Republican alternative AVR proposal criticized
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Monique…
Meanwhile, an effort to override Rauner’s veto of a bill that would automatically register people to vote if they get a new or updated driver’s license was delayed in the Senate on Tuesday after not enough Senate Democrats showed up. Democrats hope to push the issue again Wednesday, saying it could amount to a test of Rauner’s influence over the GOP following overwhelming bipartisan support for the measure in the spring.
We talked a bit yesterday about a new Republican alternative proposal to give GOP legislators some political cover for voting with the governor on the override motion.
That bill has now been introduced (HB 6627 and SB 3452).
* From Abe Scarr at Illinois PIRG…
Rich,
We are still working through the language, but here are a couple comments on the Republican AVR bill:
1. The biggest change is to the way people opt out. In SB250, when an eligible voter interacts with Drivers Services they will be automatically registered, and given the opportunity to opt out after the fact. In the new bill, eligible voters must first decline to opt out, then must attest to their qualifications to vote with a signature. So you just showed a passport that documents you are a citizen and over 18, but you still have to legally attest that you are eligible. This is not that different than the system we have now.
2. The second change is to which agencies are covered. SB250 includes all 5 agencies that currently provide voter registration services under federal law. Theirs just includes Drivers Services. Both bills included a process for adding new agencies - their process is more articulated, but starts with less agencies.
In sum these changes mean less people would be registered to vote than through SB250, meaning less list accuracy and security, less costs savings, and less eligible voters added to the rolls.
Abe
* He added this PS…
There does not appear to be an implementation date. The bill is implemented immediately - to authorize the creation of the program. There is a date for a public hearing on creating the program, but no date for the program to actually be implemented. So it could take years to implement.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 9:52 am:
–In sum these changes mean less people would be registered to vote than through SB250, meaning less list accuracy and security, less costs savings, and less eligible voters added to the rolls.–
Your point being? You say it like those are negative things.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 10:00 am:
The opt-out should be the first priority, otherwise it creates a situation where a legal permament resident unwillingly registers to vote, thus violating a condition of his residency, which requires that he/she not take advantage of rights granted only to US citizens.
- SKI - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 10:26 am:
Seems pretty straight forward. Explain to me again why we need separate Republican and Democrat versions of a similar bill to address the same problem. Couldn’t they have just worked together to solve this and present a bill? Or how about when shown the legal implications of a bill that was veto’d, make the corrections to allow the bill to pass?
- Deft Wing - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 10:44 am:
Cover, yes the R’s who correctly voted “yes” will now need it.
- Abe - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 11:10 am:
Anonymous — SB250 has multiple protections to ensure only eligible citizens would be registered to vote. especially with changes that come with complying with real id, everyone will be documenting citizenship status at the DMV and that data can be used to ensure non-citizens are not registered.
- middle ground - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 12:46 pm:
I’m curious about the Real ID comment. In Wisconsin, Real ID is one option, and a more costly one, so a lot of people opt for the cheaper normal ID. Will Illinois be requiring everyone to meet Real ID standards?
- prolix - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 1:37 pm:
==In the new bill, eligible voters must first decline to opt out==
Is there a clumsier way to avoid saying “opt-in”?
- Abe - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 2:25 pm:
Prolix
Good point. Essentially it is the same and that’s why it’s a weaker alternative.
The presumption is changed - so instead of being asked to opt in you would be told you will be registered unless you opt out.
- titan - Wednesday, Nov 16, 16 @ 4:09 pm:
The current bill is way more cumbersome and expensive to get to the opt out.
The alternative] might register fewer people, but it would only miss people who said they do not want to register.
Shouldn’t people be able to choose to not register? Shouldn’t they be able to say so up front and the money and hassle?