talkpolitics | Why is this Information Not Offered?

Entry tags:

Why is this Information Not Offered?

Back in July, I posted a video a woman took while trying to get her son a voting ID in Wisconsin. At the time what I emphasized was the fact that the DMV apparently considered “bank activity” a requirement for voting. But there was more to the conversation. Given information that’s recently linked about about DMV employees being instructed NOT to offer certain information, it’s worth seeing again. The pertinent part of the conversation begins at about the 4.30 mark:

Woman: If someone were to just say thet needed a state ID card, would they know it was free, if it was for voting?

Man at DMV: Uhhh, unless they tell us it was for voting, we charge ‘em. Cause it’s….

Woman: Why is that, because with the new law, the Voter ID bill…

Man at DMV: It’s going to discourage them.

Woman: They’re…It’s supposed to be free.

Man at DMV: If it’s for…

Woman: So why wouldn’t you tell them that, right from the start, “Voter ID is free.”

Man at DMV: They’re the same card, so, unless you come in and specifically request it, we charge you for it. Like, let’s say you’re 20 and you’re going on a trip. You may not vote, so we’re still going to charge them for that card.

Woman: But would you ask them? Would you say “is this for voting, or…

Man at DMV: If they check the box, so…um, it’s, you know, one of them where… They shouldn’t even be doing any of it, but it’s one of them where they wanted to make this law, and now it’s going to affect a lot of people, so if it’s for voting, we do it for free, but we don’t know that they’re going to use it for voting.

Woman: Why don’t you have that as a, you know, I would like to ask your supervisor, why don’t you ask people, “Is this for voting? Is this ID for voting or is it for something else?”

Man at DMV: They put it on here and that satisifies the state statute so, um you know I can’t really answer that question.

Woman: I would like to ask your supervisor that question.

Man at DMV: Okay, I’ll go get him...

Supervisor: They need to ask for it. It’s something that is available but they should ask for it.

Woman: But why not ask them, “Is this a voter ID card or a regular ID card?”

Supervisor: Because… the, the, pol… (seems at a loss)

Woman: I mean, have you been given instructions?

Supervisor: Yeah, the problem, the instruction is that if someone comes in and says “I need an ID card to go and vote,” that it’s free. If it is an original issuance or a renewal. But if someone comes in and they’ve lost their ID, it’s not within its renewal period and they need a replacement, then we have to charge for it. So a replacement, a duplicate...

Woman: But couldn’t you ask them, “Is this a renewal or a replacement or is this for a Voter ID?"

Supervisor: Our instruction is to let them ask.

Woman: And so who gave you that direction?

Supervisor: Well, it’s from the powers-that-be.

Woman: Who would that be?

Supervisor: Well, that would be, the next step in my chain of command would be Tracy Howard…

In fact, it was recently revealed that the instructions came from a top Department of Transportation official Steve Kreaiser:

While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it.

If the DMV officials in the video seem a wee bit ambivalent to you, it’s probably not your imagination. Recently a Wisconsin state employee was fired for sending out an email calling people so spread the word about the free IDs.

An interview with the employee can be heard here.

Whether or not the employee was wise to do what he did, this raises questions about the motives behind this voter ID law. Why would specific instructions go out for DMV officials not to offer information that would prevent applicants from essentially paying for the right to vote?

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks for being so specific! Seriously.

But...well, turns out I was wrong and one of the twenty people charged with voter fraud in the 2008 Wisconsin election was indeed casting a dead person's vote (http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/01/doj_task_force_charg.php), which of course is an identity issue. That's one person discovered after a voter fraud task force combed through eleven counties, so regardless of whether it's generally investigated, in this case it was, and these were the results. Requiring ID for over 5.5 million people because one person in that group was discovered to have committed identity-related voter fraud does not seem like a logical sequence of events to me, I don't know about you. Twice as many people voted twice, a problem not prevented by this law. Six times as many committed "voter registration misconduct"--apparently by lying about citizenship status, though I'm just trying to read between the lines on that one so I may be wrong--which is not prevented by this law. Eleven times as many were convicted felons who voted, a problem not prevented by this law.

And, once this law is put in place anyway, not spreading the news that it costs $0 to comply with it and vote--indeed, firing employees for attempting to do so--sounds less logical still. Still haven't heard a good reason for this; the extra work and confusion you claim it will generate from people who think a voter ID functions as a regular ID could not be easier to avoid.

Well, yes - in this case, they were looking for and found one. It was a specific hunt, and they likely found the needle in the haystack. It's definitely more widespread than that, because it's so impossible to really look for unless you have some sort of real hint.

And, once this law is put in place anyway, not spreading the news that it costs $0 to comply with it and vote--indeed, firing employees for attempting to do so--sounds less logical still.

That this was a fairly national issue tells me this isn't an issue of "spreading the news."

Still haven't heard a good reason for this; the extra work and confusion you claim it will generate from people who think a voter ID functions as a regular ID could not be easier to avoid.

You have a much higher faith in humanity than I.

It's definitely more widespread than that, because it's so impossible to really look for unless you have some sort of real hint.

But not in Wisconsin. They looked, and this is what they found. (Not sure what's so impossible about comparing signatures, by the way.) I'm not sure how to put this more plainly. This is actual data on the pervasiveness of identity-related voter fraud in Wisconsin, discovered by people looking specifically for it. It finds that it is not a big problem, and that other forms of fraud not covered by this law were as much as eleven times more common in the 2008 election (and still not a big problem).

That this was a fairly national issue tells me this isn't an issue of "spreading the news."

If by "fairly national issue" you mean "a nationally covered news story," it wasn't as far as I've seen. The law was, and now this discovery of an officially mandated ban on telling people about the free voter ID without being prompted by them, but in between I can't find any big story about the introduction/existence of the free voter ID. Feel free to provide any; I could be wrong.

You have a much higher faith in humanity than I.

On the other hand, I'm not the one who trusts five and a half million citizens to be up on every detail of a three-month-old law when the place they'd be most likely to learn the details has employees instructed not to tell them.

But not in Wisconsin. They looked, and this is what they found.

So the news hit the other 49 states, but not the state it involves.

This is actual data on the pervasiveness of identity-related voter fraud in Wisconsin, discovered by people looking specifically for it. It finds that it is not a big problem, and that other forms of fraud not covered by this law were as much as eleven times more common in the 2008 election (and still not a big problem).

But, again, they did not do searches for this sort of fraud. You're comparing unlike things.

So the news hit the other 49 states, but not the state it involves.

What news do you mean? That sentence was about the voter fraud investigation conducted in Wisconsin regarding the 2008 elections. You said "[Identity-related voter fraud is] definitely more widespread than that," and I replied that it wasn't in Wisconsin, because they investigated and this is what they found.

But, again, they did not do searches for this sort of fraud. You're comparing unlike things.

I'd take issue with the "again" part but why pick nits. Where did you hear that the task force didn't investigate the type of voter fraud that involves impersonation/identity theft?

What news do you mean? That sentence was about the voter fraud investigation conducted in Wisconsin regarding the 2008 elections. You said "[Identity-related voter fraud is] definitely more widespread than that," and I replied that it wasn't in Wisconsin, because they investigated and this is what they found.

They investigated one instance, not any sort of wide canvassing of identity fraud. They were looking for one specific person, and we don't know their methodogy.

Wait, what? They investigated the election results of twelve counties and found one instance. They weren't looking for one specific person, they were looking for evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin.

That's the investigation I'm talking about, anyway. Is there another one to which you're referring, or what?

Edited 2011-09-10 20:02 (UTC)

The way you described it wasn't that way. I'll have to look into it closer, then.

"...one of the twenty people charged with voter fraud in the 2008 Wisconsin election was indeed casting a dead person's vote, which of course is an identity issue. That's one person discovered after a voter fraud task force combed through eleven counties..."

And if that wasn't clear enough, the link therein spelled it out pretty well. I did persist in saying eleven counties when it was really twelve, sorry about that. But come on, you will not burst into flame for admitting you misread something instead of telling the other person they described it incorrectly. Grow up Jeff.

And if that wasn't clear enough, the link therein spelled it out pretty well.

Yeah, now I do have to look closer, because this is saying what I'm saying. They discovered the one person, they had a very specific paste.

But come on, you will not burst into flame for admitting you misread something instead of telling the other person they described it incorrectly. Grow up Jeff.

Yawn.

They had a very specific paste, huh. Well, I'm convinced. I must have described it incorrectly.

Indeed. :)

'That's one person discovered after a voter fraud task force combed through eleven counties'

So after looking through possibly up to tens of thousands in a state of millions they found... one voter who used a dead guys vote.... and 19 others who voted illegally as well.

They didn't verify that every confirmed voter voted.

So you've debunked Jeff.... how?

Well, for one thing I looked up populations before telling other people what they were. The combined populations of Milwaukee and Dane counties (the only two of the twelve--not eleven, my bad--mentioned by name in the article I found) is about 1.5 million.

But let's pretend it was just these two, for the sake of having a number to work with. Of this population, .0013% (a little over a thousandth of one percent) were have discovered to have committed voter fraud. Of those people, 95% committed voter fraud an ID law will do absolutely nothing to prevent. 5% of that group--or about .07 thousandths of a percent of the total population--would have been foiled by this law.

So that's how, basically. "They didn't verify that every confirmed voter voted" is something you're going to have to back up, by the way. Calling them at their homes is not the only way to go about it, no matter what Jeff tells you.

Edit: Got the percentages a bit wrong; they were too high before. Now corrected above.

Edited 2011-09-10 21:09 (UTC)

But 1.5 million didn't vote that day.

Did they call up and verify that all signed voters that day actually voted? Or did they not canvas the rolls carefully to look specifically for fraud that would have been prevented by a Voter ID?

But 1.5 million didn't vote that day.

Eh. From my point of view the only groups here are (a) people who committed voting fraud and (b) people who didn't. Whatever activity the people in group B did that day instead of committing voter fraud isn't important.

But sure, let's see how pervasive a problem this is when you stick to those who actually voted. The total population of Wisconsin is 5,654,774. 2,939,604 of those people voted in the 2008 presidential election, or a little under 52%. Assuming voters turned out at that rate in even distributions (I realize an assumption is exactly what that is), that makes about 780,000 voters in those two counties. That makes a bit over .0001% of the voting population who committed the type of fraud this law would prevent. And keep in mind that it was really one person in twelve counties, not two, so .0001% is inaccurately large.

Did they call up and verify that all signed voters that day actually voted? Or did they not canvas the rolls carefully to look specifically for fraud that would have been prevented by a Voter ID?

They didn't call, and they did uncover identity-related voter fraud. That's what I know. What do you know that made you say "they didn't verify that every confirmed voter voted?"

Edited 2011-09-10 21:33 (UTC)

'...who committed the type of fraud this law would prevent.'

No, actually that's wrong. Looking at the rolls and looking at who is alive or dead would prevent that fraud. Looking at who is in jail and who voted would prevent that fraud. Requiring all person's be who they claimed... well nobody has tested to see how severe that problem is.

I didn't say only this law would prevent it, I said that that was the only case out of the twenty fraudsters discovered where the ID law would have prevented it. (That said I could be wrong, since the article I found is none too specific about the "voter registration misconduct" committed by six others; assuming they all would have been foiled by having to produce a photo ID at the polls, that brings the total up to seven people who would have been prevented from committing fraud by this law if it had been in place before 2008.)

'I said that that was the only case out of the twenty fraudsters discovered where the ID law would have prevented it. '

But did they comb the rolls and actually assure every marked voter actually voted? That's what Voter ID laws cut down on.

Holy crap dude, I already told you I don't know what methods they used. An election fraud task force spent two years examining the voting records of twelve counties in the hope of discovering fraud. Different types of fraud were discovered to have been committed among twenty people. Unless you know the task force excluded this type of fraud in their investigation I don't know why you're assuming they did.

So, third time's the charm I hope: You said "they didn't verify that every confirmed voter voted." When something like this is written as a declarative statement, it means that you are putting this forth as a fact. To be more specific, you are saying that they really did not do this. For the last time, how do you know this to be the case? (And no, the fact that they did not call everyone who was said to have voted and asked "are you X? Did you vote in the 2008 election?" is not evidence that they didn't look into it, possibly for no other reason than that it would be the single dumbest way to investigate such a thing.)

'...is not evidence that they didn't look into it...'

But it's the only way to look into it.

How else would you verify there was no voter fraud?

Before I reply I want to make absolutely sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You're saying that, in the case of someone who impersonated someone else in order to vote under their name, the not merely best but only way to find out through investigation would be to call the number on the registration card, ask if the person answering is So-And-So, and if they answer "yes" ask if they voted?

Yes, since there's no requirement otherwise to prove you are the registered voter.

(no subject)

bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com - 2011-09-11 02:53 (UTC) - Expand

Twice as many people voted twice, a problem not prevented by this law.

How does this law not cover that issue? If you have to show a photo ID when voting, you won't be voting twice.

I don't know exactly how they did it, but from the way it was described in the article I read I presume they voted twice in their own name and not once each in two different names. Nothing was said about their impersonating other people, which was mentioned in other cases (the guy trying to cast his dead wife's vote was also voting twice, of course, but was not lumped in with these two).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only