<x-charset utf-8>          No, we cannot all agree that voting mechanisms need to be uniform throughout a state.  Even less can we all agree that a nationally-imposed manner of voting would be desirable.  Among the policy justifications for not having uniformity is that different systems may make more sense in different situations; variation is desirable as a means of facilitating innovations that may lead to improvement; a nationally-imposed uniform system might lead to the detachment of national from state and local elections, which would seriously affect turnout in the latter; and the enormous cost of replacing perfectly adequate systems in most of the country should not be borne simply to satisfy the preference for uniformity of a handful of ideologues.
 
           Best,
 
           Daniel Lowenstein
           UCLA Law School
           405 Hilgard
           Los Angeles, California 90095-1476

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Marty Lederman 
	Sent: Thu 11/4/2004 3:43 PM 
	To: Rick Hasen; election-law 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?
	
	
	Well, whether or not he's correct about the actual numbers, can we all agree that it is inexcusable that voting mechanisms are not uniform throughout a state?  And, more particularly, that there is no justification for a state tolerating a much higher degree of discarded or unreadable votes in particular precincts -- typically correlated with class and/or race?  (Indeed, as Rick has often argued, it's a scandal of sorts that, after 2000, there is not a federally imposed uniform nationwide "manner" of voting for federal office.)
	 
	I would go further and argue that if the equal protection rationale of BvG is taken at all seriously, then it is surely unconstitutional for a state to permit some counties to use voting methods that are foreseeably far less reliable and accurate than those used in other counties.  This was, in essence, the heart of the claim raised in the ACLU litigation in the California recall election.  I thought it was a good argument then (I worked on the case), and I do now.  But even if you disagree -- if you believe either that BvG's equal protection rationale was a bunch of hooey or that it can somehow be limited to the particular "facts" of that case -- is there any policy justification for the disparities that continue to exist, other than the actual, inadequate "reason" (namely, that some counties are poorer than others)?  
	 
	 
	----- Original Message ----- 

		From: Rick Hasen <mailto:Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>  
		To: election-law <mailto:election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>  
		Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:05 PM
		Subject: Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?


		Is it Possible Kerry Lost Ohio Because of Punch Cards?

		So alleges Greg Palast here <http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0> . I have no idea of Palast's numbers are correct, and in particular whether he has lumped together both votes lost by the punch card machines and deliberate undervotes. I haven't seen any undervote figures yet for this election. I'd appreciate hearing from others who have some data to evaluate this kind of claim. 
		-- 
		Rick Hasen
		Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
		Loyola Law School
		919 South Albany Street
		Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
		(213)736-1466
		(213)380-3769 - fax
		rick.hasen@lls.edu
		http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
		http://electionlawblog.org


</x-charset>