[EL] Interview request
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Jan 12 13:02:28 PST 2012
If any of these claims of burden had even a shred of real life
justification, the opponents of Vote ID would have been able to come up with one
person in court who could not vote as a result. They have not and cannot. Case
closed. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 1/12/2012 12:44:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
LBarnes at iec.IN.gov writes:
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
=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120112/768fae49/attachment.html>
View list directory