[EL] Interview request
Even, Jeff (ATG)
JeffE at ATG.WA.GOV
Thu Jan 12 09:26:06 PST 2012
They're all married. That's why they wear rings. ;)
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam
Bonin
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:22 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; dhmcarver at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
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 <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/20120112/097feb9d/attachment.html>
View list directory