For further grist for the mill, here is a county-by-county analysis of early voting in Iowa. In nearly every county, registered Democrats are returning their requested ballots at a higher rate than registered Republicans. This helps explain the 5:3 advantage for registered Democrats over registered Republicans so far in Iowa.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/iowa-democrats-returning_b_763876.html

 

 

 

Here is what I state:

 

"Finally, early voting in these counties raises a good question how the much-discussed enthusiasm gap towards Republicans will actually play out when it comes to voting."

 

As I say, this raises a question and we will have to see how this will play out. Paul badly mischaracterizes that plain sentence. I make no conclusion. And if you parse the sentence closely as I intended (maybe I am too subtle sometimes) I am not necessarily questioning if there is an enthusiasm gap, I am leaving open the question of how well the enthusiasm gap will  translate into a voter turnout gap.

 

One further point of interest is the Iowa data that I added later after the post. In Iowa we see a similar pattern of elevated levels of early voting and a 5:3 Democratic advantage among partisan registrants voting early. Something is afoot. We will have to see how this plays out. I offer Paul's favored explanation as one possibility among others in my analysis, so please read my post if you are interested.

 

Still, let's deconstruct Paul's favored explanation that these elevated levels are caused by election administrators promoting no-fault absentee voting. Voters still have to return the ballot request, receive a ballot, and then send it back in. Why would mailing an absentee ballot request form to voters generate so many more early votes than other jurisdictions -- especially so soon in the early voting period? Why would this lead to a much higher comparative turnout rate at this stage than what Green and Gerber's voter mobilization studies would suggest is feasible? Promotion by election administrators may be part of the puzzle, but at this stage this explanation would seem to fall short from explaining everything, given what we know about the mechanics of mail balloting and of voter mobilization. The Huffington Post editors get this right when they use the word "Mystery" in the promotion title of the post. Until we know more, I do not think that Paul's favored explanation is any more influential on the observed phenomenon than the others I offer.

 

 

 

October 14, 2010

"Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? Let's review."

Slate has just posted my latest Jurisprudence column. It begins:

What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? With all the controversy still swirling around whether the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using foreign money to fund its $75 million effort to support Republican Congressional candidates, the secrecy of Karl Rove's new political groups, and the emergence of new groups with anodyne-sounding names like the "Coalition to Protect Seniors," it's worth stepping back and asking why federal law requires campaign finance disclosure in the first place. Do we still need these laws? Do they work the way they're supposed to?

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:33 PM

"No One's Clean on Election Cash"

WaPo's Ruth Marcus blogs.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:28 PM

"Voters Say They Want To Know Who Funds Ads"

Part 2 of the NPR story on secret money. See also Analysis: Little Truth in Many Groups' Campaign Ads.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:19 PM

"Outside Political Spending Surging in 2010 Midterms"

The indispensable Center for Responsive Politics reports.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:14 PM

For Those Waiting for a Direct Corporate Expenditure in Support of a Candidate

Wait no more: Penneco Oil Company for Senate candidate Pat Toomey.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:11 PM

The California Propositions...to Music?

Really.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:08 PM

"Q&A: New York Times Investigative Reporter Mike McIntire"

Don't miss this discussion about how the NYT tries to follow the money given the new secrecy in elections. I flag as exemplary McIntre's work in my Slate piece which I will link to momentarily.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:05 PM

"Renaud: Business Leaders Have Opening to Sway Voters"

D. Mark Renaud has written this Roll Call oped, which begins: "With 20 days left before this year's general election, time is running out for business leaders and others to have an effect. Leaders of businesses large and small should not overlook a strong and easy-to-implement option available to them for the first time -- direct communications to rank-and-file employees expressly about the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates."

Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:59 PM

"Election Administration 2010: States to Watch"

That's the lead story in this week's Electionline Weekly.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:56 PM

"Early Voting Off to a Fast Start in Democratic Areas of Ohio"

Mike McDonald blogs.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:57 AM

"The Chamber's False Claim on Union Political Funding"

This post appears at the AFL-CIO Now blog.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:00 AM

"Illinois Candidate's Name Misspelled As ''Rich Whitey' On Electronic-Voting Machines"

This election season, you just can't make up stuff as funny or interesting as the truth.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:40 AM

"'Nonpolitical" Groups Target Democrats In Ad Blitz"

Don't miss Part 1 of this NPR report on secret money in the 2010 elections. Part 2 airs tonight.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:36 AM

--
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

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law