[EL] The Strange MI Voting Case
David A. Holtzman
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Fri Sep 9 12:05:05 PDT 2016
I read "increasing the lines in polling places ... maybe by 2 minutes or
more per person" as referring to average extra time per person,
taking estimated accumulation into account, based on data like previous
turnout at different times during the day, and rates of using the crutch.
And anyway, the obvious remedy is to provide more voting booths.
Unless you think "we shouldn't waste money on elections."
- dah
On 9/9/2016 11:35 AM, Jon Sherman wrote:
>
> Without expressing an opinion on the (preliminary) outcome in the
> case.... 2 minutes more per person is of course an extra hour for
> voter #31 in line and an extra 2 hours for voter #61. And these wait
> times are more pronounced in urban precincts. It's not just your extra
> 2 minutes - it's the cumulative extra 2 minutes of everyone standing
> in front of you. So perhaps the question is not whether voters can do
> without straight-ticket voting (they of course can) but whether they
> should have to endure the wait times that come with the elimination of
> that option. And whether the burden of that additional wait time is
> felt uniformly across all groups across the state or not.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2016 1:06 PM, "David A. Holtzman" <David at holtzmanlaw.com
> <mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>> wrote:
>
> What of the obvious offensive implication here, that “black people
> can’t <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105812/> vote” (so they need a
> crutch to keep the line moving)?
>
> Isn’t a more important “real concern on election day” that if the
> straight ticket crutch is available, people will be expected to
> use it?And that those who don’t will risk being labeled “uppity?”
>
> If, in another state, a straight ticket device is *instituted* to
> *shorten* wait times at polling places, particularly those where a
> lot of African-Americans vote -- rather than providing more voting
> booths (duh!!) -- wouldn’t that be obscenely outrageous?
>
> Hell, if black people are expected to vote straight-ticket
> Democratic, why not just enter those votes for them in advance,
> and make them come to the polls if they want to vote
> differently?Seriously, you could do that for anybody who registers
> as a member of a party.(Why waste money on giving those people
> ballots?)Or, in states where you have race data in the rolls, you
> could do it just for poorly-represented racial groups!
>
> When I read this morning that Justice Thomas indicated he would
> have let Michigan eliminate the crutch, at least for this
> election, I wondered if he wasn’t somehow channeling Ward Connerly
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Connerly>.(Do not suggest that
> black people can’t think for themselves as well as others....)
>
> Finally, isn’t it a bit weird to think that for members of a group
> that had to fight -- seriously fight -- to get to the polls,
> waiting two minutes more on line could somehow make voting not
> worth it?
>
> - David Holtzman
>
>
>
> On 9/8/2016 8:56 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>
>>
>> #SCOTUS Sometimes Decides Even When It Doesn’t Decide: The
>> Strange MI Voting Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86369>
>>
>> Posted onSeptember 8, 2016 8:37 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86369>by*Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> It is almost midnight on the East Coast, and we still have no
>> ruling from the Supreme Court on Michigan’s application to allow
>> it to eliminate straight ticket voting
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86158>(a mechanism which allows a
>> person to vote for all party offices with a single vote). A
>> federal court had ruled preliminarily that Michigan’s abandonment
>> of this device (which many states have eliminated) would
>> adversely harm African-American voters, in part by increasing the
>> lines in polling places (maybe by 2 minutes or more per person, a
>> real concern on election day). This looks like a Voting Rights
>> Act violation.
>>
>> A panel of the Sixth Circuit refused to stay that order (meaning
>> straight ticket voting would remain for November), and the entire
>> Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc refused (on a split vote to get
>> involved).
>>
>> Michigan rushed to the Supreme Court for relief, and told the
>> Court it needed an answer by today, September 8, in order to know
>> how to print ballot materials. So I, as well as many others,
>> expected the Court would rule today. They usually rule before
>> deadlines like this. I also thought for various reasons
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86158>Michigan had a very low
>> chance of getting relief on this motion.
>>
>> So here we are with almost the day over and nothing.
>>
>> Michigan might be able to stall tomorrow for a few hours if the
>> order does not come by morning (in 2014, we had a Texas voter id
>> ruling and Justice Ginsburg dissent issued at 5 am on the
>> Saturday before early voting was starting in Texas). But it has
>> to treat this as equivalent to the denial of relief from the
>> Supreme Court.
>>
>> I strongly suspect that the reason for the delay is a dissent
>> from one or more Justices (the likely suspects are Justices Alito
>> and Thomas). After all, if the Court was going to grant relief,
>> it knew it had to do so by the end of September 8.
>>
>> We will probably know soon enough, but here, deciding not to
>> decide is also deciding.
>>
>> hare
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86369&title=%23SCOTUS%20Sometimes%20Decides%20Even%20When%20It%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Decide%3A%20The%20Strange%20MI%20Voting%20Case&description=>
>>
>> Posted inelection administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>
>>
> []
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may
> be confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are
> not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering
> this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have
> received this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
> forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
> immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160909/e6b03f5c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160909/e6b03f5c/attachment.png>
View list directory