The Project Vertas people reportedly received a $50,000 donation to conduct this voter ID operation, a rather generous amount for such a small venture. In addition to the NH Attorney General's Office investigation, the NH US Attorney's Office is reportedly investigating the matter to see if there was a violation of federal election laws. Based on some of the responses to allegations of possible violations of election law or the state's wiretapping law (concealed, secretive recording of oral communications), it would seem that the people involved were not naïve about the potential ramifications for their actions. (It is quite possible, however, that the NH residents involved were not aware that our state constitution also provides that anyone "who has been convicted of...any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States" shall lose his right to vote.)
I sympathize with the challenge that Wisconsin might be having determining if a voter has signed a petition more than once, based on the software or manual processes I had to use prior to 2006 when NH rolled out a new voter registration system. Our petition module now allows us to "check off" a voter's name just once per petition so we can recognize duplicates quite readily. Of course, there's nothing to stop someone from forging multiple voters names on a petition.
I rather liked the League of Women Voters' response to the Project Vertas operation: "The only thing this video shows is that those with time, resources and criminal intent and with no respect for the fundamental laws of our nation can sometimes deceive our neighbors..."
The challenge we have in drafting election laws is to ensure a balance between the need to protect the integrity of the system without disenfranchising the very people who would otherwise be eligible to participate in that system. I will be the first to admit that that is not an easy task or an easy balance to achieve.
Paul Bergeron
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Archivists in the News
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Bergeron, Paul <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
were the Project Verity folks aware of the state law? or did they do the investigation in good faith? that also comes into play. It assumes that they deliberately wanted to violate the law. did they expose a flaw in the system that couldn't have been exposed without violating the law? How does exposing a flaw in the system count as a stunt? and not a sting? seems to me a fine line is being drawn. but my question still stands if the NYT or other MSM had done the same operation in the same manner would it be labeled a stunt or a sting? or is it just the messenger?
What would have been a better way for exposing the problem so that it wouldn't be called a "stunt" but rather a "sting"?
In Wisconsin they are facing a problem with a recall election where petitioner signers were encouraged by recall supporters to sign petitions multiple times even though the law states that only the first signature counts. The state now faces the problem of trying to identify the duplicate signatures so they can be eliminated from the number count.
People joke all the time about elections "vote early, vote often" or talk about gathering votes from the grave yard, hanging chads, poor ballot designs, was a box checked or completely filled in? you name there are problems in the process.
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
http://twitter.com/RAINbyte
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAINbyte/
http://paper.li/RAINbyte/rainbyte
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
