[EL] Uh oh, Rick...

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Oct 24 16:36:28 PDT 2014


In actuality I have seen many more instances of the departed having 
votes cast for them via absentee ballot (usually the widow/er or child 
of the deceased) than examples of people showing up at polling places 
claiming to be a dead person. When these claims are investigated, the 
most common explanation is that a person signed on the wrong line in the 
poll book.

On 10/24/14, 4:32 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> * 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 onOctober 24, 2014 12:27 pm
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408>byRick 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
>>             thisforthcoming article
>>             <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973>in
>>             Electoral Studies.
>>
>>             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 inelection 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 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
>>
>>         -- 
>>         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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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 92697-8000
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 92697-8000
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/20141024/899f7449/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/20141024/899f7449/attachment.png>


View list directory