Frontline: "Unprecedented" Number of Restrictive Voting Laws Being Introduced

[Progressive Realist]

Nearly every state — 41 so far — has introduced some kind of restrictive voting legislation since the beginning of last year, and 18 have succeeded in passing laws, some of which could have a direct impact on the 2012 election, according to a recent analysis from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law.

“This is almost unprecedented,” said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, which tracks voting laws and which published the analysis. “We have not seen this number of restrictive voting laws pass probably since the end of the 20th century. Certainly, this is the biggest rollback since the civil-rights era in terms of voting rights.”

The type of restriction varies by state: Some require voters to show photo ID or proof of citizenship, while others have introduced restrictions on voter registration, or early or absentee voting.

The shift toward more restrictive legislation began after the 2000 election was decided by a razor-thin margin, when political operatives realized that small shifts in voting laws could potentially alter the outcome of an election, according to Norden. “This realization that changing the rules can have an impact on results has politicized election administration in ways that you hadn’t seen in the U.S. in a very long time,” he said.

The breakdown is largely partisan: 12 of the 18 states that have passed new voter restrictions are controlled by Republicans. (Wisconsin’s law was recently ruled unconstitutional.)

The Justice Department is currently battling South Carolina and Texas  in court over voting laws they’ve put forward. Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Conference of National Black Churches earlier this week that the “sacred” right to vote was threatened by some of these laws.

According to the Brennan Center’s analysis:

    Five of the 10 states with the highest black turnout in 2008 have passed restrictive voting laws.
    Seven of the 12 states that have seen the biggest growth in the Latino population in the last decade have passed restrictive voting laws.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/unprecedented-number-of-restrictive-voting-laws-being-introduced/

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

[NVGonzalez]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

So let's purge people because their name seems somewhat foreign. Right?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/?mobile=nc

[krazen1211]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

So let's purge people because their name seems somewhat foreign. Right?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/?mobile=nc

He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.

[NVGonzalez]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

So let's purge people because their name seems somewhat foreign. Right?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/?mobile=nc

He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.

Except he is no longer on the voter roll at least not now unless the justice department or the state itself restores it. However there are 61,000 people who got screwed over this. You do not fight voter fraud with voter fraud.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

Requiring an ID is no big deal to anyone on this forum, probably.  Mark Ritchie points out that there are corner cases:
http://www.theuptake.org/2011/05/25/sec-state-ritchie-urges-dayton-to-veto-voter-id-legislation/

Summary: Requiring an ID implies making available a free ID, and getting it to folks who may not have any sort of transportation.  This costs state money... you know, that stuff the republicans always say we should avoid spending?

Snark aside, there's also the fact that we have little evidence that voter fraud is a problem, or that this would fix it.

So, we have a proposed law which solves a problem that may not exist.  More worrisome: the proponents of this law aren't even trying to find evidence that there is a problem.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Requiring an ID is no big deal to anyone on this forum, probably.  Mark Ritchie points out that there are corner cases:
http://www.theuptake.org/2011/05/25/sec-state-ritchie-urges-dayton-to-veto-voter-id-legislation/

Summary: Requiring an ID implies making available a free ID, and getting it to folks who may not have any sort of transportation.  This costs state money... you know, that stuff the republicans always say we should avoid spending?

Snark aside, there's also the fact that we have little evidence that voter fraud is a problem, or that this would fix it.

So, we have a proposed law which solves a problem that may not exist.  More worrisome: the proponents of this law aren't even trying to find evidence that there is a problem.

Actually, there is real fraud, but these laws are certainly not designed to go after the Xavier Suarezs. Florida scrub lists and the like are themselves a fraud.

[pbrower2a]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

Most Americans do not carry proof of citizenship on their persons.

[BigSkyBob]

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.

That's actually a really awful idea.  Firstly: not everyone has a social security number.  For example, some Amish refuse to get one.  They are still citizens of this country, and should be allowed to vote.

Secondly: There are a quite a few people who know my social security number.  My parents, my wife, several past employers, my current employer, several banks, my past landlords, and my current landlord.  Under your proposed system it would be very easy for any of these folks to invalidate my right to vote by registering in my name with a false address.  (They probably could not actually cast my vote, but they could prevent my vote from counting if I lived in a state without same-day registration.)

Thirdly, we should not solve the problem of duplicate registration without first investigating whether it is actually a problem, and if it is, the extent of the problem.

[greenforest32]

Gotta stop "those people" from voting.

Why haven't Democrats even tried to implement automatic voter registration in a single state yet? I can think of a few states where they control 70%+ of the state legislature and the Governorship.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

[TheReporter]

In a way, I think the GOP's efforts to curtail voter turnout serves as a metaphor for the party's policies as a whole: promoting efforts with only short-term benefits and long-term harms, and transparent excuses. This would equate to say, the Ryan plan or the Iraq invasion. The GOP cannot see into the future, and it may be perhaps they overtly reject progressivism, but this shall really come back to bite them in the ass. It could even be the  cause of their downfall.

[krazen1211]

Heaven forbid someone has to show proof of citizenship to vote.

So let's purge people because their name seems somewhat foreign. Right?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/29/491430/meet-bill-the-91-year-old-decorated-wwii-veteran-targeted-by-florida-governor-rick-scotts-voter-purge/?mobile=nc

He of course merely has to present proof of citizenship. No problemo.

Except he is no longer on the voter roll at least not now unless the justice department or the state itself restores it. However there are 61,000 people who got screwed over this. You do not fight voter fraud with voter fraud.

There's no fraud involved. He mailed in his discharge papers from the Army to verify his citizenship.

If there is a source of Fraud, its Bill Internicola.


Internicola admitted to one discrepancy in records. He says he was born in 1921, though he said his drivers’ license indicates 1919. The reason: in his youth he wanted to start driving early so “I bent the truth a little bit.”

[Thanks for all the fish!]

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.

[TheReporter]

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.

This is good news.

[Torie]

Well, if you have to get an ID to vote and have to pay a fee to get an ID, wouldn't that be a poll tax?

Yup.  In fact Wisconsin's new photo ID to vote law was judged in March to be unconstitutional despite containing provisions for free IDs.  The free ID provisions were an attempt to make the law pass constitutional muster, but were apparently not sufficient.

This is good news.

That was the ruling of the trial judge, ruling under the Wisconsin rather than the US Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear it on an expedited basis, so it will wend its way through a state appellate court, and eventually probably end up with the Wisconsin Supreme Court (which tends to be Pub friendly - the judges are elected).

[BigSkyBob]

Voter registrations could be checked against the Social Security database. Not only would non-citizens be spotted, duplicate registration would end immediately.

That's actually a really awful idea.  Firstly: not everyone has a social security number.  For example, some Amish refuse to get one.  They are still citizens of this country, and should be allowed to vote.

The numbers are required to file income tax returns. Whatever provisions the IRS makes for the Amish would apply to checking voter registration.

Secondly: There are a quite a few people who know my social security number.  My parents, my wife, several past employers, my current employer, several banks, my past landlords, and my current landlord.  Under your proposed system it would be very easy for any of these folks to invalidate my right to vote by registering in my name with a false address.  (They probably could not actually cast my vote, but they could prevent my vote from counting if I lived in a state without same-day registration.)

Presumably, they would have to a driver's license with your name on it. If someone actually succeeded to that point, you wouldn't lose your right to vote, but, the other person would be in serious legal jeopardy.

Thirdly, we should not solve the problem of duplicate registration without first investigating whether it is actually a problem, and if it is, the extent of the problem.

One person registering and voting in the same election more than once is "a problem." There is simply no tolerable level of voter fraud.

[President Marokai]

That was the ruling of the trial judge, ruling under the Wisconsin rather than the US Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear it on an expedited basis, so it will wend its way through a state appellate court, and eventually probably end up with the Wisconsin Supreme Court (which tends to be Pub friendly - the judges are elected).

Something to be so proud of.

Gotta stop "those people" from voting.

Why haven't Democrats even tried to implement automatic voter registration in a single state yet? I can think of a few states where they control 70%+ of the state legislature and the Governorship.

Because they're terrible. I mean, sure, even if they're getting unfairly disadvantaged by a lot of these measures to combat voter fraud that doesn't exist in (literally) any substantial fashion, you shouldn't expect the Democratic Party to become the champion of electoral reform. They may be getting the short end of the stick here, but make our electoral system too nice and neat and suddenly you may have more people bleeding out of the two party system that our awful system keeps as restrictive as possible so as to protect.

It really bothers me that electoral reform is an issue that nobody cares about. We're embarrassing compared to our first world competitors when it comes to elections and how we conduct them; let alone just simple voting.