[EL] Voter Fraud
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Mon Oct 3 11:25:30 PDT 2016
I am glad to see that you agree that there are multiple ways to commit
voter fraud and you apparently agree that there needs to be steps taken to
prevent them.
However, while you seem to be focused on Voter ID, frankly I am not. I
did not raise this in my original post and only responded to you on it when
you brought it up. I think Voter ID is a modest measure to deal with a
modest problem. It is not a panacea. Nor does it create much harm. (When the
Indiana Voter ID law was being litigated, the Plaintiffs spend months trying
to find just one person who couldn't get an ID to vote and could not find
one. But their "studies" claimed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, I
don't remember. So they claimed thousands but they could not find a single
one. How big could a problem really be if you cannot find one single
person?)
I do disagree with this:
(2) registration fraud combined with absentee fraud -- this could be done
by one or two people. Thos is a risk that has to be fought BUT WHICH IS
NOT ADDRESSED BY VOTER ID.
Requiring a Voter ID at registration would do a lot to cut down on all
types of registration fraud, including scamming by people paid to do voter
registration. And there are documented examples of many people being involved
in absentee ballot fraud in a particular election that would also be
substantially prevented by requiring a picture ID with the registration and
absentee ballot so that they could be matched.
And there are other measures to deal with your other examples.
I just think we need a balanced approach to this issue. Jim
In a message dated 10/3/2016 12:46:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com writes:
"No one in their right mind..." requires that the goal of the fraud to be
to win elections.
That's just not true. I think most voter registration fraud is an attempt
by the person commuting the fraud to scam someone who is paying them for
campaign work. Whether that is on a per head, per hour, or other basis will
generally follow state law based on how people get paid.
What to do? These applications are completed and submitted and clog the
rolls until we can purge them legally. Because the other option is to knock
legitimate voters off the rolls based on suspicion alone.
In my practice you see fraud fairly regularly on candidate petitions.
These are almost never (but are occasionally) perpetrated by establishment
candidates. Most often it is done by some "contractor" for a sloppy campaign
or by some outsider candidate campaigns that have no idea how hard it is
to collect signatures.
You need more than a single fraudulent vote to win. So, the question is
how one who might want to impact an election could commit a fraud and you
don't know a single vote or two will matter? As I can see it, there are a few
scenarios:
(1) petition fraud -- this could be done by one person -- this is
addressed through existing processes in most states
(2) registration fraud combined with absentee fraud -- this could be done
by one or two people. Thos is a risk that has to be fought BUT WHICH IS
NOT ADDRESSED BY VOTER ID.
(3) registration fraud combined with people running to multiple polling
places to vote. This would require many people and a complicated conspiracy.
Yes, this could be addressed by Voter ID but almost never happens.
And, frankly, it would be much easier to put this effort into legitimate GOTV
and persuasion efforts.
(4) poll worker fraud such as casting votes for others. This is also a
real risk and needs to be policed. But also CAN NOT BE ADDRESSED BY VOTER ID.
Kevin Greenberg
215-279-9912
kevin.greenberg at flastergreenberg.com<mailto:kevin.greenberg at flastergreenberg
.com>
On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:22 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>"
<JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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><mailto:kevin.greenberg at flastergreenberg.com>
On Oct 2, 2016, at 9:56 AM,
"JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>"
<JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto: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://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-investigat
ing-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><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://electionlawb
log.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.u
ci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/2f78d010/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 493524 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/2f78d010/attachment-0001.bin>
View list directory