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

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Because in the past such taxes have been used as a way of disenfranchising the poor.

LIke the idea?

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Yes, and machetes can be used to chop people up and cars used to run people over and these things have been historically used that way as well. That's no reason to outlaw cars or ban machetes. The charge for the ID card is practically nominal. If you're worried about the poor on welfare then the problem there could be solved by merely allowing those on welfare to use their welfare ID cards at the voting polls.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: Because in the past such taxes have been used as a way of disenfranchising the poor. LIke the idea?
mc: Yes,

Which is why you see no problem with it. You would disenfranchise large chunks of the American populace.

mc: and machetes can be used to chop people up and cars used to run people over and these things have been historically used that way as well. That's no reason to outlaw cars or ban machetes. The charge for the ID card is practically nominal. If you're worried about the poor on welfare then the problem there could be solved by merely allowing those on welfare to use their welfare ID cards at the voting polls.

Except that you just admitted that you LIKE the idea of disenfranchising the poor.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't just admit that I LIKE the idea of disenfranchising the poor" despite the fact that this is the fantasy argument you are dying to have with someone. The "yes" in my prior comment was acknowledging the fact that poll taxes have been used in the past to disenfranchise. My comment asks, so what of it? I agree that such taxes have been used in that way. That doesn't mean that a practically nominal ten dollar fee for an ID card NOW constitutes disenfranchisment, as you seem to by hysterically implying. In any event the question does not imply that I endorse disenfranchisement or even a poll tax. I merely asked the question why you suddenly have apparently become a distruster of government taxing power? Why are you so interested in erecting a straw man to demonize here? What is it that you are afraid of identifying at the root of this discussion?

Let's boil this thing down for everyone, shall we? YOU raised the fear of disenfranchisement, especially of the poor. I was the one who offered you a "pragmatical" escape hatch; "the poor" could be allowed to use their welfare ID's, given free to them when they get on welfare, at the polls and thereby escape the fee...yet you are still invested in the disenfranchisement angle. From the hysterical note over a modest ID card fee I infer that the fear that you and others have nebulously expressed here, without identifying its source, is real and serious, and that it seems to encompass a belief that people given government authority are not to be trusted in the area of the sacrament of voting. You obviously fear that the dreaded slippery slope is a mortal danger in this one tiny area of authority. The point I have been driving at is why the damned exception? Elsewhere, you and these same people are caught out arguing for all sorts of unaccoutable power to tax and regulate? Why? Religious delusion is the inference I am forced to draw. Why is some arbitrary authority implicity to be trusted while other arbitrary authority is not? After all, to cite the Good Ol' Collectivist Book of Proverbs, isn't it "our" government? Surely, a cheap ID card fee wouldn't be turned into a tool of disenfranchisement in these days. After all, this is the way "our" government "works" isn't it? "We" just wouldn't stand for it, right? After all, "we are the government", aren't we, and we have perfect control over what the government does, don't we?

My goodness, but the people objecting to a modest ID card fee are begining to sound like crack-pot slippery slope libertarians and anarchists, aren't they. Interesting, isn't it. I think so. I truly wonder do why this phenomenon arises. I can honestly make no sense of the contradictions people tolerate in their own thinking.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, disenfranchising the poor is not a "fantasy argument." It's an idea that's been steadily gaining momentum of the right for the past few years. Or did you miss that Matthew Vadum piece about how the poor really shouldn't be encouraged to vote?

Not all of the ppor are on welfare.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

First off, if government power to tax is not to be trusted in this one small area, where do you, and people like you, get off telling me that I should appreciate paying "my" taxes for other things, and that if I don't like it I should avoid using "our" roads, schools, and bridges?

1. If voting is such a privilege, why shouldn't everyone pay for it?


2. If government power cannot be trusted not to turn a nominal fee for an ID card into an odious tool for the disenfranchisement for a significant number of people, why is it that it IS to be implicitly trusted to administer any other taxation and regulation scheme? Are you seriously suggesting that the name of the department on the brass plate on the bureaucrats' office doors dictate the character of those within, that there are occupational exceptions to human nature?


3. Why should anyone be "encouraged to vote"?

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

mc: First off, if government power to tax is not to be trusted in this one small area, where do you, and people like you, get off telling me that I should appreciate paying "my" taxes for other things, and that if I don't like it I should avoid using "our" roads, schools, and bridges?


Now you're going off on a self-justifying, jargon-laden tangent.

mc: If voting is such a privilege, why shouldn't everyone pay for it?

Because it's not a privilege. It's a right, and a damned important one.

MC:If government power cannot be trusted not to turn a nominal fee for an ID card into an odious tool for the disenfranchisement for a significant number of people, why is it that it IS to be implicitly trusted to administer any other taxation and regulation scheme?

You seem to be claiming here that the fact a system is imperfect (as all systems are) and capable of being abused (as all systems are) means that the system should be eliminated completely. You could just as easily point to an innocent man being convicted as an argument for eliminating law enforcement entirely. Are you on board with the idea of disbanding police departments and DA offices?

mc: Are you seriously suggesting that the name of the department on the brass plate on the bureaucrats' office doors dictate the character of those within, that there are occupational exceptions to human nature?

I really have no idea what you're ascribing to me here. Once more, in English?

mc: Why should anyone be "encouraged to vote"?

Because voting the foundation of our political system. It's a right for which people have fought and died.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

No, its not a tangent: if an arbitrary fee for an arbitrary "government service" is legitimate then why is it not in when the topic is a fee to cover an ID card for voting, especially if exceptions are granted for those "unable to pay"? If the government cannot be trusted not to abuse authority in this one small instance, why is it to be implicitly trusted in so many others?

Because it's not a privilege. It's a right, and a damned important one.

OH, now we're getting somewhere. So, it's a right, is it? Why? Are rights absolute? If you're talking about the right to vote away the rights of others, which is essentially what governmental voting is these days, upon what grounds does your supposed "right to vote" itself stand? Here's your problem: either natural rights are inalienable, which also implies that there are plenty of things which nobody has the authority to do, whether we vote to "give" them that authority or not, or else rights are not inalienable and are merely the ephemeral byproducts of action by those with power, either the mob of the majority, or a determined minority aristocracy.

You seem to be claiming here that the fact a system is imperfect (as all systems are) and capable of being abused (as all systems are) means that the system should be eliminated completely.

If we are going to be "pragmatic" about our imperfect systems, and practical here, then we need to discuss how a nominal fee (waived for the truly needy, however defined) constitutes heinous disenfranchisement. Don't chide me about standing on principle while standing on an absolutist principle yourself, with regard to an ID card fee; it doesn't make sense. A nominal fee, especially with "safeguards", is not disenfranchisement except on principle.

As for abolishing law enforcement entirely, I assert that this is false dichotomy. Advocacy of a voluntarist system is not the same thing as abolishing rules entirely.

I really have no idea what you're ascribing to me here. Once more, in English?

Fair enough. You seem to be arguing that if the government is allowed to charge any fee for these cards that it will abuse the authority eventually or inevitably to disenfranchise people. You obviously do not trust that authority will set and manage such fees "fairly" or justly. Given that legitimate fear, I wonder then, how you can advocate all of the other taxes and regulations that the government undertakes arbitrarilly. If people given government authority to charge for providing ID service cannot be trusted not to abuse the authority, then how can they be trusted not to abuse any other arbitrary regulatory or taxing authority? The only difference here would seem to be the name on the door of the department. A department of voter card ID fees will obviously be staffed with those who would abuse the power of that office but an FDA, FCC, IRS, etc. won't be?

Because voting the foundation of our political system. It's a right for which people have fought and died.

Certainly true, as far as it goes. Nevertheless, we have, for the most part, accepted a system which presumes that all rights are merely granted by the collective, are up for a vote by that same collective, and that disequality before the law is okay provided some group having the political power approves of it.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

mc: So, it's a right, is it?

Yep. Voting is a right.

mc: Why?

Because otherwise you have large portions of the adult population who have no say in how our government is run. In the United States, that's not considered a good thing.

mc: If you're talking about the right to vote away the rights of others, which is essentially what governmental voting is these days, upon what grounds does your supposed "right to vote" itself stand?

In what manner do you consider government voting "the right to vote away the rights of others." The Bill of Rights is set up to prevent that. Southern states, for instance, cannot vote away the rights of their black minorities.

mc: either natural rights are inalienable, which also implies that there are plenty of things which nobody has the authority to do, whether we vote to "give" them that authority or not, or else rights are not inalienable and are merely the ephemeral byproducts of action by those with power, either the mob of the majority, or a determined minority aristocracy.

Do you believe that rights exist?

Paft: You seem to be claiming here that the fact a system is imperfect (as all systems are) and capable of being abused (as all systems are) means that the system should be eliminated completely.
mc: If we are going to be "pragmatic" about our imperfect systems, and practical here, then we need to discuss how a nominal fee (waived for the truly needy, however defined) constitutes heinous disenfranchisement.

Because that is how such "nominal fees" have been used in the past, and given the manner in which the right wing talks about the poor, we have every reason to distrust their motives in supporting such fees.

mc: As for abolishing law enforcement entirely, I assert that this is false dichotomy. Advocacy of a voluntarist system is not the same thing as abolishing rules entirely.

More jargon. What does that mean? Are you saying law enforcement should be staffed by volunteers?

mc: You seem to be arguing that if the government is allowed to charge any fee for these cards that it will abuse the authority eventually or inevitably to disenfranchise people

That is how such fees have been used in the past.

MC: You obviously do not trust that authority will set and manage such fees "fairly" or justly.

The groups who support such fees have not, in the past, administered them fairly or justly. They've been used as a way of preventing people in lower income brackets and others from casting ballots.

MC: Given that legitimate fear, I wonder then, how you can advocate all of the other taxes and regulations that the government undertakes arbitrarilly.

Because one law is unfair, I don't consider all laws unfair.

MC: If people given government authority to charge for providing ID service cannot be trusted not to abuse the authority, then how can they be trusted not to abuse any other arbitrary regulatory or taxing authority?

In the same manner that the existence of police brutality does not mean police departments should be abolished, or the existence of bad and dishonest business managers means that management should be abolished.

MC: The only difference here would seem to be the name on the door of the department. A department of voter card ID fees will obviously be staffed with those who would abuse the power of that office...

No, I am not claiming that the staffers are "abusing the power" of their office. They are simply following the rules as set down from someone higher up.

paft: Because voting the foundation of our political system. It's a right for which people have fought and died.
mc: Certainly true, as far as it goes.

What do you mean, "as far as it goes."

mc: Nevertheless, we have, for the most part, accepted a system which presumes that all rights are merely granted by the collective, are up for a vote by that same collective, and that disequality before the law is okay provided some group having the political power approves of it.

Jargon, jargon, jargon.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Put this argument into English.

2) No, one of those is not like the other.

3) Because people are stupid in 99% of cases and need a healthy kick in the ass in 100% of cases.