Thread: Op-Ed: Who's afraid of democracy? (voting issues)

Deborah Leavy | Who's afraid of democracy?
Philadelphia Daily News

ON ELECTION Day, fewer than a third of Philadelphia's eligible voters went to the polls, but the result was almost certainly the same for Mayor-elect Michael Nutter as if they'd all turned out.
But next year, with the White House, control of Congress and other important races at stake across the country, every vote will be valued. Just remember Florida in the 2000 election.

And that's why in many states a coordinated effort to suppress Democratic votes is already under way.

Riding the wave of anti-immigrant fever, some politicians are exploiting the fear of voting by illegal immigrants to push for election-law changes that could keep millions of eligible citizens from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right.

Proposals to require proof of citizenship and a government-issued photo ID have been discussed, introduced and even enacted in a number of states, although federal courts have blocked some.

Though these requirements sound perfectly reasonable, they are more restrictive than those that currently exist, and their impact would be to disenfranchise and discourage those more likely to vote Democratic.

Showing a government photo ID isn't a hardship if you have a driver's license. But 12 percent of voting-age Americans don't. Those without are more likely to be urban, poor, African-American or other minorities. They are even less likely to have a passport.

The 2005 Commission on Election Reform found even these IDs, as well as U.S. military photo ID, unacceptable, calling instead for a special government issued "enhanced" ID.

That's the opposite of the conclusion of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, created in 2001 and headed by ex-President Gerald Ford. It found that the requirement of a photo ID would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban."

There are other ways to confirm a voter's identity without restricting it to documents that may be hard to get. Pennsylvania currently accepts utility bills, for example, for first-time voters, and confirms past voters by comparing signatures.

Proof of citizenship can be even more difficult, especially for naturalized citizens. Replacement naturalization papers take up to a year to get and cost $380 - compare that to the poll tax of $1.50 that the Supreme Court long ago ruled unconstitutional.

Non-citizens occasionally attempt to register to vote, usually out of confusion, but mistakes have been caught and actual voting by non-citizens has never been documented. For a non-citizen to vote would involve four counts of federal crimes risking 20 years in prison, $40,000 in fines and deportation, all for one measly vote.

The professed purpose of voter ID is to combat fraud. But instances of voter impersonation are extremely rare. In two recent, closely scrutinized elections, it was put at .0009 and .0004 percent, less likely than being struck by lightning, according to the Brennan Center at New York University law school, which works to increase voter participation.

Philadelphians who remember the Stinson-Marks election of 1994 are justly leery of claims that voter fraud is rare. But that election involved phony absentee ballots, not going into a voting booth and claiming to be someone else, and would not have been cured by requiring a government-issued photo ID.


REQUIRING a restrictive voter ID has been called a solution that doesn't work in search of a problem that doesn't exist. And while attempting to cure a problem involving only a handful of people, these new requirements would disenfranchise millions of Americans.

Most of these people are more likely to vote Democratic. Probably just a coincidence. *

Deborah Leavy is a policy consultant who contributes regularly to the Daily News. E-mail deborah.opinion@gmail.com.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion ... racy_.html

I disagree. I was eligible to vote for the first time in 1980 and was issued a Voter's Registration Card. As a matter of fact, I still have it! Whatever happened to those cards?

Those of us that believe only citizens should be able to vote are afraid of her concept of Democracy. Sounds like she is afraid of a government where only citizens vote though.

Its just so ironic, accuse Republicans for inciting fear, then rant about how voter id will only stop millions of eligible voters from voting.

Arizona's law passed the U.S. Supreme Court if I remember.
Michigan's passed a State Supreme Court
ACLU has asked the Indiana Voter ID law
ACLU apparently believes every individual has a right to vote, rather then every citizen.

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/VoterID/ACLU9-27-07.pdf
"A federal court of appeals in Chicago upheld Indiana’s voter ID law by minimizing the right of every individual to vote without being subject to undue burdens imposed by the state."

The problem with voter identification begins with the registration process. If illegals are not allowed to register, their name will not appear on the poll list and there will be no problem at the poll. This is where our battle must begin.

Sorry....but my house bound 96 year old Aunt had ID......you even need ID to get welfare....to cash a check...to use your credit card......to use the library.....to rent a video.....sorry, but I don't buy the to poor to get ID bit....isn't it illegal to be without ID????????