[EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill

Thu Mar 19 09:07:41 PDT 2020

My understanding is that Oregon likewise has long required receipt of
ballots by 8 pm on election day.  Is that wrong, Marc?

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:01 PM Elias, Marc (Perkins Coie) <
MElias at perkinscoie.com> wrote:

> We are suing Arizona over its Election Day deadline provision which
> disenfranchises voters in general, and minority voters at higher rates than
> white voters.  For those interested in the lawsuit, information can be
> found here: https://www.democracydocket.com/arizona/.  The case is Voto
> Latino v Hobbs.
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
> 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: *"Joseph E. La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 11:58 AM
> *To: *Richard Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Cc: *"larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>, Marc Elias
> <MElias at perkinscoie.com>, Marty Lederman <
> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>, Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill
>
>
>
>   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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=mJZthOcamSml7FV7KXYLE6P2EQrjV525p9lKVucDNWI&m=as8fCEz3qbm-SGM32cIpNaa8gxcoOrdiqZi2vUvcqqU&s=GV_1bdq2Xd2TtzmmTxshvhh-FJO2j2srtrTUvtw2Zpg&e=>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>

-- 
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200319/e4a42e15/attachment.html>