Normally this subject is the realm of the site's proprietor but with news that the United State Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws readers will no doubt want to comment on subject matter that Sound Politics was founded on.
First off the notion that preventing voter fraud is somehow partisan shows the particularly sorry state of politics today. It shouldn't be a Republican or a Democratic issue to make sure that people who vote in an election are actually registered.
Flashing a picture ID, whether it is a drivers license, passport, student ID, a state identification card, is hardly an onerous hardship for anyone who has actually taken the time to register. If you have the chops to contact your county auditor's office, obtain a voter registration form and fill out all 12 parts of it including your name, the last four digits on your Social Security card and the numbers on your drivers license or state ID then it probably isn't that much of a hassle to actually provide aforementioned piece of identification when at a polling place.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, agreed.
There's also a security concern here. Since voter rolls are easily obtained, it is relatively simple for someone - either as a prank or for nefarious intent - to pose as a person who is not a regular voter.
The issue for Washington has almost become irrelevant with the state's reliance on all-mail voting in the majority of its counties. However in King County about one-third of ballots are still cast in traditional polling places.
That's all I have to say about that...
Posted by DonWard at April 29, 2008 02:35 AM | Email ThisWhat do you mean I can't cheat anymore?
Just give me 5 more ballots!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 29, 2008 06:03 AMMegadittoes to Mr. Anfinrud.
Posted by: swatter on April 29, 2008 07:02 AMEvery Dem vote counts...at least once.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 29, 2008 07:07 AMWhere I do see a concern, from a national security standpoint, it where we get to a "show me your papers/ID" standpoint for travel. Requiring ID for voting is one thing, but having to show ID everywhere to travel and further having the ID be a smart ID that could be tracked, I think goes beyond what the use of the ID should be for. People need to enjoy their privacy and anominity at times. We are a free country. What I think needs to be protected is the private information associated with the ID and the use of this information. This doesn't negate its benefits when it comes to voting.
Posted by: tc on April 29, 2008 07:13 AMPlease, that's a poor excuse if I ever read one.
When the libs have no anwer, they pop the Jim Crow line.
If the state is SO worried about the poor not having ID's they could take care of it tomorrow. And don't give us, we don't have the money!
tc's notion that people will be stopped a-la Soviet era Eastern Europe is fallacious. For starters, people are stopped and asked for ID at traffic stops all the time. There's a reason why that is done. And it is not done in a way that even remotely resembles Soviet border guards. And two, law enforcement now has access to a lot of technology that makes catching the real bad guys much more an act of surveillance than a routine blanket checkpoint.
You have to wonder, WHY is it the dems are so afarid of a valid ID for voting?
Calif is one place where they know illegals are voting.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 29, 2008 07:59 AMThen, any ballot without a VID -- or a duplicate VID is automatically disqualified.
That leaves one trick for the Democrats -- throwing out Republican ballots.
The answer for that is that every voter will have to right to retrieve his voting information from the database by VID to insure it was counted and counted correctly.
Only then can we have free and fair elections.
Army Medic/Vet,
I didn't state that I agree with the Jim Crow issue. I simply raised it as one of the underlying fears that some have. I also stated that this fear could be easily alleiviated through proper information dissemination. One thing I would demand is to make sure our State has adequate privacy laws on the information collected and individual citizens have the right to review this information and opt-in to how it is shared (instead of opt-out or not option on how the information is shared). It goes to openness and transparency of government. As long as the ID effort can point to legitmate reasons for requiring presentation of ID (like in voting, which I think is a good example) and protects the privacy of the information collected, I see no problem. When the government and private companies start demanding ID for everything and restrict movement within the country, then I do have a problem. If the government doesn't protect the privacy nature of the data, then I have a problem. The more and more that data is centralized and linked together, the more we enter a Minority Report world. For those of Christian background, we also more closely enter the "666" world.
:))
Unapologetically... I couldn't resist!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 29, 2008 09:47 AMIf one reads the body of Justice Thomas' work, this is part of the bigger goal of moving the marginalized into the mainstream of society. It is very difficult to get employment, for example, without identity papers of some sort. In this state, we have both drivers licenses and ID cards.
The subtext of Justice Thomas has often been, how does one move marginalized into the mainstream and what is left of the middle class. That happens by education and employment.
Increasingly, for most middle and upper classes, the ID of choice is the passport. That has a cost associated with it. A lot of the problem with the state ID card is an information problem, many people don't know they exist or need help in obtaining birth documents.
This is only one portion of the big picture and that picture is how to get more people into the mainstream. Many of those who have worked with former gang members find that many change their lives when they they can find work, provide for their families, and do activities they make them citizens, like legitimately vote. I have no problem with former felons voting if they have served their sentence, paid their fines and restitution to the victims.
This is one step in nudging more people into the mainstream.
Posted by: WVH on April 29, 2008 09:49 AMa. In Pierce County
"....In 1951, an investigation by a state legislative committee revealed widespread corruption in Tacoma's government, which had been organized commission-style since 1910. Voters approved a mayor/city-manager system in 1952."
b. History of Corruption in State
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7145
c. King County
"King County grand jury indicts public officials in police payoff scandal on July 27, 1971.
HistoryLink.org Essay 3289
Printer-Friendly Format
On July 27, 1971, a King County grand jury indicts 28 police officers and political leaders for involvement in a police payoff system. The central indictment charges 19 men, including the former King County On July 27, 1971, a King County grand jury indicts 28 police officers and political leaders for involvement in a police payoff system. The central indictment charges 19 men, including the former King County Sheriff, the former King County Prosecuting Attorney, and a former City Councilman, with "conspiracy against government entities." Eventually, 54 public officials are charged with bribery, graft, perjury, and contempt. The city councilman will be dismissed out of the case and the former sheriff and former prosecutor will be acquitted. Only a few defendants will be convicted and serve any jail time...."
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=3289
This area compared to many other areas has been relatively clean. In small towns in many parts of the country, voters do have a legitmate fear of being harassed because of their race and ethnicity. For the most part, that has not been the issue here. Although, with the growing population of Latinos, some citizens, may have issues of being targeted as illegals.
Posted by: WVH on April 29, 2008 10:06 AMYou may want to change your answer, because I tend to agree with you. As for "show me your papers" we are already there. The new passports will have RFID. They will probably put them into driver's licenses and other forms of ID. Never mind that Wal Mart is incorporating them into items like clothing and such. Watch the movie "Minority Report" for a good idea of how the future will look. You will be "showing your papers" whether you realize it or not.
I imagine a situation in which any terrorists wish to identify Americans in a crowd. All they need is a cheap $40 RFID reader and they could pick out Americans in a crowd simply by milling about. And the helpless victims wouldn't even know until it was too late.
Criminals don't obey privacy laws. Remember when we were all told that the SSN wouldn't be used to track us?
Posted by: pbj on April 29, 2008 11:01 AMThis is 2008, not 1958 remember?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2008 11:08 AMTherefore, foreigners can register and vote at polls in King County "no problemo."
Posted by: hi on April 29, 2008 11:30 AMThe decision was correct. I don't believe anyone said it would bring on a new era of Jim Crow. But, you have your head stuck in the sand if you don't recognize there will be problems in some regions.
Posted by: WVH on April 29, 2008 12:14 PMHeck look at groups like ACRON who have been caught breaking the law in the other direction.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 29, 2008 12:34 PMthis is what you said-
"I don't believe anyone said it would bring on a new era of Jim Crow."
Posted by WVH at April 29, 2008 12:14 PM
Clearly you've yet again misinterpreted what I posted, but why am I not surprised? Both yourself and tc referenced fears of a return to Jim Crow in your posts below.
"On the flip side, I think there is some fear of a return to Jim Crow days..."
Posted by tc at April 29, 2008 07:13 AM
" one has to look at individual locales to understand the fear of Jim Crow."
Posted by WVH at April 29, 2008 10:06 AM
You claim to have a doctorate in education. The least you can do is put some practical application into what you've learned.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 29, 2008 02:22 PMOnly in Washington!
Posted by: GS on April 29, 2008 03:35 PM1. FL, where have I ever said that I supported corruption of any type. More selective delusion on your part. I don't support any type of illegal activity. I suppose if you really were a freedom lover, you would support the rights of every US citizen entitled to vote in their excercise of their franchise. I suppose that your whacko view of the world means only folks like you are entitled to vote, right?
a.Nov. 10, 2005
Racial discrimination lawsuits indicate Voting Rights Act still needed
ANN ARBOR, Mich.--Forty years after Congress outlined provisions to prevent racial discrimination in electoral practices, a new report released today (Nov. 10) by the University of Michigan indicates violations persist.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed equal opportunity for all Americans in the voting process, and Congress reauthorized provisions in 1970, 1975 and 1982. With the central provisions of the Voting Rights Act expiring in 2007, Congress must determine whether it should renew these provisions, make substantive alterations to them or simply let them lapse. To make this determination, Congress needs information about the past and present status of minority participation in the political process--which is the impetus for the U-M report.
"Four decades after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, racial discrimination in voting is far from over," said Ellen Katz, U-M law professor and faculty director of the Voting Rights Initiative, a cooperative student/faculty research effort.
The findings are released as the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held Voting Rights Act renewal hearings this week. The U-M report is entitled "Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under the Voting Rights Act Since 1982" and is available online at: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/votingrights.
The report provides the first catalogue of findings of voting discrimination made by federal judges in published lawsuits brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1982. It also provides a snapshot of complex cases under this provision, representing a larger set of lawsuits filed, since only an estimated one in five Voting Rights Act lawsuits filed...."
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Nov05/r111005a
b. This report of the Voting Rights Project on the need to extend the Voting Rights Act:
http://www.votingrights.org/
Rickie,
Stop the bs already, if you can't have an intelligent conversation without your claim regarding my education, which you know from the dossier which you and the boys posted online. You You know know the facts, so, cut the b.s. I suppose I could say you claim you graduated from some school, we have your word on it, right?
Now in answer to your lame comment, I said:
""I don't believe anyone said it would bring on a new era of Jim Crow."
That is what I said, I realize you have a problem with reading because your line of discourse is to selectively read and inpute to any passage your limited understanding. You don't have to claim to be an idiot, I would go with that assessment. People fear that some in certain locales which have a history of denying the franchise to certain groups, might deny rights. Now as for an era of Jim Crow, this is what Jim Crow is about:
a. http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/
b. This is what bringing back the era of Jim Crow would involve:
The passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution had granted Blacks the same legal protections as Whites. However, after 1877, and the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, southern and border states began restricting the liberties of Blacks. Unfortunately for Blacks, the Supreme Court helped undermine the Constitutional protections of Blacks with the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which legitimized Jim Crow laws and the Jim Crow way of life.
In 1890, Louisiana passed the "Separate Car Law," which purported to aid passenger comfort by creating "equal but separate" cars for Blacks and Whites. This was a ruse. No public accommodations, including railway travel, provided Blacks with equal facilities. The Louisiana law made it illegal for Blacks to sit in coach seats reserved for Whites, and Whites could not sit in seats reserved for Blacks. In 1891, a group of Blacks decided to test the Jim Crow law. They had Homer A. Plessy, who was seven-eights White and one-eighth Black (therefore, Black), sit in the White-only railroad coach. He was arrested. Plessy's lawyer argued that Louisiana did not have the right to label one citizen as White and another Black for the purposes of restricting their rights and privileges. In Plessy, the Supreme Court stated that so long as state governments provided legal process and legal freedoms for Blacks, equal to those of Whites, they could maintain separate institutions to facilitate these rights. The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the Louisiana law, declaring that racial separation did not necessarily mean an abrogation of equality. In practice, Plessy represented the legitimization of two societies: one White, and advantaged; the other, Black, disadvantaged and despised.
Blacks were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses (laws that restricted the right to vote to people whose ancestors had voted before the Civil War), poll taxes (fees charged to poor Blacks), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, only Whites could be Democrats), and literacy tests ("Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America's history"). Plessy sent this message to southern and border states: Discrimination against Blacks is acceptable.
Jim Crow states passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races. Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities. There were separate hospitals for Blacks and Whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations. In most instances, the Black facilities were grossly inferior -- generally, older, less-well-kept. In other cases, there were no Black facilities -- no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat. Plessy gave Jim Crow states a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their Black citizens.
Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited Blacks and Whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality. In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for Blacks and Whites. In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to play checkers or dominoes together. Here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws, as compiled by the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site Interpretive Staff:
Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).
Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).
Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).
Buses. All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).
Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro (South Carolina).
Education. The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).
Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).
Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).
Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm
These were very specific laws. So, bring back the era of Jim Crow, no. But, in certain locales people might be denied rights.
Posted by: WVH on April 29, 2008 10:04 PMIf you have ever seen Leno's Jaywalking, you would understand there is a lot of cultural literacy which is lacking from the population in general. It is hard to believe, but some people don't get that only US Citizens, of voting age, who have not had their rights suspended can vote. There is a movement to allow non-citizens to legitimately vote. I blieve a NYC City Councilman has proposed non-citizen voting in city elections.
In many countries around the world, the population gets that only citizens of that country can vote. Now, in certain areas of the country where poll taxes and literacy tests were used, there is suspicion of motives. The voter ID issue is an education issue like organ donor or for that matter having valid ID if you look underage and want to go to a bar. Once the rules are established, people will conform. Perhaps, you are correct that the Secretary of State should propose an initiative.
The real lack of security is in absentee ballots and that is where voter security should be enhanced. Maybe every so often, people should be required to re-register in person.
No one benefits from the taint of a "stolen" or unfair election. I am supporting Governor Gregoire, but I hope whoever wins, wins by a sufficient margin that there is no question they should be called Governor.
Posted by: WVH on April 29, 2008 11:27 PMI did catch the last sentence though which started " No one benefits from taint of a "stolen" election.".
We'll find out in November when Queen Christine's "stolen" election of 2004 is rectified and the true winner Dino Rossi is elected Governor in 2008 for the Late Great State of Washington. Perhaps he'll revive the heartbeat of a dead state thanks to 25 years of liberal rule.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on April 30, 2008 08:09 AM