[EL] Interview request

[John Tanner]

I'm taking a break from a busy day and have not read all of the posts on
this issue - not nearly.  Please forgive me if I am repeating what already
has been said.

Voter ID laws vary considerably among the states.  Some states (RI, GA) do
not require a birth certificate at any point and are able to satisfy
themselves as to voters' identity through other means.  There also are
variations among states in opportunities to get an ID.  The considerable
barriers in Texas

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/tanner-why-voter-id-wont-fly-in-texas-788809.html
contrast with what sounds like limo service in SC. There should be a set of
procedures that (1) satisfy the need to verify identity and (2) are not
burdensome - that can be satisfied in the normal course of one's life.  One
of my own hobby horses - automatic voter registration at NVRA agencies

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-03-02/news/bs-ed-voter-registration-20110302_1_national-voter-registration-act-motor-voter-nvra,
offers one approach, as DMV and SNAP offices assure themselves of peoples'
identities and eligibility.  For that matter the social services could just
give each of their customers a damned ID (flagged as to voting
eligibility) and make their lives a little bit easier.  Medicaid, etc. also
may have some sort of "out" for those who lack I-9 documentation.  I
certainly hope so.

Back to work.  Peace to those who wold rather have the issue than a
resolution.


On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding Trevor's first sentence below. Back when the NVRA was first
> implemented, I thought the national standard for an address for those
> without one was the place where you can be reached by mail. The one
> example for this that I recall, not sure from who or on what it was
> based, was that a homeless citizen could use a nearby church as their
> address because they could get mail there. So, even if they had no
> other address, they could use that. Was this not right or did
> something change this?  Or was/is this only for some states?
>
> If this is how a homeless citizen can register, why couldn't a similar
> logic apply to using a PO Box? It certainly places you close to a
> specific geographic marker and you can be reached there (not to
> mention you have to jump through other government hoops to get it that
> likely have penalties of their own attached if you are not who you say
> you are).
>
> BTW, isn't an RFD an address in the sense that it tells you the
> general location of a person? Combined with their name, it seems the
> point of an RFD is the same as a street address for a large residence
> with many people, etc. (or a nunnery to continue today's religious
> theme; I don't know if Trappist monks number their cells for mail).
>
> -Doug
>
> From: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
> To: "Barnes, Leslie" <LBarnes at iec.IN.gov>, <JBoppjr at aol.com>, William
> Groth <wgroth at fdgtlaborlaw.com>, <levittj at lls.edu>,
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:34:44 -0500
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Interview request
>
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120112/8caa63a5/attachment.html>