[EL] Georgia registration issue

Mon Oct 13 07:42:32 PDT 2014

Regarding Online Voter Registration (OVR): I think most on the list would
agree it has been a fantastic bipartisan success story in election
administration. How can one not support a solution that makes it easier to
register and harder to commit fraud? My concern is that states are going to
water down the original blueprint for OVR by removing the component where
the applicant provides a unique identifier (like a Driver's License #) that
can be bounced against another official state database for verification. I
don't necessarily think that you need to limit the universe to those in the
DMV database. Perhaps social services databases can also serve as that
identification check. I think that is being done in some places.

Re: Third-Party Groups: Agreed David. I probably painted too broad a brush
in my initial email.  Rock the Vote, LWV, and some other groups do a great
job and there are opportunities out there to make it a win-win for them and
election officials. Unfortunately, I've had many many unpleasant
experiences with fly by the night organizations and other groups whose
reckless and irresponsible behavior ultimately led to disenfranchising
voters and utter chaos near a registration deadline. I'm sure other former
and current election officials on the list would agree. There are also a
lot of groups out there that do little to point applicants to the online
registration option even though that option would get the applicant
registered more quickly and without the risk that the application never
gets delivered to the official. Groups on both sides of the ideological
spectrum play this game I assume for self-preservation and to data-collect.

I have no shame in saying that given the choice, I would encourage an
applicant go through an official route to register (DMV, online
registration, mail in application directly to official, etc.) rather than
use a third-party. I think there is less chance the application gets lost
and/or that the individual's personal identifying information gets stolen.
With that said, third-party groups do play an important role in reaching
groups of people less likely to register.

J Justin Riemer
772-559-1567
JJustinRiemer at gmail.com

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:27 PM, David Becker <dbecker at pewtrusts.org> wrote:

>  A few quick points about online voter registration in general:
>
>
>
> 1.       Our report looked at the 13 states that offered online voter
> registration as of the 2012 election. At that time, all required a DMV
> record, in order to get the signature from that file.
>
> 2.       There are now 20 states, of which at least two do not require
> any kind of DMV record (MN and MO), and at least two others offer an
> opportunity for those not in the DMV database to deliver their signatures
> through other means (CA and DE). We will be updating our report with this
> and other information in the coming few months.
>
> 3.       In our experience, there are third party registration groups who
> have great interest in directing their registration activity online. A
> notable example is the work Rock the Vote is doing in partnership with
> states like NV and WA to encourage their registrants to use the online
> voter registration tools in those states.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: pew-mark-small]
>
> *David J. Becker*
>
> Director, Election Initiatives
>
> The Pew Charitable Trusts
>
> 901 E St NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20004
>
> p: 202.552.2136 | dbecker at pewtrusts.org
>
> www.pewtrusts.org
>
>
>
> *Sign up <http://outreach.pewtrusts.org/ElectionInitiativesRegistration> **for
> our monthly newsletter to receive the latest election updates.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Thessalia
> Merivaki
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 8:30 AM
> *To:* Justin Riemer
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Georgia registration issue
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 213-736-7417
>
> justin.levitt at lls.edu
>
> ssrn.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/20141013/e9ae1537/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6671 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141013/e9ae1537/attachment.jpg>