Presentation Transcript

1. Fair Game or Stacked Deck?

   The Electoral Process

2. I. Gerrymanders: The Fix Is In? ORIGINAL GERRYMANDER Named for Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Mass., 1810-12 Later Vice President under Madison Plan elected Republicans 29-11, even though they received only 57% of the popular vote.
3. A. Political Gerrymanders 1. Generally regarded as legal 2. Easier with modern technology – Geographic Information Systems used to plot voting patterns
4. 3. Types: Incumbent protection and partisan gerrymanders
5. 4. Simplified Example: Red vs. Blue Gerrymander 50/50 population  75/25 representation Technique = “Packing” light green district
6. 5. Mid-Census Redistricting: Texas 2003 Map: Liberal Travis County divided up to reduce liberal representation / increase conservative representation
7. 6. Statistics: Increasingly Effective Gerrymanders
8. North Carolina’s Gerrymander, 1990
9. The geography of a partisan gerrymander
10. North Carolina’s Sea-Connected District 3
11. The Film Gerrymandering
12. B. Race-Based Gerrymanders 1. Concepts: Dilution and Packing Republicans sued for packing minorities together or dispersing them in small numbers across districts Democrats sued for transforming majority-minority districts into 40%-minority districts
13. Example: A divided state Let’s play the gerrymander game (60:40 population)! Everyone votes color first, then policy Blue votes for Blue and united on policy Yellow votes for Yellow but divides 2:1 against Bluish policy
14. Example: A divided state Option 1: Packing (3 Yellow, 1 Blue) – All Partisans of Color
15. Example: A divided state Option 2: Majority-Minority (2 Yellow, 2 Blue) – All Partisans of Color
16. Example: A divided state Option 3: 40/60 (4 Yellow, 0 Blue) – 1 Yellow Partisan, 3 “Bluish” Yellows
17. 2. What does minority representation mean? Is it better for Blue to elect 2 Blue partisans and 2 Yellow partisans OR 3 “Bluish” (pro-Blue agenda) Yellow and 1 Yellow partisan? a. Descriptive representation: People like me are in office b. Substantive representation: People who vote the way I want are in office
18. 3. Recent findings a. Point of equal opportunity now ≈ 40% Recent elections have seen African-American candidates win 11 of 15 Southern seats from 40-50% districts b. Drawing districts to maximize the number of minorities elected: 62% c. There is now a tradeoff between descriptive & substantive representation
19. Substantive Descriptive Descriptive and Substantive Representation, 1975-1996 60 45 Votes inSupport 40 58 35 56 30 54 25 52 Vote Score Number of Black Reps. 20 50 15 Number of 48 Black Representatives 10 46 5 44 0 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 Congress Emerging tradeoff between descriptive and substantive representation?
20. 3. Recent findings a. Point of equal opportunity now ≈ 40% Recent elections have seen African-American candidates win 11 of 15 Southern seats from 40-50% districts b. Drawing districts to maximize the number of minorities elected: 62% c.There is now a tradeoff between descriptive & substantive representation d. Reason is lower polarization on race by whites
21. Electability: High Polarization
22. Electability: Low Polarization
23. d. Decreased racial voting in recent decades: Electoral Equations 94th Congress 99th Congress 104th Congress South East Other Decreased racially-polarized voting within the electorate.
24. Measuring Substantive Representation Great leaps have been made in the past two decades in the analysis of voting behavior This is now commonly used as a measure of members’ policy preferences Not because voting is the only important act But because it correlates with constituency service, committee work, etc. For substantive representation of black interests, define a legislator’s Black Support Score:BSS= % of votes cast with the black majority
25. White Dem. Black Dem. South Carolina State House Rep.
26. Georgia State Senate, 1999-2002
27. Overall Expected Representation Can compare plans by calculating the expected substantive representation Combines prob. of election and support scores For Georgia, this was: Real argument is over the distribution of these scores, not over descriptive vs. substantive representation
28. Trends, 1974-2004 Show changes in Election probabilities Substantive representation Maximizing plans Results: Greater crossover in voting means point of equal opportunity is under 50% BVAP Southern Democrats become more liberal A tradeoff emerges between substantive and descriptive representation
29. White Dems White Dems Black Dems Probability Probability Republicans Black Dems Republicans Black Dems White Dems Black Dems Republicans Probability Probability Republicans White Dems
30. Substantive Representation, 1974-2000
31. e. Implications for Substantive Representation In the 1970s: 100% Concentrate African-American voters as much as possible Essentially, no white will vote for black representatives In the 1980s: 65% Strategy is still to elect African-Americans to office In the 1990s & 2000s: 45% Still a good chance of electing African-Americans Now better to spread influence across districts
32. C. The Law on Redistricting
33. 1. Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states… Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers… The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative…”
34. 2. Apportionment Act of 1842 In 1842: 6 states elected Representatives at large (winner take all) – equal to a 100% partisan gerrymander 25 states used single member districts (or only had one district) The Act mandated SMD: “should be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory equal in number to the number of representatives to which said state may be entitled, no one district electing more than one representative.
35. 3. The Fate of the 1842 provisions Some states ignored the 1842 Act; their representatives were seated anyway Parts were repealed, reinstated, and finally wiped out by Wood v. Broom (1932), which held that apportionment acts extended only until the next such act Some states retained at-large election until the late 1960s 1967: PL 90-196 mandates SMD but not contiguity
36. 4. The Supreme Court in the 1960s a. Baker v. Carr (1962): Court has the power to hear challenges to constitutionality of districts under the Equal Protection Clause. Suggests “one person, one vote” standard. Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, leading to huge population disparities between districts (up to 10:1) Dissent: “Plaintiffs here invoked the right to vote and have their vote counted, but they are permitted to vote and their vote is already counted. The complaint being made here is that their vote is not powerful enough. They should seek relief in the legislative system, not the courts.”
37. b. Reynolds and Wesberry (1964) Wesberry v. Sanders: Article I Section 2 requires House districts to be as nearly equal in population as possible Reynolds v. Sims: Equal Protection Clause extends “one person, one vote” standard to state legislatures
38. 5. Section V of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a. “Covered” jurisdictions (< 50% voting in 1960/1964 and used a device to limit voting -- including most of the South) need federal approval for changes in laws that might affect voting Redistricting, at all levels Changes in Electoral Systems Annexation/De-annexation of suburbs, etc.
39. 5. Section V of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 b. Act prohibits “retrogression:” the purpose or effect of discriminating against voters based on race, color, or language minority group (Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans). Examples: Going back to at-large elections from districts Annexing suburbs to dilute minority voting power in the city as a whole c. Unique: prior restraint on state actions d. Not permanent; renewed for 25 years in 2006 e. Upheld by Supreme Court as valid exercise of 15thAmendment powers; under renewed challenge
40. 6. Race and Redistricting in the 1990s (all 5-4 conservative-liberal splits) a. Shaw v. Reno (1993): States may not draw districts solely on basis of race (violates Equal Protection Clause), even under the VRA b. Miller v. Johnson (1995): Need not maximize voting power of minorities where they are minorities c. Bush v. Vera (1996): Majority-minority districts not required, will be struck down if race is primary reason for drawing; de facto requirement for compactness and contiguity
41. Bush v. Vera Majority Opinion: “[B]izarre shape and noncompactness cause constitutional harm insofar as they convey the message that political identity is, or should be, predominantly racial. . . . [C]utting across pre-existing precinct lines and other natural or traditional divisions, is not merely evidentially significant; it is part of the constitutional problem insofar as it disrupts nonracial bases of identity and thus intensifies the emphasis on race.”
42. Limits on Majority-Minority Districts? Race cannot be only reason to draw a district Districts must be contiguous (one solid block). Not much of a limit: This “earmuff” district in Illinois connects two Latino neighborhoods with I-294 corridor
43. d. Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003) Georgia reduced majority-minority districts to create minority-competitive districts (i.e. about 45% African-American) Appealed to the Supreme Court as Georgia v. Ashcroft Court ruled for Georgia, stating that: Retrogression is about more than electing minorities to office Minorities could choose to trade off descriptive and substantive representation Court relied heavily on the fact that most African-Americans vote Democratic
44. Georgia v. Ashcroft: Measuring Retrogression in Electability Forget categories; just use the probability of electing a minority candidate in each district Estimate this using “S-curves” Then add up the probabilities to get the expected number of minorities elected Can consider the variance of this distribution, too For Georgia, the proposed plan had slightly fewer expected minorities elected Problem with overpopulated districts
45. Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier Substantive
46. Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ Substantive
47. 1 2 3 4 Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ Substantive
48. 1 2 3 4 Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ X X Substantive Pre-Ashcroft
49. 1 2 3 4 Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ X Substantive Post-Ashcroft
50. 1 2 3 4 Ashcroft & Substantive Representation Descriptive Pareto Frontier SQ X P Substantive A move to P is now non-retrogressive
51. D. Accidental Gerrymanders: State Lines and Racial/Ethnic Plurality If the US was 100% regionally segregated: 34 Non-Latino White states 8 Latino states 7 African-American states 1 Asian-American state Reality: 50 Non-Latino White states
52. E. Who should decide? 1. Does the system make a difference?
53. a. Legislatures are biased
54. b. Courts are biased
55. 2. Proposals for Reform Legislative Services Bureau Rules: The four criteria for the Bureau's plans, in descending order of importance, are: population equality, contiguity, unity of counties and cities (maintaining county lines and “nesting” house districts within senate districts and senate districts within congressional districts), and compactness. Forbidden: political affiliation, previous election results, addresses of incumbents, or any demographic information other than population.
56. b. Math: Shortest Spline Algorithm For N Districts: Let N=A+B where A and B are as nearly equal whole numbers as possible. (For example, 7=4+3.) Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest. Repeat within each part, until N districts created. Advantages: Simple, cheap, unbiased. Disadvantages: Ignores geographic features and communities with common interests
57. Shortest Spline: Example Before: After (sketch):
58. Is geography important? Arizona’s “Grand Canyon” District 2
59. c. Compactness “Isoperimetric Quotients” Compare the area of a circle with a district’s border to the area it actually encompasses Try to minimize this number Effect: Attempt to create nearly-circular districts if possible
60. 3. Obstacles to Reform Most gerrymanders – even partisan ones – attempt to preserve most incumbents. Single-state neutrality is difficult – if all Republican states go neutral, Democrats could gain huge majorities by continuing to gerrymander their states Binding national reform requires constitutional amendment
61. II. Direct Democracy A. Origins in Progressive Movement: Advocated measures to destroy political machines and instead have direct participation by voters in the nomination of candidates and the establishment of public policy.
62. B. Types Initiative: A process in which a proposal for legislation is placed on the ballot and voters can either enact or reject the proposal without further action by the governor or legislature. (Directs vs. Indirect) Recall: A process in which voters can petition for a vote to remove officials between elections.
63. 3. Referendum Popular referendum: A process by which voters can veto a bill recently passed in the legislature by placing the issue on a ballot and expressing disapproval. Also called direct referendum. Bond referendum: A process of seeking voter approval before a government borrows money by issuing bonds to investors. Advisory referendum: A process in which voters cast nonbinding ballots on an issue or proposal.
64. C. Criticisms Laws may be poorly written No deliberation during the writing of proposition Only on whether to accept proposition Interest group capture Qualification, signature gathering have high costs Special interest tend to dominate process Complexity counter-initiatives, long ballots
65. 5. Racial/ethnic bias? a. Risk of “tyranny of the majority”
66. b. Recent Findings California study: African-Americans, Latinos and Asians are marginally less likely to vote on the winning side of a ballot initiative. Examples: Proposition 187 (1994) Prohibit undocumented immigrants from using public services (e.g., health care, education) Proposition 209 (1996) Prohibit public institutions from considering race, gender, ethnicity Proposition 227 (1998) Requires all public school instruction to be conducted in English
67. III. Voting Methods: Are Ballot Systems Equally Fair? Systems of representation Single-member simple plurality districts (SMSP) Produce strategic voting and two-party systems Minimize representation of dispersed minorities, may maximize representation of concentrated minorities Facilitate single-party majority government by turning pluralities into majorities Value some votes more than others in vote-to-seat conversions Create incentives to gerrymander
68. 2. At-Large Elections Minimize representation of minorities Give parties greater power than individual candidates
69. Natural experiment: SMSP (House) vs. At-Large (Senate) elections
70. 3. PR and STV Proportional Representation: Seats allocated on basis of vote share Maximizes representation for dispersed minorities Encourages third parties Reduces impact of negative ads (reducing single opponent’s vote share might not increase own share) Progressives adopted in early 20th century municipal elections – paired with STV…
71. b. Single Transferable Vote: Your vote ALWAYS matters! Step I: Any candidate with at least the quota of votes is declared elected. Step II: If any candidate has received more than the quota of votes then the excess or 'surplus' of votes is transferred to other candidates remaining in the count. Any candidate who obtains the quota is declared elected and the count returns to Step I. Otherwise it proceeds to Step III. Step III: The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated or 'excluded' and his or her votes are transferred to other candidates remaining in the count. The process is then repeated from Step I until all seats have been filled.
72. 4. IRV Also allows rank-ordering of candidates (same ballot as STV) If no candidate receives majority: instant runoff(s) Drop the weakest candidate from the field and assign his/her votes to voters’ second choices Repeat until one candidate has a majority Usage: Cities: San Francisco, Burlington, Oakland, Minneapolis State: North Carolina adopted instant runoff voting for judicial vacancies. Special: Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina all use forms of instant runoff voting on ballots for military and overseas voters
73. 5. Strategic Incentives Under Each System If voters are smart, what tactics will they use? Compromise (vote for lesser evil): Most intense in SMSP and At-Large, less in IRV and STV Push-Over (if favored candidate likely to make the runoff, then cast top vote for extremist on other side, not popular moderate on other side): IRV, STV
74. 6. Rewarding Sincerity: Approval Voting Method: Vote checks off all acceptable candidates Minimizes strategic voting: Voting for someone never reduces the chance they are elected Never necessary to vote for less-liked candidate to avoid disliked candidate’s election Reduced incentives for negative campaigning Danger: Can result in lowest common denominator win (OK to many, but loved by none)
75. B. The Electoral College Adoption: Alternative to previous drafts that had Congress appoint President. Goals = independence of executive from Congress, give slave states ability to block more populous states, distrust of democracy
76. 3. How Democratic is the Electoral College? p (your vote counts) = p (your vote determines your state) * p (your state determines the election) Voter-Ignorant Theory First part favors small states over large ones, if all states are equally divided (fewer votes = more likely your vote is needed) Second part also favors small states (disproportionate number of electoral votes)
77. b. Actual Effects States are not evenly split
78. As of Sept 17, 2012
79. b. Actual Effects States are not evenly split Advantage goes to voters in “swing states”
80. As of Sept 17
81. 2008 Election
82. 2008 Election
83. b. Actual Effects States are not evenly split Advantage goes to voters in “swing states” Disfavors minorities because they are disproportionately concentrated in large and less-competitive states
84. Effect on Minorities If influence of average non-Latino white voter = 1.00, then… Average African American voter = .94 Average Latino voter = .90 Average Jewish voter = .91 Average Asian-American voter = .97 Average immigrant voter = .89
85. 4. Is there support for direct popular election? Problem: 2000 election polarized voters on the issue, turning a consensus issue into a partisan one. Evidence:
86. Support for direct election of the President (2004)
87. C. Fairness of Voting Systems 1. Machine Error
88. a. Punch Cards Worst – but “Old” Paper Ballots Work Well
89. b. Voters Adapt to Electronic Voting
90. c. Paper Trails and Recounts Most electronic voting machines made by Diebold Machines easily hackable No voter-verifiable paper trail  no way to perform manual recounts or prove fraud
91. 2. Human error Mistakes more likely: Untested designs. Example: “Butterfly ballot” in Hershey First-time voters make more mistakes. Democrats: Review of optical-scan ballots in Florida 2000 showed Gore voters more likely to “overvote” than Bush voters Problem: Instruction by poll workers may be biased. (Reports in 2004 that some poll workers showed people how to vote for Kerry – others described possibility of carefully steering a few votes to different candidates)
92. D. Ballot Access Laws Provisions for major parties: Usually given special treatment Filing fees – 7% of job’s annual salary in Florida! Forced primaries – Arkansas requires self-funded party primaries in 69 of 75 counties, forbidding convention nominations. Petition requirements limit access
93. a. Signature Requirements
94. Texas
95. b. Other petition obstacles: Timing, Credentials, Challenges West Virginia Must circulate petition before primary. Crime to approach anyone without saying “If you sign my petition, you cannot vote in the primary.” Illegal to circulate petition without "credentials" from election officials. If anyone who signs a candidate's petition then votes in a primary, the signature of that person is invalid. (Impossible to know who will actually vote in the primary, too late to get signatures after the primary)
96. Illinois: Lee v. Keith Seventh Circuit struck down Illinois rules on Sept 18, 2006. No independent state legislative ballot access since 1980. Rules: Nominating petitions must be filed 323 days before election Required signatures = 10% of vote in last election for the office sought Anyone who signs the petitions is barred from voting in any party primary All signatures must be collected within 90 days of the deadline
97. E. The Law of Voting Systems No right to vote for President or even Presidential electors: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States...” – Bush vs. Gore Equal Protection Clause: “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another…It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” – Bush vs. Gore
98. 3. Voting Rights Act of 1965 Section 2 Regulates Voting Arrangements Made illegal all voting arrangements that “deny or abridge” minorities’ right to vote E.g., at-large voting for city councils This section is nation-wide and permanent
99. III. Voter Integrity or Voter Suppression? Widely-supported values are incompatible Get Out the Vote: Voting is a fundamental right that must never be abridged Voter Integrity: Only legal votes should be counted Agreements: Both assume democratic elections are best, citizens should choose their leaders, government must be accountable, etc
100. 4. Incompatibility Get Out the Vote efforts may increase fraudulent voting Those hired to register voters have incentives to register fake/ineligible ones Multiple registration opportunities / bans on voter purges make it difficult to remove voters who become ineligible (crime, relocation, death) Motor-voter enables ineligible people with driver’s licenses to register (generally aliens and felons) Easy registration = easy fraud Fraud most pronounced in registration rather than actual voting
101. b. Voter Integrity efforts suppress legitimate votes Photo ID imposes costs of documentation on voters, especially poor, disabled, and elderly (non-mobile) Registration purges eliminate legitimate voters Example -- Florida tried to purge felons in 2000 but up to 80% of list was erroneous: felons from non-disenfranchisement states, people with the wrong names, people with restored voting records, people charged but not convicted, etc.
102. iii. Preventing registration fraud also prevents registration Punishing registration fraud means threatening voter-registration drives with criminal penalties for mistakes Creating an “intent to defraud” element makes the threat of punishment ineffective (difficult to prove intent)
103. B. Government Action Partisanship Republicans tend to support purges, photo ID, and stiff penalties for illegally voting (Voter Integrity). They fear that people prohibited from voting will vote more than they fear being unable to vote. Democrats tend to support automatic or same-day registration (Get Out the Vote). They fear being unable to vote more than that people prohibited from voting will vote.
104. 2. Federal Laws 24th Amendment – Bans poll tax. Used by US District Court to overturn Georgia’s Photo ID Act in 2005 But US Supreme Court upheld Indiana law (6-3) in 2008. Key difference = free photo ID (but not free documents) Voting Rights Act (Section 4): Banned states from imposing most “tests or devices” on individuals’ right to vote Literacy Tests “Good Character” Requirements Language Barriers (added in 1975 -- controversial) Together with Section V (preclearance): Used to block Texas Voter ID law (presumption against state, discriminatory effect proven, no free alternative ID) by District Court panel  appealed
105. c. Help America Vote Act of 2002 First-time voters who register by mail must show identification -- driver's license, government ID card or other specified documentation -- in order to vote Requires accessible polling machines for disabled and non-English speakers Requires centralized registration lists Imposes standards of accuracy on voting machines Creates “provisional ballot” for non-verified voters instead of challenge system
106. 3. State Laws Photo ID requirements Tend to reduce minority voting  challenges under VRA (minorities 4-5 times as likely to lack photo ID as non-Latino whites). June 2005 Milwaukee County study: 47% of African American adults, 43% of Latino adults have valid drivers license (compared to 85 percent of non-Latino white adults).
107. b. Voting Machine Regulations Require machines to be manually audited for accuracy, voter-verified paper trails (VVPR)
108. c. Felony Disenfranchisement: Another Clash of Values Punishment of felons vs. citizenship for those who “repay their debt to society” Disproportionately affects minority voters (= initial purpose when adopted after Reconstruction) Currently disenfranchised: 13% of African-American men, about 7% of Latino men, about 3% of non-Latino white men.
109. % Adult Population Disenfranchised
110. IV. Voter Intimidation and Suppression Overt threats are rare – VRA makes them felonies, local police usually investigate threats. Even subtle intimidation is rarely tolerated. (Example: GOP planned to videotape voters/license plates in minority precincts in some NC counties in 1998. Justice Department threatened to prosecute under VRA) Intimidation usually targeted at minorities – Voting patterns make it possible to infer a group’s likely political impact based race/ethnicity. Other targeted groups = college students, elderly. Example of strategic vote suppression: In 2004, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election.” (African Americans comprise 83% of Detroit’s population.)
111. C. Vote Suppression Strategies Abuses by law enforcement (rare) Examples: Waller County DA and Prairie View A&M students 2004 (DA ignores 1978 court order) South Dakota’s 2004 primary: Native Americans prevented from voting after photo IDs demanded (which are not required under state or federal law)
112. 2. Exploiting fears of law enforcement (more common) a. Jesse Helms and the “Voter Registration Bulletins” Jesse Helms = Divisive Politics Margins of Victory: 54-46, 55-45, 52-48, 53-47, 53-46. 1990 Senate Election (NC) – Jesse Helms vs. Harvey Gantt Close election: Gantt has early lead 125,000 North Carolina voters (97% African American) sent postcards that said: They are not eligible to vote if they have moved (false) If they tried, they could be prosecuted for vote fraud (also false) Helms wins. 1992: Helms campaign charged with violating Voting Rights Act of 1965, admits guilt. No penalty.
113. b. 1998: Threats continue Dillon County, SC: State Rep. Son Kinon (R) mails 3000 African-Americans brochures: “You have always been my friend, so don't chance GOING TO JAIL on Election Day!...SLED agents, FBI agents, people from the Justice Department and undercover agents will be in Dillon County working this election. People who you think are your friends, and even your neighbors, could be the very ones that turn you in. THIS ELECTION IS NOT WORTH GOING TO JAIL!!!!!!”
114. c. 2002: Flyer distributed in African-American districts in Baltimore, November 4
115. d. 2003: Philadelphia Voters in African American areas challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia.
116. e. 2004: Many Cases
117. 2004: Milwaukee
118. 2004: Prairie View A&M Historically-black university District Attorney threatens to prosecute students who register to vote After lawsuits, Texas Attorney General steps in to contradict DA
119. 2006: Letter to Latinos in California from Nguyen (R) campaign (English translation)
120. 2008: Letter to Virginia Tech College Students “The Code of Virginia states that a student must declare a legal residence in order to register…By making Montgomery County your permanent residence, you have declared your independence from your parents and can no longer be claimed as a dependent on their income tax filings — check with your tax professional.” False: US Tax Code allows students to be dependents even if they have a different residence. “If you have a scholarship attached to your former residence, you could lose this funding.” No known example – ever. Effect: More than 1000 students withdraw their registration applications College students are common targets for intimidation, regardless of color (often outnumber local voters). Most common in local elections.
121. 3. Suppressing the Vote Without Intimidation Misinformation 1990 Texas (Gregg County): Elderly sent postcards advising them to discard absentee ballots and walk into the polls (must cancel absentee ballot well before voting at the polls) 2002 Louisiana runoff – flyers distributed to public housing claim that election will be delayed by three days if it rains
122. iii. Franklin County, Ohio (2004)
123. Texas, 2010 Texas has no law prohibiting deceptive election practices
124. Wisconsin,2012 recall Anti-Walker group sends out letters with names and voting history of neighbors, ostensibly to “get out the vote”
125. b. Illegal Means 2004: Republican committee in New Hampshire jams Democrats’ lines to prevent voter transportation  Felony convictions result.
126. c. Vote Caging Definition: Voter registration analysis and challenges conducted via use of mailing lists Technique: Mail postcards or flyers marked “do not forward / return to sender,” make a list of those returned, challenge those voters at the polls as nonresidents Problem: Prevents military personnel and others entitled to vote from voting. Easy to target mailings to only minority neighborhoods. Status: Republican Party agreed to consent decree following 1986 elections that prohibited caging targeting minorities or conducted via mass mailings. Memos show technique used in 2004 election, and suit underway over use of foreclosure lists in Michigan to compile challenges for 2008.
127. 4. General patterns mirror the values divide on voting Democrats more likely to be identified with fraudulent voting Republicans more likely to be identified with vote suppression Electoral Math: 1 fraudulent vote = 1 vote suppressed. Unclear which one is more rampant. Can both be eliminated?
128. V. Campaign Finance: Government for Sale?
129. A. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) Restricted “issue ads” targeting candidates 60 days before election – if funded by corporations, unions, or political nonprofits Banned “soft money” for national parties Prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and minors Imposed tougher disclosure rules, including “Stand by Your Ad” provisions
130. B. Citizens United v. FEC (2010, 5-4) Relied on FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc (2007, 5-4) Largely overturned McConnell vs. FEC (2003 5-4 decision upholding BCRA) Held that corporations are people for First Amendment purposes – struck down the “issue ads” limitations
131. C. Remaining “Loopholes” Soft Money to State Parties Hard Money Limits Doubled “Issue” attack ads unlimited (after citizens United) 527 Groups and “independent expenditures”
132. Top Contributors to 527s (9/16/12) Mostly pro-Democratic unions
133. Top 527s (9/16/12)
134. C. Remaining “Loopholes” Soft Money to State Parties Hard Money Limits Doubled “Issue” attack ads unlimited (after citizens United) 527 Groups and “independent expenditures” Corporate Subsidiaries
135. Example: AIG helps Pataki, May 13, 2003 Note the sequentially-numbered checks from the same bank account
136. D. Who Pays? (9/16/12)
137. Totals as of Sept 16, 2012:
138. D. Texas: Campaign Finance Laws No contribution limits Weak disclosure rules No public financing
139. 2. Local Races (2012) TX-31: Incumbent is John Carter (R) – About $700,000 (against non-reporting opponent)
140. 2. Local Races (2012) TX-25: Incumbent is Lloyd Doggett (D) – Raised $1.3 million against $85,000 by opponent (15:1 ratio)
141. 2. Statewide Data
142. 2. Statewide Data Senate race: Open Seat contest between Ted Cruz (R - $8.8 million) and Paul Sadler (D - $200,000)
143. E. Alternatives “Clean Money, Clean Elections” – Public Financing Campaign Finance Amendment – Allow regulation of individual expenditures Hands-Off – Treat all contributions as protected speech
144. VI. Stolen Elections? A. Definition: Invented or deliberately destroyed ballots altered the winner Difficulty: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” – Bush v. Gore
145. B. Presidential Elections
146. 1. Hayes vs. Tilden: 1876 South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana contested by Republicans (fraud, threats of violence alleged) Republican election boards award victory in state races to Republican governors and legislatures Republican legislatures then award all disputed electoral votes to Hayes by subtracting sufficient “fraudulent” Democratic votes from returns Note: Supreme Court considered too partisan to hear dispute (Electoral Commission created by Congress) Commission votes on party lines (8-7) to award all electoral votes to Hayes
147. 2. 1960: JFK vs. Nixon Close election in many states, including Texas, Illinois RNC requests recounts in 11 states Most find no irregularities Texas: Federal courts dismiss Republican challenge Illinois: Recount of Cook County finds 943 new Nixon votes (4500 needed) Hawaii: Recount awards state to Kennedy Most political scientists: Fraud occurred (esp. in Cook County) but didn’t tip the election
148. 3. Bush vs. Gore: 2000 Gore received more votes in Florida than Bush (post-election recount of “over” and “under” votes by press organizations) BUT Gore’s proposed recount (“under” votes only) would not have revealed enough spoiled Gore ballots  Different decision in Bush vs. Gore would probably not have led to Gore win!
149. 4. 2004: Kerry vs. Bush Clear evidence of vote fraud (participation rates over 100%) Some partisanship in vote challenges: Partisan judges tend to differentially uphold provisional ballots No evidence that scale of fraud was sufficient to alter result
150. C. Other Elections Clear examples of stolen elections exist at other levels of government LBJ wins the Democratic Senate primary in Texas, 1948  If fraud didn’t get him elected, it wasn’t for lack of trying (both sides probably committed fraud with THOUSANDS of ballots – but LBJ controlled more election supervisors and less than 200 votes determined the winner) 200 “extra” ballots were “found” – all cast in alphabetical order and marked in the same handwriting and with the same dark ink
151. Louisiana 1996 Landrieu (D) defeats Jenkins (R) by 5788 votes. Jenkins submits affidavits alleging more than 7000 fraudulent votes, although some later recant. Senate investigation upholds the election
152. Miami 1997: Brazen Fraud “Winning” Democratic mayoral candidate Suarez (by a few hundred votes): Employed local organized crime figures to forge hundreds of absentee ballots in the name of elderly, nonresident, or dead people Offered homeless people $10 to cast fraudulent absentee ballots in others’ names People interviewed by Miami Herald openly admit voting despite being nonresidents. Herald concludes that people simply don’t care about the election law. March 1998: Court throws out 4740 absentee ballots due to evidence of tampering, orders “losing” Republican candidate installed as mayor
153. D. How to steal an election The old-fashioned way: rig the machines and stuff ballot boxes (poll watchers make this difficult today) The big-city way: supporters register in multiple precincts, vote in all of them (has become risky so few volunteer) The easy way: absentee ballots Nearly every recent “stolen election” involved massive absentee ballot fraud Both parties afraid to touch absentee ballots – Elderly (Pro-Dem) and Military (Pro-Rep) both use extensively. The subtle way: deprive them of voting machines (many people won’t wait in line for eight hours to vote)