Have a Comment?
Generously Supported By
ELB Feeds and Email Subscriptions
Books by Rick
The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2012)
The Voting Wars Website
NOW AVAILABLE from
Barnes and Noble
Election Law--Cases and Materials (5th edition 2012) (with Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Daniel P. Tokaji)
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (NYU Press 2003) NOW IN PAPER
Table of Contents
Order from Amazon.com
Order from BarnesandNoble.com
Journal of Legislation Symposium on book
The Glannon Guide to Torts: Learning Torts Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis (Aspen Publishers 2d ed. 2011)
Remedies: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 2d ed. 2010)
Election Law Resources
Blogroll/Political News Sites
All About Redistricting (Justin Levitt)
American Constitution Society
Ballot Access News
Brennan Center for Justice
The Brookings Institution's Campaign Finance Page
California Election Law (Randy Riddle)
Caltech-MIT/Voting Technology Project (and link to voting technology listserv)
The Caucus (NY Times)
Campaign Legal Center (Blog)
Campaign Finance Institute
Center for Competitive Politics (Blog)
Center for Governmental Studies
Doug Chapin (HHH program)
Equal Vote (Dan Tokaji)
Federal Election Commission
The Fix (WaPo)
Initiative and Referendum Institute
Legal Theory (Larry Solum)
Political Activity Law
Summary Judgments (Loyola Law faculty blog)
Talking Points Memo
UC Irvine Center for the Study of Democracy
UC Irvine School of Law
USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw blog (Ed Still)
Washington Post Politics
Recent Newspapers and Magazine Commentaries
Big Money Lost, But Don't Be Relieved, CNN Opinion, Nov. 9, 2012
A Better Way to Vote: Nationalize Oversight and Control, NY Times, "Room for Debate" blog, Nov. 9, 2012
Election Day Dispatches Entry 5: Black Panthers, Navy Seals, and Mysterious Voting Machines, Slate, Nov. 6, 2012
Behind the Voting Wars, A Clash of Philosophies, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 4, 2012
How Many More Near-Election Disasters Before Congress Wakes Up?, The Daily Beast, Oct. 30, 2012
Will Bush v. Gore Save Barack Obama? If Obama Narrowly Wins Ohio, He Can Thank Scalia and the Court's Conservatives, Slate, Oct. 26, 2012
Will Voter Suppression and Dirty Tricks Swing the Election?, Salon, Oct. 22, 2012
Is the Supreme Court About to Swing Another Presidential Election? If the Court Cuts Early Voting in Ohio, It Could Be a Difference Maker in the Buckeye State, Slate, Oct. 15, 2012
Election Truthers: Will Republicans Accept an Obama Election Victory?, Slate, Oct. 9, 2012
Wrong Number: The Crucial Ohio Voting Battle You Haven't Heard About, Slate, Oct. 1, 2012
Litigating the Vote, National Law Journal, Aug. 27, 2012
Military Voters as Political Pawns, San Diego Union-Tribune, August 19, 2012
Tweeting the Next Election Meltdown: If the Next Presidential Election Goes into Overtime, Heaven Help Us. It’s Gonna Get Ugly, Slate, Aug. 14, 2012
A Detente Before the Election, New York Times, August 5, 2012
Worse Than Watergate: The New Campaign Finance Order Puts the Corruption of the 1970s to Shame, Slate, July 19, 2012
Has SCOTUS OK'd Campaign Dirty Tricks?, Politico, July 10, 2012
End the Voting Wars: Take our elections out of the hands of the partisan and the incompetent, Slate, June 13, 2012
Citizens: Speech, No Consequences, Politico, May 31, 2012
Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet, Slate, May 16, 2012
Unleash the Hounds Why Justice Souter should publish his secret dissent in Citizens United, Slate, May 16, 2012
Why Washington Can’t Be Fixed; And is about to get a lot worse, Slate, May 9, 2012
Let John Edwards Go! Edwards may be a liar and a philanderer, but his conviction will do more harm than good, Slate, April 23, 2012
The Real Loser of the Scott Walker Recall? The State of Wisconsin, The New Republic, April 13, 2012
A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself, Slate, March 30, 2012
Of Super PACs and Corruption, Politico, March 22, 2012
Texas Voter ID Law May Be Headed to the Supreme Court, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 13, 2012
“The Numbers Don’t Lie: If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the Super PACs, just follow the money, Slate, Mar. 9, 2012
Stephen Colbert: Presidential Kingmaker?, Politico, Mar. 5 2012
Occupy the Super PACs; Justice Ginsburg knows the Citizens United decision was a mistake. Now she appears to be ready to speak truth to power, Slate, Feb. 20, 2012
Kill the Caucuses! Maine, Nevada, and Iowa were embarrassing. It’s time to make primaries the rule, Slate, Feb. 15, 2012
The Biggest Danger of Super PACs, CNN Politics, Jan. 9, 2012
This Case is a Trojan Horse, New York Times "Room for Debate" blog, Jan. 6, 2012 (forum on Bluman v. FEC)
Holder's Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court's Voter ID Showdown, Slate, Dec. 30, 2011
Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of Citizens United, The New Republic (online), Dec. 6, 2011
Disenfranchise No More, New York Times, Nov. 17, 2011
A Democracy Deficit at Americans Elect?, Politico, Nov. 9, 2011
Super-Soft Money: How Justice Kennedy paved the way for ‘SuperPACS’ and the return of soft money, Slate, Oct. 25, 2012
The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision, The New Republic (online), June 27, 2011
New York City as a Model?, New York Times Room for Debate, June 27, 2011
A Cover-Up, Not a Crime. Why the Case Against John Edwards May Be Hard to Prove, Slate, Jun. 3, 2011
Wisconsin Court Election Courts Disaster, Politico, Apr. 11, 2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again, Slate, Mar. 25, 2011
Health Care and the Voting Rights Act, Politico, Feb. 4, 2011
The FEC is as Good as Dead, Slate, Jan. 25, 2011
Let Rahm Run!, Slate, Jan. 24, 2011
Lobbypalooza,The American Interest, Jan-Feb. 2011(with Ellen P. Aprill)
Election Hangover: The Real Legacy of Bush v. Gore, Slate, Dec. 3, 2010
Alaska's Big Spelling Test: How strong is Joe Miller's argument against the Leeza Markovsky vote?, Slate, Nov. 11, 2010
Kirk Offers Hope vs. Secret Donors, Politico, November 5, 2010
Evil Men in Black Robes: Slate's Judicial Election Campaign Ad Spooktackular!, Slate, October 26, 2010 (with Dahlia Lithwick)
Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? Let's review, Slate, October 14, 2010
Un-American Influence: Could Foreign Spending on Elections Really Be Legal?, Slate, October 11, 2010
Toppled Castle: The real loser in the Tea Party wins is election reform, Slate, Sept. 16, 2010
Citizens United: What the Court Did--and Why, American Interest, July/August 2010
The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan Want to Ban Books? No, and She Might Even Be a Free Speech Zealot", Slate, May 24, 2010
Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito's Double Standard for the First Amendment, Slate, Apr. 30, 2010
Some Skepticism About the "Separable Preferences" Approach to the Single Subject Rule: A Comment on Cooter & Gilbert, Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Apr. 19, 2010
Scalia's Retirement Party: Looking ahead to a conservative vacancy can help the Democrats at the polls, Slate, Apr. 12, 2010
Hushed Money: Could Karl Rove's New 527 Avoid Campaign-Finance Disclosure Requirements?, Slate, Apr. 6, 2010
Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court Kills Campaign Finance Reform, Slate, Jan. 21, 2010
Bad News for Judicial Elections, N.Y. Times "Room for Debate" Blog, Jan., 21, 2010
Read more opeds from 2006-2009
Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers
The 2012 Voting Wars, Judicial Backstops, and the Resurrection of Bush v. Gore, George Washington Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?, Montana Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress, 86 Southern California Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
Fixing Washington, 126 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draf available)
What to Expect When You’re Electing: Federal Courts and the Political Thicket in 2012, Federal Lawyer, (forthcoming 2012)( draft available)
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution, 64 Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, Emory Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Teaching Bush v. Gore as History, St. Louis University Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium on teaching election law) (draft available)
The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket: A Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?, Election Law Journal (forthcoming 2011) (draft available)
Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale, 27 Georgia State Law Review 989 (2011) (symposium on Citizens United)
The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo, in First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation 2011)
The Transformation of the Campaign Financing Regime for U.S. Presidential Elections, in The Funding of Political Parties (Keith Ewing, Jacob Rowbottom, and Joo-Cheong Tham, eds., Routledge 2011)
Judges as Political Regulators: Evidence and Options for Institutional Change, in Race, Reform and Regulation of the Electoral Process, (Gerken, Charles, and Kang eds., Cambridge 2011)
Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence, 109 Michigan Law Review 581 (2011)
Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule, 9 Election Law Journal 399 (2010) (co-authored with John G. Matsusaka)
The Benefits of the Democracy Canon and the Virtues of Simplicity: A Reply to Professor Elmendorf, 95 Cornell Law Review 1173 (2010)
Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance on the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181 (2010)
Election Administration Reform and the New Institutionalism, California Law Review 1075 (2010) (reviewing Gerken, The Democracy Index)
You Don't Have to Be a Structuralist to Hate the Supreme Court's Dignitary Harm Election Law Cases, 64 University of Miami Law Review 465 (2010)
The Democracy Canon, 62 Stanford Law Review 69 (2009)
Review Essay: Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 California Law Review 1501 (2009)
Bush v. Gore and the Lawlessness Principle: A Comment on Professor Amar, 61 Florida Law Review 979 (2009)
Introduction: Developments in Election Law, 42 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 565 (2009)
Book Review (reviewing Christopher P. Manfredi and Mark Rush, Judging Democracy (2008)), 124 Political Science Quarterly 213 (2009).
"Regulation of Campaign Finance," in Vikram Amar and Mark Tushnet, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press (2009)
More Supply, More Demand: The Changing Nature of Campaign Financing for Presidential Primary Candidates (working paper, Sept. 2008)
When 'Legislature' May Mean More than''Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, 35 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 599 (2008) (draft available)
"Too Plain for Argument?" The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees Through Direct and Equal Primaries, 102 Northwestern University Law Review 2009 (2008)
Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation, The Forum, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Art. 7 (2008)
Justice Souter: Campaign Finance Law's Emerging Egalitarian, 1 Albany Government Law Review 169 (2008)
Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court's Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 92 Minnesota Law Review 1064 (2008) (draft available)
The Untimely Death of Bush v. Gore, 60 Stanford Law Review 1 (2007)
Category Archives: voter registration
“Registering Millions: Celebrating the Success and Potential of the National Voter Registration Act at 20″
It may seem unthinkable now, but as late as the 1980s, Americans in many states had only one option if they wanted to register to vote: Show up in person at a central registrar’s office, which might be open only during restricted business hours and located far from the voter’s home. Even in places where voter registration applications could be distributed outside the registrar’s office, strict limits often applied — such as in Indianapolis where groups like the League of Women Voters were allowed to pick up only 25 voter registration applications at a time. Overly complicated and restrictive procedures meant that fewer and fewer eligible voters were registering — and without registering, they couldn’t vote.
Voting rights advocates knew that America must fiercely protect the freedom to vote for all citizens, regardless of race or privilege. So, they began a multi-year campaign to make voter registration more accessible. Their efforts paid off in 1992 when Congress first passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), only to see President George H.W. Bush veto the bill. Not to be discouraged, the movement kept fighting, and 20 years ago this week, Congress passed the NVRA and President Clinton signed it into law.
In a bitter fight, Colorado Democrats recently muscled through the Statehouse a massive elections reform bill that allows voters to register up until Election Day and still cast their ballots.
It’s the latest – and most substantial – development in a nationwide Democratic Party effort to strike back at two years of Republican success in passing measures to require identification at polling places and purge rolls of suspect voters.
Democratic-controlled states like California, Connecticut and Maryland also all have sought to make it easier to cast a ballot as late as possible. They recently passed versions of same-day voter registration measures, which traditionally help younger and poorer voters – the sort who lean Democratic.
Undaunted, the GOP is aggressively fighting the efforts.
Republicans in the Ohio Legislature are pushing a plan that could cost the state’s public universities millions of dollars if they provide students with documents to help them register to vote. Backers of the bill describe it as intended to resolve discrepancies between residency requirements for tuition and voter registration, while Democrats and other opponents argue it is a blatant attempt at voter suppression in a crucial swing state.
“What the bill would do is penalize public universities for providing their students with the documents they need to vote,” Daniel Tokaji, a professor and election law expert at Ohio State University told TPM. “It’s a transparent effort at vote suppression — about the most blatant and shameful we’ve seen in this state, which is saying quite a lot.”
The latest in the Colorado voting wars.
Washington Times: “On Friday, three former U.S. Justice Department attorneys filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi seeking an order to compel election officials in Jefferson Davis County, as well as in nearby Walthall County, to clean up their voter rolls.”
Overall, these patterns suggest that the partisan implications of online voter registration are unclear. Registered Republicans appear to more often use Maryland’s online system to initiate a new registration while Democrats use it to update an existing registration. We, of course, do not know how these people would have behaved if online voter registration was unavailable. However, another important lesson appears to be that online access has not matured to the point yet where an online system can substitute for good old paper.
AP reports. Follow @IvanJourno if you care about what’s happening with Colorado election law.
WRAL: “A bill filed in the state Senate Tuesday would carry a tax penalty for parents whose children register to vote at their college address. Senate Bill 667, ‘Equalize Voter Rights,’ would remove the tax exemption for dependents who register to vote at any address other than their parents’ home.”
I expect we will hear more about this.
Des Moines Register: “Two civil rights groups have sued Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz to halt a new state rule allowing people to be removed from voter registration lists if their citizenship is questioned.
“Can Arizona Make You Show Your Birth Certificate to Vote? The state’s voter ID requirement goes to the Supreme Court on Monday.”
Skye Nickalls writes.
AP: “Two employees of a company once aligned with the Republican Party of Florida admitted to law-enforcement authorities that they forged voter registration forms.”
Press release: “MADISON, WI – Eliminating Election Day voter registration in Wisconsin would cost taxpayers between $13.1 million and $14.5 million, according to a staff report released today by the Government Accountability Board.”
Important case flying under the radar at SCOTUS. More about it when I have time. In the meantime, here are the briefs, courtesy of the ABA:
State of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Docket No., 12-71
Arguement Date: TBD
Did the court of appeals err 1) in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to this Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions, and 2) in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?
- Brief for Petitioner Arizona
- Brief for Petitioners Twenty-Six County Recorders and County Election Directors
- Brief for Respondents Inter Tribal Council Of Arizona, Inc., League Of Women Voters Of Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Network, Steve M. Gallardo, League Of United Latin American Citizens Arizona, and Hopi Tribe
- Brief for Gonzalez Respondents
- Brief for Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Texas in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the American Civil Rights Union and 12 Civil Rights Lawyers in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the American Unity Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for State Senator Russell Pearce in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Community Voter Registration Organizations in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Constitutional Law Professors in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Election Administrators in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the League of Women Voters in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Respondents
- Brief for NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Anti-Defamation League in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Overseas Vote Foundation, Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas, American Citizens Abroad, Military Spouses of Michigan, and Arizona Students’ Assocation in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondents
Project Vote: “On January 23, voting rights advocates won a major legal victory on behalf of Louisiana’s public assistance agency clients, the state’s most vulnerable and most marginalized residents. In a 36-page ruling, following a trial in October 2012 in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Jane Triche Milazzo found that the state of Louisiana violated federal law by failing to offer an opportunity to register to vote to all applicants and recipients of food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, and WIC. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that voter registration be offered to all such individuals, whether they seek benefits in person, or by the internet, telephone, or mail.”
That’s according to the docket. And there are lots of amicus briefs that have just come in favoring the Respondents (and against Arizona). I will link when they are posted at SCOTUSBlog or elsewhere.
Press release: “The Supreme Court should strike down an Arizona law requiring additional documents to register to vote, argue the Brennan Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center in an amicus brief.”
Demos: “Today, Demos and O’Melveny and Myers LLP filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of respondents in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (No. 12-71) on behalf of community-based voter registration organizations Rock the Vote, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Border Action Network, Fair Share Alliance and Fair Share Alliance Education Fund, Mi Familia Vota, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Nonprofit VOTE, People for the American Way Foundation, Promise Arizona and Promise Arizona in Action, Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition, Virginia New Majority, and Voto Latino. The brief urges the Court to strike down the portion of Arizona Proposition 200 that requires documentary proof of citizenship to accompany any voter registration application, even when applicants have attested to citizenship under oath. Arizona’s law directly conflicts with the federal National Voter Registration Act, which has the purpose of streamlining the registration process and prohibits unnecessary obstacles to voter registration.”
One of the key recommendations I make in The Voting Wars to fix the problems with our election system is universal voter registration conducted by the federal government combined with a national voter id card. The i.d. card would assign each potential voter a unique voter id number, which would stay with the voter her entire life as she moves across the U.S. The id card would give voters the option of providing a thumb print, so that if a voter ever forgets or loses the card she can use a thumb print for voting. States would still get to set qualifications for voting: determining, for example, whether a person who registers to vote in a state is really a resident, is entitled to vote under rules barring felon voting, etc.
I have no illusions that this plan is going to be adopted any time soon. Indeed, I often joke that the plan is one that unites Democrats and Republicans….against the plan. Republicans tend not to like the universal voter id aspect (which is why election reformers speak in terms of “modernization” of voter registration) and Democrats don’t like the i.d. portion.
But a key benefit of the dual system I propose is that it prevents a number of different types of fraud, including voter registration fraud (no more third party voter registration groups) and double voting between states. National voter id also would prevent voter impersonation fraud (if this were a real problem—which it is not). It would also prevent non-citizen voting, because the federal government would verify citizenship before putting someone onto the national voter registration rolls.
So imagine my surprise that a group of conservative Secretaries of State are getting together to attack the proposal for universal voter registration on grounds that it would promote fraud.
Let’s be clear. There are three reasons why Republican secretaries of state would really oppose this effort.
1. A turf war/federalism. State and local officials believe they should have the right to run federal elections, even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to set national rules for federal elections.
2. Federal government incompetence. State and local officials may think they can do a better job running elections. The track record on the state and local level, as I detail in my book, leaves me doubting this claim.
3. Expansion of the electorate could benefit Democrats. Whether it is true or not, there’s a belief that nonvoters tend to skew Democratic, and expanding the rolls to make it easier to vote could help Democrats. It empowers people to vote who did not take the time to vote or who did not do things right to register. As a matter of both philosophy and partisanship, Republicans may well oppose expanding the electorate in this way.
Barry C. Burden, David T. Canon, Kenneth R. Mayer and Donald P. Moynihan have written this oped in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada in Busefink v. State issued Oct. 4, but I just discovered it today while looking on the website for something else. The Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to Nevada’s law barring payment per voter registration card for voter registration efforts.
The opinion notes a split among the courts on the question whether laws barring payments per voter registration card are subject to a strict/heightened scrutiny or not, meaning this issue could potentially be raised in a cert. petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I discuss the Busefink case, and ACORN’s broken business model, in Chapter 2 of The Voting Wars.
Too much work for poll workers, Wisconsin’s governor claims. The more things change….
Herald Tribune: “Changes in the state election law may have reduced the number of Florida voters who participated in early voting this year by an estimated 300,000 votes. That reduction in early voting — from about 2.7 million voters in 2008 to 2.4 million this year — could have consequences in a tight race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the nation’s largest swing state.”
This whole article is worth a read. Absentee balloting is up. It will be hard to tell whether overall decline in Democratic vote in 2012 compared to 2008 is caused (solely) by Florida voting changes as opposed to other factors, such as differences in the level of enthusiasm of Florida voters.
This will be one of the most important empirical questions to disentangle after the election. I’ve been working on the assumption that these voting changes mostly matter on the margin–so in a tight race they would matter, but in a big blowout they would not—but others have suggested some larger effects.
Las Vegas Journal Rev. Ed Writer Says He Met with Noncitizens Registered by Unions to Vote and Pressured to Vote
Glenn Cook: “Last week, I met with two immigrant noncitizens who are not eligible to vote, but who nonetheless are active registered voters for Tuesday’s election. They said they were signed up by Culinary Local 226. They speak and understand enough English to get by. But they don’t read English especially well. They say the Culinary official who registered them to vote didn’t tell them what they were signing and didn’t ask whether they were citizens. The immigrants said they trusted that the union official’s request was routine, thought nothing of it and went about their work. Then the election drew closer. Then the Culinary canvassers started seeking them out and ordering them to go vote.”
This definitely requires further investigation.
CBS News: “Tampa-area resident and Navy captain Peter Kehring has spent more than 30 years in the U.S. military. But due to Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott’s recent purge of voter rolls, Kehring will not be able to cast a vote on Election Day, reports Tampa CBS affiliate WTSP….And he’s not alone: Kehring is among 30 active and reserve service members in the Tampa area who have contacted the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections office, according to WTSP.”
This is the danger of voter purges just before the election—false positives which disenfranchise eligible voters. Voter cleanup needs to happen in the off-season. Better yet, we need to rationalize and nationalize registration for federal elections.
Important LA Times article on voter registration fraud, including the Sproul controversy.
Houston Chronicle: ”State election officials repeatedly and mistakenly matched active long-time Texas voters to deceased strangers across the country – some of whom perished more than a decade ago – in an error-ridden effort to purge dead voters just weeks before the presidential election, according to a Houston Chronicle review of records.”
HuffPo reports. Let’s be clear on terminology: the allegation is trashing voter registration forms. That’s notvoter fraud, but it is an election crime.
Important questions from Doug Chapin.
News from Virginia: “Is it a case of election fraud, voter suppression, or something far less sinister? That’s what Rockingham County investigators are trying to find out, after someone trashed a folder of voter registration forms.”
Not Larry Sabato points fingers at the Virginia GOP.
To be continued
LA Times: “The political consultant fired by the Republican National Committee amid fraud allegations in Florida is now hiring workers for a voter canvassing operation this fall in as many as 30 states, his spokesman said. Nathan Sproul, whose career as a GOP get-out-the-vote consultant has been dogged by reports of fraudulent registrations, has been advertising for $15-an-hour workers for ‘conservative voter identification’ in Virginia, Wisconsin and Iowa.”
The LA Times reports, with the subhead: “Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax hike measure is being touted as the only way to avoid tuition increases this year at California’s public universities. Some predict a higher-than-usual turnout.”