Hello again, Carolyn! I've gathered some information on this subject,
but I can't really provide a good "rationale" for viewpoints which
seem to me to be entirely irrational. The justification most often
given for not requiring identification is that some voters find it
"intimidating" to be asked for ID. Another point sometimes mentioned
is that homeless people and migrant workers may not carry
identification, and to require them to identify themselves will have
the effect of disenfranchising them.
Here are some recent news stories that I think you'll find interesting:
"A voting-rights group filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging Ohio
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's rules on provisional voting -
the second such legal challenge over the controversial issue.
The suit, filed by the Ohio Voter Protection Project, says Blackwell
will require some first-time voters to show identification before
receiving a provisional ballot on Election Day - a violation of the
federal Help America Vote Act, or HAVA.
The group, which includes several labor unions and the Ohio League of
Women Voters, also challenged a Blackwell order that says voters who
appear at the wrong voting precinct may not receive a provisional
ballot...
The lawsuit filed Tuesday also says Blackwell wrongly requires
first-time voters who request a provisional ballot to present
identification before that ballot will be counted...
The Voter Protection Project has asked to merge its case with the
Democratic Party's suit to resolve them quickly, attorney Sean Grayson
said."
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Second lawsuit challenges Ohio provisional voting rules
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1097055103150421.xml
"Attorneys spent more than eight hours in court Tuesday trying to
convince a judge that Colorado voting laws disenfranchise thousands of
legitimate voters.
A lawsuit filed by Common Cause asserts that voters are being denied
their rights... Common Cause is challenging a state law requiring
voters to present identification at the polls, saying it is
unconstitutional.
The state law was established, in part, to prevent voter fraud, but
Common Cause attorneys argued it potentially disenfranchises thousands
of legitimate voters who are unable, or unwilling, to present
identification.
Common Cause also is challenging two voting guidelines established by
Secretary of State Donetta Davidson concerning lost absentee ballots
and provisional ballots filled out in the wrong precinct."
Rocky Mountain News: Suit blasts vote laws
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3233230,00.html
Here's a lawsuit involving voters being required to identify
themselves, but (rather refreshingly) those who are suing were in
favor of requiring IDs:
"A group of New Mexicans, backed by lawyers active in the Republican
Party, have sued the New Mexico secretary of state and Bernalillo
county clerk, asking that more people be required to show
identification before voting.
The lawsuit filed Friday in state District Court in Albuquerque asks
that all first-time registered voters in New Mexico show ID at some
point before voting in the November election, lead attorney David A.
Garcia explained.
'We're asking that the court simply enforce existing state law,'
attorney Pat Rogers said Friday...
Other voter identification efforts have failed in the Legislature.
Opponents have said that such measures can be used to intimidate
people from voting."
Albuquerque Journal: New Voters Must Show ID, Lawsuit Urges
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/211389elex08-21-04.htm
The outcome of the New Mexico suit mentioned above:
"A judge ruled Tuesday that thousands of first-time voters in New
Mexico will not be required to show identification when they cast
their ballots in the November election in a state that already has
seen four visits each from the president and his Democratic
challenger.
State District Judge Robert Thompson on Tuesday denied an injunction
in a lawsuit that sought to force people registering to vote for the
first time to show identification either when registering or at the
polls.
The broader identification requirements largely would have affected
people who have signed up in voter registration drives around New
Mexico, many of them aimed at people who have never voted before.
Several people, most of them Republicans, went to court late last
month, contending that under a law that went into effect in July 2003,
first-time registrants who don?t register with a county clerk must
show ID.
They said they were concerned about the possibility of voter
registration fraud; Democrats said the lawsuit was an effort to
disenfranchise voters."
Las Cruces Sun-News: Judge rules against requiring voters to show ID
http://www.lcsun-news.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=443&num=9134&printer=1
"In New Mexico, Republicans unsuccessfully sued the Democratic
secretary of state to require that most new voters show identification
at the polls. In Florida, Democrats have filed 10 election lawsuits
against Republican officials. In Pennsylvania, plans by the Democratic
governor to have state workers help monitor the election have stirred
Republican suspicions. In Colorado, the Republican secretary of state
has accused the Democratic attorney general of not aggressively
investigating registration fraud.
The clashes have followed a familiar script. Republicans, long
suspicious of urban political machines and worried about record levels
of new registrations in many swing states, say Democrats have abetted
fraud. Democrats, who cite a bitter history of efforts to deny
minority and low-income voters the ballot, contend that Republicans
are trying to suppress the vote. But thanks to the election of 2000,
the attacks this year have been fiercer and the legal mobilization
larger than ever, experts say...
This week was typical. In Milwaukee, the Democratic mayor requested
additional ballots to handle a tide of new voters, but the Republican
county executive initially refused, citing concerns about fraud. (The
executive later relented.) But prosecutors in Racine, Wis., are now
investigating reports of dubious registrations.
Black and Hispanic Republicans criticized a Democratic National
Committee handbook found in Colorado. It included a section
encouraging Democrats to mount 'pre-emptive strikes' against
Republicans using press releases raising concerns about potential
voter intimidation, even if none was detected.
'What that means in clear language is, if there is no evidence of
intimidation, which we don't expect there will be because we're not
going to engage in it, then make it up and talk about it anyway,' said
Michael Williams, a Republican railroad commissioner from Texas who is
black.
Democrats said the manual simply instructed party workers to publicize
the threat of intimidation. And then, as if following their own
advice, they took the offensive on the issue."
New York Times: As Election Nears, Parties Begin Another Round of Legal Battles
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/politics/campaign/18monitor.html?8br=&pagewanted=print&position=
Here are a few articles about other voting issues:
"U.S. citizens who go to the polls Nov. 2 to decide local, state and
national elections are likely to get more help from noncitizens this
year than ever before.
Beyond requiring applicants to sign a pledge on voter-registration
forms affirming that they are U.S. citizens, there is no way to
prevent the nation's estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens
from casting ballots in November, area elections officials said.
Locally [in the Washington, DC area], only Virginia requires voters to
provide their Social Security numbers, but the state does not require
voters to show their Social Security cards... Only first-time voters
are required to provide photo identification in Virginia and the
District. No jurisdiction requires voters to show proof of citizenship
at the polls."
Washington Times: Little to stop illegal aliens from voting
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040923-104542-8488r.htm
"Illegal aliens who soon will be able to obtain legal driver's
licenses in California may also be able to vote in federal elections
under terms of a new law set to take effect in January [2004],
analysts say.
Under the requirements of the 'Help America Vote Act,' passed in the
wake of the 2000 presidential election recount debacle, states are now
required to implement new standardized voting regulations, which
include verifying voter identity, according to an analysis of the law
by Public Citizen, a national non-partisan consumer-advocacy group.
One way the new law allows voters to be identified is via a driver's
license, according to a Federal Election Commission summary of the
law. If illegal aliens legally possess one, analysts speculate, they
could also be allowed to cast ballots in U.S. elections."
World Net Daily: New law could give illegals right to vote
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34840
"Local lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington
state filed a lawsuit yesterday [October 21, 2004] on behalf of
convicted felons who have been denied the right to vote solely because
they haven't paid their fines.
The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, challenges the
constitutionality of Washington's voting regulations, arguing the law
discriminates on the basis of wealth...
A similar but broader lawsuit is also pending in Washington. In that
case, the plaintiffs include felons who haven't completed their
sentences. The argument is that because people serving time are
disproportionately minorities, the ban on felon voting violates the
Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next month
whether to hear that case."
The Seattle Times: Five served prison terms, now want right to vote
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002069851_felons22m.html
Google search strategy:
Google Web Search: suit OR lawsuit identification voters
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suit+OR+lawsuit+identification+voters
Thanks for a thought-provoking question! I hope this is helpful in
giving an overview of the situation. I guess I'm really not in a
position to complain about folks who aren't willing to identify
themselves: I've been working here on GA for two years under a
pseudonym.
Regarding the matter of what can be done about all this, in my view
the best way to combat these assaults on the legitimate voting public
is to take a long, hard look at the sources of the lawsuits. Determine
which political party is pushing this agenda which implies that
prevention of fraud is equivalent to disenfranchisement. Once you have
a good idea who's behind it, vote for the other guys. ;-)
Best,
Pink |
,
3 Comments
)