Vote fraud and voter intimidation (apropos Justice Stevens' refusal to st...

Tue Nov 2 11:37:07 PST 2004

On the balalnce between deterring vote fraud and voter intimidation:  Here too I would think that the analytic structure is pretty straight-forward, and that it's the facts of each case that may make things complicated.  At the first (and perhaps the only) step, one would ask, I would think, whether the actions challenged as voter intimidation were likely (more probably than not) to identify more instances of voting by ineligible voters than instances of deterrence of voting by eligible voters.  If so, no impermissible intimidation; if not, impermissible intimidation.

There might be a second stage:  In the nature of things, it's likely to be easier to identify instances of voting by ineligible voters than of non-voting by eligible ones (because the ineligible voters have to show up to cast votes -- or at least, someone has to cast votes in their names, whereas the eligible ones who are deterred might not even show up or, if they show up and leave because the lines are too long, might be hard to see).  That might justify a rule requiring a stronger showing of possible vote fraud before allowing actions that contribute to voter intimidation.  Note that this isn't a normative claim that the right to vote is more important than the interests protected by rules against vote fraud, but a rule predicated on an empiricla judgment about which type of problem is easier or harder to detect.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="part1_1da.2e66f79c.2eb93b87_boundary"

--part1_1da.2e66f79c.2eb93b87_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I haven't heard of anyone cynically using claims of "voter intimidation" in 
order to permit or excuse lax enforcement of voting eligbility requirements. 

Judge Dlott's analysis was based on the premise that the effective 
enforcement of eligibility requirements could credibly and *efficiently* be performed by 
the trained poll officials who have always, in practice, been left 
responsible for this task.   

Many civil rights advocates in Ohio expressed concern about the GOP 
challenger plans because they believed that they would result in longer delays at the 
polls, which could deter legitimate voters standing in line.  

For my part, I'm left to wonder if "voter fraud" is a charge that is now 
expected to be presumed legitimate without any adequate empirical support.   

Lynda Dodd, J.D., PhD
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Miami University of Ohio
218 Harrison Hall
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-2000
website: www.users.muohio.edu/doddlg

I wonder to what extent "voter intimidation" is a code word for effective 
enforcement of  eligibility requirements. Is there some sense that it is 
better that ten fraudulent ballots be counted than that one valid vote go 
uncounted?  If so, notice that every ineligible vote counted dilutes the 
vote of  lawful voters.  Or is the idea of a "lawful voter" unacceptable 
and undemocratic--even if that voter does not exist, is a phantom out of 
Gogol's Dead Souls?
Charles Fried

--part1_1da.2e66f79c.2eb93b87_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 I haven't heard of anyone cynically using claims of "voter intimidation"=
 in order to permit or excuse lax enforcement of voting eligbility requireme=
nts.=20
 
 Judge Dlott's analysis was based on the premise that the effective enfor=
cement of eligibility requirements could credibly and *efficiently* be perfo=
rmed by the trained poll officials who have always, in practice, been left r=
esponsible for this task. &nbsp;&nbsp;
 
 Many civil rights advocates in Ohio expressed concern about the GOP chal=
lenger plans because they believed that they would result in longer delays a=
t the polls, which could deter legitimate voters standing in line. &nbsp;
 
 For my part, I'm left to wonder if "voter fraud" is a charge that is now=
 expected to be presumed legitimate without any adequate empirical support.=20=
&nbsp;&nbsp;
 
 Lynda Dodd, J.D., PhD
 Assistant Professor of Political Science
 Miami University of Ohio
 218 Harrison Hall
 Oxford, OH 45056
 (513) 529-2000
 website: www.users.muohio.edu/doddlg
 
 
 I wonder to what extent "voter intimidation" is a code word for effectiv=
e=20
 enforcement of &nbsp;eligibility requirements. Is there some sense that=20=
it is=20
 better that ten fraudulent ballots be counted than that one valid vote g=
o=20
 uncounted? &nbsp;If so, notice that every ineligible vote counted dilute=
s the=20
 vote of &nbsp;lawful voters. &nbsp;Or is the idea of a "lawful voter" un=
acceptable=20
 and undemocratic--even if that voter does not exist, is a phantom out of=
=20
 Gogol's Dead Souls?
 Charles Fried</HTML>

--part1_1da.2e66f79c.2eb93b87_boundary--
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 247 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet <tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20041102/59a0c62b/tushnet.vcf