[EL] Fwd: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment

Fri Aug 30 13:27:36 PDT 2013

Suffice to say that as freedom has traditionally been understood in the United States, you are not on the freedom side of this debate. It doesn't mean you're a horrible dictator; and it's not something you should be ashamed of. There are other important values, too, and they mean a lot to you. Heck, you could probably win this argument with most people without pretending to be a friend of freedom on this issue, even if the reason your nasty employer knew you were a member of the SWP was only because of the campaign finance laws that you support. Have confidence in your credo Sam - you don't need to steal mine.

We understand that for years the left has sought to redefine freedom in order to appropriate the term and the concept, because it has recognized - as you do - that the term and the concept have power. The right sometimes does the same, but with less success, attempting to appropriate phrases such as "social justice" and  the like. If the government ordered you to give me your labor, we wouldn't call that "freedom" just because it increases my options in life. And if I said "you can work for me but only if you never speak your views on compulsory disclosure of information again" I am not restricting your freedom. You might prefer a society that prohibits me from conditioning work in that way, and that's fine - there are strong arguments for that. As I say, I think lots and lots of people would agree. But that's not freedom, and yes, to call it that debases the language because it is now tougher to discuss freedom versus restraints., since freedom's meaning has been intentionally fudged.

All that seems to me a debate for another list. It is very difficult to converse if I call myself a "reformer" and Mark calls himself a "free speech advocate" and you say forcing people to disclose their activity and then restricting the rights of others to act on the information you insisted they must have is promoting "freedom," and so on. I am where I am largely because I value freedom more than you do. You worry more about the consequences of freedom (as when an employer fires an employee for reasons you think insufficient) much more than I do and that's largely why you are where you are. That doesn't make you a bad guy Sam. I'm not mad at you. It's not personal. As Mark Scarberry says, we can work on the tacit understanding that most are speaking in good faith and certainly care about multiple things. But let's not call compulsion and restraint "freedom."

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: Samuel Bagenstos [sbagen at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment

If I were fired from my private-sector job operating a sewing machine because I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, I don't think I'd regard it as tyrannical for the government to give me a right of redress and tell my boss it's none of his business what politics I support on my own time.  (For the actual case -- from 2002! -- see: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html .)

If I found anyone a tyrant in this situation, it would be the boss who thought he could coerce my political beliefs by firing me from a totally nonpolitical job.  As I would if I were a coal miner and my boss told me I had to attend a rally for his favorite presidential candidate.

But there I go debasing the language again!

Happy Labor Day!

On Aug 30, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:

Sam writes "I *do* however think it's "some big point" against your claim to be the defender of freedom in this conversation that you would reject anti-retaliation laws"

No Sam. All it means is that you have redefined "freedom" from its traditional meaning, because you recognize the power of "freedom" as a term in American political discourse and seek to appropriate to your agenda of greater state power. Tyrants - even modest, moderate, gentle, and benevolent tyrants - must always debase the language. You favor reducing the freedom of some for you think is a valuable goal; because your reduction in freedom has side effects you also don't like, you seek to reduce the freedom of others. And I'm sure that will soon force you to add further reductions.

People who want to restrict freedom always begin by saying how much they value freedom. Typically, in this debate, they say "nobody values freedom of speech more than I do, but ... ." And I'm always left thinking, "yes, someone does value freedom of speech more than you - I do. That's why you want to reduce it, and I want to increase it."

I favor laws that limit the ability of government to retaliate for the free speech of the citizenry, but not laws that restrict the freedom of the citizenry.

You want to have it both ways - to pretend to defend freedom while restricting it. But you can't. You are more concerned about corruption and equality of result than I am. I am more concerned about freedom than you are. That's probably the single most important reason we come down where we do vis a vis one another.

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<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 Samuel Bagenstos [sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 2:55 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> Law
Subject: [EL] Fwd: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment

Begin forwarded message:

From: Samuel Bagenstos <sambagen at umich.edu<mailto:sambagen at umich.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment
Date: August 30, 2013 2:54:28 PM EDT
To: Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com<mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>>

Just a couple of quick responses to Brad:

1.  I don't know that I'm a member of any "community" here.  But I do think that if you really care about the ability of ordinary people to speak freely, you should care about limiting the power of their employers to coerce or retaliate against their speech.

2.  I didn't mean to raise the question as if it was any kind of point in favor of compulsory disclosure.  Like Mark in his initial post, I share concerns about privacy in lots of kinds of information, including this sort of information.  And, though my thumbs apparently don't know how to type "either-or," I think it was clear enough in my reply to you that I was not pitting nondisclosure and anti-retaliation laws as mutually exclusive alternatives.

I *do* however think it's "some big point" against your claim to be the defender of freedom in this conversation that you would reject anti-retaliation laws -- laws which would target what I would regard as the most effective means of protecting most people's actual freedom to speak against the folks who are most likely to be in a position to limit that freedom (and will be in a position to limit that freedom even in the presence of a nondisclosure requirement).

On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Mark Schmitt wrote:

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<mailto: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<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 Mark Schmitt [schmitt.mark at gmail.com<mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:14 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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<tel:202%2F246-2350>
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com>> wrote:

Forgot to reply-all again!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Samuel Bagenstos" <sambagen at umich.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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 Samuel Bagenstos [sambagen at umich.edu<mailto:sambagen at umich.edu>]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:21 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:703-993-4191> (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
web:     http://elections.gmu.edu<http://elections.gmu.edu/>
twitter: @ElectProject
________________________________
From: Bill Maurer [wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:40 PM
To: Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:703-993-4191> (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
web:     http://elections.gmu.edu<http://elections.gmu.edu/>
twitter: @ElectProject
________________________________
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 Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:03 PM
To: Bill Maurer; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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<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 Bill Maurer [wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:32 PM
To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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 somecomparative 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<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://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<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130830/608f12c9/attachment.html>