Republican Scott Brown’s campaign for U.S. Senate has hit upon a new strategy: lock voters in by getting as many of them as possible to vote absentee — and by encouraging them to get their friends to do the same. This is a screenshot from his website (click for larger image):
Emails sent out by the campaign urge the same course of action. They include the following graphic, which if clicked directs you to the page linked above:
Looks like a clever strategy. You get people locked in before they change their mind, or forget to show up on election day. But you’d never know from Brown’s website or emails that, actually, you can’t vote absentee in Massachusetts unless you are unable to vote in person on election day.
And that’s the problem with Brown’s strategy: it’s illegal. Meet me on the flip.
Massachusetts law is quite clear on this point: you may only vote absentee if you cannot vote in person on election day. From the Massachusetts Constitution:
The general court shall have power to provide by law for voting, in the choice of any officer to be elected or upon any question submitted at an election, by qualified voters of the commonwealth who, at the time of such an election, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants or are unable by reason of physical disability to cast their votes in person at the polling places or who hold religious beliefs in conflict with the act of voting on the day on which such an election is to be held.
Accordingly, the statute governing absentee voting reads:
Any voter who during the hours that polling places are open on the day of a special state election or the biennial state election or of any special or regular state primary or of a presidential primary is absent from the city or town where he is a voter by reason of being a specially qualified voter as defined in section one of chapter fifty, or his employment in another community, attendance at any institution of higher education or for any other reason or who will be unable to by reason of physical disability to cast his vote in person at the polling place or who for reasons of religious belief will be unable to cast his vote in person on the day of an election and whose application for an official absent voting ballot has been filed with the city or town clerk as provided in section eighty-nine, and certified under section ninety-one, may vote [absentee].
All seems pretty clear. But just to make certain, I called the Secretary of State’s Office, and spoke to their press guy, Brian McNiff. He confirmed for me that in order to be eligible to vote absentee, you must have a good faith belief that you would be unable to vote in person on election day.
The rules are even spelled out on the absentee voter application (PDF):
This application is for use by:
• A registered voter who will be unable to vote at the polls on election day due to:
(1) absence from your city or town during normal polling hours; or
(2) physical disability preventing you from going to the polling place; or
(3) religious belief
And it goes on state:
Warning: Illegal absentee voting, including making a false application, is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison.
Oof.
Now, the Brownies might argue that it’s not their job to ensure that voters comply with election laws, and that they expect voters to read and abide by the restrictions in the absentee voter application. But that’s clearly not good enough. None of the exhortations on Brown’s website or in his emails even mention that you’re ineligible to vote absentee unless you’re unable to vote in person on election day. To the contrary, a reasonable reading of Brown’s materials is that — as the website itself says (emphasis mine) — “As a supporter of Scott Brown, you don’t have to wait until January 19th to vote for Scott Brown. You can Vote Absentee, and, you can recruit fellow supporters to request the Absentee application.” Not a word about being physically unable to vote in person.
So we have a couple of issues here. First, Scott Brown appears to be actively encouraging illegal absentee voting, and asking his supporters to do the same. We expect that, of course, he will cease and desist from these nefarious activities. Second, what about supporters of his who may already have unwittingly sent in illegal absentee ballots? Maybe Brown should post a statement on his website and send out a mass email to his supporters apologizing for advocating illegal absentee voting, and asking anyone who voted absentee but who in fact would be able to vote in person on election day to go ask their local clerk’s offices to tear up the absentee ballots. I’m not sure exactly how that works, but there must be a suitable remedy.
Finally, it of course cannot go unmentioned that Scott Brown has led the charge against perceived problems of voter fraud here in Massachusetts.
But proponents of a tighter voter ID law said yesterday they feel emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling [upholding certain voter ID requirements] and plan to resurrect the statewide legislation next session.
They say it only makes common sense to ask all voters to show ID at the polls.
“People have to show an ID to buy cigarettes or rent a video,” said state Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, who has tried repeatedly to persuade the Legislature to support statewide voter identification. “We are trying to protect the integrity of the system.”
Ah, yes. The “integrity of the system.” Here’s a suggestion, Scott: why don’t you stop undermining the voting rules we already have before trying to impose new ones? That might do something for “the integrity of the system.”
And here’s a footnote: I actually support “no excuse” absentee voting as a way of encouraging more people to vote. But the laws are the laws, and right now, the laws don’t allow it.
…if Scott Brown used this as an opportunity to sponsor critical legislation in the State Senate to legalize “no excuse” absentee voting, maybe even creating an entire “vote by mail” system, such as Oregon’s.
<
p>I can’t disagree that he is encouraging law-breaking behavior (is this a law that is ok to be broken, as compared to, say, coming to America to find a job, which apparently is a crime which is unforgiveable?).
<
p>The question I have is will he take the next step and try to make it legal. That would be nice.
in the legislature to legalize no-excuse absentee voting. I believe that the necessary constitutional amendment was advanced last session, and should be voted on this session whenever the ConCon happens. I don’t know how Brown voted on that. Will see if I can find out.
Brown appears to support changing the Constitution to allow for no-excuse absentee voting, as does almost every other member of the legislature.
by 8 minutes đŸ˜‰
It appears that Sen. Brown did vote for Senate No. 9 in the last session, which was the amendment to allow the legislature to approve “no excuse” absentee voting (roll call here (no. 672), right near the top).
<
p>However, it does seem like he opposed previous efforts to expand absentee voting. Note this entry from a 2005 Senate Journal referring to a committee vote regarding no excuse absentee voting:
<
p>
<
p>It seems Brown either changed his views (for the better), or perhaps his views on this simply are not too clear. In any case, it doesn’t explain (or excuse) his decision to encourage illegal absentee voting now.
Helping to get people to “check back in” and participate. Vote Early! (and often)
Had to blog this one, and did.
<
p>BTW, thinkingliberally, love your comparison with immigration, very apt!
and one that Brown’s campaign will surely have to answer for.
<
p>Luckily for all Bay Staters, though, Scott Brown could illegally print/photocopy votes for the next month and a half and still get trounced come election day.
the acts he accuses ACORN of, voter fraud. BooYA.
<
p>Kudos to David doe breaking this big story. BIG STORY. VERY BIG STORY.
I was about to write a post cutting Brown some slack on this issue, until I read this. You’re absolutely right. If the Republicans want to rail against ACORN for not breaking any laws, but perhaps proving a little more opportunity for it to occur by accident, then Scott Brown needs to be taken to task for doing the same exact thing.
…but really, who’s to say what good faith is in this case? I’ve applied for absentee voting without knowing my status for sure and I’m not sure I’d want resources spent on investigating and enforcing this.
a candidate to encourage others to violate the law without disclosing the actual law so that people are guaranteed to break it, all in the name of winning the election?
<
p>My guess is this was a really, REALLY blind goof from some idiot on his team who thought it was a good idea and didn’t get enough feedback or even talk to his candidate before going forward. I mean, if Brown voted for making absentee “no-excuse” he must know about the existing law.
<
p>The alternative, that Brown knows better but they decided to do it anyway, would be too awful, though I guess possible.
<
p>But you still are accountable for your campaign, at this high a level especially. This was an official plea from the campaign itself.
there’s nothing wrong with getting an absentee ballot because you just think you may be busy or away on the election, so I don’t think you’ve actually done anything wrong.
<
p>One of the reasons why this law needs to be changed is because it’s essentially unenforceable. Even if it weren’t bad policy (and it is bad policy), this thing simply can’t be enforced.
Unless you use it and then it turns out you are able to vote normally. I don’t see language in the law that excuses that. Do you?
… a good faith assertion that was required. As long as it was requested in good faith, you’re allowed to be mistaken about what ends up being your actual availability on election day. “I had a business trip planned but it got canceled.”
<
p>I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to be mistaken.
When you click on Brown’s link to his absentee voter application, you get Brown’s absentee ballot application that has the same “for use by” rules box that the state’s absentee ballot application has, and the illegal absentee voting penalty warning.
<
p>So what’s the problem?
is that Brown is actively encouraging people to vote absentee without saying a bloody thing about the eligibility rules. It’s irresponsible for him to encourage his supporters both to vote absentee and to get their friends to do so, knowing full well that the vast majority of them won’t be eligible to do so — but also that they probably won’t read the fine print on the application. It’s also very unfair to his supporters, who may unwittingly vote illegally as a result of his exhortations.
<
p>Someone who is as concerned about voter fraud as Brown so obviously is should at least mention, somewhere on his website, that there are actually rules about this stuff.
it’d be a perfect way to advocate on changing the law at the same time. “Remember, you need to be expecting to physically not be able to get to the polls to get an absentee. [Link here about how Brown wants to change that law.]”
<
p>Missed opportunity, along with tricking voters into possibly doing the illegal thing.
what Brown actually says on his website is:
<
p>
<
p>How much clearer could it be? There’s no asterisk; there’s no fine print; there’s no nothing, until you actually download the PDF and (figure the odds) carefully parse the language it contains.
It’s up at the top, and it’s in bold. (Actually, the rules box is a bit smaller on the application that Brown provides, but the penalty statement is up front in big bold letters.
If Scott Brown sent out a notice “Smoke Marijuana!” But then when you downloaded the notice it said “actually, smoking marijuana is technically not legal”, it would be ok by you?
Absentee balloting IS legal in certain circumstances, which Steve Stein pointed out above ARE listed when you click through.
Huh?? It’s a bad thing now to encourage civic engagement?! Anyone who clicks on the “vote absentee” links on the Brown website will immediately see the eligibility rules spelled out on the face of the form. No illegality by a long stretch. Then again, guess it beats talking about the differences between the candidates on the issues.
<
p>
that is not consistent with the Mass. General Laws.
<
p>Again, this is what Brown’s website says (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>Sounds pretty straightforward to me — “you can vote absentee.” Except that you probably can’t, but never mind — we assume that you will read the fine print on the Secretary of State’s form before you fill it out, so that you don’t subject yourself to heavy criminal penalties.
<
p>I mean, come on. Do you seriously think the Brown campaign would be making this big push to get people to vote absentee if they only were targeting the small number of people who will be physically unable to make it to the polls on election day? That would make no sense.
<
p>As for “the issues,” don’t worry. There’s plenty of time for that. After all, unless you are one of the small minority of MA voters legally eligible to vote absentee, you can’t formalize your decision until January 19.
is an illegal exhortation to violate the election laws because it doesn’t also state “*only registered Republicans and Unenrolled voters are eligible to vote for Scott Brown on December 8?” People who are eligible to vote absentee should vote absentee if they meet the eligibility requirements as listed on the face of the form. Sounds like a reach to me to assert otherwise. Btw, what’s your prediction on your side of the aisle for Tuesday? The word on our side is that Cappy has strong potential for an upset.
<
p>Isn’t that exactly why Scott Brown filed legislation in MA to defund ACORN? Becuase of their illegal acts including voter fraud?
we’re going to prosecute dead people.
Unless it’s the Lowell Sun making that up.
Others made this same mistake in writing about the trial announcement. Some attributing the misunderstandiong to Cheney himself:
<
p>http://sayanythingblog.com/ent…
<
p>Nowhere is Scott Brown directly quoted making the same mistake.
Why only last night, I saw Sec. of State Galvin on the
Tee-Vee, and he was saying if you wanted to vote absentee, JUST CALL HIS OFFICE!!
<
p>How high does this conspiracy go????
….seen this ad a number of times and if memory serves it is mentioned that you can vote absentee if you can’t make it to the polls on election day.
<
p>The issue is of course not that people are being informed that they can vote absentee by Brown, it is that Brown is encouraging people to vote absentee for convenience and not necessity.
<
p>You, of course, understand the difference which is why you are relying on being cute with your retort…to deflect from your failure to even address the germane issue.
You’ve DISCUSSED motivation with them, and Brown is pushing mere convenience?
The weird thing is when I try to read yours all I get is a Mass. GOP news feed. đŸ˜‰
I’m not sure if Brown wants me to vote absentee, or join Starfleet Academy.
will you be doing the same to Martha Coakley. Who has done the same thing. This is political campaign 101 David, filed under, make sure your absentee voters get absentee ballots.
<
p>
She lists the criteria for voting absentee.
<
p>In the email she mentions “if you are not able to vote in person.”
…you linked clearly states “…if you are not available to vote in person on Election Day…” There is not even a whiff of encouragement to vote absentee for the sake of convenience.
<
p>While there is little doubt that Brown would not wish to encourage his supporters to break the law, his communication clearly encourages people to vote absentee for convenience. It is poorly worded and clearly ripe for criticism considering his well documented, public position on the potential for voter fraud in public elections. This is not political campaign 101. It is political campaign 201..how not to do something stupid when completing campaign 101 tasks. Brown needs to do some extra-credit work if he wants to pass.
<
p>
Loved the analysis of the course curriculum here.
Scott Brown does not.
<
p>Moreover, Scott Brown filed legislation to deny ACORN state funds due to alleged criminal behaviour including voter fraud. Seems to me, at the very least, Scott Brown has to explain how what he’s doing is legal and what they’re doing is not.
It’s now: “As a supporter of Scott Brown, you can vote Absentee if you are not available to vote on January 19. Please download our absentee ballot request form to Vote Absentee. You can also recruit fellow supporters that won’t be able to vote on January 19th to request the Absentee application.”
<
p>Kudos, David!
Coakley’s website of course makes our point for us, since she expressly notes that you can vote absentee for Coakley “even if you are not available to vote in person on Election Day.” đŸ˜€
<
p>We are pleased to see that the Brown campaign has taken our suggestion and followed Coakley’s lead on this by altering its pitch to potential absentee voters. One hopes that there weren’t too many improper absentee ballots already sent in … that might constitute [gasp] VOTER FRAUD!! Quick, call a Republican!
You DO know that you only APPLY for such a ballot, and the clerk decides the validity of the request, right?
It’s so sad watching you guys try to defend this screw-up by Brown — which, I must add, he has effectively admitted by altering the website.
<
p>Yes, I know exactly how absentee voting works. In fact, I just did it myself, since I will in fact be out of town on election day, as required by the Massachusetts General Laws.
<
p>Look, it’s not like Brown was slaughtering puppies or something. (At least, not as far as we know…) I called a mistake to his campaign’s attention. They fixed it, and hopefully not too many improper absentee ballots have already been sent in. “The integrity of the system,” and all that. đŸ˜‰ Why not just admit what is obvious, instead of trying to defend the indefensible?
<
p>Lest he be accused of sobouring voter fraud, Scott Brown should make an effort to contact all those who used his web interface to get a absentee ballot who are avaiable to vote Tuesday.
<
p>I hope the FEC complaint Martha files against Scott takes less time to resolve than the one Scott filed against Martha.
Suborning FRAUD?
<
p>And while YOU understand absentee voting, I’ll bet you a cookie that those who write as if downloading and filing an application – which a clerk can still reject as inadequate – actually don’t, as they speak of VOTING instead of applying. Or, if they DO understand, they are merely trying to create a specious appearance of fraud that they can casuallly refer to in a couple of weeks.
PP. You’re absolutely correct. Suborning fraud is a mistake. I should have said conspiracy to commit voter fraud.
you DO know that when you APPLY for an absentee ballot, you don’t actually supply any INFORMATION about WHY you will be UNABLE to VOTE in person, don’t YOU?
<
p>Which is to say, the clerk’s offices have no basis on which to “decide the validity” of absentee ballot requests. They have to assume that people have read the rules, and are making the requests in good faith. Which is why Brown’s screw-up was especially egregious IMHO. The clerk’s offices cannot act as a backstop for this kind of thing.
At least, I’ve read somewhere that this might be happening.
<
p>The real question is, now that the campaign has effectively admitted its mistake, what liability, if any, they face. Neil has started the ball rolling, but he has only discussed prosecutions by public authorities. Presumably there is also a private cause of action here for those credulous Republicans who followed the organization’s suggestion and voted absentee even though they knew in good faith they would be able to vote in person on election day. As they languish in jail for the next five years they will have plenty of time to contemplate civil suits against … who? Senator Brown, surely, but perhaps also his campaign staff? The mind boggles.
Would Scott Brown support amnesty for those who illegally vote absentee?
Scott isn’t the only without-a-prayer candidate who’s encouraging absentee voting by his supporters.
<
p>This is the post-script from Alan Khazei’s last email (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>This “early voting” is really absentee voting, and like you’ve said above David, is only legal if you will actually be absent from your town on election day. Most volunteers will work in their own city or town (often right outside their own polling location) on election day, making it easy for them to vote with the rest of us. Despite where you stand on voting regulations or elections reform, it seems clear to me that if Scott Brown’s tactics are illegal, so are Khazei’s.
I’ve been on several campaigns where volunteers who will be active all of election day, not always in their own town, have been encouraged to get their own voting out of the way so they don’t forget in the hecticness of calling, standouts, watching, and reporting.
But mostly they encourage that from seniors. The other legal reason to vote is if you have a physical reason for not making it to the polls on election day.
<
p>But I doubt that the Brown campaign’s website is targeted at seniors. Though that would be an interesting strategy for them to try out.
…the volunteers have been asked to vote early.
It’s actually a real gray area. Technically, it’s not really legal, because most volunteers are not actually out of town on election day, they simply can’t get to the polls. But then for many volunteers it’s the only way they can vote.
<
p>So you end up with a situation like Tomas Gonzalez had in the Boston election where Dave Wedge does one of his classic hit pieces (sorry, Herald archives won’t let you actually see this story) about candidates who didn’t vote. Tomas legally couldn’t file absentee probably, because he was in Boston on some part of election day. But was working those elections and probably couldn’t find time to get away to vote.
<
p>I’m sure people technically break the law regularly and vote absentee when they aren’t supposed to. The point here is that campaigns should at least be attempting to note the legal guidelines for absentee voting when encouraging supporters to vote that way.
…and at some out-of-town polling place by 7 am and work all day. So they are in fact out of town on election day.
“Please vote for me…” —- Hey, I can’t vote for you now, I have to wait until Election Day. He implied that of course…
<
p>Maybe Scott Brown was “implying” that he wanted them to vote in absence if they weren’t going to be able to vote in person. Hardly anything illegal there.
<
p>David, aren’t you a lawyer?
<
p>I often use absentee ballots on a regular basis… just in case of weather or last minute travel.