Why is this Information Not Offered?

[paft.livejournal.com]

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

Comments

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

There may be nothing malicious, but there is plenty here that's suspicious.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What's suspicious about it?

Eschew obfuscation!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Any policy that fails to explicitly and without obfuscation explain the steps needed for every citizen to take part in his or her democratic process should be viewed with suspicion, if not alarm.

The DMV's "don't explain" policy falls under the category of obfuscation. Whether it proves deliberate or not has yet to be determined.

Re: Eschew obfuscation!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Wow. Okay.

[paft.livejournal.com]

The fact that they explicitly told DMV employees NOT to offer the free voter ID.

Why do you think they would they do that?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I expect that it's just the usual bureaucratic reasoning. Imagine the meeting:

"So, Bob, should we tell people that they can get these IDs free if they indicate that they want them just for voting?"
"Well, if we did that, then everyone would tell us they want the IDs just for voting, right? So they wouldn't have to pay the fee for a more general-purpose ID."
"Yes, I suppose they would."
"And where are we going to make up that revenue?"
"Uh..."
"So maybe we give it to them for free if they ask for it, but if they don't, then we don't bring it up. Sounds about right, doesn't it? 'Cause if they can't afford it, they're going to ask for it, and if they can, well they should be paying anyway."
"I guess that works."

I think there was maliciousness behind the original law. But I don't think most of the office workers that populate the ranks in government agencies get there by pandering to humanity's worst impulses, and I think they generally want to strike the right balance between furthering their mission and doing so within the realities of a governmental system where everyone hates them for sport. I think your experiences with them just reflects that - trying to make do as best they can while afraid that stepping outside procedure will cost them their job.

[paft.livejournal.com]

O: I expect that it's just the usual bureaucratic reasoning. Imagine the meeting: "So, Bob, should we tell people that they can get these IDs free if they indicate that they want them just for voting?..."

This is not something that was decided among the DMV workers and their managers. It was decided on a much higher level. And it's not a matter of saying "would you like a free ID?" It's a matter of saying "Are you getting this id to use as a voter id?"

O: I think there was maliciousness behind the original law. But I don't think most of the office workers that populate the ranks in government agencies get there by pandering to humanity's worst impulses, and I think they generally want to strike the right balance between furthering their mission and doing so within the realities of a governmental system where everyone hates them for sport.

Where have I blamed the office workers? On the contrary, I've pointed out that the actual DMV workers don't seem to be real thrilled with this law?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because more people would be looking for an all-purposes ID. Because the voter ID is only good for voting. Because it's better for people who need a basic ID to pay for one that's good for everything.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: Because more people would be looking for an all-purposes ID. Because the voter ID is only good for voting. Because it's better for people who need a basic ID to pay for one that's good for everything.

Why would the voter id being only good for voting preclude asking someone "is this for a voter id?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Too much confusion. A person who wants a general ID would also use it for voting, and the two likely don't act the same.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: Too much confusion.

Nonsense. There's nothing confusing about it. On the contrary, it makes thing more clear for the applicant.

Do you think poor people should be encouraged to vote?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Odd question. Everyone should be encouraged to vote if they're taken the time to be informed.

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's not an odd question in this context, and given your past defense of Matthew Vadum's column about how the poor SHOULDN'T be encouraged to vote.

Do you think the poor are less informed on the issues than the middle class and wealthy?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not an odd question in this context, and given your past defense of Matthew Vadum's column about how the poor SHOULDN'T be encouraged to vote.

I don't recall defending it, merely saying you were reading into it in ways it probably wasn't intended.

And yes, it's a ridiculously strange question in this context.

Do you think the poor are less informed on the issues than the middle class and wealthy?

No idea. Doesn't matter much - if you're informed, your class is irrelevant.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: I don't recall defending it, merely saying you were reading into it in ways it probably wasn't intended.

And how exactly was that column intended? What was Vadum saying if not, "the poor shouldn't be encouraged to vote?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I explained this then, you can refer back to that conversation.