[EL] Voter Fraud

Mon Oct 3 12:24:42 PDT 2016

Which policy do you propose, or what policy do you fear others are trying to undermine, that would have prevented the CT case? She allegedly went to extremes, including providing “fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district.” And, again, she got caught, so policies seem to be in place.

As an aside, I’ll note that I get the impression that voter fraud cases that truly appear to be fraud often involve actions by local elected officials and/or local election officials, or their relatives. Cases that seem to involve members of the public acting fraudulently in any numbers is what you would need, I think, Jim, to support a call for more restrictive policy. Otherwise, perhaps the better thing would be to work on professionalization of elections, including implementing the NVRA correctly (current law) and ending the practice of elected officials as state election chiefs (new law).

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 2:09 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter Fraud

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nhregister.com_government-2Dand-2Dpolitics_20140926_bridgeport-2Dstate-2Drep-2Dchristina-2Dayala-2Darrested-2Don-2D19-2Dvoting-2Dfraud-2Dcharges&d=DQMFaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=a9i_FnL-JebcNA8TjrTnoOu6fwU-dPNu161RjqD1EB0&s=xYP0HpvTXRfVLANrW5bpDF-2aSLjFkZe3GlznDL6N14&e=>

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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.douglasrhess.com_&d=DQMFaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=a9i_FnL-JebcNA8TjrTnoOu6fwU-dPNu161RjqD1EB0&s=CoQ3XF1KQbmzcBAFCa0S-ccKzBkeA4JY2lTFC3NJZ-c&e=>

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> [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 1:33 PM
To: Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU<mailto:HESSDOUG at Grinnell.EDU>>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=7NJAQGg6F34852yqVc8dXcIBM2P7iz_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<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
To: Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com<mailto:Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter Fraud
Message-ID: <30f311.189bd16c.4523df96 at aol.com<mailto: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<mailto: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_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=7NJAQGg6F34852yqVc8dXcIBM2P7iz_gZvL8VWKsxKo&s=5P37Dc9gv7WWuv9ZUJ4tsXKfIsK52adxgIUYIINpIEU&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161003/7b29b185/attachment.html>