[EL] Voter turnout

Thu Apr 10 17:53:11 PDT 2014

That's right Larry.I don't remember you suggesting removing real live 
people from the rolls.Indeed, you said your handout suggested that the 
rolls contained many people who had moved out of the City of L.A. (And 
dead people too.)Our city's population is quite transient in many 
neighborhoods, so simply comparing our percentage turnout rates with 
those of other cities might cast L.A. in an unfavorable light.

*I'm still curious to know if the City could begin using a new and 
different registration roll.*Perhaps one built upon a foundation of 
(starting with a list of) people who had actually voted in the past, 
say, 4 years.(In city or other elections.Or just in a city election.)My 
inquiry applies whether or not non-citizens are to be included.

Minimizing deadwood in the roll would minimize waste of trees and funds 
for printing and postage.

The city's status as a home rule charter city affords it considerable 
latitude.(See 
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pension-felony-20140408,0,2722528.story 
for an interesting recent example./["The city, unlike California, does 
not bar employees found guilty of felonies from collecting certain 
retirement benefits."]/Note also: the city has a partial public campaign 
financing system, although general state law forbids such systems.)

And L.A. has even more latitude.At one point in one of the CLAMERC 
hearings, someone pointed out that the city need not comply with HAVA, 
although it does voluntarily.The City of L.A. runs its own 
elections.Dean Logan's county office does not run them.(Although his 
office provides registration lists [possibly for a fee], and rents the 
city certain equipment, including HAVA-compliant precinct ballot readers 
[certainly for a fee]).

- dah

On 4/10/2014 8:08 AM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, I did not suggest removing people from the rolls for 
> not voting. Others in the room may have implied that from the 
> presentation of the information. I simply pointed out that the low 
> percentage of voter turnout may not be accurate if we consider the 
> fact that large numbers of voters may no longer be living at the 
> addresses at which they are registered. I was going to pursue the 
> subject of possible other ways to clean the list without purging for 
> non-voting. But we ran out of time.
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *David A. Holtzman
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:11 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Voter turnout
>
> Well, it's actually the CLAMERC.
> (pause)
> The City of Los Angeles Municipal Elections Reform Commission.
> http://electionscommission.lacity.org/
>
> At one CLAMERC meeting Larry handed out the attached (with my 
> scribbles added), and suggested that maybe we (the city) could improve 
> our dismal turnout rates by excising some of the deadweight from the 
> denominator.
>
> At which point others pointed out legal obstacles to removing people 
> from registration rolls for not voting.
>
> But I have suggested allowing non-citizen legal residents to vote in 
> city elections.  And that would require a separate registration roll.  
> (L.A. would be conducting its elections differently from federal 
> elections, but in accordance with its values.  I think at least one 
> proof-of-citizenship state [Alabama?] is already maintaining two 
> registration rolls so it can conduct its own nonfederal elections in 
> accordance with its values.)
>
> *Could L.A. start anew, and build a municipal election registration 
> roll from scratch?*  One that would presumably contain fewer people 
> who are dead (or have moved out of the city).
>
> L.A. is a home rule, charter city, which allows it to have election 
> methods that do not follow general state law.  And the CLAMERC may 
> propose rule changes requiring charter amendments.  But we have to 
> follow the U.S. Constitution, so compulsory voting may be out of the 
> question.  Sorry, Rick.
>
>   - dah
>
>
>
> On 4/9/2014 9:35 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>     Compulsory voting?
>
>     On 4/9/14, 9:30 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
>         I have been appointed as a member of the Los Angeles City
>         Advisory Commission on Political Reform. I am a member of the
>         sub-committee on research. The main charge of the commission
>         is to look into actions that might increase turnout in
>         municipal elections. Can anyone on the list provide some
>         recent research on this subject? Nothing is off limits --
>         change of election dates, consolidation with other elections,
>         early voting, expanded number of voting dates, etc.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Larry
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Law-election mailing list
>
>         Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu  <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
>         http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     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  <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
>     http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
>     http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Law-election mailing list
>
>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu  <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
>     http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>     -- 
>     David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
>     david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
>     Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may
>     be confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are
>     not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering
>     this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have
>     received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
>     forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
>     prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please
>     immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140410/4a6d962b/attachment.html>