[EL] impact of new voting laws

Eric Marshall eric at statevoices.org
Wed Nov 12 06:38:20 PST 2014 

Rick, I am a bit confused by one of your arguments.  Wendy is, and I
believe effectively, defending her blog post.  Yet in your responses you
link to other articles that cite her work.  The title to her blog post is a
question, not a statement.  What follows is a thought provoking analysis
that, as Wendy points out, doesn't say that these restrictions were
responsible for the margin of victory in any close race.  I think it is
unfair to criticize her piece just because others who might be looking for
clicks or headlines improperly cite her work.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Just asking the question in the heading and being suggestive is enough
> for those who are predisposed to believe voter suppression has rampant
> effects to run with it.  Here is but the latest example:
>
>
> http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/11/in-gop-shutout-were-dem-voters-shut-out/
>
> I would much rather focus on the fact that these laws are disenfranchising
> increasingly large numbers of voters.  In the beginning, it was hard for
> the plaintiffs' lawyers to find people who wanted to vote, lacked ID, and
> couldn't easily get ID.  As Republican legislators in places like Texas
> made the rules even stricter and the means of getting the right ID even
> harder, it has become much easier to find plaintiffs. It is no longer a
> question of IF people are disenfranchised by these laws but of HOW MANY and
> what can be done about it.
>
> I would much rather see the focus on such questions than on trying to even
> postulate an effect on turnout in the absence of nuanced analysis. It is
> distracting and easily picked apart. If you take North Carolina's early
> voting experience, for example, there is some good reason to believe from
> the early data that the changes made by the NC legislature (while not
> intentional) may have increased African-American early voting turnout
> (longer voting hours, more Sundays, and more locations per county).
>
> Rick
>
> On 11/11/14, 2:47 PM, Weiser, Wendy wrote:
>
>  The headline on my blog post was simply the question, “How much of a
> difference did new voting restrictions make in yesterday’s close races?”
> That is not sensational.  The post itself makes two points—that the number
> of people who were likely affected by new voting laws is close to the
> margin of victory in some states (note that it makes no claims about how
> affected voters would have voted, and it includes races that were won by
> both Rs and Ds), and that the impact of these new laws in terms of
> dignitary harm to affected voters makes them more pernicious than their
> possible effect on close races.
>
>
>
> With respect to your analogy, the numbers I use are much different than
> those in dead people voting articles.  There aren’t actually thousands of
> dead people who vote in any election, and the number of dead people who are
> still on the rolls bears no relation to the magnitude of the problem of
> dead people voting.  Here, in contrast, there are more than 20,000 actual
> Kansans who tried to register this year but found their registrations put
> in suspense because of a documentary proof of citizenship requirement.
> True, I don’t know how many of those particular citizens would have voted
> this year, but I do know from Michael McDonald that about 43% of all
> eligible Kansans voted this year and from the Census that the number of
> *registered* Kansans who have voted in the 2010 and 2006 midterms is
> around 70%.  I also have no idea who those Kansans would have voted for,
> but I make no claims in that regard.  And I don’t think it’s a stretch to
> suggest that there might have been a turnout drop of 2% because of the
> voter ID requirement, when GAO already found such a drop in Kansas in 2012
> and where other studies support the idea that voter ID laws typically lead
> to about a 2.4% drop in turnout.  I don’t care how affected voters would
> have voted or about precise calculations, since my point is simply that the
> number of affected people is of an order of magnitude that is big enough to
> swing close races.
>
>
>
> While it is true that people can and do use numbers like these incorrectly
> or in partisan ways, that doesn’t mean that those numbers aren’t
> informative or interesting and that they shouldn’t color our view of these
> new laws.  And it doesn’t mean, as Francis Barry seems to suggest, that
> highlighting the impact of these laws is meant to undercut the legitimacy
> of any particular election outcome.  (To the extent that he suggests
> partisan motivation, he conveniently leaves out the race I discuss where
> Democrat Mark Warner won under a race conducted with a new voter ID law.)
> These numbers highlight problems with new voting laws, and they also point
> to the need to study these questions in much more detail.  Where we
> definitely agree is on the need for a detailed and “nuanced empirical
> analysis” of the impacts of new laws.  But just because we don’t have those
> data yet doesn’t mean that we don’t know enough to raise serious concerns
> about those laws.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:53 PM
> *To:* Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws
>
>
>
> The main point is that headlines like the one you had and the one Rampell
> had exaggerate the likely effect of these laws on both election outcomes
> and voter turnout. There is something parallel to claims of many dead
> people on the rolls and therefore therefore voter fraud could---*could---*affect
> the outcome of an election. Being suggestive of an effect without offering
> a nuanced empirical analysis allows for claims to be exaggerated and used
> in partisan ways.  See also Francis Barry
> <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-11/no-voting-laws-didnt-doom-democrats>
>  for Bloomberg View:
>
> *A day after the election, Wendy Weiser
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races> at
> the Brennan Center for Justice argued that “in several key races, the
> margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of
> disenfranchisement.” She cited the Senate race in North Carolina as one
> example; here’s the gist of her argument: Four years ago, 200,000 ballots
> were cast during seven days of early voting that the state has since
> eliminated. The state also ended Election Day registration, which 100,000
> North Carolinians took advantage of in 2012, almost one-third of them
> black. In last week’s election, since Republican Thom Tillis’s margin of
> victory over Democratic Senator Kay Hagan was about 48,000 votes, Weiser
> implies that Hagan lost because so many (Democratic) voters were kept away
> from the polls.*
>
> *Weiser’s argument has been picked up by other voting-rights advocates
> <http://www.thenation.com/blog/188697/how-new-voting-restrictions-impacted-2014-election> and pundits
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-voter-suppression-laws-are-already-deciding-elections/2014/11/10/52dc9710-6920-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html>,
> but it falls apart upon closer scrutiny. Even with seven fewer days, early
> voting in North Carolina increased this year compared with 2010 – by 35
> percent
> <http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/11/early-voting-in-nc-midterm-election-tops-1-1-million>.*
>
> *Statewide turnout also increased from the previous midterm election, to
> 44.1 percent from 43.7 percent. Even if turnout was lower than it would
> have been without the new voting law — something that’s impossible to
> establish — it was still higher than it had been in four of the
> five previous midterm elections <http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/voter-turnout>,
> going back to 1994.*
>
> *In addition, based on exit polls and voter turnout data, the overall
> share of the black vote increased
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/republicans-beat-democrats-at-their-own-ground-game.html> slightly
> compared with 2010.*
>
> *Rick Hasen, an expert on election law, says he’s skeptical
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164> about Weiser’s analysis, and rightly
> so. When voting-rights advocates fail to include any balancing points in
> their discussion of the election, they undercut their credibility and give
> ammunition to Republicans who suspect that they are mostly interested in
> electing Democrats.*
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68254&title=%E2%80%9CNo%2C%20Voting%20Laws%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Doom%20Democrats%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
> On 11/11/14, 11:32 AM, Weiser, Wendy wrote:
>
> There is nothing inaccurate that I could see in this WaPo piece, even if
> the title is stronger than the claims in the piece.  And it even explains
> the caveats.
>
>
>
> Based on the numbers so far, it still seems to me far more likely than not
> that the number of people who did not vote because of new laws was
> “perilously close” to the margin of victory in some states.  There is no
> certainty yet, of course, but the numbers are way too close for comfort.
> This merits concern—as well as further study.
>
>
>
> I look forward to your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Wendy
>
>
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:43 AM
> *To:* Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] impact of new voting laws
>
>
>
> I will write a longer response later or tomorrow, but in the meantime, I
> am not the only one who took your post (and especially its title) to its
> logical conclusion:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-voter-suppression-laws-are-already-deciding-elections/2014/11/10/52dc9710-6920-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203
> Catherine Rampell: Voter suppression laws are already deciding elections
>
>
> Voter suppression efforts may have changed the outcomes of some of the
> closest races last week. And if the Supreme Court lets these laws stand,
> they will continue to distort election results going forward....
>
>
>
> It’s still early to definitively quantify the effects that these laws had
> on national turnout or on the outcomes of individual races. Initial
> estimates <http://www.electproject.org/2014g> suggesting that turnout
> rates sank to their lowest level since 1942
> <http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present> look pretty damning,
> but so many factors can affect turnout (weather, ballot initiatives, the
> perceived closeness of races, etc.) that it’s hard to isolate the effects
> of a single change. More data and statistical analysis expected next year
> will help.
>
> In the meantime, some ­back-of-the-envelope calculations
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races>from
> Wendy Weiser — director of the Democracy Program at New York University’s
> Brennan Center for Justice — should at least give us pause: Right now, it
> looks like the margin of victory in some of the most competitive races
> around the country was as big as the likely “margin of disenfranchisement,”
> as Weiser puts it. That is, more people were newly denied the right to vote
> than actually cast deciding ballots.
>
>
>
> On 11/11/14, 8:37 AM, Weiser, Wendy wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
>
>
> I apologize for the delayed response; I am just now seeing your response
> to my blog post.
>
>
>
> You appear to be responding to a claim I did not make in the post.  I did
> not say that new voting restrictions *actually* changed the outcomes of
> any races; all I said is that they *could* have—that in some races the
> margin of victory was close enough to the number of potentially affected
> voters to raise concerns.  I also made clear that we do not yet have enough
> data to fully assess the overall impact of these laws.  (Frankly, we may
> never have enough data to assess them all.)  But that doesn’t mean that
> these numbers aren’t interesting and shouldn’t give us pause.  I do *not*
> claim that 307,500 (200K + 100K + 7.5K) voters were disenfranchised by the
> North Carolina law.  But the fact that 307,500 voters previously used
> voting mechanisms that are no longer available in North Carolina suggests
> that it is possible that the number of people who did not vote because of
> the new law could have come close to or even exceeded the 48,000 margin of
> victory.  (We know, for example, from this study
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247144> by Paul
> Gronke and Charles Steward that 18.3% of the people who voted on the last
> Sunday in Florida in 2008 did not vote at all in 2012, suggesting that the
> loss of that early voting day did “dissuade[] turnout among the latest
> early voters.”)
>
>
>
> I am not sure I understand your point about turnout since I make no claims
> about turnout figures.  I agree that a turnout analysis should account for
> a variety factors in addition to new voting laws, ranging from
> demographics, how competitive the races were, who was on the ballot, and
> the weather.  I look forward to what I hope will be a range of studies on
> this topic.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Wendy
>
>
>
>
>
> *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:* Sunday, November 09, 2014 11:21 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/10/14
>
>
> “Turnout Down in Texas, and Democrats Claim a Reason: Voter ID Law”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68184>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 8:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68184>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ross Ramsey
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/us/turnout-down-in-texas-and-democrats-claim-a-reason-voter-id-law.html>
>  (Texas Tribune/NYT):
>
> *Texas turnout, already the worst in the country, dropped. The state’s
> population is larger than it was in 2010. More than 14 million Texans
> registered to vote, according to the secretary of state — up from 13.3
> million in 2010. Turnout that year was 37.5 percent. Turnout this year (the
> numbers are unofficial) was 33.6 percent.*
>
> *The people who did not show up appear to be Democrats. The Republican
> numbers were up in the governor’s race, while the Democratic numbers were
> way down.*
>
> *At a post-election discussion last week, Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of
> the Texas Democratic Party
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> suggested the voter ID law might be to blame for the decline, implying that
> Democrats are more numerous among non-voters than Republicans. His opposite
> on the Republican side — Steve Munisteri — guffawed at that, instead
> crediting his own party’s turnout efforts, the state’s recent voting
> history and the national trend against Democrats.*
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68184&title=%E2%80%9CTurnout%20Down%20in%20Texas%2C%20and%20Democrats%20Claim%20a%20Reason%3A%20Voter%20ID%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>  “Election Day Snafus May Lead To Legislative Action”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68182>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 8:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68182>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News from CT.
> <http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/11/08/election-day-snafus-may-lead-to-legislative-action/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68182&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Day%20Snafus%20May%20Lead%20To%20Legislative%20Action%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>  “No end to campaign in swing state of Colorado”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 8:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> LAT reports
> <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-colorado-politics-20141109-story.html>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68180&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20end%20to%20campaign%20in%20swing%20state%20of%20Colorado%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>  More on FL AG Pam Bondi’s Relationship with Lobbyists Via Eric Lipton NYT
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68178>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 8:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68178>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/link-shows-how-lobby-firm-cultivates-influence.html?ref=politics>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68178&title=More%20on%20FL%20AG%20Pam%20Bondi%E2%80%99s%20Relationship%20with%20Lobbyists%20Via%20Eric%20Lipton%20NYT&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, lobbying
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
>  “Report: Judge who was cited for voter fraud wants to keep casting
> ballots in Woodbridge” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68176>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 7:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68176>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NJ.com
> <http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/11/report_judge_who_was_cited_for_improper_voting_still_doing_it_wrong.html#incart_river>:
> “A former local judge who stepped down from the bench
> <http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/03/judge_charged_with_voter_fraud_for_improper_voting_in_middlesex_county_prosecutor_says.html> earlier
> this year after being charged with illegally voting in Woodbridge elections
> wants to have his law office declared as his legal residence so he can
> continue to cast votes in the township, anew report says
> <http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2014/11/07/vote-fraud-ex-judge-still-trying-vote-woodbridge/18647415/>
> .”
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68176&title=%E2%80%9CReport%3A%20Judge%20who%20was%20cited%20for%20voter%20fraud%20wants%20to%20keep%20casting%20ballots%20in%20Woodbridge%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, residency
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>  “‘Dark Money’ Didn’t Decide the Election; But Money Matters More Than
> Ever” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68174>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 4:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68174>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important
> <http://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/dark-money-didnt-decide-the-election/>
>  Mark Schmitt analysis.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68174&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Decide%20the%20Election%3B%20But%20Money%20Matters%20More%20Than%20Ever%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  “Left struggled to move voters with Koch attacks and other big-money
> messages” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68172>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 4:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68172>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Front page Matea Gold WaPo report.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/left-struggled-to-move-voters-with-koch-attacks-and-other-big-money-messages/2014/11/09/185b32ea-669b-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68172&title=%E2%80%9CLeft%20struggled%20to%20move%20voters%20with%20Koch%20attacks%20and%20other%20big-money%20messages%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>  No, Shelby County Did Not “Abrogate” South Carolina v. Katzenbach
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68170>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 3:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68170>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joel Heller has a very nice piece in the *California Law Review Circuit*, Subsequent
> History Omitted
> <http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/circuit/HELLER_375.pdf>, on
> Westlaw’s aberrant coding of the *Shelby County* voting rights case as
> having abrogated the original case upholding voting rights preclearance, *South
> Carolina v. Katzenbach.*  From the piece’s conclusion:
>
> *In labeling Katzenbach “abrogated by Shelby County,” Westlaw not only
> made an unwarranted value judgment, but also potentially swayed the course
> of the law. Advocates dissuaded from relying on Katzenbach could be robbed
> of a valuable tool for arguing in favor of a revived § 5 or defending other
> provisions of the VRA, and lower courts may refrain from citing the case.
> Yet proponents of § 5 and others who believe in the relevance of history
> should not lay down this tool before it is taken away by a more
> authoritative source than Westlaw. There is no need to wave the white flag
> (or, in this case, the red flag) just yet. Law review authors and editors
> should likewise hesitate before following Westlaw’s instruction to label
> Katzenbach “abrogated by Shelby County.”Katzenbach, especially its
> recognition of the relevance of the past, retains an important vitality.
> “[H]istory did not end in 1965,” and it did not end in 2013, either.
> Because history lives, this purported subsequent history should be omitted.*
>
> Let’s see if Westlaw responds, as it should.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68170&title=No%2C%20Shelby%20County%20Did%20Not%20%E2%80%9CAbrogate%E2%80%9D%20South%20Carolina%20v.%20Katzenbach&description=>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>  “DeMaio Concedes 52nd Congressional District Race”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68168>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 3:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68168>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.
> <http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/nov/09/demaio-concedes-52nd-congressional-district-race/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68168&title=%E2%80%9CDeMaio%20Concedes%2052nd%20Congressional%20District%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>  “The Death of the Southern White Democrat Hurts African-Americans the
> Most” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 2:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jason Zengerle writes for TNR
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120212/john-barrows-2014-midterm-loss-end-white-southern-democrats>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68166&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Death%20of%20the%20Southern%20White%20Democrat%20Hurts%20African-Americans%20the%20Most%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Voting Rights
> Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>  “How Much of a Difference Did New Voting Restrictions Make in
> Yesterday’s Close Races?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2014 11:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wendy Weiser writes
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races>
>  for the Brennan Center.  Once again, I’m skeptical.  Consider the
> analysis of North Carolina:
>
> *In the North Carolina Senate race, state house speaker Thom Tillis beat
> Senator Kay Hagen by a margin of 1.7 percent
> <http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/north-carolina-elections>, or
> about 48,000 votes.*
>
> *At the same time, North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time,
> voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — a law
> that Tillis helped to craft. Among other changes, the law slashed seven
> early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and prohibited voting
> outside a voter’s home precinct — all forms of voting especially popular
> among African Americans. While it is too early to assess the impact of the
> law this year, theElection Protection hotline
> <http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/releases/election-day-2014-democracy-should-not-be-this-hard> and other
> voter protection volunteers
> <http://thinkprogress.org/lbupdate/3588748/north-carolinas-new-election-restrictions-are-turning-away-voters/#lbu-1415129144> reported
> what appeared to be widespread problems both with voter registrations and
> with voters being told they were in the wrong precinct yesterday.*
>
> *Some numbers from recent elections suggest that the magnitude of the
> problem may not be far from the margin of victory: In the last midterms in
> 2010, 200,000
> <http://www.thenation.com/blog/180608/north-carolina-will-determine-future-voting-rights-act> voters
> cast ballots during the early voting days now cut, according to a
> recent court decision
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NC241.pdf#page=97>.
> In 2012, 700,000voted during those days, including more than a quarter of
> all African-Americans who voted that year. In 2012, 100,000
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/League1553.pdf> North
> Carolinians, almost a one-third
> <http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/nc_voting_usca4_20141001.pdf> of whom were
> African-American, voted using same-day registration, which was not
> available this year. And 7,500
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LOWVv.Howard.Complaint.pdf>voters
> cast their ballots outside of their home precincts that year.*
>
> The relevant question is: how many people who WANTED to vote this year DID
> NOT DO SO (and reasonably could not have done so) BECAUSE of the changes in
> the voting rules?  In other words, to know whether these restrictions were
> outcome determinative we would have to control for:
>
> 1. a potential decline in turnout for reasons unrelated to these laws
> (e.g., less enthusiasm in a midterm election year without an
> African-American candidate on the ballot); and
>
> 2. the extent to which voters who voted early on days which were cut
> (including through same day voter registration) wanted to vote but
> reasonably could not have voted under the alternative early voting days,
> absentee balloting, or voting on election day. There is some evidence that
> early voting turnout may have increased in North Carolina despite the fewer
> number of days because the *hours*of voting were extended, making it
> easier for some working voters to vote before or after work.
>
> I’m not saying Wendy’s conclusion is wrong—only that it is unproven and
> would take a much more nuanced analysis than this.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68164&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Much%20of%20a%20Difference%20Did%20New%20Voting%20Restrictions%20Make%20in%20Yesterday%E2%80%99s%20Close%20Races%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>  “Dark Money Helped Win the Senate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68162>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 6:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68162>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT editorial.
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinion/sunday/dark-money-helped-win-the-senate.html?ref=politics>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68162&title=%E2%80%9CDark%20Money%20Helped%20Win%20the%20Senate%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  “Founder of Anti-Money ‘Super PAC’ Defends Its Poor Showing”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 6:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lessig talks
> <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/11/07/?entry=5344&_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=politics&_r=0>to
> NYT.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68160&title=%E2%80%9CFounder%20of%20Anti-Money%20%E2%80%98Super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20Defends%20Its%20Poor%20Showing%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  “ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Iowa Mom Seeking to Regain Her Right to
> Vote” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 6:21 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this press release
> <https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-iowa-mom-seeking-regain-her-right-vote>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68158&title=%E2%80%9CACLU%20Files%20Lawsuit%20on%20Behalf%20of%20Iowa%20Mom%20Seeking%20to%20Regain%20Her%20Right%20to%20Vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in felon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
>  “Why everyone still hates the airline industry, in one tweet”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 10:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> My exchange with American Airlines while flying back from the U. Chicago
> election law conference makes WaPo’s WonkBlog
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/08/why-everyone-still-hates-the-airline-industry-in-one-tweet/>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68156&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20everyone%20still%20hates%20the%20airline%20industry%2C%20in%20one%20tweet%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>  Are British Campaigns (With Stricter Campaign Finance Rules) Just as
> Unpleasant as American Campaigns? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 9:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So suggests The Economist.
> <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/big-money-politics?fsrc=rss>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68154&title=Are%20British%20Campaigns%20%28With%20Stricter%20Campaign%20Finance%20Rules%29%20Just%20as%20Unpleasant%20as%20American%20Campaigns%3F&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  “Poli Sci Experiment Takes Heat For Asking If Blacks Are ‘Too Demanding’”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports.
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/south-carolina-political-science-experiment-racism>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68152&title=%E2%80%9CPoli%20Sci%20Experiment%20Takes%20Heat%20For%20Asking%20If%20Blacks%20Are%20%E2%80%98Too%20Demanding%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>  “Federal appeals court rejects citizenship proof rule for Kansas voters”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2014 6:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The KC Star reports
> <http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article3654328.html>.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68150&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20appeals%20court%20rejects%20citizenship%20proof%20rule%20for%20Kansas%20voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Election
> Assistance Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>, Elections
> Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, NVRA (motor voter)
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, 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://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
>  --
>
> 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://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Eric Marshall
Senior Manager of Election Administration and Voting Rights
State Voices
Direct: 202-888-1635
Main: 202-888-0600
Cell: 202-380-5523
eric at statevoices.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/8cf88f0c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/8cf88f0c/attachment.png>

View list directory