[EL] Cats Scratch Their Rescuer

Tue Jul 11 12:32:24 PDT 2017

Quick responses, Justin:

I, too, want to "know about" "real risks." I remain confident that, over
time, dispersed entities can repel them.

I hypothesize "endgame" because, if memory serves, and speaking generally,
the project to nationalize voting administration has long been a policy in
search of a rationale. (And I recall the basket of rationales put forth
over several years to advance McCain-Feingold). Getting to nationalization
of voting administration under the rubric of national security is a
powerful trump card (excuse the pun) -- a big broom that sweeps clean --
and one difficult for citizens to verify ... at the cost of popular
sovereignty. So I would caution relinquishing very little, and prefer
dispersed administration, as the Constitution promises.

That you suggest "assistance" is encouraging. Still, that "assistance" --
especially once formalized in court-approved legislation -- can lead
gradually to usurpation would be my watchwords.

Regarding your "any and all"--  and a "more broadly" of my own: I want to
be sure we do not drift from popular sovereignty to "bureaucratic
sovereignty," if you will. And I can think of few areas where such concerns
are more pressing than in the mechanics of vote tabulation.

Thanks for the reply. All the best,

Steve

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:

> 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> 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 <%28213%29%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
>
>
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170711/64543ec5/attachment.html>