[EL] Georgia Lt. Gov. race 2018

Wed Oct 30 11:15:21 PDT 2019

Without questioning David's overall point, note that California has the
"top two primary." The Lt. Governor race in California was between two
Democrats , while the SoS and AG race were between a Republican and a
Democrat. The dropoff was directly associated with non-Democrats (various
Republicans and minor party backers, primarily) not seeing a candidate they
cared to support. Not sure if there were dynamics in Georgia that led some
people to now want to participate -- this Atlanta Journal-Constitution
<https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/time-solve-the-mystery-the-100-000-missing-votes/nEYXrcGW8et8esyVL6W4QM/#>
article suggests the dropoff was not nearly as high for absentee votes,
which raises questions about ballot design for the touchscreen at a minimum.

As an aside, for folks who like to lift up the fact of "exhausted votes"
with ranked choice voting as an alleged flaw, these results help explain
why as you go down to two candidates in a ranked choice voting tally, some
people decide not to rank any of the remaining candidates - they just are
basically indifferent to that final "instant runoff" choice. Here about one
in six voters in the Secretary of State race didn't believe it was worth
voting in the Lt. Governor race (and there was dropoff of more than a
million voters in the Democrat-vs.-Democrat US Senate race as well).

Rob

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:32 PM David Becker <dbecker at electioninnovation.org>
wrote:

> I think Rick Pildes raises the right questions about the LG race, and one
> of the questions should also be whether it’s odd at all that the LG race
> would experience a greater rolloff (compared to the Governor’s race), than
> other races like the Secretary of State or Attorney General’s races. The
> assumption is usually made that more voters would choose to vote in the
> LG’s race, and that assumption appears to be incorrect.
>
>
>
> For instance, in Georgia in 2018, here was the rolloff (compared to
> Governor) in three major state constitutional officer races:
>
>
>
> LG           -4.0%    ~150K votes
>
> SOS        -1.4%    ~50K votes
>
> AG          -2.0%    ~75K votes
>
>
>
> Compare this to California in 2018, with all four races (including
> Governor) also on the ballot:
>
>
>
> LG           -16%      >2 million votes
>
> SOS        -1.5%    ~200K votes
>
> AG          -1.6%    ~200K votes
>
>
>
> So about 1 in 6 voters in the CA Governor’s race chose not to vote in the
> LG’s race, a rolloff rate around 10 times that of the rolloff in the SOS
> and AG races, and 4 times greater than that seen in Georgia. And all voters
> in CA vote on paper, and most of them vote by mail.
>
>
>
> This is not to say that there wasn’t a problem in Georgia, nor that we
> shouldn’t be concerned about the disparity in minority precincts. Only to
> say that the numbers shouldn’t by themselves raise concerns, and there
> might be many valid reasons that voters in predominantly minority precincts
> might vote differently than those in predominantly white precincts (and
> those of us who have worked in minority voting rights and/or observed
> elections know this to be true). And unfortunately with the old paperless
> DRE voting systems in Georgia, a real audit of those ballots is impossible.
> (Fortunately, Georgia is moving to paper ballots and audits in 2020, and in
> fact they’re piloting the new system, and audits, next week).
>
>
>
> Why are voters less likely to vote for LG, in general, than SOS or AG –
> that’s an excellent question, worthy of further study. My hypothesis is
> that voters may think they understand what the SOS or AG does (whether
> they’re right or wrong) better than the possibly more vague
> responsibilities of the LG, and that leads to greater rolloff rates in
> those races generally.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David J. Becker | Executive Director and Founder
>
> Center for Election Innovation & Research
>
> 1120 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1040, Washington, DC  20036
>
> (202) 550-3470 (mobile) | dbecker at electioninnovation.org
>
> www.electioninnovation.org | @beckerdavidj
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Pildes, Rick
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:44 AM
> *To:* Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>; 'Rick Hasen' <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Stacey Abrams fact check
>
>
>
> Can someone explain the last point noted in Kessler’s story, which I don’t
> understand.  The point is that there was a 4.2% undervote in the lieutenant
> governor’s race, compared (I assume) to the vote in the Governor’s race.
> And that this undervote was more prevalent in minority precincts.
>
>
>
> But what is that supposed to tell us about potential issues concerning the
> Governor’s race?  I don’t see it having any bearing on that race.
>
>
>
> The odd fact here is that the undervote was much larger for the Lt. Gov’s
> race (4.2%) compared to less significant races, such as Secretary of State
> (1.4%) or School Superintendent (1.9%).  So that does raise questions about
> what happened re voting in the Lt. Gov’s race.
>
>
>
> But again, what inference about the vote numbers in the Governor’s race is
> even being suggested by this point?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Smith,
> Brad
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:20 AM
> *To:* 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] Stacey Abrams fact check
>
>
>
> *But it turns out this is a difficult situation to fact-check*
>
>
>
> Also from the full “fact check:”
>
> *Even if every provisional ballot not counted and every rejected absentee
> ballot had been awarded to Abrams, it would not have necessitated a runoff,
> much less overcome Abrams’s vote deficit.*
>
> *The 2018 turnout was far greater than any previous midterm, according to
> FiveThirtyEight, and more African Americans voted in 2018 than in 2016.*
>
> *Georgia purges lots of voters because of death, moving or not voting in
> recent elections, but it also makes it very easy to register because of
> automatic voter registration (AVR) when people obtain driver’s licenses.
> Registration has grown 94 percent in Georgia because of automatic voter
> registration, according to the Brennan Center.*
>
> *“Abrams was very effective in mobilizing her supporters, but in the end —
> perhaps due to a narrowing of the enthusiasm gap following the [Brett]
> Kavanaugh hearings — lots of Republicans also turned out,” said Charles S.
> Bullock III, political science professor at the University of Georgia. “The
> claim is not based on fact but will continue to be articulated by Abrams
> since it helps mobilize her supporters.” …*
>
>
>
> *Hasen said. “I have seen no good social science evidence that efforts to
> make it harder to register and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory
> over Abrams in the Georgia gubernatorial race. …*
>
>
>
> *Buttigieg suggested his statement was a factual claim, not in dispute,
> though it’s really more of an opinion.*
>
>
>
> Glenn Kessler is probably the best of the “fact checkers” out there, but
> is this “fact check” really that hard? Perhaps it depends—is Buttigieg
> making a statement of fact, a statement of opinion, or an supported
> interpretation of facts?
>
>
>
> This illustrates nicely the problems with recent demands that the
> government, or perhaps Facebook, police ads for accuracy. I think Rick is
> exactly right—there’s really no good evidence for the Abrams/Buttigieg
> claim. Thus, most people would conclude that it is false. (I also agree
> with Rick when he adds, “That seems to me to be beside the point: The
> question is whether Georgia had a good reason to put these …  measures in
> place,…” at least if we’re discussing whether such laws are good or bad, as
> opposed to discussing whether Ms. Abrams was cheated out of the
> governorship). But can we really insist that Buttigieg’s statement is
> false? I would normally respond to good ole’ Mayor Pete by saying or his
> statement “that’s not true,” but I’m sure he would insist that it is. And
> listeners would have to decide.
>
> Which leads us to ask: would Buttigieg have FB refuse an ad in a future
> race involving Abrams that criticizes her by saying, “Stacey Abrams
> continues to insist that she lost because of vote suppression-a delusional
> claim not supported by good social science evidence.” Conversely, what
> would Buttigieg, or those on the left fighting off feinting fits because
> Facebook isn’t fighting false advertising, think if Facebook refused to
> accept a Buttigieg ad saying, “Racially motivated patterns of voter
> suppression are responsible for Stacey Abrams not being governor of Georgia
> right now,” citing a lack of evidence for the claim?
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
>   Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 E. Broad Street
>
> Columbus, OH 43214
>
> (617) 236-6317
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 10:55 AM
> *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/30/19
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D107842-26title-3D-25E2-2580-259CFBI-2520Documents-253A-2520Kobach-2520Hired-2520A-2520Criminal-2520Investigator-2520With-2520No-2520Law-2520Enforcement-2520Experience-25E2-2580-259D&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=lqarix9xMUB9lObH52ezD7aS5MZXIOmMRDlk4ZKd2oI&e=>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-253fcat-253d8-26c-3DE-2C1-2CitzVrzvaItok9nfyTb-5F0Xli3bVqZ-2DEwkFFcLxyzwkTzUwTQ-5FmLSGpNEoep9UUXqkuyJIcgs-2DSqsJv9a48Mhl3E6IKddDaCG226B8y0P9E-5FfL-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=zJB7bojCxljGj_Ic17M9g5u3MioVKQRiapthjrc4URI&e=>
>
>
>
>
> “Did racially motivated voter suppression thwart Stacey Abrams?”
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-253fp-253d107840-26c-3DE-2C1-2CI3-2Dx03EWmZIN1nVvPRZshEXFSFyDbreUL3Keu-5FHcjf-2D4V4pEQqAsf7fUwtpPXqY9PyqOoYDmoprs85OoO98uMI6aC8yXAXG9jpv1VqgWtv3Pgk4b-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=oRm58x7-qE82g1wStHTSR84Nw_4k9U2khQq6MS3rjRo&e=>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2019 7:45 am
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-253fp-253d107840-26c-3DE-2C1-2CJKAaH4oTrc37pJTZXn77kF-5Fox4L3i7wZVpAgEYziS7rt-5FTM7equn24p-2D3sZdciLqQU6gP0He6Bb353y3koMT-2DjEK6NVUvrC9qhSCXtCIsNlWUlzFVkGltWrc-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=xL3cVlWXIyQH28-K5s3eqb31g2iuwWzVYaUzhL2RjfU&e=>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-253fauthor-253d3-26c-3DE-2C1-2CFAaKWkznEOXh-5FRaNAlBWY-2DzxyNDl6-5F4s4TsgMGM5M72f-5FRGOtr75BhmiIQTuTkzSjx0aTNpiJ3ZUx6tVjTbpFOiYslmn-5FmcxI486ckL3M2I-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=BGBHNGNOouAJd-swXDCrM2Rbpj2kLlzZibg1MJG4fwg&e=>
>
> WaPo Fact Checker:
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_politics_2019_10_30_did-2Dracially-2Dmotivated-2Dvoter-2Dsuppression-2Dthwart-2Dstacey-2Dabrams_&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=ekA3T-muRM0phYSN5D5t9LOrv7UjGY_tVx86ErMVWAU&e=>
>
> *“Racially motivated patterns of voter suppression are responsible for
> Stacey Abrams not being governor of Georgia right now.”*
> * — South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), in remarks in Bow, N.H.,
> Oct. 25, 2019*
>
>
> * It has become an article of faith among Democrats, especially those
> running for president, that Stacey Abrams was narrowly denied the
> governorship of Georgia because of voter suppression. It is equally an
> article of faith by Republicans that this is a false claim based on no
> evidence.*
>
>
> * Buttigieg’s remark caught our attention because he specifically said
> that the voter suppression was racially motivated and that it tipped the
> balance toward Republican Brian Kemp — who was directly responsible for
> overseeing the voting because he retained his post of secretary of state
> while he sought the governorship.*
>
> *But it turns out this is a difficult situation to fact-check, and not
> quite as easy as the case **when we gave Four Pinocchios*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_politics_2019_03_06_hillary-2Dclintons-2Dclaims-2Dabout-2Dvoter-2Dsuppression-2Dgeorgia-2Dwisconsin_-3Ftid-3Dlk-5Finline-5Fmanual-5F8&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=9yLUCFIzsMOKoLu0TBlFv7ZMg-3bdyZT9TbNHxqJb1I&e=>* to
> Hillary Clinton for claiming she lost Wisconsin in 2016 because of voter
> suppression or **Four Pinocchios to Sen. Cory Booker*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_politics_2019_08_02_bookers-2Dclaim-2Dthat-2Ddemocrats-2Dlost-2Dmichigan-2Dbecause-2Drussian-2Dgop-2Dsuppression_-3Ftid-3Dlk-5Finline-5Fmanual-5F8&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=fGwrZxT8QaIvc8jG4l3BYmNAVkg54JGvuikA9rBn_80&e=>* (D-N.J.)
> for claiming Russian efforts to suppress African American votes led to
> Clinton’s loss of Michigan. …*
>
>
>
> *Hasen, the UC Irvine expert, said the practices used under Kemp raise
> serious questions even if one cannot prove they affected the election
> outcome. “There is no question that Georgia in general and Brian Kemp in
> particular took steps to make it harder for people to register and vote,
> and that those people tended to skew Democratic,” Hasen said. “I have seen
> no good social science evidence that efforts to make it harder to register
> and vote were responsible for Kemp’s victory over Abrams in the Georgia
> gubernatorial race. That seems to me to be beside the point: The question
> is whether Georgia had a good reason to put these suppressive measures in
> place, and for the most part, the state did not have good reasons.”*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D107840-26title-3D-25E2-2580-259CDid-2520racially-2520motivated-2520voter-2520suppression-2520thwart-2520Stacey-2520Abrams-253F-25E2-2580-259D&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=W30MNOtbO6RUl6yqcs0jXjj-OdbAe_P4kPkTnByDm-U&e=>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-253a-252f-252felectionlawblog.org-252f-253fcat-253d60-26c-3DE-2C1-2CmWAGuelP-5FO-2Dh5uub-5FHkZn2JMJ78yzid83oZCLAWaLCLWh8p2ayGgfjJpqfY6jGsgvePE7njxIwv7Eaz6sW2ZMT3STPEHHojp6rWtyptpIQ-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=XSgtawx7EN0-PpbpY-_ujDdn40Al7ekifLrx25xIF0o&s=LC_M6N2Wiomkj9dvdoIQtC4QECVJB4Pe1OlFBiUMGeY&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
President and CEO, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
<https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20191030/a74d574f/attachment.html>