Letters to the Editor
-
Can't see the outrage...
This issue just makes Democrats look bad in my opinion. If you step back it really does come across as some twisted ploy to allow illegal immigrants to vote or other forms of voter fraud. As the article said they never prosecute these offenses, so an ounce of prevention and all that....
As a person who votes almost exclusively Democratic, I admit being startled the first time I voted (and was able to vote) about ten years ago and not being asked for ID. It seemed and still seems a no brainer that you prove who you claim to be before exercising an act of considerable import. That said an expired ID or state-school ID should within reason be acceptable.
The reality is that being a citizen means having photographic identification for a myriad of commonsensical, practical and juridical reasons. A photo ID is FREE in the state where I live, so this constant referral to socio-economic wears a bit thin. License branches are open before and past business hour. If you are so gung-ho to vote you can be the least little bit motivated to get the necessary documents.
Neither the article, the politicians nor the interest groups involved have articulated in my opinion how this requirement would in-and-of-itself disenfranchise a voter. Only inaction on the part of the votercan disenfranchise them. If you can't be at least a little bit responsible how informed a voter can you be?
-
Not as easy to get ID as it sounds
Sure, in big cities in many States getting photo ID is not that hard.
However, having lived in places where getting that ID means a 40 minute to an hour drive one way, waiting in line for another hour, it takes a toll.
Now add, people who don't drive, usually poor, people who are not employed, usually poor, and have no need for a photo ID at all.
Seriously, there will be hundreds of thousands of people getting ID only so they can vote, as it will have no other purpose.
While present obstacles to voting? I've seen far more voter intimidation than I've ever seen voter fraud.
Suppressing votes is wrong, and the Republican party has a recent history of working to suppress votes. It's a sad legacy.
Also, Photo ID does nothing to even prevent voter fraud. If you're going to vote in multiple places, do so via absentee ballots, or simply have more than one ID, or just vote twice in different locations, if you can do that now, you'd still be able to vote twice with an photo ID.
Voting is a RIGHT, not something I, nor anyone needs to prove merit in order to excercise that right.
-
The left falls for a Rovian trap once again
"Voting is a RIGHT, not something I, nor anyone needs to prove merit in order to excercise that right."
- Xanthro
What an absurd statement. Using and possessing my own car is a right, yet I need documentation to prove it's mine, otherwise what about those other two guys who say it's their car?
Travelling outside the country and re-entering the US is my right - should not have to prove that I have the right to enter the country? Maybe immigration should just ask me "are you a citizen or do you have a visa?"
Likewise, voting is right, and likewise there is significant risk that some will claim the right that do not actually have it. That's why you have a registration process and other checks - it's not about suppression, it's common sense.
While I agree that Republicans often practice unconscionable voter suppression, requiring some, ANY proof that you DO have the right to vote (e.g. are a citizen, registered, haven't voted yet, etc), while it may "suppress" some legal votes, it will also suppress illegal voting.
For certain requiring voter registration "suppresses" votes as well - people forget, are out of town, are too lazy - should we now no longer require registration?
Requiring a name at the polls suppresses some votes, perhaps of those on the run from some crime, or just shy - maybe we should allow people to vote just with a promise they are registered and haven't voted yet.
The Republicans have once again successfully hung out bait for the left and once again they are biting, making the Democratic party look like morons. Why doesn't the D party fight over ACTUAL voter suppression. Why not introduce their own bill requiring equal distribution of polling stations or something similar - forcing R's on the defensive - instead of grandstanding against a bill that was cleverly crafted to make them look like fools?
This is sham debate that will only undermine the left if they continue to fight it like this and you unthinking wackos are falling for it. I am relatively liberal, but I USE MY BRAIN rather than just reacting knee-jerk to anything the Republicans do.
Eilonwy: spot on.
-
This article is getting e-mailed...
...to our Democratic candidate for County Clerk, just like yesterday's article about Princeton being able to hack Diebold voting machines.
Republicans are doing to the vote what they've done to social programs. They keep saying that the "system" is "broken," relying on the human tendency to accept repetitive presumptions as the Truth. So well-meaning citizens give them the green light to "fix" the system, enabling the GOP to do what it really wants: to gut the system (social programs) or game it to their advantage (the vote).
I have served as an election judge. I currently serve as a Democratic precinct committeeman, which precludes me from being an election judge, but I recently completed training to be a deputy voter registrar. Just as there is no need to "fix" paper balloting with paperless touchscreen machines, there is no need to "fix" voter ID fraud by implementing a national ID card.
Here's how voter registration and election day verification currently work in my state (IL). You produce your ID when you initially register to vote. The following is taken directly from my voter registrar training packet:
"Each person applying registration must provide two forms of identification. Identification with the applicant's name, address, signature and picture is preferred. Applicants with questionable identification should be referred to the County Clerk. At least one form of identification must include the applicant's physical residence address.
"Acceptable forms of current (not expired) identification with present physical address include: (State) drivers license; (State) identification card*; utility or contract service bill addressed to applicant at physical address postmarked no more than 30 days prior; personalized check for checking account. (*Note: our state DMV issues photo ID cards to non-drivers.)
"Secondary forms of current (not expired) identification bearing the applicant's name include: valid passport; military, employee, student, or welfare identification card; certified copy of birth certificate; Social Security care or Veterans Administration patient card; civic, union, or professional membership card; check cashing card; library or insurance card; certified copy of marriage license or divorce papers; naturalization papers."
Since voter registration takes place over an extended period, it gives the applicant time to round up the necessary documentation. The applicant is required to sign the voter registration form. The signature is electronically scanned. On Election Day, each precinct is supplied copies of its voter registration records. When the voters arrive at the polls, they're required to sign the copy of their voter registration in front of the election judge. The fresh signature is checked against the signature on record; any questionable signatures are ruled upon by the chief election judge, or, in the next step up, by the county clerk's office which can be reached by phone and can dispatch a representative to the polling place to assist in the decision. My election judge procedural memory is a bit rusty, but I believe a questionable voter is allowed to cast a provisional ballot if he/she cannot stay for a protracted deliberation -- the provisional ballot can be voided if the "voter" signature is ruled invalid.
Pretty thorough, don't you think? It can be worthwhile to examine a procedure and put in place some internal QC, but IMO the radical step of implementing a national voter ID card is a) a GOP disenfranchisement tactic masquerading as "reform," and b) yet another step in the GOP's continuing Sovietization of America, decimating our privacy and civil rights.
I wish the conservatives who had hissy fits in response to Clinton's 1994 SOTU display of a mock national health insurance card would muster up the same outrage about this latest "national ID card" gambit (this web archive offers a taste of their vitriol: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0294c.asp). Ah, but then, it's okay if Republicans do it, right? Silly me.
I end this missive as I ended yesterday's, with a plea to GET INVOLVED. Be an election judge. Be a deputy voter registrar. Maybe we won't be able to keep the bastards from winning, but don't let them prevail without a fight!