[EL] Interview request
dasmith
dasmith at ufl.edu
Thu Jan 12 09:39:08 PST 2012
i'm curious, in response to dan johnson's comment, if anyone has tallied
the amount of money the US government has provided to developing
countries (largely in the form of USAID grants) to register voters and
issue ID cards. USAID was the major provider of photo ID cards in ghana
when i was a fulbright scholar there in 2000-01 (i wrote an article
about ghana's voter registration exercise, available here
<http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/jmas.pdf>), and ghana will be
investing some $80 million (US $) to issue biometric registration cards
to all eligible voters in advance of their 2012 election. when i was
there this fall, USAID was certainly considering subsidizing some of
that effort, with taxpayer $.
kinda ironic.
dan
daniel a. smith, ph.d.
professor& uf research foundation professor (2010-2012)
coordinator, political science internship program
department of political science
003 anderson hall | phone: 352-273-2346
po box 117325 | fax: 352-392-8127
university of florida | email: dasmith at ufl.edu
gainesville, fl 32611-7325 | www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/
http://twitter.com/#!/electionsmith
On 1/12/2012 11:40 AM, Dan Johnson 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:17 AM
> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
> dhmcarver at gmail.com <mailto:dhmcarver at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> >> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on
> behalf of
> >> Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:13 PM
> >> To: Justin Levitt
> >> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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#!
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded#%21>
> >> 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 <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> ssrn.com/author=698321 <http://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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> ssrn.com/author=698321 <http://ssrn.com/author=698321>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Law-election mailing list
> >> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120112/1a18d444/attachment.html>
View list directory