[EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID

Fri Aug 17 08:27:53 PDT 2012

I think there are multiple problems with this poll (at least if the actual questions are nearly the same as Jeff's paraphrase. For example

--there may be no contradiction between "all eligible voters should be allowed to vote" and people who "have recently been convicted of a felony" should not be allowed to vote, and
--Point 2 does not seem to deal with who is allowed to vote but rather who should vote.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Milyo, Jeffrey D.
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:45 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID

One might think that everyone agrees with Joe and Rick ("all eligible voters should be allowed to vote"), but apparently not... without endorsing the public's opinion, I present for your consideration:

>From the 2011 CCES, a nationally representative poll of 1,000 persons:*

1. People should not be allowed to vote if...
1a. They go to the wrong polling place:  42% agree; 38% disagree
1b.  They can't speak English:  53% agree; 31% disagree
1c.  They can't produce current identification: 74% agree; 13% disagree
1d. They have recently been convicted of a felony: 48% agree; 28% disagree
and
2.  People that are not well informed about the issues should not vote: 46% agree; 29% disagree
(that disqualifies me)

*survey questions are paraphrased for ease of presentation here

Jeff Milyo

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]<mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]> On Behalf Of Joe La Rue
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:20 AM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID

I agree, Rick, with your hope that the State sets appropriate guidelines to aid this process. Although you and I disagree as to whether there ought to be voter photo ID laws, we are in complete agreement that ALL eligible Americans should be allowed to vote.

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
I hope that the state has set forth uniform rules for how to take age and other factors into consideration.  One thing studies have demonstrated is that there is not uniformity in local election administration, when local election officials are given discretion over how to administer the rules.

On 8/17/12 7:15 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
Interesting development in the Penn Voter ID case: the lead plaintiff, who said she wouldn't be allowed to get an ID, just got one<http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news/breaking/&id=166490216&viewAll=y>.

The day after a judge upheld Pennsylvania's new voter identification law, the lead plaintiff in the suit seeking to block the law went to a PennDot office and was issued the photo ID card she needs to vote.

Nothing has changed since Viviette Applewhite, 93, testified in July. The law stands. She still doesn't have a driver's license or Social Security card. The name on her birth certificate is still different from the name on her other documents - all of which, under the law, should have barred her from getting her photo ID.
But at precisely 1:16 p.m. Thursday, she got it anyway.
The State did just what has been saying it would do: it took "age and other factors into consideration" and got this lady her ID so she could vote. I wonder if the other plaintiffs might be able to do the same thing?

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715<tel:480.272.2715>
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072> - office
949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120817/88acadd0/attachment.html>