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

[John Tanner]

As a practical matter, the window for fast action in this crisis and amid our hyper-partisanship is narrow.  Bills can pass if they are directly limited to the crisis and limited to the period of the crisis.   T
He attempts to add controversial provisions (I hear there was an attempt to repeal the Hyde amendment, for heaven’s sake) only hurt.   
But that’s just me talking

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 20, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the objection is centered less on “enabling more people to vote” and more on the “permanently nationalize federal elections” issue. I can only speak for myself, a somewhat disgruntled Republican these days, but I’d oppose a federal law prohibiting voting by convicted felons who have served their time just as much as I’d oppose a federal law allowing voting by convicted felons who have served their time. I won’t bore the list with an extended diatribe on the topic, just suffice it for now that some of us aren’t keen on federal takeover of the election process for reasons that aren’t entirely nefarious.
>  
> Sean Parnell
>  
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of larrylevine at earthlink.net
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:07 PM
> To: 'Pildes, Rick' <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>; 'Marty Lederman' <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill; and Persily/Stewart post
>  
> Why would enabling more people to vote poison the waters for Republicans other than taking away the ability of red states to make it harder for certain people to vote? Or am I misunderstanding you?
> Larry
>  
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Pildes, Rick
> Sent: Friday, 20 March 2020 10:56 AM
> To: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>; Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill; and Persily/Stewart post
>  
> As I read the bill, it proposes to mandate vote by mail (and early voting) permanently on a nationwide basis.  Those provisions are in Sec. 321 of the bill.
>  
> Whether these ideas are good policy or not, proposing to permanently nationalize federal elections would immediately poison the waters for Republicans.  That would not be a way of reaching out for bipartisan support; instead, it would shut down any such potential conversation from the start. 
>  
> Only Sec. 2 appears limited to the contexts of natural disasters or infectious diseases.
>  
> If I am not reading this long bill correctly, I’m happy to be corrected. 
>  
>  
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 1:32 PM
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Klobuchar/Wyden bill; and Persily/Stewart post
>  
> Sorry, here's the link to the K-W bill again.
>  
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:24 PM Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
> I hope no one minds if I "re-hijack" this thread in order to:
>  
> -- encourage reactions to the remainder of the K/W bill, apart from the "harvesting" provision; 
>  
> -- to draw attention to Nate (and Charles Stewart's) terrific blogpost, 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.  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, 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200320/d2a42326/attachment.html>