[EL] Cats Scratch Their Rescuer

[Steve Hoersting]

Justin:

As to the the second part of your first paragraph: good for you! Seriously.

As to your numeric series of premises and conclusions, your 4) is
inapposite.

My point is, and remains, that the Constitution properly (as a matter of
policy and popular sovereignty, to say nothing of federalism) leaves voter
administration widely dispersed under the authority of the several states
(subject to input from Congress).

It should remain with the several states, formally and functionally. That
is my point.

If your point is opposite -- that we've nothing to concern us -- I would
ask you: Do you think Bernie got a fair shake at the DNC?

If not, have you any concern that "shakes" of that kind could become far
less "fair", or perhaps less well known to the voting public, were vote
tabulation filtered, functionally speaking, through a single federal
clearing house?

Do you suppose the Framers would have changed their approach to the federal
Constitution had the broad sheets of any country treated them to repeated
stories of "British meddling" in our elections?

Do you suppose such questions -- whatever their age or origins -- are
passe? Or, to bring the question quite up-to-date, what is the basis for
*your* "skeptic[ism] of 'nationalization of voter administration in a
single federal agency'"? For I assume you have one... and that your
objection isn't incidental.






On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:

> I have been quite outspoken about seeing value in some federal role in the
> elections process (perhaps, as a former federal official, that's natural),
> and quite skeptical of "nationalization of voter administration in a single
> federal agency."
>
> And I don't see why 1) wanting to understand the ways in which foreign
> governments sought to affect the election process (FWIW, I think Bluman v.
> FEC was wrongly decided, but it's actually the law), 2) the ways in which
> Americans may or may not have facilitated that effort, and 3) ways to
> bolster cybersecurity that don't unduly impact legitimate American access
> to the franchise necessarily lead to 4) black helicopters.
>
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Professor of Law
> Associate Dean for Research
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA  90015213-736-7417 <(213)%20736-7417>ssrn.com/author=698321
> @_justinlevitt_
>
> On 7/11/2017 10:26 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> I see that:
>
> *The nation’s Secretaries of State sent a clear message to the White
> House.  **Members of the National Association of Secretaries of State
> meeting in Indianapolis unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution
> underscoring the Constitutional rights of states to administer local, state
> and federal elections.*
>
>
> If "underscoring [and preserving] the Constitutional [power] of states to
> administer local, state and federal elections" is the issue, the several
> Secretaries of State have no greater friend than Donald J. Trump.
>
> For it is evident that nearly half the endgame of "Russia, Russia, Russia"
> is to justify the (formal or functional) nationalization of voter
> administration in a single federal agency, be it DHS or elsewhere. What
> were the buzzwords we heard repeatedly last Autumn? "...critical
> [something] architecture"?
>
> *
>
> Sanders supporters should be no less concerned. (Whether they are or not,
> I cannot say).
>
> Thank you,
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170711/07ee6e7e/attachment.html>