More Krugman on Election 2000

Today's column is called "Don't Prettify Our History." It begins:

The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida.

This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner.

The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.

The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin.

"Dan Walters: Congressmen can raise big bucks to fight redistricting reform"

See this Sacramento Bee column.

"South Dakota heads for the Supreme Court on voting rights"

Indian Country Today offers this report.

Voting Rights, Voter I.D. and Jim Crow: Two Perspectives

For those wanting to seek forceful arguments on both sides of the debate over voter identification (and the Department of Justice's pending decision on Georgia's voter i.d. requirement), today is the perfect day. John Fund, writing for the Wall Street Jounral, offers Resurrecting Jim Crow for Political Gain; Voter fraud is also a threat to minority voters. Former Justice Department attorney (and current election consultant) David J. Becker writes Reviving Jim Crow for today's Washington Post. A snippet: "There is also considerable evidence that photo ID requirements have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks and other minorities. ...The law's proponents claim that it will help protect against voter fraud, but there appears to be no evidence to support this claim."

OSU Conference on Independent Election Administration

Election Law @ Moritz is holding a two day conference, Independent Election Administration: Who Draws the Lines, and Who Counts the Votes?, on September 9-10. Here is the description:

During the 2004 election, the issue of independent election administration repeatedly emerged as a topic in need of concentrated study and attention. On a number of occasions in many states, questions arose about the appropriate roles of elected secretaries of state in the implementation of voting laws and the supervision of the polling places, and whether these election administration duties might or should be conducted by nonpartisan or bipartisan entities. Meanwhile, lurking beneath the surface of many of the 2004 congressional and state legislative races were questions about how the district boundaries had been drawn, and the impact of the redistricting process on political competition and the public policy debate. This two-day Election Law @ Moritz conference will bring together public officials, academics, elected representatives, members of the media, and interested observers to discuss the prospects for reinvigorating our democracy through reforms in both the drawing of political districts and the administration of the voting process.

See here for more information, a list of participants, and a schedule.
According to Dan Tokaji, one of the organizers, space is limited, but anyone interested in attending should contact Steve Huefner at huefner.4-at-osu.edu, or Dan at tokaji.1-at-osu.edu.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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