In 2004 the people of Arizona overwhelmingly approved Prop 200, which requires new voters to present proof of citizenship upon registration and requires all voters to present proof of residence at the polling place. Naturally, those who depend on vote fraud have been fighting this tooth and nail and have spent the last two years predicting large-scale disenfranchisement. Naturally too, these predictions were proven wrong in the first electoral test this week.
The Arizona Advocacy Network and Metro Phoenix League of Women Voters surveyed roughly 500 voters leaving polling places in heavily Hispanic areas of Mesa. Advocacy Network Executive Director Linda Brown said most voters were having little problem.If it works in Arizona, it can work in Washington. My modest proposal for a similar initiative that would work in this (sadly) mostly mail voting state: proof of citizenship and residence for new voters, proof of residence upon change of address1. It's simple, it's fair and only the lunatic fringe could find it objectionable.
hat tip: "Heartless Libertarian"
1: For proof of residence I would allow documents such as lease, property tax bill, utility bill or anything of the like that affirms that the voter resides at the residential address. For those who do not have such documentation in their own name (e.g. adult children) and for the homeless, I would also allow a signed affidavit from another registered voter affirming that the individual resides where they claim to reside.
(Prop. 200 also denies certain public benefits to illegal immigrants. My modest proposal for an initiative would focus only on voter registration).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 15, 2006 09:22 PM | Email ThisWhat you propose makes sense, but hurts the d's who depend on the fraud vote.
Therefore... it'll never happen.
Unless, of course, someone files an initiative....
Posted by: Hinton on March 15, 2006 09:51 PMNope, we can't have that here in Washington. Such a system might actually give the voters the ability to elect who they want, instead of Democrats appointing their choice and making the count agree.
But Democrats don't have to worry. Gregoire, Reed, Sims et all would never implement such a system, and sadly, the voters in Washington would probably never support it at the polls - not that we'd every really be sure.
Posted by: MJC on March 15, 2006 11:02 PMWhat's great about the lunatic progressive fringe, and let's just give it a name, Goldstein, is that playing a "voter is just a helpless victim" card, or the "wingnuts bent on disenfranchisement" card, etc. is a good short term strategy that might appeal to a few dupes here and there. But in the long run, playing these cards requires that you have a steady stream of victims, irresponsibles, uniformed sheep, etc. All of these qualities run counter to the aspirations of those who live under capitalism and information being democratized by the Internet.
And that's why every trend shows that the Dems are a defunct party, without a platform, that can't get any traction. The Dems can't win because the technological, ideological, financial and informational trends, i.e. reality are all working against the ideas they uphold.
It's only a matter of time before ID is required to vote here in WA, and no average citizen who is concerned about voting is afraid of any reasonable measure to protect the franchise.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 15, 2006 11:06 PMJust download the text of the various real election reform bills that (R)s tried to progress thru the last couple sessions of the Legislature, and lift the appropriate language. Any bills that were formally introduced (and many that are not) have already been thru the professionals at the Office of the Code Reviser, to put them in the proper 'legislateze' format.
It's effectively too late for a new initiative to the people this year, but the window for filing an initiative to the LEGISLATURE has only been open for (exactly) one week. Inits to the Leg have until December to gather the required sigs. True: The Legislature can propose their own alternative. But if they do the people still get to vote in 2007.
Someone else will have to run with this one:
All of my efforts on initiatives in 2006 will be going into active support of the I-933 Property Fairness Act; plus I am running for Okanogan County PUD Commissioner this year.
BTW: The final hearing on the I-933 Title contest in Thurston County Superior Court was supposed to have finished today, but I haven't seen any media reports on the outcome yet. Anybody ??
It appears Washington is not the only state to have serious state voter role problems
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=408243
"...The City of Milwaukee has dropped about 105,000 names from its voter rolls after completing the first purge since 2001, city officials said Tuesday.
That represents about 23% of the 450,000 names that had been on the rolls. Officials had said they were unsure if a purge of the rolls had been conducted after the 2000 election..."
Interesting! And now for some background...
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403905&date=2/25/2006
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=346264
Posted by: Bob on March 16, 2006 07:38 AMAdult children shouldn't need an affidavit... I lived at home for two years after high school while attending community college, and I had plenty of proof of where I lived (drivers license, paystubs, vehicle title, bank statements, etc).
Posted by: Mike H on March 16, 2006 07:58 AMGreat idea. Also people without children shouldn't be able to vote for the school board, renters shouldn't be able to vote on property taxes, men shouldn't be able to vote on abortion, etc. Right?
OK, sarcasm aside, it is difficult to confirm the residency of homeless people. But I doubt that many homeless people actually claim residency in places where they don't spend most of their time. Why would they? Is there any evidence that they have?
Posted by: Bruce on March 16, 2006 09:37 AMAlong with another companion initiative: "If the number of verified illegally cast and illegally counted ballots exceeds the margin of victory, the election must be redone, no more than x days (I suggest 30) from the certification of the final recount."
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on March 16, 2006 09:39 AMCommons sense makes sense. Doesn't it?
I'm not saying what the right answers are to these questions, just that someone needs to answer them.
Posted by: Bruce on March 16, 2006 10:22 AM"OK, sarcasm aside, it is difficult to confirm the residency of homeless people."
No kidding, since the very definition "homeless" seems to indicate lack of permanent residency.
"But I doubt that many homeless people actually claim residency in places where they don't spend most of their time. Why would they? Is there any evidence that they have?"
The problem, of course, is getting the evidence that Homeless Bob claims residency in a place where he doesn't spend much of his time. If Homeless Bob lives in Seattle, what is his residency? Seattle, of course. But what voting district, or neighborhood? Does Homeless Bob stay in one place, or does he roam around? I would agree with your point that most homeless people do stay close to "home," and not head over to Bellevue, or down to Renton, for the day.
But what, precisely, is his residence? What neighborhood does he really belong to? If he lives in a "transient hotel," is that his residence, for the moment, or is Homeless Bob intending to stay there for an extended period of time?
I understand that it is possible for homeless voters to register at government offices in Seattle (please inform me if I am wrong on this).
Is that office Homeless Bob's residence? Does he spend most of his time there, or out on the streets?
I don't think the argument depends on the time factor--many people who have a permanent home spend most of their time at work, commuting, etc.
So it has to be something other than that.
What constitues residency? Just my say-so (i.e. "I live in that house," or "I live under that bridge")? Or is there another standard?
As for where homeless people "reside," our system doesn't have a good answer, just as we don't have a good answer for the soldier posted abroad who isn't sure where he/she will live when he/she returns home. The WA elections FAQ says "Any person without a traditional residence may use the address of a nearby public building as their residential address for precinct purposes." This is imprecise -- nearby to what? -- but presumably it means near to where the person spends most of his/her time and/or nights. And it's arbitrary -- why a public building? why any building? -- presumably because the state would rather not design a special procedure for registering homeless people. I could support an alternative system. But on principle I couldn't support reducing someone's right to vote just because they were homeless.
Finally, it's ironic and sad that some people (I'm not accusing you) think about the homeless primarily in the context of their abusing our elections system.
Posted by: Bruce on March 16, 2006 02:50 PMSB6362, which just passed both houses of the legislature, does away with public building registrations. The voter with a non-traditional address will now describe their residence location in words and will be assigned to a precinct based on that location.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 16, 2006 02:54 PMWe are now so wise and compassionate that we not only allow vagrants the vote, we encourage it. It would be possible for a vagrant to vote multiple times in different counties, using different names. There is after all no address associated with that person. And of course no vested community interest. It would seem to me that the votes of vagrants may be purchased for little costs. Just as the votes of addicts and criminals may be purchased for little costs. As I recall the Democrats have a vote mobile that travels the areas frequented by such folk. The reported purpose of the Simobile is to register the folk. We are aware of the many infamous addresses that were (are) use for such purposes.
Will someone please tell me why we are so concerned about people (vagrants, criminals, addicts, illegal aliens) that simply do not have an interest in the community. Please explain to me the manifest compassion that appears in these posts from time to time and looms large in our voting regulations.
Still prefer the Arizona election law regarding provisional ballots. If you have no proof of who you are and where you live, here is a provisional ballot. We will hold it till next Friday. You must submit proof of who you are and where you live by then or the ballot will not be counted. End of story. No flaky people stuffing the voting box with provisional ballots. And you must be a citizen.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 16, 2006 04:47 PM(The key here is "legal" voters..)
Posted by: Deborah on March 16, 2006 07:20 PMBruce, if you are basing your belief about people's "primary" interest in the homeless on the comments posted here about them, perhaps it's because this forum is about abuses of our election system, and not about the plight of the homeless....
Posted by: Patrick on March 17, 2006 10:58 AMThe (very well financed) opponents of Prop 200 were (stop me if this sounds familiar) the AZ Democratic Party, the NEA and teacher's unions, the trial lawyers association and quite a few "get out the vote" campaigns financed by Move-on.org.
alaric
Posted by: alaric on March 19, 2006 11:20 AM