[EL] Fwd: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 11:41:43 PDT 2013
I guess if we all know how each other will reply, we don't really need this
list.
I'll add just one thing: I am a member of "the free-speech community" as
well as "the reform community."
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 1:20 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> I knew you and Sam would reply as you have, given your "cramped" view of
> freedom (who cares about the employer's freedom, or the need to hire more
> police and investigators and allow them to poke around people's lives?) and
> sanguine view of state compulsion. Rawls v. Nozick, medieval kings v.
> Locke, whatever, we know that basic argument won't go away.
>
> But that's a bigger issue irrelevant to the immediate discussion. The
> point is, Sam raises the question as if it is some big point in favor of
> compulsory disclosure - compulsory disclosure is no big deal because we'll
> pass even more (almost certainly ineffectual) laws to try to protect you
> from the damage caused by the laws we passed that force you to do things
> you don't want to do - but it's not; or as if demonstrated some big hole in
> the logic of those concerned more about First Amendment freedom for all,
> but it doesn't. (As an aside, Sam proposed making it illegal to retaliate
> against an employee for engaging in off the job activity; Mark's example is
> actually quite different - he proposes to make it illegal for an employer
> to force an employee to engage in political activity at the risk of being
> terminated).
>
> Many campaign freedom advocates would accept such laws as a part of deal
> that assumes we're still going to have some level of compulsory disclosure,
> and even sees some compulsory disclosure as advantageous. But offering one
> infringement of freedom we don't want because you'll also pass another
> infringement of freedom we don't want is basically to offer nothing.
>
> The reform community has to consider if it has anything to bring to the
> table that the free speech community actually wants.
>
> *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 Mark Schmitt [
> schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 12:14 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Fwd: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
>
> 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/20130830/1fcc9d41/attachment.html>
View list directory