[EL] Georgia registration issue

Sat Oct 11 05:29:45 PDT 2014

According to Pew's report, all states that have enacted online voter
registration require that the applicant has a valid driver's licence, so
without that, the state has to set up another system of verification.  (
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/UnderstandingOnlineVoterRegistrationpdf.pdf
)

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Justin Riemer <jjustinriemer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry, accidentally hit send before my second point:
> 2. In my experience, 3rd party registration groups have shown little
> interest in directing individuals to an online voter registration portal or
> other official registration route. No way they can do their data collection
> if people skip the middleman. One example that comes to mind here in
> Virginia was a registration drive that set up quite literally outside of a
> DMV office and discouraged people from registering inside. You see the
> various other drives that set up wanna be online registration options that
> still require the applicant to print an app and mail it in. All that
> matters was that they could collect the data from the person on the front
> end. Would be much easier for them to direct people to the official online
> portal but they neglect to do so.
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:56 AM, Justin Riemer <jjustinriemer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Two things here:
> 1. If no drivers license or DMV IDthen how do you verify identity?
>
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> On Oct 10, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:
>
> Barring any more blockbuster SCOTUS decisions this evening, we'll be back
> tomorrow...
>
>    Lawsuit: Over 50,000 GA Voter Registration Forms Not Yet Processed
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66687>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 5:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66687>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> The forms in dispute
> <http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/lawyers-committee-sues-georgia-over-missing-voter-/nhgXj/> are
> paper forms submitted by the New Georgia Project, currently in something
> of a battle <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65627> with the Georgia
> Secretary of State.
>
> Some of this might be avoided in the future by using Georgia’s brand-new
> <http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx>
>  online voter registration
> <http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx> process.
>  Of course, if Georgia expanded its online voter registration process to
> include people without driver’s licenses, perhaps they’d get fewer paper
> forms that need processing…
>
> [Here's the plaintiffs' press release
> <http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/newsroom/press_releases?id=0516>.  I'll
> post the filings once I can get/find it.]
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66687&title=Lawsuit%3A%20Over%2050%2C000%20GA%20Voter%20Registration%20Forms%20Not%20Yet%20Processed&description=>
>   Posted in voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>      “Chevron Unleashes Campaign Spending to Influence Richmond Election”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66683>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 4:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66683>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Report from the Contra Costa Times
> <http://www.contracostatimes.com/west-county-times/ci_26703743/chevron-unleashes-campaign-spending-influence-richmond-election>
>  (it’s Richmond, CA, not Richmond, VA) that Chevron has contributed
> “nearly $3 million” to independent committees supporting some municipal
> candidates and opposing others.  California’s disclosure law is one of the
> reasons that it’s known that Chevron made the contributions.
>
> A question: I know that there have been some hefty sums spent by
> for-profit corporations on ballot initiatives.  But what’s the largest sum
> that we know of so far given by a for-profit corporation to advocate for
> the election or defeat of municipal candidates?
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66683&title=%E2%80%9CChevron%20Unleashes%20Campaign%20Spending%20to%20Influence%20Richmond%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      “Ads Paid for by Secret Money Flood the Midterm Elections”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66678>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 3:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66678>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> NY Times
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/politics/ads-paid-for-by-secret-money-flood-the-midterm-elections.html>.
> It begins:
>
> More than half of the general election advertising aired by outside groups
> in the battle for control of Congress has come from organizations that
> disclose little or nothing about their donors, a flood of secret money that
> is now at the center of a debate over the line between free speech and
> corruption.
>
> The other day, I mentioned <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543> a CCP
> op-ed
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219926-dark-money-still-a-bit-player>
>  stating that over 95% of campaign spending this cycle is funded by
> groups that publicly disclose (some) donor info to the FEC.
>
> Some of the discrepancy is due to the denominator: the *Times* piece is
> counting 55% of broadcast ads by outside groups, and the CCP piece counted
> candidate and party spending as well as other outside spending.  But on the
> same denominator, I think that still leaves CCP with “dark money” tallied
> at $75 million of the $357 million (21%) of spending by those who aren’t
> parties or candidates.  Has there been that much general election spending
> by outside groups this cycle beyond broadcast ads?  And if not, any ideas
> about what accounts for the difference?
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66678&title=%E2%80%9CAds%20Paid%20for%20by%20Secret%20Money%20Flood%20the%20Midterm%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      Judge Posner Slam on Judge Easterbrook Includes Defense of Persily
> and Ansolabehere Article <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66675>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 3:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66675>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Read the whole dissent
> <http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D10-10/C:14-2058:J:Posner:dis:T:op:N:1433281:S:0>
>  from Judge Posner, but note this:
>
> Stephen Ansolabehere & Nathaniel Persily, “Vote Fraud in the Eye of the
>  Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter
> Identification Requirements, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 1727 (2008), finds that
> perceptions of voter impersonation  fraud are unrelated to the strictness
> of a state’s voter id law. This suggests that these laws do not reduce such
> fraud, for if they did one would expect perceptions of its prevalence to
> change. The study also undermines the suggestion in the panel’s opinion
> (offered without supporting evidence) that requiring a photo ID in order to
> be allowed to vote increases voter confidence in the honesty of the
> election and thus increases turnout. If perceptions of the prevalence of
> voter impersonation fraud are unaffected by the strictness of a stat’e
> photo ID laws, neither will confidence in the honesty of elections rise,
> for it would rise only if voters were persuaded that such laws reduce the
> incidence of such fraud.
>
> The panel opinion dismisses the Ansolabehere and Persily article on
> grounds it was published in the Harvard Law Review, it was not peer
> reviewed. So much for peer review. (And what about Supreme Court opinions?
> They are not peer reviewed either. Persily, incidentally was chosen to be
> research director of [the non-partisan Bauer Ginsberg commission].
>
>
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66675&title=Judge%20Posner%20Slam%20on%20Judge%20Easterbrook%20Includes%20Defense%20of%20Persily%20and%20Ansolabehere%20Article&description=>
>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>      “Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws In Texas, Wisconsin”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66676>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 3:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66676>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> NPR’s latest, on All Things Considered
> <http://www.npr.org/2014/10/10/355187900/courts-strike-down-voter-id-laws-in-texas-wisconsin>
> .
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66676&title=%E2%80%9CCourts%20Strike%20Down%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20In%20Texas%2C%20Wisconsin%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, election
> law and constitutional law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>      “South Dakota Senate Candidate Lives in D.C.”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66673>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 2:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66673>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> So reports Politico
> <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/larry-pressler-dc-resident-111775.html>.
>  (HuffPo
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/larry-pressler-senate-_n_5967002.html>
>  does a quick recap of other recent residency kerfuffles.)
>
> As I’ve mentioned before <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66338>, there’s
> often a difference between where someone may live and their legal voting
> address.  This story, about Sen. candidate Larry Pressler, is a bit more
> meaty based on a claimed homestead tax deduction for Pressler’s “principal
> residence.”  Still, the tax laws and voting laws may have different
> standards, and you need to know more about both South Dakota and D.C. legal
> requirements to actually understand whether this is a problem or not.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66673&title=%E2%80%9CSouth%20Dakota%20Senate%20Candidate%20Lives%20in%20D.C.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in residency <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>
>      Josh Douglas on Last-Minute SCOTUS Stays
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66671>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 1:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66671>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Focusing
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/supreme-court-voter-rulings-election> on
> the distinction between stays that allow restrictive laws to go forward and
> those that keep restrictive laws at bay.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66671&title=Josh%20Douglas%20on%20Last-Minute%20SCOTUS%20Stays&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>      The FEC and Citizens United <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66669>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66669>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Bauer
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/functioning-agency-sources-dysfunction/>
>  reviews the FEC’s choice to adjust existing regulations in line with *Citizens
> United*’s narrow holding, without also proceeding to modify disclosure.
>
> Dana Milbank
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-fec-is-the-poster-child-for-a-broken-washington/2014/10/10/9966d646-5084-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html>
>  also discusses Commissioner Ravel’s decision to let the rulemaking move
> forward, in the Washington Post.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66669&title=The%20FEC%20and%20Citizens%20United&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
>      “In the Senate, Campaign Finance is the New Flag Burning”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66667>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66667>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Gayle Trotter
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/220334-in-the-senate-campaign-finance-is-the-new-flag-burning>
>  in The Hill.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66667&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20the%20Senate%2C%20Campaign%20Finance%20is%20the%20New%20Flag%20Burning%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      Virginia Gov. McAuliffe Talks Redistricting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66665>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66665>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> In this clip
> <http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/web-extra-governor-terry-mcauliffe-talks-about-redistricting/29036806>.
> The legislature’s going to have to get his support for new districts next
> year, after the trial court struck down
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456> the congressional map (for 2016
> elections).
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66665&title=Virginia%20Gov.%20McAuliffe%20Talks%20Redistricting&description=>
>   Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>      “The Voting Rights Act & Judicial Equity”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66663>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66663>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Ned Foley with characteristically smart thoughts
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12971> about the
> equitable considerations in last-minute judicial orders before an election.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66663&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20%26%20Judicial%20Equity%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>      Toronto Reports Give Internet Voting a Thumbs-Down
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66661>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66661>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Al Jazeera America
> <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/8/latest-internet-votingreportsshowfailuresacrosstheboard.html>
>  ventures north of the border.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66661&title=Toronto%20Reports%20Give%20Internet%20Voting%20a%20Thumbs-Down&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, internet
> voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49>
>      A Wild Week for Voting Rights <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66659>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66659>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> Liz Kennedy <http://www.demos.org/blog/10/10/14/wild-week-voting-rights>,
> at Demos, reviews what’s happened.  Week’s not over yet.
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66659&title=A%20Wild%20Week%20for%20Voting%20Rights&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>      “Elections Board Launches Voter ID Campaign”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66657>
> Posted on October 10, 2014 12:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66657>
> by Justin Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
>
> In Wisconsin
> <http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/09/elections-board-voter-id-campaign/16991031/>
> .  Funny story
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a352_i42k.pdf>…
>
> [Update: This new report
> <http://www.channel3000.com/news/clerks-working-to-clear-voter-id-confusion/29060056>
>  describes election clerks' latest attempts to communicate to voters
> exactly what voters will need to show.
>
> Of potential relevance to a coming *Purcell* decision in Texas, in line
> with my post last night <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66613>: "'There
> was confusion in the first place.  It is going to be easy to tell our
> election officials. Don’t worry about the voter ID for this election, and
> focus on all the Election Day processes that you’ve already been trained in
> and that you already know,' said Maribeth Witzel-Behl, city of Madison
> clerk."]
>  <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66657&title=%E2%80%9CElections%20Board%20Launches%20Voter%20ID%20Campaign%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA  90015
> 213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.com/author=698321
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141011/061fcc02/attachment.html>