[EL] Voter ID req. vs. mask requirement?

Thu Oct 29 15:37:30 PDT 2020

This isn't about the constitutional question, but a University of Kentucky political scientist (Mike Zilis) and I ran a survey in August and found that 79% of the representative sample (1400 respondents) favor a mask mandate at the polls. The support crossed partisan lines. We wrote up our findings in a paper here<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3693286> and for Politico here<https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/21/americans-wear-masks-vote-430365>.

Josh
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 6:31 PM
To: Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter ID req. vs. mask requirement?

CAUTION: External Sender

Beyond cases arguing generally that election officials have to have sufficient PPE on hand, there have been four mask cases so far this year (that I know of – though I’d love to hear if folks know of others).

The first was out of Minnesota, where plaintiffs argued<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FMN-MVA-20201002-PI-decision.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587238386%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DjK4dj5u1A2s2NaUSS2tRptTVTx75LLlG5ggGZomnw0%3D&reserved=0> that the requirement to wear a mask at the polls conflicted with general state statutes about concealing identity (and also imposed an impermissible burden).  The preliminary injunction was denied<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FMN-MVA-20201002-PI-decision.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587238386%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DjK4dj5u1A2s2NaUSS2tRptTVTx75LLlG5ggGZomnw0%3D&reserved=0>.

The second was out of Wisconsin, where the plaintiff was a pollworker suing<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FWI-Newman-20200917-complaint.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587248383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2D%2F0iqXO7xP%2F9Y5Z6uQJ7L3rMo1EerUYednvHJeDZLg%3D&reserved=0> to protest a mask requirement.  Still TBD.

Then there were two cases out of Texas, where the Governor has required masks but not in certain areas (including at the polls).  In one case, county officials required masks of official poll workers, and the poll workers sued<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FTX-Biesel-20201020-petition.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587248383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cSp7rc5fIOkmOwlXJ8xmr79Gtgwk2Zn6pZHOKrwEg9o%3D&reserved=0> (the petition was summarily denied<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FTX-Biesel-20201022-denied.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587258375%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PmsoatkjBmm7pu5Fb6BUqWAN6wFqdCv1SP0yNpUiaog%3D&reserved=0>).  In another, advocates for minority communities protested the fact that masks weren’t required at the polls, creating a hazardous situation for voters, and a trial court granted relief<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FTX-Mi-Familia-Vota-20201027-PI-decision.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587258375%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gHRcXFLWNZrTjLqUVI27EST7%2BUAelOVfJF%2Fz%2BQ3uCaA%3D&reserved=0> that yesterday became part of the parade of temporary administrative stays<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FTX-Mi-Familia-Vota-20201028-stay.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587268368%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DFKYkHv6C%2Fpq7TBWVJbLZ5VjDowzDysC680tvCt%2F9dA%3D&reserved=0>.  We’ll see what comes next.

I don’t think we’ve seen a case in which election officials imposed a mask rule and a voter (or voter group) claimed it was an unconstitutional burden in a way that’s really gotten extensive briefing.  (Minnesota comes closest, but doesn’t mention Anderson-Burdick.)  Given the things courts have said don’t amount to unconstitutional burdens, I’d be beyond shocked by anyone succeeding on a claim that it’s unconstitutional to require masks at the polls.  I think if you suggested to your SOS that [insert any other procedural requirement for Ohio voters] amounted to an unconstitutional restriction, Vlad, chances are good he’d laugh you out of the room.

Justin

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> On Behalf Of Kogan, Vladimir
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 3:03 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Voter ID req. vs. mask requirement?

My wife is in the process of completing her training to be a poll worker, and part of the training discusses what to do if a voter shows up and insists on voting without a mask. The training says to encourage the voter to cast his/her ballot outside curbside — but stresses that, if the voter insists, he/she must be allowed to cast a ballot inside at the voting location. Our secretary of state has stated<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fradio.wosu.org%2Fpost%2Fohio-requires-face-masks-polling-places-what-happens-if-voter-refuses%23stream%2F0&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587268368%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ddIfsE0XLsV2K0LAxa9vcw46W3tzMI%2FSkH0%2FK5c%2B7s8%3D&reserved=0> that “voters are guaranteed the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, so he has to allow them into the polls if they insist.”

Ohio is a strict (non-photo) voter ID law state, so my wife noted the interesting asymmetry here . It seems like one could make a strong argument that, under Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, requiring a mask as a precondition for voting in person would be entirely reasonable. The state interest in limiting the spread of a deadly virus seems at least as weighty as the interests offered in Crawford. And the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the policy is also stronger — masks are at least as effective in reducing COVID risk as voter IDs are reducing risk of fraud, etc. The burdens, on the other hand, seem quite trivial. Masks will be provided and voters who don’t want to wear a mask can vote by mail or curbside.

Certainly, there is a small number of voters with medical conditions and/or other trauma for whom wearing a mask is particularly burdensome. But Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Crawford argues that the Anderson-Burdick balancing test is about the burden for the average voter, not the burdens faced by a small, select subset. A mask requirement, like Indiana’s photo-identification law, would be “generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation, and our precedents refute the view that individual impacts are relevant to determining the severity of the burden it imposes.”

I’m curious anyone has thought/written about this, or whether this has been raised in any litigation this year?

Thanks!

Vlad Kogan

[The Ohio State University]
Vladimir Kogan, Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of Political Science

2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373

510/415-4074 Mobile

614/292-9498 Office

614/292-1146

http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fu.osu.edu%2Fkogan.18%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587278364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DAVX7CXWr%2FRamy8sYv6PIePhlUSrAdMNfvvzqCLDCro%3D&reserved=0>

kogan.18 at osu.edu<mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>

[Twitter icon]@vkoganpolisci<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fvkoganpolisci&data=04%7C01%7Cjoshuadouglas%40uky.edu%7C3bdf2f3a84974356d73e08d87c5a89f2%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637396075587278364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=wsHI3pSodQ8Vu7RTXPcJdK%2Bg0FHnnrGHXmXy9UICDZg%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201029/0d3ba9dd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201029/0d3ba9dd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1351 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201029/0d3ba9dd/attachment.gif>