[EL] Interview request
Douglas Carver
dhmcarver at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 08:46:10 PST 2012
Or have automatic voter registration, like many other democracies do.
The government knew when I had to register for the draft -- why can't
it tell when I am eligible to vote?
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Dan Johnson <dan at kchrlaw.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should just equalize the burden and charge everyone the same amount
> of money it costs to get a birth certificate at the polls.
>
> Or what we should really do is impose the burden on government to prepare,
> issue and distribute IDs to the electorate like most other democracies do,
> rather than imposing the burden on the citizen.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:22 AM, "Adam Bonin" <adam at boninlaw.com> wrote:
>
> 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)
>
> adam at 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
View list directory