[EL] Clinton and voting reform
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 9 12:55:26 PDT 2015
[I've changed the subject header.] Here's my latest post on this:
Pushback on Pushback and More Pushback on My Clinton Voting Wars
Column <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73316>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 12:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73316>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So a number of people in the election reform community have written me
in great support ofmy /Slate/column
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_is_politicizing_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>after
Imentioned the general drubbing <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>I
was receiving from others. The argument from these folks is that on the
ground in the states, Clinton’s comments are making achieving modest
efforts at bipartisan election reform harder. I’m also hearing that the
comments are turning off some Republicans who otherwise might have been
amenable to universal voter registration.
But the pushback from the left is pretty strong:
Elias Iquith
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/elite_pundits_have_a_problem_with_democracy_their_new_hillary_clinton_attack_removes_the_mask/>at
Salon: “Yet out of all the columns handwringing and concern trolling
over Clinton’s recent liberal bent, I’m not sure any have been quite as
wrongheaded, naive and downright weird asthis one
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_is_politicizing_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>from
UC Irvine professor Richard L. Hasen, which criticizes the likely
presidential nominee for advocating that more people, regardless of
their politics, be allowed to vote.”
Ed
Kilgore<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/is_hrc_alienating_the_tiny_ban055990.php>at
the Washington Monthly: “So we’re left with the thought that Democratic
advocates for election reform who are in the political arena at the
highest level should either shut up about it until such time as
Republicans decide to change their minds for their own reasons, or maybe
talk about it quietly and with no hint that advocates might be willing
to make it a partisan issue! Talk about a blind alley. Interestingly
enough, Hasen is indicating he’srethinking his position
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>based on the negative reaction he
received for his/Slate/piece from people with whom he normally agrees.
That’s a good idea.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73316&title=Pushback%20on%20Pushback%20and%20More%20Pushback%20on%20My%20Clinton%20Voting%20Wars%20Column&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
On 6/9/15 11:45 AM, Jon Sherman wrote:
> And what of the VRAA? Is the refusal to pass a fix for the coverage
> formula -- or even to debate alternatives to the deceased Section 4 --
> not a substantively partisan, as opposed to a superficially partisan,
> issue today? In 2006, James Sensenbrenner helped lead the charge for
> reauthorization and George W Bush signed it as I recall. Today, the
> same party won't even engage on reforming the key provision of the
> VRA. There's obviously a political calculation there and it's not just
> based on taking a superficial public stand. I don't think Hillary's
> off base in talking about that in a way that can be characterized as
> polarizing, because the issue is already polarized. Same with voter ID
> laws.
>
> I'm sympathetic to much of Rick's argument, but ultimately I don't
> think Hillary speaking out on these issues makes that much difference
> one way or the other. The PCEA report, while incredibly useful in
> setting out a consensus agenda on a variety of election reform ideas
> that would improve the availability and convenience of registration
> and voting for millions, shied away from issues like voter ID and
> documentary proof of citizenship laws, what type of and how much early
> voting is necessary, how to treat out-of-precinct provisional ballots
> (which has been litigated in Ohio for years), permitting voter
> registration on Election Day (which demonstrably increases voter
> turnout), felon disenfranchisement, and whether ERIC or Crosscheck
> should be used for voter registration list maintenance, even though
> the former results in zero false positives and many new registrations
> and the latter (run out of KS SoS Kris Kobach's office) returns reams
> of false positives to local clerks. The PCEA couldn't engage these
> issues because they're politically fraught, would destroy the
> consensus, and have been at the center of hard-fought constitutional
> and VRA litigation for more than a decade.
>
> But for what the PCEA *did* talk about, there is actually a fair
> amount of emerging bipartisan consensus. Online voter registration,
> the PCEA report's leading recommendation on registration, has now
> either been implemented or passed in 28 states - it was an idea that
> started in Arizona in 2002 and is now in Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana,
> etc. Oklahoma passed it with such little fanfare this year that it
> barely got press coverage; it passed without a single dissenting vote
> in New Mexico in what was otherwise a very divided section; and
> Florida of course just passed it with bipartisan support -- and almost
> nothing passes in Florida with bipartisan support. The bipartisan
> support was so overwhelming that Gov. Scott had to (begrudgingly) sign
> it, because he and his Secretary of State were seemingly the only two
> people in the state who didn't want OVR. That there should be some
> form of voting before Election Day is embraced by almost all states
> regardless of partisan control - and the holdouts reveal no
> discernible pattern. Texas, Tennessee and Georgia have early voting;
> New York, Mississippi, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania do not
> (and as far as I know, have never had early voting even when there
> were Democratic majorities and administrations). I don't think Hillary
> Clinton's endorsement of automatic voter registration will undermine
> the OVR wave, and AVR is only in one state, so it's pretty early days
> for that idea. I think the fate of the AVR bill in Ohio is unlikely to
> hinge on whether or not a presidential candidate endorses or opposes
> it, or accuses the other side of playing politics with the right to
> vote, especially when the SoS is struggling just to get OVR passed.
> Similarly, so much of the country already has early voting, the fights
> will remain over what type and how much. Well before Hillary gave her
> speech, certain state legislatures had long been fighting to narrow
> both the days and hours available for early voting and it's hard to
> imagine how her speech could make what was already incredibly
> acrimonious even more divisive. Cooler heads had already prevailed in
> Ohio which already has a lot of early voting. Though there's renewed
> litigation over that issue in Ohio, I see her comments as being more
> directed towards Wisconsin's early voting reductions, which eliminated
> all weekend days and effectively ended weeknight hours where 5pm is
> COB for the office.
>
> Voter ID and other recent controversial voting laws have been in the
> legislatures and courts now for about a decade. A good chunk of what
> Hillary discussed has already passed from the realm of public policy
> debate into the realm of religion - you either believe in it or you
> don't - and the balance of what she discussed won't be derailed
> because one presidential candidate endorsed it. (Christie vetoed the
> early voting bill well before this speech.... And does anyone believe
> a consensus on felon re-enfranchisement would emerge faster, if
> Hillary Clinton avoided talking about it or if Democratic candidates
> wouldn't point a finger at Gov. Hogan in MD?) Which is why I think
> it's relatively safe terrain for politics, without it risking the
> emerging consensus around _some_ voting reforms which strike the
> broader public as no-brainers because they simply increase the
> convenience of the voting experience.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org
> <mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
>
> She’s making it a partisan thing because it is a partisan thing:
> there’s no systematic attempt to disenfranchise anybody and
> campaign finance “reform” is a solution in search of a problem –
> but both issues play extremely well to the Dem base. (There are,
> of course, issues that Republican politicians raise to activate
> their base that also aren’t real problems.) So let’s not kid
> ourselves: it’s not healthy for the country, but Hillary’s doing
> what she thinks she needs to do to get elected. It might work.
>
> Ilya Shapiro
>
> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
>
> Editor-in-Chief of the /Cato Supreme Court Review/
>
> Cato Institute
>
> 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> tel. (202) 218-4600 <tel:%28202%29%20218-4600>
>
> cel. (202) 577-1134 <tel:%28202%29%20577-1134>
>
> fax. (202) 842-3490 <tel:%28202%29%20842-3490>
>
> ishapiro at cato.org <mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
>
> Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro <http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
>
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
>
> /Cato Supreme Court Review/: http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
>
> Watch our 2014 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court
> Review/Preview:
> http://www.cato.org/events/13th-annual-constitution-day
>
> See me defend the right to keep and bear arms on the Colbert
> Report:
> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340923/july-08-2010/automatics-for-the-people---ilya-shapiro---jackie-hilly
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf
> Of *Paul Gronke
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:55 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/9/15
>
> Is Rick Hasen looking for some love? We love ya, Rick! :-)
>
> You know that I wrote a piece following a similar piece regarding
> the automatic voter registration bill passed by the Oregon
> legislature and signed by Governor Kate Brown. I remained
> agnostic in the piece about AVR, but regretted that the bill
> passed without a single Republican vote.
> (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/with_motor_voter_bill_oregon_p.html)
>
>
> I have received negative feedback similar to yours, Rick. I try
> to explain that setting the rules of the game via purely partisan
> votes can be problematic, often using the tired but apt analogy of
> one soccer team choosing a referee before a match.
>
> The responses I receive are more of (1) and (3), by the way.
>
> Some academic friends hoisting me on my own petard, recommending
> Alex Keyssar's book to me (which I have usually recommended to
> them first!). After all, since Keyssar's primary argument is that
> the right to vote throughout American history has waxed and waned
> in response to partisan competition, why should we expect anything
> different today?
>
> What do you think about that argument (Mark Elias made a similar
> argument on a Twitter exchange)?
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> Pushback on My Hillary Voting Wars Piece
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>
>
> Posted on June 9, 2015 8:50 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The good news is that Doug Chapin
> <http://about%20a%20quarter%20of%20americans%20also%20say%20they%27d%20like%20to%20see%20their%20state%20expand%20early%20voting%2C%20while%2037%20percent%20say%20their%20state%27s%20policies%20are%20about%20right.%20only%209%20percent%20want%20to%20see%20early%20voting%20reduced.%20%20more%20broadly%2C%20a%20majority%20of%20the%20public%20--%2061%20percent%20--%20say%20that%20low%20voter%20turnout%20is%20at%20least%20a%20moderate%20problem.%20many%2C%20though%2C%20aren%27t%20sure%20it%27s%20the%20government%27s%20problem%20to%20fix.%20forty-six%20percent%20of%20people%20say%20the%20government%20is%20already%20doing%20enough%20to%20make%20sure%20that%20everyone%20who%20wants%20to%20vote%20in%20elections%20is%20able%20to%2C%20while%2032%20percent%20say%20it%20isn%27t.%20democrats%20say%20by%20a%2024-point%20margin%20that%20the%20government%20doesn%27t%20do%20enough%2C%20while%20republicans%20say%20by%20a%2055-point%20margin%20that%20it%20does./> liked
> my Slate piece
> <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/06/putting_out_a_fire_with_gasoli.php> from
> yesterday on whether Hillary Clinton is making real election
> reform harder by framing the issue as a partisan fight. The bad
> news is that Doug seems to be alone in telling me to “Rock on.”
> Most thoughtful people I know with whom I share my writing have
> had a much more negative reaction to the piece, even if it appears
> that Clinton’s framing of the issue may decrease Republican
> support for reform <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73304>.
>
> I would say the responses fit into three categories:
>
> 1. There are no moderate Republicans who will deal on election
> reform. Republicans won’t support fixing the Voting Rights Act or
> anything else so there’s very little to lose (and, as I agree in
> the Slate piece, Clinton is advancing good policies and it is good
> base politics for her to give this red meat to her supporters).
> The examples I give in the eighth paragraph of my piece, where
> Republicans and Democrats have come together on issues, is simply
> too little, or the policies they’ve come together on, too
> insignificant.
>
> 2. The few moderate Republicans out there are more likely to
> respond by being shamed into doing the right thing than through
> rational discussion. (I’m not sure how to judge what is more
> effective, but I thought the Bauer-Ginsberg commission was a good
> example of how things could get done with the rhetoric lower.)
>
> 3. The comments of Scott Walker, Rick Perry etc. about the extent
> of voter fraud and the policies they have adopted are so
> outrageous that they deserve to be called out for their bad
> behavior. (On this point, I agree, but I don’t think the Clinton,
> who has about an even chance to be the next President, is the one
> to do it. I try to do it all the time on the blog when the issue
> arises, and many, many people write about this.)
>
> I usually don’t have doubts about the positions I put forward in
> my opeds and commentaries, but this pushback has been so strong
> from many people I respect that I will think on this some more.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73306&title=Pushback%20on%20My%20Hillary%20Voting%20Wars%20Piece&description=>
>
> ---
> Paul Gronke Ph: 503-771-3142 <tel:503-771-3142>
> paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>
> Professor of Political Science and
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
> Reed College
>
> http://earlyvoting.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Sherman
> Staff Attorney
> Fair Elections Legal Network <http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/>*
> 1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 248-5346 <tel:%28202%29%20248-5346>
> jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com
> <mailto:jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com>
> www.fairelectionsnetwork.com <http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairerelections>Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork>
> *The contents of this email should not be construed as legal advice.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org
> <mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
>
> She’s making it a partisan thing because it is a partisan thing:
> there’s no systematic attempt to disenfranchise anybody and
> campaign finance “reform” is a solution in search of a problem –
> but both issues play extremely well to the Dem base. (There are,
> of course, issues that Republican politicians raise to activate
> their base that also aren’t real problems.) So let’s not kid
> ourselves: it’s not healthy for the country, but Hillary’s doing
> what she thinks she needs to do to get elected. It might work.
>
> Ilya Shapiro
>
> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
>
> Editor-in-Chief of the /Cato Supreme Court Review/
>
> Cato Institute
>
> 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> tel. (202) 218-4600 <tel:%28202%29%20218-4600>
>
> cel. (202) 577-1134 <tel:%28202%29%20577-1134>
>
> fax. (202) 842-3490 <tel:%28202%29%20842-3490>
>
> ishapiro at cato.org <mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
>
> Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro <http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
>
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
>
> /Cato Supreme Court Review/: http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
>
> Watch our 2014 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court
> Review/Preview:
> http://www.cato.org/events/13th-annual-constitution-day
>
> See me defend the right to keep and bear arms on the Colbert
> Report:
> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340923/july-08-2010/automatics-for-the-people---ilya-shapiro---jackie-hilly
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf
> Of *Paul Gronke
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:55 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci. edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/9/15
>
> Is Rick Hasen looking for some love? We love ya, Rick! :-)
>
> You know that I wrote a piece following a similar piece regarding
> the automatic voter registration bill passed by the Oregon
> legislature and signed by Governor Kate Brown. I remained
> agnostic in the piece about AVR, but regretted that the bill
> passed without a single Republican vote.
> (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/with_motor_voter_bill_oregon_p.html)
>
>
> I have received negative feedback similar to yours, Rick. I try
> to explain that setting the rules of the game via purely partisan
> votes can be problematic, often using the tired but apt analogy of
> one soccer team choosing a referee before a match.
>
> The responses I receive are more of (1) and (3), by the way.
>
> Some academic friends hoisting me on my own petard, recommending
> Alex Keyssar's book to me (which I have usually recommended to
> them first!). After all, since Keyssar's primary argument is that
> the right to vote throughout American history has waxed and waned
> in response to partisan competition, why should we expect anything
> different today?
>
> What do you think about that argument (Mark Elias made a similar
> argument on a Twitter exchange)?
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> Pushback on My Hillary Voting Wars Piece
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>
>
> Posted on June 9, 2015 8:50 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The good news is that Doug Chapin
> <http://about%20a%20quarter%20of%20americans%20also%20say%20they%27d%20like%20to%20see%20their%20state%20expand%20early%20voting%2C%20while%2037%20percent%20say%20their%20state%27s%20policies%20are%20about%20right.%20only%209%20percent%20want%20to%20see%20early%20voting%20reduced.%20%20more%20broadly%2C%20a%20majority%20of%20the%20public%20--%2061%20percent%20--%20say%20that%20low%20voter%20turnout%20is%20at%20least%20a%20moderate%20problem.%20many%2C%20though%2C%20aren%27t%20sure%20it%27s%20the%20government%27s%20problem%20to%20fix.%20forty-six%20percent%20of%20people%20say%20the%20government%20is%20already%20doing%20enough%20to%20make%20sure%20that%20everyone%20who%20wants%20to%20vote%20in%20elections%20is%20able%20to%2C%20while%2032%20percent%20say%20it%20isn%27t.%20democrats%20say%20by%20a%2024-point%20margin%20that%20the%20government%20doesn%27t%20do%20enough%2C%20while%20republicans%20say%20by%20a%2055-point%20margin%20that%20it%20does./> liked
> my Slate piece
> <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/06/putting_out_a_fire_with_gasoli.php> from
> yesterday on whether Hillary Clinton is making real election
> reform harder by framing the issue as a partisan fight. The bad
> news is that Doug seems to be alone in telling me to “Rock on.”
> Most thoughtful people I know with whom I share my writing have
> had a much more negative reaction to the piece, even if it appears
> that Clinton’s framing of the issue may decrease Republican
> support for reform <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73304>.
>
> I would say the responses fit into three categories:
>
> 1. There are no moderate Republicans who will deal on election
> reform. Republicans won’t support fixing the Voting Rights Act or
> anything else so there’s very little to lose (and, as I agree in
> the Slate piece, Clinton is advancing good policies and it is good
> base politics for her to give this red meat to her supporters).
> The examples I give in the eighth paragraph of my piece, where
> Republicans and Democrats have come together on issues, is simply
> too little, or the policies they’ve come together on, too
> insignificant.
>
> 2. The few moderate Republicans out there are more likely to
> respond by being shamed into doing the right thing than through
> rational discussion. (I’m not sure how to judge what is more
> effective, but I thought the Bauer-Ginsberg commission was a good
> example of how things could get done with the rhetoric lower.)
>
> 3. The comments of Scott Walker, Rick Perry etc. about the extent
> of voter fraud and the policies they have adopted are so
> outrageous that they deserve to be called out for their bad
> behavior. (On this point, I agree, but I don’t think the Clinton,
> who has about an even chance to be the next President, is the one
> to do it. I try to do it all the time on the blog when the issue
> arises, and many, many people write about this.)
>
> I usually don’t have doubts about the positions I put forward in
> my opeds and commentaries, but this pushback has been so strong
> from many people I respect that I will think on this some more.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73306&title=Pushback%20on%20My%20Hillary%20Voting%20Wars%20Piece&description=>
>
> ---
> Paul Gronke Ph: 503-771-3142 <tel:503-771-3142>
> paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>
> Professor of Political Science and
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
> Reed College
>
> http://earlyvoting.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Sherman
> Staff Attorney
> Fair Elections Legal Network <http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/>*
> 1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 248-5346
> jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com
> <mailto:jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com>
> www.fairelectionsnetwork.com <http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairerelections>Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork>
> *The contents of this email should not be construed as legal advice.
--
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/20150609/98feceac/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/20150609/98feceac/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20150609/98feceac/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory