[EL] Voter Fraud

Mon Oct 3 11:12:08 PDT 2016

The deadline for voter registration (30 days before election day) allows a month to confirm (or disconfirm) that the person is a qualified elector.  Same day registration, at least as previously practiced in Ohio when it had “golden week,” allowed approximately the same period (between 28 and 35 days, depending on when during golden week the person registered and voted) to confirm that the person is a qualified elector.  This does not count the 10 days after election day that boards of elections have to determine the validity of provisional ballots.

Bill Rich
The University of Akron School of Law
(and Chairman, Summit County Board of Elections)

From: <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Date: Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM
To: "Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com" <Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter Fraud

As a general matter, we need to ensure that every vote counts.  This has two aspects, in my view, that are of equal weight and consequence.  The right to vote is violated by either (1) unreasonably preventing an eligible person from voting or (2) by canceling out an eligible person's vote by an ineligible person voting.  Liberals focus on (1) and, in my view, pay little attention to (2).

In my post, I did not focus on "in person voter ID requirements," but raised the general issue of voter fraud since I think voter fraud is a serious violation of a person's right to vote.  And certainly there are many different ways that this problem is and can be dealt with.

Obviously, at this point, registration fraud is most likely to be the focus of attention, since voting, by in large, is not occurring.  The voter registration process was created as a principal means to prevent voter fraud itself since prior registration provides a reasonable time to verify whether a particular person, who has registered to vote, is in fact eligible to vote. And if someone is not registered, the person cannot vote. Same day registration, that many liberal advocate, would remove this time-tested and effective voter fraud prevention measure.

Of course, no one in their right mind would commit voter registration fraud without having in mind, and without having a plan, to convert that registered voter into an actual vote.  The vote is the payoff, not the registration itself. So it is irrelevant that there is no proven voter fraud yet, since registration fraud is just the first step to voter fraud.

And as to your question,  it is perfectly obvious to me that an in person voter ID requirement is a substantial impediment to someone voting a fraudulently registered voter. The person would need to not only fraudulently register a person but also create a phony ID to vote that person.

So my view is that we need to strike a reasonable balance between two concerns that are of equal weight. First, all eligible voters must have a reasonable opportunity to vote.  And second we must take reasonable efforts to make sure that all ineligible voters do not vote. I understand that striking that balance is difficult and is often a subjective judgment.  But I rarely see liberals doing anything other than disparaging and denigrating those that raise one valid side of this issue. And usually it entails what you resorted to, claims that these are but " efforts to suppress the votes of the poor, old, and young without any basis in fact" or is just "fact-free hysteria" ie, nonexistent, which was mild actually since liberal usually just call it "racist."

So if we look at the big picture, liberal nirvana regarding voting procedures would involve: (1) no registration, or the functional equivalent, same day registration, (2) no ID requirement, and (3) voting at any voting center anywhere in the county (state?, nation?, or just online?).  This would provide zero protection against voter fraud, at least as far as the outcome of the election is concerned.

But, as I have suggested, if you really think that voter fraud is non-existent or just a racist plot to suppress certain voters, then I can understand why this nirvana appeals to you. But I think that there are plenty of people who would exploit such a system and make voter fraud a much more widespread problem than it is today. So a balance is needed.

Jeff, thanks for the question and the compliment.  I was not trying to build a case with my post, so I was not presenting "(my) 'best' facts." I was just drawing peoples' attention to random articles that have appeared in several states in the last few days, few of which made it to this list serve, even though I think they would merit it.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/3/2016 11:12:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com writes:
Jim, putting aside your inflammatory rhetoric, please explain how any of these cases, if true, would have been cured by in person voter ID requirements.

Except for the Colorado case, which has absolutely no facts about how those ballots were allegedly cast, none of these have anything to do with in person fraud.  I'd like to see more facts on the Colorado case.

Of course voter registration and absentee ballot fraud are problems.  And ones that law enforcement needs to purse.  But that has nothing to do with a certain group's affiliates efforts to suppress the votes of the poor, old, and young without any basis in fact.

For the purpose of the reporters lurking on the list, remember, Jim is one of the bright lights of the Right's voting litigation.  That's not a dig, he really is that good.  And these are his "best" facts.   Which tells you everything you need to know about the fact-free hysteria driving the "movement."

Kevin Greenberg
215-279-9912
kevin.greenberg at flastergreenberg.com<mailto:kevin.greenberg at flastergreenberg.com>

On Oct 2, 2016, at 9:56 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:

Since Rick and the PC police have declared that voter fraud is non-existent, and any mention of it is "dangerous rhetoric" and a threat to our "fragile" democracy, you are therefor prohibited from reading any of the articles below.  If you dare read them, you will be immediately declare to be one of the "bunch of deplorables" and sent to reeducation camp.

Click here: Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Virgini<http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_e008ce00-0365-57a2-95c0-4d9aa70012f9.html>

Click here: Possible voter fraud under investigation in Brighton | AL.com<http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/08/possible_voter_fraud_under_inv.html>

Click here: Voter Fraud: Dead People Voting in Colorado<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/24/dead-people-voting-colorado/>

Click here: Indiana State Police investigating voter registration fraud<http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/15/state-police-investigating-voter-registration-fraud/90407438/>

Click here: Arcan Cetin, Cascade Mall shooting suspect, voted in 3 elections without U.S. citizenship - Washington Times<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/arcan-cetin-cascade-mall-shooting-suspect-voted-in/>

I dare you.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/1/2016 6:24:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
Trump Again Raises Voter Fraud, Tells Supporters to Go to the Polls, Raising Risk of Voter Intimidation<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87054>
Posted on September 30, 2016 3:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87054> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From a speech today<https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/781988539458326528> via Sopan Deb:

[http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/hell.jpg]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/hell.jpg>

See my earlier LA Times oped<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hasen-vote-rigging-20160816-snap-story.html>, on the risks of Trump’s dangerous rhetoric.

_______________________________________________
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

[cid:image001.png at 01D21D80.1D206F50]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/e94b1dc4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 493525 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/e94b1dc4/attachment.png>