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