[EL] New Hampshire doesn't ask voters to sign in

[Richard Winger]

I was surprised to learn, as a result of this incident, that in New Hampshire, voters at the polls aren't asked to sign anything.  California certainly requires voters to sign in.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Wed, 1/11/12, Frank Askin <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu> wrote:

From: Frank Askin <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
To: "Scott Bieniek" <sbieniek at bienieklaw.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 2:46 PM

I agree with Rick Hasen.  It appears that none of O'keefe's actors was
stupid enough to actually vote and risk a 5-year jail sentence.  I wish
they had.... Also, it is unclear whether a voter in New Hampshire has to
sign in before voting.  When I go to vote, no one asks me for ID but I
have to sign the register so my signature can be compared with the one
in the book.  FRANK




Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law       and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> Scott Bieniek <sbieniek at bienieklaw.com> 1/11/2012
4:53 PM >>>
“Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And
who
would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the
outcome
of the election and (2) remain undetected?” Hasen wrote.
I'm not buying this argument. You could make the same argument against
quid-pro-quo corruption, and the need for contribution limits and
compelled
disclosure.

Quid-pro-quo corruption is typically a felony, and yet we have
contribution
limits and compelled disclosure, in part, because the risk of
prosecution
is deemed insufficient to deter the conduct, or at least prevent the
appearance thereof in the eyes of the public.

If the appearance of corruption is sufficient to support contribution
limits and compelled public disclosure, why isn't the appearance of
in-person voter fraud sufficient to justify voter ID?

In return for Voter ID, we get:
1. Restored public confidence that it is harder for O'Keefe and others
to
pull off a stunt like this.
2. A method of detecting in-person voter fraud at the time of the
crime.

And because wagers are all the rage this cycle, I'd be willing to
wager
that a higher percentage of the public believe that Voter ID prevents
in-person fraud than those that believe limits or disclosure prevent
corruption.

Scott Bieniek



On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:54 PM, "Ryan J. Reilly"
<ryan at talkingpointsmemo.com>
wrote:

I'm writing a story about James O'Keefe's new video in which his
associates
obtained ballots using the names of recently deceased New Hampshire
voters
and was hoping someone would be available for an interview on short
notice.
As far as I can tell this is the largest coordinated attempt at
in-person
voter impersonation fraud, and it was conducted by a group to show why
voter ID laws were necessary. I'm at 202-527-9261.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded#! 

Thanks,

-- 
Ryan J. Reilly
Reporter, TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ryanjreilly 
(202) 527-9261 (cell)
http://www.twitter.com/ryanjreilly 

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120111/118ee65c/attachment.html>