Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?

This is getting somewhat off-topic (apologies for that), but it's interesting that in some countries, a "blank vote" is seen as a conscious choice by voters, akin to Nevada's NOTA (e.g., France's "vote blanc"), and qualitatively different from a spoiled ballot. In many instances (e.g., the French Communists in 1969, or more recently Le Pen in 1995 and 2007), candidates have urged their supporters either to stay home or come to the polls and cast a blank vote instead of supporting one of the remaining candidates.

So on this point, the evidence contradicts the assertion that no one would find a reason to show up and vote NOTA on all elections on the ballot. Empirically we find many voters in France, who, for whatever reason, show up at the polls and intentionally cast a blank vote for the only election or referendum on the ballot. This is the case even in countries without compulsory voting (e.g., France). Interestingly there is a movement to recognize blank votes as a separate category in the vote tabulations (a position espoused by the aptly-named Parti Blanc).
--------------------
Antoine Yoshinaka
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Political Science
2217 Watkins Hall
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
Tel:(951)827-4688
Fax:(951)827-3933
Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
Website: http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:12:00 -0700
>From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
>Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
>To: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
>Cc: Jeff Patch <jpatch@campaignfreedom.org>, "'Election Law'" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
>
>   Very interesting question on the NOTA option. I
>   think Nevada is the only state with such an
>   option---perhaps there are others. I'm not a fan of
>   NOTA (except in a system of compulsory voting),
>   because it is the equivalent of suppressing turnout
>   in some races. (Presumably not in all races, as no
>   one would have a reason to show up at the polls and
>   vote NOTA in all races.)
>
>   I've flirted with the idea of supporting compulsory
>   voting laws, because I view voting as a
>   distribution of power among political equals, and
>   when turnout is not just generally suppressed, but
>   suppressed to skew results in demographic ways
>   (e.g., targeted at Latinos), it affects the
>   allocation of political power. So I think I object
>   most to the depression of turnout targeted at
>   particular groups, even under a NOTA system. That
>   is, if the Latinos for Reform ad was cast as "Vote
>   NOTA," I think I'd have the same objections.
>
>   But these are very tentative thoughts and I'd have
>   to consider it much more closely.
>
>   On 10/19/2010 8:53 PM, Antoine Yoshinaka wrote:
>
> I don't usually contribute to the debates on the list, but I always find these discussions very enlightening.
>
> Rick (and others): since this is Nevada and voters have an option of voting for "none of the above," would you find it objectionable if a group such as LFR (but any group, really) were to urge voters to vote for "none of the above"? While this would not "depress turnout," my understanding of the way votes are counted in NV is that this would be functionally equivalent to staying home in terms of ascertaining the winner of the election. Would the objections raised in this case be valid?
>
> Or what if, in a two-round election, some group is urging the supporters of one of the candidates eliminated in the first round to stay home instead of voting for either of the top two remaining candidates? My understanding is that this routinely happens among supporters of fringe parties around the world.
>
> I guess my question boils down to this: is the objection about depressing turnout per se, or rather about the tactic used to depress turnout and/or the group targeted by the ad?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
> --------------------
> Antoine Yoshinaka
> Assistant Professor
> Dept. of Political Science
> 2217 Watkins Hall
> University of California, Riverside
> Riverside, CA 92521
> Tel:(951)827-4688
> Fax:(951)827-3933
> Email: antoine.yoshinaka@ucr.edu
> Website: http://politicalscience.ucr.edu/people/faculty/yoshinaka/index.html
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:51:05 -0700
> From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu (on behalf of Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>)
> Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
> To: Jeff Patch <jpatch@campaignfreedom.org>
> Cc: "'Election Law'" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
>
>   I don't have time for a full reply now. But let me
>   confirm that yes, indeed, I meant astounding in a
>   decidedly negative way. I'd have to go back to
>   look, but I believe that every state's voting law
>   makes it illegal to pay people not to vote. That
>   law seems to reflect a broad social consensus
>   against paying to suppress turnout. (In contrast,
>   state laws are mixed about payment for turnout.)
>
>   Just like it is illegal to pay people not to vote,
>   it seems objectionable to urge people not to do
>   so---and even worse when it is targeted at a
>   particular group of people.
>    As far as whether someone of a particular race or
>   ethnicity could be biased against that very same
>   race or ethnicity, certainly that's the case with
>   some people.
>
>   I think you are on more solid ground when you say
>   that this ad is not likely to sway many voters not
>   to vote. But that certainly seems its intent.
>   (That, or getting publicity for the group or person
>   running the ad.)
>
>   On 10/19/2010 6:25 PM, Jeff Patch wrote:
>
>     Rick refers to the message of the rejected Latinos
>     for Reform ad, which urges Hispanics to stay home
>     in November in protest of the Democrats' lack of
>     action on immigration reform, as "astounding."
>
>
>
>     My interpretation of his comments is that he
>     perceives this proposed ad campaign as
>     "astounding" in a decidedly negative way, akin to
>     vote suppression by passing out flyers in an
>     African American neighborhood with the wrong
>     Election Day listed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got
>     that impression from the link he selected, which
>     referred to the ad as an effort to "suppress the
>     vote of various racial minorities." Sen. Majority
>     Leader Harry Reid has also referred to the ad as
>     "an example of "Hispanic voter suppression." A Las
>     Vegas-based Hispanic group claimed that "[t]hey
>     are trying to take away our privileged right to
>     vote through scare tactics and fear mongering."
>
>
>
>     Univision, a private business, has every right to
>     decline to air the ad, despite its dominant
>     position in reaching Hispanic audience. A few
>     points/questions, though:
>
>
>
>     (1) The group is run by prominent Hispanic
>     conservatives who have been involved in
>     immigration reform for years. It's pretty hard to
>     see some sort of a racist motive here, no?
>
>
>
>     (2) The premise of this ad as a voter suppression
>     tool seems-like most efforts to characterize
>     independent ads as somehow corrupting or
>     nefarious-to be that Latino voters are so gullible
>     that they can be lured by the ad's Siren call into
>     not voting.
>
>
>
>     There's certainly no intent on the part of the
>     ad's critics to imply that Latinos cannot decide
>     for themselves how to vote, but the suggestion
>     that the ad is reprehensible implies that people
>     are too dim to decide political matters on their
>     own when faced with controversial-or even
>     misleading-advertising. That strikes me as pretty
>     condescending toward the democratic process.
>
>
>
>     (3) Removing a potential racial motive, this
>     tactic seems perfectly legitimate. I'm a
>     libertarian. In 2008 I did not vote, partly
>     because of an absentee ballot snafu. But I ended
>     up not remedying the mix-up because I was
>     frustrated with McCain's general election campaign
>     even after spending three months volunteering for
>     the primary campaign in various states. As a
>     rational person, I'm aware my vote didn't matter,
>     but I don't understand why it's illegitimate for a
>     group to urge people to not vote if a political
>     party or candidate fails to act on their issues.
>
>
>
>     Perhaps this ad would have been less controversial
>     if it urged Hispanics to write-in someone or vote
>     third party, but that's a bit more of a
>     complicated message. But, I'm wondering if Rick
>     would feel the same way if, in 2012, NORML ran ads
>     in California asking marijuana users not to vote
>     because no Democrats supported Prop. 19-or is
>     there something specifically objectionable about
>     an ad targeting a certain ethnic constituency of
>     voters?
>
>
>
>     Jeff Patch
>
>
>
>     From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
>     [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On
>     Behalf Of Rick Hasen
>     Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:11 AM
>     To: Election Law
>     Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary
>     10/19/10
>
> October 18, 2010
>
> "Don't Vote This November"
>
>     That's the astounding message of an ad from
>     "Latinos for Reform." Here's an NPR story on the
>     group from 2008. Here's the group's press release
>     about the new ad. The most recent filing of this
>     527 organization is not illuminating. Here's some
>     2008 financial information.
>
>     Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:01 PM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>   --
>   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
>
>   --
>   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