Part 2: Early Voting Regret a True Threat to Informed Elections

In spite of a U.S. District Court ruling in Ohio this summer expanding early voting by three days, the Columbus Dispatch’s analysis shows that longer early voting periods do not result in a higher overall election turnout.

In February however, Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, said he believes that early voting creates the issue of early voting regret due to poor information access.

At a Senate Rules Committee hearing in February, he told the story of how there was, “a situation in a Maine election recently where we had very early voting. . . . [I]t was a month or more before the election. The dynamics of the election changed in the last several weeks. And we actually had people going into their town offices trying to retrieve their early vote, to change it because of developments in the election.”

King went on to say, “I do think that there's a legitimate issue about how far in advance. Because elections do tend to sometimes come into focus in the last several weeks. And we actually had that experience. I knew people that went to their town office and said, ‘How can I get my vote back? I want to change it,’ and they couldn't.” Senator King then asked the witnesses at the hearing, “[h]ow widespread is it? Is it a national problem or is it extremely localized?”

The truth is, early voting regret is not limited to small town mayoral races, but it extends to presidential elections. As determined by USA Today, Florida voters regretted casting their early ballots in the 2012 Republican primary before seeing the results from other state primaries and watching the candidate debates.

The first presidential debate in the 2012 election occurred on October 3. In post-debate analysis, MSNBC’s Chris Mathews said that, “[Obama] was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. What was Romney doing? He was winning. If he has five more of these nights, forget it.” Joe Scarborough, also of MSNBC, said the debate, “has been a real Emperor has no clothes moment. . . . ”

The key swing states of Ohio and Florida both began early voting on October 2, 2012 before that first important presidential debate. In an op-ed by the St. Petersburg Times, the paper warns its readers about early voting regret saying, “voters who choose to vote early, do so at their own risk. If candidates are going to pull any dirty tricks in a campaign, they often do so in the last couple of weeks before Election Day. No doubt, there are voters who have cast an early ballot and wound up wishing they could get that vote back.” Undoubtedly, the premature early voting period led to voter regret after the debate.

It is difficult to deny the influence of Presidential debates. During the October 6, 1976 debate, President Ford sealed his fate with his notable gaffe about the Soviet Union. Similarly, in October 1980, Ronald Reagan asked the famous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” during his debate with Carter. These late-breaking debate highlights can sway even resolved voters.

A study published by the Boston University Political Science Department analyzed the 2012 Presidential race in Colorado, concluding that “instant gratification” mobilizes voters, which impacts a broad range of elections. The study found that, “the presidential campaign visits to swing states . . . were often timed to coincide with the start of the early voting period in order to generate news and excitement so as to inspire the casting of early ballots.”

There is also scholarly support for this premise. An article published in the Election Law Journal finds that early voters in the 2008 California presidential primary election, “did not fully incorporate information about candidate withdrawals and momentum,” and “presumably failed to incorporate other potentially vote relevant pieces of late information.” The article concluded that, “this suggests that convenience voting could have important effects on general election outcomes,” and that it, “may become grounds for individuals to question the legitimacy of an election.”  

Senator King’s concerns are valid. Voter regret is real, and it is a national problem. There are strong arguments that the early voting period should be shortened or eliminated altogether. As in the case of Ohio and Florida, early voters in key swing states cast ballots in the 2012 election without being fully informed. Elections often come to a head right before the election, and these examples show that early voting can cause a distorted result.

This post was written by Phil Demarest.                                                                                                                            

Part 1: Stop Increasing the Burdens on Local Election Officials

On a non-partisan basis, election officials are angry for the increasing burdens that are being placed on them.  Typical was the reaction yesterday from local election officials in Virginia:  

Election officials’ complaint is familiar. “We do more and more with less,” said VRAV [Voter Registrars Association of Virginia] President Lisa Wooten. “I would hate to see a terrible election happen to any of us.”

Nationwide Democrats have not only opposed funding the needs of election officials  but instead have advocated expensive and burdensome ideas such as increasing early voting which does nothing to increase turnout (more on that tomorrow).  As RNLA wrote in its response to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (emphasis added):

If nothing else, the post-mortem of the 2012 General Election revealed the need to focus on the basics of Election Day administration. As the PCEA pointed out repeatedly, the long-lines were typically a result of management problems which can be solved with proper planning and resource allocation and upgrades to our voter registration system. Anything that distracts from the main focus of absentee voting for those who need it, the close of registration books, and the monumental task of preparing for Election Day is simply that, a distraction. Local election officials have finite resources and are already stressed to the breaking point with juggling poll worker training, press inquiries, programming and testing voting equipment, and the other planning that needs to take place on the eve of an election. Being required to administer a robust early voting program is simply going to draw resources and attention away from those preparations.

The time has come to focus on helping election officials and to make their jobs easier.  On a bipartisan basis election officials would agree.  

ICYMI: Sotomayor’s Politicization of Justice and Judging for Press Praise

In an interview with National Law Journal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded to a question in the following damming way about Justice Sotomayor.

NLJ: As the senior justice in dissent, you assigned to Justice Sotomayor the dissent in the court’s decision upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment prohibiting the consideration of race in higher education. You and she were the only dissenters. She had joined the 7-1 decision two terms ago in the University of Texas case where race was considered as a factor in the admissions policy. The court sent that case back to the lower court to apply a stricter type of strict scrutiny. Why did you assign the Michigan dissent to Justice Sotomayor?

GINSBURG: She cared deeply about the issue. She might have been distressed about some of the reports in the Fisher [ v. University of Texas] case where she went along with the court. So if anybody had doubts about her views on affirmative action she wanted to quell them, which she certainly did…

As Professor Josh Blackman put it:

Oh my. This paints Justice Sotomayor in such a negative, damaging, and weak light.

First, what does it mean that she “went along with the court.” She joined the majority opinion. That’s a vote, not passive acquiescence. Granted the opinion was narrow, but Sotomayor could have dissented or concurred if she wanted too. RBG dissented. But Sotomayor didn’t. Perhaps the Justices wanted to build consensus for a narrow opinion. But that’s a vote! Why would Ginsburg characterize her in this manner?

. . . Second, if true, it is scary that she is so responsive to press reports, that she wants to write a vigorous dissent to set them right. Justice Scalia and Thomas go out of their way to say they don’t read press accounts of the Court. They are lambasted for being out of touch. But that’s the point. They want to be insulated. Is Sotomayor that fragile and thin-skinned that she feels compelled to write an opinion based on what the media says. I would hope that a Justice would have more fortitude than to be so easily impacted by the press. She shouldn’t have to “quell” “doubts” of the chattering class.  And here, the coverage was mild. Compared that to the full court press on the Chief in NFIB!

But you know what? It worked. Attorney General Holder, with the backing of the White House, spoke glowingly of Sotomayor’s dissent. It was the talk of the town in D.C. And the press now knows they can impact a Justice. It’s one thing for us to speculate about it. But now the Justices confirmed it.

Ed Whelan adds:

How strange that Sotomayor, in a betrayal of the ethic of judicial independence, should be so concerned about re-positioning herself with those who were disappointed by her Fisher vote. How telling that Ginsburg would eagerly accommodate her—and not feel any embarrassment at revealing the fact.

Relatedly: A D.C. lawyer tells me that he was jarred to hear Sotomayor, in a private conversation, refer to lefty Hispanic groups as “my [i.e., Sotomayor’s] constituents.” A more blatantly political view of the judicial role is difficult to imagine.

Suspected Double-Voting Referred to Prosecutors in Virginia

Local election officials in Fairfax County, Virginia have referred seventeen cases of suspected double-voting to the Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney. These individuals are suspected of having voted in both Maryland and in Fairfax County, Virginia in the 2012 General Election. Some individuals are suspected of having double-voted in Maryland and Virginia in multiple elections. Click here for the press release from the Fairfax County Electoral Board.

This incident underscores the importance that states share voter registration data on a regular basis. Programs RNLA have endorsed like ERIC and Crosscheck can help both identity and prevent illegal double-voting.  

However, sharing the data is useless if states don't act on it after receiving it. It is essential that officials take decisive action to remove these voters from the rolls once they receive the data from other states. Secondly, it’s important they refer suspected instances of voter fraud to prosecutors. Unfortunately Democrats and their allied liberal groups such as Project Vote and the Brennan Center have repeatedly worked to prevent officials from taking action based on concerns that voters will be mistakenly removed from the voter rolls. They ignore the fact that provisional ballots and other remedial measures can fix any potential mistakes made by officials. Of course, we all know there is no way to retrieve a fraudulently cast ballot by a voter that officials should have removed but did not out of fear that the Democrats would cry "voter suppression". 

There is little that can be done to stop someone from casting ballots in multiple states without states sharing this data and acting on it. It is particularly critical in areas with highly transient populations and in election jurisdictions that border other states. Fairfax County is both highly transient and shares a border with Maryland. It would be relatively easy for a voter to vote in-person in both a Virginia and Maryland polling in the same day, especially since Maryland has few election integrity protections such as voter ID. Based on the news from the Fairfax County Electoral Board, it seems like that very well may have been happening. 

Reasonable Democrats are Tiring of Left-Wing Democrat Voter Fraud Antics

Recently, Obama’s Presidential Commission on Election Administration came out in favor of programs such as the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC to help fight vote fraud and improve registration.  While the commission was co-chaired by Obama’s own lawyer, Bob Bauer, many Democrats and liberals in the election field have fought implementation of ERIC despite its wide bipartisan support. 

Examples of this are one of the Democrats nominee for the Election Assistance Commission, Myrna Perez, and another is the current California Secretary of State Debra Bowen.  Bowen’s views are so extreme that even the left-leaning Pew Charitable Trusts is attacking her:

[ERIC’s] goal is to identify voters who have moved between states, and ensure they are re-registered quickly.  Pew, Becker said later, has invited Bowen's office to six Pew-sponsored meetings since January 2011 to discuss ways to improve elections, including ERIC. Pew received no response to most of the invitations, including for a meeting later this month in San Francisco, he said.

"Not having California being part of a really important data exchange...hurts the other states and I think it hurts California, too," Judd Choate, Colorado's director of elections and ERIC's chairman, testified.

The leading California Democrat to replace Bowen who is term-limited, has also refused to support ERIC.  In the very blue state of California, most voters have had enough of these efforts to promote vote fraud and hurt ALL legal voters.  It is part of the reason that Republican Nominee for Secretary of State Pete Peterson is leading in the polls. 

The views of far left Democrats in the election field and their allies such as the Brennan Center are too extreme for even Democrat voters and President Obama’s own lawyer.  Hopefully, victories by Republicans in states like California will serve to wake up national mainstream Democrats to stop nominating and funding pro-vote fraud candidates and groups.  

More Proof of the Need for Voter ID

To hear the vote fraud deniers like Justin Levitt and Al Sharpton talk Voter ID does nothing to stop vote fraud because it only stops impersonation.  In other words, someone pretending to be you or someone else they are not.  Maybe in their vain worlds that is their biggest concern: someone trying to be them.  The reality is Voter ID does much more than that.

Take the story yesterday that detailed 14,646 duplicate registrations in just one county in Northern Virginia (Fairfax County) and Maryland.  The election official says there is no way they can sort through all the double registrations before the November election and there are serious questions whether election officials can do anything other than put these voters on the “inactive” roles. 

This allows unscrupulous party operatives (and there are many party operatives in the metro DC area) and other political activists to vote in the state of their choice in different elections.  We are not talking double-voting either, rather more of an "a la carte" voting depending on the election.  For example, in the very blue or Democrat state of Maryland you could vote in the Democrat primary and then for the General Election vote in the purple or toss up state of Virginia.  Furthermore, Virginia has off year elections (2013 and 2015) when there are no elections in Maryland. 

While clean election rolls would also stop this, it should be remembered that the law firm of Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) Co-Chair Democrat Bob Bauer filed in Virginia what a judge called a groundless suit to stop efforts by Virginia election officials to clean up the rolls.  This baseless partisan effort, while typical of Democrats, even runs afoul of the Bauer-led PCEA’s recommendations. 

Which is why Voter ID is part of the solution.  Everyone should be allowed to vote but only where they live.  Thus Voter ID would prevent the Maryland residents from driving 30 minutes and voting in Fairfax County and vice-versa.  Since Virginia law does not allow for a Maryland Driver's License for acceptable ID, these voters would be deterred from voting in Virginia. Voter ID does not disenfranchise anyone and actually prevents the disenfranchisement of legal voters. 

But Sharpton, Levitt and the Democrats who filed the groundless suit in Virginia will have none of that.  And unfortunately it effects elections and not just their vanity.  

Indicted NY City Councilman Pushes Criminal Voting Over Needed Election Reforms

The NY Post has an interesting piece today about Ruben Wills, a NY City Councilman who is pushing legislation in the City Council to require the city Department of Corrections to “publicize the right of prisoners — awaiting trial or convicted of misdemeanors — to vote.” This is, at best, a questionable use of limited government resources. More interestingly, the Councilman is under indictment for “allegedly swiping government funds from a nonprofit that he once ran”

There is obvious absurdity and irony in an indicted Councilman pushing legislation to help imprisoned likely criminals to vote. Certainly, those incarcerated, non-convicted prisoners should be able to vote if they are otherwise qualified to vote. We do believe in innocent until proven guilty in the United States. However, we really have to ask if it is appropriate for an indicted Councilman to push this legislation, and secondly, if this is really the best use of taxpayer resources? We know New York City has serious deep-seeded and systematic problems with its elections so it’s perplexing why a City Council member would be focusing on superfluous priorities such as pushing voting for city prisoners.

NYC’s longstanding election administration problems were uncovered in a recent investigation and subsequent audit report from the New York Department of Investigations (DOI). During the course of its audit, the DOI identified a number of individuals who should have been removed from the city’s voter rolls, including ineligible felons, but were not. DOI investigators then appeared at NYC polling places to vote in the name of the ineligible voters. Undercover agents were cleared by poll workers to vote for the ineligible voters 97% of the time. DOI investigators were able to vote for 14 out of the 15 felons they impersonated at the polls. DOI would have had complete success if it weren’t for one amazing coincidence recounted in the audit report: 

In the one instance where an investigator failed to vote as a felon listed in the registration book, the investigator was unable to vote because the poll inspector at the election district 18 table stated that she was the mother of the felon voter for whom the investigator was attempting to vote.

The DOI’s audit report was nothing short of an indictment on New York City’s electoral system. You think the Councilman whose body is responsible for oversight of the city’s Board of Elections would be focusing his attention on holding the BOE accountable for fixing the dozens of problems identified in the report, including the charges of nepotism, inadequate training, and vulnerabilities to fraud. Instead, he is pushing for voting rights for prisoners, a position he may very well find himself if incarcerated for his alleged crime.  

Smooth Sailing in Virginia in First Election with New Photo ID Law

Yesterday, Virginia saw its first election with the newly enacted Photo ID requirements implemented as a result of legislation passed in 2013. A Special Town Election held in Farmville in Central Virginia was administered with the Photo ID requirements and we are hearing it went quite smoothly. Virginia State Board of Elections Chairman Charlie Judd was on hand to observe the first election under the new law and commented that things went smoothly and that “voters were aware and came prepared.” Judd described the conduct of the election as “flawless” and even got to see a voter apply for and receive a free photo ID on the spot in the General Registrar’s office. So much for the liberal alarmist claims of disenfranchisement and voter suppression.

While this town election was a small test, Virginia passed it with flying colors. This is a promising sign as we look towards statewide implementation of the law this November. The opponents of Virginia’s commonsense photo ID law, including the Washington Post editorial board who recently lambasted Virginia Republicans for the law, would no doubt have liked to see widespread chaos and dozens of voters showing up ID-less. As we have seen in other states where photo ID laws have been rolled out, they will be disappointed this November when voters arrive prepared for the law change with the added confidence that the election is being run with integrity.

(Due to a technicality, some special elections yesterday in Virginia took place under the non-ID laws.) 

ICYMI: Unprecedented Obstruction of the Administration’s Appointed Inspector Generals

While some media focus has been given to the obstruction and possible\likely willful destruction of materials over at the IRS, the fact that this is a large systematic issue of the Obama administration has been ignored.  Recently 47 Inspectors General from a wide variety of agencies wrote an extraordinary letter to Congress complaining:

The undersigned federal Inspectors General write regarding the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of Inspectors General at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice.  Each of us strongly supports the principle that an Inspector General must have complete, unfiltered, and timely access to all information and materials available to the agency that relate to that Inspector General’s oversight activities, without unreasonable administrative burdens. . . .

We have learned that the Inspectors General for the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency (in his role as Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board) and the Department of Justice have recently faced restrictions on their access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical areas.  In each of these instances, we understand that lawyers in these agencies construed other statutes and law applicable to privilege in a manner that would override the express authorization contained in the IG Act.

Many of these IGs are Obama appointees.  As Hans von Spakovsky writes:

In other words, Attorney General Eric Holder and his political subordinates only gave the IG access to these records because they decided there was nothing in them that would prove embarrassing.

But it goes deeper than that.  The Administration, especially Attorney General Eric Holder, is doing something no President has ever done before.  And as another RNLA Member, Professor Ronald Rotunda, explains there is in no legal justification:

A Justice Department spokesman stated that “because the documents at issue included grand jury material, credit reports, and other information whose dissemination is restricted by law, it was necessary to identify exceptions to the laws to accommodate the inspector general’s request.” However, that is a poor excuse to stonewall or slow-walk the Inspector General’s inquiry.

As Prof. Ronald Rotunda, one of the leading ethics experts in the country, says in his treatise on “Legal Ethics – The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility,” while a government lawyer does have an attorney-client privilege with his client, that client is the government. Therefore, the government lawyer cannot assert the privilege to refuse to divulge information “when it is the government itself that is seeking the information.”

Thus, any privilege doctrine — whether it be attorney-client, grand jury secrecy, or premised on some other privacy interest — does not generally prevent lawyers within DOJ from providing confidential information to the lawyers working in the IG’s office, who are also DOJ employees.

Unprecedented obstruction.  

Governor Perry Indictment. Next Up: Vegans Will Indite a Ham Sandwich

The indictment by a Grand Jury in Texas of Governor Rick Perry should send alarm bells to members of both parties.  This is the worst kind of prosecutorial overreach that even has left leaning political publications describing as “thin at best.”

Perry was indicted Friday on two counts: abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony that could carry from five to 99 years in prison; and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that could carry a punishment of two to 10 years. But several legal experts said the indictment itself is thin at best.

RNLA’s Texas Chapter Co-Chair Chris Gober stated:

“The alleged ‘misuse of government property’ and ‘coercion’ actually involved a constitutional exercise of Governor Perry’s veto authority … I am confident there are many Texans who watched that highly damning video of Rosemary Lehmberg’s in jail and believe Governor Perry exercised his veto with that oath in mind,” he said in an email.

The matter under dispute is Perry’s threat to veto.  Which is explained as follows:

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg —  a Democrat who oversees the state’s Public Corruption unit —  was arrested for driving very, very drunk. What followed was a relatively ordinary political dispute. Perry, not unreasonably, urged Lehmberg to resign. Democrats, not unreasonably, resisted out of fear that Perry would replace her with a Republican. Perry, not unreasonably, announced and carried out a threat to veto funding for her agency until Lehmberg resigned.

. . . But that statute [that is being used to indict Perry] also specifically exempts “an official action taken by the member of the governing body.” The prosecutors claim that, while vetoing the bill may be an official action, threatening a veto is not. Of course the threat of the veto is an integral part of its function. The legislature can hardly negotiate with the governor if he won’t tell them in advance what he plans to veto. This is why, when you say the word “veto,” the next word that springs to mind is “threat.” That’s how vetoes work.

The theory behind the indictment is flexible enough that almost any kind of political conflict could be defined as a “misuse” of power or “coercion” of one’s opponents. To describe the indictment as “frivolous” gives it far more credence than it deserves.

The situation is so ridiculous that one or more of President Obama’s top political advisers completely agree with Republicans:

Even some prominent liberals expressed reservations about the strength of the indictment. David Axelrod, a longtime aide to President Barack Obama, tweeted: “Unless he was demonstrably trying to scrap the ethics unit for other than his stated reason, Perry indictment seems pretty sketchy.”

RNLA Board Member Elliot Berke summed it up best:

Elliot Berke, who served as counsel to former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert and also to DeLay, said he believes “any objective judge will see this for what it is — a pretty outrageous attempt to criminalize politics.”

Super Lawyers discuss Super PACs at RNLA conference

The recently concluded RNLA Election Law conference held in Las Vegas had many highlights. Notable speakers included Georgia governor Nathan Deal and FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman. Presenters discussed a wide range of issues important not only to election lawyers but to Republican lawyers of any practice. Panels included salient topics such as the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Supreme Court cases, and recounts.  

One distinctive panel featured top-level election lawyers discussing real-world scenarios that arise with modern presidential campaigns. Counsel for candidates, candidate-specific Super PACs, and wealthy donors play a vital role helping clients achieve their goals while navigating the assorted agencies, laws, and regulations that touch upon political activity.

The scenario began with Stefan Passantino, of McKenna Long and Aldridge—and counsel to Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential run—playing advisor to the “candidate,” RNLA Board of Governors Chair Randy Evans. 

Charlie Spies, of Clark Hill, and counsel to the Mitt Romney-focused Restore Our Future PAC—the first candidate-specific Super PAC—assumed the role of advisor to the fictional Super PAC: ‘Election Law Lawyers Make Great Presidents PAC.’ 

Robert Kelner, chair of Covington & Burling’s Election and Political Law Practice Group, and representative of many high-net worth individuals, represented the audience, who played the part of wealthy donors. 

Mr. Passantino began by discussing the preliminary stages of a presidential campaign. The candidate’s team must evaluate the credibility of a presidential run. This includes polling, gauging the fealty of activists and donors, and probing the success of any “draft” campaigns. They must also make crucial decisions about budgeting and staffing. 

Mr. Spies explained the importance of making the PAC appear viable to donors. Starting the PAC is not difficult, requiring only a short form submitted to the FEC. The real challenge is ensuring the PAC has credibility with possible funders. This may include hiring people that have had some previous professional relationship with the candidate and pitching donors on the Super PAC’s plans. An important consideration is advising how much contact candidates can have with a Super PAC without crossing into illegal coordination. 

Mr. Kelner discussed the issues involved from the donor’s perspective. A donor’s desired involvement may run the spectrum from simply writing a check to traveling on the campaign. Each level of higher involvement comes with attendant risks counsel must diagnose and explain to the client. 

The discussion turned to various issues that arise as campaigns continue to develop. All three panelists emphasized the level of independence the campaign must maintain in order to avoid contributing in kind. These issues can surface in a number of ways including with staffing decisions, common vendors, and list rentals. 

The panelists also discussed the phenomenon of companion Super PAC and 501(c)(4) organizations. As the panelists noted, 501(c)(4) organizations differ from Super PACs in a variety of legal and structural ways that affect its political activity.

The panelists concluded by teasing out the different regulatory environment in a state race. They discussed not only the different set of rules in state races but also the differences in state agencies versus federal. 

By Paul Jossey

Author Chris DeRose’s New Book

Law Professor and American historian Chris DeRose recently published a new book about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. DeRose will attend this year’s National Election Law Seminar in Las Vegas this weekend and will host a book signing. DeRose's work has been highlighted by POLITICO, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Human Events, and numerous other publications.

Entitled, "The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War That Divided Them" (Lyons Press 2014), the new book tells the “story of the Civil War’s record number of living former and current presidents, and now the ex-Presidents’ Club . . . maneuvered, seceded, plotted, advised, and aided during the Civil War while Lincoln navigated the minefield they created.”

Accomplished Civil War historian James M. McPhereson reviewed DeRose’s book and said, “When Abraham Lincoln became president in 1861, five former presidents were still alive—a fact unique in American history. In this discerning book, Chris DeRose shows that all of them had opposed Lincoln’s election, none supported his determination to resupply Fort Sumter, John Tyler became a Confederate and Franklin Pierce a Copperhead, Martin Van Buren’s and James Buchanan’s support for the Union war effort was lukewarm, and the three men still alive in 1864 (including Millard Fillmore) opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s re-election. In effect, Lincoln presided over the preservation of the Union and abolition of slavery without the support of his predecessors in the presidency.”

Roll call writes, “When Abraham Lincoln took up residence in the White House in March 1861, he had five former occupants looking over his shoulder. No president ever had more. And what a motley crew they were…. While the Civil War is familiar ground to most readers, the story of how the living former presidents met the challenge — or didn’t — is a fresh and fascinating take.”

DeRose has been a political strategist for the past 19 years. He has worked for candidates in five states. He has also served as Director of Election Day Operations for a former Governor of Virginia. As a graduate of Pepperdine University School of Law, he is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Arizona Summit Law School. He teaches Constitutional law, Election Law, and Voting Rights.

Politics is Triumphing Over "Common" Vote Fraud Problem

The Miami-Dade Police Benevolence Association is sick of vote fraud in Florida and is going to do something about it, offer a reward. 

“We decided to do this because absentee ballot fraud has been in this community for years and nothing has happened,” said Blanca Torrents Greenwood, executive director of the group. “We thought, let’s do this to see if we get results.”

The problem is so bad that it is considered “common” in Miami, and the article lists a number of incidents including a key staffer to a US Congressman.  The best quote in the article addresses something that the “vote-fraud deniers” have used for years to deny vote fraud.  To them, vote fraud only exists when there is a felony conviction. Yet the common fraud problem in Miami rarely results in that kind of conviction.

Absentee ballot fraud is a felony in Florida, but in Miami offenders often end up with only probation or little jail time, although violations have proven common in recent years.

Thus, the left denies there is even a problem in Florida.  What’s worse is, nationally liberals even attack those as racist who try to fix the problem, or ask the police to be prosecuted for vote fraud for even investigating. 

The left’s circular logic, while dishonest is working.

“I don’t know if there is problem related with the state attorney’s office, laws (in place), or if it is about evidence, but I know politics has a lot to do with this,” she [Greenwood] said.

Thanks to the Police Benevolence Association for trying to fight vote fraud.  

Campaign finance reformers knifed in the back by academic studies

Campaign finance reformers have had a tough go of it lately. A near decade-long losing streak at the Supreme Court has been compounded by the demise of public financing for presidential campaigns. Most view proposed fixes, like Harry Reid’s constitutional amendment, as cynical ploys to motivate low-information voters with Pavlovian missives about evil industrialists. Even supposed supporters pay only lip service while calling for “big, fat checks.”

Their unwitting abandonment by academia, however, may be the harshest blow. Despite a shared zeal for speech-stifling regulation, academics are providing reformers little intellectual ammunition. In fact, their findings seem only to further erode the once impenetrable wall of reformer rhetoric.

Reformers’ central premise is private campaign funding—to the exclusion of almost everything else—corrupts the otherwise altruistic public servants roaming Congressional halls. Campaign contributors, they warn, “buy” political favoritism, which distorts legislative outcomes and harms the common good.

Recent scholarship, however, has found otherwise. An exhaustive study from Ohio State found, “There is not one clear and obvious causal mechanism between the campaign funding inputs and legislative outputs – the mechanisms are varied and they change over time in response to regulatory developments, technological innovation, and the shifting interests of the electorate.” In other words, campaign funds don’t easily translate into legislative measurables.

Campaign money, the study further explains, exists as “only one part of a complex ecosystem of power, influence, and personal relationships that connect electoral and legislative politics.” This reality however doesn't exactly make for sexy reformer fundraising appeals. ‘Contribute to our cause and we’ll alter the balance in the complex ecosystem . . .’

Beyond measurable legislative favoritism, reformers argue contributors corrupt because lawmakers provide them “access” and other influences “neither easily detected nor practical to criminalize.” The Ohio State study suggests this too is overplayed:

Does money buy access or influence? Based on our interviews, it is uncertain whether independent spending yields greater access to Members of Congress for the groups that spend directly in support, beyond the level of access and influence the groups already have with Member.” (emphasis added).

A recent Princeton study also seems to refute the notion big funders get their priorities placed at the front of the legislative line. “It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites . . . Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens . . . want the same things from government.”

The authors don’t exactly applaud this result, calling average citizens “coincidental beneficiaries.” But the fact remains policy agreement between people funding elections and those that do not is fairly consistent on wide variety of issues.  

Absent policy or legislative distortions all that remains are the elections themselves. The supposed evil here is massive spending distorts our elections by “drowning out” lesser-funded messengers. This in turn skews electoral outcomes. A Demos study analyzing the 2012 elections did not observe the correlation. In close Senate races the overall better-funded candidate lost 81% of the time, in the House they lost 52%.

In fact, the study—designed specifically to bemoan of the evils of private funding—could only muster a tepid response to their findings:Money does not guarantee victory, but all else equal, it improves a candidate’s prospects . . . And, although there are diminishing returns, more is likely better.” In other news, the sky is blue.

  

An empirical study from the University of Missouri quantified the diminishing returns.  Throwing gobs of money into a race has a modest effect; a $1 million-dollar bump adds between 0.1%-1% to a candidates share, making a difference in only the very tightest races.  

While reformers take a hit from the latest academic studies, one disturbing conclusion should give pause. According to the OSU study, “While it is difficult to gauge the effect of the Democrat’s reliance on contributions from the wealthy, it does likely preclude a strong focus on redistributive policies.”

Thus absent private funding, Democrat tendencies toward socialism would be even more pronounced. No further argument for the status quo should be required.

By Paul Jossey