Just saw a tweet from Rick Hasen complaining that I didn’t post something here he wanted me to post.  (Talk about irony, given the bias of his blog; TPM for heaven’s sake!)

“Rick Hasen‏@rickhasen

I shouldn’t be surprised that Christian Adams (@electionlawctr) didn’t publish my comment replying to his false claims”

Perhaps Hasen is talking about the fact that I posted that I heard that an offer was made to have Fund and/or von Spakovsky debate him to refute errors and, yes, misleading parts of Hasen’s new book.  I was also told that the offer has not been accepted.

There is nothing false about the fact that I was told this.  Hasen has repeatedly tossed around the claim that some people are liars, notably calling John Fund and Han von Spakovsky such.   How unfortunate, especially given the claims in his book (and yes, let me add to any offer already made to Hasen or his publisher to debate the claims in his book, any time.)

Perhaps Hasen tweets the above because he HAS accepted an offer to debate Fund or von Spakovsky.  If so, I will duly report it here.  Until then…

UPDATE: Hasen responds via Twitter he is “mulling” a debate, but that his interaction on Twitter with me weighs against it, as if I will make a third debater.  He has not yet answered the question whether he checked with his publisher whether an offer to debate him was made.  When he answers, I will try to post his response here.

UPDATE TWO:  You’d think Rick Hasen has enough to worry about besides a blog he does not own, namely this one.  Between demanding that I remove content on my blog, namely this post, to demanding that I approve comments upon his demand, you’d think somehow this blog is jointly owned.  It isn’t.  For example, this blog has comments, and occasionally I get around to approving them.  His blog doesn’t even open up his posts to comment.  “Doesn’t have time to moderate them,” he once said, or words to that effect.  Yet if ELC doesn’t approve one of his pressing comments promptly, or at all, Rick Hasen takes to Twitter to gripe. 

So let’s get a couple of things straight.  This blog originally posted that an offer was made to Hasen and/or his publisher to debate either Hans von Spakovsky or John Fund.  The central issue is whether Hasen is willing to stand up and defend his work in something other than a softball atmosphere such as at the Brennan Center or UC Berkeley.  So far, signs point to no.  In fact, Hasen tweeted yesterday that he is inclined not to debate Fund or von Spakovsky based on my Twitter exchange with him.  Sound logic there.  Avoid debate with people because of what someone else says on Twitter.  

So back to Mr. Hasen’s obsession – which is for me to “retract” the post saying that I was told an offer was made to debate Hasen by the Who’s Counting camp.  There will be no retraction because the prior sentence was entirely accurate.  Hasen denies anyone made such an offer, says John Fund told him he didn’t make an offer, and Hasen says his publisher received no such offer.  There you go, that’s his story.  Obviously the two versions are no consistent, but this isn’t a classroom.  The professor doesn’t set the rules.  The facts are all on the table and now we can ask the bigger question besides nitpicking demands for retractions, and that is:

Will the author of Voting Wars debate anyone, either Fund of von Spakovsky?  Will the author venture into somewhere other than friendly confines (as I have done on Pacifica Radio and in rooms full of law students hostile to Voter ID) and debate the ideas and assertions in Voting Wars?  As we’ve already seen, the former Voting Section Chief takes issue with the accuracy of Voting Wars about matters the former chief has firsthand knowledge. 

Of course the author himself of Voting Wars could invite Fund or von Spakovsky to debate the books.  That would certainly resolve this silly tiff, wouldn’t it?  It would demonstrate a confidence in defending the content of a book which I am not sure exists right now.  This blog will be the first (or second) to report that Hasen has extended such an offer, or if the Who’s Voting camp makes a future offer to debate.  Standing by.