The equation of urging people not to vote with paying them not to vote seems to me utterly without merit. Paying someone not to vote is a bribe while urging that person not to vote is speech. If I offer to pay someone to vote for Jerry Brown (or Meg Whitman), that is a bribe. If I urge someone to vote for Brown (or Whitman), that is protected political speech.
I also do not see how urging people not to vote can be regarded as vote suppression. My vote is suppressed if, one way or another, I am prevented from voting when I would like to do so. Rick may see merit in the idea of compulsory voting, but voting is not compulsory in America and each eligible person has a free choice whether or not to vote. When one person is free to choose, another person is free to persuade.
I have no knowledge on which to assess whether the advertisement of "Latinos for Reform" is dishonest or objectionable in other ways. Any time persuasion is permissible it can be done in an abusive manner. Furthermore, I understand that many people think that it is better for people to vote and therefore it is misguided to urge others not to vote. But the whole point of freedom of speech is that it is a good thing--or at least permissible--for some people to set forth opinions that other people find objectionable. The assertion that simply urging people not to vote is in itself akin to bribery or suppression seems to me remarkable and contrary to consensual American principles.
Best,
Daniel H. Lowenstein
Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
UCLA Law School
405 Hilgard
Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
310-825-5148
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen [rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:51 PM
To: Jeff Patch
Cc: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] Latinos for Voter Suppression of Other Latinos?
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<http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/19/latinos-for-reform-run-by-bush-pioneers-and-appointees/>.” 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> [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<http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/10/just_coming_right_out_saying_it.php#more?ref=fpblg> of an ad<http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/AntiReid_group_to_Hispanic_voters_Dont_Vote.html?showall> from "Latinos for Reform." Here's<http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=127309149> an NPR story on the group from 2008. Here<http://www.bradenton.com/2010/10/18/2663454_new-ad-campaign-asks-latinos-not.html>'s the group's press release about the new ad. The most recent filing<http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=34610&formType=E72> of this 527 organization is not illuminating. Here<http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/latinos-for-reform.asp>'s some 2008 financial information.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:01 PM<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017436.html>
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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