Bradblog: Bush appointee overrules rejection of GA's voter photo ID law

[Amaryllis]

Bush DoJ Political Appointee Overruled Staff Recommended Rejection of GA's Voter Photo ID Law...
Measure Approved by Attorney General Even After 4 of 5 Staffers Wrote 51-Page Memo Advising Against Law
(Election-Related News Actually Makes WaPo's Front Page!)

A page one story in today's Washington Post reports that a 51-page memo obtained by the paper, shows Dept. of Justice staffers had rejected a controversial new Photo ID requirement law for voters in Georgia, but that their recommendations were overruled and the measure was approved anyway by the Bush appointed Attorney General.

Georgia's new law was recently rejected as unconstitutional by two Federal Courts who equated it to a "Jim Crow-era poll tax" after its approval by the DoJ despite the recommendation against it by 4 out of 5 staffers in the DoJ's Voting Rights Act division...

FULL STORY:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002032.htm

---

[CottonBear]

1. I am so angry. I live in Georgia. This law is immoral & illegal.

:grr: :cry: :(

[baltlib]

3. i am just wondering

why is it immoral to require a picture id, maryland does already ( where i live ) it can keep the people who have no way to a voting place from be a victim of id theft. just think of how many underprivileged who cannot get to vote could be disenfranchised by some one going to vote under their name just because they cant get there.

edit to add : also most states require you to have an id on you anyway, so right now lets say you are one your way to vote and dont have an id, and a cop who is 3 blocks from the poll stops you because he does not like the way you look, now no id and he arrests you for vagrancy. easy way to prevent people from voting

[wildeyed]

5. It is illegal because it unfairly discriminates against

poor urban minority voters. Those least likely to have a driver's license are the ones most affected by this law. It brings back nasty memories of Jim Crow, poll taxes, little things like that.

There is no evidence of election fraud that could be stopped by this type of legislation. None at all. So why create barriers to voting and huge amounts of bureaucracy to remedy a problem that doesn't exist?

[jody]

6. The law discriminates because it could require some people to pay $20,

I believe that's the correct amount, for a photo ID.

The Carter-Baker report recommended states provide free photo IDs.

[wildeyed]

7. The Carter-Baker report was a load, IMO.

Conyers did a great job of dissecting it, point by point. His analysis may still be up on his website.

Why demand a picture ID at all? There is no evidence of any type of fraud that could be addressed by required picture ID is being committed. So why do the pubs want this law? Because it makes it harder for poor urban voters, those most likely to not have a car, also those most likely to vote democratic, to vote. Every step that you introduce into the voting process will add another few percentages in their column. And with national elections as close as they are these days, that could be all it takes.

Now if I believed that there was election fraud being perpetrated that could be addressed with a picture ID law, I would be first in line to support it. But there is no evidence that it is the case.

Besides, if this was a good way to cheat, don't you think the pubs would be doing it already?

[jody]

8. I don't want to hijack the thread but what procedure do you propose to

prevent unauthorized voters from voting?

I assume you support requiring voters to provide some sort of proof that they are who they claim to be.

The opposite position is to let people vote unchallenged and as often as they choose. That doesn't seem very democratic.

I'm really curious, what would you do?

[wildeyed]

9. They should continue doing what they are currently doing

to keep unauthorized voters from voting. It is working.

I will repeat this again. There is no evidence of widespread election fraud of this nature. None. So why fix it if it ain't broken?

If you like, I can go into detail about what documentation is currently required in my state, NC, and what is required in GA to vote. Another thing that is interesting, you can apply for picture ID in GA using the same documentation that you can currently use to vote. So if you really wanted to cheat, simply apply for the false picture ID, then go on to the polls.

The only thing a picture ID law accomplishes is disenfranchising legitimate voters who don't drive, have $20 to buy a non-drivers ID or the time to stand in line at inconveniently located DMVs.

[jody]

10. Please provide a source for "no evidence of widespread election fraud".

The Carter-Baker report clearly thought it was a problem.

Have you scanned at least the executive summary of "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections"?

[wildeyed]

11. How 'bout you show me some proof of election fraud

since you are the one claiming it is a problem. But here is an interesting op/ed talking about the GA ID law they recently tried to enact without a shred of proof of voter fraud. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100972.html?referrer=email

And here is a link to Conyers' page on the issue. Some of the links are intersting, and provide backup for my "no evidence of widespread election fraud" assertation. http://johnconyers.com/ Here is a particularly good quote from one of the links:

Moreover, the justification for the requirement is a canard. The ID proposal is purportedly intended to prevent fraud by individual voters who misrepresent their identity at the polls. In fact, the evidence shows that the incidence of the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small.

Despite the report's use of the Washington State election as evidence of fraud, after lawyers in the state scoured the land for fraudulent votes in Washington State because of the election litigation surrounding the gubernatorial race, only six cases of alleged double voting were found. Similarly, in Ohio, perhaps the only other state to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Washington, a statewide survey found that of the 9,078,728 votes cast in Ohio's 2002 and 2004 general elections, a total of four were deemed as ineligible or "fraudulent" and found by the Board of Elections and County Prosecutors to be legally actionable.

As I mentioned before, I think the Carter-Baker thing is a farce. Basically Cater said, OK, we get paper ballot back-ups, you get picture ID. It was some sort of partisan bargain, not a good policy decision. And nearly everyone involved with voter outreach came out strong against it. So let's say, yes I am familiar with the Baker report, and I am not impressed.

[jody]

12. You reject the Carter-Baker report without reading it.

Good by and have a pleasant evening. :hi:

[wildeyed]

14. And you never showed me any proof of election fraud

that could be addressed by the proposed legislation. See ya!

[jody]

2. I'm mad because Repugs have tried to link Carter's report to this but

Carter and Baker's report "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections" recommended:
QUOTE
Second, to make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the "REAL ID card" or an equivalent for people without a drivers license. To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.
UNQUOTE

:thumbsdown: on anyone who misrepresents Carter's position on voter IDs!

[wildeyed]

4. What is the status of this law right now?

I know the courts have deemed it unconstitutional, but is it being appealed?

This type of law is appalling. Whether the ID's are free or not, the idea is to disenfranchise as many poor urban voters as possible.

[CottonBear]

13. GA has over 150 counties. Only 50 have DMVs. Atlanta has none.

It cost money and you have to have a car, in the land of no public transit, to get a driver's license DMV station. The poor, elderly and disabled are unlikely to have another stae approved ID like a state univeristy or employee ID.

It's just wrong. See the GA forum for more on this topic.