[EL] Interview request
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Thu Jan 12 13:09:22 PST 2012
Boy, have we been down this road before
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2011-December/002149.html>.
"Case closed" only as to that particular case, Jim. You can't claim res
judicata impact against people who haven't appeared in that case (on
that legal theory) or those in privity with them. There are actually
facts that exist in the world beyond those pled in a particular
litigation, and just putting your fingers in your ears doesn't make them
any less true or false.
Justin
On 1/12/2012 1:02 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> 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
>
> =
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120112/d66a9c36/attachment.html>
View list directory