[EL] Task force, 50-state audit
Thessalia Merivaki
liamerivaki at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 18:35:30 PDT 2020
Hi all,
MS capacity is something I can assist with.
I am at Mississippi State.
Lia Merivaki
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020, 7:54 PM Charles H Stewart <cstewart at mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Michael and auditors,
>
>
>
> I have to apologize to you and the list. I hastily read the e-mail, and
> interpreted it as referring to other topics, rather than assessing the
> capacity of states. It’s entirely my fault, and I apologize for the tone
> and the substance of the message.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:41 PM
> *To:* Charles H Stewart <cstewart at mit.edu>;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Task force, 50-state audit
>
>
>
> Whatever Congress does or doesn’t pass, states are going to need
> direction. And both state legislatures and Congress will be more likely to
> do something rather than nothing if they had more information, wouldn’t
> they?
>
> ML
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Charles H Stewart <cstewart at mit.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 24, 2020 5:37:12 PM
> *To:* Michael Latner <mlatner at calpoly.edu>;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: Task force, 50-state audit
>
>
>
> When you say, "interest," what do you mean? There's precisely zero
> probability that such a requirement will pass this Congress, or pass any
> state legislature in time for November 2020. -cs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On
> Behalf Of Michael Latner
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 8:34 PM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Task force, 50-state audit
>
> Hi all,
> I'm sure most of you have seen or participated in one of the reports from
> Brennan, UCLAVRP, Leadership Conference or other org on the process of
> gearing up for VBM in November. I've been on a few calls with several and
> it sounds like there is growing support and need (especially for
> Congressional direction) for an audit or assessment of the capacity of each
> state, including legal/administrative challenges, and infrastructure needs.
> Are other folks involved in similar conversations, and if so is there more
> general interest in collaboration in a very time sensitive but crucial
> exercise?
> ML
>
>
> Professor Michael Latner
> Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned
> Scientists
> Faculty Scholar, Institute for Advanced Technology and Public Policy
> Political Science Department
> California Polytechnic State University
> @mlatner
> Mikelatner.com
>
> PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may
> contain privileged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use
> of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this
> communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this
> email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from
> your system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/24/20, 12:00 PM, "Law-election on behalf of
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> on behalf of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big media,
> or who write for big media (Richard Winger)
> 2. Re: Counting By-Mail ballots is hard (Mark Scarberry)
> 3. Re: plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media (larrylevine at earthlink.net)
> 4. Re: plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media (George Korbel)
> 5. Re: Counting By-Mail ballots is hard (Sean Parnell)
> 6. Re: plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media (Richard Winger)
> 7. Re: plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media (Tom at TomCares.com)
> 8. Re: State-level continuity of governance- (Hugh L Brady)
> 9. House COVID-19 bill election provisions -- the ACCESS Act
> (Mark Scarberry)
> 10. ELB News and Commentary 3/24/20 (Rick Hasen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:26:48 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media
> Message-ID: <903510429.825022.1584991608334 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I perceive that those of us who get quoted in the important news
> media, especially everyone who ever posts items at electionlawblog, have
> not mentioned the plight of minor parties.? The Libertarian Party is only
> on the ballot now in 35 states for president, and the Green Party is only
> on in 21 states for president.
> In 2016 the Libertarian Party ended up on the ballot in all states for
> president, and the Greens in all states except for 5.? In the normal course
> of events, they would be petitioning now to get on in more states, but the
> health crisis has made petitioning virtually impossible.? Petition drives
> succeed when petitioners are out in public with lots of people in the
> area.? That is now gone.
> As of February 2020, in the states with partisan registration, 2.4% of
> voters are registered members of minor parties.? Those voters are entitled
> to voting rights just as much as Republicans, Democrats, and independents
> are entitled to voting rights, but I don't see any public commentary about
> the plight of the minor parties this year.? I hope all of you who have the
> ear of the big press will add this to the list of election law issues.
> If I have missed something relevant, please point it out to me.?
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/b70c074f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:34:26 -0700
> From: Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
> To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Counting By-Mail ballots is hard
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGN5XUzF5R1g=Xp22FLeb9ESE3ejj1DdHsBeBZXS9EoSf_LhuQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The longer it takes to finish the counting, the greater the likelihood
> that
> the result that some people will question the result. I think that's a
> real
> problem.
>
> Mark
>
> [image: Pepperdine wordmark]*Caruso School of Law*
>
> *Mark S. Scarberry*
>
> *Professor of Lawmark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>*
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:14 AM Douglas Johnson <
> djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for that update - that?s great to hear. Sounds like the
> problem
> > is simply poor communication between the Secretary of State and the
> County,
> > which is problematic but much easier to fix than ballot counting
> problems!
> >
> > - Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:53 AM Pedro Hernandez <pedro at fairvote.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> For clarification:
> >>
> >> I've been following SF's canvass pretty closely (as I am a voter in
> the
> >> City and County). San Francisco's last ballot count was on March
> 13th (see
> >> prelim report 13)
> >> <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/march-3-2020-election-results-detailed-reports
> >.
> >> On March March 12th there were less than 500
> >> <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-12-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department>
> ballots
> >> remaining to be counted, and nearly all remaining ballots were
> counted
> >> on the 13th
> >> <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-13-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department
> >.
> >> The SF DOE stated that it received approximately 34,000 provisional
> >> ballots
> >> <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-12-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department
> >.
> >> I suspect any remaining ballots will be counted when workers can
> get back
> >> to work.
> >>
> >> On March 12th, the County began the process of selecting it's
> ballots for
> >> the 1% manual tally. No update yet, but given the shelter in place
> notice,
> >> it's not clear when the SF will complete it's canvass. Although
> >> counties have until the 30th day after the election to complete
> their
> >> canvass.
> >>
> >> This is not to take away from concerns over VBM implementation.
> With any
> >> large scale move to VBM, best practices should be adopted.
> >>
> >> Pedro
> >>
> >> Pedro Hernandez
> >> Pronouns: He/Him/His
> >> Senior Policy Coordinator, Voting Rights & Ranked Choice Voting
> >> http://fairvote.org
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:04 PM Douglas Johnson <
> djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> To reinforce the Detroit and other stories' ideas that managing
> >>> large-scale by-mail ballots is hard:
> >>>
> >>> Today is March 19th, sixteen days after California's primary
> election.
> >>> Yet San Francisco has yet to count over 25% of the ballots cast in
> the
> >>> county. While the time required to process provisional ballots is
> >>> understandable, 88,000 of the remaining 110,000 ballots left to
> count in
> >>> San Francisco are by-mail ballots. Granted, San Francisco is using
> new
> >>> voting equipment this election -- and I suspect the learning curve
> with the
> >>> new equipment is why the counting delays there are more there than
> in other
> >>> California counties (disclaimer: I am guessing about that as I
> have no
> >>> inside knowledge into SF's operations) -- but what is proposed in
> this
> >>> debate is new voting equipment on a massive, almost national,
> scale.
> >>>
> >>> California is a state that has had no-excuse by-mail voting for
> many,
> >>> many years, and the state has experience processing 25%, 33% and
> even 50%
> >>> of all ballots cast coming in by mail. The state's election
> officials are
> >>> among the most-experienced and most-expert with by-mail voting in
> the
> >>> country. Yet this undertaking remains a difficult logistical
> challenge.
> >>>
> >>> I support the massive expansion of by-mail voting for this November
> >>> election. But we should not under-estimate how hard that will be to
> >>> implement -- and how long it will take to count those votes.
> >>>
> >>> - Doug
> >>>
> >>> Douglas Johnson
> >>> Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna
> College
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:28 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ?Voting by Mail Is the Hot New Idea. Is There Time to Make It
> Work??
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110125>
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted on March 19, 2020 8:18 pm
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110125> by *Rick Hasen*
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> NYT reports.
> >>>> <
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/politics/voting-by-mail-coronavirus.html
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> [image: Share]
> >>>> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110125&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20by%20Mail%20Is%20the%20Hot%20New%20Idea.%20Is%20There%20Time%20to%20Make%20It%20Work%3F%E2%80%9D
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted in absentee ballots <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
> election
> >>>> administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Must-read from Nate Persily and Charles Stewart: ?Ten
> Recommendations
> >>>> to Ensure a Healthy and Trustworthy 2020 Election?
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110119>
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted on March 19, 2020 2:14 pm
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110119> by *Rick Hasen*
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Over
> >>>> <
> https://www.lawfareblog.com/ten-recommendations-ensure-healthy-and-trustworthy-2020-election>
> at
> >>>> Lawfare:
> >>>>
> >>>> *This past week has provided ample evidence that states are in
> need of
> >>>> reliable plans to carry out elections without interruption in the
> face of
> >>>> the unfolding medical crisis. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine caused
> alarm when
> >>>> he decided
> >>>> <
> https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/03/ohio-polls-remain-closed-following-overnight-ruling-from-ohio-supreme-court.html>
> to
> >>>> postpone the presidential primary the day before it was scheduled
> to occur.
> >>>> DeWine?s action may have been justified on public health grounds,
> but it
> >>>> illustrated the confusion that can arise when states are caught
> between
> >>>> opening polling places and endangering the health of citizens.
> Meanwhile,
> >>>> the governor of Arizona and the director of elections for Maricopa
> >>>> County fought
> >>>> <
> https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/03/13/court-stops-county-recorder-from-sending-ballots-to-all-voters-for-tuesday-election/>
> over
> >>>> whether the county could send out mail-in ballots even to voters
> who have
> >>>> not requested them. Their battle illustrates that without a
> definitive
> >>>> statewide plan, state and local election officials can be locked
> in
> >>>> litigation when they should be cooperating to face serious
> challenges to
> >>>> the continuity of elections.*
> >>>>
> >>>> *Despite the challenge presented by COVID-19, the 2020 elections
> must
> >>>> go forward. The elections to be held on Nov. 3 are not optional.
> They
> >>>> cannot be postponed, even if dangers to public health remain as
> great as
> >>>> they are likely to get over the next few weeks. The nation must
> act now to
> >>>> ensure that there will be no doubt, regardless of the spread of
> infection,
> >>>> that the elections will be conducted on schedule and that they
> will be free
> >>>> and fair.*
> >>>>
> >>>> *Doing so requires an effort in election resilience that is
> >>>> unprecedented in American history. However, there are some clear
> paths
> >>>> toward achieving the desired result. We offer 10 steps in that
> direction.*
> >>>>
> >>>> [image: Share]
> >>>> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110119&title=Must-read%20from%20Nate%20Persily%20and%20Charles%20Stewart%3A%20%E2%80%9CTen%20Recommendations%20to%20Ensure%20a%20Healthy%20and%20Trustworthy%202020%20Election%E2%80%9D
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ?Coronavirus threatens the November election, can vote by mail
> save it??
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110117>
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted on March 19, 2020 12:20 pm
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110117> by *Rick Hasen*
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Evan Halper
> >>>> <
> https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-19/calls-mount-making-november-mail-in-ballot>
> for
> >>>> the LAT.
> >>>>
> >>>> [image: Share]
> >>>> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110117&title=%E2%80%9CCoronavirus%20threatens%20the%20November%20election%2C%20can%20vote%20by%20mail%20save%20it%3F%E2%80%9D
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted in Uncategorized <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> National Vote at Home Issues Its Report on Scaling Up Absentee
> >>>> Balloting for November in Light of COVID-19
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110105>
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted on March 19, 2020 7:09 am
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110105> by *Rick Hasen*
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> You can read the report here
> >>>> <
> https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VAHScale_StrategyPlan.pdf
> >
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> [image: Share]
> >>>> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110105&title=National%20Vote%20at%20Home%20Issues%20Its%20Report%20on%20Scaling%20Up%20Absentee%20Balloting%20for%20November%20in%20Light%20of%20COVID-19
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted in election administration <
> https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Steven Rosenfeld Looks Under the Hood at Detroit?s Absentee Ballot
> >>>> Processing, and It is Not Pretty
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110101>
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted on March 19, 2020 7:04 am
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110101> by *Rick Hasen*
> >>>> <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> For those like me who want and expect expanded absentee balloting
> in
> >>>> November, a reminder
> >>>> <
> https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/why-nationwide-voting-by-mail-isnt-a-silver-bullet-in-a-pandemic/>
> that
> >>>> there?s a lot of work to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> [image: Share]
> >>>> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110101&title=Steven%20Rosenfeld%20Looks%20Under%20the%20Hood%20at%20Detroit%E2%80%99s%20Absentee%20Ballot%20Processing%2C%20and%20It%20is%20Not%20Pretty
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Posted in absentee ballots <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
> election
> >>>> administration <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Rick Hasen
> >>>>
> >>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> >>>>
> >>>> UC Irvine School of Law
> >>>>
> >>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> >>>> <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Irvine, CA 92697
> >>>> <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >>>> -8000
> >>>>
> >>>> 949.824.3072 - office
> >>>>
> >>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> >>>>
> >>>> http://electionlawblog.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Law-election mailing list
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> >
> > --
> > - 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/20200323/c69b7c7d/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 2021 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/c69b7c7d/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:47:43 -0700
> From: <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> To: "'Richard Winger'" <richardwinger at yahoo.com>,
> <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media
> Message-ID: <002401d60154$4d952930$e8bf7b90$@earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Also dealing with this are signature gatherers for ballot measures
> attempting to qualify for the November ballot. Not quite the same, but
> still a reality.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On
> Behalf Of Richard Winger
> Sent: Monday, 23 March 2020 12:27 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media
>
>
>
> I perceive that those of us who get quoted in the important news
> media, especially everyone who ever posts items at electionlawblog, have
> not mentioned the plight of minor parties. The Libertarian Party is only
> on the ballot now in 35 states for president, and the Green Party is only
> on in 21 states for president.
>
>
>
> In 2016 the Libertarian Party ended up on the ballot in all states for
> president, and the Greens in all states except for 5. In the normal course
> of events, they would be petitioning now to get on in more states, but the
> health crisis has made petitioning virtually impossible. Petition drives
> succeed when petitioners are out in public with lots of people in the
> area. That is now gone.
>
>
>
> As of February 2020, in the states with partisan registration, 2.4% of
> voters are registered members of minor parties. Those voters are entitled
> to voting rights just as much as Republicans, Democrats, and independents
> are entitled to voting rights, but I don't see any public commentary about
> the plight of the minor parties this year. I hope all of you who have the
> ear of the big press will add this to the list of election law issues.
>
>
>
> If I have missed something relevant, please point it out to me.
>
>
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/c462a1ec/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:52:07 +0000
> From: George Korbel <korbellaw at hotmail.com>
> To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>, "'Richard
> Winger'" <richardwinger at yahoo.com>, "law-election at uci.edu"
> <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media
> Message-ID:
> <
> DM6PR14MB3567DC9A11585C35706C710AA8F00 at DM6PR14MB3567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> What would remedy be without opening flood gates
>
> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ________________________________
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of larrylevine at earthlink.net <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:47:43 PM
> To: 'Richard Winger' <richardwinger at yahoo.com>; law-election at uci.edu <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media
>
>
> Also dealing with this are signature gatherers for ballot measures
> attempting to qualify for the November ballot. Not quite the same, but
> still a reality.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On
> Behalf Of Richard Winger
> Sent: Monday, 23 March 2020 12:27 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media
>
>
>
> I perceive that those of us who get quoted in the important news
> media, especially everyone who ever posts items at electionlawblog, have
> not mentioned the plight of minor parties. The Libertarian Party is only
> on the ballot now in 35 states for president, and the Green Party is only
> on in 21 states for president.
>
>
>
> In 2016 the Libertarian Party ended up on the ballot in all states for
> president, and the Greens in all states except for 5. In the normal course
> of events, they would be petitioning now to get on in more states, but the
> health crisis has made petitioning virtually impossible. Petition drives
> succeed when petitioners are out in public with lots of people in the
> area. That is now gone.
>
>
>
> As of February 2020, in the states with partisan registration, 2.4% of
> voters are registered members of minor parties. Those voters are entitled
> to voting rights just as much as Republicans, Democrats, and independents
> are entitled to voting rights, but I don't see any public commentary about
> the plight of the minor parties this year. I hope all of you who have the
> ear of the big press will add this to the list of election law issues.
>
>
>
> If I have missed something relevant, please point it out to me.
>
>
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/5e506bad/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:57:00 -0400
> From: "Sean Parnell" <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
> To: "'Mark Scarberry'" <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>, "'Douglas
> Johnson'" <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> Cc: 'Election Law Listserv' <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Counting By-Mail ballots is hard
> Message-ID:
> <038a01d60155$997dba50$cc792ef0$@impactpolicymanagement.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Especially if it changes the election-night leader. It?s one of the
> many, many problems with National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (though
> I?d argue it doesn?t crack the top-20, and a less-conspiracy-theory-prone
> electorate would erase the problem, but I don?t see that developing any
> time soon). Imagine if Donald Trump had ?won? the popular vote on election
> night by 2 million votes (i.e., he received 2.2 million more popular votes
> than he actually did ? maybe that Access Hollywood tape doesn?t happen and
> therefore doesn?t depress his support?) and the votes counted after that
> were pretty much as they actually happened. Anybody want to guess what?s
> going to happen in late November when Clinton takes the lead and builds it
> over the next few weeks, mostly on the basis of late-counted ballots in
> California and New York? Hoo boy.
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
>
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On
> Behalf Of Mark Scarberry
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:34 PM
> To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Counting By-Mail ballots is hard
>
>
>
> The longer it takes to finish the counting, the greater the likelihood
> that the result that some people will question the result. I think that's a
> real problem.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.pepperdine.edu/_resources/images/email/pepperdine.png>
>
> Caruso School of Law
>
>
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
>
> Professor of Law
> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu <mailto:mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:14 AM Douglas Johnson <
> djohnson at ndcresearch.com <mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com
> <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>> > wrote:
>
> Thank you for that update - that?s great to hear. Sounds like the
> problem is simply poor communication between the Secretary of State and the
> County, which is problematic but much easier to fix than ballot counting
> problems!
>
>
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:53 AM Pedro Hernandez <pedro at fairvote.org <
> mailto:pedro at fairvote.org <pedro at fairvote.org>> > wrote:
>
> For clarification:
>
>
>
> I've been following SF's canvass pretty closely (as I am a voter in
> the City and County). San Francisco's last ballot count was on March 13th
> (see prelim report 13) <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/march-3-2020-election-results-detailed-reports>
> . On March March 12th there were less than 500 <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-12-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department>
> ballots remaining to be counted, and nearly all remaining ballots were
> counted on the 13th <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-13-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department>
> . The SF DOE stated that it received approximately 34,000 provisional
> ballots <
> https://sfelections.sfgov.org/article/preliminary-election-results-report-12-and-ballot-processing-update-san-francisco-department>
> . I suspect any remaining ballots will be counted when workers can get back
> to work.
>
>
>
> On March 12th, the County began the process of selecting it's ballots
> for the 1% manual tally. No update yet, but given the shelter in place
> notice, it's not clear when the SF will complete it's canvass. Although
> counties have until the 30th day after the election to complete their
> canvass.
>
>
>
> This is not to take away from concerns over VBM implementation. With
> any large scale move to VBM, best practices should be adopted.
>
>
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
>
> Pedro Hernandez
>
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
> Senior Policy Coordinator, Voting Rights & Ranked Choice Voting
>
> http://fairvote.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:04 PM Douglas Johnson <
> djohnson at ndcresearch.com <mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com
> <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>> > wrote:
>
> To reinforce the Detroit and other stories' ideas that managing
> large-scale by-mail ballots is hard:
>
>
>
> Today is March 19th, sixteen days after California's primary election.
> Yet San Francisco has yet to count over 25% of the ballots cast in the
> county. While the time required to process provisional ballots is
> understandable, 88,000 of the remaining 110,000 ballots left to count in
> San Francisco are by-mail ballots. Granted, San Francisco is using new
> voting equipment this election -- and I suspect the learning curve with the
> new equipment is why the counting delays there are more there than in other
> California counties (disclaimer: I am guessing about that as I have no
> inside knowledge into SF's operations) -- but what is proposed in this
> debate is new voting equipment on a massive, almost national, scale.
>
>
>
> California is a state that has had no-excuse by-mail voting for many,
> many years, and the state has experience processing 25%, 33% and even 50%
> of all ballots cast coming in by mail. The state's election officials are
> among the most-experienced and most-expert with by-mail voting in the
> country. Yet this undertaking remains a difficult logistical challenge.
>
>
>
> I support the massive expansion of by-mail voting for this November
> election. But we should not under-estimate how hard that will be to
> implement -- and how long it will take to count those votes.
>
>
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Johnson
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna
> College
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 8:28 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <
> mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu>> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110125> ?Voting by Mail Is the Hot
> New Idea. Is There Time to Make It Work??
>
>
> Posted on <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110125> March 19, 2020
> 8:18 pm by <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
>
> <
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/politics/voting-by-mail-coronavirus.html>
> NYT reports.
>
> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110125&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20by%20Mail%20Is%20the%20Hot%20New%20Idea.%20Is%20There%20Time%20to%20Make%20It%20Work%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
>
> Posted in <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots, <
> https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110119> Must-read from Nate Persily
> and Charles Stewart: ?Ten Recommendations to Ensure a Healthy and
> Trustworthy 2020 Election?
>
>
> Posted on <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110119> March 19, 2020
> 2:14 pm by <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
>
> <
> https://www.lawfareblog.com/ten-recommendations-ensure-healthy-and-trustworthy-2020-election>
> Over at Lawfare:
>
> This past week has provided ample evidence that states are in need of
> reliable plans to carry out elections without interruption in the face of
> the unfolding medical crisis. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine caused alarm when
> he <
> https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/03/ohio-polls-remain-closed-following-overnight-ruling-from-ohio-supreme-court.html>
> decided to postpone the presidential primary the day before it was
> scheduled to occur. DeWine?s action may have been justified on public
> health grounds, but it illustrated the confusion that can arise when states
> are caught between opening polling places and endangering the health of
> citizens. Meanwhile, the governor of Arizona and the director of elections
> for Maricopa County <
> https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/03/13/court-stops-county-recorder-from-sending-ballots-to-all-voters-for-tuesday-election/>
> fought over whether the county could send out mail-in ballots even to
> voters who have not requested them. Their battle illustrates that without
> a definitive statewide plan, state and local election officials can
> be locked in litigation when they should be cooperating to face serious
> challenges to the continuity of elections.
>
> Despite the challenge presented by COVID-19, the 2020 elections must
> go forward. The elections to be held on Nov. 3 are not optional. They
> cannot be postponed, even if dangers to public health remain as great as
> they are likely to get over the next few weeks. The nation must act now to
> ensure that there will be no doubt, regardless of the spread of infection,
> that the elections will be conducted on schedule and that they will be free
> and fair.
>
> Doing so requires an effort in election resilience that is
> unprecedented in American history. However, there are some clear paths
> toward achieving the desired result. We offer 10 steps in that direction.
>
> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110119&title=Must-read%20from%20Nate%20Persily%20and%20Charles%20Stewart%3A%20%E2%80%9CTen%20Recommendations%20to%20Ensure%20a%20Healthy%20and%20Trustworthy%202020%20Election%E2%80%9D>
>
>
> Posted in <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110117> ?Coronavirus threatens the
> November election, can vote by mail save it??
>
>
> Posted on <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110117> March 19, 2020
> 12:20 pm by <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
>
> <
> https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-19/calls-mount-making-november-mail-in-ballot>
> Evan Halper for the LAT.
>
> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110117&title=%E2%80%9CCoronavirus%20threatens%20the%20November%20election%2C%20can%20vote%20by%20mail%20save%20it%3F%E2%80%9D>
>
>
> Posted in <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110105> National Vote at Home Issues
> Its Report on Scaling Up Absentee Balloting for November in Light of
> COVID-19
>
>
> Posted on <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110105> March 19, 2020
> 7:09 am by <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
>
> You can read the report <
> https://www.voteathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VAHScale_StrategyPlan.pdf>
> here.
>
> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110105&title=National%20Vote%20at%20Home%20Issues%20Its%20Report%20on%20Scaling%20Up%20Absentee%20Balloting%20for%20November%20in%20Light%20of%20COVID-19>
>
>
> Posted in <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election
> administration
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110101> Steven Rosenfeld Looks Under
> the Hood at Detroit?s Absentee Ballot Processing, and It is Not Pretty
>
>
> Posted on <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=110101> March 19, 2020
> 7:04 am by <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
>
> For those like me who want and expect expanded absentee balloting in
> November, <
> https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/why-nationwide-voting-by-mail-isnt-a-silver-bullet-in-a-pandemic/>
> a reminder that there?s a lot of work to do.
>
> <
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D110101&title=Steven%20Rosenfeld%20Looks%20Under%20the%20Hood%20at%20Detroit%E2%80%99s%20Absentee%20Ballot%20Processing%2C%20and%20It%20is%20Not%20Pretty>
>
>
> Posted in <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53> absentee ballots, <
> https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000 <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
> Irvine, CA 92697 <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+Irvine,+CA+92697?entry=gmail&source=g>
> -8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <rhasen at law.uci.edu>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> <http://electionlawblog.org/> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <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 <mailto:djohnson at NDCresearch.com
> <djohnson at NDCresearch.com>>
> phone 310-200-2058
> fax 818-254-1221
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <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 <mailto:djohnson at NDCresearch.com
> <djohnson at NDCresearch.com>>
> phone 310-200-2058
> fax 818-254-1221
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <
> mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <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/20200323/079a91bf/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 2021 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/079a91bf/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:01:47 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>,
> "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>, George Korbel
> <korbellaw at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media
> Message-ID: <1588472279.914771.1584997307928 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> No state needs to ever require more than 5,000 signatures, to avoid a
> crowded ballot, where "crowded ballot" means 8 or fewer candidates for a
> single office.? I have documented this in several lawsuits, and judges have
> accepted my evidence.? My evidence is massive and runs to hundreds of
> pages, and goes back to the beginning of government-printed ballots.
>
> I got the definition of "crowded ballot" from Justice Harlan's
> concurrence in Williams v Rhodes.? He said he didn't think 8 candidates for
> a single office was a problem.? He is right.? Having over a dozen
> Democratic presidential candidates on presidential primary ballots earlier
> this year didn't seem to confuse anyone.? Ditto with Republican
> presidential primary ballots in 2016.
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> On Monday, March 23, 2020, 1:52:10 PM PDT, George Korbel <
> korbellaw at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What would remedy be without opening flood gates
> Get Outlook for iOSFrom: Law-election <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of
> larrylevine at earthlink.net <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 3:47:43 PM
> To: 'Richard Winger' <richardwinger at yahoo.com>; law-election at uci.edu <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media?<!-- _filtered {} _filtered {}
> _filtered {}#yiv6193593968 p.yiv6193593968x_MsoNormal, #yiv6193593968
> li.yiv6193593968x_MsoNormal, #yiv6193593968 div.yiv6193593968x_MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",
> sans-serif;}#yiv6193593968 span.yiv6193593968x_EmailStyle19
> {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv6193593968
> .yiv6193593968x_MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered
> {}#yiv6193593968 div.yiv6193593968x_WordSection1 {}-->
> Also dealing with this are signature gatherers for ballot measures
> attempting to qualify for the November ballot. Not quite the same, but
> still a reality.
>
> Larry
>
> ?
>
> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>On
> Behalf Of Richard Winger
> Sent: Monday, 23 March 2020 12:27 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in big
> media, or who write for big media
>
> ?
>
> I perceive that those of us who get quoted in the important news
> media, especially everyone who ever posts items at electionlawblog, have
> not mentioned the plight of minor parties.? The Libertarian Party is only
> on the ballot now in 35 states for president, and the Green Party is only
> on in 21 states for president.
>
> ?
>
> In 2016 the Libertarian Party ended up on the ballot in all states for
> president, and the Greens in all states except for 5.? In the normal course
> of events, they would be petitioning now to get on in more states, but the
> health crisis has made petitioning virtually impossible.? Petition drives
> succeed when petitioners are out in public with lots of people in the
> area.? That is now gone.
>
> ?
>
> As of February 2020, in the states with partisan registration, 2.4% of
> voters are registered members of minor parties.? Those voters are entitled
> to voting rights just as much as Republicans, Democrats, and independents
> are entitled to voting rights, but I don't see any public commentary about
> the plight of the minor parties this year.? I hope all of you who have the
> ear of the big press will add this to the list of election law issues.
>
> ?
>
> If I have missed something relevant, please point it out to me.?
>
> ?
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200323/659b2c49/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:09:08 +0000
> From: "Tom at TomCares.com" <Tom at tomcares.com>
> To: George Korbel <korbellaw at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big media, or who write for big media
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADE9kw8sn0JX+9_WYXSahYAKVt8edEAcDaoYHz9wk4amTL36Pg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> An easy remedy for minor parties would be to give them a pass. If they
> qualified in 2016, just let them on the ballot for 2020.
>
> Ballot measures would be tougher but I?ve always believed online
> petitioning would be much more democratic. The grocery store signature
> gatherers are very deceptive anyway. I?ll never forget when I was
> asked to
> sign something to ?end the Iraq war? and saw it was to extend term
> limits
> for the CA legislature (Prop 93). It?s never seemed right to me that
> getting something on the ballot is simply a matter of having money to
> pay
> people to lie to voters at grocery stores.
>
> -Tom Cares
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:53 PM George Korbel <korbellaw at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What would remedy be without opening flood gates
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> on
> > behalf of larrylevine at earthlink.net <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 3:47:43 PM
> > *To:* 'Richard Winger' <richardwinger at yahoo.com>;
> law-election at uci.edu <
> > law-election at uci.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted
> in
> > big media, or who write for big media
> >
> >
> > Also dealing with this are signature gatherers for ballot measures
> > attempting to qualify for the November ballot. Not quite the same,
> but
> > still a reality.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *On
> > Behalf Of *Richard Winger
> > *Sent:* Monday, 23 March 2020 12:27 PM
> > *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> > *Subject:* [EL] plea to all members of this list who are quoted in
> big
> > media, or who write for big media
> >
> >
> >
> > I perceive that those of us who get quoted in the important news
> media,
> > especially everyone who ever posts items at electionlawblog, have not
> > mentioned the plight of minor parties. The Libertarian Party is
> only on
> > the ballot now in 35 states for president, and the Green Party is
> only on
> > in 21 states for president.
> >
> >
> >
> > In 2016 the Libertarian Party ended up on the ballot in all states
> for
> > president, and the Greens in all states except for 5. In the normal
> course
> > of events, they would be petitioning now to get on in more states,
> but the
> > health crisis has made petitioning virtually impossible. Petition
> drives
> > succeed when petitioners are out in public with lots of people in the
> > area. That is now gone.
> >
> >
> >
> > As of February 2020, in the states with partisan registration, 2.4%
> of
> > voters are registered members of minor parties. Those voters are
> entitled
> > to voting rights just as much as Republicans, Democrats, and
> independents
> > are entitled to voting rights, but I don't see any public commentary
> about
> > the plight of the minor parties this year. I hope all of you who
> have the
> > ear of the big press will add this to the list of election law
> issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I have missed something relevant, please point it out to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20200323/ed6dc48f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:52:39 -0500
> From: Hugh L Brady <hugh.brady at utexas.edu>
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>,
> law-legislation at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] State-level continuity of governance-
> Message-ID:
> <CAMfg_69SS4n+8pu=
> E5hmVeL9-WuNk55cD_r5oFvuRC--tP2U5g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> cross-posted to Legislation listserv
>
> Remote voting by legislators raises several questions that require
> careful
> consideration of the long-term consequences -- I have spent the past
> few
> days thinking about this for Texas. Daniel Schuman of Demand Progress
> (who
> has an excellent weekly round-up e-mail titled First Branch Forecast)
> has
> made some recommendations and some of my more relevant thoughts follow
> those recommendations below. This is by no means an exhaustive list of
> all
> the considerations that go in to remote proceedings of a legislature.
>
> *"Amend their rules to deem legislators to be present if they are
> present
> via electronic means, such as by video-conference."
> *" Provide for a skeleton staff in the Capitol complex in circumstances
> where Constitutional rules require in-person presence at the seat of
> government."
> This would require a constitutional amendment in Texas. No fair
> reading of
> the state constitution would permit the legislature to do this by rule
> because it requires the legislature to hold its sessions in Austin and
> only
> permits suspension of this requirement during an enemy attack or the
> imminent threat of one. The constitutional language requiring a quorum
> plainly contemplates the physical presence of a quorum. For the
> Congress,
> Schuman looks to U.S. v. Ballin (1892) as authority for the proposition
> that either House may count electronic "presence" as a physical
> presence.
> Ballin examined Speaker Reed's breaking of the silent quorum -- that
> is, a
> quorum was physically present but a minority sufficient to cause the
> lack
> of a quorum refused to answer the roll call and the Speaker directed
> the
> clerk to enter the names of the silent members as required under the
> House
> rules. The Court *did not* hold that members not present could be
> counted
> as part of a quorum.
> -->If more than a majority of the members participate electronically,
> they
> could deprive the House of a quorum simply by logging off. How would
> the
> House execute a call on those absent electronically, especially if
> they are
> in their home districts? How would the House maintain a call if ordered
> before the disappearance of a quorum?
> -->Unlike the Congress, where much of the business is highly scripted,
> the
> floor in Texas is still a place where a good speech and a carefully
> drawn
> amendment can pass or defeat a bill. There are practically no special
> rules
> governing the consideration of bills. How can members participate in a
> debate electronically? How will they read the room? How can they work
> for
> or against a bill? This would require a major change in business and
> I'm
> not sure it would improve legislative deliberations.
> -->Who determines who stays in the Capitol complex in a state where the
> Legislature is not organized by party? How do you replace those people
> if
> they get sick?
>
> *"Permit the counting of votes cast by members present via electronic
> means." Schuman suggests live roll-calls with members voting when their
> name is called. In Texas, any member can demand a roll call vote under
> the
> House Rules and any three can demand a vote under the state
> constitution if
> the House rule is repealed. This could gum up the works quickly. It
> might
> be possible to deploy the chamber vote software remotely, but then you
> have
> problems with who is voting -- could staff, family, or lobbyists
> somehow
> vote for the member remotely? How would you verify a vote, as we do
> when a
> vote is close? In 1991, a member died in his apartment on a Saturday
> afternoon, but he "voted" on every bill into the evening.
>
> Provide for these amendments or suspension of chamber rules to be in
> effect
> only upon the declaration of legislative leadership; be in effect only
> for
> a limited time, such as 30 days; and be renewable by a vote of the
> legislative body as remotely assembled.
> As far as this goes, okay. However, you probably need to tie the
> initial
> declaration to a third-party declaration such as the governor or the
> president to avoid gamesmanship.
>
> *Purchase and provide equipment to all members of the chamber and
> provide
> video-conference software to committee and chamber clerks.
> This is doable especially where the state has already issued equipment
> to
> every member, officer, and committee staff.
>
> *Ensure live-streaming of all official proceedings and press access to
> the
> Capitol complex.
> I think the issue here is bandwidth -- if citizens and lobbyists can't
> access the building, then you are going to have a lot of demand for the
> streaming video, especially if you are running 10-15 committee hearings
> simultaneously as happens here. Permitting witnesses to testify by
> video
> conference presents some challenges, especially to prevent astroturf
> witness registrations.
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 4:27 PM Jeff Wice <jmwice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The National Conference of State Legislature's (NCSL) website is
> posting
> > information on what state governments are doing on the shutdowns and
> > emergency measures. About 15 state legislatures have already
> suspended or
> > delayed sessions. The website can be accessed via www.ncsl.org or
> > NCSL Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources
> > <
> https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWU2ZTljOWVhMGFl/s4dBQpSrMVfFYqbI_NNIGRwDqvMEPeZyIlOkqer9uBCpiRzijtpmAnPsIyweKoYI8BJ2_17KFk7Y9HfWy8tZkdift-X7o93DqF4lwn27QsZmS2tdkqpOFdf0nxDA0wYrX6qrjPFfXcL5CeqLHcnD8Gxjasaosq7V_MDcIZLLI3G-21SjbiAf1LGbUZabFLa3nemkGuw_FyZyCeClYWC4yaoMb6GAWJOhsL1FBEojmRvyBZxd-8YrU2Lz4MXl
> >
> > The spread of the coronavirus continues to be a top concern and,
> while the
> > federal government leads the national response to COVID-19, state
> lawmakers
> > are taking extra steps to respond to and anticipate impacts of the
> virus.
> > NCSL is committed to providing our members with timely responses to
> state
> > research requests and the essential knowledge needed to guide state
> action.
> > This page is updated daily to reflect new resources in policy areas
> ranging
> > from education to health care costs and access.
> > <
> https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWU2ZTljOWVhMGFl/s4dBQpSrMVfFYqbI_NNIGRwDqvMEPeZyIlOkqer9uBCpiRzijtpmAnPsIyweKoYI8BJ2_17KFk7Y9HfWy8tZkdift-X7o93DqF4lwn27QsZmS2tdkqpOFdf0nxDA0wYrX6qrjPFfXcL5CeqLHcnD8Gxjasaosq7V_MDcIZLLI3G-21SjbiAf1LGbUZabFLa3nemkGuw_FyZyCeClYWC4yaoMb6GAWJOhsL1FBEojmRvyBZxd-8YrU2Lz4MXl
> >
> > WWW.NCSL.ORG
> > <
> https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWU2ZTljOWVhMGFl/s4dBQpSrMVfFYqbI_NNIGRwDqvMEPeZyIlOkqer9uBCpiRzijtpmAnPsIyweKoYI8BJ2_17KFk7Y9HfWy8tZkdift-X7o93DqF4lwn27QsZmS2tdkqpOFdf0nxDA0wYrX6qrjPFfXcL5CeqLHcnD8Gxjasaosq7V_MDcIZLLI3G-21SjbiAf1LGbUZabFLa3nemkGuw_FyZyCeClYWC4yaoMb6GAWJOhsL1FBEojmRvyBZxd-8YrU2Lz4MXl
> >
> > <
> https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWU2ZTljOWVhMGFl/s4dBQpSrMVfFYqbI_NNIGRwDqvMEPeZyIlOkqer9uBCpiRzijtpmAnPsIyweKoYI8BJ2_17KFk7Y9HfWy8tZkdift-X7o93DqF4lwn27QsZmS2tdkqpOFdf0nxDA0wYrX6qrjPFfXcL5CeqLHcnD8Gxjasaosq7V_MDcIZLLI3G-21SjbiAf1LGbUZabFLa3nemkGuw_FyZyCeClYWC4yaoMb6GAWJOhsL1FBEojmRvyBZxd-8YrU2Lz4MXl
> >
> >
> > I'll update the listserv on NCSL's activities regarding election law
> and
> > state law/process changes as soon as I have the information.
> >
> > Jeff Wice
> >
> > Sent from Polymail
> > <<a href="
> https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWU2ZTljOWVhMGFl/s4dBQpSrMVfFYqbI_NNIGRwDqvMEPeZyIl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200324/55ba2732/attachment.html>
View list directory