Rich Hasen: Trump Needs Three Consecutive Hail Mary Passes

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Luke Ford

Professor Richard Hasen writes in The Atlantic:

Despite the clear math showing that Joe Biden has won the election, President Donald Trump has refused to concede. He has directed his legal team to keep on fighting to try to overturn the results of the election, including in a new 105-page federal-court filing in Pennsylvania. These legal maneuvers are unlikely to pay off in the form of a second term for Trump; he would need the equivalent of three consecutive Hail Mary passes to stay in office.

But what Trump and his legal team are doing can nevertheless cause real harm to the country going forward, should millions of people believe Trump’s false statements that Biden won the election through fraud. It is this near certainty, and not the long-shot possibility of Trump staying in office, that is reason for grave concern.

The state of play can be described as follows: Biden appears very likely to win 306 Electoral College votes, 36 more than he needs for the presidency. This is a comfortable lead. Recounts in even the closest states, where the candidates are 10,000 to 20,000 votes apart, are extremely unlikely to change the election results; the most recent Wisconsin recount, in 2016, shifted the result by 571 votes. And nothing in those closest states indicates the kind of systemic failure that could lead to a more dramatic reversal.

The lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are highly unlikely to go anywhere. The most recent complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania amounts to virtually nothing. Its core idea, that the different procedures for voting by mail and voting in person constitute an equal-protection violation, is ludicrous.

First, the differences between mail-in and absentee voting were obvious for months and nothing prevented the Trump campaign from suing earlier over this; a late suit now is barred by a legal doctrine called laches, which says that you cannot simply wait until after an election you don’t win to sue over an election problem you could see beforehand.

Further, having different procedures for mail-in and in-person balloting does not create an equal-protection violation. If this claim succeeds, it would mean that voting was unconstitutional across the entire country. The claim is especially weak when voters had the choice to vote using either system. The other claims in the complaint are mostly retreads of issues that have been rejected legally, factually, or both in other lawsuits. There has been no proof of widespread fraud.

Even if some of the claims were to have merit, a strong argument exists that federal courts should not get involved. The Electoral Count Act, passed after the disputed 1876 presidential election, conceives of a state role, not a federal role, for resolving fights over the election, and federal courts will likely want to let states decide. A federal ruling could endanger the ability of a state to submit its Electoral College votes by the December 8 safe-harbor deadline; Congress cannot challenge Electoral College slates submitted by that date.

More important, this quixotic lawsuit presents no path to an ultimate Trump victory. The Trump campaign has not provided a good reason for a federal court to step in and delay certification. Nor has it provided any evidence showing that there were tens of thousands of ballots cast illegally for Biden or of legal ballots not counted for Trump. That kind of showing should be necessary to get any relief, and likely from a state rather than a federal court. Biden is currently ahead by about 45,000 votes in Pennsylvania, and may well be ahead by 100,000 when all the votes are counted.

And even if Trump somehow overturned the results in Pennsylvania, that would not be enough to flip the results in the Electoral College. In Arizona, where Biden now leads by about 15,000 votes, the Trump campaign has filed a lawsuit that could call at most 200 votes into question. And even overturning Pennsylvania and Arizona is not enough to make up for Biden being 36 votes beyond the Electoral College threshhold.

Posted in Voter Fraud | Comments Off on Rich Hasen: Trump Needs Three Consecutive Hail Mary Passes

Who Is Hans von Spakovsky?

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Luke Ford

According to Wikipedia:

According to the New Yorker, von Spakovsky has promoted “the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections”.[5]

Von Spakovsky has supported his claims about the extent of voter fraud by citing a 2000 investigation by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which purported to find 5400 instances of deceased people in Georgia voting in the last two decades.[5] The Journal-Constitution later revised its findings, noting that it had no evidence of a single deceased person voting and that the vast majority of the instances were due to clerical errors.[5]

In an interview with the New Yorker, von Spakovsky cited two scholars who he said could substantiate that voter-impersonation fraud was a significant threat: Robert Pastor of American University and Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.[5] Von Spakovsky said that Pastor had personally experienced voter impersonation, but Pastor refuted von Spakovsky’s claim, saying, “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted—it was just a mistake. I don’t think that voter-impersonation fraud is a serious problem.”[5] Both Pastor and Sabato said that they would only support voter ID laws if voter IDs were made free and easily available to all, which is not what Republicans have tried.[5] Sabato, the author of “Dirty Little Secrets,” also described voter impersonation as “relatively rare today.”[5] In a 2011 article published by the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky again referred to Sabato as an authority to establish the existence of common voter fraud, along with “Stealing Elections,” a book by John Fund, whose claims of voter fraud have been extensively debunked,[32][33] and whom he neglects to identify as the co-author of a book they jointly wrote. He describes the efforts of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, his colleague both at the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity and Heritage, to expose the alleged existence of extensive voter fraud, as “carefully described research,” although Kobach’s claims have also been shown to be vastly overstated.[34]

In a court decision, Fish v. Kobach, US District Court Judge Julie A. Robinson ruled that von Spakovsky’s claims of widespread voter fraud were not in fact found to be backed up with provable researched cases. Judge Robinson wrote that she gave his testimony little weight because it was “premised on several misleading and unsupported examples of non-citizen voter registration, mostly outside the State of Kansas.” She also noted that during the proceedings, Mr. von Spakovsky “could not identify any expert on the subject of non-citizen voter registration.” When he tried to use a list of 30 people provided by a Kansas election official as proof of voter fraud in one county, Judge Robinson wrote in her decision: “He later admitted during cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge as to whether or not any of these individuals had in fact falsely asserted U.S. citizenship when they became registered to vote and he did not examine the facts of these individual cases.”[35] Judge Robinson found witnesses for the defense were often found to be not credible, finding: “Defendant’s expert Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, ‘a think tank whose mission [is to] formulate and promote conservative public policies’.” Von Spakovsky “…cited a U.S. GAO study for the proposition that the GAO ‘found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration roles over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens’.” However, on cross-examination, he admitted that the GAO study contained information on a total of eight district courts; half reported that not one non-citizen had been called for jury duty. The three remaining district courts reported that less than 1% of those called for jury duty from voter rolls were noncitizens. Therefore, his report misleadingly described the single district court with the highest percentage of people reporting that they were noncitizens, while omitting mention of the seven other courts described in the GAO report, including four that had zero incidents of noncitizens on voting rolls.[36] Robinson said, “While von Spakovsky’s lack of academic background is not fatal to his credibility …., his clear agenda and misleading statements … render his opinions unpersuasive.”

According to Professor Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California at Irvine, “there are a number of people who have been active in promoting false and exaggerated claims of voter fraud and using that as a pretext to argue for stricter voting and registration rules. And von Spakovsky’s at the top of the list.”[4] Hasen said that Spakovsky’s appointment to Donald Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity was a “a big middle finger” from Trump to people “serious about fixing problems with our elections.”

Posted in Voter Fraud | Comments Off on Who Is Hans von Spakovsky?

Henry Olsen: How we can be confident that Trump’s voter fraud claims are baloney

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Luke Ford

Henry Olsen writes in the Washington Post:

Mass voter fraud should be relatively easy to detect, even if it might be difficult to prove. Since we elect presidents through the electoral college, political operatives trying to nefariously produce a victory would focus on states critical to an electoral college majority. Thus, if fraud were behind President-elect Joe Biden’s win, we should expect to see significantly higher turnout increases in key states when compared to the nation as a whole. Furthermore, we should expect to see higher turnout increases within those states in Democratic areas than in Republican areas, since those regions are places where Democrats are more likely to be able to hide any stolen votes. Finally, we should expect to see significantly larger shifts in voter margins toward the Democrats from other, previous elections as the fraud alters the area’s normal voting patterns.

None of these early warning signs of fraud appear in the results. As the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman’s Popular Vote Tracker shows, voter turnout was up significantly almost everywhere compared with 2016. (The few states where that is not true are largely places that have not yet counted all of their mail ballots, such as California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Alaska). The huge turnout increases observed in battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida and Texas is partially explained by their rapid population growth compared with the rest of the country. Turnout also rose by 15 percent or more over 2016 levels in 10 non-battleground states where there was no chance the race was ever going to be close. Voter enthusiasm rather than fraud is the most obvious explanation for the large increases in votes cast in swing states.

The results within swing states also do not support allegations of fraud. Take Wisconsin, for example. The 2020 map looks almost identical to the 2016 outcome, with Biden flipping only two counties (Sauk and Door) that Trump had narrowly carried. Trump’s margins in rural and small metro area counties only narrowly changed from 2016, sometimes up a couple of points and sometimes down. Biden’s margins in the state’s Democratic strongholds were also not unusually high, nor was turnout noticeably higher there than in Trump regions. Trump’s vote share increased in Milwaukee, for example, and turnout in that deep blue county increased by less than 4 percent, compared with a 10-percent statewide increase. None of this is what one would expect to see if voter fraud drove the results.

The same factors exist in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Biden flipped only three Michigan counties, each of which Trump had carried by only three points or less in 2016. And he flipped only two Pennsylvania counties — Erie and Northampton — both of which are known as bellwethers that usually back the winner. Philadelphia is alleged to be the site of massive voter fraud, but as of this writing, it has reported fewer votes cast than in 2016 and is giving Biden a smaller vote lead than Hillary Clinton received. That’s a pretty incompetent performance if the fix is in.

All three states’ results indicate what was to blame for Trump’s defeat: suburban vote slippage. Trump’s margin in the three suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee dropped from 104,500 votes in 2016 to 96,750 in 2020, even as voter turnout increased from 369,000 to 417,700 votes. He would have won Wisconsin had he won these counties and similar suburbs of Madison and Minneapolis by the same percentage margins he did in 2016. The same is true in suburban Detroit, which Trump lost by 69,000 votes in 2020 after losing it by only 5,500 votes in 2016, and suburban Philadelphia, which he lost by 188,200 votes in 2016 and 283,800 votes this year. Trump would be ahead in Pennsylvania by roughly 50,000 votes if he had lost suburban Philly by his same margins in 2016.

This was not an isolated swing-state event, either. Trump’s suburban margins dropped in deep red non-swing states, such as Louisiana, Kentucky and Missouri, too. The president also did significantly worse in suburbs in deep-blue states such as Oregon and Washington. Trump’s plaintive cry toward the end of his campaign for suburban women to “please like me” is more indicative of why he lost than anything he says now about fraud.

Posted in Voter Fraud | Comments Off on Henry Olsen: How we can be confident that Trump’s voter fraud claims are baloney

The Voter Fraud Myth

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Luke Ford

Jane Mayer writes in the Oct. 22, 2012 New Yorker:

[Hans] Von Spakovsky, who frequently appears on Fox News, is the co-author, with the columnist John Fund, of the recent book “Who’s Counting?,” which argues that America is facing an electoral-security crisis. “Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying, shady recounts, or old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States,” they write. The book connects these modern threats with sordid episodes from the American past: crooked inner-city machines, corrupt black bosses in the Deep South. Von Spakovsky and Fund conclude that electoral fraud is a “spreading” danger, and declare that True the Vote serves “an obvious need.”

Mainstream election experts say that Spakovsky has had an improbably large impact. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, and the author of a recent book, “The Voting Wars,” says, “Before 2000, there were some rumblings about Democratic voter fraud, but it really wasn’t part of the main discourse. But thanks to von Spakovsky and the flame-fanning of a few others, the myth that Democratic voter fraud is common, and that it helps Democrats win elections, has become part of the Republican orthodoxy.” In December, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote, “Election fraud is a real and persistent threat to our electoral system.” He accused Democrats of “standing up for potential fraud—presumably because ending it would disenfranchise at least two of its core constituencies: the deceased and double-voters.” Hasen believes that Democrats, for their part, have made exaggerated claims about the number of voters who may be disenfranchised by Republican election-security measures. But he regards the conservative alarmists as more successful. “Their job is really done,” Hasen says. “It’s common now to assert that there is a need for voter I.D.s, even without any evidence.”…

Earlier this year, he noted, the Pew Center on the States found that more than 1.8 million people who had died were still registered to vote in America, and that 2.75 million people were registered to vote in multiple states. How many of these errors translate into fraudulent votes? “It is impossible to answer,” he said. “We don’t have the tools in place.” But he cited a 2000 investigation, by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, of voting records in Georgia over the previous two decades; the paper reported that it had turned up fifty-four hundred instances of dead people being recorded as having voted. “That seems pretty substantial to me,” he said.

He did not mention that the article’s findings were later revised. The Journal-Constitution ran a follow-up article after the Georgia Secretary of State’s office indicated that the vast majority of the cases appeared to reflect clerical errors. Upon closer inspection, the paper admitted, its only specific example of a deceased voter casting a ballot didn’t hold up. The ballot of a living voter had been attributed to a dead man whose name was nearly identical…

Nearly all scholars of America’s system of locally run elections acknowledge chronic problems, including administrative incompetence, sloppy registration rolls, unreliable machinery, vote buying, and absentee-ballot fraud. But Robert Brandon, the president of the Fair Elections Legal Network and a longtime reformer, says that the current debate, “which is about people impersonating another voter, is silly.” He adds, “You can’t steal an election one person at a time. You can by stuffing ballot boxes—but voter I.D.s won’t stop that.”

Von Spakovsky offered me the names of two experts who, he said, would confirm that voter-impersonation fraud posed a significant peril: Robert Pastor, the director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management, at American University, and Larry Sabato, a political-science professor at the University of Virginia. Pastor, von Spakovsky noted, had spoken to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about being a victim of election fraud: voting in Georgia, he discovered that someone else had already voted under his name.

When I reached Pastor, he clarified what had happened to him. “I think they just mistakenly checked my name when my son voted—it was just a mistake.” He added, “I don’t think that voter-impersonation fraud is a serious problem.” Pastor believes that, compared with other democracies, America is “somewhere near the bottom in election administration,” and thinks that voter I.D.s make sense—but only if they are free and easily available to all, which, he points out, is not what Republican legislatures have proposed. Sabato, who supports the use of voter I.D.s under the same basic conditions, says of the voter-impersonation question, “One fraudulent vote is one too many, but my sense is that it’s relatively rare today.”

Hasen says that, while researching “The Voting Wars,” he “tried to find a single case” since 1980 when “an election outcome could plausibly have turned on voter-impersonation fraud.” He couldn’t find one. News21, an investigative-journalism group, has reported that voter impersonation at the polls is a “virtually non-existent” problem. After conducting an exhaustive analysis of election-crime prosecutions since 2000, it identified only seven convictions for impersonation fraud. None of those cases involved conspiracy.

Lorraine Minnite, a public-policy professor at Rutgers, collated decades of electoral data for her 2010 book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud,” and came up with some striking statistics. In 2005, for example, the federal government charged many more Americans with violating migratory-bird statutes than with perpetrating election fraud, which has long been a felony. She told me, “It makes no sense for individual voters to impersonate someone. It’s like committing a felony at the police station, with virtually no chance of affecting the election outcome.” A report by the Times in 2007 also found election fraud to be rare. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department initiated a five-year crackdown on voter fraud, but only eighty-six people were convicted of any kind of election crime.

Hasen, who calls von Spakovsky a leading member of “the Fraudulent Fraud Squad,” told me that he respects many other conservative advocates in his area of expertise, but dismisses scholars who allege widespread voter-impersonation fraud. “I see them as foot soldiers in the Republican army,” he says. “It’s just a way to excite the base. They are hucksters. They’re providing fake scholarly support. They’re not playing fairly with the facts. And I think they know it.”

…In the spring of 2008, as Obama was clinching the Democratic nomination for President, von Spakovsky issued a lengthy report on electoral fraud, titled “Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes.” In an op-ed piece on the Fox News Web site, he argued that “one doesn’t have to look far to find instances of fraudulent ballots cast in actual elections by ‘voters’ who were the figments of active imaginations.” Yet the most recent evidence he cited in his report was decades old: a grand-jury report documenting criminal collusion, from 1968 to 1982, among Brooklyn election officials and local machine politicians.

Richard Hasen asked to see the grand-jury report, but von Spakovsky did not respond. (“What am I—his research assistant?” he asked me.) Hasen has another explanation for von Spakovsky’s refusal to produce the document: “He must have known it was weak.” Hasen eventually hunted down his own copy. On his blog, he observed, “Most of this fraud took place forty years ago,” adding, “When election officials collude with those committing fraud, a voter-I.D. requirement would not help in the slightest.”

…Von Spakovsky said, “The idea that there’s some deep conspiracy is just laughable.” His own work, however, has suggested that liberals engage in conspiracies. “Who’s Counting?” opens with an insinuating account of how Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat, was elected to the Senate in 2008. According to the book, there is “compelling” evidence, compiled by a citizens’ watchdog group, that “1,099 ineligible felons voted illegally” in the contest—“more than three times” Franken’s victory margin. The subhead of the chapter is “Would Obamacare have passed without voter fraud?”

Fox News and other conservative media outlets have promoted this argument. However, Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, who oversees Minneapolis, told me, “Those numbers are fraudulent. We investigated, and at the end of the day, out of over four hundred allegations in the county, we charged thirty-eight people. Their research was bad, sloppy, incredible. They are just liars.” Some of the targeted voters weren’t actually felons; others were on probation and hadn’t realized that they remained ineligible to vote. To be convicted of voter fraud, a suspect needs to have criminal intent…

Von Spakovsky has also presented a more recent case as a scandal. Last year, in an op-ed piece that was nationally syndicated, he wrote, “A 2010 election in Missouri that ended in a one-vote margin of victory included 50 votes cast illegally by citizens of Somalia.” He told me that these voters “could only speak Somali, even though to become a U.S. citizen you must learn English.” Once again, when the case was examined by a judge, no fraud was found. Although the judge’s ruling had been issued before the column appeared, von Spakovsky didn’t mention it. He told me that the omission was justified, because the judge hadn’t investigated “the citizenship issue.” Yet the voters’ citizenship was never in doubt.

Posted in Voter Fraud | Comments Off on The Voter Fraud Myth

Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Luke Ford

Law professor Richard L. Hasen writes:

“Just hypothetically, Dr. Richman, if you came across the name Carlos Murguia, would you code that as foreign or non-foreign?”

It was March 2018, and Dale Ho, who directs the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project, had just asked one in a series of extraordinary questions in his cross-examination of expert witnesses for the state of Kansas in arguably the most important voting rights trial so far in the twenty-first century. In the case, Fish v. Kobach, a federal district court in Kansas was considering whether the threat of noncitizen voting in Kansas elections justified a state law that required people registering to vote to provide documentary proof of citizenship, such as a birth or naturalization certificate. In most other states, signing a statement affirming citizenship under penalty of perjury is proof enough. The ACLU was concerned that the Kansas law would not prevent a significant amount of noncitizen voting but would disenfranchise many eligible Kansans who could not produce the necessary papers. Before the court suspended the law, roughly thirty thousand people had their registrations rejected or put on hold because of the new requirement.1

Kris Kobach led Kansas’s defense team. Kobach, then serving as Kansas’s secretary of state, is one of the country’s leading public figures contending that voter fraud is a major problem in the United States. He was one of a small group of public figures I previously dubbed the “fraudulent fraud squad,” who built up the myth of rampant voter fraud that Republican legislatures have used to justify severe rules making it harder to register and vote. President Trump has parroted this myth repeatedly at MAGA rallies and elsewhere. Among prominent election officials and scholars, Kobach is the only one who backed Trump’s evidence-free assertion that potentially millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election.2

At trial, Kobach took the unusual step of personally heading the legal team defending Kansas’s law rather than allowing the state’s attorney general’s office to do so. A former law professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kobach examined and cross-examined witnesses, eventually not only losing the case but facing sanctions for misleading the court, for disobeying an earlier court order to make sure that eligible voters could register while the case was pending, and for “flaunting [flouting] disclosure and discovery rules that are designed to prevent prejudice and surprise at trial.” A magistrate judge fined Kobach $1,000 for misleading the court, and the state of Kansas had to pay the ACLU’s attorney’s fees spent trying to get Kobach to comply with the earlier court order. After the trial, the judge required Kobach to take continuing legal education courses on the rules of evidence or civil procedure. He eventually had his staff use a state-issued credit card to pay the $1,000 fine and the $359 cost of his online continuing education course on civil trial fundamentals.3

The significance of the trial was not lost on those who follow the voting wars, the fights exploding in the last few decades between those who state that voter fraud is a major problem and those who consider voter suppression the real concern. Fraudulent fraud squad members such as the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, who served as one of Kobach’s expert witnesses, had been arguing for years about the supposed scourge of voter fraud, and in the Fish case their claims were finally put to the test in a court of law bound by neutral rules of evidence. Presiding over the case was Julie A. Robinson, the chief judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas, a fourth-generation Kansan and the first African American on that court when appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush.4

The case ended up in Judge Robinson’s courtroom after a series of motions and appeals had already resolved many of the complex legal issues it presented. Kansas had passed its law requiring documentary proof of citizenship as a prerequisite to voter registration in 2013, and the ACLU and others contended the law violated both the Constitution and parts of the National Voter Registration Act that Congress passed in 1993. One provision of the NVRA, also known as the “motor voter” law, required that states offer voters the ability to register to vote for federal elections when applying for a driver’s license. The law mandated that state DMVs require drivers to provide no more than the minimal information necessary to ensure voting eligibility, and the form had to include a portion in which a voter attested to citizenship under penalty of perjury.5

Kobach and Kansas argued that the attestation requirement was not enough to prevent noncitizens from voting, and that despite the federal motor voter law, the part of the Constitution granting each state the power to set the qualifications for voters gave Kansas the right to require registrants to show documentary proof of citizenship. The argument fit well with Kobach’s political position as a hardliner on illegal immigration: not only were people illegally coming to the country, they were voting (and no doubt voting overwhelmingly for Democrats). Challengers to the Kansas law argued that the motor voter law preempted it and that it violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against voters lacking easy access to documents proving citizenship.

Eventually, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Kansas could require documentary proof of citizenship for people registering at the Kansas DMV only if it could prove that despite the attestation requirement, “a substantial number of noncitizens [had] successfully registered,” and that requiring documentary proof was the least intrusive way to verify voter citizenship eligibility. When the case got back to the trial court, the two main questions the court had to resolve were whether a substantial number of noncitizens had registered in Kansas under the old law, and whether the new law was so burdensome on some voters as to be unconstitutional.6

Studies had found very little evidence of noncitizen voting, and the number of prosecutions and convictions for noncitizen voting was small. In the extensive News21 database of election crime prosecutions and convictions across the United States from 2000 to 2012, noncitizen voting accusations made up only 2.8 percent of cases, just fifty-six out of more than two thousand. Those fifty-six cases resulted in two convictions and seventeen plea deals. Kobach had successfully lobbied the Kansas legislature to give him the power to prosecute voter fraud, a power unique among state chief election officers. He nonetheless prosecuted only nine cases of voter fraud through 2017, and he earned only one conviction for noncitizen voting, from a legal (not illegal) immigrant. At least seven of his cases involved prosecutions of Republicans over the age of sixty, some of whom voted both in Kansas and in another state where they owned a second home or other property.7

Despite the lack of prosecutions even as Kobach scoured the state looking for noncitizen voter fraud, Professor Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University published a report claiming that up to thirty-two thousand noncitizens in Kansas were registered to vote under the old system. Kobach then chose Richman as an expert witness for the state, no doubt because his was the only peer-reviewed study suggesting such an astonishing rate of noncitizen voting—somewhere between thirty-eight thousand and 2.8 million voters nationally. Richman’s article, coauthored with Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest and published in Electoral Studies in 2014, described the rate of noncitizen voting as so high that it might have been responsible for Barack Obama’s winning the presidential election in 2008, as well as for passage of the Affordable Care Act, thanks to the election of Al Franken over Norm Coleman in the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, which briefly gave Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.8

At trial, using a methodology similar to what he had used in his study, Richman concluded that up to thirty-two thousand noncitizens in Kansas had registered to vote. He based his figures on self-reported voting and citizenship status in a nationwide public opinion survey called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Between 2006 and 2012, fourteen self-reported noncitizens in Kansas answered the CCES survey, and four of them reported voting. Richman applied the 4/14 rate reported in the sample to the 114,000 adult noncitizens in Kansas to reach the 32,000 noncitizen voters figure.9

One wonders how Richman’s paper got published. His methodology was deeply flawed because of the very small sample size, his failure to verify the citizenship status of the fourteen self-reported noncitizens in the CCES samples for Kansas, the fact that some citizens mistakenly report their citizenship status on surveys, and the tendency of people to overreport their voting. Harvard government professor Stephen Ansolabehere, a founder of CCES and one of the nation’s leading political scientists, testified that Richman misused the CCES data and that the correct interpretation showed a noncitizen voting rate approaching zero. Ansolabehere had published a peer-reviewed response to Richman explaining his errors. Richman’s Electoral Studies analysis was so flawed that two hundred political scientists signed an open letter criticizing it.10

At trial, Richman offered three other ways to estimate the amount of noncitizen voting. One method found a rate of zero, which Richman unsurprisingly discounted. The other approaches had serious methodological flaws. One of his studies sampled a population of Kansas residents who had their voter registrations put on hold because they lacked documentary proof of citizenship. From this “suspense” list, he and his assistants tried to identify “foreign sounding” names to determine whether the list was excluding large numbers of noncitizens from registering. He admitted that this methodology required making “subjective” judgments.11

The ACLU’s Dale Ho asked Richman why he had coded some Kansas residents on the suspense list with the last name “Lopez” as foreign and others not, but he did not get a good answer. Then Ho continued with a devastating line of questioning:

Q. Just hypothetically, Dr. Richman, if you came across the name Carlos Murguia, would you code that as foreign or non-foreign?

A. I’m sorry, could you, please, spell the name.

Q. Sure. Carlos, C-a-r-l-o-s, Murguia, M-u-r-g-u-i-a.

A. Probably.

Q. Probably what?

A. Probably would code it as foreign.

Q. Okay. Are you aware that Carlos Murguia is a United States District Court Judge who sits in this courthouse?

A. I am not.12

This was social science at its worst. Unfortunately for Kobach and his team, Richman was their strongest expert witness. Hans von Spakovsky fared even worse on the stand against Ho. Although von Spakovsky identified himself as an expert on election administration and on questions of voter fraud, he had a law degree but possessed no social science graduate degree, admitted that he had written no peer-reviewed studies on election administration, and said he had “no idea” whether the methods he used for studying voter fraud comported with accepted social science standards. Despite claiming to be an expert, he could not identify anyone else in the country whom he considered an expert on noncitizen voting. He said he was not aware of any voter registration rules anywhere in the United States that were burdensome to voters.13

Von Spakovsky had a serious credibility problem. I learned about it years ago while writing my 2012 book, The Voting Wars. I had been searching for proof of a single case since the 1980s, anywhere in the United States, in which someone tried to steal an election through impersonation fraud—the only kind of fraud strict voter ID laws are designed to prevent. It is an exceedingly dumb way to steal an election, because one would have to hire people to go to the polls claiming to be someone else, hope that the people being impersonated had not yet voted, hope that the people being paid to commit felonies would actually cast a secret ballot the way the payer wants, and repeat this process undetected on a large enough scale to sway an election. It is no surprise that the News21 database covering a dozen years contained only ten possible individual cases of such fraud, and none involving a conspiracy to steal an election. Election law professor Justin Levitt found thirty-one possible impersonators casting votes out of over a billion votes cast in the United States between 2000 and 2014, and he has since come up with two recent cases of possible attempted coordinated voter fraud via impersonation.14

I had no luck finding any such case while researching my 2012 book, but von Spakovsky claimed there was proof of impersonation fraud in an unpublished grand jury report of an investigation of the Board of Elections in Brooklyn in the 1980s. He would not share the report with me, so I could not confirm or refute his findings. He later explained his refusal by saying to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, “What am I—his research assistant?” Once I finally got hold of the report, I saw that it did not offer any proof of impersonation fraud, only of election crimes committed by election officials and party bosses, not by voters.15

Von Spakovsky was no more credible as a witness in the Kansas case. Attempting to prove a rise in voter fraud, his pretrial expert report partly relied on a 2012 news story from an NBC television affiliate in Florida about 100 people who were excused from jury duty because they were not citizens, yet who were on the voting rolls. But he admitted on cross-examination that he had not told the court about a follow-up investigation, which showed that at least 35 of the people on NBC’s list in fact had documentary proof of citizenship. (While it does not appear that NBC followed up with the others, in 2012 the Florida secretary of state released a list of 180,000 potential noncitizens to be considered for purging. After investigation, just 85 people were removed from voting rolls as noncitizens. At the time, Florida had about 12 million registered voters.)16

Then there was the case of the Somali American voters von Spakovsky erroneously accused of voter fraud. Ho asked:

Q. Mr. von Spakovsky, in 2011 you wrote an op-ed asserting that a 2010 election in Missouri that ended in a one-vote margin of victory included 50 votes cast illegally by the citizens of Somalia. Correct?

A. Correct. But it turned out apparently that was incorrect, which is why I did not include it in my expert report.

Q. Okay. Not talking about your expert report. I just want to talk about that op-ed for a second. You wrote that op-ed claiming that 50 non-citizens from Somalia voted in an election in Missouri, despite the fact that a month earlier there had been an election challenge—there had been an election contest in that case and a state court in Missouri issued an opinion, Royster versus Rizzo, finding that no fraud had taken place in that election. Correct?

A. I don’t know when that opinion was issued. I wasn’t aware of that when I wrote the piece, which was based on other reports.

Q. You’re aware of that now, right, Mr. von Spakovsky?

A. I’m aware of that now.

Q. You never published a written retraction of your assertion about Somali[] voters illegally participating in that election, right, Mr. von Spakovsky?

A. I don’t believe so, but I don’t recall when I discovered that.17

The truth was even worse than Ho’s cross-examination revealed. Von Spakovsky’s 2011 op-ed, syndicated in newspapers across the U.S., stated, “A 2010 election in Kansas that ended in a one-vote margin of victory included 50 votes cast illegally by citizens of Somalia.” The day it appeared, I pointed out on my Election Law Blog that the disputed election took place in Missouri, not Kansas, and that a Missouri court specifically rejected the losing candidate’s claim that Somali citizens had illegally voted in the election. The next day, the op-ed appeared in more newspapers, now saying the incident happened in Missouri, not Kansas, but repeating the lie about illegal votes. Von Spakovsky had corrected the name of the state in his op-ed by, at the latest, the day after he wrote it. But no retraction for his more substantive error has run at the time I write these words.18

Before the trial, both von Spakovsky and Kobach had described the noncitizen voting so far discovered in Kansas and elsewhere as merely the “tip of the iceberg.” Ho suggested that the two had coordinated their messaging, but whether or not they did, Fish v. Kobach was their chance to reveal the iceberg for all to see. If tens of thousands, maybe millions, of noncitizens were voting in the United States, and Kobach had been empowered to prosecute it in Kansas, there should be some evidence of this massive fraud. But he had nothing to show.19

In an opinion issued a few months after the trial, Chief Judge Robinson found that Kansas’s documentary proof of citizenship law imposed a serious burden on the state’s voters. She credited the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Michael McDonald that the burden fell most heavily on the young and those unaffiliated with a political party, and she noted that tens of thousands of Kansans had had their voter registration applications put on hold or rejected.20

She further concluded that the burden on these would-be voters was unjustified. There was likely a minuscule amount of noncitizen voting in Kansas, but the few reports of potential noncitizen voting were more likely the result of administrative error or misunderstanding of the law than attempted felonies. “Evidence that the voter rolls include ineligible citizens is weak. At most, 39 [non]citizens have found their way onto the Kansas voter rolls in the last 19 years. And, as [plaintiffs’ expert] Dr. [Eitan] Hersh explained, given the almost 2 million individuals on the Kansas voter rolls, some administrative anomalies are expected. In the case of Kansas, this includes 100 individuals in [the state database] with birth dates in the 1800s, and 400 individuals with birth dates after their date of registration.”21

“There is no iceberg,” the judge concluded, “only an icicle, largely created by confusion and administrative error.”22

Kobach’s previous foray into the voter fraud fever swamp during the Trump era was the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.” President Trump established this commission to back up his unsupported claims of massive voter fraud, which he advanced as the reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Trump named Vice President Mike Pence the nominal chair of the commission, but Kobach, the vice chair, was the driving force behind its operation. Kobach ran the commission meetings and seemed to dictate its agenda. Trump had established the commission in May 2017, but the following January, before the start of the Fish v. Kobach trial, he dissolved it with none of its work completed. It never issued a report.23

Trump’s commission to deal with phantom voter fraud looked like nothing that had come before it. After the 2000 election debacle that culminated in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford headed a blue-ribbon bipartisan commission looking for ways to improve the elections process. After more problems at the polls in 2004, Carter and former Republican secretary of state James Baker headed another commission. After long lines and still more problems in 2012, President Obama established a commission headed by his campaign lawyer, Bob Bauer, and Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer, Ben Ginsberg. Each of these commissions was led by a prominent Democrat and a prominent Republican, with bipartisan representation and a professional staff. They received expert advice from the top social scientists in the United States studying elections.24

The Bauer-Ginsberg commission, aided by its research director, Stanford law professor Nate Persily, issued a set of bipartisan proposals for shortening lines at the polls, ensuring that voter registration rolls were accurate, and making sure that eligible voters would be able to vote in an efficient way. It was no accident that Brian Britton, vice president of Global Park Operations and Initiatives at Walt Disney World Company and an expert in queue management at Disney’s theme parks, sat on the commission.25

It was clear from the beginning that Trump’s commission was different. We will return to candidate Trump’s race-tinged and fact-free comments about voter fraud in chapter 4. But as soon as Trump took office, his administration removed from government servers, without explanation, the website and research of the Bauer-Ginsberg commission. In May 2017, he announced his new commission to look into voter fraud. Gone was bipartisan balance: the Republican Pence was appointed chair and the Republican Kobach was vice chair.26

The names of the commissioners were rolled out over weeks rather than announced all at once, as had been done with the other commissions. Eventually, four of the most notorious proponents of the myth of rampant voter fraud—Kobach, von Spakovsky, J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice lawyer, and former Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell—all joined. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law dubbed them “President Trump’s Four Horsemen of Voter Suppression.”27

Adams, a frequent Fox News guest who warned of the dangers of voter intimidation by repeatedly citing the actions of a couple of “New Black Panthers” at a single Philadelphia polling place in 2008, now headed the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Among its other activities, PILF issued a report warning of an “alien invasion,” complete with an illustration of “a 1950s-style flying saucer approaching bucolic Virginia,” and giving the names of purported noncitizens on the Virginia voting rolls. Some of those falsely named “noncitizens” sued Adams for defamation, and Adams apologized to settle the suit. Blackwell was perhaps best known for his decision in 2004, which he later reversed under pressure, to have Ohio election officials reject some voter registration forms because the applications were not printed on heavy enough paper.28

I myself received a shout-out from Adams in documents released in litigation after the commission closed. In an email exchange with von Spakovsky and some PILF employees at the time of the commission’s founding, Adams commented on my earlier criticism of their work perpetuating the voter fraud myth: “Rick Hasen is a raw enemy activist. . . . He is the central organizing location of our foes. He is going to get very ugly toward me and Hans when/if we are nominated by the President to the Voter Fraud Commission.” Logan Churchwell, the spokesperson for PILF, urged Adams to “push” my “buttons” so I would become “unhinged.” “Sick of him being the elder statesman in the eyes of the MSM [mainstream media].”29

When fully constituted, the commission had seven Republicans and five Democrats. Three of the five Democrats were unknown nationally in the election administration field. The other two were Bill Gardner, the secretary of state in New Hampshire, and Matt Dunlap, Maine’s secretary of state. Some Democrats who had long viewed Gardner with suspicion thought their doubts were confirmed when he agreed to serve on the commission. Dunlap claimed he joined in order to watch the process from the inside, a stance several election experts, including me, thought was naïve, but he later played a key role in the commission’s downfall.30

We later learned from partially redacted documents, released through a Freedom of Information Act request, that the lack of partisan balance on Trump’s voter fraud commission was a feature and not a bug. Before Trump named any members, von Spakovsky sent an email, which later got forwarded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, laying out the case for excluding Democrats, academics, and “mainstream Republicans” from the commission. He and Adams were offered spots on the commission soon after.

Once it got going, the commission immediately ran into problems. Kobach directed staff to request individual voter registration records from each state, including names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. Apparently he meant to look for registered noncitizens by comparing those data to citizenship records at the Department of Homeland Security. Many states balked.

Some Democratic officials expected the matching procedure to be flawed and suspected the commission’s work would be used as a pretext for tougher federal or state voter registration rules. California secretary of state Alex Padilla released a statement reading in part: “California’s participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud made by the President, the Vice President, and Mr. Kobach. The President’s Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference.”32

Some Republican officials thought the federal request was an intrusion on state sovereignty. Before he even received the commission’s letter, Mississippi secretary of state Delbert Hosemann said in a statement: “They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from. . . . Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our state’s right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes.” Colorado citizens began canceling their voter registrations after the state agreed to comply with the request because they did not want the Trump administration to have access to their data. They reasoned that they could use Colorado’s same-day registration policy to reregister whenever they wanted to vote.33

Then there were the lawsuits. Common Cause and others sued the commission for violating the Privacy Act, which bars government collection of sensitive personal information under certain circumstances. The suits eventually led to the destruction of all collected voter data after the commission disbanded. Other suits argued that the commission’s rules violated the federal Paperwork Reduction Act as well as various state laws protecting the privacy of voter information.34

Maine secretary of state Dunlap, one of the two prominent Democrats on the commission, sued it for violating a federal law governing transparency and fairness in the operation of presidential advisory commissions. He and other commissioners alleged that Kobach was acting in secret and without input from Democratic commissioners. Dunlap won and eventually obtained several commission documents he had not been allowed to see—which he then publicly posted. The released documents showed that even before they joined the commission, von Spakovsky and Adams were providing specific suggestions to Kobach and commission staff (but not its Democratic members) about the exact information to request from each state regarding its voter registration practices. The documents also show the commission never uncovered any evidence of significant voter fraud. The failure to find evidence supporting the need for laws to combat noncitizen voting and voter impersonation is the only plausible reason for the commission’s lack of transparency.35

The members met only twice. After their first official opening meeting, in Washington, D.C., in July 2017, they met in September 2017 in New Hampshire, where they were hosted by Secretary of State Bill Gardner. In that meeting, Kris Kobach presented and then walked back unsupported assertions he had first floated on the Breitbart website, that bused-in Massachusetts residents illegally voted in the Granite State.

Another meeting was planned for late January 2018, but President Trump pulled the plug on the entire enterprise, blaming “endless legal battles at taxpayer expense” and lack of cooperation from Democrats. He did not mention Republican resistance or Mississippi secretary of state Hosemann’s suggestion about local swimming spots. Kobach told Breitbart that the effort to find evidence of noncitizen voting would continue at the Department of Homeland Security, without Democratic interference and lawsuits: “The investigation will continue, and it will continue more efficiently and more effectively. . . . By throwing their food in the air, they just lost their seat at the table.” He told NPR that he would remain as an “outside adviser” on the project. That announcement was quickly rebuffed by DHS officials, who said Kobach would play no role. As far as we know, DHS conducted no subsequent investigation of noncitizen voting.36

One White House adviser, or perhaps it was Vice President Pence himself, told CNN that the commission was a “s[hi]t show” that had gone “off the rails.” The adviser suggested that the vice president’s “team . . . should have seen that assignment as a s[hi]t sandwich and treated it like a book report. . . . Avoid trouble, cite real instances of voter fraud, address structural and technology problems, make recommendations and move on.”37

The collapse of the Pence-Kobach fraud commission and the Fish v. Kobach trial were watershed moments in the modern history of voter fraud mythmaking and attempts at voter suppression. For years, people like Kobach and von Spakovsky had spun stories of voter fraud by relying upon anecdotal accounts, innuendo, falsehoods, and accusations that almost never panned out. Most of this cheap talk was not subjected to cross-examination or rigorous study. The trial and commission fiasco changed all that.

The only rational conclusions to be drawn from these two episodes are that voter fraud is extremely rare, and that spurious claims more likely serve as a pretext for passing laws aimed at making it harder for people likely to vote for Democrats to register and to vote. Kobach rejected this premise, telling NPR’s Robert Siegel after the collapse of the commission that “critics were making a bizarre and frankly idiotic argument. They were claiming that by looking at the issue of voter fraud, that was going to cause state legislatures to pass laws that would, in their view, make voting more difficult.”38

But it was Kris Kobach, meeting with Trump during the 2016 presidential transition period, who used false claims of massive voter fraud as a basis for recommending legislation amending the federal motor voter law to allow states to require documentary proof of citizenship before voting. And the commission that Trump picked Kobach to head was designed to provide cover for such legislation. A sharp-eyed AP photographer captured a picture of Kobach holding a briefing outline after his meeting with Trump that included that recommendation; the $1,000 fine Kobach later received in the Fish case was for misleading the court and the ACLU about the outline’s content. He apparently had modeled his proposed amendment to match what the ACLU, in a 2016 legal brief, wrote that the motor voter law would have to look like if it in fact allowed Kansas to require documentary proof of citizenship before voting.39

Fish and the commission’s work showed that noncitizen voting and voter impersonation fraud weren’t icebergs, or even icicles. They were puddles that evaporated in the sunlight of public inspection and legal examination.

Posted in America, Voter Fraud | Comments Off on Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy