[EL] Uh oh, Rick...

Fri Oct 24 17:21:59 PDT 2014

I see your point: The States are given the power to act in this regard and
Congress can override. Art I, Sec. 4.

And a related provision for electing the President -- Congress sets the day
for choosing Electors. Art. II, sec 1.

(I see Michael and Justin have interesting points to make. I'll skim those
now).

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Uh, check your constitution.  I believe congress has the power to set the
> time place and manner for congressional elections, and the states can act
> only if Congress does not.
>
>
> On 10/24/14, 5:01 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> Under the Constitution, the States are responsible for the time, place and
> manner of elections. To those of us who still hold out hopes for a renewed
> federalism (an embrace of the Ninth Amendment and a repeal of the
> Seventeenth) would expect friction on adopting your proposal, as you
> surmise.
>
>  ***
>
>  Regarding your next: I don't think anyone proposing ID to vote would
> object to subsidies, etc. for voters to obtain the identifications.
>
>  But all this will be moot soon enough, anyway. If the coming executive
> amnesty holds, IDs will be issued, the will of people will have been
> disregarded through such creative methods as we're discussing. And groups
> now dedicating their budgets to preventing vote dilution will perhaps
> retool to teach immigrants Aristotle and Jefferson, instead. We'll have no
> other choice.
>
>  Ah well... Mark me a sucker for popular sovereignty (no matter -- by the
> way -- the nonsense about "plutocracy" that Paul Krugman is spewing).
>
>  Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>  There is no question that in many states the voting rolls are a mess and
>> include lots of no longer eligible voters. Various means of cleaning the
>> rolls, including a few to compare names etc. across states, have made
>> things somewhat better.
>> I still favor a national voter registration database, where each
>> individual, upon confirmation of citizenship, is supplied a unique voter
>> identification number which is used for the voter's whole life. The voter
>> is automatically registered (if eligible, e.g., under felon rules) to the
>> state where he or she resides.  The federal government would bear all of
>> the costs of this registration process.
>> Voters would then produce either an id to vote or their thumbprint, which
>> they can voluntarily give as proof of identity when being registered by the
>> government.
>> That plan is laid out more fully in the book.  I don't expect to see
>> anything like it in the US in my lifetime.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/24/14, 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> 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> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
>
> --
> 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/20141024/1a60cf27/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/20141024/1a60cf27/attachment.png>