[EL] Lead Penn Voter ID Plaintiff gets her ID

Fri Aug 17 15:46:58 PDT 2012

Thanks for sending this.  

I'm sure lots of us have such tales.  A few years ago my partner and I lived for one year in Brooklyn, NY.  Shortly after we arrived, we filled out voter registration cards and put them in the mail together.  I saw both cards, and they were identical (aside from our names etc.) but somehow the end result was that I got added to the rolls, and my partner did not.  They had no record of her even attempting to register (as we discovered, of course, after the registration deadline had passed).  On election day, I voted, while she filled out a provisional ballot that was almost certainly not counted, because she was not registered.  She didn't get to vote because of somebody's bureaucratic or ministerial error somewhere up the chain.  

We moved around and changed our registration a number of times in those several years; it strikes me as non-coincidental that the one place we experienced this kind of failure was when we moved to a large city with many bureaucracies that tended to be overburdened, underfunded, and clearly (from personal interactions) not always as competent as one might wish.

Perhaps my partner's next move should have been to become the lead plaintiff in some sort of big voting rights lawsuit -- then the state might have discovered a way, as with Applewhite, to exercise its discretion to bend the relevant rule (in my partner's case, the deadline she "missed") and get her on the rolls.

Joey

Joseph Fishkin
Assistant Professor
University of Texas School of Law
727 E. Dean Keeton St., Austin, TX 78705
jfishkin at law.utexas.edu

On Aug 17, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Lorraine Minnite wrote:

> I'd like to see John Fund put the same level of energy he puts into misleading the public about voter fraud into reporting on the thousands of citizens in federal elections who are eligible to vote, want to vote, try to vote and don't get their votes counted.  Election administration is still a mess, despite all the good intentions, money, and civic-mindedness of election officials, poll workers, and volunteers.
> 
> Here is a place for John Fund to begin his new line of research:
> 
> I recently moved from New York City to New Jersey.  In June, I spent three days driving here and there to obtain a copy of my birth certificate ($20), applying for a new Social Security card which I lost decades ago, and transferring my drivers license and car registration.  At the DMV I was asked if I wanted to register to vote.  I said yes.  Later that day, I mailed in a form to the New York City Board of Elections requesting that my voter registration be cancelled because I had moved, and supplying my new address.  I changed my address online with the U.S. Postal Service.  It's August 17th, and I do not show up on the voter rolls in New Jersey; today, a former house mate reported that a brochure from the New York City Board of Elections on how to vote on the new machines arrived in the mail addressed to me.  I'm still on the rolls at my old address in Manhattan.
> 
> So here we have a situation, more and more common it seems to me, where nothing works.  I did not get registered as I should have in compliance with federal law; my registration at my old address has not been cancelled despite my reasonable effort to cancel it; and a change of address with the USPS registered two months ago did not prevent a mailing from an elections board going to my old address.  If I weren't me, I might not pay attention to all of these bureaucratic failures and show at the polls in NJ in November, only to be turned away.
> 
> Where is the outrage, John Fund?  Many, many more people have their votes "cancelled out" and "diluted" by these kinds of problems than they do by any fraudulent vote, but we are still       having this stupid discussion with right-wingers about voter fraud.
> 
> Lori Minnite
> 
> 
> On 8/17/2012 4:06 PM, Justin Levitt wrote:
>> 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), as I've said, 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-200-322           
>>> twitter.com/lex_rex
>>> 
>>> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  
>>> jon.roland at constitution.org
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> 
>> 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