[EL] Uh oh, Rick...

Tue Oct 28 07:48:30 PDT 2014

A few points re SAVE:
-States have no way of doing a wholesale comparison of a voter list against
the non-citizens in the SAVE Database. It is a manual process to compare,
one-by-one, suspected non-citizens against the SAVE Database. To be clear:
a staff member has to key in each individual record into SAVE to see if
there is a match and determine citizenship status. It's not like DHS
provides a nice and tidy list of non-citizens to states to cross-reference
their voter files and remove non-citizens.

-Beyond the manual check, in order to match a record against the SAVE
Database, the registration official must have a non-citizen's Alien # or
"A#", a unique identifier that one must possess to search SAVE and
determine the individual's citizenship status. In many cases, the
registration official does not have an Alien # and thus cannot verify
citizenship status. If there is another way to check against SAVE then feel
free to correct me but to the best of my knowledge the A# is key.

-How do you get an A#? States collect this data during some business
transaction with a non-citizen that requires proof of legal presence such
as when an individual obtains a Driver's License, Medicaid services, etc..
if a non-citizen has conducted no such business then it is very unlikely an
A# would ever make it to a registration official. This also assumes that
DMV and social service agencies are proactively sharing the A#s with
registration officials. That's a big assumption.

-How many states are using SAVE anyway? It's certainly not required by
federal law and DHS has stonewalled and slow walked access to the database.
I'd be interested to know: 1. What states are using SAVE for list
maintenance? and 2. How many of those A#s make their way to the
registration officials for checks against SAVE?

I'd suspect: 1. Not many and 2. Relatively speaking, very few.

I would not categorize state registration matching efforts against SAVE as
extensive. Even those limited states making a good faith attempt to use
SAVE often don't have the A#s to search the database or the resources to
devote a staff member to manually check each record.

-Ultimately, you likely have a very small universe of voter records records
being checked against SAVE. SAVE is no magic bullet for the wholesale
removal of non-citizens from the rolls but it's currently the best thing we
have. The system relies on the honor system more than anything which is
wholly inadequate. The truth is our voter registration system is extremely
vulnerable to non-citizens registering to vote and voting.

-Finally, shameless self-promotion, but I co-authored end edited a recent
report from the RNLA that formally recommended states use SAVE as another
tool to keep their voter rolls up to snuff. For those interested in RNLA's
perspective: http://www.rnla.org/pecaresponse.pdf

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

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Michael McDonald <
dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com> wrote:

> I’m glad Jesse has made his replication data and code available. The first
> step in verifying research is being able to replicate it.
>
>
>
> The main point that I make, and others like Michael Tesler are making:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/
>
>
>
> is the there is a lack of deep thought by Jesse and David about the
> reliability of the survey data and matching algorithm. Survey misreports
> are well-known, yet none of the extensive literature on, say vote
> over-report bias, is discussed as how it may affect the analysis. Survey
> respondents over-report their voting rates, and this at the least affects
> the upward bound on the number of non-citizen self-reported voters. Vote
> validation is challenged by matching and database reliability issues, but
> generally because respondents over-report their vote, validated vote is
> preferred to self-reports only. The most reliable measure is a person who
> both self-reports and has a validated vote, or 5 non-citizen voters
> (granting no issues in vote validation). Yet, Jesse and David ignore these
> issues and analyze both anyone who self-reports or has a validated vote,
> even if they did not report voting. As I stated before, this is logically
> inconsistent. Either you trust the validation or the self-reports, you
> don’t get to trust them both. If you believe a noncitizen who self-reported
> they did not vote but is validated as voting is misreporting, to be
> logically consistent you have to believe that a noncitizen who reports they
> did vote but is validated as not voting is also misreporting.
>
>
>
> Also neglected in the manuscript is any discussion of the extensive
> matching of voter registration files against the SAVE database and
> follow-up contacts that election officials have done to verify if
> non-citizens are on the registration rolls, and if non-citizens have voted.
> This is important as Jesse and David note at one point they believe the
> CCES non-citizen voters are predominantly in the country legally. They
> would be in the SAVE database. If there was noncitizen voting on the
> massive scale found in the study, we would have indication of it through
> election officials’ efforts. Not to say that there is no noncitizen voting
> - we know of a handful of documented cases - it’s just several orders of
> magnitude less than what Jesse and David find.
>
>
>
> Michael Tesler questions self-reported citizenship, finding in the panel
> design of the survey:
>
>
>
> “41 percent of self-reported non-citizen voters in the 2012 CCES reported
> being citizens back in 2010.”
>
>
>
> Somehow a good number of people who reported being citizens in 2010
> reported not being citizens in 2012. That doesn’t make much sense, and
> again speaks to the limits of the survey data to understand this issue
> since respondents are obviously misreporting their citizenship status.
>
>
>
> ============
>
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
>
> Associate Professor
>
> University of Florida
>
> Department of Political Science
>
> 234 Anderson Hall
>
> P.O. Box 117325
>
> Gainesville, FL 32611
>
>
>
> phone:   352-273-2371 (office)
>
> e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com
>
> web:     www.ElectProject.org <http://www.electproject.org/>
>
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Paul Gronke
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:31 AM
> *To:* Richman, Jesse T.
> *Cc:* Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Uh oh, Rick...
>
>
>
> The ANES sample, 2000-3000, is far too small to be able to make any sort
> of inferences about what everyone agrees is a very small proportion of the
> population.  It would be good to have the information on the CPS but
> without the validation step, once again there is little that could be done.
>
>
>
> I admire you for responding to the list, Jesse, but I think the title of
> your Electoral Studies article was overly provocative, and to follow up
> with the Monkey Cage posting fanned the flames.
>
>
>
> You've put a bullseye on your research. Perhaps that was your intention,
> it has certainly brought attention. We will see what the inevitable
> replications and retests show.
>
> ---
>
> Paul Gronke     Ph: 503-517-7393
>
> Reed College and Early Voting
>
>  Information Center
>
>
>
> http://earlyvoting.net
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Richman, Jesse T. <JRichman at odu.edu> wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> As you aptly framed it, one of the key empirical challenges is quantifying the level of non-citizen voting.  There are examples that you and others have previously identified so we know it happens.  The challenge is to identify how often.
>
> I wonder if perhaps the gap between estimates based on identified instances of non-citizens voting and the survey estimates my coauthors and I presented in our Electoral Studies piece is similar to the large gap between survey based estimates of the number of sex crimes committed on college campuses, and the number of such crimes that are prosecuted.  In part this gap may reflect measurement error in the survey instruments used, and in part it seems to reflect the substantial difference between true incidence on campus and limitations in the capacity and willingness to identify and prosecute such incidents.  The same pattern occurs for a variety of other crimes, with some going unreported.  Non-citizen voting is nearly always victimless (and our estimates show that only a very small number of races have plausibly been shifted by non-citizen participation), so that's probably especially likely in this case.
>
> While I believe the CCES provides useful data with which to approach this topic, I hope that the attention the Electoral Studies piece has received will motivate other major electoral surveys beyond the CCES to ask non-citizens about voting.  If both CPS and ANES with their very different methodologies could be included in the analysis we would surely have more and better data to work with.
>
> I look forward to talking about these issues more with you in the future.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jesse Richman
>
> Associate Professor of Political Science
>
> Old Dominion University
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>> 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 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408>>*
>
> >
>
> >*  Posted on October 24, 2014 12:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67408>>*
>
> >*  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3 <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/ <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 <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= <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 <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>>, The*
>
> >* Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60 <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/ <http://drudgereport.com/>*
>
> >
>
> >*  --*
>
> >* Stephen M. Hoersting*
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >* _______________________________________________*
>
> >* Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/ <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>*
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141024/220b7671/attachment.html>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>
> Name: share_save_171_16.png
>
> Type: image/png
>
> Size: 1504 bytes
>
> Desc: not available
>
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141024/220b7671/attachment.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141028/ffaf4ac7/attachment.html>