Showing posts with label Voter Identification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voter Identification. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
"Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law"
Big voter ID news out of Wisconsin. Quoted in this piece in the Los Angeles Times.
Monday, June 17, 2013
ARIZONA ET AL. v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., ET AL.
The Supreme Court handed down one decision related to election law today. You can find it here.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a 7-2 majority of the Court. The majority found that federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, preemptions state law in this area. The Arizona law required proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote.
More to come.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a 7-2 majority of the Court. The majority found that federal law, the National Voter Registration Act, preemptions state law in this area. The Arizona law required proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote.
More to come.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Endeavouring to Excite the Electorate
My latest piece on the Huffington Post is here.
Last week, members of our nation took part in a momentous event. We studied, we discussed, we stood in line, we cheered and we watched news coverage. We waved American flags and chanted "USA! USA!" We introduced our children and grandchildren to camera crews, telling reporters that we wanted to make sure that our children and grandchildren took part in this historic event. "We want them to be able to say they were here, at this moment," we said to the men and women with microphones.
We talked about the event afterwards, shared our thoughts, and posted and tweeted photographs. We spoke of national pride in what we've accomplished. We spoke wistfully and hopefully about what the future holds for our country. We talked of the budget, the economy and changing public-policy priorities.
What was this event that excited so many members of the American public? This is not a rhetorical question.
If you said the 2012 elections, or the presidential election, you're wrong, but I was so hoping that would be your answer.
Elections, even a high-stakes presidential election -- and when is a presidential election ever not high-stakes? -- do not capture the imagination of the American public. By and large we do not engage in a great debate, study the issues and the candidates, take off work to stand in long lines, wave flags, cheer and overtly discuss national pride.
No, when it comes to elections, many of us do not engage at all. Far too few of us exercise our hard-fought, fundamental right to vote. (More on that pesky right to vote in a moment). Instead, we throw up our hands and leave the "nasty business" of politics to others.
Those of us who do vote often do so somewhat begrudgingly. We sigh and complain about having a choice only between "the lesser of two evils." We bemoan the pervasive and pernicious influence of money in politics. We feel, not incorrectly, that politics is largely a game played only by those who can pay the price of admission.
Few of us speak about elections with the same enthusiasm of the actual event I was referring to -- the last flight of the space shuttle Endeavour. Last week, the Endeavour soared through the sky on the back of a 747 airliner. It captured our collective imagination. It was exactly what I read and heard it would be -- a space shuttle on an airplane -- but I still, for a moment, thought it was something wondrous. It represented the best of us, the most impressive strides taken by the best and brightest among us.
Few of us use words like "wondrous" or phrases like "captured our collective imagination" to refer to elections in our country. But in many ways we should. The American experiment in democracy is amazing. Every two, four or six years, we go to a polling place (or mail in a ballot) and anonymously pick our government representatives. We send those elected officials to city halls, state capitals and the District of Columbia to make laws that we hope embody sound public policy.
So why do we feel, at best, lackluster about this grand experiment? Why do those of us who exercise the right to vote feel less than enthused about the experience?
One reason is an issue I've mentioned above. The ubiquitous influence of money in campaigns means that moneyed interests play an outsized role in our electoral process. More than 30 years ago, in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court found that political money is the equivalent of political speech. That opinion made it difficult -- and in many cases impossible -- to limit the amount of money spent by, in support of, or against political candidates. While the Supreme Court purported to uphold First Amendment rights, it actually harmed those rights by giving moneyed interests a megaphone through which they could drown out the voices of others. The Supreme Court only exacerbated the harm imposed by its flawed framework in Citizens United, when it ruled that corporations must be treated as identical to people for purposes of analyzing restrictions on campaign spending. When people and organizations can spend unlimited sums in the political marketplace, it actually harms, rather than bolsters, the breadth and depth of the political debate.
Another reason for our lack of excitement in the electoral process may be that our fundamental right to vote is under attack all throughout the country this election cycle. Under the guise of protecting voter fraud, conservative legislatures throughout the country have passed voter identification laws. Put most charitably, voter identification laws are a solution in search of a problem, as the fraud that would be prevented by these laws is nearly infinitesimal. We should be honest about what these laws are meant to accomplish. Voter identification laws overwhelmingly harm poor and minority members of the electorate who tend to vote democratic. Let's just say it: These laws are about eliminating the number of democratic ballots cast.
When our elected representatives play partisan games with our fundamental right to vote, the right that preserves so many other rights, it is not difficult to see why the elections that put those politicians in power are seen as less-than-wondrous events.
We can hope that the Supreme Court reverses course and state lawmakers stop enacting laws that burden the ability to vote. In the meantime, our main recourse, perhaps ironically, is at the ballot box. Although it may not be as awe-inspiring as watching a space shuttle glide across the clouds, let's treat the 2012 election as the vitally important event that it is.
Last week, members of our nation took part in a momentous event. We studied, we discussed, we stood in line, we cheered and we watched news coverage. We waved American flags and chanted "USA! USA!" We introduced our children and grandchildren to camera crews, telling reporters that we wanted to make sure that our children and grandchildren took part in this historic event. "We want them to be able to say they were here, at this moment," we said to the men and women with microphones.
We talked about the event afterwards, shared our thoughts, and posted and tweeted photographs. We spoke of national pride in what we've accomplished. We spoke wistfully and hopefully about what the future holds for our country. We talked of the budget, the economy and changing public-policy priorities.
What was this event that excited so many members of the American public? This is not a rhetorical question.
If you said the 2012 elections, or the presidential election, you're wrong, but I was so hoping that would be your answer.
Elections, even a high-stakes presidential election -- and when is a presidential election ever not high-stakes? -- do not capture the imagination of the American public. By and large we do not engage in a great debate, study the issues and the candidates, take off work to stand in long lines, wave flags, cheer and overtly discuss national pride.
No, when it comes to elections, many of us do not engage at all. Far too few of us exercise our hard-fought, fundamental right to vote. (More on that pesky right to vote in a moment). Instead, we throw up our hands and leave the "nasty business" of politics to others.
Those of us who do vote often do so somewhat begrudgingly. We sigh and complain about having a choice only between "the lesser of two evils." We bemoan the pervasive and pernicious influence of money in politics. We feel, not incorrectly, that politics is largely a game played only by those who can pay the price of admission.
Few of us speak about elections with the same enthusiasm of the actual event I was referring to -- the last flight of the space shuttle Endeavour. Last week, the Endeavour soared through the sky on the back of a 747 airliner. It captured our collective imagination. It was exactly what I read and heard it would be -- a space shuttle on an airplane -- but I still, for a moment, thought it was something wondrous. It represented the best of us, the most impressive strides taken by the best and brightest among us.
Few of us use words like "wondrous" or phrases like "captured our collective imagination" to refer to elections in our country. But in many ways we should. The American experiment in democracy is amazing. Every two, four or six years, we go to a polling place (or mail in a ballot) and anonymously pick our government representatives. We send those elected officials to city halls, state capitals and the District of Columbia to make laws that we hope embody sound public policy.
So why do we feel, at best, lackluster about this grand experiment? Why do those of us who exercise the right to vote feel less than enthused about the experience?
One reason is an issue I've mentioned above. The ubiquitous influence of money in campaigns means that moneyed interests play an outsized role in our electoral process. More than 30 years ago, in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court found that political money is the equivalent of political speech. That opinion made it difficult -- and in many cases impossible -- to limit the amount of money spent by, in support of, or against political candidates. While the Supreme Court purported to uphold First Amendment rights, it actually harmed those rights by giving moneyed interests a megaphone through which they could drown out the voices of others. The Supreme Court only exacerbated the harm imposed by its flawed framework in Citizens United, when it ruled that corporations must be treated as identical to people for purposes of analyzing restrictions on campaign spending. When people and organizations can spend unlimited sums in the political marketplace, it actually harms, rather than bolsters, the breadth and depth of the political debate.
Another reason for our lack of excitement in the electoral process may be that our fundamental right to vote is under attack all throughout the country this election cycle. Under the guise of protecting voter fraud, conservative legislatures throughout the country have passed voter identification laws. Put most charitably, voter identification laws are a solution in search of a problem, as the fraud that would be prevented by these laws is nearly infinitesimal. We should be honest about what these laws are meant to accomplish. Voter identification laws overwhelmingly harm poor and minority members of the electorate who tend to vote democratic. Let's just say it: These laws are about eliminating the number of democratic ballots cast.
When our elected representatives play partisan games with our fundamental right to vote, the right that preserves so many other rights, it is not difficult to see why the elections that put those politicians in power are seen as less-than-wondrous events.
We can hope that the Supreme Court reverses course and state lawmakers stop enacting laws that burden the ability to vote. In the meantime, our main recourse, perhaps ironically, is at the ballot box. Although it may not be as awe-inspiring as watching a space shuttle glide across the clouds, let's treat the 2012 election as the vitally important event that it is.
Friday, April 29, 2011
"RI voter ID vote delayed a week"
"A Rhode Island Senate committee has delayed a vote on legislation that would require voters to present identification at polling places."
The Boston Globe has more.
The Boston Globe has more.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
"Wisconsin Republicans target voter fraud within universities"
"The Wisconsin State Legislature is considering a new proposal that would increase the difficulty of college students to register to vote, by requiring them to present identification with an up-to-date address on it."
The Badger Herald has more.
The Badger Herald has more.
Monday, April 4, 2011
North Carolina GOP supports photo ID at the polls
"Empowered by last year's elections, Republican leaders in about half the states are pushing to require voters to show photo ID at the polls despite claims there is little evidence of fraud and already-substantial punishments for those who vote illegally."
The AP has more.
The AP has more.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
"Rhode Island voter-ID bill has support on both sides of the aisle"
"The unlikely tandem of state lawmakers is sponsoring House bill H-5680 at the request of Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis, who argues that the 'belief that voter fraud exists undermines the public’s faith in the fairness of our elections.'"
The Providence Journal has more.
The Providence Journal has more.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
"Ohio House OKs bill to have voters show photo ID"
"Legislation requiring Ohio voters to show a government-issued photo ID before casting in-person ballots passed the House on a near party-line vote Wednesday after heated debate."
The Middletown Journal has more.
The Middletown Journal has more.
"Amendments, Emotion Dominate Texas Voter ID Debate"
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Will voters have to present identification at the polls in Aspen?
Yes.
"The City Council voted 3-2 on Monday to reject an amendment that would have stricken the ID requirement from a new ordinance that implements various changes to the city's election rules. The amendment was offered by Mayor Mick Ireland — who argued passionately that requiring identification at the polls was a “solution in search of a problem” — and only found support from Councilman Steve Skadron."
"The City Council voted 3-2 on Monday to reject an amendment that would have stricken the ID requirement from a new ordinance that implements various changes to the city's election rules. The amendment was offered by Mayor Mick Ireland — who argued passionately that requiring identification at the polls was a “solution in search of a problem” — and only found support from Councilman Steve Skadron."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Will Kansas require voters to present identification?
"Kathy Perry, a Wichitan who worked as a provisional ballot judge in 2008, testified as the Senate began its consideration of a bill proposed by Secretary of State Kris Kobach to require voters to show government ID to vote and to require new voters to prove their citizenship.
Kobach said the legislation – House Bill 2067 — known as the Kansas Secure and Fair Elections Act – is needed to fight voting fraud in the state.
The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections took up the bill, which passed the House on Feb. 25 by a vote of 83 to 36."
Click here for more.
Kobach said the legislation – House Bill 2067 — known as the Kansas Secure and Fair Elections Act – is needed to fight voting fraud in the state.
The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections took up the bill, which passed the House on Feb. 25 by a vote of 83 to 36."
Click here for more.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Can Georgia voters be required to show ID prior to casting a ballot?
Yes.
"The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law requiring voters to show identification before they cast ballots, dismissing objections from Democrats who contended lawmakers had no proof when they approved the new rules that anyone had tried to vote illegally."
The Savannah Morning News has more here.
"The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law requiring voters to show identification before they cast ballots, dismissing objections from Democrats who contended lawmakers had no proof when they approved the new rules that anyone had tried to vote illegally."
The Savannah Morning News has more here.
Friday, February 25, 2011
More news from Wisconsin: "State Senate Fails to Pass Voter ID Bill"
"The gambit failed, for now. The Republican-only state Senate adjourned for the day -- after a 40-minute session -- without passing the voter ID bill."
Slate has this report.
Slate has this report.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
"Senate approves photo ID requirement for voting"
"The Senate approved a measure today that would require photo identification to vote, in a move supporters lauded as a step toward addressing problems of voter fraud in the state."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch has more here.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch has more here.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
"Voter photo I.D. bill doesn't solve any problems"
"Legislation that would require Tennessee voters to produce a state-issued photo identification to vote passed the state Senate, and it is expected to pass the state House. The question is whether the new law would cause more harm than it does good. It is a Republican-sponsored proposal that has been around for years, but never passed in a Democrat-controlled General Assembly. Frankly, we think it is a solution looking for a problem."
The Jackson Sun has more here.
The Jackson Sun has more here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"Voter ID bill sparks heated debate in House panel"
Real Clear Politics has more here.
"State and county elections officials disagreed Tuesday over whether New Mexico should require voters to show identification at the polls."
"State and county elections officials disagreed Tuesday over whether New Mexico should require voters to show identification at the polls."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)