[EL] Interview request
Richard Winger
richardwinger at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 12 08:57:56 PST 2012
Social security has never made having a birth certificate a requirement for getting a social security card, or any other service from Social Security. Thousands of people living in the U.S. were born in foreign countries for which it is impossible to get a birth certificate. And even for people born in the United States, as late as the 1960's and 1970's, many counter-cultural people gave birth at home, and no birth certificate was ever created. I worked for Social Security for 17 years and I know all the accomodations Social Security has always made for people with no birth certificate.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
--- On Thu, 1/12/12, JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
From: JBoppjr at aol.com <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu, dhmcarver at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 8:17 AM
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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/20120112/833ff9c0/attachment.html>
View list directory