[EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Fri Feb 8 15:03:49 PST 2013
Frank,
The question I would raise is whether asking many voters in the county to
spend more than an hour in line represents a direct cost to taxpayers as
well -- and one that at least some people simply cannot afford. I'd like to
think that the United States has the know-how, can-do attitude and, yes,
resources to take on such an elementary level of fair access and ensure we
treat voting as a right, not a privilege.
You're right that early voting lines are often longer than Election Day
lines. But the early voter at least has more of a choice to stay in that
line and may have picked a weekend day that doesn't conflict with a job.
Rob
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Frank Strickland <fbs at sbllaw.net> wrote:
> Rob:****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your note. I don’t find my 2006 testimony to be inconsistent
> with today’s comments. There have always been lines to vote. The length of
> lines varies based on the type of election (presidential elections have a
> much greater voter turnout; gubernatorial somewhat less). Adding early
> voting didn’t eliminate lines. Some polling places have no lines at all.
> Early voting is only available at a limited number of locations, so lines
> are more likely to be long. Governments responsible for paying for
> elections are willing to devote reasonable budgets to the election process.
> As I recall, the cost to Fulton County taxpayers to staff and run a general
> election (with 330 or more polling places) was at least $500,000 for one
> day. I don’t think the Fulton County Commission would double that amount to
> reduce the length of lines. Our voting system is certainly not perfect, but
> I think it works well.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Frank****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Frank B. Strickland
> Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
> Midtown Proscenium Suite 2200
> 1170 Peachtree Street NE
> Atlanta, GA 30309
> 678.347.2211 direct
> 678.347.2210 fax
> FBS at sbllaw.net
> www.sbllaw.net ****
>
> ****
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic
> communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the
> recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission and any
> attachments may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information
> and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
> contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited.
> Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 678-347-2200, and
> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
> saving in any manner.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rob Richie [mailto:rr at fairvote.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 5:22 PM
> *To:* Frank Strickland
> *Cc:* Doug Hess; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines****
>
> ** **
>
> Frank,****
>
> ** **
>
> It's late on a Friday and perhaps we're all a bit expectant about the
> weekend, but.... I have to say yours is quite an observation to make for an
> influential political figure with a long history of service in his state.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> As I assume you know, a survey of wait times in 2008 found that Georgia
> had the second longest lines in the country -- nearly 40 minutes, as
> reported in the new Pew report on election administration around the
> country. Although I could be wrong, I'm guessing that your county of Fulton
> would have been higher in its average that some other parts of the state.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> In 2006, when you served on the Fulton County election board, you
> testified to Congress that decisions of Fulton County election officials at
> this point should be beyond oversight. (See below). Yet today you suggest
> that people should just accept long lines and just get over it. To me
> that's rather flippant when you think about people having responsibilities
> like jobs and children to take care of.****
>
> ** **
>
> I'd like to think that it's a nonpartisan issue to ensure voting is
> efficient, secure and widespread. Treating the issue of long lines as a
> serious one seems like a good place to start.****
>
> ** **
>
> Have a good weekend,****
>
> Rob Richie****
>
>
> ###########****
>
>
> http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da113c84e&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da113c84e-2-2
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ..... TThese preclearance requirements exist because the VRA presumes that
> decisions on such matters by the Election Board are suspect and must be
> approved by a Justice Department official before being implemented. Nothing
> could be further from the truth. Frankly, it is insulting to the integrity
> of the members of the Election Board and the entire staff of the election
> department, as well as to the government and citizens of Fulton County, to
> be told by Congress that another 25 years of supervision by the Justice
> Department is required based on a presumption that our policies and
> procedures are suspect. In my service on the Election Board in the 1970s
> and during my current tenure since 2004, I am not aware of a single
> instance of improper relocation of a polling place, adjustment of precinct
> boundary lines or any issue with the date of a special election, yet the
> VRA, if renewed without modification or elimination of the application of
> Section 5 to the State of Georgia or Fulton County, will continue the
> fiction that all such decisions are suspect and require submission to the
> Department of Justice."****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Frank Strickland <fbs at sbllaw.net> wrote:**
> **
>
> There have always been lines for voting, with or without early voting.
> Get over it!****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Frank B. Strickland
> Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
> Midtown Proscenium Suite 2200
> 1170 Peachtree Street NE
> Atlanta, GA 30309
> 678.347.2211 direct
> 678.347.2210 fax
> FBS at sbllaw.net
> www.sbllaw.net ****
>
> ****
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic
> communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the
> recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission and any
> attachments may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information
> and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
> contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited.
> Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 678-347-2200, and
> destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
> saving in any manner.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Hess
> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:36 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Possible Causes of Long Lines****
>
> ****
>
>
> As I sit here in bed on day five of the world's worst flu (not a fun way
> to lose weight), I'm wondering what cuases (possible or known) exist for
> long lines. ****
>
> Have analysts ever conducted some sort of Taylorism study of voting
> precincts? I've always wondered what "operations research" courses that
> some policy schools offer were about, but if that field is about placing
> resources and flow of clients, can or has that been applied to this issue?
> ****
>
> More immediately, I can imagine that almost any steps in the process of
> voting in person can contribute to bottlenecks at various places, but which
> steps are the largest or most likely culprits?****
>
> Doug ****
>
> On Feb 8, 2013 3:00 PM, <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
> wrote:****
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World? (JBoppjr at aol.com)
> 2. Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here, people.
> Move along. (Joe La Rue)
> 3. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (Rick Hasen)
> 4. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (Tova Wang)
> 5. ELB News and Commentary 2/8/13 (Rick Hasen)
> 6. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (Frank Askin)
> 7. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (Frank Askin)
> 8. How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
> absentee ballots for years (John Fund)
> 9. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (Salvador Peralta)
> 10. Re: Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along. (dasmith)
> 11. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
> absentee ballots for years (Ryan J. Reilly)
> 12. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
> absentee ballots for years (Rick Hasen)
> 13. Re: OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World? (Steve Hoersting)
> 14. Absentee ballots and voter ID (Jon Roland)
> 15. Re: How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
> absentee ballots for years (Sean Parnell)
> 16. Re: Absentee ballots and voter ID (Greenberg, Kevin)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: JBoppjr at aol.com
> To: sean at impactpolicymanagement.com, schmitt.mark at gmail.com,
> PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org, law-election at uci.edu
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:45:40 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>
> Sean is right. ****
>
> ****
>
> In addition, it is already quite common and clearly legal for Members of
> Congress to work with advocacy groups regarding grass roots lobbying in
> favor of legislation which the Congressman favors or opposes.****
>
> ****
>
> It is also not unprecedented for a Presidential campaign to morph into an
> advocacy group -- Pat Robertson's campaign in 1988 became the basis for the
> Christian Coalition.****
>
> ****
>
> So I see nothing remarkable or illegal about OFA, aside from the
> remarkable hypocrisy of it all. ****
>
> ****
>
> But even the hypocrisy of it is not that remarkable. The campaign finance
> "reform" industry works with Members of Congress on their grass roots
> lobbying and also the groups benefit from the fundraising that some
> Congressmen do for them. And these groups also provide direct benefits to
> various Congressmen -- featuring them and praising them in public relations
> campaigns and paying for their litigation expenses.****
>
> ****
>
> And of course they accept unlimited corporate contributions of "dark
> money," too, to fund it all. Jim Bopp****
>
> ****
>
> In a message dated 2/7/2013 1:45:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:****
>
> I’m not sure about 501c3 and c4 groups that are used by officeholders to
> keep family and campaign staff employed, but I do know it’s pretty common
> for officeholders to sign letters on behalf of a wide variety of c3 and c4
> groups urging people to donate to them, and there is typically not much of
> a connection between the officeholder and the entity other than they like
> the group’s work. Some of these groups are fairly ideological – lots of
> Congressman have signed letters on behalf of Heritage over the years, for
> example – while others are not, such as the charity that sent oral surgeons
> to Central America to do cleft lip and cleft palate surgery on children
> that the Congressman I used to work for signed a letter for (actually, used
> his fundraising list to send it to as well).****
>
> ****
>
> I only throw this out there because it seems worth recognizing these
> things in a discussion of officeholders raising funds for c3 and c4 groups.
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:59 AM
> *To:* Paul Ryan; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>
> ****
>
> Good points, Paul, and you're right that the idea of "shutting down" OFA
> is a bit of a straw-man. I think we agree that the issues around
> office-holder fundraising for OFA or similar organizations are in a
> somewhat different zone, having to do with activities of elected officials,
> than the zone of campaign-finance regulation that Steve connects them to.
>
> I believe, by the way, that a lot of elected officials already have
> 501(c)4's and 501(c)3's that they raise money for, and often they use them
> not so much for issue advocacy as to keep their spouses, family members,
> and campaign staffers employed, and as a platform for fundraising. Rep.
> Steve Buyer's golf charity was, I suspect, the tip of a very big iceberg.
>
>
> On 2/7/2013 10:58 AM, Paul Ryan wrote:****
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful post, Mark. I think there’s a lot to be said
> for “public official exceptionalism,” not just “electoral exceptionalism.”
> You note that “there are all sorts of regulations on the time and activity
> of public officials, as opposed to ordinary citizens, such as
> revolving-door regulations on later employment, financial disclosure
> requirements, public meetings laws, etc.” I would add to your list
> important restrictions on gifts to public officials, anti-bribery laws,
> restrictions on outside employment, restrictions on profiting from
> information obtained in the exercise of official duties, etc.. I believe
> that these sorts of restrictions on public official involvement in
> financial transactions, together with election-specific fundraising
> restrictions, are vital to a well-functioning democracy. Our campaign
> finance fundraising restrictions are supported by the governmental interest
> in preventing actual and apparent corruption of officeholders—the same
> governmental interest that supports the rest of the money-related ethics
> rules/restrictions listed above.****
>
> ****
>
> And that’s really what I’m talking/writing about when it comes to
> President Obama and OFA. You wrote that “as a matter of policy, shutting
> down operations that are intended to organize the public on particular
> issue priorities, but don't intervene in elections, doesn't seem to me like
> a very high priority. And it's certainly not essential to making other
> campaign finance reforms work.” I haven’t advocated “shutting down
> operations that are intended to organize the public on particular issue
> priorities.” This is a straw man. My concern is with an officeholder
> raising big contributions for such an operation. “Operations that are
> intended to organize the public on particular issue priorities” are free to
> raise and spend unlimited funds and such organizations have been around a
> long time doing so. What’s new here—and troubling to me—is an
> officeholder’s direct involvement in this activity. Why must such an
> organization involve an officeholder when doing so raises the threat of
> corruption? If donors support the group’s work, won’t they give generously
> even if doing so won’t result in access to an officeholder?****
>
> ****
>
> As for your assertion that restricting an officeholder’s fundraising for
> such a group is “certainly not essential to making other campaign finance
> reforms work,” I suppose that depends on the goal of the campaign finance
> reforms. If the goal is for such campaign finance reforms to work in
> tandem with other officeholder financial activity restrictions like those
> listed above, in order to prevent actual and apparent corruption, then
> limiting officeholder fundraising for such a group does seem essential to
> me. You note the “challenge is in finding the real borders of the
> election.” Your “electoral exceptionalism” theory exponentially increases
> the importance of doing so. (By contrast, my theory of “public official
> exceptionalism” requires only that we identify those public officials whose
> financial activity we deem appropriate to regulate.) If the President’s
> operation of OFA isn’t checked, I have no doubt that other Members of
> Congress will soon set up their own (c)(4)s for unlimited fundraising, with
> sharp lawyers ready to defend the activities as “intended to organize the
> public on particular issue priorities.” The borders will be pushed hard.
> Existing campaign contribution limits will be severely undermined. Those
> who oppose existing contribution limits will take great delight in this
> development. The rest of us might reasonably be concerned by the precedent
> likely to be set by President Obama and OFA.****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> ****
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>
> Senior Counsel****
>
> The Campaign Legal Center****
>
> 215 E Street NE****
>
> Washington, DC 20002****
>
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>
> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> ****
>
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>
> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>
> ****
>
> *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 *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:34 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>
> ****
>
> There's a lot to be said for "electoral exceptionalism." Money and
> economic inequality influence politics and policy outcomes in millions of
> ways, but elections are a protected space in which the potential for
> corruption is much higher (since elections have a direct, winner-take-all
> effect on who holds power) and in which we necessarily impose some rules in
> the interest of orderly and balanced participation. (No campaigning within
> 75 feet of a polling place, for example, is a restriction on expression but
> one that we generally accept as common sense and in the interest of an
> orderly, fair election.) Elections are a structured process, and the rules
> governing them will always be, and should be, somewhat different from the
> rules governing more freewheeling debate about policies and ideas.
>
> The challenge is in finding the real borders of the election. Sometimes
> ads that say "call your member of Congress" really mean, "call your member
> of Congress." And sometimes, as we know, they mean, "vote against that
> tax-raising jerk," and should be considered a de facto campaign
> contribution. (In the case of gun safety, the example you used in an
> earlier piece, Steve, "Call your member of Congress" 20 months before the
> next election, probably means exactly that, because elected officials are
> unsure where their constituents stand right now on that issue.) Getting
> that line right can be a challenge, but the complexity and occasional
> idiosyncratic outcome doesn't invalidate the basic distinction.
>
> It's not great to have elected officials involved in raising money to try
> to help them achieve their substantive goals, which may create a
> relationship of dependency similar to that of campaign contributions. But
> it's not the same kind of problem, and not as pervasive. Paul may well be
> right that the Court would accept some regulation of public officials
> raising money for such organizations -- there are all sorts of regulations
> on the time and activity of public officials, as opposed to ordinary
> citizens, such as revolving-door regulations on later employment, financial
> disclosure requirements, public meetings laws, etc. But as a matter of
> policy, shutting down operations that are intended to organize the public
> on particular issue priorities, but don't intervene in elections, doesn't
> seem to me like a very high priority. And it's certainly not essential to
> making other campaign finance reforms work.
>
> Another interesting dimension of this is the question of when an
> organization is considered to be aligned with a political party, or
> pursuing the aims of that party. Twenty years ago, for example, an
> environmental organization wouldn't have been seen as "aligned" with the
> Democratic Party; now it might be. The same is true on guns or health
> reform or any number of issues. It seems difficult to develop a robust
> legal theory about when an organization is "partisan" when an issue can go
> from bipartisan to partisan, or vice versa, in days. Organizing to push
> "the president's agenda" might be partisan on some issues, but not on
> immigration, probably.
>
> ****
>
> On 2/6/2013 1:04 PM, Doug Hess wrote:****
>
> Not sure I can agree on the "no matter to what ends" language (by agree, I
> mean thinking through my own views, not what this or that court has said).
> Surely there is some line, where if the fundraiser is not taking money for
> their own office or own campaign, they are raising money for mobilization
> and public organizing that is not candidate focused. I guess the area in
> between is when they are raising money that then supports another
> candidate. I.e., three scenarios: ****
>
> ****
>
> 1) donor --> official --> official's election campaign****
>
> 2) donor --> official --> another person's election campaign****
>
> 3) donor --> official --> organizing the public on issues****
>
> ****
>
> The first seems bad, the second I'd be concerned about as it quickly could
> equal the first, but the third one doesn't strike me as necessarily corrupt
> or appearing corrupt (although it could need regulating to keep it "clean")
> . Presumably wealthy donors, in the end, have plenty of ways of "buying
> off" the fundraiser or organization's board/staff through other donations
> nowadays.****
>
> ****
>
> Doug****
>
> ****
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Paul Ryan <PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org>
> wrote:****
>
> Doug,****
>
> ****
>
> You wonder, in your email, whether President Obama plans to help raise
> funds for OFA while in office. The President “announced the relaunch of
> his remaining campaign apparatus as a new tax-exempt group called
> Organizing for Action . . . .” (
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-to-relaunch-as-tax-exempt-group-86375.html)
> If press accounts are accurate, the President and his political team will
> be very involved in all aspects of running OFA and this presumably includes
> fundraising for the group.****
>
> ****
>
> My concern/objection is that an officeholder will be soliciting very large
> (i.e., unlimited) contributions from unlimited sources (e.g., individuals,
> corporations, unions, foreign nationals—quite possibly with business before
> the officeholder) and that the law doesn’t even require public disclosure
> of these contributions/sources. (Though OFA is apparently planning to
> voluntarily disclose some degree of information about its donors, other
> officeholders may emulate this strategy without the voluntary disclosure.)
> ****
>
> ****
>
> As I explained in my email to the listserv yesterday, the Supreme Court
> has recognized, in upholding limits on candidate/officeholder fundraising
> and related disclosure requirements, that unlimited officeholder
> fundraising gives rise to “corruption or the appearance of corruption”
> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.” I agree
> with the Court on this point. In my view, officeholder fundraising for a
> 501(c)(4) dedicated to promoting that officeholder’s political agenda gives
> rise to precisely the same threat of corruption as officeholder fundraising
> for his/her reelection campaign. The threat of corruption exists
> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.”****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> ****
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>
> Senior Counsel****
>
> The Campaign Legal Center****
>
> 215 E Street NE****
>
> Washington, DC 20002****
>
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>
> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> ****
>
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>
> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Hess
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:54 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> I don't understand the objection to an organization (the new OFA) that
> promotes mobilization around community and national issues receiving
> donations. If the members don't like who funds the group, they won't fund
> it (i.e., donate or join it) either. ****
>
> ****
>
> I guess for appearances, Obama's involvement raises questions, but there
> are ways to limit that involvement in reality and in appearance. It will be
> interesting to see if he plans to help raise funds for it while in office.
> If it endorses, then things are trickier, I guess. But a 501(c)4
> organization (I think that is what it is) can only inform members of its
> endorsement, right? And it would be odd for a sitting president to endorse
> many people in a primary fight in a systematic way (FDR learned that) and
> even odder that he would endorse members of the opposite party. So, what is
> the concern? That people may organize and a president encourage it?****
>
>
> On another topic: It is interesting to note that an extra-party
> organization is needed to do more creative political organizing in American
> politics. ****
>
> ****
>
> -Doug ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Law-election mailing list****
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu****
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ****
>
> --
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.nextnewdeal.net/>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark twitter: mschmitt9 ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:35:48 -0700
> Subject: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:44:23 -0800
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> I don't know any serious person studying this issue who says there is no
> election fraud. The vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
> The problem is that the supposed cure---voter id---does not stop these
> main types of fraud.
> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>
> On 2/8/13 7:35 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:****
>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Law-election mailing list****
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu****
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tova Wang <twang at demos.org>
> To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:41:59 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> I believe people argue that there is very little fraud perpetrated by
> voters at the polling place. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these
> cases mostly involve absentee ballots and the actions of an election
> official? In the one case where a voter says it appeared that someone else
> had voted in her name, I would say to stand by to see if there is a
> clerical error, as is often the case. ****
>
> ****
>
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Possible-Ohio-voter-fraud-investigation-heats-up-4256259.php
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Joe La Rue
> *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:36 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> ****
>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:03:07 -0800
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/13****
> Forum on “The Voting Wars” at Cardozo law Feb. 11<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2013 8:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> [Moving to top, and looking forward to attending this event
> Monday--assuming the weather cooperates.]****
>
> Cardozo Law School’s Foersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy is
> putting on this event<http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10374&contentid=25758&folderid=340>Feb. 11 at noon:
> ****
>
> The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, a
> discussion with the author ****
>
> 2/11/2013****
>
> 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm****
>
> Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at
> the University of California, Irvine, will discuss and respond to
> commentary about his recent book, *The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to
> the Next Election Meltdown*. Professor Hasen is a well-known expert in
> the field of election law, having co-founded the *Election Law Journal*and published more than eighty articles in the field.
> ****
>
> Commenting on Professor Hasen’s book will be election law Professors Janai
> S. Nelson, from St. John’s University School of Law; Richard Briffault,
> from Columbia Law School; and Mark C. Alexander, from Seton Hall Law
> School. Professor Alexander is currently running for the New Jersey Senate.
> ****
>
> The panel will be moderated by Professor Michelle Adams.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46018&title=Forum%20on%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Wars%E2%80%9D%20at%20Cardozo%20law%20Feb.%2011&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off ****
> A Quick Reminder on Voter Fraud <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47061> **
> **
>
> Posted on February 8, 2013 7:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47061>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> With news<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/02/08/ohio_poll_worker_admits_to_voting_twice.html>of possible fraud claims coming out of Hamilton County, Ohio, it is worth
> remembering that vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
> The problem is that the supposed cure—voter id—does not stop these main
> types of fraud.
> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47061&title=A%20Quick%20Reminder%20on%20Voter%20Fraud&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud
> squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off ****
> “Democrats Cite Long Lines in Bid to Shift Voting Rights Debate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47058>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2013 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47058>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Bloomberg reports<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/democrats-cite-long-lines-in-bid-to-shift-voting-rights-debate.html?alcmpid=politics>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47058&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Cite%20Long%20Lines%20in%20Bid%20to%20Shift%20Voting%20Rights%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>| Comments Off
> ****
> “Online symposium announcement: Shelby County v. Holder”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47055>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47055>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> SCOTUSBlog symposium on Shelby County is coming<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/online-symposium-announcement-shelby-county-v-holder/>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47055&title=%E2%80%9COnline%20symposium%20announcement%3A%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
> “Watch Out in the Covered Jurisdictions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47052>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47052>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Mike Pitts has written this contribution<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/07/watch-out-in-the-covered-jurisdictions/>to the Reuters
> voting rights symposium <http://www.reuters.com/subjects/voting-rights>on the Shelby County case. A snippet: “In contrast, on the local level,
> there could be widespread retrogression. This could come from redistricting
> plans that eliminate ‘safe’ districts, switches to at-large elections or
> annexations of white population by cities and towns that would reduce
> minority voters’ influence. The key reason these changes are likely is that
> if you look at the Justice Department’s pre-clearance enforcement over the
> past 30 years, what stands out is that a disproportionate number of
> pre-clearance denials involved vote dilution on the local level. If local
> jurisdictions are most likely to violate Section 5 now, they are far more
> likely to be emboldened when it’s killed.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47052&title=%E2%80%9CWatch%20Out%20in%20the%20Covered%20Jurisdictions%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
> Crossroad GPS’s Tax Status Still in Limbo<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47049>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47049>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Ken Vogel tweets <https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/299646127370813445>.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47049&title=Crossroad%20GPS%E2%80%99s%20Tax%20Status%20Still%20in%20Limbo&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off ****
> “Pro-Obama group says it’s not partisan, but has wide latitude”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47046>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47046>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The *LA Times* reports.<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-organizing-for-action-partisan-issues-20130207,0,6239594.story>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47046&title=%E2%80%9CPro-Obama%20group%20says%20it%E2%80%99s%20not%20partisan%2C%20but%20has%20wide%20latitude%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off ****
> “Shareholders question corporate political spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47043>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47043>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Darrell Delamaide column<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shareholders-question-corporate-political-spending-2013-02-07>for Marketwatch.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47043&title=%E2%80%9CShareholders%20question%20corporate%20political%20spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Non-political nonprofit’s spending spikes in election years”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47040>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 5:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47040>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> CPI reports<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/07/12160/non-political-nonprofits-spending-spikes-election-years?utm_source=publicintegrity&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=twitter>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47040&title=%E2%80%9CNon-political%20nonprofit%E2%80%99s%20spending%20spikes%20in%20election%20years%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off ****
> Extensive Ari Berman Cover Story for Nation on Shelby County Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47037>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 4:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47037>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The piece<http://www.thenation.com/article/172685/why-are-conservatives-trying-destroy-voting-rights-act?page=full>includes quotes from Rep. Sensenbrenner, and also this tidbit:
> ****
>
> Many of the states and donors who have supported discriminatory voting
> laws are also backing Blum. His Project on Fair Representation is
> exclusively funded by Donors Trust, a consortium of conservative funders
> that might be the most influential organization you’ve never heard of.
> Donors Trust doled out $22 million to a Who’s Who of influential
> conservative groups in 2010, including the American Legislative Exchange
> Council (ALEC), which drafted mock voter ID laws and a raft of
> controversial state-based legislation; the Americans for Prosperity
> Foundation, the Koch brothers’ main public policy arm; as well as Grover
> Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. Donors Trust has received
> seven-figure donations from virtually every top conservative donor,
> including $5.2 million since 2005 from Charles Koch’s Knowledge and
> Progress Fund. (The structure of Donors Trust allows wealthy conservative
> donors like Koch to disguise much of their giving.)****
>
> From 2006 to 2011, Blum received $1.2 million from Donors Trust, which
> allowed him to retain the services of Wiley Rein, the firm that
> unsuccessfully defended Ohio’s and Florida’s attempts to restrict early
> voting in federal court last year. As a “special program fund” of the
> tax-exempt Donors Trust, Blum’s group does not have to disclose which
> funders of Donors Trust are giving him money, but he has identified two of
> them: the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust. The
> Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation paid for billboards in minority
> communities in Milwaukee during the 2010 election with the ominous message
> “Voter Fraud Is a Felony!”, which voting rights groups denounced as voter
> suppression. Both Bradley and Searle have given six-figure donations to
> ALEC in recent years, and Bradley funded a think tank in Wisconsin, the
> MacIver Institute, that hyped discredited claims of voter fraud to justify
> the state’s voter ID law, currently blocked in state court.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47037&title=Extensive%20Ari%20Berman%20Cover%20Story%20for%20Nation%20on%20Shelby%20County%20Case&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
> “Voting Rights Act at Risk” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47034> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2013 4:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47034>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> That important CQ story<http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004214386.html>is now free, out from the paywall.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47034&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Act%20at%20Risk%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Frank Askin" <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
> To: "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, <law-election at uci.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:09:56 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.
> If this is the best National Review can come up with, I would agree that
> there is virtually no in-person voter fraud. As for absentee ballots,
> in New Jersey any one who requests an absentee ballot has an A placed by
> the name on the voter roll. If they sign an affidavit that they did n
> it submit the absentee allot, they are allowed to vote by provisional
> ballot, which can then be verified quite easily and the provisional
> will be discarded if they did vote. FRANK ASKIN
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687
>
> >>> Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> 2/8/2013 10:35 AM >>>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that
> "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters
> by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent"
> phenomenon.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Frank Askin" <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
> To: "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, "Frank Askin" <
> faskin.LAWSCHOOL.CLJ at kinoy.rutgers.edu>, <law-election at uci.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:17:00 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.
> corection. That should say "did not" submit an absentee. FRANK
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687
>
> >>> "Frank Askin" <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu> 2/8/2013 11:09 AM >>>
> If this is the best National Review can come up with, I would agree
> that
> there is virtually no in-person voter fraud. As for absentee ballots,
> in New Jersey any one who requests an absentee ballot has an A placed
> by
> the name on the voter roll. If they sign an affidavit that they did n
> it submit the absentee allot, they are allowed to vote by provisional
> ballot, which can then be verified quite easily and the provisional
> will be discarded if they did vote. FRANK ASKIN
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687
>
> >>> Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> 2/8/2013 10:35 AM >>>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that
> "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress
> voters
> by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent"
> phenomenon.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
>
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Fund <johnfund99 at yahoo.com>
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:25:02 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: [EL] How strange. I've written about and called for reform of
> absentee ballots for years****
>
>
> Rick (whose book I read and found much to agree with in) says he would
> take my concerns about voter fraud more seriously if I and others "started
> a serious push to eliminate the use of absentee ballots." ****
>
> ****
>
> That is strange. No one serious calls for ELIMINATING absentee ballots.
> They are needed by old people, bedridden people, military voters, expats
> and people who travel a great deal. In "Who's Counting: How Fraudsters and
> Bureaucrats Put Your Vote At Risk," my co-author an I call for absentee
> ballot REFORM and vigorously. The chapter is entitled "Absentee Ballots:
> the Tool of Choice for Vote Thieves." ****
>
> ****
>
> Indeed, I have gotten into hot water with some Republicans for criticizing
> some state legislatures that have not passed comprehensive anti-fraud
> efforts that include Photo ID, absentee ballot reform and cleaning up voter
> rolls despite the federal strictures on that activity. ****
>
> ****
>
> As the liberal Talking Points Memo wrote last August:****
>
> ****
>
> Fund said that many voter ID laws “take some provisions to curb absentee
> ballot fraud,” with a few exceptions. But he confessed that Democrats had a
> point when they say that Republicans focus on voter ID because of a
> potential electoral advantage.****
>
> “I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people
> who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because
> supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to
> restrict that,” Fund said. “But the bottom line is, on good government
> grounds, we have to have both voter ID laws and absentee ballot laws.”****
>
> Just last Wednesday, my co-author and I were in Raleigh, North Carolina on
> a panel with two liberal opponents of Photo ID laws. We all agreed that
> absentee ballot fraud was a real problem, however the two opposing
> panelists declined to endorse any specific legislation to combat it despite
> a clear invitation to do so. ****
>
> ****
>
> --- On *Fri, 2/8/13, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>* wrote:****
>
>
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.
> To: "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Date: Friday, February 8, 2013, 10:44 AM****
>
> I don't know any serious person studying this issue who says there is no
> election fraud. The vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
> The problem is that the supposed cure---voter id---does not stop these
> main types of fraud.
> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>
> On 2/8/13 7:35 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:****
>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=joseph.e.larue@gmail.com>
> ****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Law-election mailing list****
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>****
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu>****
>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Salvador Peralta <oregon.properties at yahoo.com>
> To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:29:37 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> Joe,
>
> Isolated incidents of voter fraud do occur. For example, here in Oregon,
> a Clackamas County elections worker was caught allegedly filling out
> ballots with a straight Republican ticket for voters who chose not to vote
> in certain races:
>
>
> http://now.msn.com/deanna-swenson-accused-of-tampering-with-two-ballots-during-stint-as-election-worker
>
> Elections fraud is not limited to actual voting of course, but also to
> voter registration drives, as we also saw in 2012:
>
>
> http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud?lite
>
> The problem is that the cures recommended by folks such as yourself for
> these relatively isolated incidents tend to be overly broad and tend to
> disproportionately target minority voters.
>
> The other problem for someone like yourself who has a genuine interest in
> voter fraud and not voter suppression is that a lot of water is being
> carried for you on this issue by those who seem to be admitting that their
> own motives for addressing "voter fraud" are not quite so pure as your
> own:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
>
> It begs the question, have you spoken out against efforts actually do
> appear to intentionally target minority voters.
>
> If not, why not?
>
> Best,
>
> Sal Peralta****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, February 8, 2013 7:35 AM
> *Subject:* [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> ****
>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: dasmith <dasmith at UFL.EDU>
> To: <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>, <twang at demos.org>, rick
> hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, <johnfund99 at yahoo.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:30:03 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EL] Voter fraud? What voter fraud!?! Nothing to see here,
> people. Move along.****
>
> indeed, i agree with rick that there are other serious issues regarding
> the fraudulent use of absentee ballots here in florida.
>
> yet, ironically, as michael herron and i discovered and documented in
> early november, we have found several cases of super-conscientious absentee
> voters subsequently disenfranchising themselves if they moved to another
> county and updated their addresses on the voter file, but did so before the
> county canvassing board in their former county tabulated their absentee
> ballots.
>
> we discuss this loophole in florida's election code here:
> http://electionsmith.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/exclusive-glitch-in-floridas-voter-registration-system-can-disenfranchise-absentee-voters/
>
> i'm hopeful that the state legislature will address this Catch-22 in the
> coming legislative session, as it is mentioned as item 2 of additional
> considerations for reform in the florida secretary of state's list of
> recommendations, found here:
> http://www.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/2-4-2013_Recs_for_Increased_Accessibility_and_Efficiency_in_FL_Elections.pdf
>
> dan****
>
> daniel a. smith, ph.d.****
>
> professor & uf research foundation professor (2010-2012)****
>
> coordinator, political science internship program****
>
> department of political science****
>
> 003 anderson hall | phone: 352-273-2346****
>
> po box 117325 | fax: 352-392-8127****
>
> university of florida | email: dasmith at ufl.edu****
>
> gainesville, fl 32611-7325 | www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/****
>
> http://twitter.com/#!/electionsmith****
>
> On 2/8/2013 10:44 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:****
>
> I don't know any serious person studying this issue who says there is no
> election fraud. The vast majority of the relatively small number of cases
> involve either election officials committing fraud, or voters, candidates,
> and others committing absentee ballot fraud.
> The problem is that the supposed cure---voter id---does not stop these
> main types of fraud.
> If John Fund and others started a serious push to eliminate the use of
> absentee ballots, then I would take their concerns about voter fraud much
> more seriously. But it is not a part of the antifraud measures proposed and
> adopted by those who claim this is a major problem.****
>
> On 2/8/13 7:35 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:****
>
> This is not directed at Rick, who has candidly acknowledged that voter
> fraud does, sometimes, happen. But there are others who say that "voter
> fraud" is nothing but an invention of those who want to suppress voters by
> requiring photo ID. Worse, some say that it is an invention to keep
> minorities from voting. Well, for all who say that voter fraud never,
> ever, happens, here's another example of that "non-existent" phenomenon.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*****
>
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com****
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Law-election mailing list****
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu****
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> 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****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!****
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130208/925daaa4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130208/925daaa4/attachment.png>
View list directory