Vote fraud and voter intimidation (apropos JusticeStevens'refusal to stay the Sixth Circuit decision)

[Mark Tushnet]

Well, mine was a first stab at a definition.  Maybe the definition should be modified to include a requirement that the person engaging in the activity be expressly associated with a political party.  (I thought about whether there should be a "face to face" requirement or something like a "personally targeted" requirement, but decided not -- phone calls and robo-calls could be "intimidating.")

Also, terminologically, I don't think anything turns on whether the word "intimidation" in this context has connotations or overtones similar to those that arise in other contexts (e.g., risk of formal prosecution).  If the term is bothersome, call it "voter blegging."  

----- Original Message -----
From: Nelson Lund <nelsonlund at erols.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2004 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: Vote fraud and voter intimidation (apropos JusticeStevens'refusal to stay the Sixth Circuit decision)

> I said nothing about the "intention" of the networks. I don't know 
> what their intentions were, and I seriously doubt that you do 
> either. As to your assertion that "[t]hey did their job," I do not 
> agree that it is their job to broadcast falsehoods.
> 
> In any event, whether one wants to condemn the networks for what 
> they did, or exonerate them, their actions fit Mark Tushnet's 
> definition of "voter intimidation."
> 
> Nelson Lund
> 
> 
> Andy Siegel wrote:
> 
> > I agree with you that the networks should hold off making 
> projections until all the
> > polling places in a given state have closed.
> >
> > Your broader implication that the networks called the race early 
> and erroneously with
> > the intention of altering the result belies the facts.  The 
> networks projected Florida for
> > Gore b/c/ the exit polls showed that a small but sufficiently 
> significant plurality of the
> > voters in Florida left the polling place thinking they had voted 
> for Gore.  On that point,
> > the polling was absolutely accurate.  That the recorded vote 
> total did not match the
> > voters' intentions is the fault of lots of people (the designers 
> of the butterfly ballot, the
> > idiots/knaves who decided to use voting technology with much 
> higher error rates in
> > predominately minority areas, arguably the voters themselves).  
> It was not, however,
> > the networks' fault.  They did their job.  Those responsible for 
> implementing our
> > democratic process failed at theirs.
> >
> > --Andy Siegel
> >
> > On 2 Nov 2004 at 15:13, Nelson Lund wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Tushnet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would have thought that the term "voter intimidation" had a
> > > > straight-forward meaning:  actions that have the effect of 
> deterring> > > eligible voters from casting their ballots, either 
> by misleading
> > > > them into believing that they are not eligible to vote or by
> > > > creating sufficient confusion at voting sites as to increase the
> > > > cost of voting [such as the time spent waiting on line] 
> beyond the
> > > > point at which some eligible voters think it worthwhile to vote.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Under this definition of "voter intimidation," there were two 
> striking> > examples in the 2000 election. Although Secretary of 
> State Harris
> > > specifically asked the television networks to refrain from 
> predicting> > the outcome of Florida's election until the polls 
> had closed in the
> > > western part of the state, which is in the central time zone, 
> all five
> > > national networks falsely declared that Gore had won the state 
> before> > the polls closed in the western counties. Worse, all of 
> these networks
> > > also falsely and repeatedly announced that the polls had 
> closed in
> > > Florida beginning an hour before they had actually closed in the
> > > western counties. Subsequent analysis indicated that these actions
> > > cost Bush thousands of votes.
> > >
> > > Nelson Lund
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20041102/95801c21/tushnet.vcf