[EL] Uh oh, Rick...
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Fri Oct 24 17:09:46 PDT 2014
I agree with Rick's assessment of fraud through the absentee system
versus in person. I'll add to Rick's note a few things.
First, the fight over ID rules at the polls is very rarely (and maybe
never) about a fight against any ID system at all, just like fights over
taxes are very rarely (and maybe never) about a fight against having any
taxes at all. The fight is usually about the particular limits that a
state has decided to place on the sort of identity verification at
issue. Some states try to conduct signature matches, yes. Some allow
individuals to present a fairly broad menu of documentary and
non-documentary means to verify ID, including those spelled out in
federal law (a government or non-government photo ID _or_ a utility bill
_or_ a bank statement _or_ a paycheck _or_ a government document _or_
the ability to match the last four of an SSN with federal systems).
Some allow individuals to present a photo ID or fill out a more detailed
affidavit. Some states had proposed allowing individuals to present a
photo ID or fill out an affidavit and have their picture (or a short
video clip) taken right there at the polls. And some require
individuals to present one of a certain set of government-issued IDs,
period. The alternative to "the ID rule used in X state" is not "nothing."
Second, I think you'll find widespread agreement on the value of
accurate cleaning of the voter registration rolls, when done in a way
that removes people who are actually ineligible in the jurisdiction and
_only_ those people. Modernizing the registration system has a lot of
components on which a lot of people agree.
Third, you'd asked about how systematic or significant voting in the
name of the dead, particularly for in-person ballots, would be
discovered. The thing about voting is there's a paper trail showing you
who voted (or, at least, there should be). Stage one is to compare the
lists of the deceased to the lists of those who voted. _That's only
stage one_. Next Friday is Halloween, and if the past is any guide
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017683.html>, there will be a slew
of news reports about stage one, with spooky stories of dead voters.
They'll usually say "there may be up to" XX dead voters, with an
eye-popping clickbait number. Stage two involves more shoe leather --
go back to the pollbooks to see whether clerical errors (in marking a
cast vote, or in the pollbook line where someone signed in) account for
the dead voters, and where they don't, try to contact the voters to see
whether they're actually dead (sometimes the death notice is wrong,
sometimes the dead person and the live voter are two different people
with the same name -- like, say, Rick Scott in 2006
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-voting-florida-idUSBRE85D15R20120614>).
Some jurisdictions (and some reporters) have actually done this -- a
forensic post-election exam of the potential dead voters. And those
I've seen usually show vanishingly few votes cast in person in the name
of dead people. I listed every one I know about (some of which were
allegations that stopped at stage one) here
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/>
-- and if others know of more, I continue to welcome the references.
Justin
--
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
On 10/24/2014 4:41 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. (To clarify for the List, by "departed voter," I
> meant dead and/or moved-out-of-state).
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> 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 <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141024/aba5bb1e/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/aba5bb1e/attachment.png>
View list directory