Of all the ridiculous schemes that have been floated by the President or AG Barr for how mail-in ballot fraud could affect the election, the possibility of a foreign entity swaying election by mailing fraudulent absentee ballots is the most ludicrous. It defies common sense. /1
To begin with, mail-in ballots are very hard to duplicate on the fly. Each jurisdiction has their own ballot format, form of paper, and races differ for voters by their respective districts. Ballot envelopes also often contain coding that helps election officials track them. /2
Ballot forms must contain certain information that must be verified, like a signature, identification information, and sometimes witness requirements. These would all have to be faked, and done in a way to escape attention. /3
Imagine if a foreign government got voter registration information, miraculously faked the ballot form, paper, tracking information, etc., and then faked signatures. Voters who requested a mail-in ballot would find out someone else voted their ballots. /4
The foreign government would have to do this at scale to produce thousands of votes in even the closest swing state to try to change the outcome. With everyone watching and many states allowing voters to track their ballots this becomes impossible. /5
When we've seen small-scale attempts at absentee ballot fraud (such as the Republican candidate manager's attempt to tamper with ballots in 2018 #NC09 race and the current issues in Paterson, NJ), they are detected, and they involve tens or hundreds of ballots at most. /6
And by the way the same guy accused of fraud to help the Republican candidate in 2018 in #NC09 was accused of doing so in 2016 too. North Carolina officials notified the feds who did NOTHING because they were looking for small scale voter fraud to please Trump /7
Details about how federal officials looked the other way on ballot tampering in North Carolina in 2016 appear in my book, #ElectionMeltdown. /8
In 2020, EVERYONE is going to be watching absentee balloting very carefully, in part because of reckless claims of fraud raised by Trump about mail-in balloting. I expect we will see reports of lots of small-scale things, but no evidence of fraud that could affect election. /9
For example, there will no doubt be ballots sent to some voters who are dead or otherwise no longer eligible to vote. There will be ballots that will be found abandoned or misdirected because a voter did not receive them. But that's not proof of fraudulently voted ballots. /10
And if anyone tries to mess with absentee ballots, you can bet that the media and prosecutors will be all over it. Doing this requires a conspiracy among a lot of people or messing with a lot of people's ballots. This gets noticed. /11
But foreign government massive interference with mail-in voting? No way. The opposite of "common sense." Instead, I suspect we will see foreign entities like Russia amplifying Trump's false statements about vote by mail fraud to try to delegitimize election. /12
And I suspect that the biggest danger of absentee ballots is not fraud but that many voters will be inadvertently disenfranchised when they vote by mail for the first time and so something like forgetting to seal or sign the envelope. cc @ElectProject. /13
Mail in ballots are far from perfect and rolling out push for vote by mail in the midst of a pandemic without adequate funding is a big problem. But given health risks, many voters will find it safest way to vote. We need BOTH safe in-person and mail voting for 2020. /14
THAT's common sense and that's what AG Barr should be pushing for instead of amplifying ridiculous and dangerous conspiracy theories about vote-by-mail that threaten the legitimacy of the 2020 elections. 15/15
Making a million dollar prize contingent on registering to vote is illegal. See 52 USC 10307(c) govinfo.gov/content/pkg/US… Also, with PA registration soon closing for this election it may not accomplish what Musk wants. x.com/hugolowell/sta…
The DOJ election crimes manual specifically mentions lotteries for voters as prohibited vote buying under that statute. . See pages 44-45justice.gov/criminal/file/…
Blog post at #ELB: Elon Musk Veers Into Clearly Illegal Vote Buying, Offering $1 Million Per Day Lottery Prize Only to Registered Voters electionlawblog.org/?p=146397
Rick Hasen’s Live Blog of the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument Over Trump’s Claim of Immunity in the Federal Election Subversion Case (Refresh this page frequently for updates) electionlawblog.org/?p=142644
Today under the auspices of @UCLA_Law #SafeguardingDemocracyProject, an ad hoc cross-ideological diverse committee has issued a major report: "24 for ’24: Urgent Recommendations in Law, Media, Politics, and Tech for Fair and Legitimate 2024 Elections." /1 law.ucla.edu/sites/default/…
Back in March, the UCLA Law Safeguarding Democracy Project held a conference, Can American Democracy Survive the 2024 Elections? /2law.ucla.edu/academics/cent…
Following the conference some of the participants met as an ad hoc committee to consider recommendations in law, politics, media, and tech for fair and legitimate elections in 2024. /3
About to be done producing free content for Elon here. Might just keep up automated tweets linking to blog posts. Find me @rickhasen@mastodon.online
Gonna need a lot of help here. Thank you all
I had started posting @rickhasen@mastodon.online yesterday and the posts were automatically coming here as tweets too thanks to the mastodon-twitter cross-poster. I've turned that off. So follow me over there if you want my content.
Garland has a lot of control over who gets appointed as special counsel. He can pick someone with integrity and respect on both sides of the aisle. And someone who can act quickly. He understands how Mueller faltered.
Garland also will have ultimate control over what happens. Better to appoint the counsel quickly, as it was inevitable that Trump was going to run for office and claim a witch hunt no matter what.
I do not believe anything in the RNC consent decree prevented the RNC from pursuing litigation over election rules.
There are other reasons by election litigation has exploded, nearly tripling in the period since Bush v. Gore in 2000.
A few explanations:
1. The 2000 election taught political operatives that in close elections, it may be possible to litigate to victory. That's especially true in a system that is decentralized and partisan, where there are lots of discretionary decisions to be made over how elections are run. /2
2. As @derektmuller has shown, recent changes in federal campaign finance law allow political parties to raise special funds for litigation. They have millions to spend, so why not sue over election rules? /3