[EL] impact of new voting laws
Eric Marshall
eric at statevoices.org
Wed Nov 12 08:17:06 PST 2014
I appreciate that response. So is your concern less with Wendy's post and
more how blogs on the left choose to cover it?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> 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 Justice even
> 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> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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/20141112/43b48f0f/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/20141112/43b48f0f/attachment.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/20141112/43b48f0f/attachment-0001.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/20141112/43b48f0f/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/20141112/43b48f0f/attachment-0003.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/20141112/43b48f0f/attachment-0004.png>
View list directory