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 Subsection (a) of section 9-20 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):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 ↓
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.
>>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.
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.
Two picture IDs. Outrageous. Geez, next thing you know we’ll require them to be a certain age to vote.
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.
[quote comment="10765"]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?[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
My grandfather voted Republican all his life. He died in 1986.
Then he voted Democrat twice.
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.
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.
[quote comment="10779"]It always takes me a few days to gather multiple forms of ID when I need them for anything.[/quote]
You must be very organized.
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?
Dear Professor Tokaji:
Check this out for people who can’t drive a car.
Love,
Architect
Gabe either (1) did not do his homework on this amendment, or (2) knowingly lies about its effect.
Which one is it Gabe?
CGG, does it really take you a few days to grab a couple forms of ID?
Please tell me this is hyperbole.
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.
“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.
[quote comment="10785"]Dear Professor Tokaji:
Check this out for people who can’t drive a car.
Love,
Architect[/quote]
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.
Nice, so questioning left wing sources is prohibited on this blog.
Good to know for the future.
[quote comment="10809"][quote comment="10785"]Dear Professor Tokaji:
Check this out for people who can’t drive a car.
Love,
Architect[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote comment="10788"]CGG, does it really take you a few days to grab a couple forms of ID?
Please tell me this is hyperbole.[/quote]
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.
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.
[quote comment="10813"]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.[/quote]
Please, spare us the talking points.
[quote post="579"]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.[/quote]
We don’t have a constitutional right to return a computer game.
[quote comment="10816"][quote post="579"]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.[/quote]
We don’t have a constitutional right to return a computer game.[/quote]
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?
[quote post="579"]Please, spare us the talking points.[/quote]
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.
[quote comment="10819"][quote post="579"]Please, spare us the talking points.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote post="579"]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?[/quote]
You have a point. It’s one reason why I’m personally so uncomfortable about gun control and the issues surrounding it.
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
[quote post="579"]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.[/quote]
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.
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.
Hi Derek, thanks so much for joining in the discussion.
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?
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.
Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.
[quote comment="10832"]Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.[/quote]
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.
[quote comment="10818"][quote comment="10816"][quote post="579"]
We don’t have a constitutional right to return a computer game.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
The Architect, a question I genuinely don’t know the answer to — do you need two forms of ID to purchase a gun, either two photo ID’s (one state-issued) or a state-issued photo ID plus a birth cert or a social security card?
The comparison to gun-buying doesn’t work, given how difficult we make it for people to vote in the first place. Is there only one day a year during which citizens can buy guns, and that day is a weekday/workday, and gun shops are only allowed to sell those guns during a 13-hour window during that workday? No. But that’s the reality of how we hold elections in this country.
In 2004, I staffed my precinct’s polling place. There were more than 80 people in line to vote when the polls opened at 6AM. Two of the three voting machines were broken during the first four hours of the morning. The line stretched to more than 250 people by 8AM. One of the two broken machines was fixed by 10, the other by around noon, but by that time many people had to leave the line to go to work. Our polls closed at 7PM in Virginia, and many people who had to commute to DC and Maryland to work weren’t able to get back to the polling place again before 7PM. Poor people who work hourly jobs can’t afford to wait in line for 6 hours to vote.
The idea that people would have to bring TWO forms of ID is transparently a ploy to supress the vote. You don’t have to show ANY ID in order to register by mail. Why should you have to show two forms of ID (one a photo ID, the other an SSN or birth cert) in order to register in person?
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.?
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?
[quote post="579"]You don’t have to show ANY ID in order to register by mail.[/quote]
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..
[quote comment="10834"][quote comment="10832"]Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.[/quote]
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.[/quote]
I got that same mailer and I am working on a post about that actually. I also wonder if that is legal…
[quote post="579"]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? [/quote]
If Blumenthal can get face time on the tube, you betcha!!!!!
[quote comment="10839"][quote post="579"]You don’t have to show ANY ID in order to register by mail.[/quote]
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..[/quote]
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.
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.
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.
[quote comment="10840"][quote comment="10834"][quote comment="10832"]Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.[/quote]
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.[/quote]
I got that same mailer and I am working on a post about that actually. I also wonder if that is legal…[/quote]
It is technically legal, I believe, but really bad form.
[quote comment="10846"][quote comment="10840"][quote comment="10834"][quote comment="10832"]Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.[/quote]
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.[/quote]
I got that same mailer and I am working on a post about that actually. I also wonder if that is legal…[/quote]
It is technically legal, I believe, but really bad form.[/quote]
Don’t see how. It was purely political and if the Governor did the same thing she would be getting whacked from every angle.
I don’t see it either (seems political to me), but that is what I read. Which could be wrong, of course.
[quote comment="10848"][quote comment="10846"][quote comment="10840"][quote comment="10834"][quote comment="10832"]Democrats don’t get talking points in our inboxes.
We don’t either CGG.[/quote]
Democrats just use state money to promote their budget proposal sending mail to real mailboxes.[/quote]
I got that same mailer and I am working on a post about that actually. I also wonder if that is legal…[/quote]
It is technically legal, I believe, but really bad form.[/quote]
Don’t see how. It was purely political and if the Governor did the same thing she would be getting whacked from every angle.[/quote]
Remember when she printed her Governor’s Annual Reprt on the fancy paper and with the pictures and got burned?
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.
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
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?
[quote comment="10858"]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?[/quote]
The municipality’s, I’m sure. It is the state’s M.O., isn’t it?
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
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.
[quote comment="10862"]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.[/quote]
Care to give a specific example of this cause I am not seeing it.
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.”
[quote comment="10862"]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.[/quote]
GC lets this comment stay, but if you call the original post racist, it’s no good.
[quote comment="10862"]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.[/quote]
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*
[quote post="579"]GC lets this comment stay, but if you call the original post racist, it’s no good.[/quote]
No, you can’t call Gabe or any specific commenters a racist. I shouldn’t even have to mention that. Beyond that it breaks our rules for commenting it’s just common sense.
[quote post="579"]but I’m sure that’s not the reason you support this! You wouldn’t stoop so low… *sarcasm*[/quote]
Architect: Cut it out. You’ve been trolling for this entire thread. Perhaps it’s time to step back and take a break for a bit.
Gabe, here’s an honest question:
What would you do to confirm that someone who wants to vote is both a citizen and registered to do so?
If your answer is, “with something other than a photo ID,” I don’t buy it. Voting is too important to me to let someone in with a library card.
If your answer is, “it’s not important to confirm that someone is both registered and a citizen,” I disagree. Nothing is more important, in my opinion.
If your answer is, “only registered voters who are citizen try to vote on Election Day,” that’s inarguably false.
Seriously, Gabe, what is your big opposition to confirming someone’s citizenship and valid registration as a voter? I agree that two forms of photo ID is a bit much, but one form of photo ID should be the industry standard.
I apologize for calling you out personally, but you are the one who posted the headline “Search for Problem Continues.” I just so happen to think that the right to vote is so important that non-citizens shoudn’t vote, and that it’s not a big deal to require someone to register a week or two in advance. That’s all. Maybe you’d rather have a foreign or indifferent electorate, but I do not, and this doesn’t make me racist in any way, shape or form.
What are the implications here for residency requirements? This is not an idle question.
What about the UConn student who doesn’t live in CT year round, doesn’t pay CT taxes or qualify for in-state tuition? Would they be able to vote?
Therein lies the contradiction: how can someone not be a resident for the purposes of in-state tuition and tax, but qualify to vote? This violates the principle of noncontradiction. Someone cannot both be a resident and not be a resident. This galls me because of the election day fraud that went on at UConn this past year. I wish Rob had challenged the fraud that ocurred. My friends at UConn told me that it was ridiculous- the democrats were registering kids from out of state willy-nilly and picked them up in limousines. Good preparation for becomes limousine liberals n’cest pa?
And this is the problem that I have with EDR. We have residency requirements to prevent “Bleeding Kansas” style ballot-box stuffing. These are not unreasonable when applied across the board. The bottom line is that if you don’t meet the residency requirements, you vote where you used to live (where you’d presumably be already registered to vote).
Given the availability of registration and absentee ballot request forms online, I see no reason to have EDR. Election day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. You learn that in grammar school. You can bet that I registered to vote the day I turned 18. Voting is a right- but it’s also a responsibility. The other point that I’d make is that the standard of two forms of picture ID or a picture ID, plus birth certificate / social security are what required to get a passport, a driver’s license, or be hired for a job. That’s the law. I knew that well before I was 18 years old. Before I had a license, I had a non-driver ID card. It’s not that hard to get, especially given that DMV is open on Saturdays.
My question to Mr. Slap with EDR is this: how will folks prove contiguous residency? How will they prove that they have resided in Connecticut for the period preceding the election? I know that they sign on penalty of perjury- but this is nothing more than the honor system. And this is the problem- you can’t run an election on the honor code and trust the results. It is not unreasonable to expect people to prove that they are telling the truth. If we’re going to have EDR in Connecticut, we better be damn sure that folks (1) are who they claim to be, (2) have had contiguous residency in their town, and (3) are eligible to vote.
And ultimately, this is not a discriminatory thing. Either you’re telling the truth about your identity or you aren’t. Either you have the evidence to back it up, or you don’t. It’s that simple. You’re responsible for your own evidence and for going to vote.
There doesn’t seem to be anything biased about this. The other side keeps saying that it will disproportionately hurt minorities. And I ask the question- why? Not “why?” at the micro level of CGG’s disorganization (because this is universalizing one person’s problem to everyone)- but at the macro level of unfairly disadvantaging minority groups. Citing education is a canard- even if they had horrible teachers in public school, they access to the same textbooks and library system in the inner cities that I did in the suburbs. Ditto with internet access at public libraries Ultimately, American law has its roots in legal positivism. In such a system “I didn’t know” is not a valid defense. You’re responsible for being aware of the law and respecting it.
And so again- why? Why would minority groups be unfairly disadvantaged by the expectation that all back-up the truth of their statements with evidence? Also, what other pieces of evidence like bills could be provided to prove residency.
Also, Mr. Slap, what would be done to verify eligibility, especially non-felon status? Will there be a list of all the non-pardoned convicted felons in Connecticut at all of the polls to verify eligibility?
[quote comment="10876"][quote post="579"]GC lets this comment stay, but if you call the original post racist, it’s no good.[/quote]
No, you can’t call Gabe or any specific commenters a racist. I shouldn’t even have to mention that. Beyond that it breaks our rules for commenting it’s just common sense.[/quote]
Where did I call someone racist CGG? Care to cite where I did that?
Let me correct what I said earlier.
“The vitriol is truly ugly, ill-informed, and un-American.”
I’m sorry, I just don’t see people rushing out to commit voter fraud.
What the ‘wingers suggest is that if you or I were living in Argentina as a non-citizen, we’d be conniving to take part in the electoral process, even at the risk of deportation or jail time.
Sure.
[quote comment="10877"][quote post="579"]but I’m sure that’s not the reason you support this! You wouldn’t stoop so low… *sarcasm*[/quote]
Architect: Cut it out. You’ve been trolling for this entire thread. Perhaps it’s time to step back and take a break for a bit.[/quote]
Thanks for the advice, I’ll take it under consideration.
Where is toucan to claim the flag of “law and order?” He was all about it the other day in regards to taxes. People must pay all their taxes he thinks…. because it benefits his Democratic social programs. But where’s the law and order in allowing anyone and their brother to vote? I guess that doesn’t matter, again, because not asking for ID at polling places again, benefits Democrats.
[quote comment="10876"][quote post="579"]GC lets this comment stay, but if you call the original post racist, it’s no good.[/quote]
No, you can’t call Gabe or any specific commenters a racist. I shouldn’t even have to mention that. Beyond that it breaks our rules for commenting it’s just common sense.[/quote]
Please note it says “POST” not “POSTER.” Thanks again.
I guess you chose not to take cgg’s advice, archie, to stop trolling. One, I repeat – I am not a Democrat not that it’s any of your business. Two, I have railed against the increase in the cost of social programs including healthcare and education that Rell and the rest of them want rather than deal with making them better/more effective – but that might mean Rell would have to install somebody other than the ususal recycled hacks as commishes. And three, I really could care less about EDR one way or the other – except for the added cost to the munis on election day, which pisses me off.
Added cost? Not in New Haven.
With voter participation so low, your average monitor sits on his hands for 80% of the day!
Where’s New Haven??? Isn’t that where Lieberman votes???
[quote comment="10896"]I guess you chose not to take cgg’s advice, archie, to stop trolling. One, I repeat – I am not a Democrat not that it’s any of your business.[/quote]
So it’s none of my business whether you’re a Dem or not, but you make it your business as to whether or not I take CGG’s advice.
Not at all archie, I just happened to notice your post where you were considering her advice not to troll, and thought I’d mention you didn’t take it – same at #73. What you and cgg discuss off blog is of no interest to me just as what you have to say here is often of no interest other than the need to correct your fequent distortions and spin that you appear to get revel in.
but archie, I do find this article interesting even if I am not sure the issue has legs: In recent weeks, McClatchy Newspapers has detailed controversial actions by Bradley Schlozman, a former interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City and top official in the Civil Rights Division, including a decision to charge four people with voter fraud just days before the 2006 elections. A Justice Department policy advises against such timing.
Oh and arch, please spin on this; I find it amusing how you do it each and every time….
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17301116.htm
You’re all off topic- no one has responded to my question of how expecting proof of contiguous residency disadvantages minorities or how eligibility will be verified with EDR.
this is interesting too:WASHINGTON – During four years as a Justice Department civil rights lawyer, Hans von Spakovsky went so far in a crusade against voter fraud as to warn of its dangers under a pseudonym in a law journal article.
Writing as “Publius,” von Spakovsky contended that every voter should be required to produce a photo-identification card and that there was “no evidence” that such restrictions burden minority voters disproportionately.
Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/usattorneys/17256012.htm
The news story is interesting background, but proves nothing. In terms of facts for the matter at hand- the only interesting and relevant thing is the report citing a correlation between depressed turnout and identification standards. Again, quite interesting, but correlation does not prove causation. Of course, the four elements of a tort are duty, breach CAUSATION, and damages. And so we come back to the questions: (a) does requiring ID cause discriminatory exclusion? (b) if so, how does this happen if the standard is applied uniformly (all races w/o ID are told to come back with it)? (c) why?
The politics of the von Spakovsky stuff is not material to discussion of the bill bill under consideration in the legislature.
The criterial may correlate to certain outcomes. But we can’t write laws on the basis of expected outcomes. I expect the evidentiary standard to be higher for EDR because there’s no time to verify data. It has to be right the first time because there’s not opportunity to check.
toucan sam, I don’t see any relation between events in Kansas City and Washington DC to Connecticut. Do you want to troll and bait some more?
There were a couple of questions for me in this thread and a couple of interresting points brought up that I will address here (I apologize if I miss an actual question):
G-Bury Man @ 1 – I dont have a problem with two forms of id. Why should anyone? The 12% of voting-age Americans without photo ID have a legitimate gripe – add to that the financial and time burden placed to get replacement SS and/or birth certificates (or the impossibility of getting non-existent replacements) and there is a problem.
ACR @ 2 – 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. I think you are missing the point of what I was saying regarding the Voting Rights Act. Under the VRA, the intent of the legislation (whether Republicans are promoting legislation because they want to help little old ladies across the street or because they want to push them into the path of a bus) is irrelevant – only a disparate impact on a protected group, and not a discriminatory intent, is what counts.
UnionThug @ 7 – The Supreme Court upheld in 2006 Arizona’s photo ID requirement when registering. They did not. They might indeed do that, when the case gets to them, but it is currently before the 9th Circuit for substantitive arguments. What the Court did in 2006 was strike down a 9th Circuit stay of implementation issued without reasons due to its proximity to election day (incidently, the 9th Circuit was reacting to a District Court ruling denying a stay without comment; the DC later released an opinion, but the case went directly to the SCOTUS without comment by the 9th). And to your question at 3, those statutes are currently being challenged in the respective states – as far as I know, none have yet made it to the SCOTUS.
D-R @ 10 – 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. Under the Amendment in question, all electors who register to vote in person, regardless of when, would be required to provide these forms of identification. This amendment, which could be added to a bill designed to make registering to vote easier, would actually make registering to vote harder – for EDR and non-EDR registrants. Interestingly, it makes no mention of mail-in registration – if the amendment passes, people who show up in person would have to show two government-issued forms of ID while mail-in registrants would be able to register with a utility bill.
Architect @ 13 and UT @ 15 – What part of this sentence (aside from the extremely poor grammer, I blame how early it was and apologize) – [T]he 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 necessaryto register to vote! – do you have a problem with?And Architect – Where exactly am I accusing anyone of racisim? In fact I specifically state that only the impact and not the intent of the legislation matters to the analysis and speculate that partisan political advantage is the basis for the amendment.
Republitarian @ 17 – We have had this discussion before in various threads on similiar topics, so I stand by my assertion here that there is nothing to suggest that the kind of systematic voter fraud that keeps you up at night exists. This is a solution in search of a problem.
D_R @ 44 – 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. You do not, under CT law, have to show ID (so long as you either registered in person or voted in at least one federal election since you registered by mail) – you can sign a statement under penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are. Of course, asking for driver’s licenses is convenient for poll workers (especially since thats what most people would use anyway) and I suspect that some are unaware of the obscure details of Title 9.
Genghis @ 58 – As I linked on one of the other posts, other states have found that there costs/staffing demands have remained fairly constant by EDR eliminating the need for provisional ballots – it might be why the town clerks are behind the legislation and why there were several registrars testifying in favor at the GAE public hearing.
Jack Dobb @ 63 – We have walked this ground together already, no need to do it again – I stand by what I wrote here, in the post and in the comments (add to that the facts, linked above, that the major advocacy group arguing that there is voter fraud has vanished and that it is becoming increasingly apparant that USAs were fired for not persuing meritless voter fraud claims).
J. Bailey @ 64 – The SCOTUS has said that college students can register and vote at their school address – whether EDR is passed or not, that will not change. There doesn’t seem to be anything biased about this. I agree. The law does not require any bias for election laws to run afoul of the VRA, just a showing of disparate impact. And so again- why? Why would minority groups be unfairly disadvantaged by the expectation that all back-up the truth of their statements with evidence? That is a really interesting question, but, I think, the why is irrelevant to the legal question under the VRA (although a good argument can be made that the entirety of the reason is that 12% of Americans don’t have picture ID and that group is made up disproportionately of members of protected groups). The EAC’s (suppressed) report (linked above) concludes that there is a disparate impact on minority groups by laws that require a photo ID – requiring a photo ID + another government-issued ID can only make that impact worse.
To your other question, here is the link to the legislation which spells out the EDR procedures, including how residency and eligibility will be verified.
G-Bury Man:
I had to delete your comment because something in it was messing up the template of the site. I have no idea why. Could you repost what you said? Sorry about the deletion (not your fault)–but I couldn’t even see the full page of this post anymore.
question was if person registrars to vote in a community aren’t they tacitly agreeing to live in the community. Should the voter also registrar their vehicle (property tax purposes) in said town (legal domicile) or just use and abuse the community.
If they wish not to registrar one’s car they should have to vote in absentee where legal residence is.
Voters should be vested in a community.
So even if we accept the finding of the committee that requiring picture ID and birth certificate, has a negative effect on voter turnout, we still have to prove causation. And this is the problem. No one thus far has answered the question as to why it is that 12% of citizens do not have a non-driver ID. If this is such a bee in the demcorats’ bonnet, why don’t they do more to inform these disenfranchised voters of their rights? Why don’t they help them obtain non-driver ID’s?
This is the doing of the limousine liberals. Instead of trying to enfranchise minorities (lest they start voting reublican), let’s enable a system that makes election fraud possible. Instead of lifting the unfortunate up to our level, let’s stoop down to theirs. Public housing is the same wy. I speak first hand, having lived in a building “in transition”. Limousine liberals use public housing to warehouse elements of society they consider undesirable instead of trying to rehabilitate them. That’s why the redevelopment of my building caused so much outcry- it took the public dole patronage away from the liberals,by eliminating their authority over those receiving government aid.
Gabe:
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see an answer to my simple question:
What would you do to confirm that someone who wants to vote is both a citizen and registered to do so?
I didn’t say anything about voter fraud (even though I strongly disagree with your opinion, but that’s neither here nor there). Let’s keep our eye on the ball here. What would you do to confirm that someone who wants to vote is both a citizen and registered to do so? It’s a simple question, really.
G-Bury Man – I’m not sure what your question is specifically in reference to, but I’ll give it a shot: Since we are talking primarily about people with no driver’s licenses (i.e. no government issued photo ID), I am assuming that they don’t own cars, and thus have nothing to register. Let me know if thats what you meant.
I’m talking about the illegal voter registration no one seems to care about at CT universities.
These students should be required to vote where they live; not where they go to school.
These drive by voters can give two sh**s about the community.
Jack Dobb – The answer to you r question is in the bill – check out section 30.
G-Bury Man – Take it up with the SCOTUS. That students can vote where they live at school (which is about 10 months of the year) has been established law for more than 20 years. That voter registration is not illegal; it has been specifically condoned by the SCOTUS.
Im just saying if they do vote at school they should be required to registrar their car their. They are using town roads etc.
Gabe, do you have a link to the section (and/or cut-and-paste)?
First, let’s remember that this amendment does not require two forms of photo identification. The text of the amendment reads:
“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”
That means what it says – you can show up with a driver’s license and a birth certificate, social security card or a valid federal or state photo id (like a military ID). Thus, one form of photo id and a birth certificate or social security card.
Second, I was just looking at the bill and couldn’t find the provision about identification that you speak of in post #87. Would you mind cutting a pasting? Sorry if it is a pain, I just can’t find it.
Third, let’s also remember that this is only a requirement for election day voter registration. If those forms of ID are too much you can register before hand like anyone else.
I find it very hard to believe that you can’t imagine any possible way there could be fraud without requiring an ID. It just doesn’t make sense – you’re a smart guy Gabe.
Fourth, you talk about “the myth of organized voter fraud” but you ignore actual instances of organized voter fraud that happened.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050630/ai_n14800048
It is all about priorities of an administration – I happen to think the DOJ should push voter fraud cases agressively and that voter intimidation cases are mythical. We obviously disagree, but both sides have merit and I think you’re ignoring that. In other words, if you think it isn’t a pervasive problem then fine (kind of how I feel about voter intimidation) but it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Remember the Clinto administration pushed hard for voter intimidation cases and got nothing too.
What’s the big deal about showing a photo ID? And the state issues ID cards that are not drivers licenses, so the “not having a car and therfore nothing to register” canard is 95%, er, 58% false to use Democrat math. And by the way – I had to stop at the SOTS’s office the other day, and guess what the uniformed security guard at the door asked me for – a PHOTO ID! It was so chilling, this violation of my liberties to visit a public building. Imagine my fear at having to encounter both a UNIFORMED GUARD and then be assked to produce identification! What’s next? A literacy test or entrance tax to get in the door? So in the Susan B.’s fortress of electioneering, I am forced to show who I am just to drop off some papers, but come election day, I can show up with my neighbors’ utility bills and vote away a couple times. Yeah, nothing wrong with this system.
Jack – I linked it in the other EDR thread.
Tony –
2. I linked it in the other EDr thread.
3. That is incorrect. The GOP amendment would apply to ALL registrants, regardless of when they registered.
4. You linked an article where people were convicted of vote-buying, with no allegation that the actual voters were ineligible to vote. I don’t see the relevance to a discussion of whether photo IDs are necessary or legal – how would photo IDs prevent vote buying?
I happen to think the DOJ should push voter fraud cases agressively. Unfortunately for your position, this DoJ has pushed voter fraud cases more aggresively than any other previous administration and the result, linked repeatedly above, is 86 convictions in 5 years – in a country of 300,000,000 people.
Joe –
What’s the big deal about showing a photo ID? As mentioned above, the ~12% of voting age Americans that do not have photo IDs. The demographic break down of that group suggests that photo ID laws will run afoul of the VRA. In this Amendment, the photo ID would be supplanted by another government-issued ID (one that, incidently, has an associated cost to get), making it that much harder for that 12% to comply.
And the state issues ID cards that are not drivers licenses, so the “not having a car and therfore nothing to register” canard is 95%, er, 58% false to use Democrat math. The context, which you ommitted, to this statement was an answer to the question about were people were registering their cars.
You say that 12% of voting age Americans don’t have either a Driver’s License, Non-Driver ID, or Passport. Why don’t they get their butts out there to obtain one of these things? They’re cheap, available and entitled to them as citizens. Why don’t they take responsibility into their own hands to obtain them.? Moreover, they’re required if you plan to take the train, ride the Peter Pan Bus, or fly on an airplane. Even on the bus, they’re supposed to check ID.
I agree that voting should not be unduly burdensome, but electoral stakes are significant and high. This isn’t waiting in line to get a Big Mac.
If this is so discriminatory, then why aren’t the liberals organizing to help these people get the ID’s they really should have. We read about the big voter registration drives in the South that happened after the Civil Rights Act- the freedom rides. Why don’t Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lead the way to DMV and fundraise to help those who can’t afford the ID?
And so that’s the bottom line. There’s no excuse for not having an ID in this day and age. It seems the liberals would rather legislate ID standards that impugn the integrity of an election than help the downtrodden get the identification documents in question. They certainly don’t want to pre-register voters these days. Sad how far they’ve deteriorated.. from the freedom riders.. to being too decadent to canvas precincts on foot, registering voters. (It must be the obesity crisis.)
You must log in to post a comment.