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

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

"...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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Indeed. :)