New State Voting Laws
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-21/new-state-voting-laws
With the next presidential election eighteen months away, many states, especially those in Republican hands, are making major changes to voting laws. The changes include requiring photo ID's for photos, reducing the number of early voting days, and expanding registration rules. The intent, they say, is to save money and reduce fraud,but some Democrats are cry foul. They claim the changes are intended to discourage voter turnout and to disproportionately shrink voting rates among African Americans, Latinos and young adults, groups critical to President Obama’s victory in 2008. Please join us.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution,
columnist, Washington Post
and author of "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right" and of "Stand Up Fight Back."
Wendy Weiser
director, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Kris Kobach
Secretary of State, Kansas
Hans Von Spakovsky
senior legal fellow, Heritage Foundation
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
We should also look at what other countries do to benchmark ourselves.. Australia, for example, has very strict voter (ID) laws... but they also levy a fine on people who DO NOT vote!
Since when is increasing voter turnout a "partisan issue?"
That's just outlandish spin!
Voter ID is ASSUMED GUILT!!! I am my ID !!! My word is my bond. When I vote I testify who I am by giving my name and signing a log book. I should be ASSUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty. MY government should not treat me like a criminal. It is bad enough that when I go to get on an airplane I am ASSUMED GUILTY until they search me. NEXT our government will ASSUME every one is guilty of a crime unless you can prove your innocent. No one is going to commit voter fraud just for one vote.
There are many circumstances that may make it hard for someone to get a photo ID. (not just ethnic or economic status situations, either!) But if I want to vote, I must make sure I have the right I.D.
I have volunteered to get people to the voting booth on election days. One problem that I ran into volunteering in a low-income area is that people moved frequently or alternated between living in different parts of the city with different relatives. They frequently did not have IDs that placed them in that precinct. Needing to go to other precincts to vote or to get their IDs in order to be able to vote in this precinct was a problem that I ran into a few times. Without access to easy transportation the evening of the election, it was unlikely that they would be able to vote.
If we think of voters as high jumpers we are forced to think that raising the bar will result in more jumpers getting over the bar. The logic simply does not stand. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
The Kansan Sec of State claims only 6 convictions since 1997 elections, hundreds of thousands of votes since 1997! His excuse for so few convictions? Local prosecutors look at voter fraud as a low priority. Secretary Kobach should take his lead from the local prosecutors and not waste time on a non problem.
This is a comment on a remark by Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation.
If I understand right you cited two studies demonstrating that there was no difference in the polling statistics between the states that require more rigorous identification and those that do not, among all classes of voters, including a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation.
If that is so, it leads to the conclusion that the more rigorous requirements do not deter fraud, and therefore that they should not be imposed.
The thing speaks for itself.
Worth noting, I believe Chicago allows non-citizens to vote on some local elections, if not for state positions, so that is some additional info on the Chicago signage
http://www.immigrantvoting.org/statehistories/Illinoishistory.html
I am amazed at the arrogance of the people against voter i.d. They think they know what's best for the poor people. I used to be very poor and lived in apartments with crack and heroin addicts and other people who knew very well how to get their welfare checks and how to use the system to get more money than was ethically correct.
Believe me, if voting is important to them, they WILL find a way to get the proper I.D.
I also think it's a silly question for Ms. Rehm to ask for an accurate count of voter fraud...It's fraud! Some of this fraud is going to sneek by and not get counted! :)
Personally, when I first started to vote, I was shocked that we didn't need any photo i.d. We have to have photo I.D. for so many other non-important things and no one complains. The people doing all these studies(who is paying them) needs to help with getting out the vote campaigns instead or getting people i.d.s, instead of making studies that can always be contorted and flaws found!
If you demand less personal responsibility from people you get less, if you expect more you get more. If it's true that there are so many young people in the described position of having no photo I.D. I think this requirement of producing a photo I.D. to vote will help young people. Let's hope they get a job and need to cash a paycheck. Sounds like these deadbeats will at least need it to cash their welfare checks.
People like E.J. are truly the real racists, If I were black and had people like E.J. constantly telling me how inadequate I am I would certainly protest hard against him and the other liberal defeatists who reinforce negative stereotypes.
Mr. Kobach needs to quit referring to the 221 figure as "cases". It tends to imply there was a finding of voter fraud. Were these instances where the votes were invalidated? I thought he said there were 6 cases confirmed by prosecution. If he has such a problem with fraud, why not more prosecutions? Is it because most of the instances were inadvertent or not of fraudulent intent?
Wisconsin's new voting law does not allow University ID for voting.
The State of Washington has gone to entirely mail-in ballots. In addition to this there is a "motor-voter" law in place so that you only need to check a box to register to vote - top this off with the fact that you need not provide proof of legal residency to obtain a driver license and there you have it! Not once does any proof of residency - let alone proof of citizenship - and register to vote. After that the ballots are mailed to the person for three years and only stop coming if no votes are sent in over a three year period.
How can anyone know if any votes are fraudulent? You can't go by how many voter fraud cases are prosecuted since as with any crime only a rare case is prosecuted.
Why does Kobach keep referring to his bogus statistics on Kansas voter fraud. Only the GOP wants to suppress thousands of voters to prevent a handful of possible fraud claims? It sounds like the last gasps of a dying party.
Sorry, exactly what "deadbeats" are you referring to? Students? Does this all have to come down to disparaging remarks about the less fortunate?
If people want to vote then they should have to show Photo ID, it is not difficult to say you are some one else. If some one doesn't care enough for a fair vote to go and get a photo ID then they don't need to vote.
Also the voter registration should have a way to undoubtedly prove citizenship. Not just a check box.
In King County, Washington we have all been made to go to absentee ballots. I do not like it as the mail service has on multiple occasions delivered mail to incorrect houses, they once put some ones outgoing mail in my box.
I had the same comment as carolyn.wolff . His citation of these studies negates his own argument. If he believes that these studies are not flawed and that they show voter ID laws do not impede voter turnout, then these same studies also confirm that either voter fraud is not a problem or that voter ID's do not deter fraud.
One point regarding Early Voting has not been made, to my knowledge. In opposition to Early Voting, one of your guests made the point that early voters do not get to consider late politcal news. The other side of that coin: We all know that there are often "dirty tricks" type of announcements made barely before the election, when there is not time to investigate these false claims. The candidates had the whole campaign available to bring out their claims, when they could be evaluated. The Early Vote has the advantage of reducing the impact of those late dirty tricks. Thanks for a great show. Rudy
With all the ID requirements, why don't we go back to poll taxes and exams before voting. These new tactics are just as severe as requiring an answer to some kind of test. How soon we forget where we came from in this country. We seem to be hurrying to retrace those steps only with a different hue to the tactic.
The comparison between concealed handgun licenses and student id's as valid forms of voter identification is absurd. The speaker is attempting to dumb down the conversation by doing this. Concealed handgun licenses are obtained after a thorough background check, registration with state officials, and payment of fees. If you posess this photo id, you are confirmed not to be a criminal, you are a resident of the state, and you are eligible to vote. The physical id itself is constructed to the same high standards as a state driver's license. Contrarily, a student id confirms none of these things- they could be issued to felons, foreign nationals or non-residents, not to mention easily counterfeited.
Let's stick to the facts on this issue- you simply need absolute positive identification if you want to vote.
It's too bad that the Right-wing machine already destroyed the one national organization that actually helped poor people register to vote. Maybe if ACORN still existed they could help people get IDs.
In addition to the question of voter registration, another very important issue not here being discussed is the use of "computer software only" voting systems that uses computer screen entry and recording of votes with no hard copy audit trail. This allows for the very real possibility of changing the voter outcome without anyone knowing or being able to prove that there was a changed voter outcome. (Whoever controls the software and the collected vote data has ultimate control over the voting results.) Oklahome uses an computer software system in conjunction with paper scanned ballets to input into the software system which does allow for a hard copy paper audit trail if the vote outcome is ever challenged.
I only wish I could have gotten to the computer while you were on the air. I have been a poll worker at my precinct since the 2008 elections--for primaries, run-off, mid-term, and presidential elections.
People can fill in provisional ballots when their addresses, etc. are in question (because they've moved recently, etc.), so virtually NO ONE is turned away. I call our BOE when people assure us that they're at the right place ("I voted here last time" often means during early voting rather than a general election, etc.), so that I can say with accuracy whether they need to go to a different polling place, to the BOE, or stay here to vote. Our poll workers have each voter "sign in" before voting to check names and residence/physical addresses.
Tell me, please, why these new rules are necessary...unless we are trying to keep people from voting. I haven't seen these purportedly overwhelming examples of dishonest-for-the-purpose-of-voting-fraudently attempts. I have talked with people who didn't want to drive an additional two miles to get to the correct polling place, and I have talked with people who vehemently argued their right to vote right here, right now, even if they hadn't voted in the past eight or 12 years...but those are not what the change-the-rules people seem to have in mind.
Thank you.
While I think that every effort should be extended to prevent voter fraud in every state, i.e. cracking down on voter intimidation and gerrymanderding, producing paper ballot backup capability to the automated voting system, etc., this *is* 2011, not 1950 -- NO one should be without some kind of photo ID nowadays. It seems that I'm frequently having to show mine for so many transactions now as do all my friends and colleagues... The point always missed in these debates is that you don't have to have a drivers license... All DMV's in every state issue non-driver ID's to non-drivers using the same methods as for drivers licenses (minus the testing). No excuses nowadays. Local government record keeping systems are automated now, and it's a much less tedious process than it used to be. Birth certificates are also easier and quicker to obtain for those who no longer have their originals. No excuses for not having a photo ID in this day and age.
Today Neither side proved much other than they know that there is both voter fraud, and people who will not be able to vote because of the new voter ID laws. IMHO if you can afford $16 and about an hr Mon-Fri 0800-1700 and prove that you were born and work then you can get a Texas state ID card. You will be able to vote without a problem. Not that hard.
So how is a student ID not absolute positive identification? Should an extensive background check have to be done on everyone before they get to vote? I'd love to continue this chat, but I have to get back to creating fake utility bills on my "word-processor".
exactly, rice2.
Even poor people have to show some kind of photo ID to get any kind of assistance (WIC, medicare, etc.).
DIANE AND STAFF: You need to read the article Julie cited (on Facebook, about ten minutes before the hour). It documents the lack of credibility of the guests you continue to give airtime.
You need to rethink your selection policy. Hasn't our inaction on climate change proven the foolishness in giving time to "the other side" of an issue that has no other side?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/election_expert_cant_f...