[EL] impact of new voting laws
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Nov 12 07:59:45 PST 2014
I think very highly of the work of the Brennan Center, in terms of its
research projects, its public outreach and much, and the quality of its
litigation (although I don't always agree with the legal theories the
Center advances). I have filed briefs with the Center and worked on
projects with them.
My trouble has been with the p.r. side on this particular issue---the
effect of restrictive voting laws on disenfranchisement and election
outcomes. It must be clear by now to the Brennan folks that asking
suggestive questions in headlines and releases about the effect of these
laws gets overhyped by the left, which suggests more caution is in
order. That report from the Dish shows how the work of the Center on
this issue is being interpreted: " Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center
for Justiceeven suggests
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-much-difference-did-new-voting-restrictions-make-yesterdays-close-races>that
new restrictions may have suppressed enough votes to turn some close
races."
I think more can be done to be careful in not overclaiming in this area,
especially given the predictability of the political response.
I illustrated this point as I toured for my book The Voting Wars,
showing how a 2012 Brennan Center report noting that 5 million voters
"may be impacted" by new restrictive voting rules was predictably hyped
by the left (over 2 million of those voters, if I recall correctly were
voters who could still vote early but had fewer early voting days to do
so). By the time the issue got to rolling stone, the GOP was
disenfranching 5 million voters. Here are the slides:
On 11/12/14, 6:38 AM, Eric Marshall wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:53 PM
>> *To:* Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
>> <mailto: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./
>>
>> 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 inelection 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]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:43 AM
>> *To:* Weiser, Wendy; law-election at UCI.edu
>> <mailto: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 theirlowest 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>
>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 onNovember 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./
>>
>> 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 inelection 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 onNovember 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/>
>>
>> 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 inelection administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>
>>
>> “No end to campaign in swing state of Colorado”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68180>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 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>.
>>
>> 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 incampaigns <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 onNovember 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>
>>
>> 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 incampaign 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 onNovember 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/>.”
>>
>> 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 inchicanery
>> <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 onNovember 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.
>>
>> 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 incampaign 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 onNovember 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>
>>
>> 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 incampaign 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 onNovember 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.
>>
>> 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 inSupreme 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 onNovember 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/>
>>
>> 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 incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> “The Death of the Southern White Democrat Hurts
>> African-Americans the Most”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2014 2:28 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68166>by*Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Jason Zengerle writes forTNR
>> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120212/john-barrows-2014-midterm-loss-end-white-southern-democrats>.
>>
>> 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 incampaigns
>> <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 onNovember 9, 2014 11:19 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68164>by*Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Wendy Weiserwrites
>> <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, *700,000*voted 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.
>>
>> 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 inelection 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 onNovember 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>
>>
>> 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 incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> “Founder of Anti-Money ‘Super PAC’ Defends Its Poor
>> Showing” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68160>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 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.
>>
>> 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 incampaign 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 onNovember 8, 2014 6:21 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68158>by*Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Seethis press release
>> <https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-files-lawsuit-behalf-iowa-mom-seeking-regain-her-right-vote>.
>>
>> 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 infelon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
>>
>>
>> “Why everyone still hates the airline industry, in
>> one tweet” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68156>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 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’sWonkBlog
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/08/why-everyone-still-hates-the-airline-industry-in-one-tweet/>.
>>
>> 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 inUncategorized <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 onNovember 8, 2014 9:14 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68154>by*Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> So suggestsThe Economist.
>> <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/11/big-money-politics?fsrc=rss>
>>
>> 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 incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> “Poli Sci Experiment Takes Heat For Asking If Blacks
>> Are ‘Too Demanding’”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68152>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 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>
>>
>> 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 inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>
>>
>> “Federal appeals court rejects citizenship proof rule
>> for Kansas voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68150>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 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>.
>>
>> 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 inelection 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>> http://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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <mailto:eric at statevoices.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/6ef08656/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 273163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/6ef08656/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 659900 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/6ef08656/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3.png
Type: image/png
Size: 325316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/6ef08656/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 830641 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141112/6ef08656/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- 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/20141112/6ef08656/attachment-0004.png>
View list directory