AP: "State's new voter registration rule shouldn't be enforced, judge decides"
[U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez] today barred the state from enforcing a new law that keeps people from registering to vote if their names do not perfectly match identifying information in other government databases ... The law, designed to help prevent voter fraud, took effect Jan. 1. It directed Secretary of State Sam Reed to compare drivers licenses, state identification cards or Social Security numbers on registration forms with records from state and federal agencies to ensure that a voter's information matches.So now it seems, it's possible to register to vote simply by making up "identifying information". Sigh.
hat tip: sgmmac
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 01, 2006 05:50 PM | Email ThisAnd who are the people who brought this "bad" legislation to the laser-sharp focus of this judge? As the linked article points out,
The Washington Association of Churches, minority voter groups, a labor union and antipoverty activists sought an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the law, and the judge agreed.
The WAC (check out their carefully worded website) is a "faith-based state public policy education and advocacy network." Looking carefully through their website indicates that their politics are...wait for it...you guessed it, left leaning (although they would probably deny the charge).
We don't need to wonder about that labor union's political stance (although I wonder exactly which labor union it is?)
And anti-poverty activists is nice doublespeak, too-- could there be such a group that is not liberal, leftist or socialist in its orientation?
So, what we have here is a group of leftists who fear that they will lose voters who can't make the states horrible, draconian (dare we say facist?) requirements of 45 days to come up with alternate ID so you can REGISTER to vote. That's right, REGISTER, not actually vote.
The judge makes an interesting ruling here:
He noted that the requirements for registering to vote are that a person be a citizen, 18 years old, a resident of the precinct in which he or she wishes to vote for 30 days, and that the person not have lost the right to vote or been declared legally incompetent.
The law is pretty clear, there, but perhaps the judge can't figure out how faulty id can prevent a couple of those things from following the law.
The state ''has failed to demonstrate how an error or omission that prevents Washington state from matching an applicant's information is material in determining whether that person is qualified to vote,'' Martinez wrote.
Come on, your honor--if person X has faulty ID, how can you certify they are residents of that precinct? Is this not common sense?
Apparently the judge reading the law VERY, VERY closely. He's right--it says nothing in there about valid ID, but perhaps the judge is ignoring the intent of the law, for some arcane legal purpose.
Perhaps the law needs to be re-written to be more specific so Judge Martinez can figure out what it really means.
I had to prove who I was the last time I renewed, because I never changed my maiden name in the social security system when I got married. The DOL sent me a letter and told me that I had to bring ID...........
Posted by: sgmmac on August 1, 2006 07:01 PMI wonder of Justice Ricardo Martinez
should have recused himself from hearing
from the Washington Association of
Churches, MINORITY VOTER GROUPS, a
labor union....
To register to vote you need only mark an X on a piece of paper, apparently.
Posted by: EM on August 1, 2006 08:35 PMI am registered to vote and have voted in the last elections since my retirement. Before that it was sporadic because I was always in the wrong country or wrong city being in the military.
The law wouldn't have stopped anyone from voting, because they give you 45 days to prove who you are.
When I renewed my driver's license, I took my military ID card which shows my social security number, my name, my date of birth, and my signature among other things, my US passport, my birth certificate, my social security card, my marriage license, my divorce certificate, and everything else I could think of.......
Needless to say, it wasn't a problem.
They passed a Federal law last year that requires states to issue driver's licenses to US Citizens. This state has been issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens for years and years...
It was a recommendation from the 9/11 commission because all 19 of the highjackers had US State driver's licenses.
Hmm. Well intentioned law. However, it would have certainly knocked out some legitimate voters.
Posted by: Erik on August 1, 2006 09:21 PMYou say; "...However, it would have certainly knocked out some legitimate voters."
Perhaps. Probably not. It would however eliminate many ineligible "voters", and that is the most important element.
An incorrectly disqualified applicant would still have the right of protest. All they need to do is present proper, legitimate identification. If they cannot, they have no business voting!
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 1, 2006 09:45 PMMay it also interest yall to note a cute little quote from the last page of the preliminary injunction order:
"Defendant [the State of WA / Sec. Reed] argues that the public's interest in preventing voter fraud weighs against an injunction in this case. The Court disagrees. Given Washington's most recent governor's election, where the winner was decided by just hundreds [actually, 129 or 133] of votes, the Court finds that the public interest weighs strongly in favor of letting every eligible resident of Washington register and cast a vote."
Strangely ignored in this comment are:
1) precisely how Sec. Reed is supposed to determine whether a given registration actually comes from an "eligible resident of Washington" if he is simply required to process any application he receives;
2) the much larger margin of error than margin of "victory" in 2004 due, in part, to sloppy registration procedures; and
3) the fact that RCW 29A.08.107 (the RCW being challenged) was derived straight from the federal Help America Vote Act ("HAVA"), which requires, in most cases, matching of a driver's license number or last 4 of the Social Security number -- which is completely pointless outside the context of verifying that someone actually exists before registering them to vote. That was the whole point of the federal mandate that states pass laws to require some sort of check on voter identity before simply signing them up and letting them vote.
Of course, given that ACORN is involved, it is easy to see why actual physical existence of the "voter" in question might well be considered an undue burden.
Posted by: TB on August 2, 2006 01:01 AMIf my name on the books is Michael A. SMith, and 10 yrs later I vote as Michael Smith, doesn't this rule protect my vote?
Posted by: righton on August 2, 2006 06:50 AMEven so, in your case the law wouldn't stop you - It was for registrations. In the event that they discovered that the entry in the state database and the electoral role were different you have 45 days to go fix it and then you can vote all you want.
Posted by: TonYG on August 2, 2006 07:48 AM
I agree with TB, possibly thousands of illegally cast votes made this race tight. The judge is not thinking clearly on this claim.
It's a valid question, but middle names aren't part of the verification for either the WDL check or the SSN check -- just last name and partial match on the first name -- so your re-registration (since presumably, this is a change of address scenario) should sail right through, middle initial or not.
In the event that someone at your county elections office typed "Smith" as "Smiht," it would bounce back, but county auditors have the discretion to do a common-sense override. It is unlikely that they would ever get to the point of sending you a letter and waiting 45 days for a response; you would simply be registered. Remember, 38 of 39 counties in WA have elected auditors, and these folks don't want to make the voters angry.
Posted by: TB on August 2, 2006 09:19 AMThe judge enumerated the qualifications to register to vote, but he left one out: you cannot register to vote if you are already registered to vote. Each citizen is entitled to register to vote exactly once. The state has a compelling interest in enforcing this rule, and matching the ID is material to enforcing this rule. The ID matching process is not foolproof, but it definitely helps catch applications that would have resulted in duplicates because of typos or name changes. That is not a problem with the law, that is the intent of it.
My question is, why didn't the state attorney arguing the case make this obvious point? If you read the decision, it sure doesn't look like the attorney tried very hard to counter the plaintiff's arguments!
Posted by: Rep. Toby Nixon on August 2, 2006 01:46 PMVoting is a right, not a privilege. A citizen's right to vote takes precedence over the niceities of government bureaucracy. Since there has been "no evidence of fraud" in our recent elections (to quote a Republican judge from a Republican county) , we should especially not assume wrongdoing on the part of a voter.
If it is important enough to do, it is important enough to do correctly. Your straw-man coupled with your (un)righteous indignation just makes you look like an imbecile.
On second thought, You are that stupid ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 4, 2006 10:54 AM