The Secretary of State has released a TV ad [Quicktime version] educating voters about some of the new election reforms. It includes this one line about ID:
Bring photo ID to the polls, because voter ID is now required to protect legitimate votes and prevent duplicate votes and errors.In fact, the new law regarding ID at the polls is almost completely worthless, but naturally, the Democrats are up in arms at any attempt to introduce integrity to the voting process: "2 groups object to ad about bringing ID to vote"
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington State Labor Council have condemned a television ad being aired by the secretary of state telling voters they must bring photo identification to the polls next month.
The new law that requires voters to produce ID before they can vote doesn't specifically require that it be a photo ID.The Democratic Party really goes off the deep end, suggesting that photo ID is a plot to disenfranchise minorities. No, photo ID is not required, nor does the ad say that one must bring a photo ID in order to vote."The ad implies by its images and words that voters will not be allowed to vote unless they have photo ID,"
Indeed, the "ID at the polls" law is likely to be mostly useless in practice. If a voter doesn't have any ID, they can vote a provisional ballot and even update their signature after the fact. And so many forms of ID will be accepted at the polls to begin with. We spent a good portion of our time at the King County Elections training session discussing the types of ID that would be acceptable. The punchline is that any document from a bank, utility or government that has the voter's name printed on it will be accepted. We were also told that the document has to be "current", meaning the date would have to be less than a year old and/or any expiration date must not have passed. In fact, the notion of "current" doesn't seem to apply either, because neither the RCW or the WAC [434-253-055] says anything about "current". Among the sorts of ID that would be acceptable, are credit and ATM cards (they're a bank statement). Department store credit cards? Probably, because they're issued by a bank. Identification issued by foreign governments, such as a Matricula Consular? The law only says "government". It doesn't specify that it need be an American government agency. Not only that, but nothing in the law says that the information on the ID needs to match any of the voter's details or even the name that the voter is attempting to vote under. We had this exchange in the training session:
Attendee: What if a female voter comes up and says they're Jack Smith and they want to vote?Yes it should. The poll judge's sworn duty is to prevent ineligible votes. Poll workers should use their best judgment and challenge any voters for which a sound suspicion exists. If the ID says Jack Smith and the poll book, which lists the gender shows "Male", and an obvious female presents herself as Jack Smith, you CHALLENGE HER BALLOT. That is not the same as refusing her ballot. It means upholding one's oath, obeying the law and allowing the canvassing board to determine whether the challenged vote should be counted.
Female Trainer: They could be Jack Smith
Male Trainer: They could be Jack Smith
Attendee: As long as they have ID ...
Female Trainer: That's right. If their ID says they're Jack Smith, that's exactly what you'd use. You don't have to try to decide about eligibility.
Male Trainer: It's a serious thing you're doing here. Just treat it like anything else. The entire voting process should be treated with respect and so should this.
It's a shame that the ACLU, the labor unions, the Democrats and the Ron Sims staffers who are doing the poll worker training are so committed to obliterating any semblance of integrity in the voting process. Yes, it turns out the guy who conducted my training does not work for the Elections Section, he's a member of Ron Sims' staff. Stay tuned for that one.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 26, 2005 01:24 PM | Email ThisA challenged ballot is not necessarily an invalid ballot.
The "mystery materials" in the challenged ballot envelope are simply a provisional ballot envelope, and a brief challenge form. The voter is still allowed to vote a provisional ballot. All a challenged ballot does is provide the opportunity for the canvass board to determine the voter's eligibiity when question exists. If the voter is determined to be valid, then the provisional ballot is counted, and the voter is still fully enfranchised.
Considering that under the law, the pollworkers are the ONLY individuals that can challenge a voter's eligibility on election day (Dean Logan can't, members of the public can't, the voter's parole officer can't), it would seem imperative that the training would include coveirng the pollworkers' stautory duties under the law.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on August 26, 2005 01:48 PMHe also has his turn around team getting set in place. Even though they don't have any authority they have full access to all election facilities, and they only have to report to Sims.
The next logical step for King Ron would be to figure out a way to appoint himself to canvass board.
Posted by: Joe on August 26, 2005 01:53 PMDon't allow the privilege of going to the polls be taken away from you...like they did to us in Clark Co.
Posted by: Susu on August 26, 2005 03:49 PMDid they mention photo ID in the ad to make it sound like election reform actually happened?
I have to wonder if he's trying to fool people into thinking that some real election reform actually took place and that photo ID is required at the polls.
Whether one supports the concept or not, there are people who consider themselves transgendered. For such people, they have to declare M or F in their voter registration, driver's license, etc. And they may not look like what they consider themselves to be.
So it is possible that someone listed on the rolls as a male looks like a female.
Peter
Posted by: Peter Carlin on August 26, 2005 04:33 PMThere is a line in the Declaration of Independence that seems applicaple to King County government these days: ...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Gavernment ecomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,...
Lets hope we are able to effectively 'alter' Ron Sims out of office, instead of it being necessary to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches.
Posted by: CommonSense Coug on August 26, 2005 04:44 PMBecause we know and the Dems know it's bogus, too, I think their screaming really IS because they know it might cut somewhat into vote fraud.
Posted by: Michele on August 26, 2005 04:56 PM1: abolish provisional ballots
2: abolish mail-in ballots except for either Armed Services personnel on overseas detachment, or for persons on temporary out-of-state jobs for less than one calendar year.
Folks, recent election history shows that mail-in ballots are a wide-open door for vote fraud. We can bandy this issue about until we're blue in the face, but nothing is ever going to change unless and until we close all the doors that the libs are using to further their own agenda at the expense of the citizens.
Time was when people were willing to risk their lives for the privelege of voting. These days, most people in this state don't seem willing to cross the street to do it.
What is integrity in the electoral process worth to you?
Posted by: ERNurse on August 26, 2005 05:02 PMThen I heard the clarification...ANY ID is OK, it doesn't mean photo (REAL) ID, and even if you don't have any proof of who you are, you can still vote provisional.
But I actually see the ACLU's point of view on this one...the add might "scare" folks away from the polls...hopefully it will, that is, the fraudulent voters. So I like it!
Posted by: Shaun on August 26, 2005 05:43 PMWhat about those pesky addled "multiple personality" folks like Unkl Witz?
Can they claim nominal gender status and still cast numerous votes as always?
Oh, that's right, so long as they are voting Democrat ... got it.
How do we actually do it?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 26, 2005 09:02 PMIt said all voters must show *Valid* ID...not *Photo* ID...
Is this a change? Or did it always say *valid* instead of *photo*? - or are there variations in different commercials?
An advertisment from the Secretary of State - advising voters that they will now need *valid* identification to vote at the polls - is not - in any way discriminating!
If the ads stated that *photo* ID were required - it would be inaccurate - but not discriminating.
What worries me - is that the intention of the ads may be to discourage voters from poll voting in an effort to move the entire state to all mail voting!
This could go either way. The ads could frighten off illegal voters (who haven't already figured out the absentee ballot scam)...and we could see less nonsense with the ballots - OR - this could turn off a portion of *legal* voters who traditionally vote at the polls but now will feel too bothered to produce ID.......
After last Novembers election hell - I just don't see too many *legal* voters considering it to be a bother by having to produce identification! In fact - I am hearing in my community - many people actually relieved that our county has not switched to all mail voting! I have a feeling that the public is just not on board with absentee voting as an only option! I'll bet there will be an initiative in the works to put it to a vote of the people!
I remember when I first started working in banking. In the little neighborhood branch I worked at - the elderly used to come in a few times a week - just to socialize with each other. They didn't have to come in - they had no dire banking business to perform - but they would - just to keep up on the what was happeneing in the area and see their friends...etc... I thought it was wonderful for them! It kept them active and in touch. The same thing happens at the polls! Every election I see my elderly neighbors - all dressed up as though they were going to an important function - meeting in the polling building. I think they all go out to lunch after they vote! It's a wonderful tradition - too bad younger generations don't take it as seriously as their parents and grandparents!
I cannot imagine what the elderly must be thinking in the counties that decided to go to all mail voting!
Posted by: Deborah on August 26, 2005 10:01 PMThey explained we could also "challenge" the ballot, but strongly discouraged us to do that unless we were absolutely 100% sure that the challenge would uphold.
So literally, if a 5 year old comes in and wants to vote, they still get a provisional ballot. The name on the envelope is then verified after the election before counting the ballot.
Posted by: Mike Stall on August 26, 2005 10:44 PMThey don't reconcile.
Posted by: Mike on August 27, 2005 12:36 AMOlympia
State deletes "photo" from election ad
The Washington secretary of state has agreed to change a TV ad that says voters must bring photo identification to the polls next month.
I have never once been asked for ID at the polls. I suppose it's because they know me. I have never seen anyone asked for ID. The strange thing is, I have only lived here for 20 plus years. My husband grew up here and he is asked for ID every time he votes. I was shocked when our reporter, who is Asian, was asked for ID last November at his precinct. He was really offended. I don't blame him. Not because he was asked for ID, but because it is so inconsistent, even here in little old Whitman County. I can only imagine the inconsistency in King County.
Mike Stall, Stefan, and all you others that signed up for poll duty, I applaud your noble effort to this cause.
Micajah,
This in and of itself is a big story. Why do you think they flip-flopped?
Clearly, dems think blacks are somehow not able to function in the normal world. Clearly, Dems see blacks as incompetent dolts. This is really the message of democrats. Black voters ought to throw their hands up and walk away from the Democrat party. Time to stop all the disrespecting that comes their way from the Democrat party.
Posted by: Realist on August 28, 2005 12:33 AMYep-the Seattle-area zoo checks my i.d. EVERY TIME even with my membership card. If it's OK to protect a chimp's interests, it's ok for me ask the same for a voter...if you don't have your act together and can't prove your identity, you are not a desireable voter anyway; do the police tolerate someone pulled over with no i.d.?
Voting? It's even a more basic concern nowadays---security--if you can't prove who you are and that you belong here legally, you need to go...it works for your neighborhood as well for the Nation; anyone opposing that sensible and simple requirement needs to be suspect;