[EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
Paul Gronke
paul.gronke at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 14:48:02 PDT 2020
One quick reaction to this column:
Studies of all-mail-in elections — the default in five states and sometimes allowed in 17 others — show that they increase overall turnout as well as turnout from more liberal-leaning young and African-American voters. At the same time, vote-by-mail also increases turnout from people in rural areas and older Americans, groups that tend to lean right. In November, when there’s a very real chance that circumstances may keep many seniors away from the polls, the system might well deliver Republicans a net advantage.
I don’t know what studies they are referring to. In my view, the best study to date is Gerber et al. 2013 “Identifying the Effect of All-Mail Elections on Turnout”, and they both summarize past research nicely--findings are generally small in presidential years, and a few studies how a negative effect. Their research shows some differences by age (higher impact among younger voters) but they report differences are statistically insignificant.
A study that looks at VBM in Utah that shows a stronger effect for younger, more liberal, and African Americans, but the differences are very small, and generally what this study showed was that VBM equalized turnout in that state (Democrats and African Americans were underperforming in the past). I like this study a lot but have to point out, it takes a very unique and innovative approach which has not yet been replicated or gone through peer review.
Other studies have generally found that VBM and no-excuse is used most commonly by higher propensity voters.
I’m not going to dismiss the turnout effects of vote by mail, and I think the impact on turnout is most substantial in state and local contests. That’s where it could be a real game changer (and there participation rates are frankly an embarrassment).
I’ve been quite surprised at what I’ve heard from the podium at the White House, among other places.
No-excuse absentee voters have traditionally leaned Republican. The turnout effects are generally quite small, not zero, but small, and that’s because, in a competitive environment like a Presidential race, the way your ballot is delivered and returned is just not that significant.
To me at least, putting in place the no-excuse option is an obvious safety valve to assure that we have a free, fair, and secure election in November, and I hope the states that don’t currently allow for no-excuse absentee voting make it available.
---
Paul Gronke
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
http://earlyvoting.net
General Inquiries: Laura Swann swannla at reed.edu
Media Inquiries: Kevin Myers myersk at reed.edu
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
>
> Also https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/24/conservatives-must-get-behind-vote-by-mail-options/ <https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/24/conservatives-must-get-behind-vote-by-mail-options/>
>
> Sean
>
>
> From: Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org <mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 12:31 PM
> To: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>; 'David Segal' <davidadamsegal at gmail.com <mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>; 'John Tanner' <john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> Cc: 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: RE: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
> 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/ <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 <mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
> Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro <https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro <http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023 <http://ssrn.com/author=1382023>
>
> Cato Supreme Court Review: http://www.cato.org/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 <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 <mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>; 'John Tanner' <john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> Cc: 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com>
>>> @Pronounce_the_T
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:48 AM Mark <markrush7983 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
>>>>>> Bio/clips: https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro <https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro>
>>>>>> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro <http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
>>>>>> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023 <http://ssrn.com/author=1382023>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cato Supreme Court Review: http://www.cato.org/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 <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 <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>
>>>>>> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:esegall at gsu.edu>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>>>>>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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 <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Rush
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>_______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20200409/6284345d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200409/6284345d/attachment.sig>
View list directory