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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, that entire comment was a Herp a Derp up to the last sentence.

The idea that taxation = civilization goes back to the first Law Codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi. The civilizations have the power to tax to raise and support armies and to raise and support bureaucracies. Tribes, chiefdoms, and gatherer-hunter societies do not. You can be civilized and pay taxes or not pay taxes and be a barbarian, choice is yours. But don't be a parasite on civilization by refusing to acknowledge that taxes are required in any sense.

The quarter of the US population that pays no taxes has nothing to pay. Taxing them is how ancient empires turned into violent revolutionary centers divided on themselves.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Ah, well now, at least you're giving the logical fallacies some rotation now. The statement:

The idea that taxation = civilization goes back to the first Law Codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi.

...presupposes that just because something has historically been the case it follows that it is eternally true or necessary. It isn't the case, however much you would wish that this observation served to buttress the original false dichotomy. The choice is not between taxation and barbarism. Chattel slavery is almost as old as agriculture; that doesn't make it right, necessary, "natural," or even sociolocially and economically expedient these days. The same holds true for the other forms of political expropriation.

Re: The political sphere is a funhouse.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's the same argument the whole time. You probably can't recognize someone arguing what they think as opposed to copypasta of what a dead white guy thinks. Civilization is built around taxation, there's a reason anarchic areas have no taxation and are run by private militias: taxes and armies tame the bipedal mangy ape. Left to his own devices the human makes the chimpanzee look a model of probity and civilization.