The Electoral Process

1
The Electoral Process

• Fair Game or Stacked Deck?

2
(No Transcript)
3
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.

4
A. Political Gerrymanders

• 1. Generally regarded as legal
• 2. Easier with modern technology Geographic
  Information Systems used to plot voting patterns

5
(No Transcript)
6
3. Simplified Example Red vs. Blue Gerrymander

• 50/50 population ? 75/25 representation
• Technique Packing light green district

7
4. Mid-Census Redistricting Texas 2003

• Map Liberal Travis County divided up to reduced
  liberal representation / increase conservative
  representation

8
4. Statistics Increasingly Effective Gerrymanders
9
North Carolinas Gerrymander, 1990
10
The geography of a partisan gerrymander
11
North Carolinas Sea-Connected District 3
12
B. Incumbent Protection
13
C. Race-Based Gerrymanders

• 1. Concepts Dilution and Representation
• 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

14
Example A divided state

• Lets play the gerrymander game (6040
  population)!
• Everyone votes color first, then policy
• Purple votes for Purple and united on policy
• Beige votes for Beige but divides 21 against
  Purplish policy

15
Example A divided state

• Option 1 Packing (3 Beige, 1 Purple) All
  Partisans of Color

16
Example A divided state

• Option 2 Majority-Minority (2 Beige, 2 Purple)
  All Partisans of Color

17
Example A divided state

• Option 3 40/60 (4 Beige, 0 Purple) 1 Beige
  Partisan, 3 Purplish Beige

18
2. What does minority representation mean?

• Is it better for Purple to elect
• 2 Beige partisans and 2 Purple partisans
• OR
• 3 Purplish (pro-Purple agenda) Beige and 1
  Beige partisan?
• a. Descriptive representation People like me are
  in office
• b. Substantive representation People who vote
  the way I want are in offfice

19
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

20
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?
21
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.
22
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

23
4. The Law on Race and Redistricting Section V
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

• a. Covered jurisdictions (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.
• b. Unique prior restraint on state actions
• c. Not permanent recently renewed

24
d. Implementation Controversies

• i. Standard for preclearance is retrogression
• Examples of retrogression
• Going back to at-large elections from districts
• Annexing suburbs to dilute minority voting power
  in the city as a whole
• ii. Unclear how this applies to redistricting
• Depends on your theory of the relation between
  districting and representation (substantive vs.
  descriptive)

25
iii. The Standard Model of Minority Electoral
Success

• Majority-minority districts are necessary given
  polarized voting.
• Otherwise, with plurality-winner elections,
  minorities will remain unrepresented.
• Assumes no tradeoff between descriptive
  representation and substantive representation
• Old Rule cannot reduce the number of
  majority-minority districts

26
iv. Georgia v. Ashcroft Changing the rules

• 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

27
v. 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

28
5. 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

29
(No Transcript)
30
D. Who should decide?

• 1. Does the system make a difference?

31
a. Legislatures are biased
32
b. Courts are biased
33
2. Proposals for Reform

• Nonpartisan commissions Iowas 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.

34
b. Math Shortest Spline Algorithm

• For N Districts
• Let NAB where A and B are as nearly equal whole
  numbers as possible. (For example, 743.)
• Among all possible dividing lines that split the
  state into two parts with population ratio AB,
  choose the shortest.
• Repeat within each part, until N districts
  created.
• Advantages Simple, cheap, unbiased.
• Disadvantages Ignores geographic features and
  communities with common interests

35
Shortest Spline Example

• Before

• After (sketch)

36
Is geography important? Arizonas Grand Canyon
District 2
37
c. Compactness

• Isoperimetric Quotients
• Compare the area of a circle with a districts
  border to the area it actually encompasses
• Try to minimize this number
• Effect Attempt to create nearly-circular
  districts if possible

38
3. Obstacles to Reform

1. Most gerrymanders even partisan ones attempt
   to preserve most incumbents.
2. Single-state neutrality is difficult if all
   Republican states go neutral, Democrats could
   gain huge majorities by continuing to gerrymander
   their states
3. Binding national reform requires constitutional
   amendment

39
II. Voting Methods Are Ballot Systems Equally
Fair?

• Systems of representation
• Single-member 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

40
2. At-Large Elections

• Minimize representation of minorities
• Give parties greater power than individual
  candidates

41
Natural experiment SMSP (House) vs. At-Large
(Senate) elections
42
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
  opponents vote share might not increase own
  share)
• Progressives adopted in early 20th century
  municipal elections paired with STV

43
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.

44
4. IRV

• Also allows rank-ordering of candidates
• 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, Ferndale,
  Berkeley
• 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

45
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

46
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 candidates election
• Reduced incentives for negative campaigning
• Danger Can result in lowest common denominator
  win (OK to many, but loved by none)

47
B. The Electoral College

1. Adoption Alternative to previous drafts that had
   Congress appoint President.
2. Goals independence of executive from Congress,
   give slave states ability to block more populous
   states, distrust of democracy

48
3. How Democratic is the Electoral College?

• p (your vote counts) p (your vote determines
  your state) p (your state determines the
  election)
• Favors small states over large ones

49
How easy is it to determine which elector is
selected?

• Lower Better for the Voter

50
3. How Democratic is the Electoral College?

• p (your vote counts) p (your vote determines
  your state) p (your state determines the
  election)
• Favors small states over large ones
• Favors close states over safe ones

51
Relative Electoral Power
Voter influence compared to average voter, as of
Sept 17
NH Obama 1 100.0
CO Obama 1 72.1
NV McCain 1 68.4
MT Tied 61.9
ND McCain 3 57.1
MN Obama 2 43.4
PA Obama 2 42.1
VA Tied 40.6
NM Obama 4 30.0
52
3. How Democratic is the Electoral College?

• p (your vote counts) p (your vote determines
  your state) p (your state determines the
  election)
• Favors small states over large ones
• Favors close states over safe ones
• Disfavors minorities because they are
  disproportionately concentrated in large states

53
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

54
C. Fairness of Voting Systems

• 1. Machine Error

55
a. Punch Cards Worst but Old Paper Ballots
Work Well
56
b. Voters Adapt to Electronic Voting
57
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

58
2. Human error

• Mistakes more likely
• Untested designs. Example Butterfly ballot in
  Hershey
• First-time voters
• 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 showed some poll
  workers showed people how to vote for Kerry
  others described possibility of carefully
  steering a few votes to different candidates)

59
D. Ballot Access Laws

1. Provisions for major parties Usually given
   special treatment
2. Filing fees 7 of jobs annual salary in
   Florida!
3. Forced primaries Arkansas requires self-funded
   party primaries in 69 of 75 counties, forbidding
   convention nominations.
4. Petition requirements limit access

60
a. Signature Requirements
61
(No Transcript)
62
(No Transcript)
63
Texas
64
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)

65
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

66
E. The Law of Voting Systems

1. 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
2. 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 anotherIt must be
   remembered that the right of suffrage can be
   denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight
   of a citizens vote just as effectively as by
   wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the
   franchise. Bush vs. Gore

67
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

68
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

69
4. Incompatibility

• Get Out the Vote efforts 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
  drivers licenses to register (generally aliens
  and felons)
• Easy registration easy fraud

70
(No Transcript)
71
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.

72
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)

73
B. Government Action

• Partisanship
• Republicans tend to support purges, photo ID, and
  stiff penalties for illegally voting (Voter
  Integrity). They fear fraud more than 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 fraud.

74
2. Federal Laws

• 24th Amendment Bans poll tax. Used by US
  District Court to overturn Georgias 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)

75
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

76
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).

77
(No Transcript)
78
b. Voting Machine Regulations

• Require machines to be manually audited for
  accuracy, voter-verified paper trails (VVPR)

79
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.

80
(No Transcript)
81
Other disenfranchisement laws
82
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
  groups 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 Detroits population.)

83
C. Vote Suppression Strategies

• Abuses by law enforcement (rare) Examples
• Waller County DA and Prairie View AM students
  2004 (DA ignores 1978 court order)
• South Dakotas 2004 primary Native Americans
  prevented from voting after photo IDs demanded
  (which are not required under state or federal
  law)

84
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.

85
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!!!!!!

86
c. 2002 Flyer distributed in African-American
districts in Baltimore, November 4
87
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.

88
e. 2004 Many Cases
89
2004 Milwaukee
90
2004 Prairie View AM

• Historically-black university
• District Attorney threatens to prosecute students
  who register to vote
• After lawsuits, Texas Attorney General steps in
  to contradict DA

91
2006 Letter to Latinos in California from Nguyen
(R) campaign (English translation)
92
2008 Letter to Virginia Tech College Students

• The Code of Virginia states that a student must
  declare a legal residence in order to registerBy
  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.

93
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

94

• iii. Franklin County, Ohio (2004)

95
b. Illegal Means

• 2004 Republican committee in New Hampshire jams
  Democrats lines to prevent voter transportation
  ? Felony convictions result.

96
c. Vote Caging

1. Definition Voter registration analysis and
   challenges conducted via use of mailing lists
2. 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
3. Problem Prevents military personnel and others
   entitled to vote from voting. Easy to target
   mailings to only minority neighborhoods.
4. 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.

97
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?

98
V. Campaign Finance Government for Sale?
99
A. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

1. Restricts issue ads targeting candidates 60
   days before election if funded by corporations,
   unions, or political nonprofits
2. Bans soft money for national parties
3. Prohibits contributions from foreign nationals
   and minors
4. Tougher disclosure rules, including Stand by
   Your Ad provisions

100
B. Remaining Loopholes

1. Soft Money to State Parties
2. Hard Money Limits Doubled
3. 527 Groups and independent expenditures

101
Spending of Top 527 Organizations, 2008
Service Employees International Union 24,014,524
Soros Fund Management 4,900,000
Shangri-La Entertainment 4,850,000
Fund for America 3,770,000
Las Vegas Sands 3,597,632
Oak Spring Farms Llc 3,480,000
United Brotherhood Of Carpenters 2,786,690
United Food Commercial Workers Intl Un 2,255,000
Friends Of America Votes 1,769,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees 1,672,500
National Assn of Realtors 1,556,600
America Votes 2006 1,450,000
Sheet Metal Workers General Fund 1,050,000
Trust Asset Management 1,000,000
102
B. Remaining Loopholes

1. Soft Money to State Parties
2. Hard Money Limits Doubled
3. 527 Groups and independent expenditures
4. Corporate subsidiaries

103
Example AIG helps Pataki, May 13, 2003

• Note the sequentially-numbered checks from the
  same bank account

104
C. Who Pays? 2004 Cycle
Rank Sector Amount Dems Repubs
1 Finance/Insur/RealEst 334,790,787 41 59
2 Other 264,089,318 53 46
3 Lawyers Lobbyists 210,192,147 71 29
4 Misc Business 207,651,749 41 59
5 Ideology/Single-Issue 180,671,201 62 38
6 Health 123,751,860 39 61
7 Communic/Electronics 101,711,488 59 40
8 Construction 71,669,072 28 72
9 Labor 61,484,080 87 13
10 Agribusiness 52,934,403 29 71
11 Energy/Nat Resource 52,697,046 25 75
12 Transportation 51,338,278 26 74
13 Defense 16,341,812 37 63
105
C. Who Pays? 2008 Cycle
Rank Sector Amount Dems Repubs
1 Finance/Insur/RealEst 311,235,860 51 49
2 Other 228,049,781 56 44
3 Lawyers Lobbyists 175,416,473 73 27
4 Misc Business 156,853,038 52 48
5 Ideology/Single-Issue 136,135,448 66 34
6 Health 100,790,159 54 46
7 Communic/Electronics 82,722,407 67 33
8 Construction 54,739,270 37 63
9 Energy/Nat Resource 46,052,609 37 63
10 Labor 45,705,009 91 9
11 Agribusiness 40,265,257 41 59
12 Transportation 36,544,033 38 62
13 Defense 17,309,431 52 48
106
Totals as of Sept 8, 2008
Races Democrats Republicans
President 771 million 271 million
House 378 million 312 million
Senate 153 million 104 million
TOTALS 1.3 billion 687 million
COMBINED About 2 billion COMBINED About 2 billion COMBINED About 2 billion
107
D. Texas Campaign Finance

• No contribution limits
• Weak disclosure rules
• No public financing

108
Local John Carter (R-House)

• 724,531 vs. Brian Ruizs 12,595

109
Local John Cornyn (R Senate)

• 16.4 million vs. Rick Noriegas 2.4 million

110
E. Alternatives

1. Clean Money, Clean Elections Public Financing
2. Campaign Finance Amendment Allow regulation of
   individual expenditures
3. Hands-Off Treat all contributions as protected
   speech

111
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

112
B. Presidential Elections
113
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

114
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 didnt tip the election

115
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 Gores 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!

116
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

117
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 didnt get him elected, it wasnt
  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

118
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

119
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 dont 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

120
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 wont wait in line for eight hours
  to vote)