 6, 2004 until July 2, 2013, I was a staff attorney with the
>> Elections Division, Texas Secretary of State.”
>>
>> Keep an eye here.
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54896&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20True%20Cost%20of%20Free%20Voter%20I.D.%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
>> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> Other Goings-On in Texas Since The Supreme Court Killed Voting Rights
>> Act Section 5 Preclearance <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54892>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54892> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> In Pasadena, TX:<http://txredistricting.org/post/58935159956/pasadena-redistricting-moves-draw-questions>“the City of Pasadena in southeast Harris County voted 5-4 to place a
>> proposition on the November 2013 ballot that, if approved by voters, would
>> change the city’s current 8 single member district system of electing
>> members of the city council to a 6-2 system featuring two at large members
>> .<http://txredistricting.org/post/58935159956/pasadena-redistricting-moves-draw-questions>State Sen. Sylvia Garcia, MALDEF, and the
>> *Houston Chronicle* have all expressed concerns that the move would
>> dilute the voting strength of the city’s rapidly growing Hispanic
>> population.”
>>
>> In Galveston, TX:
>> <http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Galveston-County-may-run-afoul-of-Voting-Rights-4747681.php>“Galveston
>> County commissioners have slashed the number of justice of the peace and
>> constable districts a year after the U.S. Justice Department blocked a
>> similar plan as discriminatory.”
>>
>> Yeah, the end of preclearance matters<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/north_carolina_s_speedy_vote_suppression_tactics_show_exactly_why_the_voting.html>.
>> And for those like James Taranto
>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579024942693167698.html>who
>> say the Court didn’t really kill Section 5, only the preclearance provision
>> of section 4, I debunk that claim in my APSA paper (which I’m presenting
>> tomorrow), *Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism.*<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>
>>
>>
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54892&title=Other%20Goings-On%20in%20Texas%20Since%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20Killed%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Section%205%20Preclearance&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
>> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> Eric Wang on McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54890>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54890> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Here<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/28/wang-cutting-the-price-tag-off-free-speech/>,
>> in the *Washington Times.*
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54890&title=Eric%20Wang%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>> “Black Republicans try to appropriate Martin Luther King”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54888>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54888> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> And apparently they don’t suppor<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-black-republicans-try-to-appropriate-martin-luther-king/2013/08/26/2eb47d18-0e99-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html>t
>> fixing the Voting Rights Act:
>>
>> A similar response greeted Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who
>> criticized the Supreme Court decision<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/2013/06/25/26888528-dda5-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html>that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act and vowed to repair the law
>> so that it is “impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the
>> usual suspects. I’m with you on that.” The light applause suggested that
>> most of those in attendance were not with him.
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54888&title=%E2%80%9CBlack%20Republicans%20try%20to%20appropriate%20Martin%20Luther%20King%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> “Sorority offered free drinks to members to vote in Tuscaloosa City
>> Board of Education race” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54886>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54886> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The *Birmingham News* reports. (h/t Political Wire)<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/08/28/sorority_girls_offered_free_drinks_to_vote.html#.Uh6PQVbh_mE.twitter>
>>
>> Offering payments or incentives for voting is illegal in federal
>> elections. It is also illegal in some states. (It is illegal in all
>> states to pay someone to vote *for or against* a candidate or ballot
>> measure.)
>>
>> More on this in my article, Vote Buying.
>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=257564>
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54886&title=%E2%80%9CSorority%20offered%20free%20drinks%20to%20members%20to%20vote%20in%20Tuscaloosa%20City%20Board%20of%20Education%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in vote buying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
>> “Colorado: Campaign Finance complaint filed against Morse opponent
>> points to the hybrid nature of recalls”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54884>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 10:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54884> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> This item<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2013/08/colorado-campaign-finance-complaint.html>appears at the Recall Elections Blog.
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54884&title=%E2%80%9CColorado%3A%20Campaign%20Finance%20complaint%20filed%20against%20Morse%20opponent%20points%20to%20the%20hybrid%20nature%20of%20recalls%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, recall
>> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>
>> “What Today’s Journalists Can Learn From MLK Coverage; In 1963,
>> newspapers tried to present ‘both sides’ of the civil rights struggle.
>> Modern reporters should know better — but when it comes to voting rights,
>> they often make the same mistake.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54882>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 10:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54882> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Andrew Cohen writes<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/what-todays-journalists-can-learn-from-mlk-coverage/278095/>for
>> *The Atlantic.*
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54882&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Journalists%20Can%20Learn%20From%20MLK%20Coverage%3B%20In%201963%2C%20newspapers%20tried%20to%20present%20%E2%80%98both%20sides%E2%80%99%20of%20the%20civil%20right>
>>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> “Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54880>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54880> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Jamelle Bouie writes<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29>for
>> *The Daily Beast.*
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54880&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20Admit%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Are%20Aimed%20at%20Democratic%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>> “King’s Deferred ‘Dream’ of Democracy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54878>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54878> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Janai Nelson writes<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/27/kings-deferred-dream-of-democracy/>for Reuters Opinion.
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54878&title=%E2%80%9CKing%E2%80%99s%20Deferred%20%E2%80%98Dream%E2%80%99%20of%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>> An Open Letter to Jonathan Tobin on Voter Fraud Allegations<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54875>
>>
>> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54875> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Mr Tobin,
>>
>> Is it possible for you to stop the bait and switch<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48568>?
>> No one I know who has studied this issue says there’s no voter fraud
>> (hence, the misleading title of your piece: Are You Sure There’s No
>> Voter Fraud<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/27/are-you-sure-theres-no-voter-fraud-voter-id-detroi/>?).
>> It happens, especially with absentee ballots.
>>
>> Instead, the claim is that there’s almost no voter impersonation
>> fraud—the main type of fraud a voter id law would be designed to prevent.
>> For my book *The Voting Wars *I tried to find a single instance where an
>> election was thrown into question since 1980<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=42150>by such fraud. I could
>> not find <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19560> a single example. I found
>> lots of examples of absentee ballot fraud, and election officials
>> committing fraud. But because impersonation fraud is such a dumb and
>> inefficient way to steal an election, it is unsurprising that it doesn’t
>> happen. You offer no such examples in your writing; just innuendo.
>>
>> And please don’t tell me that this fraud is both widespread and
>> impossible to detect (to paraphrase Colin Powell’s recent remarks). There’s
>> not a single credible academic <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=42251> who
>> would agree. We have some comparative numbers from News21<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48568>on prosecutions for these kinds of crimes. Absentee ballot fraud is a real
>> problem. Impersonation fraud is negligible. There’s no reason to believe
>> that impersonation fraud would be harder to catch. In fact, because it
>> would involve a lot of people going to polling places claiming to be
>> someone else, it would be easier to catch.
>>
>> So spare me the unsubstantiated allegations. And if you are really
>> serious that voter fraud is a major problem, let’s see you get behind and
>> advocate for the elimination of no excuse absentee balloting before you
>> attack phantom targets.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Rick Hasen
>>
>> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54875&title=An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Jonathan%20Tobin%20on%20Voter%20Fraud%20Allegations&description=>
>>
>> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://e0.0.00.-1078959216ilDAIEOSZL4yR:0024ccde E:853800.1465174239 V:10f7.404.1.1.16.1.US S:Mlginpa [N3]]]]onstruction [mN]kmZJzRCSDQO3c416A7GoaiP
>> 7bkq1ywhw1thGwFynT7ootMGS1M3hq0p/MLgk3gG15hxNuIF8t6f2TViiKhxzSM6KilSZvEa8wPt
>> V0W9BeTfnClrvQCNBJgYLGukVzmKo4PSoYvrJ+V8RRV23QNuHhwO8VXQ2yBW58J0cYUB288kvzhS
>> nJooIn4Dv2Wcef4DnPB+WhFhmQsKNl+bWk+vDKj50mtvD <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130830/68ff2089/attachment.html>
View list directory