Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM

PennDOT Issuing Free Voter ID Cards


The anti-ID crowd continues to have the wind taken out of its sails. 


 


First, Pennsylvania plaintiff Viviette Applewhite gets a photo ID the day after the ACLU’s Voter ID challenge is shot down in court on grounds that the law disenfranchises no one.  Now, PennDOT is rolling out its program to provide free voter identification cards to all Pennsylvania voters who can’t otherwise get a state photo ID:


 


Starting today in Pittsburgh and statewide on Aug. 28, voters who lack verification documents necessary for a secure Pennsylvania Photo ID (non-driver’s license ID card), will be able to obtain a new Department of State voter identification card for free by visiting a PennDOT Driver License Center.


 


“Our goal is to ensure that every person who needs an ID can get one, and this new ID serves as a safety net for those who can’t find or obtain verification documents normally required for a PennDOT secure identification card,” said PennDOT Secretary Barry J. Schoch.  


 


Full story here.

True the Vote Statement on Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion


TRUE THE VOTE REACTION TO MINNESOTA VOTER ID RULING



HOUSTON, TX. August 27, 2012― True The Vote (TTV), a nonpartisan election integrity organization, responded to the Minnesota State Supreme Court’s ruling handed down today that grants voters the right to adopt voter identification laws. 

    



“True The Vote celebrates this ruling but is not surprised,” True The Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “We witnessed one of the saddest attempts to derail the good work of the greater election integrity movement by the hands of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and others. The notion that voters must not be permitted to adopt enhanced election integrity measures such as photo voter ID is simply offensive. The Minnesota Supreme Court acted wisely and without partisan influence. This is a victory for voters and our judicial system.”




The League of Women Voters, Common Cause and others initially brought suit to disrupt the upcoming Minnesota ballot measure that if adopted, would amend the state’s constitution to require photo voter identification. Minnesota statutes allow the court to intervene should the initiative be misleading or a violation of standing law. The petition was denied today.






True The Vote (TTV) a nonpartisan, nonprofit grassroots organization focused on preserving election integrity is operated by citizens for citizens, to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.



###

Retired Command Master Chief in Navy responds to Professor Hasen

A retired command master chief in the Navy responds to Professor Richard Hasen’s editorial “Military voters as political pawns” with a response entitled “Give military voters extra consideration.”  According to Wikipedia, the position of command master chief is the most senior enlisted position in a Navy unit.   Not exactly a pawn.  Whew!!! I almost expected the former navy enlisted leader to ask for a retraction from the author of “The Voting Wars.”
  

My agreement with Professor Rick Hasen’s article (“Military voters as political pawns,” Aug. 19) begins with his statement ”Keeping the military out of voting wars would be especially good for the military and the country.” Unfortunately it ends there, too.


As a former Florida absentee voter, it is ridiculous that he based much of his claim of voter fraud in the Florida 2000 election on the consistency of mail patterns from troops on deployed ships and remote bases (that’s funny).


Isn’t his claim that voter fraud changed the results of the 2000 presidential election in direct conflict with the Democrats who claim voter ID laws are not necessary because of the lack of voter fraud?


But these are not the issues 15 veterans groups and myself have with the commander-in-chief’s campaign’s lawsuit.


For whatever the claimed intent, the lawsuit is based on the commander-in-chief’s legal argument that it is unconstitutional to give military voters any extra consideration for voting. There is a considerable difference between attacking a specific rule or consideration given and a blanket claim that any consideration is unconstitutional. It is the legal equivalent of using M-1 tanks to go after jaywalkers. If the courts rule in favor, it would be a new legal precedent that it is unconstitutional to give any special consideration to military voters.


To volunteer and serve in our military takes trust; trust in our government, our political system and our elected leaders. The Obama campaign’s lawsuit violates that trust. For it is President Obama and the Democrats, by filing a lawsuit using the claim it is unconstitutional to give our active duty military any special voting consideration, to have a law they do not like changed, who are using our military as pawns here, not the Republicans. – Warren J. Hendon, retired command master chief, U.S. Navy, Coronado





Rick Hasen’s False Claims Quest

Just saw a tweet from Rick Hasen complaining that I didn’t post something here he wanted me to post.  (Talk about irony, given the bias of his blog; TPM for heaven’s sake!)

“Rick Hasen‏@rickhasen

I shouldn’t be surprised that Christian Adams () didn’t publish my comment replying to his false claims”

Perhaps Hasen is talking about the fact that I posted that I heard that an offer was made to have Fund and/or von Spakovsky debate him to refute errors and, yes, misleading parts of Hasen’s new book.  I was also told that the offer has not been accepted.

There is nothing false about the fact that I was told this.  Hasen has repeatedly tossed around the claim that some people are liars, notably calling John Fund and Han von Spakovsky such.   How unfortunate, especially given the claims in his book (and yes, let me add to any offer already made to Hasen or his publisher to debate the claims in his book, any time.)

Perhaps Hasen tweets the above because he HAS accepted an offer to debate Fund or von Spakovsky.  If so, I will duly report it here.  Until then…

UPDATE: Hasen responds via Twitter he is “mulling” a debate, but that his interaction on Twitter with me weighs against it, as if I will make a third debater.  He has not yet answered the question whether he checked with his publisher whether an offer to debate him was made.  When he answers, I will try to post his response here.

UPDATE TWO:  You’d think Rick Hasen has enough to worry about besides a blog he does not own, namely this one.  Between demanding that I remove content on my blog, namely this post, to demanding that I approve comments upon his demand, you’d think somehow this blog is jointly owned.  It isn’t.  For example, this blog has comments, and occasionally I get around to approving them.  His blog doesn’t even open up his posts to comment.  “Doesn’t have time to moderate them,” he once said, or words to that effect.  Yet if ELC doesn’t approve one of his pressing comments promptly, or at all, Rick Hasen takes to Twitter to gripe. 

So let’s get a couple of things straight.  This blog originally posted that an offer was made to Hasen and/or his publisher to debate either Hans von Spakovsky or John Fund.  The central issue is whether Hasen is willing to stand up and defend his work in something other than a softball atmosphere such as at the Brennan Center or UC Berkeley.  So far, signs point to no.  In fact, Hasen tweeted yesterday that he is inclined not to debate Fund or von Spakovsky based on my Twitter exchange with him.  Sound logic there.  Avoid debate with people because of what someone else says on Twitter.  

So back to Mr. Hasen’s obsession – which is for me to “retract” the post saying that I was told an offer was made to debate Hasen by the Who’s Counting camp.  There will be no retraction because the prior sentence was entirely accurate.  Hasen denies anyone made such an offer, says John Fund told him he didn’t make an offer, and Hasen says his publisher received no such offer.  There you go, that’s his story.  Obviously the two versions are no consistent, but this isn’t a classroom.  The professor doesn’t set the rules.  The facts are all on the table and now we can ask the bigger question besides nitpicking demands for retractions, and that is:

Will the author of Voting Wars debate anyone, either Fund of von Spakovsky?  Will the author venture into somewhere other than friendly confines (as I have done on Pacifica Radio and in rooms full of law students hostile to Voter ID) and debate the ideas and assertions in Voting Wars?  As we’ve already seen, the former Voting Section Chief takes issue with the accuracy of Voting Wars about matters the former chief has firsthand knowledge. 

Of course the author himself of Voting Wars could invite Fund or von Spakovsky to debate the books.  That would certainly resolve this silly tiff, wouldn’t it?  It would demonstrate a confidence in defending the content of a book which I am not sure exists right now.  This blog will be the first (or second) to report that Hasen has extended such an offer, or if the Who’s Voting camp makes a future offer to debate.  Standing by.

“Voter ID standoff”

In Pennsylvania – The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, is pushing back on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder this week, calling a Justice Department inquiry into the state’s voter ID law “unprecedented” and the department’s interest in the matter politically driven

 Mr. Holder’s interest in the matter instead seemed geared to drum up racial tensions in the swing state in an election year, adding the prospect of a federal civil rights lawsuit to cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the new voting requirements.