Reply #12: IMO, here's how to stop these ingenious vote suppression schemes, [View All]

[ProgressiveEconomist]

This "Voter ID" gambit for Republican vote suppression is GENIUS! No armed stormtroopers with official-looking armbands need be posted at the polls (as in Tom Kean's 1981 2000-vote "victory" in NJ). There need be no ChoicePoint-type biased purges designed to catch many innocent neighbors of "disfranchised felons" (as in the 437-vote Florida 2000 fiasco).

Even on progressive boards, when this subject arises many who consider themselves well-informed ask, "What? You don't want voters to have to show ID on Election Day?" But "Voter ID" is for the alredy-registered. Such a measure is an abuse of the concept of ID, designed to discriminate against city-folk, poor people, and the elderly--groups that tend to vote Democratic. The devil is definitely in the details, as shown in an EXCELLENT DU post linked at the end of this post.

"Voter ID" is the handiwork of Republican Prince of Darkness Jim Baker in the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission report (click-through link under the line of ---s below). He fooled even Jimmy Carter, whose foundation is devoted to election administration worldwide! The Carter-Baker Commission was set up to come up with proposals for vote legislation.

But the roadmap to preventing "Voter ID" and other ingenious schemes has been laid out in large part by one of the lesser-known members of the Carter-Baker Commission, a law professor named Spencer Overton ( [e-mail] )

IMO, an effective strategy for halting these ingenious vote suppression schemes would have eight components. IMO, when Democrats finally achieve majorities in Congress, the Help America Vote Act must be amended to include

(1) MANDATORY minimum national standards for vote administration in all statewide and Federal elections.

(2) MANDATORY cost-benefit analysis for every proposed change in existing state law regarding vote administration, just as Professor Overton urged on the Carter-Baker Commission;

(3) MANDATORY estimation of the number of voting-age people who would be disfranchised by any proposed state vote law (for example 240,000 in MO, 300,000 in Georgia);

(4) MANDATORY estimation of the ostensible "benefit" from any proposed state vote law (for example, NO impersonations of voters stopped);

(5) MANDATORY application of the estimates to the impact of any proposed state law on the NUMERICAL BENCHMARK of maximizing, in every locality and among every demographic group in the state, the proportion of voting-age citizens (including prisoners incarcerated out-of-state and elsewhere in-state) who actually vote in statewide and National elections;

(6) Tasking the Federal Election Assistance Commission to prepare an annual report on levels of the numerical benchmarks in every state (an excellent choice for Election Assistance Commssioner would be Professor Spencer Overton);

(7) Voting representation for the District of Columbia in both the House of Representatives and the Senate;

and

(8) MANDATORY enfranchisement of "convicted felons" as soon as their actual imprisonments end.

Had these provisions been made part of HAVA from the outset, neither the Missouri "Voter ID" law nor the Georgia law would have passed muster. Their cost-benefit ratios would have been calculated as INFINITE (division by zero).

And courts would not have to micromanage the ingenious administrative details that go into implementing "Voter ID" and FUTURE vote suppression schemes. DUer galloglas posted a SUPERB thread on these details for MO "Voter ID" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=449427&mesg_id=449427 . The list of documents specifically prohibited for getting an Official Repoblican Abusive Voter Suppression Photo-ID included--Voter ID cards!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.carterbakerdissent.com/

"DISSENTING STATEMENT

I am a professor who specializes in election law, and I served on the Carter-Baker Commission. ...the Commission's Report fails to undertake a serious cost-benefit analysis. The existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result of the Commission's ID proposal is exceedingly large.

According to the 2001 Carter-Ford Commission, an estimated 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans (approximately 11 million to 19 million potential voters) do not possess a driver's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID, and these numbers are likely to rise as the "Real ID Act" increases the documentary requirements for citizens to obtain acceptable identification. The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission does not and cannot establish that its "Real ID" requirement would exclude even one fraudulent vote for every 1000 eligible voters excluded. ..."