[EL] Interview request
Douglas Carver
dhmcarver at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 12:01:57 PST 2012
Scott, in answer to your question, one or two people on this thread
addressed the fact that all we know is that O'Keefe appears to have
been able to obtain ballots fraudulently -- as the ballots were not
cast, we do not know what checks (if there are any) would have
prevented those votes from being counted. So even if you are willing
to discard the arguments about ID being a barrier to voting, the
balancing of raising those barriers when compared to the extremely
limited number of voter fraud cases, the question of whether O'Keefe's
video is anything more than an anomalous instance (as O'Keefe is not
renown for his integrity and truthfulness, who knows whether his stunt
was tried in many polling places and failed), the question of whether
O'Keefe could have pulled the same stunt with fake ID, etc., the fact
remains that he did not demonstrate a fraudulent vote being cast.
Stunts are not good reasons to change policies that affect the
fundamental rights of millions.
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:
> Many states do not accept po boxes or rfd addresses (postal addresses) as a "residence address", requiring instead the physical locator (401 Elm street). This is a problem in rural sections of the country, where peiple will not have any biills etc showing their physical residence address, because all mail goes to a postal address. Is this the case in indiana?
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barnes, Leslie [mailto:LBarnes at iec.IN.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: JBoppjr at aol.com; William Groth; levittj at lls.edu; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
>
> Jim-It's not quite so simple as hitching a ride to the nearest license branch and applying for a "free" identification card. The applicant must still produce documents that do have a cost and that some simply don't possess.
>
> Pursuant to 140 IAC 7, applicants for an Indiana DLN or SID must prove: (1) identity, (2) lawful status in US, (3) Social Security Number (or exemption), as well as (4) residence. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles does permit a document to be used to prove more than one requirement.
>
> Taking each requirement in turn...
>
>
> (1) IDENTITY-Documents must show full legal name and date of birth and be an original or certified facsimile ($$). Most applicants will use a non-expired passport or birth certificate. But for anyone who has changed their name since they were born, the applicant must also provide a certified copy of a marriage license, divorce decree, court order, or certified letter from your physician in the case of a gender change ($$). Does someone know if nuns take a new name upon joining the church and whether the individual were registered to vote using their birth name or Catholic name?
>
> The Bureau of Motor Vehicles regulations do not permit documents showing a name change, other than those listed above. But a call to the BMV Commissioner assured me that they've adopted an unwritten policy (I feel better already) that if folks have difficulty proving their identity, the applicant can apply for a waiver. The waiver must be reviewed and granted by a central office BMV official and cannot done be authorized by a local license branch. But when I called a branch office, the official I spoke with was not aware of the waiver policy for proving identity. Even when pressed, I was told that the only acceptable document to prove name change were those listed in the regulations.
>
>
> (2) LAWFUL STATUS IN US-Most applicants will use either a passport or birth certificate, but others are also permissible.
>
>
> (3) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER-Acceptable documents include a social security card, W-2, 1099, or preprinted paystub with employer listed. Again, if the name on the birth certificate is different than the name on the Social Security documentation, the applicant must provide certain documents proving when and where the name was changed.
>
>
> (4) LEGAL RESIDENCE IN INDIANA as well as ADDRESS- The regulations require that applicants provide 2 documents proving legal residence and 2 documents showing residence address. This is the requirement that has caused the most difficulty for people
>
> While the list of acceptable documents is long, I'd bet that a few of the nuns don't possess these documents. Acceptable documents include: utility bill; credit card bill; hospital bill (within the last 60 days); survey of property; title to real property in Indiana; gun permit; a certified copy of a mortgage or lease agreement; homeowner's or rental insurance policy (dated within last year); property tax bill (within last year); bank statement (within last 60 days); current car payment or auto insurance policy; a W-2 form (within last year) or preprinted paystub with employer's name (within last 60 days); child support check; or voter registration card.
>
> If an applicant is homeless or does not possess all the appropriate documents to prove residence and address, the applicant could have someone they live with submit an "Affidavit of Residency", but the affiant would have to come with the applicant to the license branch and bring all applicable documents for the affiant. This one has always caused me concern, because let's say you a have spouse with none of the above documents in his or her name. The applicant is now dependent upon the spouse's cooperation for the right to vote. The same thing happens if seniors move in with their adult children. Calls to several local license branches revealed that local officials were not aware of this Affidavit of Residency. Whether the lack of knowledge was due to a new employee or other training issue, it was discouraging how many had not heard of the Affidavit of Residency.
>
> When Indiana made the right to vote dependent upon possessing a document issued by the BMV, the state put voters at the mercy of the BMV officials and regulations and policies subject to change. (In Indiana, you can also use a passport to vote or a photo ID issued by a state run college provided it has an expiration date. However, I doubt the nuns had a passport or college ID either.)
>
> So as states consider adopting an ID requirement in order to vote, I hope they will expand upon the types of acceptable ID.
>
>
> Leslie A. Barnes
> Co-Counsel, Indiana Election Division
> 302 W. Washington Street, #E204
> Indianapolis, IN 46204
> 317.232.3942
>
> If a person is unclear concerning election law provisions, the Election Division can serve as an interpretive source. However, where important legal rights are concerned, you must consult with your own attorney to be fully and properly advised.
>
>
> 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 8:39 AM
> To: William Groth; levittj at lls.edu; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
>
> 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
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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