[EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID

[Justin Levitt]

Well, for those (vanishing few) who are _actually_ interested in the 
facts, I'd recommend that people read the actual report referenced in 
Fund's article, rather than Fund's gloss, which (as usual) conflates a 
whole lot of irregularity that ID requirements couldn't possibly help stop.

The actual report that Fund references (available, among other places, 
here 
<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27249508/Voting%20Irregularities%20Report.pdf>), as 
I've said 
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2012-July/004105.html>, 
appears to be far better researched than most.

Justin

On 8/17/2012 12:43 PM, John Meyer wrote:
> I think many of you may have read this, but it is relevant to the 
> question of need for voter ID requirements with specific reference to 
> Pennsylvania
> as it includes reference to an actual, recent look at various voting 
> irregularities in Philadelphia:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314273/voter-fraud-keystone-state-john-fund
>
> I certainly am not an expert on Pennsylvania voter problems, but it is 
> well-known in political circles that both parties used to have areas 
> where they would
> manufacture votes by various methods. with the demise of big-city 
> Republican machines, the tendency became more party-specific -- and 
> even more so with
> the collapse of some of the Republican suburban machines, such as 
> Nassau county in New York (I don't know if Nassau County R's actually 
> manufactured votes
> or if they only followed the 1% of salary for all public employees 
> tradition).  Anyway, I do recommend the article.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org>
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2012 12:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID
>
> In general there are no requirements for a plaintiff to prove identity 
> to file a case, in any jurisdiction. Identification comes in with 
> being a witness and providing evidence, such as presenting an 
> affidavit, which must be sworn before a notary or other designated 
> verifier. Of course, the attorney will be expected to provide his 
> name, address, and bar card number, but he will usually not have to 
> otherwise prove he is who he says he is, and his client can be a "John 
> Doe". Even a witness may be anonymous with the consent of the court.
>
> The elevation of personal identity to the importance accorded it today 
> is an innovation in our legal tradition. Historically it has had much 
> less importance, usually where ownership of property was involved.
>
> On 08/17/2012 11:07 AM, Michael McDonald wrote:
>> The state of Pennsylvania has a more strict
>> identification law for voting than to be a plaintiff in a case?
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322twitter.com/lex_rex  <http://twitter.com/lex_rex>
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001jon.roland at constitution.org  <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120817/526803aa/attachment.html>