[EL] Accepting the results of the election

[Rick Hasen]

“Commit massive voter fraud.”

No evidence whatsoever of that. There are serious questions about what’s going on in Indiana, and I say let’s wait till we know all the facts.

And voter registration fraud does not generally lead to fraudulently cast votes. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081


I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making fundamentally honest arguments.

And I’ll let others continue this with you if they see it as fruitful.


From: "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:39 PM
To: "rkelner at cov.com" <rkelner at cov.com>
Cc: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election

What is hideous and unprecedented is this concerted attempt by liberals and Democrats to try to preclude a candidate from utilizing perfectly appropriate and legal means to ensure the fairness our elections by asking for a recount, if legally available under state law. This is particularly chilling here in Indiana when our State Police have just uncovered thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92 counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud.

Click here: “Statement from Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter Regarding Possible Voter Fraud ” from Indiana Stat<https://local.nixle.com/alert/5757504/>

This looks like a one two punch to me. Commit massive voter fraud and then force a candidate to say in advance that he will accept the outcome on election day.  This is a serious attack of the Rule of Law and an attempt to subvert our elections.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:15:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rkelner at cov.com writes:
Of course a presidential candidate can contest results in the exceptionally rare case of a truly close election. But neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore would ever have hesitated to say, prior to the election, that they would respect the outcome of the election. That hideous distinction is now uniquely owned by Donald Trump.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:08 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:

Some of those on this list serve may have taken note of this exchange:

Chris Wallace: "Will you accept the result of this election?"
Donald Trump: "I will look at it at the time. ... I will keep you in suspense."
Hillary Clinton: "That's horrifying."

Let me say that I think that Clinton's reaction was as phony and as it was absurd. Al Gore did not accept the results of the 2000 election. He sued for a recount in Florida which was not resolved until early December by a decision of the US Supreme Court. Only then, when no other legal recourse was possible, did he accept the results of the election. This, of course, was Gore's legal right to do. It would be ridiculous for Trump to say in advance that he will accept the election day count, if it would be appropriate to institute a recount.

State laws provide legal remedies to contest election or ask for recounts under certain circumstances. It is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to use these if legally available. Jim Bopp
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/0cd530c6/attachment.html>