[EL] Georgia Lt. Gov. race 2018

Wed Oct 30 11:18:40 PDT 2019

Rob raises a valid point, though I’d also note that I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that the rolloff was “directly” attributable to non-Democrats abstaining in that race. I think it’s likely that contributed to some degree, but I also think it’s likely, given the particularly large rolloff, that other factors contributed as well.

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<mailto:dbecker at electioninnovation.org>
www.electioninnovation.org<http://www.electioninnovation.org/> | @beckerdavidj

From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:15 PM
To: David Becker <dbecker at electioninnovation.org>
Cc: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>; 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] Georgia Lt. Gov. race 2018

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<mailto: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<mailto:dbecker at electioninnovation.org>
www.electioninnovation.org<http://www.electioninnovation.org/> | @beckerdavidj

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>; 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:20 AM
To: 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/30/19
[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.”
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20191030/6641482f/attachment.html>