NYT editorial slams voter suppression and electronic voting

[Apollo11]

New York Times - September 21, 2006

Editorial: Keep Away the Vote

One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan.

America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it. It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


Does this mean the NYT has changed it's corporate "mind" about the dangers of electronic voting?

[RadiDem]

1. K&R

[Kolesar]

2. 1/4 of New Orleans' citizens have no cars. 1/4 of Detroit citizens also

It is pretty obvious who this ID requirement is trying to restrict from voting: poor people. Pensioners and the disabled.

Note: I should change the subject to "1/4 of New Orleans' citizens had no cars", past tense. An insensitive, uncaring and disinterested government let the city die. The people, the streets, and the beloved pets were allowed to die. A government that was more interested in the message of war than the message of kindness let the city die.

[aquart]

4. Never mind kindness. They forgot their responsibility.

No government has any higher purpose than the well-being of its citizens. THAT's what they forgot. They have a very narrow, white, Christian, wealthy, male view of citizenship.

[freedomfries]

3. let's praise when praise is due

this is an excellent editorial by the NY Times waking up (at last!?!) to the ugly realities of GOP vote-stealing strategies.
Let's not kid ourselves: the cumulative potential of a voter ID bill implemented at the national level to the democratic process would be as devastating as the e-vote-stealing machines and voter registration databases.
The voter ID law was struck down in Missouri and Georgia, because it was demonstrated that 240,000 registered voters would be disanfranchised in MO and 300,000 in Georgia.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. "It was demonstrated that ... 240,000 would be disfranchised in MO ...

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 vote suppression ingenious 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 UPERB 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. ..."

[dusty64]

5. republicans HATE democracy

and do NOT want the People to have the right to vote. This bill will also disenfranchise me as my NY drivers license will NOT suffice, an expensive passport would be required or the fascist National ID card they want us all to have and that I REFUSE to obtain. Just when you think you can't loathe these fu$*ers any more than ya already do!!! :grr: