[EL] Check out New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping a...

Fri Oct 12 07:44:45 PDT 2012

This is a good example of what I mean, Trevor "protest too much." Are we  
really to now believe that going to the BMV is such a big burden to get a  
picture ID, when you cannot hardly ever cash a check without one?  To get a  
picture ID that you will need hundreds of time over your life time to do many 
 simple things?  Really!  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/12/2012 10:39:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tpotter at capdale.com writes:

“Voter  ID” is, of course, an imprecise term. Most states required some 
form of “voter  ID” years ago (signatures in polling books, production of 
utility bills,  affidavits of identity, etc)—just not a “government issued 
photo ID, not to  include a photo ID issued by a college or University”. So the 
question is what  TYPE of “voter ID” is required, and what is its effect. 
As Jim Thurber has  written recently, even “government issued photo ID” 
would not be a burden on  voters  if the government affirmatively and 
aggressively made it  available to all voters (as Mexico does) rather than blocking 
those without  drivers licenses by requiring  appearance in person at scarce 
and  overwhelmed motor vehicle department offices... 

From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  Scott F. Bieniek
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23  AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out  New O'Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer 
caught helping activist  v
    1.  Assume a significant portion of the public believes that our  polls 
are insecure and that in-person voter fraud is a problem.  
    2.  Assume that voter id addresses this appearance of in-person  voter 
fraud.

Does Voter ID, which at least addresses this appearance of  in-person voter 
fraud, not justify its enactment?

After all, the appearance of corruption is a major argument  in support of 
compelled campaign finance disclosure. I mean, if we say that  all our 
elected officials are on the take, they must be on the  take.

-Scott F.  Bieniek 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Joe La Rue <_joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ 
(mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) > wrote: 
You beat me  to it, Steve. I was going to say that. Frankly, I'm 
disappointed in Jim and  Ben. They've obviously not been paying attention to the List 
Serve. After all,  if you say it enough ("There is no such thing as voter 
fraud") it MUST be  true. 

Joe
___________________
Joseph  E. La Rue

cell: _480.272.2715_ (tel:480.272.2715)   
email: _joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ (mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) 

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  -> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121012/5c1559c4/attachment.html>