talkpolitics | 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

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.

Wow. Okay. Well, first, this is a voter fraud investigation we're talking about. There's no rule saying you can't have more rigorous standards for identification than the vote itself did, because such a rule would be incredibly stupid. You can perform DNA testing if that's what it takes to prove fraud was committed.

Second, I think it's safe to say that cold-calling would be the worst, least effective way to investigate this crime or any other. If someone puts someone else's name on a registration form, there's nothing preventing them from putting their own phone number on it, then lying when someone calls asking for John Q. McGillicuddy.

Third, it's bizarre that you'd say it's the only way. Everyone who votes is required to sign their name at the polling place; off the top of my head, comparing those signatures to ones on file is one way to spot an obvious fake. Plus checking to see if those who voted are actually dead, or not residing in the state at the time of the election, or felons, etc. You suggested most of these yourself; it's odd that you'd now say phone calls are the only way to check these things out.

...Wait, I think I just got it. Are you leading up to telling me that gee, if depending upon people to tell the truth doesn't work for an investigation, why should we depend on it during the actual vote? LOL.

Why is this Information Not Offered?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject