[EL] Cats Scratch Their Rescuer
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Tue Jul 11 11:52:58 PDT 2017
Oh, no, I don't believe that the questions are passe. And my skepticism
about complete federal control of voter administration is both
theoretical and pragmatic.
I offered my response simply as one person who has some serious concerns
about (and wants to know more about real risks posed by) "Russia,
Russia, Russia" -- and there are a bunch of discrete concerns
unfortunately conflated, involving at least pursuit of information or
influence, pursuit of electronic breaches of state systems, and perhaps
other strands still -- without having any sort of personal "endgame"
leading to one federal agency conducting all of our elections. If
that's the master plan, nobody's filled me in.
Also, as I understand it, the designation of state election systems as
"critical infrastructure
<https://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors>" does not mean
that DHS runs elections (hence the black helicopters) any more than the
designation of "commercial facilities
<https://www.dhs.gov/commercial-facilities-sector>" as critical
infrastructure means that DHS runs your local mall. What it does mean
<https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical>
is that DHS, which likely has some capacity for detecting cyberattacks
that your local county or municipal official may not, can offer
detection and inoculation assistance to officials _who want it_, and
facilitates what might otherwise be classified or sensitive
federal-state discussions.
More broadly: I hope that the reaction to one deeply flawed federal
advisory body isn't a proxy for denigration of any and all federal
services (or even any and all federal advisory bodies), any more than
the reaction to one [X] becomes a proxy for denigration of any and all
[X]. And I suspect _everybody_ has their favorite example to fill in in
place of the X.
On 7/11/2017 11:34 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 90015
> 213-736-7417 <tel:%28213%29%20736-7417>
> ssrn.com/author=698321 <http://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 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170711/f3b036ea/attachment.html>
View list directory