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

[Trevor Potter]

Jim's answer eludes the extremely narrow definition of "photo ID" in many of these laws noted in my earlier email. No college photo IDs--even from state universities? No check cashing photo  IDs? No government effort to provide IDs to people who don't have drivers licenses--and thus by definition cannot drive to motor vehicle offices? 

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:45 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
>  
> 
> Assume a significant portion of the public believes that our polls are insecure and that in-person voter fraud is a problem.
> 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> 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 
> email: 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

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121012/f3076363/attachment.html>