Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Topinka plan round-up - UPDATED x3
Next Post: Third party survives, not voted off the island - UPDATED x1
Posted in:
I have to finish up some things, but I’ll blog a little more later this morning or early afternoon. Meanwhile, here’s the setup:
Making voters produce a picture ID before they can cast a vote is not designed to pick on minorities, according to a veteran Illinois legislator.State Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Greenville) will introduce a proposal requiring state-issued identification cards be presented by voters at the polls. He is holding a press conference at 2 p.m. today at the St. Clair County Courthouse in Belleville.
The proposal, which would require voters have a driver’s license or Secretary of State-issued identification card, is not meant to “make it difficult for the poor to vote,” he said.
“How many people don’t have an ID?” he said.
Proponents of photo IDs assert that it reduces voter fraud, but groups like the American Civil Liberties Union argue that it creates unfair hurdles for minorities.
Attorney John Kurowski of Belleville said he believes that any provision requiring a photo ID to vote is “likely unconstitutional.”
Kurowski, who represents the East St. Louis Board of Elections Commissioners, said courts closely scrutinize cases involving access to the polls and have favored protecting the rights of poor people who may not possess a photo ID. […]
A U.S. appeals court recently upheld an injunction preventing the state of Georgia from enforcing a law requiring voters to show a state-issued ID card.
U.S. District Judge Harold L. Murphy said the law appeared to violate the Constitution. He likened the law to a “Jim Crow-era poll tax that required residents, most of them black, to pay back taxes before voting,” according to a Washington Post article.
And the question: Do you agree or disagree with Rep. Stephens’ proposal? Why or why not?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Topinka plan round-up - UPDATED x3
Next Post: Third party survives, not voted off the island - UPDATED x1
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
nope. smacks too much of the poll tax and other efforts to keep african american voters from voting in the past. one way to show good faith, though, is to make getting an illinois picture id, including one’s drivers license, free for any resident in the state. that would prove that voter id proponents are serious, and not malicious…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 9:54 am
I agree w/Stephens
Bored now, they offered a free ID in Georgia and that did not placate anyone. How does this remind anyone of a poll tax? Does it unfairly target a certain group? Are only certain groups required to show their ID’s under this proposal. Anyone who opposes this must want to keep people voting fraudulantly and numerously. I can’t think why any reasonable person would oppose this, especially if a free state ID is issued.
How hard is it to get a state ID? Is Jesse White running things that poorly?
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:04 am
Yes. It will help reduce voter fraud, which I hope would be a bi-partisan goal, even in Illinois. And, it’s also a pretty good idea for everyone to have in ID anyway. Having one just makes life easier for yourself and others.
Now, to address the asinine arguments of the proposals critics:
You must register to vote – no one questions that, right? Well, what do you need to register? An address. Now, I find it really hard to believe that anyone with an address, and thus presumably pays either rent or a mortgage, can’t afford $20 every 5 years for an ID card (or doesn’t already have an ID to begin with). What’s that? You say seniors, or people with disabilities, often have an address, but are on assistance programs and fixed incomes. Well, then it’s a good thing that they already gets these cards for free, anyway.
The only people that this requirement disenfranchises is the truly homeless, who are already disenfranchised! To liken this to Jim Crow is racial fear mongering, plain and simple.
BTW, last time I checked, owning a firearm was a constitutionally protected right of mine. But the state doesn’t seem to have any problem making jump through 13 hoops, fill out forms, OBTAIN AN ID, and pay a fee, in order to exercise it on a limited basis. Just food for thought.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:08 am
And, just in case anyone wants to pick my last thought apart, I have no problem with gun registration and FOID requirements. It’s in the interests of public safety. My point is that I also have no problem with voter registration and requiring an ID for that, either. It’s in the interests of ballot integrity.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:12 am
Amazing how we have to cow-tow on things so as to not upset people in the country illegally, I love it.
Comment by Douglas Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:12 am
bored now. I disagree that there is anything racial about this proposal (and even if there was, the stronger arguement, as Douglas alluded to, would be that it is anti-Latino, not anti-African American), but I’d go along with your suggestion to make ID’s a free service, or at least reduce the fee for an ID to that of a basic drivers license. I’m sure we can cut enough in the SoS office to pay for it too!
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:19 am
As for its being unconstitutional, a similar law has so far passed muster in Indiana. How many people are being disenfranchised now by voter fraud? Any time someone gets to vote three or four times, fraudulently, there are three or four people whose votes are “cancelled out” as Archie Bunker used to say.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:23 am
illegals voting? earth to douglas, earth to douglas. please let us know what your on! must be some really good stuff!
what is really funny is that i’ve worked on some of the closest elections in the past 25 years, and i can’t remember a single instance or even claim of voter fraud on a mass basis. this is at best a strawman argument, and in reality, a thinly-disgused attempt at voter suppression.
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:25 am
So my grandmother who’s never learned how to drive and never needed to and has never needed a state ID is now going to have to scrape together a few dollars she usually spends on her medicine to go wait in line at the Secretary of State’s office because Rep. Stephens thinks she’s a fraudulent voter? Well I certainly know who she won’t be voting for. What a senior unfriendly idea.
Comment by Frank Booth Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:25 am
It’s not racist, it’s common sense. Photo IDs are the norm everywhere. It is not unreasonable for those who wish to exercise their right to vote as citizens are courteous enough to ensure that everyone’s vote counts once, so as not to disenfranchise other voters.
As far as bored now not knowing about vote fraud on a massive basis, East St. Louis comes to mind. Then there’s Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee where some precincts had more voters than residents, a miraculous turnout.
Comment by Backyard Conservative Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:33 am
gop, I see you caught your own counter-argument. I’ve no doubt you are a safe gun-owner, but voting hardly poses the threat that a gun COULD in the hands of the wrong person.
By the way - the idea that illegals will vote is nothing short of asinine. I’ve worked in a restaurant with immigrants. One guy who WAS LEGAL was afraid to answer a jury summons because he thought he’d be deported.
The idea that someone who isn’t legal is going to risk deportation in the interest of Rod Blagojevich or Judy Baar Topinka is sheer demagoguery.
Perhaps Rep. Stephens should pass a law that pharmacists must show customers an ID proving they are not fraudulent and that they will do the job the law requires of them.
Comment by BuckTurgidson Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:35 am
I would prefer that any additional burden on voting in an effort to prevent voting fraud be evidence based. So I have two questions:
1) Is there evidence of significant voting fraud on the part of the individuals attempting to vote? And I’m not talking about institutional fraud, i.e. voting fraud on the part of those collecting and counting the votes.
2) And if there is evidence of significant fraud by people attempting to vote, is there any evidence that this i.d. plan would address that problem?
Unless someone can show evidence — evidence, not anecdotes — indicating that the answer to those two questions is yes, I would have to oppose Rep. Stephens’ proposal as an undue and unwise burden on the right to vote.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:36 am
Frank - unless your grandmother had kids young who, in turn, had kids young, you can go ahead and remove the “scrape together a few dollars” line. Citizens over 65 get IDs for free, so she can still afford her meds. And if you were any kind of decent grandson, you’d give her a ride down to the SOS and help her get an ID anyway, even if she doesn’t need it to vote. It will make it that much easier for her to cash her social security checks (again, assuming she’s over 65).
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:47 am
Where I think fraud is likely to happen is in those precincts where the fraud starts at the top and no ID system is going to prevent it. If we need an ID, the local organizer will just make sure his person is the election judge checking IDs.
Comment by RBD Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:50 am
If the photo ID is made available for free, then there is NO burden to anyone, does not discourage anyone from voting and singles out no one legally entitled to vote.
Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:51 am
SCAM, I think you are missing the point. We really don’t know if and how much voter fraud is really being perpetrated, because the problem is that those who are committing it are getting away with it. By requiring ID’s, we’ll be better able to tell if someone is voting fraudulently, and prevent them from getting away with it.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:52 am
No,it is unconstitutional. There is no law requiring citizens to have an id. Maybe we should just tatoo every citizen with a bar code.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:55 am
Gee, people in the Chicago area doubting the exsitence of voter fraud, this too much. Doesn’t the fact that certain pols and advocates want people to be able to vote w/o any common sense safeguards.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:57 am
It is a sad fact of life that many poor people who are, without question, citizens do not have and/or do not carry photo IDs. Poor people are likely much more transient than the rest of the population and thus less likely to have ID displaying their current address. Racial and ethnic minorities in the US are much more likely poor. I have never heard anyone dispute these propositions.
It therefore follows that the requirement for photo ID showing the voters’ current address will suppress voting by poor and minorities. That’s what should make it both unconstitutional and mean-spirited, discriminatory public policy.
Our current Illinois law provides a less restrictive alternative to this proposal while suppressing voter fraud: voter registration in person requires presentation of IDs and if the person does not disclose a place of birth which shows him to be native born, requires the date and place of naturalization. Voter registration by mail (required by federal law) requires receipt of regular mail and presentation of positive ID at the first time of voting. Then, voting is accomplished by the voter supplying a matching signature on the ballot application. If the signature does not reasonably match, then presentation of ID is required.
If the election boards, county clerks and state’s attorneys do not effectively check to be sure that voter fraud does not exist, they either don’t care enough about the problem to stop it or they are lazy. In either case, the solution is to punish the watchdog by throwing him out of office or shaming him into doing his job. The solution is not to beat up on the poor and/or minorities.
Comment by Richard K. Means Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:01 am
I’ve employed people in public housing communities in Chicago where the big question was “can you pay in cash?” because the pool of people who could work shrunk if there was a check (and therefore an ID) involved. Also, there are people for whom that $20 isn’t even an issue - they can’t access their birth certificate unless they can afford to take a trip to another state. Most importantly, the question isn’t necessarily whether a potential voter can find some way to come up with some money for an ID. It’s whether the culture of corruption, the perception of do-nothing politicians, etc. make any barrier to voting enough of an excuse that people just won’t vote. In my opinion, the role of politicians here - if anything - should be to encourage voting. Why should they be allowed to limit the pool of citizens who decide whether they keep their jobs?
Comment by g Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:02 am
I like the idea. Here are some way we can use it to continue to game the system:
1. Make the IDs for registered Democrats be BLUE, the IDs for registered Republicans RED, and independents WHITE. This will help to continue to alienate third parties, and allow people to see what your affiliation is from a distance. That will help with party discipline.
2. Make it a requirement to give a phone number when you apply for the card. That way the political parties have direct access to you come election contributon time.
3. We should have to renew the card every election cycle. This will make it more difficult for ‘causal’ voters, and increase the voting strength of the party loyalist voters (i.e. the people with the most to gain or lose based on the outcome of an election)
4. Because it will require a picture, we’ll need to set up offices statewide to issue & maintain the cards. The offices can be funded by a small fee needed to get the card (like GOP says above, perhaps $5) This infrastucture will require more state employees, and will result in a few more patronage positions for the pols in Springfield.
Honestly, what is not to like about this plan?
Comment by Leroy Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:03 am
If we are worried about the burden on poor people, why doesn’t the state just pick up the tab for the ID? Federal legislation has been introduced to require voters show ID and it has provisions that give block grants to states to cover the poor.
For the poll tax argument to work, you need an actual tax.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:04 am
this is a great idea to help voter fraud, I’m sure the govn’t will be willing to help people finance the 5 or 10 bucks it cost to get an ID, This is a stupid debate.
Comment by moderate - half way between crazy and crazy. Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:07 am
Jim Crow? That’s ridiculous, just more lies & scare tactics from the Left.
Stephens’ proposal makes perfect sense to me. Without a valid ID, there’s no way of knowing if someone is truly registered to vote and if they’re in the proper election district/polling place.
And SCAM, there is significant evidence of voter fraud right there in East St. Louis. How many people were recently convicted of that very crime down there?
Paying cash for votes, moving polling places, 25 people registered at the same vacant apartment address. I’m no federal prosecutor, but that sounds like blatant voter fraud to me. And don’t even get me started about the Chicago Machine.
Comment by The Ghost Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:10 am
gop: i understand your paranoia of hispanics, it’s the “in” thing. but this is an obvious attempt at vote suppresion, plain and simple.
i know all the bushies are for huge, activist goverment, but my own belief is that government should be a vehicle of last resort, solving actual problems and not irrational fears, and not duplicate tasks already being done. this idiotic proposal fails on all three.
there is no epidemic of voter fraud, especially not from illegals. and we already have a system for preventing voter fraud, via election judges. both parties have election judges in the polls, and it is part of their job to prevent voter fraud. furthermore, local and state republican parties already make it easy for fellow republicans to report suspected voter fraud.
finally, proposals like this are easily circumvented, by voting absentee where no driver’s license will be offered. a lot of voter fraud (or perceived voter fraud) uses absentee ballots, so this would be easily gotten around. so there must be another reason to propose something like, like intimidation of poor and minority voters. in fact, this is how it is discussed at higher levels.
as for your agreement to my proposal, i’ll believe you when you abandon your conditional support. if you believe in this provision, then you should be willing to pay for it. that’s just common sense.
backyard: id’s are not the norm everywhere. i often travel without an id, and have even flown from chicago to florida (and back) without one since 9/11. many poor people and urban dwellers don’t have driver’s licenses, which is why the state id program exist. in rural america, obtaining a dl is a rite of passage (often, for kids who were driving already, anyway, it just made it legal).
as ydd always likes to point out, i’m not always familar with illinois history, and i made it clear that i was relying on my own personal experience. could you provide some (non-partisan or legal) case studies where people walked into the polls and voted without the right to. i’ve heard of shannigans in east st. louis, but unfamiliar with the facts. please enlighten me. nor do i understand your reference to philly, detroit or milwaukee (although, again, i’ve heard things about milwaukee). but i suspect that you’re focused on municipal elections, which is ok, if you live there. i doubt you do, so your comment about electoral integrity smacks of convenience, not principle.
quite frankly, i strongly question your contention that there were more voters than residents in any case. that’s an absurd claim on your part. of course, democrats make a similar claim of phenomenal results in 12 counties in ohio in 2004, something i’m equally sceptical of. in the end, i can’t think of any form of voter fraud that can be stopped or even curtailed by the photo id requirement.
a much more simple explanation is the desire to disenfranchise voters who don’t think like you do OR to have your fears catered to (this is a great fund-raising device, and i’m sure stephens will benefit greatly from it). quite frankly, i’ve had enough of this country catering to irrational fears (eg, other jim crow laws or the invasion of iraq). i’m not at all inclined to legitimize voter irrationality…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:11 am
The Republicans in Georgia, who now control the state for the first time since the Civil War, passed this law and the courts are in the process of striking it down. It’s a BS law and the Reps. can rationalize it any way they want, but to place any barrier between someone and thier right to vote is an attempt to keep some group from making it to the polls.
Comment by STAVROS Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:12 am
Mr. Means, help me understand something: If you need an ID to register in person, and you need an ID to vote for the first time if you registered by mail, how is it not already a de-facto requirement that you need an ID in order to vote?
This bill will not require anyone to obtain anything that they do not already have to obtain in order to complete the voting process (from registration to casting the ballot).
What is does is ensure that people who register in person but are known to not regularly vote, or have already voted before are dead), do not have their vote cast by someone other than they. Your name stays on the rolls after you die, and if you’ve voted before, all that is really needed is someone of the same gender to come in, squiggle a signature and get that ballot. Voter fraud happens most in heavily one-party precinct where the judges aren’t checking the signatures well enough because they assume that whomever is pulling that ballot is voting the way they want them to anyway, and the opposing party judge is probably not even a member of the party they are representing to begin with. Thus, RBD brings up a good point: if the election judges are not verifying the signatures properly, will they verify the IDs? Maybe not. But suppose they had to capture and record an image of the ID, like some downtown nightclubs do for liability purposes?
Or, we could just all dip our finger in some purple ink after we vote. But I’m sure there’ll be someone out there allergic to the ink, and the ACLU will be right back on the case, making sure that it’s as easy as possible for votes to be stolen.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:19 am
When you register to vote, instead of the stupid piece of paper they send you, they should send you a scanable photo I.D. that has your picture on it from either your driver’s licence, a person photo, or a new picture taken at the SOS office. You shouldn’t have to use a driver’s licence or whatever else you could use to vote, but should have a “voter’s ID.” It should be free of charge and required to be scanned before you receive the ballot.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:19 am
Voter fraud happens most in heavily one-party precinct where the judges aren’t checking the signatures well enough because they assume that whomever is pulling that ballot is voting the way they want them to anyway, and the opposing party judge is probably not even a member of the party they are representing to begin with
i don’t disagree with this, but what makes you think this will change with a voter id law? if election judges are abusing the system (or allowing it to be abused), why would they uphold this current proposal? again, voter id laws alter nothing that people object to (or couldn’t be addressed other ways), BUT DO RESULT IN VOTER SUPPRESSION. which, methinks, is the point…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:26 am
Another bad idea from my lousy state rep. I wish he would spend time on an issue that really matters. Oh wait…maybe Angry Vandalia Frank came up with the idea and pushed his lttle side kick out in front on this one.
Comment by Southern Ilinois Democrat Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:29 am
bored now: I have no “paranoia” of hispanics, just white guys with names like Daley, Madigan and Blagojevich. You raise a good question regarding absentee ballots, and I’ll have to think about that one for a while. But I don’t think we should throw out a perfectly reasonable idea just because we haven’t yet thought of a rule for the exception yet. Let’s work on it, not give up.
As for your flying from Chicago to Flordia without an ID….I’m not calling you a liar, per se, but I don’t buy it. You have to have some sort of ID to fly: DL, Passport…..how did they validate your identity to make sure it matched the name on the ticket, might I ask? They have to do that, and if they didn’t then you got away with something you shouldn’t have.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:30 am
bored now, how about reading the rest of the paragraph? I suggested a remedy to that problem. Go back and take another look.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:33 am
Even before 9/11 you had to have an ID to get on a plane, even little kids.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:37 am
I’d bet serious money that if we have the Board of Elections to direct all judges to take a survey this fall to see how many people who cast ballots have IDs (perhaps not on them, but have one in general), it would show that 100% of them do. After all, they had to present one to register in person, or one to get their ballot if they registered via mail. This bill will not disenfranchise anyone. Period. It’s a procedural change, not a requirement change. You already need an ID to vote, it’s just a matter of when you must present it.
Any argument based on disenfranchisement or voter suppression is completely invalid.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:39 am
I think showing a voter registration card may be too restrictive. But come on, showing a picture ID is not a burden.
With the excessive vote fraud in Cook County, I would expect not only a picture ID but a second form of ID as well.
We need to stop excessive white guilt over ethnic minorities.
If candidates are expected to meet minimum requirements, then so should the voters.
We are treating ethnic minorities like irresponsible school children. Most people have picture ID’s since they are 16.
I think eliminating vote fraud is more important than “disenfranchising” a few people.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District
Comment by Ashur Odishoo Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:41 am
IL requires 2 forms of ID, one of them having your current address on it in order to register to vote. According to the register by mail requirements:
(i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification, or (ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. If you do not
provide the information required above, then you will be required to provide election officials with this information the first time you
vote at a polling place or by in-person absentee ballot
So in order to register, you do not need to have a photo id. So the argument about needing a photo id to register is not true.
So why not have at every polling place an extra station that takes these very same documents allowed to register and gives the people, if they don’t have a DL or state ID, a photo state voting id?
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:42 am
voter suppression will occur, not necessarily in the obtaining of the id, but in the use — requiring people who don’t otherwise have an id to get one which they are going to use once a year. I have a hard enough time finding my car keys each day - finding a card for once a year use is going to peel off a percentage of voters. Since this proposal seems to be made by Republicans in every state where it comes up, I must assume that the calculation on the part of the GOP is that the suppression will occur in the ranks of the Democratic consitutency. And I’m still waiting for a Republican to suggest that voting go to two days, over the weekend. All of their “fixes” always seem to be in the direction of making voting a little more inconvenient for the marginal folks in society - no coincidence, for sure.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:44 am
gop: it’s not a reasonable idea at all. it is the definition of bad legislation — one that does more harm than good (in this case, much harm, by diminishing democracy, and no good).
as for my id story, i should have said without a photo id. i had an employer id without a photo (and, i believe, my birth certificate), which meant that i was forced to board last, and had to watch my baggage sit next to the plane even after i boarded. i try to check my writing, but obviously i miss stuff, in this case, an important word.
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:44 am
Can anyone nominate an Illinois election that was decided improperly due to voter fraud since, oh, 1960? I have heard allegations about the 1982 gubernatorial race, for instance, which would be interesting since in that case it would be the Republicans who stole it. But any others?
I assume these elections are out there, but I was curious how many and how big of a problem this truly is. Putting one more hassle in the way of voters to solve a vastly over-hyped problem doesn’t sound like a sensible tradeoff to me.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:49 am
cermak_rd, you are right, thanks for the correction. And I like your suggestion, and your way of thinking. Let’s think of contingecy rules for the exceptions, not general rules based on the exceptions. I’m willing to debate and compromise with anyone thusly. But let’s not completely discount a reasonable (yes, bored now, I’m sticking by that) and sensible solution to voter fraud (which is a serious, persistent problem that threatens democracy just as much as voter supression). Let’s think of ways to use it becuase of it’s merit, but think of contingency rules to help minimize the voter supression so many of you are worried about.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 11:55 am
Very interesting give and take on the issue.
How about this:
Voters can either produce a voter id or elect to dip their finger in ink, just like they do in Iraq.
It presumably answers both the Republic and Democatic fears on the issue.
Comment by Effingham Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:00 pm
Do a quick balancing act here. Is the number of people who would likely not vote (for whatever reason) under such a law larger than the number of people who attempt to commit fraud underneath current laws?
I have no idea. And that’s the problem. Real evidence that EITHER situation is happening to any appreciable degree is absent.
Liberals are greatly overstating the likelihood of this new law being a barrier to voting.
Conservatives are greatly overstating the likelihood/current problem of voter fraud.
And no one has any real numbers to back this up. It’s a hopeless political battle, designed to test the relative strength and will of various interest groups, not to solve or improve any real societal problem.
Comment by Elitist? Of course! Have you SEEN these people? Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:09 pm
gop: you are advocating a “solution” that fixes nothing. massive (or you could say, institutionalized) voter fraud would could still occur unabatted; this proposal isn’t even a speed bump for those contemplating voter fraud at the meta level.
i understand and accept that voter fraud occurs on both sides, and i find it contemptible. but most examples of voter fraud i know of (and i suspect, in the examples bc cites above) occur at the partisan level, not that of the individual voter. in fact, most instances of “voter fraud” at the individual level, in my experience, was negligence, not intent.
this legislation is a trojan horse — attempting to solve the problem of too many democrats who vote, not individuals attempting to fraudalently vote. and this is obviously in your mind, as you make no attempt to provide examples of where this proposal might reduce voter fraud, while merely pointing to irrational fears and dismissing the racial overtones therein. it’s not a serious idea…
btw, i have no qualms with the ink-stained finger idea; i’ve been an election monitor in a country where this was used. not any different than the “i voted” stickers; people proudly displayed them.
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:14 pm
to: Elitist? Of course! Have you SEEN these people?
Most sensible post on this subject. 100% on target. Wish I had said it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:15 pm
If these whiny babies want to talk about a barrier to voting look at the primary where you have to say what you are before you vote.Hey the only problem is the Democratic Machine in Chicago is trying to figure out how to get pictures of all the dead people that vote each election.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:17 pm
elitist: inconvenience is a known deterrent to voters. but if you could devise an experiment that meet all the requirements of the scientific method, then the yale project would love to hear it!
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:18 pm
Maybe if there was an ID requirement in 1992 Ron Stephens wouldn’t have won by 200 votes against Robert Daiber.
Comment by Highland, IL Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:29 pm
My understanding is that the Indiana law is a lot less onerous than the Georgia law (which was tossed).
The differences could explain why some of the laws have been upheld and some haven’t. From an AP story out of Missouri:
***
But there are differences within the details of the states’ laws.
For example, the Indiana law is not specific on how the free photo ID cards are to be distributed.
The Georgia law requires each county to have at least one place where it will issue the cards.
The Missouri law goes further, requiring that photo ID cards be made available not only through license offices but also through nine mobile processing units that can be dispatched to nursing homes and other places “frequented by disabled and elderly persons.”
But to get a free ID, Missourians must comply with a separate state law requiring them to prove their “lawful presence” in the United States. For most people, that means showing a birth certificate.
Those who can’t find it must get a replacement. Missouri charges $15 for a birth certificate. The lawsuit claims that amounts to an illegal poll tax.
Poll tax arguments also were raised in Indiana and Georgia.
The Indiana court said the plaintiffs failed to show they would actually have to buy a new birth certificate and noted it was just one of several options for getting a photo ID there. It said the cost of getting a birth certificate did not constitute a poll tax because it was not “sufficiently tied to the requirements of voting.” Nor can the costs of time and transportation to get a photo ID be considered a poll tax, the Indiana court said.
The Georgia court cited the Indiana ruling while also determining the poll tax argument lacked “a substantial likelihood of success.” It, too, noted that a birth certificate was only one of many documents that could be used while getting a photo ID card in Georgia.
In contrast, “in Missouri, there’s absolutely no other way. If you don’t have identification, you’re going to have to pay money either for a birth certificate or a passport,” said Don Downing, a St. Louis attorney handling the lawsuit.
The states’ laws also differ when it comes to counting the provisional ballots of people who still lack a photo ID on Election Day.
****
The Georgia secretary of state has estimated that there are 676,000 voters who have no ID with the Department of Motor Vehicles (the GOP disputes the number). In Missouri, Democrats are claiming in a lawsuit there are 170,000 voter with no ID.
Here’s a story with a little background (kinda old, though. Sorry): http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=27991
Comment by Dan Vock Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:41 pm
Well, I’ve been an election judge for a number of years and I have seen countless signatures dating back years to initial registration that don’t look like the current ones of the voter. Photos are easier to match.
As far as examples of vote fraud, besides the obvious one of St. Louis, documented in the Belleville News-Democrat:
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/15142770.htm
Here’s more from Larry Sabato, a respected, non-partisan expert:
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2001/062701_sabato.htm
Also this on Detroit:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5254036/detail.html
There are a number of problems, but let’s tackle them in a common sense way, and get past the demogoguery.
Comment by Backyard Conservative Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:47 pm
Az. already has this. If you don’t have an ID, you bring 2 other forms of identification. No big deal. Even grandma better have some identification. If not, take her to the DMV yourself.
Comment by Shelbyville Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:50 pm
Of course democrats don’t like this idea, how are they going to get all the illegals into the voting booths? Whenever they lose an election, it’s always because of voter fraud, never them or their ideas.
Comment by Bored of Bored Now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:52 pm
Hell—OOOOO!
Here in Illinois, it’s “Voter-Intimidation-R-Us”. Just add photo ID to the long list of low-grade subterfuges designed to frustrate people and discourage them from voting.
When are we going to crawl our way out of nineteenth century voter registration structures and requirements? Never, of course: diehard partisans want only the true believers to vote.
We COULD have instant registration on voting days, as some states now have.
We COULD have a centralized voter registration database and imaging system that would permit people to show up and vote ANYWHERE in the state. (Or at least regionalize this and save money: how many gazillion dippy little precincts do we need? How many county clerks/boards of election do we need screwing up submissions of hard copy to the Illinois State Board of Elections?)
We COULD have (gasp! gag!) open primaries.
We COULD vote on Sundays (as many nations do) so that people need not take off from work (and/or get intimidated by employers to skip voting).
You want icing on this cake? Lest anyone forget, Illinois was dragged kicking and screaming into the federal motor voter law: the other 49 states bought in, and we wasted taxpayer money suing over it.
I repeat: the powers-that-be DON’T WANT voting to be convenient. End of diatribe.
Comment by Dooley Dudright Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:57 pm
Backyard Conservative,
Yes, I laugh at the idea of checking sigs. The FBI has handwriting experts on staff, do you think they look at the 2 samples and then immediately say, yep, it’s the same person? If it takes that expert time to compare writing samples, how likely is it that an election judge (or a grocery clerk for that matter) is going to be able to lend any accuracy to the signature check?
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 12:58 pm
backyard: as i suspected, you have no examples where this proposal would in any way prevent or even deter the kind of voter fraud you are aware of. me neither! so we are left with the hard (voter suppression), and no good (unless you want to call easing irrational fears a public good!).
as for your experience as an election judge, we have to weigh your convenience (one person) against the convenience of others (the many). interestingly, the people who you want to be inconvienced don’t think like you! i’m shocked!
bbn: i’m sorry you can’t read. but to summarize, i’m arguing that voter fraud is a problem, but not at the individual level. i can’t think of an election where voter fraud has decided the outcome — not that i don’t doubt this has occurred at a local level. hence, this proposal has no upside (unless you count easing the concerns of irrational people) and a significant downside.
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 1:06 pm
Cermak Rd diminishes the value of the signature comparison by comparing what the FBI does in a lab. That’s not a valid contrast. When the FBI compares a “known” signature with a “questioned” signature, they do not know whether the questioned signature was a photo, a painstaking tracing, a valid signature made under durress, etc. The election judges and poll watchers see the voter making the signature right in front of them and always have the right to challenge it upon which the voter is required to produce ID.
For those who complain that the election judges and poll watchers don’t do their job, the solution is to make the system work the way it is supposed to and not to further depress the honest vote.
Comment by Richard K. Means Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 1:54 pm
OK, everyone’s had a rich healthy discussion on the idea. Now for a little reality and perspective so we can move on to talking about something of relevence like, say, the decision to exclude Pluto as a planet.
Marginal lawmaker in marginalized minority party proposes election reform that won’t be considered until after the election.
Does anything more really need to be said?
Comment by Frank Booth Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 2:18 pm
Drivers license and state ID card are easy to get. Make ID card free once the right documents are produced. Fail to see how that is racial, economic, or any other negative. Sigs change over time. Faces stay pretty much the same. Good idea, but will go nowhere. Just a Warhol 15 minute PR attempt.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 2:24 pm
Richard K. Means,
I agree the FBI has more to consider and eliminate than an election judge, but I also don’t believe that anyone without training on handwriting recognition is really all that capable of accurately checking a signature and certainly not in the length of time the usual election judge has to give to it.
I’m not really criticizing election judges, just the security blanket society clings to by having untrainted people check sigs.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 2:32 pm
Several Things
In Atlanta, there were no facilities in the central city where people could go to get the ID.
Technically, we have an open primary. you are not required to officially join a party to vote in its primary.
This all smacks a little too much of “Show me your papers!”
I would like Rep. Stephens to show me which elections were won by fraud. Even in recounted elections that were close, I haven’t heard a big cry of voter fraud in Illinois.
Comment by Glenn Wood Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 4:00 pm
Why not just tell people they’ll be arrested for past due parking tickets … or that they’ll have to pass a short written exam before voting …
Oh, wait. Those were all tactics conservatives already tried to suppress the minority vote.
Hello? It’s 2006. Why aren’t more people calling this what it is — a blatant attempt at racist voter suppression. Welcome to desegregation Rep. Stephens.
Comment by NW burbs Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 4:03 pm
Yeah, an ID card is another act of voter suppression. Just add it to the long list of: Can’t vote everyday of the year, can’t vote until age 18, can’t vote because you aren’t registered, can’t vote because the people at the poll looked at me wierd when I picked the Republican ballot, can’t vote because my kids are sick (damn government), can’t vote because my car broke down, can’t vote because I don’t have the right skin-color, can’t vote!!! can’t vote!!! can’t vote!!! Come on, cry baby… cry! cry! come on, cry!!! There are some reasons why people don’t vote or can’t always vote… that doesn’t mean it is voter suppression. It means that some people think they are being disenfranchised when they disenfranchise themselves.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 4:53 pm
right, lovie, because democracy is really only for the elite, those who can prove they deserve to be in your country club! whiners. either you support democracy or you don’t. democracy shouldn’t just be for those who live in the green zone…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 5:30 pm
If someone has an expired ID, will s/he be allowed to vote?
People who don’t own cars don’t have to be particularly vigilant about renewing their drivers licenses.
My guess is that people with expired IDs won’t be able to vote even though it’s perfectly clear who there are and where they live.
In my mind this is not an acceptable outcome.
Also, who said you needed to have a state ID in this country. If you don’t drive and don’t need one for booze or cigarettes, why should you be discriminated against at the polling place?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 5:53 pm
Republicans seem a tad insincere in their desire to reduce voter fraud when they aren’t also interested in ensuring access to the polls in places like Ohio and Florida.
Besides, the victims of fraud by the Dem Machine is far more often independent and progressive Dems in primaries than Republicans in general elections.
When was the last time the Dem Machine–people like George W. Bush’s b-day host–cheated Republicans in the general election?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 5:56 pm
After reading all of these partisan comments, I thought I’d share a perspective from the area in question.
Bob Delaney, the Democrat County Clerk of St. Clair County, is actually on record supporting Rep. Stephens’ idea. Yes, a democrat supports the idea.
It might be easy in other parts of the state to say that this proposal disenfranchises “honest” voters, but the fact is that, in 2004 in East St. Louis, voter fraud occurred and elections were influenced.
In 2004, every voter in St. Clair County was defrauded by the illegal actions of a few. People were paid $5 per vote. Period. People have gone to jail for the antics that occurred. Where’s the outrage from good government groups outside our area? Talk about hypocrisy and insincerity.
The best quote I saw in our local media regarding this story talked about the necessity of photo IDs in the most basic consumer functions of society. No one’s complaining about banks asking for photo IDs. No one on this blog would just sit back if someone walked into their bank and withdrew money from their account. The same people who would say that voters are “disenfranchised” would be yelling at a bank president for not having asked for a photo ID.
How can our country be the leader of the free world and yet still fail in the most basic tenets of democracy?
Comment by Madison County Watcher Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 6:34 pm
Get off your but, get a job, get a photo ID, and get a clue. You want to vote, show an ID. Nothing discriminating about that. Want to cash a check, get an ID, want to drive, get an ID, want to buy a firearm or ammo, get an ID, want to check out a book at the library, get an ID, want to do the most important thing in your life such as vote, get an ID. Seems pretty reasonable to me. If a cop stops you and asks you if you have any ID and you say “bout what†chances are you really don’t need one.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 6:58 pm
Buck - Pharmacists, just the same as all those licensed by IDPR, are required to have that license on public display at their place of employment, available to any customer/client wishing to verify that they are indeed licensed and the license is up to date.
Comment by LicensedinIllinois Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 8:47 pm
Holy cow rs what is with you guys are you all from another planet with this guys ideas and jbt runnning for gov you might win something around 2050 keep up the good work you’re making it pretty easy for us thanks
Comment by anonymous again Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 8:54 pm
Disenfranchised because someone has to go to a driver license office or a court house once every couple of years? If people can get to the grocery store, bank, ATM, library, or church, they should have some way of getting an ID. Not hard with a slight bit of effort. Expired license cause I forgot to keep track? Pretty weak arguement.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 9:58 pm
pot. kettle. black.
arguing for something that will have no discernible effect on voter fraud is a weak argument. noting that this proposal has a considerable downside (i’d call it an unintended consequence, but i don’t think it’s unintended) is nothing more than blowing holes through that weak argument. one observes that not a single example has been given of vote fraud that would be prevented by this…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 24, 06 @ 10:04 pm
“right, lovie, because democracy is really only for the elite, those who can prove they deserve to be in your country club! whiners. either you support democracy or you don’t. democracy shouldn’t just be for those who live in the green zone…”
Then get off your ass and go vote!!! I support democracy. But I don’t think democracy should make exceptions for people who can’t vote or wouldn’t normally vote. That would be demoCRAZY.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 12:05 am
Scratch that “I support democracy.” That is factually untrue. I support a constitutional republic….
Comment by Lovie's Leather Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 12:07 am
no worries. a lot of republicans out there don’t really support democracy (stephens appears to be one). but it’s a fun catch word; it can really fool the voter!!!
Comment by bored now Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 5:40 am
Bored Now
You get up to early!!!
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 6:52 am
Our Constitutional Republic is democratic… that was my point, Bored Now.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 7:52 am
i understood your point; you appear to have missed mine…
Comment by bored now Friday, Aug 25, 06 @ 8:03 am
#1-this will only create another office and additional bureaucracy within the ever expanding government machine.
#2-if voter fraud is already such a problem, how difficult would it be for the crooked to create 1,000’s of “fake ID’s”? Computer technology can allow anyone with basic skills to place their face on anyone elses body–and bar codes? Tiger Direct sells ‘em cheap.
#3-pharmacists do have to post a valid license at their place of business, too bad Stephens no longer has one to post.
Comment by seamo Saturday, Aug 26, 06 @ 1:11 pm
There’s absolutely no reason for Voter IDs…none! Although hundreds of millions of votes have been cast in recent years, there have been almost no cases of individual voter fraud, and even fewer that this nutty idea would have prevented (an ID wouldn’t reduce Madison County’s alleged vote-buying, for example).
It’s government officials and campaign staffers, not individuals, who commit voting fraud–as happened in Madison County–and they do it in the big numbers. Far from being a remedy, Voter ID is just more officially-committed vote-fraud.
Obtaining a state-issued Voter ID is neither “free” nor “easy.” Most voters who lack driver’s licenses are elderly, or poor, or disabled. They’d find it hard to get to a license facility, unless they have good public transportation. In many cases, they’d have to take time off work–or hire a babysitter–just to stand in line. Plus they usually need a Birth Certificate, which costs money and takes time to obtain. (Missouri officials had been delaying the issuance of Birth Certificates for as long as 8 months…until that state’s Voter ID law was shot down in the courts a week or two ago. Do you think that delay was a coincidence?)
Anyone who claims these laws aren’t designed to discourage voters–especially black or poor voters–is either out of touch with human nature or a Republican. Oops, I just committed a redundancy!
Comment by baitcaster Tuesday, Aug 29, 06 @ 12:10 am