Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger
I guess I should not be surprised when I read of certain states trying to “cleanse” the voting rolls under the guise of voter fraud. However, I was saddened to read that the State of Pennsylvania was joining the growing list of so-called Red and some not so Red states that are taking steps to disenfranchise voters prior to the November National elections. The State of Pennsylvania is poised to possibly disenfranchise almost 10 percent of its voting population. “Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law, which will take effect for the first time this November, may prevent 758,939 otherwise eligible voters, who do not currently have an acceptable ID, from voting.” Think Progress
Most of the states who are embarking on these attempts to reduce the number of legal citizens able to vote in the elections seem to come from the states that claim that they are merely taking steps to stop voter fraud. Florida has been in the news lately with Gov. Scott’s attempts to purge the voting rolls and I recently wrote about an attempt in Georgia to prevent absentee ballots from being sent and received in time for them to be counted in the November elections. These absentee ballots would have an especially dramatic impact on deployed military members right to have their votes counted. Now, Pennsylvania has joined the fray and is attempting to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania from the almost invisible crime wave known as voter fraud!
Just what kind of photo identification is required to be able to vote in Pennsylvania? “The new law requires all voters to show photo ID such as a driver’s license or nondriver PennDOT photo ID, U.S. passport, student identification card with expiration date, current military identification, or ID card issued to government employees.” The Morning Call This kind of requirement sounds reasonable on its face, but when you look deeper it is arguable that this requirement is intended to prevent likely Democratic demographics from voting. “Philadelphia’s top election official, City Commission Chair Stephanie Singer, told the newspaper that the figures reinforced her view that the law was intended to decrease voter turnout in the predominantly Democratic city. She said Philadelphia “is hit much harder by this than any of the other counties.” The Morning Call
The leader in the Pennsylvania House recently confirmed that the Voter ID law will allow Gov. Romney to win Pennsylvania in November. “House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House’s end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically. “We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature. “Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.” Politics PA
If I understand Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Turzai correctly, the only voters who are voting illegally in Pennsylvania are voters likely to vote for President Obama. Am I missing something or did Turzai just admit that the Pennsylvania Voter ID law is a political gimmick designed to prevent likely Democratic voters from being able to vote. Indeed, similar voting restrictions in Wisconsin were recently struck by a judge who claimed that their Voter ID laws violated the State Constitution.
“According to Wisconsin Judge David Flanagan, they violate the Wisconsin Constitution too. In an order issued yesterday, Flanagan temporarily suspended his state’s voter ID law and strongly hinted that he will eventually strike the law down permanently. As Flanagan’s opinion explains, the Wisconsin Constitution provides particularly strong protections for the right to vote — “[e]very United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district,” regardless of whether or not they have an ID. Moreover, the state supreme court has interpreted this constitutional provision very robustly. “Voting is a constitutional right,” according to the Wisconsin supremes, “any statute that denies a qualified elector the right to vote is unconstitutional and void.” Think Progress
Are these state laws that are being passed to curb so-called voter fraud just an excuse to prevent legal voters from exercising their right to vote? If voter fraud is a real problem, where are the statistics and evidence to prove it? In Ohio, a study found that the instances of voter fraud was infinitesimal. “Despite his belief, representatives from the Board of Elections, the League of Women Voters, and the former Secretary of State office “have never even heard of one” instance of voter impersonation in Ohio. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004 out of 9,078,728 votes case — “a rate of 0.00004%.” Think Progress
At least 22 states have taken steps to restrict the right to vote and the Justice Department is becoming engaged in the “discussion”, but will it be too little too late for the millions nationwide who may lose their right to vote? Would the Voting Rights Act survive the Roberts Court if any of the challenges to these Voter ID laws make it to the Supreme Court? Is there a voter fraud problem in this country? Are people confusing the term vote fraud with voter fraud?
To me, the right to vote is an integral part of my right of free speech because it is the time when my government has to listen to what I say! What do you think?
Additional references: Think Progress; The Brennan Center; ACLU
Bigfatmike: “To me it seems that those who really care about fair election would demand something like real ID implemented over time to allow individuals to upgrade their ID.”
—
There is no proof that elections are not fair based on voter fraud- there is though overwhelming evidence that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. The effect of these laws so far is to possibly disenfranchise millions of voters and to do so for political purposes. Reality (which is the ultimate truth) proves that changing the law to prevent voter fraud is merely a pretext, It doesn’t matter what the pretext encompasses, dirty politics, ignorance etc., it must not be allowed to impede the opportunity to vote, which is a right, not a privilege.
The right to vote only applies to eligible voters. The priviledge of voting is being enjoyed by entirely too many ineligible voters.
There are a few federal rules for voting in national elections but, for the most part, states determine the rules for voting. That’s why there is such a hodge-podge of rules. The federal Voting Rights Act applies only to the specified states that had a history of denying the vote to minorities through poll taxes and education tests and the like. The DoJ seems to be going after the named states, e.g. TX and FL but doesn’t seem to have any jurisdiction to go after the others. I believe that citizens with standing can sue their state.
Even in federal elections, thought, the states determine the rules for selecting the Electoral College delegates.
ALEC is behind many of the new oppressive laws. idealist 707 asks what can be done about ALEC. Maybe this is it.
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/may/17/explainer-can-non-profits-lobby/
Excerpt:
Why Don’t Non-Profits Lose
Their Tax-Exempt Status for Lobbying?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
By Stephen Reader
Non-profits can lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in lobbying, but the rules are vague enough that most political activities go unpunished.
Consider the case of the non-profit American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Over the past year, ALEC has been the subject of a New York Times investigation, a Common Cause IRS complaint, and a website devoted to “exposing” ALEC as a thinly-veiled, tax-subsidized lobbying group, and the source of over 800 model bills that eventually found their way into state legislatures.
Nearly 2,000 state legislators are members of ALEC, which is filed as a non-profit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Many of those legislators, after attending ALEC conferences and meeting with business leaders, bring draft bills back to their home states.
James and Gene,
You beat me to a response for Michael Marsalek’s “evidence” that their is a voter fraud problem in this country.
Michael,
The purpose of these related Voter ID laws throughout the country is not to defeat an invisible enemy, but to defeat Barack Obama. At least the real evidence suggests that.
FYI, I have lived long enough to know that seldom are the voters presented with good electoral choices. I don’t have anything against Barack Obama or Mitt Romney personally, but I don’t like either one for president. People like myself are at least entitled to have confidence in the integrity of the system.
I would like to see a third choice on all electoral ballots: ” none of the above.”
Michael J. Marsalek,
Anecdotal evidence is not a statistically valid form of evidence of widespread vote fraud and you provided no evidence of your claim about someone voting as USAG Holder – only a secondhand anecdote that may or may not be true and would still be disadvantaged even if true by still being anecdotal. Your “proof” is unsubstantiated and of improper quality to be considered evidence of anything other than your seemingly ill-informed opinion. Vote fraud is rare and the portrayal of it as a substantive problem when it isn’t is mere propaganda to cover and justify actions being taken by those with partisan interests in voter suppression.
The ‘Myth’ of Voter Fraud
Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud”
The total number of murderers in the U.S. is insignificant as compared to the total population. Why bother ????
Michael J Marsalek, in one year, there are more reports of unconfirmed UFO sightings — by several orders of magnitude — than actual cases of voter fraud. Your argument fails. Until the GOP gives people a reason to vote for them, this is all they have. You know it, I know it, Bob Dole knows it, don’t make Dole stab you with his pen, now…
I and millions of other eligible voters have a right to know that our votes are not being diluted by ineligible voters. Saying or pretending that voter fraud is not a serious problem is unacceptable. There upwards of 20 million illegal aliens hiding in plain sight in America. Many will vote in 2012. When you add to them the numbers of deceased voters, convicted fellons and other ineligible voters; it might be enough to produce an adverse outcome. Mitt Romney might get elected.
I’m a bit confused. Are the reports unconfimed or the sighting unconfirmed?
The DOJ is going to have its hands full….. Wow….
Michael Marsalek,
Show us the statistics that there is a problem with voter fraud before you state that it is reasonable to require a specific photo ID.
Why certainly rafflaw !! I’ll give you 2 examples. It’s been reported that someone went into a polling place and obtained a ballot as Attorney General Erik Holder just to prove how easily voter fraud can occur. I personally offered my photo I.D. when I voted in the Maryland primary. The attendant said she was not allowed and refused to look at my photo I.D.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/republicans-voter-suppression-project-grinds-on.html Republicans may just keep enough minorities and young people from voting to allow them to be in control of all three branches of government.
“WASHINGTON — The decades-old legal battle between states’ rights and civil rights returns to a familiar venue – a federal courtroom – on Monday as lawyers for the state of Texas try to convince a panel of judges that the U.S. Justice Department has no legal authority to block the state from immediately implementing a voter ID law.
Civil rights groups contend that Texas’ 2011 law requiring voters to provide identification with a photo issued by the state or the military discriminates against minority citizens and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. They say it harkens back to state laws designed to disenfranchise minorities, such as poll taxes and literacy tests.
“The effort to suppress the vote is not a new thing,” said Leon W. Russell, vice chairman of the NAACP Board of Directors. “What we’ve seen in the last two years, though, is the most egregious effort to compound and collect every single method that anybody could think of that would discourage a person to vote and put it in a piece of legislation and inflict it on our community.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues that the state has a responsibility to guard against election fraud, and that its new law is not subject to Justice Department review under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, which has angered Southern conservatives for decades, requires jurisdictions with a historical pattern of discrimination to win federal “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before implementing changes in voting laws or political lines.” Houston Chronicle
FEDERALISM IS GIVING IT AWAY TO THE CORPS
=========================================
I see no benefit in allowing each state to determine how voter registration, voter admission to the polling booth, vote registration, etc shall be done.
The whole federallistic system is an anachronism which allows small local power bases to do crazy things. I think this whole ALEC process has demonstrated that to be true. Things which the nation as a whole does not desire, as polls demonstrate, even in local areas, where the smart ALECs reign for the occasion.
The FFs, the founding fathers, praise be to them, were fearful of permitting a royal/imperial regime.
NOW, in spite of that, we have an imperial president, we have a senate and a house that are not republican, are not responsive to the interests of the people but to the corporate tyrannies who want to expand their tyrannical rule to the whole of the ocuntry using hook or crook—-mostly crook. Witness Citizens United which will allow us to witness even now the suffrage being bought.
But unwilling to ONLY buy such votes as massive money can (PROPAGANDA 103), they also are smart and connive to disenfranchise the segments who might vote for their opponents. And with our all or nothing electoral system we are sold on the auction block to the corporations.
This rant could be longer, for you know as well as I that there are many ills here unnamed.
ALEC needs a democratic antidote. Where will that come from? NOWHERE, as we see now the demise of the Democratic party, the demise of democracy, and the stifling hand of tyranny gripping our throats.
The rich have bought back the country—-completely.
The FFs were solid businessmen.
And Obama has been a traitor from the beginning: wall street lackey (shades of red), and one of just about every other big business and money system.
They all have bought the system through OUR representatives.
And now he sits passively letting Congress take the blame for Holder not giving us back our vote, the votes he needs. But he has conceded. There is the kernel.
America, the beautiful. Former land of the free (if you had money) and home of a plebe bought army—brave bought slaves. Instead of educating young people to asssume well-paid civiian jobs, we assure that they will become a sure supply of cannon fodder.
Why do I bother. Because it is mine, the battle is mine, and the battle must be won if we are to survive and not become serfs. We are actually wage slaves now—-disenfranchised ones to boot by bought RWAs. Der Fuhrer, but by another name.
It seems to me that there is nothing really subtle about this discussion.
If you believe:
(1) there should be no restrictions on who votes in an election then make that argument.
(2) if you believe that some restrictions are reasonable then make that argument.
(3) if you believe that some restrictions may be reasonable but that it appears in some jurisdictions attempts are being made to manipulate restriction in order to game the system and gain political advantage for a particular party – then make that argument.
There may be other possible positions that those three would seem to cover most of what we are observing today.
What I do not understand are those who seem to believe that some restrictions are reasonable (at least they make no argument against restrictions) but seem to think it is OK cast a blind eye on the restrictions. To me that seems at least contradictory and at worst fundamentally dishonest.
“– – – shut the f–k up !!”
What a thoughtful informative response. It is people like this who really, really add to the conversation.
It’s real simple. Voting is one of the most important rights Americans have. It is most reasonable to require a positive I.D. in order to vote so that eligible voters are confident that their votes are not being diluted by ineligible voters. Otherwise, in an extreme case, it would be possible for an ineligible candidate to be elected by ineligible voters.
Being a Republican through policy and deeds (not to mention signing statements and usurpation of Congressional powers), Obama isn’t much different from Rmoney – perhaps ‘not as bad’ but he’s certainly not a true Democrat ala, say, JFK. i’m sick of his crap – especially with this new secret TTP trade talks being revealed as pretty much the end of the U.S. i’m also sick of the whole Republican neo-fascist pro-corporate agenda being rammed down our throats and damaging our environment while it creates wealth for the few. We don’t live in a democracy any more and are basically a third world country NOW. With this election – it’s only going to get worse for most of us.
Oh Please – – Get Real !!
In the last Maryland primary, I identified myself to the poll attendant and volunteered to show my photo I.D. She said, not only could she not ask for photo I.D., she could not even look at it and turned her head away as if I were showing her an obscene photo.That’s ridiculous. Go get an I.D , vote if you care to and the rest of you – – – shut the f–k up !!
@rafflaw “Before you change and make people jump through hoops in order to vote, shouldn’t there be evidence of a voter fraud problem first?”
I really hate to, possibly, give cover to the current attempts to disenfranchise voters. Current attempts to cleanse voter registration rolls seem designed to game the system and increase the likelihood of election of a particular party. But voter fraud is a narrow offense and not the only kind of problem that voter registration rolls can have. Admittedly voter fraud is probably not much of a problem.
But there are other was that voter roles can have problems that distort the outcome of elections.
A first question is: should there be laws that restrict who can vote in an election. The consensus across the country seems to be: ‘yes it is appropriate to have reasonable restrictions on who can vote in a jurisdiction’. . Many of us would argue that it makes sense for voters to have some kind of tie to the community.
In any case, whether we agree or disagree most jurisdiction have restrictions on who can register to vote.
One way that roles can have problems is through ‘motor voter’. We all know that for decades those obtaining identity documents at DMV have been encouraged to register to vote. I think it is fair to say that in most states over most of those decades there was nothing like real ID and nothing like a requirement to show ‘proof of legal presence’.
I admit that I do not have proof. But I think the only reasonable belief is that over the nation there are likely to be several million individuals registered to vote who do not have legal residence to vote.
Some may scoff and claim that his is not really a problem. But thoughtful analysis of what it means to cast a vote shows that is not true.
It is not enough to cast your vote. The only meaningful way to cast a vote is if your vote counts in proper proportion. The only reasonable conclusion is that having unqualified voters registered and casting votes undermines the outcome of the election in very much the same was as preventing qualified voters from casting their ballots.
From another point of view: if n is the number of qualified voters then preventing one qualified voter from voting undermines the election in proportion to 1/n. Allowing one unqualified voter to vote undermines the election in proportion to 1/(n+1). When n is large, say over 100 the results of denying one qualified voter is indistinguishable from allowing one unqualified voter.
So yes, ‘motor voter’ suggest that there are probably significant problems with the voter roles. Those who truly believe in fair elections should not ignore the likelihood that many communities have voter roles with many who are not qualified to vote.
As I admitted this problem is not the same as voter fraud. But it distorts the outcome of elections in much the same way.
To me it seems that those who really care about fair election would demand something like real ID implemented over time to allow individuals to upgrade their ID. Many have identified difficulties implementing new ID and voter registration including cost to the citizen, access to government offices and access to original documents such as birth certificates. Those are real problems. But a thoughtful program implemented by those committed to fair elections could mitigate those real barriers to registration.
Republicans. Fascists. But I repeat myself.
Voter impersonation does not seem to exist to any meaningful degree. And for the very few instances of Voter ID fraud, it should be like medicine, first do no harm. The proof that the true intent of the laws is to disenfranchise voters, is that if there are a 10 cases of known voter impersonation fraud in PA, these laws potentially disenfranchise tens or hundreds of thousands of voters, creating magnitudes more damage to voting rights than false votes they prevent. The rule at a minimum needs to be that that any solution to the problem does not disenfranchise more people than people prevented from casting fraudulent votes. Right now, 10 improper votes prevented could come at the expense of 500,000 legitimate voters prevented from voting. This is pure insanity. Why the case against these Voter ID laws is not being made in this this simple way is indefensible and unforgivable.
Kraaken,
Before you change and make people jump through hoops in order to vote, shouldn’t there be evidence of a voter fraud problem first?
When my time comes and I pass from this world I want to be buried in Chicago so that I can continue to vote in the general election.