[EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal

Thu Apr 9 09:44:19 PDT 2020

FWIW, Olsen's column is completely wrong as to Pennsylvania.  Per a
comprehensive election reform bill passed last year (our first major
changes since 1937), all PA voters can vote by mail in a 50-day
pre-election window, no excuse needed.  (The price the PA GOP extracted for
the compromise: an end to single-button straight ticket voting.)

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA  19107

(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com
http://www.boninlaw.com

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org> wrote:

> See further Henry Olsen’s latest column,
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/08/theres-plenty-room-compromise-mail-in-voting-get-it-done/
>
>
>
> 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 *Sean Parnell
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2020 12:00 PM
> *To:* 'David Segal' <davidadamsegal at gmail.com>; 'John Tanner' <
> john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
>
>
> Well, you’ve already got a number of right-of-center groups who have in
> one way or another indicated some interest in expanded
> absentee/vote-by-mail options (per Jim Bopp’s earlier e-mail, these are not
> the same thing) – when I scroll to the bottom of this e-mail I note it’s
> someone from Cato commenting favorably on an article at National Review
> Online that is itself favorable to such policies. And I’ve spoken with a
> few right-of-center groups that are generally favorable to the idea, though
> of course there are some bright red lines for them. I suppose the corollary
> is: are there any groups we’d consider to be aligned with the left that
> would be willing to back such a compromise, or willing to accept that the
> federal government should support but not mandate expanded
> absentee/vote-by-mail options?
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *David Segal
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:21 AM
> *To:* John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200409/8944c149/attachment.html>