>>
Site Map
>>
News
The Claim of "the Republican Voter ID Scheme" Debunked!
#101 - 0--spud--The Claim of "the Republican Voter ID Scheme" Debunked!--2008-05-04 20:39:34
#After browsing through more than half a dozen articles pertaining to
the Supreme Court's ruling "that states can require voters to produce
photo identification without violating their constitutional rights,
validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws," I was befuddled as
to the reasons given for not requiring photo identification by many on
the left.
One in particular stood out for me in that it made
assumptions without any supporting documentation. According to
The Carpetbagger Report, in its April 28, 2008 article,
Supreme Court approves Republican voter ID scheme,
The CR states, "Was there any evidence of a voter-fraud scourge in
Indiana? No. Would the law make it harder for "certain kinds" of voters
(i.e., the elderly, minorities, and the poor) to participate? Yes. Did
this look a whole lot like Republican lawmakers trying to discourage
likely Democratic voters from taking part in elections? You betcha."
I decided to take them at their word and do a little research to see if my findings matched their claims. I first went to the
National Conference of State Legislatures: The Forum for American Ideas website to see what they had on the
requirements of Voter Identification. According to their website
"The Federal Help America Vote Act mandates that all states require identification from first-time voters who registered to vote by mail and
did not provide verification of their identification with their mail-in-voter registration."They
further elaborated that "Twenty-five states have broader voter
identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states,
all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of
these states specify that voters must show a
photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo.
In no state
is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls
- all states have some sort of recourse for voters without
identification to cast a vote. However, in Georgia and
Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return
to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order
for their ballots to be counted. For specifics on what forms of
identification are acceptable and the options available to voters who
cannot present identification, see table 2."
So, I did. I
checked out the table and here is what I found for the scenario of a
person showing up to vote who doesn't have the required documents. The
following recourses are what transpire as a result.
Alabama:
Can vote a challenged or provisional ballot or vote,
if he/she is identified by 2 poll workers as an eligible voter on the
poll list, and both poll workers sign the voting sign-in register by
the voters name.
Alaska: An election official may waive
the identification requirement if the election official knows the
identity of the voter. A voter who cannot exhibit a required form of
identification
shall be allowed to vote a questionable ballot.
Arizona: An elector who does not provide the required identification
shall receive a provisional ballot.
Arkansas: If voter is unable to provide this identification, the election official shall
indicate on the precinct voter registration list that the voter did not provide identification. (They can still vote).
Florida:
The person shall fill out, in his or her own handwriting or with
assistance from a member of the election board, the form and make an
affidavit to the facts stated in the filled-in form; such affidavit
shall then be sworn to and subscribed before one of the inspectors or
clerks of the election who is authorized to administer the oath.
Whenever the affidavit is made and filed with the clerk or inspector,
the person
shall then be admitted to cast his or her vote.
Indiana: Voters who are unable or decline to produce proof of identification
may vote a provisional ballot.
Tennessee: If a voter is unable to present any evidence of identification, the
voter will be required to execute an affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election commission.
Virginia: If a voter is entitled to vote except that he is unable to present one of the forms of identification listed above,
he shall be allowed to vote after signing a statement, subject to felony penalties for false statements, that he is the named voter who he claims to be.
Washington: Any individual who desires to vote in person but cannot provide identification as required
shall be issued a provisional ballot.Thus, as to the conclusion of my finding to the claim that
The Carpetbagger Report
made saying, " Would the law make it harder for "certain kinds" of
voters [...] to participate? Yes," I strongly disagree - I came up with
proof to the contrary.
Not one state turns any individual away who shows up to vote. Not one. It's irrefutable.
In addition, according to the
Social Science Research Network, in their research journal,
Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud have on Voter Participation Rates,* John R. Lott Jr., states in his abstract, "The results provide some evidence of vote fraud in U.S. general elections.
Regulations that prevent fraud are shown to actually increase the voter participation rate." He goes on to say, "It is hard to see any evidence that voting regulations differentially
harm either minorities, the elderly, or the poor. [...] What can be said is that the non-photo ID regulations that are already in place have
not had the negative impact that opponents predicted.
Despite this proof otherwise, the
Center for American Progress, in its April 28th article entitled,
Disenfranchising American Voters,
proclaims, "Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters,
or over 21 million Americans, do not have a government-issued photo ID
(which could be true). And the majority of these eligible voters are
Americans with a hard time either proving citizenship or obtaining an ID: senior citizens, the poor, racial minorities, and the disabled." How is that possible when
every state provides recourse for just these situations? Not having said documentation at the time one goes to vote,
does NOT prohibit individuals from voting. Ever! Additionally, the studies prove that the
regulations do not impact negatively on any segment of our society!How anyone can make the blanket statement, "Did this look a whole lot like Republican lawmakers trying to discourage likely Democratic
voters from taking part in elections? You betcha," without providing
supporting evidence (sources) and then claim a Republican conspiracy to
steal votes from Democrats, is behond me.
Additionally, it is utterly
irresponsible. There is
no problem here. None.
While
it is not my intention to slam any of the authors involved, I am
getting tired of repeatedly reading about how Republicans are the
catalyst of any and all delimas that we currently are facing in
America. I beleive it is much more profitable to honestly deal with
our problems and work together to resolve them. All the time I spent
researching, "The Claim of 'the Republican Voter ID Scheme" Debunked
could have been better served coming up with creative ways to insure
integrity-based solutions for our elections or a myriad of other more
pertinent problems such as those still struggling with the aftermath of
Katrina.
- --comments-->0--310--1
