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

[Lori Minnite]

New Hampshire is not covered by the NVRA, which means on the books, at 
least, they make it particularly hard to register any way but in person, 
either before election day or on election day.  In other words, it's 
possible, but not easy to register by mail.  Their model is one in which 
the due diligence on identity, citizenship, qualifications and residency 
is done at the time of registration, with registration applicants 
consistently warned about the penalties for voter fraud.  
See:http://www.sos.nh.gov/654-web2011.pdf

On 1/11/2012 5:58 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
> 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
>     </mc/compose?to=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
>     </mc/compose?to=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# <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
>     </mc/compose?to=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
>     </mc/compose?to=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/20120111/53f1c6e4/attachment.html>