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.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he will ask the state’s Supreme Court to reinstate a voter identification law before the Nov. 6 state and national elections. …Van Hollen, who appealed both rulings on the state’s behalf, today said he wants the high court to block their enforcement.

Link here.

In Pennsylvania – The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, is pushing back on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder this week, calling a Justice Department inquiry into the state’s voter ID law “unprecedented” and the department’s interest in the matter politically driven

 Mr. Holder’s interest in the matter instead seemed geared to drum up racial tensions in the swing state in an election year, adding the prospect of a federal civil rights lawsuit to cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the new voting requirements.

Not election related, my latest at Front Page.

“National Geographic Explorer’s Hall in Washington D.C. has hosted some of the most prestigious exhibits in America. Previous exhibits have included the Chinese terracotta warriors, as well as the James Caird, the lifeboat Sir Ernest Shackleton miraculously sailed from Antarctica to South Georgia Island in 1916. Currently it is hosting a curious exhibit through February 2013 entitled “1001 Inventions: Discover the Golden Age of Muslim Civilization.” This high tech, slickly produced exhibit explicitly seeks to debunk the “myth” that the dark ages were dark.

The exhibit purports to provide examples of innovations from Muslim civilization, and some of the claims may come as a surprise to those familiar with the Wright Brothers or Yuri Gagarin.”

The ultimate voter impersonation scheme where people actually voted in disguise and dressed in drag to fraudulently vote for others.  On this one, it is almost too surreal to believe.  

The ultimate voter impersonation scheme where people actually voted in disguise and dressed in drag to fraudulently vote for others.  On this one, it is almost too surreal to believe.  

Daily Caller has more.

Daily Caller has more.

The Republican party is on the brink of dealing a major blow to Iowa’s traditional caucus system, with the process’ critics pointing to recent battles over military voting rights to make the case for ending traditional nominating contest. Chris Brown, Chairman of the Young Republican Federation of Alabama and a member of the Republican Convention’s Rules Committee, is expected introduce a measure tomorrow requiring states to use “every means practicable” to ensure that military voters can cast ballots in any process used in the Republican presidential nominating process, according to a person involved in the effort. The measure will be seconded by influential Ohio GOP chair Bob Bennett, who has been a member of the RNC for more than two decades, the source said.

The Republican party is on the brink of dealing a major blow to Iowa’s traditional caucus system, with the process’ critics pointing to recent battles over military voting rights to make the case for ending traditional nominating contest. Chris Brown, Chairman of the Young Republican Federation of Alabama and a member of the Republican Convention’s Rules Committee, is expected introduce a measure tomorrow requiring states to use “every means practicable” to ensure that military voters can cast ballots in any process used in the Republican presidential nominating process, according to a person involved in the effort. The measure will be seconded by influential Ohio GOP chair Bob Bennett, who has been a member of the RNC for more than two decades, the source said.