[EL] Uh oh, Rick...

[Steve Hoersting]

* The last sentence means Drudge and others are getting the word out: There
is another side to the predominant meme.

* I will check out your book (again. I skimmed parts a year ago, or so.
Well written; again, congrats).

And a question, which you must have addressed in your book, and may hit out
of the park, if you can: If a departed voter remains on the rolls, and an
individual is presented to the poll worker as the listed voter, and the
poll worker cannot or does not ask the individual for ID, how would that
fraud be detected? By what mechanism would we ever detect *significant*
fraudulent transactions of that kind? (Please don't say signature match).

And wouldn't vote-by-mail and absentee balloting make matching the
departed-voter-name and a-live-ballot easy beyond words? Easy enough to
turn battleground states across the land.

Steve



On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Not sure I understand your snark.  When I looked into the question of
> non-citizen voting for my book, the rates of proven non-citizen voting
> appeared very low.  Now along comes a study which has a higher number. I
> don't have an opinion yet on how strong the study is because (1) I haven't
> yet read it and (2) those who have much greater methodological
> sophistication about these things than I do will surely weigh in on the
> question. I think that is a prudent response to this study.
>
> In terms of outright dissembling, you can read chapter 2 of my book, which
> gives some examples.
>
> I do not understand your final sentence.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> On 10/24/14, 2:15 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> So "new stud[ies] appear[] to find a much higher incidence of non-citizen
> voting than you've previously seen" and you "look forward" to hearing what
> others think of the methodology, and still you allege "outright
> dissembling"?
>
>  Okay. I see. Just trying to keep up.
>
>  But if members of the Anti-Fraud Squad have dared dissemble, they had
> better discover they are rapidly losing control of conventional wisdom and
> the public debate.
>
>  Good weekend. Best,
>
>  Steve
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>  I linked to the the story Drudge links to earlier today on my blog. (See
>> the end of this message).  I have always said (and say in my book) that
>> non-citizen voting is a real, though relatively small, problem (unlike
>> impersonation fraud, which is essentially a blip).  For this reason I have
>> supported efforts to remove non-citizens from voting rolls, though not in
>> the period right before an election when errors are more likely to
>> disenfranchise voters.
>>
>> The new study appears to find a much higher incidence of non-citizen
>> voting than I've previously seen, and I look forward to hearing whether
>> people think the methodology in this paper is sound.  But even if it is
>> sound, this would not justify the hysteria and nonsense (and in some cases
>> outright dissembling) coming from some of the people you have listed below.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  “Could non-citizens decide the November election?”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408>
>>
>>  Posted on October 24, 2014 12:27 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Jesse Richman and David Earnes
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/>t
>> at the Monkey Cage with some provocative findings on the extent of
>> non-citizen voting. I will be very interested to hear what others think of
>> the methodology in this forthcoming article
>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973> in
>> Electoral Studies.
>>  [image: Share]
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67408&title=%E2%80%9CCould%20non-citizens%20decide%20the%20November%20election%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>
>>
>> On 10/24/14, 1:51 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>
>>  It's getting tougher and tougher to dismiss and discredit John Fund,
>> Hans van Spakovsky, James O'Keefe, J. Christian Adams, Catherine
>> Engelbrecht and Rush Limbaugh:
>>
>>  http://drudgereport.com/
>>
>>  --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141024/7eacfd83/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141024/7eacfd83/attachment.png>