[EL] automatically sending VBM ballots
Dan Meek
dan at meek.net
Thu Apr 9 16:49:41 PDT 2020
Those interested in how universal vote-by-mail works should consult:
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/vbm_manual.pdf
Oregon ballots are mailed out 45 days before the election to military
and overseas voters, between 14-29 days before the election to
out-of-state addresses in the United States, and 14-20 days before the
election to in-state addresses.
If a registered voter does not receive a ballot (or misplaces it), she
can contact the county elections office and get a new one by in-person
visit, by mail, by fax, or by email. Every ballot has a code, so the
original ballot sent to the voter is cancelled.
Dan Meek
503-293-9021 dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net> 855-280-0488 fax
On 4/9/2020 4:32 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
> For me, chaos at polling places and in the counting process is the
> larger concern.
>
> A voter receiving a mail ballot must do one of three things: (1) vote
> using that ballot; (2) surrender the ballot at the polling place to
> then vote in-person; or (3) show up at the polling place and cast a
> provisional ballot. (If a mail ballot is not turned in and the voter
> is allowed to vote with other than a provisional ballot, the voter
> could vote twice -- once by mail and once at the polling place.)
>
> Voters who specifically request a by-mail ballot typically cast it, or
> they understand that they need to surrender it if they want to vote
> in-person. For those few who forget to bring it with them to the
> polling place, that is on them (since they requested it) and they
> typically understand the need to vote provisionally.
>
> Voters who never asked for a by-mail ballot may not be watching their
> mail for it, thus may not realize they ever received it, and very
> likely do not realize they need to bring it with them if they want to
> vote in person. Provisional voting is a slow process (it requires a
> lot of extra paperwork to enable after-election-day verification) and
> it leaves voters wondering whether or not their vote will ultimately
> be counted.
>
> California's 'vote center' counties
> <https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voters-choice-act/about-vca/> mail
> ballots to every voter. They recognize what is going to happen and
> have spent years preparing for handling the expected thousands or tens
> of thousands of provisional ballots coming in each election. Even with
> that expertise and preparation, processing those provisional ballots
> are one of the three biggest reasons it takes weeks for the results of
> many California elections to be determined (the second is same-day
> voter registration and the third is accepting mail ballots that arrive
> up to 3 days after election day if postmarked by election day).
>
> If you think it is technically challenging to manage an election where
> a majority of voters cast by-mail ballots (and it is), that is nothing
> compared to the logistical challenge to processing tens of thousands
> or even hundreds of thousands of provisional votes.
>
> - Doug
>
> Douglas Johnson
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont McKenna College
> and President, National Demographics Corporation
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:58 PM Fredric Woocher
> <fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>> wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> So I randomly picked one of the 491 “absentee ballot fraud” cases
> from that database, using one in which a “campaign official” was
> charged, thinking that this would be most likely to be a concerted
> effort that could possibly be duplicated. Here is the synopsis:
>
> “In a race for District 1 School Board, eventual winner Abra
> “Tina” Hill Johnson and her husband Ernest Johnson were accused of
> absentee ballot fraud. Investigators accused them of asking voters
> to sign an absentee ballot request that was pre-filled out and to
> address it. Without the voters’ knowledge or consent, an alternate
> address was handwritten on the form, causing the ballots to be
> mailed to a third party rather than directly to the registered
> voters. Charges: 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting
> votes, 1 count of corruptly influencing voting, and 1 count of
> perjury by false written declaration.”
>
> It looks to me that you would be /introducing/ as much (if not
> more) fraud by forcing everyone to apply for an absentee ballot as
> you would have by just sending them the ballot directly.
>
> No system is going to be fool-proof and fraud-free. But I repeat
> that you will undoubtedly be disenfranchising many more voters by
> requiring everyone to affirmatively request an absentee ballot
> (through mishandling by the post office or the elections’
> officials, or by delay or inadvertence in the voter sending in the
> application).
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
> *_IMPORTANT NOTICE_**:*Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay at Home”
> Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
> *_Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered – do
> not serve papers by this method_.* While our office is closed,
> *Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all
> of its matters*. Please serve by electronic mail to
> _fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>_AND to
> our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at
> loliver at strumwooch.com <mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve
> the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not
> actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:38 PM
> *To:* Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>>; Marty Lederman
> <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>; Paul Gronke
> <paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject:* Re: automatically sending VBM ballots
>
> I’m worried about both of those things, as well as ballots being
> stolen out of mailboxes of people who are no longer at their
> addresses, and sometimes voted.
>
> If you go to the News21 database that’s linked in my article, and
> you peruse the cases involving absentee ballots, you can find
> cases like these occasionally. The potential for mischief is there
> in places where there, especially in parts of the country where
> there is a history of vote buying with absentee ballots (parts of
> rural Kentucky for example, and South Texas).
>
> Just as importantly, as you’ll hear much more about from me soon,
> I’m worried about perceptions of fraud and confidence in election
> outcomes. It won’t take too many cases like the issues I’ve
> described above to become part of the talking points of those who
> want to claim that the election is stolen or riven by fraud. The
> more evidence of ACTUAL fraud there is, even if on a relatively
> small scale, the greater these fraudmongers’ attempt to stir it up
> will work.
>
> *From: *Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:33 PM
> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>,
> Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>, Paul Gronke
> <paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject: *RE: automatically sending VBM ballots
>
> Rick,
>
> Pardon my blindness or stubbornness, but I continue not to see
> exactly what the problem is with “potentially thousands of ballots
> going to the wrong addresses.” Are you afraid that the current
> occupant is going to vote his or her own ballot and then also vote
> the ballot of the dead or moved non-occupant, forging their names
> on the ballot? Is this a realistic means of fraudulently
> affecting the outcome of the election while escaping detection,
> one random individual by one random individual? Alternatively,
> are you afraid that these ballots will somehow get forwarded to
> the people who have moved, despite that the US Postal Service is
> specifically directed not to forward such material (and as far as
> I know complies), so that these people will vote twice in the same
> election from different addresses (presumably not a concern for
> the dead voters)? Again, this does not seem to me like a
> promising means of fraudulently trying to affect the outcome of
> the election.
>
> As others have noted, there is a real trade-off here in requiring
> an affirmative application to receive an absentee ballot for each
> election, which will inevitably result in many people who
> legitimately want to receive a ballot and vote by mail not being
> able to do so. Without some understanding of exactly how the
> fraud is going to be perpetrated, I don’t see why this added step
> is necessary.
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
> *_IMPORTANT NOTICE_:*Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay at Home”
> Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
> *_Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered – do
> not serve papers by this method_.* While our office is closed,
> *Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all
> of its matters*. Please serve by electronic mail to
> _fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>_AND to
> our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at
> loliver at strumwooch.com <mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve
> the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not
> actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:07 PM
> *To:* Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>>; Marty Lederman
> <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>; Paul Gronke
> <paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject:* automatically sending VBM ballots
>
> Oregon and California are two states that already do heavily vote
> by mail, and voters who fail to vote in 4 consecutive elections
> (in CA at least) lose that status. There are other states where I
> have been told the rate of VBM is as low as 3 or 6 percent. This
> is no doubt going to include a lot of people who are no longer
> eligible to vote at that address (because they have died or
> moved). This is potentially thousands of ballots going to the
> wrong addresses in those states. That’s a much bigger risk than
> simply having a bloated voter roll.
>
> *From: *Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com
> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:00 PM
> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>,
> Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>, Paul Gronke
> <paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject: *RE: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
> Presuming that there is some system already in place to ensure
> that a vote-by-mail ballot is cast and returned by the intended
> person (e.g., signature matching against voter’s affidavit of
> registration), what exactly constitutes or creates the “too large
> of a risk” that you are concerned about in sending all actively
> registered voters a ballot without an affirmative request? My
> understanding is that states like Oregon and Washington already do
> that, and California effectively does that for all “permanent
> vote-by-mail” voters, and I have not seen any reports of
> widespread fraud as a result.
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
> *_IMPORTANT NOTICE_:*Pursuant to the Governor’s “Stay at Home”
> Order, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
> *_Packages requiring signatures will be returned undelivered – do
> not serve papers by this method_.* While our office is closed,
> *Strumwasser & Woocher LLP consents to electronic service in all
> of its matters*. Please serve by electronic mail to
> _fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>_AND to
> our Senior Legal Assistant, LaKeitha Oliver, at
> loliver at strumwooch.com <mailto:loliver at strumwooch.com>. We reserve
> the right to object to any notice or delivery of any kind if not
> actually received by counsel before all statutory deadlines.
>
> *From:* Law-election
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
> Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:36 PM
> *To:* Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>; Paul Gronke
> <paul.gronke at gmail.com <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
> I’m all in favor of sending them automatically in states with
> accurate voter rolls. But too many have very bloated voter rolls.
> I don’t favor aggressive purges because that will lead to
> disenfranchisement of eligible but infrequent voters. But having
> thousands of ballots to no longer eligible voters floating out
> there seems like too large of a risk.
>
> *From: *Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu
> <mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 2:32 PM
> *To: *Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com
> <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>>
> *Cc: *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] Kleinfelds’ proposal
>
> Thanks very much, Paul. That's very helpful. I hope it's clear
> that what I am proposing is that all voters /receive /a ballot at
> home that they can "return" either in person or by mail. Rick
> would require them first to say "please do" to a state offer; and
> others would only send the ballot if and when a voter
> affirmatively requests it, w/o an invitation.
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:24 PM Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com
> <mailto:paul.gronke at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not speaking for every scholar by any means, but as an expert
> in this area (I’ve been studying “early voting” since 2004; I
> helped the EAC develop the questions for the EAVS survey and
> developed the questions used by the American National Election
> Study and Cooperative Congressional Election Study to identify
> early voters).
>
> I’ve gotten this question a LOT and understanding that I only
> speak for myself and not other political scientists
>
> *&TLDR version*
>
> *Details below, but the brief version "*Election Day Voting,"
> "Early In Person Voting,” and "Vote by Mail Absentee” are the
> most commonly used terms.
>
> But there is complexity within some of the categories,
> especially “vote by mail absentee”. See below for the long
> boring version.
>
> ===
>
> 1) EARLY VOTING is generally an umbrella term used to refer to
> methods of voting whereby the ballot is cast at a place and
> time other than at the polling place on election day.
>
> 1a) Sometimes, EARLY VOTING is used to describe “early
> in-person” voting.
>
> 2) ELECTION DAY or PRECINCT PLACE voting is used to describe
> voting on Election Day at a polling place / precinct place.
>
> 3) EARLY IN PERSON VOTING describes voting prior to Election
> Day at an early voting location, most often a county or local
> elections office, or a satellite location, or at a voting center.
>
> 4) VOTING BY MAIL usually refers to any of a variety of ballot
> delivery and return methods whereby a ballot and
> accompanying materials are sent from a local jurisdiction,
> most often using the US Postal Service. Voters complete the
> ballot at a time and place of their choosing, and the ballots
> are returned either through the postal service, or dropped off
> at a secure location (county office or drop boxes).
>
> 4A) VOTE AT HOME is a term that has become recently
> popularized because it provides a better description of how
> many voters actually complete the ballot, and recognizes that
> in a number of states, more than half of the “VOTE BY MAIL”
> ballots are not, in fact, returned by mail, but instead are
> dropped off (over 60% in Oregon, I believe the same numbers in
> Washington and Colorado).
>
> 4B) Sometimes, people will use the term “VOTE BY MAIL” or
> “VOTE AT HOME” to refer to those states that have “FULL VOTE
> BY MAIL” (this is the term I try to use). That includes
> Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii.
>
> 4C) Sometimes, people will use the term “UNIVERSAL BALLOT
> DELIVERY” to refer to the same set of states, but this term is
> not very common.
>
> 5) NO EXCUSE ABSENTEE: refers to states that do not require an
> excuse to request an absentee ballots.
>
> 6) EXCUSE REQUIRED ABSENTEE: Pretty self explanatory.
>
> OK. So that’s the word from the anal retentive specialist. As
> the discussion makes clear, there is imprecision in the terms
> used for the by-mail systems. I think there are at least
> two reasons or this.
>
> First, there are important election administration differences
> between a full vote by mail / vote at home / universal ballot
> delivery system, and a no-excuse absentee system, and an
> excuse required system. For someone interested in
> election administration, these distinctions are key.
>
> Second, from the behavioral perspective (e.g. someone who
> studies individual voting behavior), the behavioral act of
> receiving and returning a ballot “at home” is different from
> voting “in-person”. So sometimes scholars will lump all of
> the “delivered by mail” systems together and distinguish
> from from the “voting in person” systems.
>
> ---
> Paul Gronke
> Professor, Reed College
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
> http://earlyvoting.net
>
> General Inquiries: Laura Swann swannla at reed.edu
> <mailto:swannla at reed.edu>
>
> Media Inquiries: Kevin Myers myersk at reed.edu
> <mailto:myersk at reed.edu>
>
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Rick Hasen
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> I have a Washington Post oped coming soon that addresses
> the merits of these issues. So I won’t weigh in on that
> here, at least not yet.
>
> But I wanted to talk about terminology, and this supposed
> distinction between “mail in balloting” and absentee
> balloting. I don’t think Jim’s use of the terminology is
> consistent with usage I have seen. There are 5 states
> that allow all voters to vote by mail. I’ve seen that
> referred to as all-mail balloting (though there still is
> some in person voting) or “universal” absentee balloting.
> Other states offer no-excuse absentee balloting (or no
> excuse vote-by-mail) or excuse-only absentee balloting (or
> excuse only vote by mail). Vote by mail is sometimes
> referred to as VBM. And advocates for expanded
> vote-by-mail now are trying to rebrand it as “vote at home.”
>
> In short, I don’t think people talk about mail-in
> balloting and absentee balloting as different things.
>
> Rick
>
> *From: *Law-election
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on
> behalf of James Bopp Jr <jboppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 11:06 AM
> *To: *"sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>"
> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>,
> "IShapiro at cato.org <mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>"
> <IShapiro at cato.org <mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>,
> "davidadamsegal at gmail.com
> <mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>"
> <davidadamsegal at gmail.com
> <mailto:davidadamsegal at gmail.com>>,
> "john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>"
> <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
>
> I hate to spoil a kumbaya moment, but there are serious
> considerations here that just don't seem to be getting
> attention.
>
> First, vote fraud protections, that are ubiquitous with
> absentee and in person voting procedures, are often
> stripped away in most mail in ballot schemes. These fraud
> prevention measures are designed to protect the
> constitutional right to vote by preventing vote dilution:
> the dilution of the vote of eligible, registered voters by
> the votes of illegal voters. Failure to have adequate
> fraud protection measures violates the right to vote.
>
> Second, "mail in balloting," as I understand it and use
> it, differs most importantly from "absentee balloting" by
> not requiring a prior application to obtain the ballot.
> In "mail in balloting," ballots are just mail wholesale to
> all registered voters.
>
> Third, requiring a prior application to receive an
> absentee ballot is a very important, even critical,
> protection against vote fraud. It ensure that the person
> is actually alive, what the person's current address is,
> and provides an audit trail. A prior application also
> allows election official and others time to verify the
> voter's eligibility, existence, etc.
>
> Fourth, as a result, absentee ballot return rate is very high.
>
> Fifth, wholesale mailing of ballots to all registered
> voter also has 2 big problems of its own.:
>
> (1) there are many registered voters who are current
> ineligible or not at the address indicated on the rolls.
> Thus, we are flooding the state with ballots readily
> available for fraudulent use. This violates the rights of
> eligible registered voters by diluting their votes. and
>
> (2) there are also eligible, registered voters who will
> not get a mailed ballot, because they have moved or are on
> an "inactive" list. These eligible, registered voters
> won't have the option of in person voting and thus will
> have to fulfill burdensome requirement to timely get a
> ballot mailed to them that other eligible registered
> voters don't have to fulfill. This is an unconstitutional
> burden on their right to vote.
>
> Sixth, these scheme often eliminate in person voting. In
> person voting procedures have substantial fraud prevention
> measures and also serve as a safety valve for those who
> find this is the only way they have available to vote.
> Denying them that option also violates their right to vote.
>
> And whether one wants to flood a state with mailed ballots
> in order to facilitate vote fraud, which Republicans fear,
> or because vote fraud is a fantasy, which Democrats
> believe, there is just more to this. My view is that a
> prior application is a necessity, that other reasonable
> fraud protection measures are needed, but that absentee
> voting can be no cause.
>
> So at least we agree on something. Jim Bopp
>
> *James Bopp, Jr.*
>
> Attorney
>
> The Bopp Law Firm, PC | www.bopplaw.com
> <http://www.bopplaw.com/>
>
> The National Building | 1 South 6th Street | Terre Haute,
> IN 47807
>
> voice: (812) 232-2434 ext. 22 | fax: (812) 235-3685 |
> cell: (812) 243-0825 | jboppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>
>
> Sent from AOL Desktop
> <https://discover.aol.com/products-and-services/aol-desktop-for-windows>
>
> In a message dated 4/9/2020 1:15:10 PM US Eastern Standard
> Time, sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> writes:
>
> Also
> 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/
>
> 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
>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro
> <http://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
> <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
>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro
> <http://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
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
>
> Marty Lederman
>
> Georgetown University Law Center
>
> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> 202-662-9937
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> - Doug
>
> Douglas Johnson
> National Demographics Corporation
> djohnson at NDCresearch.com
> phone 310-200-2058
> fax 818-254-1221
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f1f8ca43/attachment.html>
View list directory