[EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill

[Joseph E. La Rue]

  I would hold up Arizona's VBM program (we call it "early voting") as an
example that should be followed.  We have been doing this in Arizona for a
long time, and well over 75% of our voters participate.  Here are the quick
highpoints of Arizona's program:

1.  It is "no excuse" early voting--any qualified elector can participate,
and they do not need to have a reason.

2.  We have what we call the Permanent Early Voter List (the "PEVL" for
short), which voters can sign up for.  Once on the PEVL, they are
automatically mailed an early ballot for each election for which they are
qualified to vote.

3.  We also allow voters who are not on the PEVL to request an early ballot
for particular elections.

4.  We require those who vote early to sign the envelope, and then compare
that signature with all signatures in their voter registration records, to
verify that it is the qualified elector who cast the ballot.

5.  We train our staff in our 15 counties' elections departments on how to
verify signatures.

6.  When signatures do not seem to match, we endeavor to contact the voter
to allow them the opportunity to "cure" their signature by proving their
identity.

7.  No postage is necessary to return the early ballot.  They can be
dropped into any mailbox, or returned on election day at any polling
location.

8.  Family members, household members, and care givers can return a voted
early ballot for a voter (yes, we currently restrict ballot collection to
only those three groups--that issue is still being litigated).

9.  Early ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m. on election day (i.e., when
the polls close) to be counted.

Is our system perfect?  Probably not.  But, it's a pretty good one.  It
balances the interests in making sure that voting is as easy as possible,
on one hand, with the interests in fraud prevention and ballot security on
the other.

Just don't ask us how to pronounce "PEVL."  Some say "Pee-vil," with a long
"e", while others say "Peh-vil", with an "e" as in "elephant."   Fierce
debates are waged over that in Arizona!

Joseph
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.737.1321
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may be protected by the attorney-client
privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete all copies of the transmission and notify
the sender immediately.



On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:46 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Larry---it is not true that only “one political party’s operatives” have
> engaged in absentee ballot tampering. There are cases involving
> Republicans, Democrats, and people involved in nonpartisan races.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Organization: *Levine and Associates
> *Reply-To: *"larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:44 AM
> *To: *"'Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie)'" <MElias at perkinscoie.com>, Rick Hasen
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, 'Marty Lederman' <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>,
> Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *RE: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill
>
>
>
> Like it or not, absentee balloting – vote-by-mail (VBM) – is here and it
> is growing. The challenge is to sooth the fears of fraud while not
> over-reacting to the scattered incidents, virtually all of which have
> emanated from one political party’s operatives. Is so-called ballot
> harvesting not just a modern version of the old “ride-to-the-polls”
> get-out-the-vote programs. In both cases, campaigns or political parties,
> offer assistance to voters who they expect will be favorable to their
> cause. Instead of focusing the debate on whether or not to permit ballot
> harvesting, how about focusing on ways to assure the integrity of VBM. Some
> sort of method of verifying the identity of the voter and then verifying
> that the ballot has been delivered to the elections office. As for Rick’s
> valid concern about public confidence in the VBM system, perhaps if the one
> party whose operatives have committed the fraud would stop doing that … In
> the meantime, why ban a process that helps many because of the evils of a
> few?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 18 March 2020 4:08 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Marty Lederman <
> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill
>
>
>
> My position in a nutshell: There is a reason why the Arizona Republican
> legislature tried to ban ballot collection only to withdraw it when DOJ
> raised section 5 concerns.  There is a reason why, after Shelby County, the
> same legislature then reintroduced the ban.  There is a reason that the 9
> th Circuit found that banning ballot collection in AZ was an act of
> intentional racial discrimination.
>
>
>
> It is the same reason why Republicans in Montana promoted a ballot
> initiative to ban ballot collection in that state, and why the largest
> Native American Tribes are suing the state to overturn the ban.
>
>
>
> It is also why Republicans in NC in *2016* tried to stop local African
> American groups from running legal programs in North Carolina and then in
> *2019*—after a Republican campaign committed out-and-out fraud used it as
> an excuse to clamp down.  And that is what Advance Carolina—and African
> American grassroots organization is suing North Carolina.
>
>
>
> Republicans have been looking for tactics to inhibit minority voters from
> voting in ever creative ways.  This is just one example.  It is a shame
> that some, like Rick, have bought into their rhetoric. I assume he would
> have precleared the AZ law before Shelby County and would have been in
> dissent in the 9th Circuit.  I assume he would also be opposing the
> Tribes today in Montana.  That is deeply unfortunate.
>
>
>
> Marc
>
> —
>
> Marc Elias
>
> Perkins Coie LLP
>
> 700 13th St, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> (202) 434-1609
>
>
>
> For scheduling, or if it is urgent, contact Allie Rothenberg:
> arothenberg at perkinscoie.com or (908) 377-7531.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of Richard Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 6:56 PM
> *To: *Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>, Election Law
> Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill
>
>
>
> Marc Elias and I got into a back and forth on twitter over the provision
> allowing for the unlimited collection of absentee ballots (sometimes
> referred to as “ballot harvesting”) that is contained in the bill. I oppose
> this provision (though strongly support other parts of the bill) because of
> the risk of ballot tampering. (I think exceptions should be made for areas
> not reached easily by U.S. mail.)  I like Colorado’s limit of one person
> collecting no more than 10 envelopes from others, and I think the names of
> the collectors should be on the ballot envelopes.
>
> The concern is not just about actual ballot tampering (as we have seen
> with not just the North Carolina Ninth Congressional District, but in
> pockets around the country over time), but also public confidence in the
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill
>
>
>
> Here's the bill
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.klobuchar.senate.gov_public_-5Fcache_files_9_1_91a07f05-2Db6b3-2D4c6e-2Da363-2D652ecbe16ac0_142B6E0F07685857CC10772388587756.natural-2Ddisaster-2Dand-2Demergency-2Dballot-2Dact-2Dof-2D2020.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=mJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI&m=KjLtw5JOJ5bem-LmprKuuB1I8pARCbS6DPTDwrfcFH0&s=Gh8Je-AdZOTcMomKgGxvzHePeP08FsAneoKbmlHEvt8&e=>.
> I'd deeply appreciate people's thoughts on its merits/possible problems.
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:47 AM Marty Lederman <
> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>
> They announced the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act last Friday
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.klobuchar.senate.gov_public_index.cfm_2020_3_with-2Dunprecedented-2Ddisruptions-2Dexpected-2Dfrom-2Dcoronavirus-2Dklobuchar-2Dand-2Dwyden-2Dintroduce-2Dbill-2Dto-2Densure-2Damericans-2Dare-2Dstill-2Dable-2Dto-2Dvote&d=DwMGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=mJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI&m=KjLtw5JOJ5bem-LmprKuuB1I8pARCbS6DPTDwrfcFH0&s=wmS2-hAbYM9YW5svga_gcUv9zHqWb1uvAdiBwgIIbFg&e=>,
> but I haven't been able to find any bill language anywhere, and
> Congress.com doesn't show it as having yet been introduced.
>
>
>
> Does the summary description sound promising?  Sufficient?
>
>
>
> If anyone finds the language, please send along, thanks.
>
>
>
> FWIW, I'm inclined to think that Congress should simply require states to
> adopt the Oregon method before November, to wit:
>
>
>
> County clerks mail official ballots to all registered voters between Oct.
> 14-20.  Voters can mail the ballots back or deposit them at a central
> location (a "polling" place) at any time between when they receive them and
> election day (but they must be *received *by election day).  And if a
> ballot mailed to a voter is destroyed, spoiled, lost, or never received,
> the voter may request and easily obtain a replacement ballot.
>
>
>
> Several of you who support widespread VbM and who know much more about
> such things than I do have cautioned me offline that it'd be
> difficult/hazardous to impose such a requirement nationwide for this year's
> general election (even if it's an ideal solution for future elections).  I
> remain puzzled about why all states couldn't implement it if they began
> doing so now--why it's not an easier lift than a bunch of other emergency
> initiatives that are occurring as we speak--but I'm duly chastened by the
> skepticism of those of you who are more in-the-know.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marty Lederman
>
> Georgetown University Law Center
>
> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> 202-662-9937
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marty Lederman
>
> Georgetown University Law Center
>
> 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20001
>
> 202-662-9937
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200319/7c181d9e/attachment.html>