[EL] New Hampshire doesn't ask voters to sign in
Lori Minnite
lminnite at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 18:34:50 PST 2012
Maybe. See Section 654:12, which reads, in part:
A person who has in his or her immediate possession a photo
identification approved for use by paragraph II must present that
identification when applying for registration. A person who does not
have an approved photo identification with him or her may establish
identity through any reasonable means, including, but not limited to:
photo identification not approved by paragraph II, but determined to be
legitimate by the supervisors of the checklist or clerk, verification of
the person’s identity by another person registered as a voter and known
to the supervisor or clerk, or completion of the qualified voter
affidavit, which shall be retained in accordance with RSA 33-A:33-a.
So, technically, document ID isn't required to register as long as a
person's identity can be verified by another registered voter known to
the clerk.
Hey - you New Hampshire election administration experts lurking on this
list - where are you when we need you?
On 1/11/2012 9:14 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
> Well, the video shows someone coming in who says he is not registered
> to vote. The poll worker tells him he can register right there on the
> spot. Then he asks if he needs ID to do that, and she seems to tell
> him that he doesn't. That surprised me. Maybe she was wrong.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Wed, 1/11/12, Lori Minnite /<lminnite at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Lori Minnite <lminnite at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] New Hampshire doesn't ask voters to sign in
> To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 4:16 PM
>
> 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>
>> </mc/compose?to=faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Frank Askin <faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
>> </mc/compose?to=faskin at kinoy.rutgers.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
>> To: "Scott Bieniek" <sbieniek at bienieklaw.com>
>> </mc/compose?to=sbieniek at bienieklaw.com>,
>> "law-election at uci.edu" </mc/compose?to=law-election at uci.edu>
>> <law-election at uci.edu> </mc/compose?to=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#
>> <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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120111/696dc74c/attachment.html>
View list directory