Election Day Registration is set to be voted on today in the Senate (for background and the case for EDR see here, here, and here).
All 12 GOP Senators have signed on to an Amendment that would require voters who register in person to present two forms of picture ID. Never mind that the unfolding US Attorney scandal has been directly linked to national GOP efforts to push the myth of organized voter fraud (peruse the linked list, but beware: it will make you terrified for the state of our democracy). Never mind that the American Center for Voting Rights, “the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws,” has literally disappeared without a trace. Never mind that, after 5 years of vigorously attempting to ferret out voter fraud, the Bush DoJ has nothing to show for it and the EAC is editing public reports to try to keep the voter fraud myth alive. These guys keep pushing it - you have to at least admire their consistency.
Here is the Amendment:
After the last section, add the following and renumber sections and internal references accordingly:
“Sec. 501. Subsection (a) of section 9-20 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
(a) Each person who applies for admission as an elector in person to an admitting official shall, upon a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State and signed by the applicant, state under penalties of perjury, his name, bona fide residence by street and number, date of birth, whether he is a United States citizen, whether his privileges as an elector are forfeited by reason of conviction of crime, and whether he has previously been admitted as an elector in any town in this or any other state. Each such applicant shall present [his] a valid federal or state issued photo identification card and either a birth certificate, drivers’ license or Social Security card to the admitting official for inspection at the time of application. Notwithstanding the provisions of any special act or charter to the contrary, the application form shall also, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary of the State, provide for application for enrollment in any political party, including, on any such form printed on or after January 1, 2006, a list of the names of the major parties, as defined in section 9-372, as options for the applicant. The form shall indicate that such enrollment is not mandatory. “
The requirement of a picture ID has been shown to depress minority voter turnout - by the (reluctant to make these kind of studies public) EAC. Here’s how Law Professor Dan Tokaji breaks it down:
The exclusionary effect of some ID laws arises from the fact that a significant number of citizens don’t have government-issued photo ID. Previous research suggests that some groups of voters — including people of color, poor voters, and elderly voters — are likely to be disproportionately affected, since they’re less likely to have driver’s licenses.
That statement was made in the context of requiring just a drivers license to vote - the GOP Amendment would require either two forms of photo ID or one picture ID and either a Social Security Card or a Birth Certificate are necessary to register to vote! That additional piece of ID, with all of the corresponding hurdles to replacing missing or lost documentation, should make the effect of such legislation even more disproportionate on “people of color, poor voters, and elderly voters.” Unsurprisingly, those are the voters that tend to vote for Democrats and not Republicans. Surprise - there is a political motivation for this Amendment!
Good thing we have a Voting Rights Act - the VRA prevents legislation that has a disparate impact on protected groups. This legislation falls squarely into that catagory.
This nakedly partisian-electoral-results-oriented legislation, that would depress turnout overall, depress minority group turnout, violate the Voting Rights Act, and is designed to address a problem that only exists in the land of make believe deserves to go down to a crushing defeat.
Here is the contact info for the CT Senate.
93 responses so far ↓
1 G-BuryMan // May 31, 2007 at 7:46 am ·
+0
I dont have a problem with two forms of id. Why should anyone? Unless they are not law biding citizens.
12 million illegals running around this country. Why not protect the integrity of our voting system. I actually know people in CT who voted twice in the 2000 election. This extra safeguard seems like common sense.
2 ACR // May 31, 2007 at 7:56 am ·
+0
>>The requirement of a picture ID has been shown to depress minority voter
Yes yes, I’m quite sure it’s somehow racist. The fact that those horrible republicans insist on some sort of ID surely makes it some sort of evil plot.
My son had a prof last term that claimed the food pyramid was racist as it includes dairy products and some minorities are more prone to being lactose intolerant than the general population.
3 UnionThug // May 31, 2007 at 7:57 am ·
+0
Gabe,
If the Voting Rights Act renders this Amendment unlawful, why do 7 states currently require photo ID?
Sounds like you are talking out of your ass.
4 indy-ct // May 31, 2007 at 8:05 am ·
+0
Two picture IDs. Outrageous. Geez, next thing you know we’ll require them to be a certain age to vote.
5 Grumpy // May 31, 2007 at 8:06 am ·
+0
G-BuryMan,
Did you report those people who committed voter fraud in 2000? Or did you ignore this violation of the law? Or are you simply making that up to support the point you are making?
The existing law requires someone to present a birth certificate, drivers license, or Social Security card when registering to vote. I’m confident that someone who fraudulently gets their hands on one of these documents will probably not have too much difficulty doing the same for a “federal or state issued photo identification card.”
I’m disappointed to see Republicans beating the drums for this amendment. After all, what it will do is establish a requirement that you must have government issued identification papers in order to vote. I come from a long line of libertarian-minded Republicans. I may not be a Republican any longer, but the libertarian leanings are still there. This amendment undermines individual liberty. The Republican senators should be ashamed of themselves.
6 G-BuryMan // May 31, 2007 at 8:09 am ·
+0
Grumpy said:
I found out two years after the fact. Know them to be true but can’t prove them.
You can take the bright light off now.
7 UnionThug // May 31, 2007 at 8:12 am ·
+0
The Supreme Court upheld in 2006 Arizona’s photo ID requirement when registering.
You’re wrong, Gabe, you should edit your mistakes out of the front page.
8 G-BuryMan // May 31, 2007 at 8:15 am ·
+0
Minority suppression or just laziness. I have non minority friends that don’t vote and they are just lazy.
Can you really institute a sense of citizenship and pride. of course not.
Minorities dont vote for the same reason others dont they dont care about gov’t.
Minority suppression a myth! Jesse, Al, Maxine Waters et al more race baiting.
9 Headless Horseman // May 31, 2007 at 8:21 am ·
+0
My grandfather voted Republican all his life. He died in 1986.
Then he voted Democrat twice.
10 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 9:04 am ·
+0
First, it’s no secret there is an election every year. Oh, and if you didn’t hear, we are voting for our next President in November 2008. All this legislation does is enables further laziness and complacency.
That said, if they are going to do it, lets do it right. I see NOTHING WRONG with requiring a photo ID and a second form of ID to register on election day. It ensures the integrity of the process. (I do think 2 forms of PHOTO ID is a bit much; I don’t know of many people who even have 2 photo ID’s) If you do not want to go through with that, get off your dead ass and register in advance of the election where you do not need to provide such info.
And all this talk minority and elderly depression; rubbish. We have rules for a reason. If you can’t follow the rules, you can’t play in the game. This isn’t some ho-hum legislation we are talking about; No, it is the most sacred of all rights we as Americans enjoy and I for one would hope that our government would go above and beyond to ensure the integrity of the process. I think requiring photo ID is certainly an acceptable means of accomplishing this.
Oh, and one serious question ~ perhaps you can answer this Gabe - Do all the voter registration systems in every state talk to each other? Meaning, if I went to same day register in CT but was already register in Massachusetts, would CT be able to pull the registration from MA? I would hate to think we could have people voting more than once because they are registered in more than one state and we couldn’t tell.
11 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 9:14 am ·
+0
It always takes me a few days to gather multiple forms of ID when I need them for anything. Requiring that for EDR is completely impractical.
12 UnionThug // May 31, 2007 at 9:24 am ·
+0
CGG said:
You must be very organized.
13 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 9:29 am ·
+0
I love how blatant assinine charges of systemic/conspiratory racism can make it onto the front page of this blog and Genghis sanctions it.
Gabe, you might want to actually read the amendment instead of copy/pasting talking points from whatever crackpot site you go to. A social security card is not a photo ID. A birth certificate is not a photo ID. As the amendment says:
Let’s see, I have my driver’s license in my wallet all the time, and my SS card is stored in a safe place in my house. I can gain access to it in under 30 seconds. What is so difficult about that? Why is it such a problem that you need to prove who you are before you vote?
14 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 9:32 am ·
+0
Dear Professor Tokaji:
Check this out for people who can’t drive a car.
Love,
Architect
15 UnionThug // May 31, 2007 at 9:33 am ·
+0
Gabe either (1) did not do his homework on this amendment, or (2) knowingly lies about its effect.
Which one is it Gabe?
16 UnionThug // May 31, 2007 at 9:36 am ·
+0
CGG, does it really take you a few days to grab a couple forms of ID?
Please tell me this is hyperbole.
17 Republitarian // May 31, 2007 at 9:55 am ·
+0
Two forms of legitimate ID? Sounds reasonable to me.. Don’t you need that to obtain a passport or driver’s license too? Poor people can get 2 forms of ID just as easily as anyone else..
But by gosh.. we wouldn’t want to burden anyone.. how about we just have them show up and show a credit card instead .. lots of poor people have credit cards and heck any illegal can get one of those from Bank of America.. so no one will be left out or discriminated against.
Honestly… why don’t Liberals own up to the fact that they want everyone and anyone, citizen or not to vote.. As it is registrars are not allowed to ask for proof of citizenship.. that is just astounding… and our illustrious Secretary of State Suzy B thinks that’s just peachy.
18 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:00 am ·
+0
“Racist post”? Good lord is that paranoid.
Come on, folks–here’s the thing about two forms of ID. For some people, it’s not easy or all that convenient to get two forms of ID. However, if someone wants to commit electoral fraud, it’s pretty easy to make two IDs if you’re already making one. I could, for example, make up a Social Security card on my printer. I could probably draw one.
So it isn’t a great amendment to offer.
19 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:00 am ·
+0
The Architect said:
Getting a photo ID is a giant pain though. It shouldn’t be tied to registering to voter, just like a driver’s license shouldn’t. I remember spending over five hours at the DMV to get mine, and that’s with my old ID from NYS. Thankfully I had a flexible schedule that allowed me to devote half a day to getting one. Not everyone has that luxury.
20 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:04 am ·
+0
Nice, so questioning left wing sources is prohibited on this blog.
Good to know for the future.
21 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:05 am ·
+0
CGG said:
So we should just trust people to say who they are when they show up to vote?
Hell, Best Buy won’t even let you return a computer game even if you give them your word you didn’t copy it.
22 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:06 am ·
+0
UnionThug said:
It does. I always forget where I put those particular documents. Generally I’m very organized but I seem to have a hangup when it comes to ID. Moving twice in the past five years probably hasn’t helped.
23 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:07 am ·
+0
If any of this blog’s conservative posters a) bothered to post once in awhile and b)cited right-wing equivalents of “talkingpointsmemo.com” and “slate.com” they’d be EATEN ALIVE.
There, go ahead and delete it again.
24 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:08 am ·
+0
CGG said:
Please, spare us the talking points.
25 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:08 am ·
+0
We don’t have a constitutional right to return a computer game.
26 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:09 am ·
+0
CGG said:
Why should anyone show an ID to buy a gun then? It’s a constitutional right too. Committing a crime with a gun is illegal, just like pretending you’re someone else to vote. If we don’t need ID to vote and exercise that right, why show ID to obtain a gun and exercise that right?
27 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:11 am ·
+0
My life is a talking point?
I have news for you. Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes. We’re simply not that organized. I wish we did, but that’s another post entirely.
28 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:12 am ·
+0
CGG said:
You happen to be “very organized” except for an issue that you happen to be able to turn into political points for you. What a coincidence.
29 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:13 am ·
+0
You have a point. It’s one reason why I’m personally so uncomfortable about gun control and the issues surrounding it.
30 toucan // May 31, 2007 at 10:16 am ·
+0
This is a ridiculous thread. In recent years the the AG has hit on a much more relevent and important seasonal topic: Consumers can get burned if they believe sunscreen advertisements that tout super-high sun protection ratings and all-day protection, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday.
For the second straight spring, Blumenthal has sent a scorching letter asking that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban misleading sunscreen ads that give people a false sense of security about lying in the sun.
http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-ctsunscreen0530.artmay30,0,1333993.story?coll=hc-headlines-health
31 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:17 am ·
+0
That is cynical! I respect that.
I’ll venture to say that I’m a disorganized lump, and often don’t have two forms of ID on me or at hand. But even we schlubs have the right to vote.
32 Slap // May 31, 2007 at 10:18 am ·
+0
My name is Derek Slap and I’m the Dep. Chief of Staff at the Sec. of the State’s Office. I wanted to answer a question from the disgruntled Republican.
Right now different states can’t talk to each other because there is no national electronic voter file. The HAVA - Help Amercian Vote Act - which Congress passed in 2002, does call on each state to establish an electronic voter file - something CT did 12 years ago. So, it is logical to think that at some point there will be a national voter file and a registrar in Willimantic could check voter registration for someone in Wichita. But you gotta walk before you run, so to speak.
That said, EDR has essentially nothing to do with this issue. EDR doesn’t make it more or less likely someone could vote for President twice. When someone registers to vote, whether it is on election day or two weeks before, they are asked to write down their prior voting address. Registrars can then notify that state that the person voted here. And that can happen regardless of EDR.
In the 7 states which do have EDR, votrer turnout is higher and fraud has not been an obstacle. CT have the capabilities to ensure that people are not voting twice in Connecticut.
Hope that helps.
33 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 10:21 am ·
+0
Hi Derek, thanks so much for joining in the discussion.
34 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:23 am ·
+0
Thanks Derek–that’s excellent information.
And as I said above: if someone is going to commit fraud, they’re going to do it whether we require one ID or two. So why create another barrier, if better and more useful safeguards can be put in place?
35 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:25 am ·
+0
Of course, a lot of this would be solved by a vote-by-mail system, like Oregon’s. Which I’m more and more interested in all the time.
36 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:27 am ·
+0
Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.
37 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:29 am ·
+0
disgruntled_republican said:
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.
38 Maura // May 31, 2007 at 10:30 am ·
+0
39 toucan // May 31, 2007 at 10:30 am ·
+0
Mr. Slap, any chance the SOTS could bring her electronic information systems into the late 20th century technology; asking for the 21st Century technology would be a challenge I know.?
40 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:34 am ·
+0
Thanks Derek, I appreciate the information.
I have a follow-up based on the info you provided. Should it be found that a voter that registers EDR in CT has in fact voted in their previously registered state as well in the same election, would the state pursue criminal charges against that individual for voter fraud?
41 toucan // May 31, 2007 at 10:35 am ·
+0
not quite true…I beleive you have to show ID (1 piece) the first time you show up to vote to complete the reg process..
42 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:35 am ·
+0
The Architect said:
I got that same mailer and I am working on a post about that actually. I also wonder if that is legal…
43 toucan // May 31, 2007 at 10:37 am ·
+0
If Blumenthal can get face time on the tube, you betcha!!!!!
44 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:37 am ·
+0
toucan said:
You have to show ID every year when you show up to vote, at least where I vote. Even when it is a person you have known your entire life doing the check-ins in fact.
45 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:38 am ·
+0
True yet untrue at the same time.
You can register by mail, but when you show up to vote, you have to bring ID with you.
To buy a pistol in this state, you need a pistol permit, which is a long drawn out process to obtain also infused with harassment from the local police department, and a drivers license plus passing the instant check system. To buy a rifle, you have to wait two weeks to exercise your right unless you have a hunting license, another permit which costs money and you have to take a 2 day class to obtain. So sounds like all our “rights” are restricted all over the place, whether its voting or guns.
46 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:39 am ·
+0
To buy a rifle, I meant, you substitute the pistol permit for the part about the hunting license / waiting 2 weeks that I wrote. All the other stuff applies for both.
47 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:43 am ·
+0
disgruntled_republican said:
It is technically legal, I believe, but really bad form.
48 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:45 am ·
+0
Genghis Conn said:
Don’t see how. It was purely political and if the Governor did the same thing she would be getting whacked from every angle.
49 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 10:47 am ·
+0
I don’t see it either (seems political to me), but that is what I read. Which could be wrong, of course.
50 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 10:47 am ·
+0
disgruntled_republican said:
Remember when she printed her Governor’s Annual Reprt on the fancy paper and with the pictures and got burned?
51 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 10:50 am ·
+0
Sure do…Guess it’s OK for her to do that this time around, right? Hope it’s in my mailbox tonight.
The quote blocks are getting too BAM! Messing with the eyes…lol.
52 Jon Green // May 31, 2007 at 10:51 am ·
+0
All the nonsesne about voter fraud is, as Gabe says in the first post, a solution in search of a problem. And by the way, searching for this problem a little too zelously is exaclty what has landed Alberto Gonzalez in the mess he’s in.
From the Courant, 5/14: “While it has been clear for months that the administration’s eagerness to launch voter fraud prosecutions played a role in some of the U.S. attorney firings, recent testimony, documents and interviews show the issue was more central than previously known.”
Full story at: http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-attorneys0514.artmay14,0,4340617.story
There’s an excellent report called “The Politics of Voter Fraud” by Project Vote, which registered literally millions of voters in primarily urban areas in ‘06 and ‘04. They are non-partisan, but consitently attacked with claims of voter fraud. And when federal prosecutors refuse to prosecute the claims because they have no merit, Alberto Gonzalez does his best Donald Trump and says “Your Fired!”. See the report at: http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Publications/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf
53 top-n-center // May 31, 2007 at 11:08 am ·
+0
A little realism… Same day reg will flog local registrars who are already stuck with a crappy SOTS voter-reg system that’s difficult to work with on February 10th, and nearly impossible to maneauver around on election day.
Access to the SOTS system is currently only setup at the Registars’ HQ. Will it now be neccesssary to deploy computers and high-speed Internet access to each and every polling place? At who’s cost?
54 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 11:10 am ·
+0
top-n-center said:
The municipality’s, I’m sure. It is the state’s M.O., isn’t it?
55 Weicker Liker // May 31, 2007 at 11:10 am ·
+0
Off this topic….
Get a load of what Congressman Jack Murtha is up to in Washington.
John Larson, Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney worship the ground this guy walks on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYgBLYhWjXs
56 TrueBlueCT // May 31, 2007 at 11:15 am ·
+0
According to the GOP’s amendment, I wouldn’t be able to také advantage of EDR, as I only have one photo ID, (my driver’s license), and I don’t have either a birth certificate or social security card handy.
What amazes me throughout this thread is the fear and hostility displayed by CLP’s Republicans towards the minority community. What gives? The vitriol is truly ugly and un-American.
57 disgruntled_republican // May 31, 2007 at 11:19 am ·
+0
TrueBlueCT said:
Care to give a specific example of this cause I am not seeing it.
58 Genghis Conn // May 31, 2007 at 11:21 am ·
+0
Here’s a link to the fiscal analysis:
http://cga.ct.gov/2007/FN/2007SB-01312-R000494-FN.htm
An ominous quote: “The bill could result in a cost to municipalities associated with the per diem cost of additional registrars and staff at polling locations.”
59 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 12:14 pm ·
+0
TrueBlueCT said:
GC lets this comment stay, but if you call the original post racist, it’s no good.
60 The Architect // May 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm ·
+0
TrueBlueCT said:
The whole moral indignation act is old TBCT, get over it. Instead of engaging in a substantive discussion about why we should require people to legitimately prove who they are before they vote, you throw some bombs in an attempt to avoid justifying the fact that you think any Joe Schmo should be able to vote without any checks or balances…. coincidentally the people would likely vote in your favor - but I’m sure that’s not the reason you support this! You wouldn’t stoop so low… *sarcasm*
61 CGG // May 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm ·
+0