Why California Has So Many Democratic Voters
Stunt Reveals Holes in 'Motor Voter' Law
Thursday, June 14, 2001
By Kathleen Wereszynski
Email this Article
Holly Briscoe probably didn’t even
read her notice for jury duty. She
probably sniffed it. Maybe she licked
it. She possibly chewed it. But read it
she did not.
Holly, after all, is a dog.
Mabel Mackall Briscoe was surprised when her 3-year-old Jack Russell
Terrier received her notice this April. A resident of Calvert County, Md., located
about 30 miles southeast of Washington, D.C., Briscoe wondered how a
mistake like this could have occurred.
Then she remembered a civic shenanigan she carried out a couple years
before in mock political protest. What she thought was a harmless stunt at
the time turned into a bureaucratic nightmare.
Motor Voter Follies
Former President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act,
dubbed the "motor voter" bill, into law in 1993. The bill was an effort to help
ease the voter registration process by expanding the number of locations
and opportunities for people to register to vote.
At the time, critics said it would make registration too easy, would be prone to
abuse, and would make voting fraud easier as a result.
Briscoe is one of those critics. She believes motor voter makes it possible for
just about anyone — from non-U.S. citizens, those under 18 years of age,
and criminals — to register. To test her suspicion, she attempted to register
her dog Holly through the motor voter program two years ago.
After calculating the age of her pooch in dog years — 18 years old — Briscoe
filled out a voter registration application she had picked up at the Motor
Vehicle Administration while waiting in line to renew her driver’s license.
She wrote the dog’s name, "Holly," the dog’s address in Sunderland, Md. and
Holly’s party affiliation, "Independent," on the form. She then signed the
document, "Holly Briscoe."
The Calvert County Board of Elections received Holly’s registration
application by mail on July 2, 1999, according to registrar Charlene Sparrow.
"In the state of Maryland, identification is not required, just the sworn
signature," Sparrow told Fox News.
Who Let the Dogs Out? Briscoe Comes Clean
Mabel Briscoe never planned to bring Holly to the polls, and the dog never
voted, not even a "woof" for Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening. Satisfied that
her personal experiment in civic disobedience had proved her point — to
herself, anyway — Briscoe forgot about it.
But when a Maryland resident is registered to vote, his or her name becomes
available to the court system for the jury pool. So when Holly's jury notice
came, Mabel realized what had happened and figured she'd correct the
record.
So in April, Briscoe contacted the elections board in Prince Frederick, Md.,
and asked what she should do with Holly’s jury notice, admitting that Holly
was her dog.
But apparently Briscoe barked up the wrong bureaucratic tree in trying to
correct the record. Not finding her experiment either humorous or instructive,
Briscoe was charged by the state of Maryland with false registration for
"willfully and knowingly violat[ing] the voter registration law by falsifying a
name and misrepresenting facts on a registration."
If found guilty, the 82-year-old could face up to five years in prison and/or a
$1,000 fine.
Briscoe is being represented pro bono by Maryland State Senate President
Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., a Democrat. "I’ve known and admired Mrs. Briscoe
for years," Miller said. "She’s a very gentile, elderly lady who believes she
was performing a public service." Miller has instructed Briscoe not to speak
to the press.
"You need criminal intent in order to be prosecuted," Miller said. "She did not
intend to break the law."
'The Whole Election Procedure Should Be Overhauled'
Maurice Hardesty, a Sunderland grocer who has known the Briscoe family for
years, said his country store is buzzing with talk of Holly.
"Most of the blame, as far as I'm concerned, is with the election board for not
checking the application," said Hardesty. "I think the whole election
procedure should be overhauled."
Briscoe’s day in court is July 20, but Miller said he is confident that an
agreement will be reached with the state beforehand. "The state attorney is a
very reasonable person and I am a very reasonable person," he said. "I’m
certain he will not press for a conviction." Miller suggested that maybe the
state would require his client to assist officials on the next Election Day or
perform some other community service.
Miller said if it came down to a trial, he could not imagine a jury that would be
unsympathetic to Briscoe. "She never tried to have the dog vote," he pointed
out. "And now there is a heightened awareness for the need for more checks
and balances on our motor voter system."
foxnews.com |
