[EL] “Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount”
Lillie Coney
coney at lillieconey.net
Sat Dec 10 16:10:06 PST 2016
If the number of ballots do not exceed the number of voters according to the electronic poll book the ballots should be counted. Administrative errors that are predictable and known to occur places the burden on election administrators and should not create disparate treatment of voters in the same state during a recount.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 10, 2016, at 3:52 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe the concern to be that if there are more ballots cast than persons who signed in, the ballot box may have been stuffed
>> On Dec 10, 2016, at 3:43 PM, RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> But on the face of it, isn’t an election result where the number of ballots does not match the poll book sort of cry out for a recount. It seems counter-intuitive that evidence that something does not add up is justification for not checking your math rather than a reason to check your math.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any process that adds votes without reconciling to the pollbooks is apparently recount-proof in Michigan.
>>>
>>> That includes not only jamming machines that might do this, but traditional ballot box stuffing, and hacking that adds votes rather than flipping votes from one candidate to another.
>>>
>>> A savvy fraudster could reduce the strongest precincts for the other side by say 10%, add some votes, and thereby insulate it from detection via recount, and also have the most likely explanations be that the other side was trying to pad it's own votes. Brilliant. All thanks to an.interpretation of Michigan law that amounts to a fraud coverup by not allowing an investigation or recount of problematic precincts where votes don't match voters.
>>>
>>> A forensic analysis of the machines is needed, not merely a recanvass, but forensics is what no jurisdiction has wanted to allow, and the article doesn't suggest even an investigatory recanvass will take place.
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>>
>>> Ps Wisconsin also has a bizarre approach to voters not.matching votes. In New Richmond, WI, there is a video of election officials randomly removing two ballots to force voters to equal votes. They did this to "compensate" for allegedly inadvertently allowing two illegal votes, illegal only because witness addresses were missing on absentee ballots. In a third ballot found still in its envelope and uncounted but legal, the ballot was added but a legal undervote was removed from the recount in order to force a match between voters and votes.
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016, Daniel Abramson <danielkabramson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand. “It’s not good,” conceded Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit. He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is correct, it suggests that any poll worker has the power to prevent a recount in his or her precinct simply by running a ballot through the machine twice and not adjusting the counter. That does not seem like a process designed to engender faith in our democratic process. Is there more to this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>> “Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:30 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Detroit News:
>>>>>
>>>>> One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.
>>>>>
>>>>> “It’s not good,” conceded Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit.
>>>>>
>>>>> He blamed the discrepancies on the city’s decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Howard Rounds Up News Reports on Yesterday’s SCOTUS Arguments in Racial Gerrymandering Pair
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:26 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Here.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my views on these cases generally, see my Racial Gerrymandering’s Questionable Revival, 67 Alabama Law Review 365 (2015).
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in redistricting, Supreme Court
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “It’s Much Harder To Protect Southern Black Voters’ Influence Than It Was 10 Years Ago”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:21 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascinating Harry Enten for 538:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, however, it’s much more difficult for black voters in the South to find enough allied white voters to elect the representatives they want (almost always Democrats). There are just so few white Democrats left in the South, especially in the Deep South, compared to 10 years ago. It’s made drawing maps that meet VRA standards trickier. This problem is at the heart of two Congressional gerrymandering cases the Supreme Court heard on Monday, one from North Carolina and one from Virginia. The Court will have to decide how the VRA applies now that race has become such a strong proxy for partisanship in the South….
>>>>>
>>>>> his difference makes it much more difficult to elect a Democrat in the South now — you need many more minority voters to do it. Given how nonwhite people voted compared to the nation as a whole in 2014 (45 percentage points more Democratic), the average district now needs to be less than 54 percent white in order to elect a Democrat in a neutral year. (According to the CCES, whites make up 69 percent of all voters in the South.) If whites were still as Republican-leaning as they were in 2006, the average district could be as much as 65 percent white and still expect to elect a Democrat in a neutral year.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we focus solely on black voters — rather than nonwhite voters generally — the shift is just as dramatic. Southern black voters were 77 percentage points more Democratic than the nation in 2014. In a hypothetical district with only white and black voters, whites would need to make up less than 67 percent of voters to elect a Democrat in a neutral year. If whites voted the same way they did in 2006, a district could be about 77 percent white and would elect a Democrat, on average.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s a tremendous difference from a decade ago. That means the VRA is once again becoming increasingly important to Southern black voters’ ability to choose their representation in Congress. Although districts don’t need to be majority black, they need to be far closer to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Predicting the Impact of Democracy Vouchers: Analysis and Questions in Light of South Dakota’s Successful Initiative”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:17 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting from the Campaign Finance Institute:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) today has released a new study entitled “Predicting the Impact of Democracy Vouchers: Analysis and Questions in Light of South Dakota’s Successful Initiative”. The author is Michael J. Malbin, CFI’s Executive Director and Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, SUNY.
>>>>>
>>>>> South Dakota’s initiative, enacted by the voters on November 8, is likely to be challenged in the courts. Whatever the outcome, the initiative will be used as a model for future deliberations in other states and localities. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to use the initiative as a basis for thinking more deeply about vouchers. The report’s major conclusions appear in its Executive Summary, reproduced below. Related CFI studies may be found here.
>>>>>
>>>>> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The voters of South Dakota in November 2016 decided, by initiative, to enact the nation’s first statewide voucher-based system of public campaign financing. Vouchers represent a new approach in campaign finance law. Reformers are encouraged by this state-level victory, while the skeptics remain skeptical. Because of the ballot box success, we would not be surprised to see imitation in future years…. This report is aimed at those future efforts. We believe this initiative is important enough to warrant detailed analysis before new proposals reach the design stage. Specifically, the report makes predictions and raises questions about how the new law is likely to work out in practice. In addition to serving as a first review of one state’s innovation, the exercise is meant to serve as a basis for thinking about vouchers, small donor matching funds, and similar initiatives elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bulk of the report contains two sections that focus on South Dakota. The first considers the status quo of campaign financing in South Dakota before the initiative, based on the Campaign Finance Institute’s analysis of data supplied by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In the second, we project how the new program might work out in practice, using methodologies CFI has developed in seventeen years of nonpartisan, peer-reviewed research on money in politics. This analysis will show that the new vouchers and contribution limits are likely to have major effects. Some are likely to serve the supporters’ goals. Others raise questions. To summarize the most important expectations and questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Current donors: At a minimum, we expect the voucher system to reduce the importance of direct contributions from political action committees (PACs), most of which have been business-oriented. These organizations supplied an extraordinarily high 73% of the money raised by South Dakota’s incumbent state legislators in 2012 and 2014.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> New donors: Vouchers should successfully accomplish some of their main goals by increasing the importance of small donors and putting financial power in the hands of many who currently give nothing. We have reason to expect that the new donors will be more demographically representative than current donors. We do not yet know whether they will be more politically representative or polarized than current donors, or more inclined toward issues promoted by organizations that fare well in the new environment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Candidate participation: In any public financing system, the willingness of candidates to participate will depend upon how they weigh the value of the public funds against what they have to give up by participating. In South Dakota, accepting the vouchers means accepting lower contribution limits, including a zero limit for political parties and PACs. For reasons explained at greater length in the report, we expect the combination of rules such as these that are specific to South Dakota will affect participation in this state by incumbents and others who can raise more money under the existing rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Political parties and interest groups: Any voucher or public financing system will reshape the role of political parties and interest groups, but the precise effects will depend upon the mix of incentives in any given law. South Dakota’s initiative prohibits participating candidates from accepting contributions from parties or PACs. This is different from other voucher proposals and it effectively invites parties and interest groups to find alternative ways to participate. Increased independent spending is one likely development. But we would also not be surprised to see membership-based interest groups and organizations, as well as political parties, working hard to induce their members to donate their vouchers to the organizations’ preferred candidates. Those most likely will be large membership groups, such as labor unions, and issue advocacy groups on the left and right. Corporations would also be likely to urge their employees to contribute as most of them do now to increase participation by employees in their PACs. Whether the effects of any of these developments would be desirable remains an open question. The full report briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of such developments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> New candidates: Finally, the new sources of campaign funding should make running for election financially more feasible for new candidates. However, it remains unclear exactly how the new candidates will differ from current candidates. The answer is likely to depend in part on whether interest groups recruit candidates to run, and then help their campaigns by steering contributions in their direction.
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:12 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Suprun NYT oped:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think presidents-elect should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office….
>>>>>
>>>>> The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience. I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in electoral college
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “The Equal Protection argument against ‘winner take all’ in the Electoral College”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:04 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> More pie-in-the-sky from Lessig.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one were serious about pushing this argument, the time to advance it is not to try to change the outcome of an election already conducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> So go ahead Larry, and try to get this resolved before 2020. I don’t think it is getting anywhere, but at least it would allow courts to consider this theory when they know that doing so won’t upend what has already been done under rules everyone agreed were already in place.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in electoral college
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Should We Choose Ranked Choice Voting?”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 7:00 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> New Cato series leads off with Rob Richie.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in alternative voting systems
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud?”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 6, 2016 6:58 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> NYT editorial:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how voter suppression efforts start. First come the unverified tales of fraud; then come the urgent calls to tighten voter registration rules and increase “ballot security,” which translate into laws that disenfranchise tens or hundreds of thousands of qualified voters.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s already happened in Wisconsin and North Carolina, in Ohio and Texas, where Republican lawmakers pushed through bills requiring voter IDs or proof of citizenship; eliminating early-voting days and same-day registration; and imposing other measures. Virtually all these laws aimed at making voting harder for citizens who happen to be members of groups that tend to support Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in election administration, fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting Wars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Voting in America; 2016 Discussions on the evolution of voting administration, data, laws, and more”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 5, 2016 6:22 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Live webcast of Pew event on Dec. 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “A SCOTUS Juggling Act for Perkins Coie’s Marc Elias”
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 5, 2016 3:47 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Mauro:
>>>>>
>>>>> For most appellate lawyers, arguing at the U.S. Supreme Court is the capstone of their careers.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, arguing two separate but related cases before the high court on Monday was just one of several career highlights this year alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an election law specialist and general counsel for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Elias in recent weeks has been navigating Clinton’s involvement in the on-and-off recounts sought by third-party candidate Jill Stein while also overseeing the recount of the gubernatorial race in North Carolina on behalf of his client, Democrat Roy Cooper. It was Elias’ essay published on Medium.com on Nov. 26 that alerted the political world that the Clinton campaign intended to participate in the recounts “to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.”
>>>>>
>>>>> And oh yes, he has been prepping for the Supreme Court arguments, too. Elias said last week he was trying to spend eight hours a day on the Supreme Court cases, while also “moving from one team to the next” at his law firm to keep an eye on the election-related crises that he did not anticipate happening only a few weeks earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when a reporter asked about the North Carolina recount after Elias’ arguments at the high court Monday, he brushed off the question. “Honestly, I’ve been preparing for these cases,” he said, noting that his adversary in both cases was former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, now a Kirkland & Ellis partner with more than 80 Supreme Court arguments under his belt. Cooper’s opponent in North Carolina, Pat McCrory, conceded defeat Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> “And I’m still trying to figure out where the men’s room is,” Elias said. Asked how he kept everything straight, Elias pointed to his Perkins Coie colleagues Abha Khanna, Kevin Hamilton, Aria Branch and Elisabeth Frost.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in election law biz, Supreme Court
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Breaking: NC Gov. McCrory Concedes Election
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on December 5, 2016 9:13 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>
>>>>> In a video posted here.
>>>>>
>>>>> He points to “continued questions” about the “voting process” but says a majority of North Carolina voters voted for Cooper.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was the responsible thing for him to do, given very little evidence of voter fraud and the fact that recounts and canvasses found no more support for him.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end, it did not go to the NC legislature to a “contest” which could have tried to take the election away from Cooper and open up a potential federal constitutional lawsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>>> P.O. Box 2952
>>> Watford City, ND 58854
>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>>> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161210/9a6c08de/attachment.html>
View list directory