[EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill; and Persily/Stewart post

[Marty Lederman]

Thank you in advance, Charles.

Your resignation about the prospects of congressional action, however, is
dispiriting.  I can certainly understand debates about particular details,
such as Rick and Larry have been engaged in, but is it really true that "
*nothing* that’s highly prescriptive will pass Congress"?

If so, in these circumstances, it's a scandal and dereliction of
constitutional duty.

More to the point of this particular listserv, I'm under no illusion that
we can have much sway on such matters, but shouldn't we all--no matter our
politics--be clamoring for passage of such legislation, and stressing how
crucial it is, even (or especially) if we have discrete proposals for how
it should be tweaked/amended?  Time, after all, is of the essence, as
Charles and Nate explain so well.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:34 PM Charles H Stewart <cstewart at mit.edu> wrote:

> I’ll let Nate speak for himself.
>
>
>
> The K-W bill is a sprawling piece of legislation.  I’ll write some
> thoughts about it over the weekend, when I’m not figuring out how I’m
> supposed to teach intro American government using Zoom, and post them on
> Election Updates.  The short answer is that because nothing that’s highly
> prescriptive will pass Congress, all the requirements in K-W should be
> thought of as recommendations to states.  Some make more sense than others.
>
>
>
> -Charles
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2020 12:24 PM
> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill; and Persily/Stewart post
>
>
>
> I hope no one minds if I "re-hijack" this thread in order to:
>
>
>
> -- encourage reactions to the *remainder* of the K/W bill <http://v>,
> apart from the "harvesting" provision;
>
>
>
> -- to draw attention to Nate (and Charles Stewart's) terrific blogpost
> <https://www.lawfareblog.com/ten-recommendations-ensure-healthy-and-trustworthy-2020-election>,
> mostly about what *states *must do now;
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> -- to ask Nate and Charles, if they're "watching," what they think *Congress
> *ought to do (apart from appropriating massive amounts of aid); in
> particular, whether they favor K/W and/or other efforts to require states
> to adopt more robust Voting-by-Mail.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:49 PM Marty Lederman <
> Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>
> Here's the bill
> <https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9/1/91a07f05-b6b3-4c6e-a363-652ecbe16ac0/142B6E0F07685857CC10772388587756.natural-disaster-and-emergency-ballot-act-of-2020.pdf>.
> 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://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/3/with-unprecedented-disruptions-expected-from-coronavirus-klobuchar-and-wyden-introduce-bill-to-ensure-americans-are-still-able-to-vote>,
> 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
>
>

-- 
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/20200320/a8916670/attachment.html>