[EL] Interview request
Adam Bonin
adam at boninlaw.com
Thu Jan 12 08:22:02 PST 2012
I don't know any married nuns. Maybe I need to visit more convents.
There's a good discussion of the burdens in Section II of Justice Souter's
dissent in Crawford. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZD.html
Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)
<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com> adam at boninlaw.com
<http://www.boninlaw.com/> http://www.boninlaw.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:17 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; dhmcarver at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
There are a lot of reasons why someone needs a birth certificate. I had to
present one when I was 15 and registering for social security and when I was
18 registering for the draft. I had to present one to get a passport. I
think I had to present one to get a marriage licence 29 years ago. So one
needs a birth certificate for many things and it is hardly an unusual
burden. Jim
In a message dated 1/12/2012 11:11:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
And for those who don't have a birth certificate, the costs are
considerably higher.
On 1/12/2012 5:47 AM, Douglas Carver wrote:
> In other words, all the nuns have to do is jump over a barrier that
> has no business being there in the first place -- sorry nuns, and
> anyone else who has to make that jump.
>
> It always strikes me as curious that conservatives go ape over
> anything approaching gun control because "some day the government will
> take all of our guns", yet they are quite happy with incremental
> barriers to restrictions on voting. Anyone who has looked at how
> voting rights were stripped from black Americans at the end of the
> nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century should be
> aware that small barriers have a way of becoming big ones.
>
> Douglas Carver
> Albuquerque, NM
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM,<JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>> All the nuns have to do is hitch a ride to the nearest licence branch and
>> get a free identification card. They don't have to get a driver's
licence.
>> Really hard! Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 1/11/2012 8:16:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com writes:
>>
>> As one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs who challenged Indiana's photo
>> ID law in the Crawford case, the assertion that the Indiana nuns in
South
>> Bend were engaged in a premeditated publicity stunt or were deliberately
>> making a "political statement" is unfounded and simply absurd. After the
>> incident was reported in the media, we made repeated efforts to speak
with
>> these nuns and were rebuffed. Their subsequent reticence to speak with
>> anyone about their experience attempting to vote without ID belies any
claim
>> that they had a political motive. And these nuns, who I recall were all
in
>> their 70s, 80s and 90s, were non-drivers for whom obtaining required ID
>> would have been anything but easy.
>>
>> Bill Groth
>>
>> ------- Original Message ------- On 1/12/2012 12:08 AM Justin Levitt
wrote:
>> I have a different recollection about the Indiana
nuns --
>> including whether the IDs were actually"readily attainable"
>> for 98-year-old non-drivers. And as I recall, the majority of nuns
in
>> the convent were dissuaded from showing up at the polls when they
heard
>> about their fellow sisters being turned away, which seems like a
>> particularly poorly executed publicity exercise. But I also wasn't
>> on-site. And I have no doubt that some on-site thought it was a
>> publicity stunt, and some did not, which does little to resolve the
>> issue.
>>
>> Moreover, it's a fair point that Brad makes about generally
>> responding to the substance ... though I don't think the substance
>> of the"experiment" is worth all that much in reflecting on the
>> policy.
>>
>> My problem with the substance of the"experiment" (beyond
>> its potential illegality) is that it to the extent it is intended to
be
>> relevant to the debate over restrictive voter ID laws, it encourages
>> uninformed policymaking by unrepresentative anecdote. (When you go
>> looking for actual dead voters, you more often find this.)
>>
>> The more thoughtful discussions about ID are -- as I think
you've
>> pointed out, Brad -- driven by data. They're debates about costs
>> and benefits, including different ways in which states may ask voters
to
>> identify themselves, and different ways in which those methods of
>> identification impact the electorate. The"experiment" does
>> little to tease out whether asking someone to sign in is different
from
>> asking them to show some form of documentation is different from
asking
>> them to show one or two state-specified cards. It does nothing to
>> identify the relative impact of any of those rules on real
individuals.
>> And it does nothing to identify whether plugging the potential
security
>> breach is worth the demonstrated cost. The video isn't intended
to
>> do any of those things -- it's intended to sensationalize one
aspect
>> of the problem. Mr. O'Keefe has shown a talent at succeeding at
>> this part
>> icular goal. But I'm not sure that calls for
a"substantive"
>> response from opponents of ID laws. If anything, it would call for
>> sensationalism in return. And I don't see how that helps anyone
>> other than the sensationalists.
>>
>>
>> Put differently: if I manufacture a fake photo ID and sign in at
the
>> polls using that fake photo ID, would the fact that I've
>> surreptitiously videotaped it demand a substantive response from
those
>> who favor ID laws? Or would that particular criminal act be not
>> terribly representative of how the system normally works?
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On 1/11/2012 3:35 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>> Perhaps prosecutors should investigate and prosecute (and perhaps
>> not, if cooler heads prevail); but does that say anything one way
or
>> the other about the, what should we call it,
>> "experiment"? If O'Keefe's experiment is
correct
>> and it is easy to pull the names of recently deceased voters, and
>> then to send people in to vote them, that would seem to be pretty
>> relevant to the debate over voter ID (at least demanding a
>> substantive response from opponents of ID laws) and simply urging
>> that the testers be prosecuted without that substantive response
>> seems an awful lot like an effort to change the subject.
>> If I recall, in 2008, a bunch of nuns in Indiana,
rather
>> than get IDs which were readily attainable, made a big point
>> of going down to vote without getting IDs, basically to make a
>> political PR statement. O'Keefe's actions (or those of the
>> people requesting ballots in his scheme) may have been illegal
(I
>> don't know on the question of voting the ballots), but in
>> spirit strike me as little different from the actions of the
nuns.
>> A bit of theater to make a point, but no actual harm to the
>> integrity of any election results done. While I don't
>> encourage that (perhaps a small fine would be appropriate), it
>> seems a bit churlish to demand prosecutions but not to address
the
>> issue the may have been exposed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bradley A. Smith
>>
>> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>>
>> Professor of Law
>>
>> Capital University Law School
>>
>> 303 E. Broad St.
>>
>> Columbus, OH 43215
>>
>> 614.236.6317
>>
>> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>> From:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf
of
>> Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:13 PM
>> To: Justin Levitt
>> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
>>
>> I never said there was no crime. I'm with
>> Justin. And I've urged prosecutors to
>> investigate, which they now
>> apparently are.
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/2012 3:09 PM, Justin Levitt wrote:
Are
>> we sure?
>>
>> Federal law prohibits fraudulently
>> "procuring" ballots in addition to"casting" them,
>> which might indicate that a crime is complete even if the
>> ballot is not voted.
>> And state law similarly prohibits
>> "applying for" a ballot in a name other than
your
>> own, in addition to"voting".
>>
>> I don't know whether either of those provisions
have
>> ever been enforced, much less construed, for ballots
>> that have not been voted, and to me, the more natural
>> reading is to construe them so as to apply to procuring
>> ballots for other people to vote them. But I could
>> understand an alternative view. And as I keep hearing
with
>> respect to this issue, whether the provision has been
>> enforced in such circumstances isn't a particularly
good
>> gauge of whether criminal activity has occurred.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On 1/11/2012 2:46 PM, Frank Askin wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 c
>> orruption, 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 Bieni!
>> ek On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:54 PM,"Ryan J. Reilly" 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,
>> -- 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
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
> --
> Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
>
> (I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
>
> -- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120112/dcbf868a/attachment.html>
View list directory