[EL] Fwd: Re: Paz Harassment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 19:43:29 PDT 2013
Seriously? I know it's technically still summer, but if you put on your
law-professor hat, you might come up with some broadly accepted examples
where government puts restraints on private-sector actors in order to
ensure negative liberty. Here's a hint: Something happened 50 years ago
this week... And then the next year...
And even a night-watchman state puts restraints on individuals and
employers of various kinds.
At the theoretical level, your commitment to a minimal state precedes your
commitment to individual liberty. They are not synonymous. That's why Sam
and I aren't conceding the meaning of "freedom."
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 6:35 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> I have literally never before heard anyone define "negative liberty" as
> the right to have government restrain others, or the ability of government
> to compel you to act.
>
> Look, I was going to get out of this but let's give it one more crack.
> Sam and Mark don't want to be lumped in with the reform community and want
> to mark their support for freedom and free speech. Sam goes so far as to
> state that I don't support freedom because I oppose his preferred
> government restrictions on what has been, until now, a largely unregulated
> part of the labor market.
>
> Of course, all these terms can be contested. I am a reformer, favoring
> far broader reforms than most of those who avidly call themselves members
> of the reform community. And I have a much greater commitment than Sam to
> egalitarianism - if we define it as meaning equality before the law, which
> is certainly within the contested definitions of equality (indeed, much
> more so than Sam's argument re different meanings of freedom). It's just
> that it is going to be much more difficult to converse if we cannot use
> verbal shortcuts widely accepted definitions. Over time, on this list,
> we've widely adopted the conventions of referring to different points of
> view by how supporters of those viewpoints describe themselves. Much better
> than constantly debating terminology. We can split the baby more than two
> ways if that floats your boat, but I'm not sure it much serves any purpose.
> As Mark Scarberry notes, we can assume that most people on this list argue
> in good faith and have multiple interests. (As an aside, citing to Eric
> Foner for the contested definition of freedom cracks me up. It's kind of
> like Alex Rodriguez or Mark McGwire arguing that their records shouldn't be
> tainted by their steriod use because their actions have helped make steriod
> use the new norm).
>
> So Sam favors having the government force people to do things they'd
> rather not do. Then, he favors mitigating some of those consequences by
> restraining others from doing things they previously had a right to do. He
> calls this "freedom," and maybe that's fine if he wants to stop there, but
> he goes further and argues that my unwillingness to go along makes one
> really question my dedication to freedom. (Then Brian chimes in to accuse
> me of an ad hominem attack - LOL). But here, of course, Sam is being
> disingenuous, because he understands that I am using freedom in the
> traditional sense of negative liberty and he is not. But as I noted above,
> two can play that game, e.g. "It's a shame that Sam's credentials on
> equality are so shaky." In the end I think Sam would be much better served
> to argue that he favors wise restraints on our freedom, rather than arguing
> that restraints are freedom, but I'll let him make that call. The point is,
> if we can agree on some semantic definitions here, we'll be able to
> converse more effectively. If Sam insists on monopolizing "freedom" and
> "equality" and "good government," its going to be hard to converse.
>
> I am very glad that Mark has, in multiple recent posts, expressed
> concern about disclosure overkill and for free speech. I am glad that Sam
> at least thinks it is important to couch his arguments for more government
> restraints and compulsion in the language of freedom. And it is certainly
> OK to remind all from time to time that favoring more regulation doesn't
> mean a complete disregard for speech rights, as favoring less regulation
> doesn't mean a lack of commitment to equality of result or good government.
> But it will be a lot easier if we generally accept the short cuts our
> language provides and our reason understands.
>
> *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 5:51 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Fwd: Re: Paz Harassment
>
> Just to add one small point to Sam's: the idea of freedom is indeed
> contested, and part of the debate involves the argument about whether
> "positive liberties" are an aspect of freedom. Is a job, food, shelter,
> health care, etc. a matter of right, a precondition of freedom? I used to
> work for a former ACLU president who was quite fanatical about maintaining
> the distinction, arguing that even though he wanted those things to be
> available to all, he didn't want to hear them called "rights" or "freedom."
>
> We may have different views on that, and some in the Civil Rights
> Movement did, but I bring it up just to be clear that everything Sam and I
> are talking about falls solidly in the zone of "negative liberty" -- the
> ability of individuals to conduct their lives and express themselves
> without interference from others. This is not a matter of redefining a
> broad liberal agenda as "freedom." This is freedom, plain and simple.
>
>
> 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 4:46 PM, Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> The fact that I forgot once again to send this to the list is a sign that
>> I should STFU (if Rick finds that acronym SFW). So I shall.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com>
>> *Subject: **Re: [EL] Fwd: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Paz Harassment*
>> *Date: *August 30, 2013 4:45:19 PM EDT
>> *To: *"Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>>
>> I have to stop arguing on the internet and go hang out with my kids. So
>> I'll just leave it with this: The word "freedom" is obviously a contested
>> one in American (and world) politics and society. See, e.g., Eric Foner,
>> The Story of American Freedom. You don't get to say there's one true
>> definition -- though it doesn't make you a bad person to think you do! For
>> myself, on this 50th Anniversary week of the March on Washington (the
>> "March for Jobs and Freedom"), I kind of like the way the Civil Rights
>> Movement used that word, to refer to a condition of freedom from both
>> state-imposed and privately imposed oppression. But if you prefer the
>> Ludwig von Mises "freedom" to the Fannie Lou Hamer (of the "Mississippi
>> Freedom Democratic Party") "freedom," that's cool by me. It's just not the
>> only American understanding of the term, nor is it the one I find most
>> appealing.
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Samuel
>> Bagenstos [sbagen at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 2:55 PM
>> *To:* 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>
>> *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>
>>
>> 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>
>> 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 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 - 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/c7051806/attachment.html>
View list directory