Because I spend so much time whining and pontificating about politics, and telling our elected officials how to do their job (I’m a blogger… that’s what we do,) I feel have a special obligation to directly participate in the political process. And so from time to time I venture down to Olympia to testify on bills I feel strongly about one way or another.
Yesterday I dragged myself out of bed and drove down for an 8 AM hearing before the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections, to testify on behalf of SB 6362, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells bill to reform voter registration challenge provisions. It was one of those odd moments, where you had a distinguished panel consisting of Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger (representing the Assoc. of County Auditors,) Secretary of State Sam Reed, and… um… me. And we were all pretty much in agreement, supporting the bill.
SB 6352 has a number of major provisions, summarized as follows:
- Major political parties may file a contact name with the county auditor to receive notice of voter challenges. Challenged voters will also receive contact information of party representatives. Parties who object to the challenge may present testimony and evidence to the canvas board.
- Challenges against voters who registered more than 60 days before the election may be filed no later than 45 days before the election; challenges against voters who filed less than 60 days before the election may be challenged no later than ten days before the election.
- A challenged voter may transfer or re-register until the day before the election.
- Party observers may challenge the qualifications of any absentee voter who registered to vote less than sixty days before the election at the time the signature on the return envelope is verified and the ballot is processed.
- A registered voter challenging the registration of another based on residency must provide the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
- A challenged ballot shall not be counted if the challenge is based on felony conviction, mental incompetency, age, or citizenship, and the canvassing board sustains the challenge. If the challenge is based on residency and the canvassing board sustains the challenge, then the challenged voter shall be permitted to correct his or her registration and any races or measures on the challenged ballot that the voter would have been qualified to vote for had his or her registration been correct shall be counted.
- Voters who lack a traditional address will be registered at the location provided, but have the option of using the address of a county courthouse or other public building.
That’s a lot of stuff, but really, most of it shouldn’t be all that controversial. Sam Reed said he had some reservations about the provisions creating a role for the political parties… he was afraid it would inject “partisan politics” into a heretofore nonpartisan process. But as Sen. Adam Kline pointed out in response, the GOP already injected politics into the process when they made their highly partisan last-minute challenge in King County. I’ll get back to that later.
Both Reed and Terwilliger specifically voiced their support for changing the deadlines for filing challenges, noting that last minute challenges could present a huge procedural hurdle as elections departments prepare to administer an election. Hard to argue with that. Besides, nothing in the law prohibits a party or anyone else from presenting information about improperly registered voters without filing a formal challenge. If the information was truly compelling, public pressure would force elections officials to act.
But for me, the most important provisions are the ones that allow a challenged voter to change their registration up to a day before the election, and which allows the ballots of voters whose challenges were upheld to be counted in all applicable races for which the voter was otherwise eligible. It should be remembered that the purpose of our voter registration laws is to maintain the integrity of our voter rolls, not to disqualify otherwise eligible voters on a gotcha.
Of the nearly 2000 last minute registration challenges filed by Republicans last October, only a few dozen ballots were disqualified, and of these there was not a single piece of evidence indicating voter fraud. Rather, these were voters improperly registered at mail boxes and other non-residential addresses, likely because the voter was unaware that this was prohibited. (The voter registration form does not specifically instruct the applicant that a residential street address must be used.) I cannot imagine a compelling moral or social argument for disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters if their registrations can be corrected before certification.
If we continue to allow ballots to be disqualified due to registration technicalities, then partisan groups will continue to attempt to exploit these technicalities for partisan gain.
As to my own testimony, well, I was kind of winging it, but I’ll try to reproduce it here to the best of my memory. I had expected others to testify on the specifics of the bill, so I decided to focus on the rationale.
As Sen. Kohl-Welles had explained in her own testimony, this bill was largely prompted by the GOP’s massive, last-minute voter registration challenge just days before the November election. I told the committee that I was one of the few people in the room yesterday who also attended the King County Canvas Board hearings in November, and who witnessed the challenger, Lori Sotelo, repeatedly admit that she had no personal knowledge of the challenged voter, their residence, or their eligibility. And so I wanted to take the opportunity to briefly read some excerpts from a transcript in which an attorney representing a challenged voter confronted the challenger:
ATTORNEY: You filed a challenge to the voting residence of Catherine Ann Herold, who lives at 234 30th St. NW; is that correct?
CHALLENGER: I did.
ATTORNEY: And have you ever been to that residence?
CHALLENGER: No.
ATTORNEY: Do you know Catherine Ann Herrold?
CHALLENGER: No, I don’t.
ATTORNEY: You have indicated in this challenge form that you believe that she does not live at that residence; is that correct?
CHALLENGER: That’s correct.
ATTORNEY: Do you have any personal knowledge as we stand here today that Ms. Herrold does not live at the address…
CHALLENGER: Only that which was my impression…
ATTORNEY: And who gave you that impression?
CHALLENGER: Attorney Jim Simon… He’s an officer of the party.
ATTORNEY: An officer of which party?
CHALLENGER: The Republican party.
Anybody who attending the canvass board hearings — who heard Sotelo admit that her “personal knowledge” often consisted of little more than a Google search conducted by an intern or a volunteer — would find this transcript very familiar. “However…” I told the Committee, dramatically waving the transcript in my hand, “This was not a transcript from the King County Canvas Board in November of 2005, but rather a transcript from a similar proceeding in Summit County, OH in October of 2004,” in which the OH state GOP challenged thousands of voters in the weeks before the election, having conducted little or no due diligence. (All the challenges were thrown out.)
In fact, what we witnessed this past election was not an isolated incident, it was not unique to WA state politics, and it was not even a direct response to our excruciatingly close 2004 gubernatorial election. This was part of a coordinated, national voter suppression and intimidation campaign conducted by the GOP and their surrogates, who have set up similar “Voter Integrity Projects” nationwide.
And it is only the tip of the iceberg. State GOP chair Chris Vance has all but promised additional challenges, and KC GOP chair Mike Young was overheard boasting that they had an additional 20,000 challenges waiting in the wings. Waiting for what? Well… the final days before the 2006 election I presume.
Unless the major provisions of SB 6362 are enacted into law.
Do me a favor next time you’re there Goldy, and drop kick the “Governor’s” Pomeraninan rat-dog into the busiest lane of I-5. Drinks are on me; cheers!
Goldy,
I wholeheartedly agree with the provisions in SB 6352.
No one wants people to vote who do not qualify, but to wait until the last minute to challenge such registrations is a tactic that is clearly not intended to keep the registration roles clean. It is only to grandstand for the press and catch some people making a mistake.
I agree, if a citizen has only made an error on their registration and is otherwise eligible to vote, their ballot should be counted.
Excellent work, Goldy!
Congrats, Goldy. I gotta get in my comments early before the pro-troll brigade files a “comment-challenge. . . .” In any case, excellent work. Gotta run, they’ve spotted me on gps. . .
(just because you’r paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. . .or me. . .or. . .
VA @ 2: “No one wants people to vote who do not qualify”
Not true at all.
“…to wait until the last minute to challenge such registrations is a tactic that is clearly not intended to keep the registration roles [sic] clean. It is only to grandstand for the press and catch some people making a mistake.”
Yes and no. The last minute challenges and the manner in which they were made were baaaddd. However, there is a sliver of proper intent. Many of those people WERE registered at illegal addresses. Also, while some could be simple mistakes, the words “WHERE YOU LIVE” and “WHERE YOU GET YOUR MAIL” are very clear. If a person fills in both (esp. with two illegal addresses), they are either doing it to defraud or they’re too stupid or too careless to be trusted with the responsibilities of voting.
Yes, voting is a right… and it comes with the barest of responsibilities, but responsiblities nonetheless.
I don’t get the part where the challenger has to know where the person actually resides. If someone is using a non-residential address, and the challenger knows that this is not a valid residence, why isn’t that enough? The added burden of figuring out where they live is just a ruse to keep challenges from happening.
Example: I see that someone is registered at Safeway. How the heck am I supposed to know where they live? But I sure know they don’t live there! This could be a fraudulent registration, which would make it impossible for me to know where they live.
Anyone want to give the rationale for this?
However, there is a sliver of proper intent.
No, actually there is not. Both the utter lack of precedent and the timing of the challenges argue against this rationalization. It was a blatant attempt to score political points.
Remember how the color coded terrorist level “alerts” vanished the minute Kerry conceded? Same deal. Frankly, doing these kind of political tricks can be played by both sides, but they are political tricks nonetheless.
Thanks for your testimony Goldy!
It’s good to see a blogger actually DO something about the laws, rather than just bitch about them like the minnow.
I agree too with all said in support of the bill…the last minute challenges are indeed a political tactic. If the R’s want to actually fix the voter rolls, then put forth the challenges now, when staff has a chance to work on them.
There should be one additional section to the bill…stating that Lori Sotelo should be charged with deliberate perjury.
Also, the deadlines only make sense if the voter database is made available in a timely manner. If new registrations have to be challenged 45 days before the vote, but the lists aren’t released until 46 days before the vote, is this fair? I can see where a large number of last minute registrations would make it very difficult to get them all processed by the 45 day deadline.
Which is exactly what some groups know, and will exploit.
Which is exactly what some groups know, and will exploit.
And which groups would that be, Janet? What tripe.
Many of those people WERE registered at illegal addresses.
58 improper registrations versus 140 accepted. That isn’t “many”, several, perhaps, but not many.
The point is, almost all of them re-registered properly. The challenge would be more properly applied to someone who lives and votes in Oregon registering at their vacation home in Long Beach, WA.
Of course, the Republicans might ensnare some of their own in that dragnet.
What is different about this than what King County did during the last election??????
Also, the deadlines only make sense if the voter database is made available in a timely manner. If new registrations have to be challenged 45 days before the vote, but the lists aren’t released until 46 days before the vote, is this fair?
Come on, nearly 600 of the 2000 GOP challenges were on addresses that hadn’t voted in the 2000 or 2004 general elections and were scheduled to be removed in 2006, per applicable law.
That’s the example of playing the system and grandstanding.
12.
Why should there be any difference. There has been noting proven wrong about KC’s handling of registrations. Only your own, impossible to remove, allegations.
When you’ve lost, you’ve lost.
What a joke; just protects the bad system…
espec…
Challenges against voters who registered more than 60 days before the election may be filed no later than 45 days before the election; challenges against voters who filed less than 60 days before the election may be challenged no later than ten days before the election.
So 1 1/2 months before election, you can’t challenge anyone, save for those sneaking in at the end
15.
One of these days, you’re going to need to come up with some proof that such a situation has taken place.
Imagination is sometimes a good thing, but when it amounts to a request for prior restraint, it isn’t.
Goldy,
Where is your rehash of your testimony?
@ 15 ….You is have a firm grasp of the obvious. It sounds like it is designed to keep the Repugnants from trying to keep Americans from voting.
@ 15
Step One: See physician.
Step Two: Explain problem. “Doc, I see vote fraud where there is none.”
Step Three: Increase Meds.
My own comment #9 – I take it back, partially. I misread the deadlines. Still, the point stands – when do the new registrations have to be available to the public?
20.
That’s a fair question, and I don’t have an answer.
Ask Stefan Sharkansy, I’m sure he knows ;^)
they are either doing it to defraud or they’re too stupid or too careless to be trusted with the responsibilities of voting.
Stupidity a criterion for voting. How interesting. Well look at everyone who voted for Dubya. He’s cost the country over 2000 lives, many more limbs and body parts , over 3 trillion in debt and
the ill will of the entire world. A real leader if you’re looking to be led into a black hole.
Now what’s that about stupid?
Republicans won’t like this bill, because it allows Democrats to vote.
“Sam Reed said he had some reservations about the provisions creating a role for the political parties… he was afraid it would inject ‘partisan politics’ into a heretofore nonpartisan process.”
What rock is he living under?
Let’s see if I got this right- no real restrictions on address verification, easing up on fraudulent voting, allowing last minute day before voting switcheroos, no photo ID?…yup- Lefty Democrat plan for stealing additional elections!
“Anybody who attending the canvass board hearings – who heard Sotelo admit that her ‘personal knowledge’ often consisted of little more than a Google search conducted by an intern or a volunteer – would find this transcript very familiar.”
This, of course, is not “personal knowledge” at all, as the law defines this term, but hearsay. Personal knowledge is the antithesis of hearsay.
Let’s say Sotelo obtained hearsay information from a Google search or intern that a certain address doesn’t exist. If she personally drove to the location and verified with her own eyes that the address doesn’t exist, it is then “personal knowledge” because she has actually witnessed the fact herself.
But if she sent the intern on that mission, it would be the intern and not Sotelo who had “personal knowledge” the address didn’t exist, and the intern is the person who should bring the challenge and testify as to his/her personal knowledge of the facts; it would not be proper for Sotelo to challenge the voter or testify that she, Sotelo, has “personal knowledge” of the facts.
Sotelo got some lousy legal advice. Or maybe none at all. She, herself, clearly lacks the brainpower to comply with the law. Sotelo is one of those people who needs a babysitter to keep her from fucking up.
1
Marks1 — everyone knows you Republicans are animal-abusers; there’s no need to brag about it. Evidently you clueless morons don’t grasp that most people do not find this trait admirable; there’s no other explanation for your publicly strutting your hatred of small furry animals.
Mark @5
“or they’re too stupid or too careless to be trusted with the responsibilities of voting.”
If you’re going to disqualify voters on this basis, it would eliminate most Republicans from voting.
I think we should increase the dosage of your meds.
8
“There should be one additional section to the bill…stating that Lori Sotelo should be charged with deliberate perjury.”
Let’s skip the preliminaries and pass a bill finding Sotelo guilty. Since Norm Maleng won’t prosecute perjury crimes occurring in King County, we have to bypass the middleman and get our legislators to do a work-around.
11
“Of course, the Republicans might ensnare some of their own in that dragnet.”
Yes, and let’s not forget that all of the fraudulent votes that were proven in a court of law were for Rossi.
15
“save for those sneaking in at the end”
If someone has changed their residence and moved into the precinct 30 days before the election, re-registering at their new address is not “sneaking in.” It’s what you want them to do, isn’t it? Aren’t you among the trollfucks who have been bitching about people voting at their old address after they’ve moved? Do you want them to vote in their old precinct, or where they live now? Make up your fucking mind!
Oh — my mistake — righton doesn’t have a mind.
Roger @ 29: “If you’re going to disqualify voters on this basis [stupidity], it would eliminate most Republicans from voting.”
And since it would eliminate ALL Lefties from voting, GOP domination of government would continue. Hmmm… maybe not such a good idea.
But you know… I’m finding more and more that while the Governor or President has a fair amount of power, the various cogs in the machine — in union-protected jobs until they do something just shy of killing someone — can do more to gut or screw up even the most well-intended initiative.
For example, take a look at Gregoire’s (I thought excellent) “GMAP” program to improve government performance. When it got right down to it, they let the fox (program managers) guard the henhouse (performance standards to meet) and apparently everybody is doing just a bang-up job! As Gomer Pyle used to say, “surrr-priiise, surrr-priiise, surrrr-PRIIIISE!”
The people who could really get the job done were like rats jumping from a sinking ship when they saw that nobody wanted REAL answers.
Goldy,
Were you able to testify without using profanity?
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/13/06 @ 3:54 pm
“Republicans won’t like this bill, because it allows Democrats to vote.”
You left “multiple times” off the end of your sentence.
35
“For example, take a look at Gregoire’s (I thought excellent) ‘GMAP’ program to improve government performance. When it got right down to it, they let the fox (program managers) guard the henhouse (performance standards to meet) and apparently everybody is doing just a bang-up job! As Gomer Pyle used to say, ‘surrr-priiise, surrr-priiise, surrrr-PRIIIISE!'”
From what little I’ve seen of GMAP so far, it appears agency managers left to their own devices are indeed using it as “show and tell” for their pet projects and accomplishments, but that’s not Gregoire’s fault. That’s their fault. GMAP, in my opinion, needs some fine tuning. Namely, somebody in the governor’s office grading what the agencies submit and sending it back for more work if it’s nothing but puffery or window dressing.
37
“You left ‘multiple times’ off the end of your sentence.”
The omission is intentional. The available evidence from the 2004 governor’s race indicates this phenomenon occurred only among those voting for the GOP candidate.
RR @32
Yes, and let’s not forget that all of the fraudulent votes that were proven in a court of law were for Rossi.
Thankfully, the case was not appealed and you can continue to make that claim from Judge Bridges court ruling. Though in fact you are wrong, since the Libertarian received one fraudulent vote….
The fact remains that the only accepted fraudulent votes were positively for the side that actually presented a case: the Democrats. Had the R’s made a real case in the same theme as the D’s there would have been depositions from the R side of the house. But stupid is that side from a legal standpoint…
So, Roger favors the perormance of unspeakable acts on small furry animals. Rabbits qualify.
Goldy:
I disagree with almost every position you take, including this one. But at least you took the time and effort to make the trip and testify. Congratulations.
You left “multiple times” off the end of your sentence.
Amazing how these wingers believe this stuff. They spend two million dollars, come up with a handfull of duplicate-votes (mostly for Rossi) and still lose the election contest. I guess they should pull a W. How many duplicate votes per million dollars?
They should have had Abramoff on the case.
39
“you are wrong, since the Libertarian received one fraudulent vote”
I accept the correction. Do you really believe for one moment that Dino the Whiner would have foregone an appeal if he had a case? He didn’t have a case. You’re just speech-making. Yawn.
39 (continued)
“The fact remains that the only accepted fraudulent votes were positively for the side that actually presented a case: the Democrats.”
Bullshit.
Anytime a trollfuck uses the word “fact,” watch out!
40
“So, Roger favors the perormance of unspeakable acts on small furry animals.”
Nope. That’s your idea, not mine. You’re the Republican here, not me.
Personally, I hope they don’t change the challenge law for a while. I have assembled a group of people who are going to challenge every vote in the Wa. districts that have 90% or better republican registration. I want to see if I can slow down GOP momentum on the east side of the state. I also want to cause them some pain simply because it is the right thing to do.
RR @ 43
39
“you are wrong, since the Libertarian received one fraudulent vote”
I accept the correction. Do you really believe for one moment that Dino the Whiner would have foregone an appeal if he had a case? He didn’t have a case. You’re just speech-making. Yawn.
Since Roger/Priscilla has decided to give me the cold shoulder, I figured I would “out’ him:
Thank you, Priscilla/don/wsux/Roger Rabbit
And before Don/RR gets indignant, his post referral was 187, but my post was 191. Funny how that happens…
47, 48
You’ve got the wrong chick. #187 was posted by Puddycheeks. I fail to see where, in that thread, Priscilla or don or wsux or Roger Rabbit or other screen personage of your choice ever said the Democrats cheated. You’re making shit up again.
Priscilla did call you a “class act” in that thread (if you’re the same “marks”), but you’ve gone downhill since then. Come of think of it, the whole GOP has slid quite a distance down the slippery slope since then.
See RR? You must be too old for this stuff. As I said @48:
And before Don/RR gets indignant, his post referral was 187, but my post was 191. Funny how that happens…
Of course I am the same “marks”…what other “marks” is out there lurking?
Marky Mark @ 35
Never fear. Timmy Eyman came to the rescue with his performance audit deal. We’ll see how that works out.
I can see it now. All government agencies getting good grades will have of course, “gamed the system”.
Nothing will ever compare to the example of Dubya and the Republican Congress.
I wonder, will they actually enforce the part about the challenger having personal knowledge that the voter is voting illegally? Never visiting the residence is a good sign that they might just be challenging for the sake of voter intimidation.
In a few years, I bet the GOP will challenge anybody registered to vote with the address 5th and Madison. RIght now that is just an empty corner of the Union Bank of California building. There are developers pushing a condo tower in the unused space. I guess under the GOP way of challenging voter registration, nobody there will be allowed to vote, because the way the GOP think, nobody lives in Downtown Seattle. All the registered voters there are phony voters.
Bullshit.
Anytime a trollfuck uses the word “fact,” watch out!
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/13/06 @ 6:57 pm
Yea- If your a donk your lies will be exposed. Hear hear wabbit. What that you say wabbit.. you have a memo to back it up. Where is Dan when you need him.
with all-mail voting, that should weed out the people who falsified their mailing addresses. it’ll save stefan sharansky and pussy sotelo(of mercer island) a lot of legwork and paperwork.
51
“Lurking” is the one thing you trollfucks do well.
“Let’s see if I got this right- no real restrictions on address verification, easing up on fraudulent voting, allowing last minute day before voting switcheroos, no photo ID?…yup- Lefty Democrat plan for stealing additional elections!”
In a word: bullshit. Pugs have no need to worry, as they’ll have Diebold touchscreen machines to back ’em up.
Comment by For the Clueless— 1/13/06 @ 6:17 pm
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/13/06 @ 4:49 pm
It was a joke.
Mark @ 5
Voting is not a contest, an eyesight test, or an intelligence test–it is the unalienable right of citizens in our democracy. Our aim must be to enable as many citizens as possible to exercis that right.
There are lots of people smarter than you. What if the documents required to vote were ones those people could understand easily, but not you? Fair? Not for you. The judgment of who is smart or able enough to vote is not yours to make, nor the State’s.
Roger @ 38
It is and it isn’t Gregoire’s fault. It is NOT her fault that the division managers (who present to the agency heads) turned it around. However, it IS her fault that she (or her assistants) didn’t keep a closer eye on what was going on. The key is accountability. There were MANY people who believed in the project — who read Giuliani’s book (GMAP was not Gregoire’s idea) and bought into the process wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the Governor failed by leaving the wrong people in charge and many of the “good” people all quit in disgust.
Obviously Clueless @ 53: “I can see it now. All government agencies getting good grades will have of course, ‘gamed the system.'”
Actually, from people I know inside the system, that is more or less true — at least this time.
The point of my earlier post was to say that not ALL problems fall in the Governor’s lap — though she does get failing grades for “lack of institutional control.”
I can only presume that this is from her weakened power position or a weakness of character and/or leadership.
Oh, and BTW, I have little faith in what Timmy does. He does too much grandstanding and too little research into how it will all play out. The $30 tabs was a nice idea, but he failed to take into account that the local and state governments would find a way to twist it and punish the people instead of tightening belts.
Why is it that you can’t address a question or criticism of any Dem without turning it into, “well, look at what Dubya did?” Just answer the question put before you and take Dubya as a whole separate thread. I’m not keen on a lot of things he’s done, but I feared much more from a Gore or Kerry administration. Both parties could do a LOT better in choosing candidates.
DL @ 60: “Voting is… the unalienable right of citizens in our democracy. Our aim must be to enable as many citizens as possible to exercis[e] that right.”
Voting is also a responsibility. Are you saying that people who can’t read a calendar should be allowed to vote whenever they feel like it — even sometime in December?
“What if the documents required to vote were ones those people could understand easily, but not you? Fair? Not for you.
The documents are written in second-grade English (the predominant language of the United States and the State of Washington). One requirement for naturalization is that the person MUST speak basic English. That being the case, there wouldn’t be a situation where I didn’t understand the documents. BUT… in the case that I didn’t, it is my RESPONSIBILITY to either learn or to find someone to help me. As a child of immigrant parents, I take my right to vote very seriously — as do many others who don’t take their right to vote for granted (as it sounds like you do).
“The judgment of who is smart or able enough to vote is not yours to make, nor the State’s.”
Actually, it IS the State’s judgment. And, as a member of The People, it IS my judgment that is heard when I petition my government.
but I feared much more from a Gore
Really? If Gore had been President UBL and what he was up to would have been a top priority (instead of a Star Wars boondoggle) and I know this country wouldn’t have been 3 trillion more in the hole.
The point of my comment wasn’t exactly Dubya – it was stupidity. All citizens have a right to the ballot box, the right to throw the lever for whoever gives them the warm fuzzies – even those aren’t too swift.
Are you in favor of literacy tests? How about poll taxes like a charge for photo id? A judge in Georgia recently wasn’t too keen on that.
The point of my comment @ 22, that is.
Clueless @ 64
Calling photo ID a “poll tax” is a joke. The problem, then, isn’t the requirement of ID to vote, it is the cost of the ID.
Tell me… is charging for a driver’s license a denial of a “right” to drive?
But let’s assume it is some kind of poll tax and that implementing free/cheap ID isn’t workable. Would you be in favor of purple finger ink for those with no ID? What about biomterics? You could then run it up against AFIS, too.
Do all citizens really have a right to the ballot box? If so, how far is the state required to go to facilitate that right? As I mentioned earlier, what if someone can’t read a calendar? Should we make accomodations for them, too?
Mark @ 66
Read my comment again. I didn’t call a photo id a poll tax. I called a charge for a photo id a poll tax and a judge in Georgia agreed with me. (An “activist” judge obviously.) Of course the wingers over there are going to appeal that and maybe Judge Alito will start off his legacy in an interesting way.
Some make the argument that the requirement for a photo id (even a free one) is in itself a poll tax. I’m sympathetic to that. I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights. My signature in the poll book and should be enough. (Then again, some people never learn to write.) Ok, I’ll compromise with the wingers and bring my utility bill or a government document addressed to me.
Driving and voting is apples and oranges. Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege. I have friends who don’t drive by the way. My grandmother never learned to drive.
Yes according to the Constitution (remember that document?) citizens 18 and over have a right to the ballot box. If I show up to a polling place to exercise my franchise, DON’T STAND IN MY WAY!
66
“Calling photo ID a ‘poll tax’ is a joke. The problem, then, isn’t the requirement of ID to vote, it is the cost of the ID. Tell me … is charging for a driver’s license a denial of a ‘right’ to drive?”
It’s no joke at all, and this comment demonstrates your despicable so-typically-Republican insensitivity to the poor. The right to vote is not equivalent to the privilege of driving, asshole! And yes, the cost of a photo ID ($10 – $15) is a big problem for people who can’t even afford basic necessities. What kind of jerk would make the unemployed, the elderly, or the handicapped choose between food and voting? A Republican jerk, that’s who!
I don’t doubt that courts stuffed with wingnut judges would uphold photo ID. The same kind of judges who would find torture legal, and warrantless wiretapping constitutional. But do not doubt for a second that judges who respect the Constitution would throw out a photo ID in a flash, unless states provided that ID free of charge.
This is one of those issues we’re not going to compromise on. Washington’s Democrat-controlled legislature agreed to an ID requirement, but that’s not enough for you anti-democratic cretins. Fuck you! That’s all you’re going to get from us. We’re going to cram your photo-ID bullshit up your asses!
Fuck you!!! (Front paw extended forward, middle toe pointed upward)
Comment on 64
Don’t see what the trollfucks are crowing about. Looks like they bombed the wrong Pakistani village yesterday — again. Meanwhile, Osama is still running around loose more than 4 years after 9/11. Nothing but blowhards here, folks. Move along.
GOP = all hat, no cattle
Roger @ 68, Clueless @ 67
Is it still a “poll tax” if there is no charge for the ID?
What about the two alternatives I presented – ink or biometrics?
As for “just a signature” being enough, it is easy enough to mimic a signature — especially considering the folks doing the comparing. Why else would there be a notary requirement (with ID) for other important documents?
As for the voting right being absolute, which you seem to allege… Why can’t a 17-year old vote? Why can’t felons? Because We The People can set standards of eligibility.
Neither of you addressed my question about people who can’t read a calendar or have no concept of time. To what extent must we accomodate their “disability” and honor their right to vote?
RR = All talk, no p—s
Mark
Sorry, but literacy tests were outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Hey, I’m sure that photo ID cannot be falsified, except by kids under 21.
But the funny thing is, and this is hilarious: voter fraud IS NOT A PROBLEM HERE. Extreme measures would be useful if it were. Because it is almost nonexistent, why don’t we turn our attentions to creating solutions to problems that ACTUALLY exist? Like investing in education, creating good-paying jobs with benefits, and making health care more affordable? Oh, I guess the state Democrats are doing that, while Republicans endlessly demagogue non-issues.
RR @ 64
Yes, eight men, five women, and five children killed in Pakistan from missile strikes on their homes. I’m sure that missile strikes against civilians in a friendly nation won’t alienate any Pakistanis, nor create more Muslim terrorists, will it? Doing that just wouldn’t make sense.
Mark
Filtered post coming through.
I wonder where my filtered post went? I don’t remember what it said now, but I think it was brilliant.
DL @ 71
That is all fine and well, but you’re missing the point. “We the People” have the right to set voting standards. In fact, voting is a state-level activity, not a federal one. There is no actual “right” to vote on the federal level.