[EL] Check out Albuquerque dog becomes registered voter | KOB.com

[Donita Judge]

With all due respect to SCOTUS, I respectfully disagree.  Again, the unprecedented number of voter ID laws passed last year in this country have no basis in "voter fraud".  Voter impersonation is almost non-existent in this country.  This is the type of voter fraud that voter ID laws have been enacted to address. They are a "solution looking for a problem."

Moreover, there has been no significant data presented that shows any voter fraud that constitutes enacting these voter ID laws.   I predict we will see significantly more voters disenfranchised through these voter ID rules in 2012 than instances of voter fraud encountered in the years prior to passing these "draconian" laws in 2011.


Donita Judge
Project Director of Redistricting and
   Staff Attorney*
Advancement Project
1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC  20005
(202) 728-9557 (o)
(202) 728-9558 (f)
djudge at advancementproject.org
www.advancementproject.org
www.justdemocracyblog.org

*Licensed in New Jersey and District of Columbia

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of BZall at aol.com [BZall at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:27 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Albuquerque dog becomes registered voter | KOB.com

I beg to differ with Ms. Judge, and point her to the Supreme Court on just that "draconian" question.

BTW, I don't know why Albuquerque seems to attract these in particular; I don't think it has to do with proximity to Roswell (or, for that matter, to White Sands missile testing range). Last July we had a spirited exchange on this mailing list about the findings of my brief highlighting that area's issues in 2004: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Rokita-BriefamicuscuriaofAmUnity.pdf. The sainted Justin Levitt noted during the exchange that "So yes, the case for impersonation fraud at the polls is, from what I can tell, based in large part on Mr. Zall's six incidents."

I want to stress that I have no particular bias against Albuquerque, or any reason to think that voter fraud is particularly prevalent there. It just happens to be the origination of the one case I looked at in detail. I haven't revisited this issue or other places since.

Nevertheless, we can argue about whether these were actual fraud or mistakes, and whether there are other such incidents elsewhere, but if the issue here, as with Voter I.D. and possible suppression, is as much perception as reality -- “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.” Purcell v Gonzalez, 127 S.Ct. 5, 7 (2006) -- then the dog registration and other Albuquerque antics may be sufficient to justify reasonable state action to prevent fraud. At least, that's what the current law holds. Crawford v Marion County, 128 S.Ct. 1610, 1619 (2008). Even one incident is enough. Id., at n. 12.

Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
Please note our new address:
10411 Motor City Dr., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
www.wjlaw.com<http://www.wj/>
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
______________________________________________________________