[EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal

Thu Apr 9 08:21:10 PDT 2020

Are there any interest groups that we'd consider to be aligned with the
right that are, or seem as though they might be willing, to back this or
similar proposals?

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:05 AM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:

> To get a federal bill you need for both sides to be able to declare
> victory.  Adding a one-time ban on vote harvesting would be one way — and I
> have seen it first hand eith white candidates harvesting black votes
> against black candidates.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Steve Kolbert <steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> My question about the proposal: what impact (if any) will drive-through
> voting have on line/queue management?  A line of 50 voters on foot snaking
> around a building corner is much different than a line of 50 (or 200!)
> voters in their vehicles clogging up nearby public roads.
>
> Communication with incoming voters may also be an issue.  It's one thing
> to put a "Vote Here" sign (or two, or three) in a parking lot. But when the
> line of cars snakes two (or ten) blocks, incoming voters may not initially
> understand that this backed-up traffic is all waiting to vote.  So these
> new voters may attempt to head straight to the polling place, then have to
> exit and re-route back to the end of the line of vehicles.  I can envision
> this creating a further traffic build-up.
>
> I imagine that, with some test-runs and practice, drive-through voting
> might eventually become a well-oiled machine.  But we're talking about
> trying it on a large scale for the first time in the largest election held
> every four years.  Growing pains are inevitable, and the scale of the
> election has the potential to magnify them.  (Of course, there may not be
> any better options.)
>
> Steve Kolbert
> (202) 422-2588
> steve.kolbert at gmail.com
> @Pronounce_the_T
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:48 AM Mark <markrush7983 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all--
>>
>> The proposal is beyond reasonable and wise.  Yet, alas, it may fail due
>> to the septic state of politics in the USA.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:43 AM Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> " We need another Bauer-Ginsberg commission or some such"
>>>
>>> Haha yeah that was a resounding success!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:29 AM Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Holding small business loans hostage to election funding is not a way
>>>> to enhance confidence in whatever crisis-related tweaks are necessary.
>>>> Either this stuff passes on its own terms or it shouldn’t pass. The concern
>>>> isn’t about “voting rights” as such—the pre-corona “suppression” meme/myth
>>>> is not something Republicans will magically now sign onto—but having
>>>> functioning elections and avoiding the Wisconsin game of chicken where
>>>> nobody wins (even if the supreme courts were 100% correct in their legal
>>>> rulings). We need another Bauer-Ginsberg commission or some such, un-sexy
>>>> technocratic reforms to help election administration, not ideological ones
>>>> that reinforce priors. The Kleinfeld proposal is consistent with that (and
>>>> the Kleinfeld siblings are themselves on opposite partisan sides, albeit
>>>> narrowly straddling the divide).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ilya Shapiro
>>>>
>>>> Director
>>>>
>>>> Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
>>>>
>>>> Cato Institute
>>>>
>>>> 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
>>>>
>>>> Washington, DC  20001
>>>>
>>>> tel. (202) 218-4600
>>>>
>>>> cel. (202) 577-1134
>>>>
>>>> ishapiro at cato.org
>>>>
>>>> Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro
>>>>
>>>> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Cato Supreme Court Review*:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Watch our 18th Annual Constitution Day Conference, Sept. 17, 2019:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cato.org/events/18th-annual-constitution-day
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Law-election *On Behalf Of *Jeff Hauser
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2020 8:56 AM
>>>> *To:* Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>>> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> " Federal funding would no doubt help make the decision to expand
>>>> absentee voting easier, but lack of funding is not an absolute barrier."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The literature on "states rights" and the history of access to voting
>>>> in this country strongly suggests federal action is necessary. House
>>>> Democrats are necessary to keeping GOP leaning business owners/equity
>>>> holders afloat, and it strikes me as both necessary and proper that funding
>>>> such efforts be tied to de facto voting rights.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:47 AM Sean Parnell <
>>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It’s probably worth noting that states generally fund and run their own
>>>> elections, so there’s no real need to go through McConnell and Trump to
>>>> expand absentee voting and other options. Federal funding would no doubt
>>>> help make the decision to expand absentee voting easier, but lack of
>>>> funding is not an absolute barrier.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sean Parnell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *David Segal
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 10:29 PM
>>>> *To:* Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu>
>>>> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's good that they are pushing and I think a patchwork of purple, and
>>>> even some red, states might implement procedures along these lines. (Hard
>>>> to imagine that all would, which might implicate the POTUS race and would
>>>> certainly have impacts on Congress and state and local races.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it's very hard for me to see a path under any circumstances through
>>>> McConnell and Trump, even if Congressional Ds prioritize this more in
>>>> negotiations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do other folks here think otherwise, re: the politics of the bulk of
>>>> R-controlled states and Congress, and if so would you be able to speak to
>>>> what it looks like in more detail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:59 PM Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. excellent piece, great ideas, and thanks Ilya for supporting it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I thought this was solid and would get bipartisan support:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-holding-elections-during-pandemic/
>>>> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2020%2F04%2Fcoronavirus-response-holding-elections-during-pandemic%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314052158&sdata=4s3OdhFO8WLQxHc0JJqmIRohy3lAafOZxuD09D9fQSY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>> Ilya Shapiro
>>>>
>>>> Director
>>>>
>>>> Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies
>>>>
>>>> Cato Institute
>>>>
>>>> 1000 Mass. Ave. NW
>>>>
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>>
>>>> (o) 202-218-4600
>>>>
>>>> (c) 202-577-1134
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @ishapiro
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
>>>> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fpeople%2Fshapiro.html&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314062151&sdata=grQ9OqFvGz001aj76eTzlUJUNjTU20RD%2BUsdz5IBl%2BI%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>> CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university. Do
>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>>>> know the content is safe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>
>>>> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C119d6d922e124261fa9008d7dc1cf8fa%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637219889314082142&sdata=8C5lPdsZJBwhGN8EQYZ%2F1o96UNi%2FgJylfESmNa2f24M%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Rush
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200409/f6ddc339/attachment.html>