[EL] Voter Fraud

Mon Oct 3 12:09:27 PDT 2016

Regarding:

By the  way, you realize that those news articles you sent show no evidence 
of fraud  yet.

Ok, how about this:

_Click  here: Bridgeport State Rep. Christina Ayala arrested on 19 voting 
fraud  charges_ 
(http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20140926/bridgeport-state-rep-christina-ayala-arrested-on-19-voting-fraud-charges)  

and regarding this:

Moreover, they indicate that  some measures exist to prevent fraud. 

but the problem is that the Dems want to eliminate most of those  measures. 
 Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/3/2016 2:49:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU writes:

Your  explanation from Indiana doesn’t seem relevant. You said they could 
not find  one “person who couldn't get an ID to vote.” That fact is 
different from the  possibility that an additional barrier decreases voting. There 
is lots of  evidence that various election policies can increase or decrease 
voting and it  seems this would be one of them. Regulation has its costs, 
right? I’ll let  others discuss the more recent research on ID requirements.   
By the  way, you realize that those news articles you sent show no evidence 
of fraud  yet. You need to read beyond the headlines. Moreover, they  
indicate that some measures exist to prevent fraud. Granted officials may not  
always use them, but getting people to use the current tools they have seems  
wise unless their time is better spent elsewhere.  
For  instance, many states were not implementing voter registration in DMVs 
and  assistance agencies for years! Given that a large percentage of people 
who do  complete a registration at those agencies are updating their 
registration  record, it would seem to be in everybody’s interest to increase 
registration  at these government agencies (where you submit documents related 
to your ID).  Sadly, the current administration has been very slow on this 
issue and some  Republicans have been outright hostile to fully implementing 
the NVRA. This is  silly as it would meet their own goals of cleaning up the 
lists they are so  worried about. That reluctance to enforce state duties 
under the NVRA adds up  to a huge amount of “voter registration fraud,” if 
you ask me (which you  didn’t, but…).   

Douglas R  Hess 
Assistant  Professor of Political Science 
On  research leave for Fall Semester 2016. 
_http://www.douglasrhess.com_ (http://www.douglasrhess.com/)    
Grinnell  College
1210 Park Street, Carnegie  Hall #309
Grinnell, IA 50112  
phone:  641-269-4383 

From: JBoppjr at aol.com  [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 1:33  PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>;  
law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter  Fraud

Yes, I  think it is a balance between the two.  but as to harm, there are 
two  types (1) at the micro level, one ineligible voter is equal to one 
eligible  voter not voting and (2) at the macro level, does it change the outcome 
of an  election?  Either type can do this as well.

But I  just do not agree that Voter ID requirements like Indiana's creates  
substantial harm as I explained to Jeff. Jim

In a  message dated 10/3/2016 1:56:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU  writes:

Jim,

There  is an important policy difference between hazards and risks. Hazards 
lurk  everywhere. There are chemicals in most homes that could be 
MacGyvered into  something dangerous to the public, for instance. However, the risk 
of that  happening is low because the probability of somebody doing that is 
low (for  various reasons) and the harm to banning lots of cleaning agents 
would be  larger than the harm prevented with such a ban. (However, large 
scale  purchases of some chemicals are tracked, etc.)

Thus, Jim, you need to  show that the risk (not hazard) of harm from the 
voter fraud of the kind you  mention is greater than the risk of harm from the 
proposed solution. This is  the collar of the criteria you put forth. Right?

It seems to me that  the number of legitimate votes prevented by strict ID 
policy would be far  larger than the number of illegal votes it would 
prevent. 

Make  sense? 

(P.S. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam on this  list.)

Douglas R Hess
Assistant Professor of Political  Science

On research leave for Fall Semester 2016.
_http://www.douglasrhess.com_ 
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com&d=DQQFAg&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxE
KQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=7NJAQGg6F34852yqVc8dX
cIBM2P7iz_gZvL8VWKsxKo&s=44LRu50DF2pmANsbmzkxB-AfG9-37-k0YFWyYG_kdMc&e=)   

Grinnell College
1210 Park Street, Carnegie Hall  #309
Grinnell, IA 50112 
--------------------
Message: 1
Date:  Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:21:43 -0400
From: JBoppjr at aol.com
To:  Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com
Cc:  law-election at uci.edu
Subject:  Re: [EL] Voter Fraud
Message-ID: <30f311.189bd16c.4523df96 at aol.com>
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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."

[Snipped]
_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_
listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DQQFAg&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRF
zk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=7NJAQGg6F34852yqVc8dXcIBM
2P7iz_gZvL8VWKsxKo&s=5P37Dc9gv7WWuv9ZUJ4tsXKfIsK52adxgIUYIINpIEU&e=) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/14a5a20a/attachment.html>