Opinions Sought on Voter ID Proposals. Is Gov. Richardson a Fascist?

[L. Coyote]

Here we go again, more obstacles to voting. And this time from a Democrat Governor...

<snip>

Governor reveals vote ID package

By Shea Andersen February 15, 2005

SANTA FE - The dam on voter identification might be ready to burst onto the floor in the Roundhouse.

Late Monday, a draft of a bill that has Gov. Bill Richardson's support was handed out to reporters...... the newest draft measure would require voters to present photo identification at the polls or, alternatively, the voter's name, date of birth and last four Social Security number digits....

The bill also includes $1.5 million to help the state pay for voting machines that provide a paper trail for every vote cast.

</snip>

Other aspects relate to provisional ballots, and recounts paid for in advance.

Why does Richardson want to make voting more difficult for minorities?

[Filimon]

1. Voter ID

Hiya,

I was really surprised when all of this talk of having to identify yourself before you can cast a vote became an issue.

I am absolutely ignorant on this subject.

Are you telling me that people DO NOT have to positively identify themselves before they can vote???

I guess I have always been on autopilot while voting. I live in a small town so I guess we all just know eachother.

But is it really the case that people can just walk in and vote with out positive ID?

What on earth could be wrong with expecting people to identify themselves before voting? I often have to show ID at the grocery store when my worn out credit card signature is illegible.

Please someone explain to me what the problem is.

Thanks in advance.

[Igel]

20. I voted in Texas. No ID was required for registration by mail.

They didn't check my ID at the polls, as they were supposed to.

And at that, "ID" could include a phone bill.

I found this offensive.

The problem is that some people are convinced requiring a government-issued ID would disenfranchise people too poor to get an ID (they cost like $5) or incapacitated so that they're unable to travel to obtain one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Don't know about anyone else, but when I registered to vote

I had to prove my identity. Then I got my voter card, which I had to have when I showed up at the polls. I've only been asked to show it once in the past several elections cycles, but I know that if I was asked for it and couldn't show it, I'd be turned away.

Without proof of ID, a person could register, and vote, in any number of precincts, and if they live close to a state line, they could do the same on both sides of the border.

I've got no problems with a valid ID being required.

[Warpy]

3. Richardson is a DINO

as I've said again and again on this board.

He campaigned as a Democrat who promised to end the sales tax on food. He lowered taxes on the rich instead, and got the state into a financial bind because of it. Two years later, he finally got around to that food tax, only to hike sales taxes on everything else to the point that we got a regressive TAX HIKE via the state sales tax.

Richardson is bad, bad news. He's a typical DLC Democrat, a GOPer in Dem drag.

Be afraid, be very afraid. He is ambitious.

[Colorado Blue]

4. Of course Gov. Richardson is not a Fascist...

we are beginning to forget what is a real Fascist. HITLER was a fascist.

We have to show ID here to vote! (Blue state) - there is nothing wrong about that per se.

Richardson is the governor of a Southwestern state. People there are concerned about the border with Mexico.

Personally I am tired of borders. I would like to see one big happy planet (we should live so long:)

Yet, on an earlier thread, Canadians are very worried about a possible initiative to have an open border and shared ID - with US. So the fear of one's neighbor isn't exactly limited to the Southwestern U.S.

In terms of the national political picture - we may need to compromise in order to get a Democrat into the White House. Many people on this board are HORRIFIED that Hillary C. is trying to reach out to Republicans, and now Richardson is being called a Fascist. We need to moderate our tone, I think, or we will NEVER acquire national office again. Politics is a business of give and take. One can have theoretical purity and remain powerless in the real world; is that what we really want?

I do not believe we need to compromise on core values in order to begin a civil dialogue with Republicans who might come over, do you?

[John Q. Citizen]

5. your right , the Republicans have been very willing to moderate their

tone, which is why they win and we don't.....NOT!

[Colorado Blue]

6. I agree, the Republicans have been moving farther and...

farther to the right. And thanks to their idiot talking heads sometimes they appear to have cornered the market on autothink.

That does not mean that there are no concerned and thoughtful people out there who have been voting Republican, and are now beginning to wonder - due to foreign policy issues, economic issues, conflation of religion with politics, so forth.

I think it's worth trying to reach out.

Voters CAN be reached if we remember that they are individual people, not mindless masses.

Although sometimes I wonder:)

And in any case we have to have fair election standards!

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Have you seen the Dean plan? I got an e-mail from the DNC

that outlines it and I like it.

I see a fundamental difference between competing for Repub and Independent votes, and voting with the Repub leadership in congress.

I would love to see Hillery do door to door canvassing in Republican precincts and talk to those voters at thier doors. That would work!

I doubt that will happen though.

Instead, we will probably see her support most of the corporate give-aways proposed by the GOP leaders and then try to call that reaching out to Republican voters.

IMHO, it's a losing strategy, and it's the same strategy that's led to where we are today.

I agree with you that we need to fix our broken elections system. It's currently a farce, in a number of ways.

[L. Coyote]

10. You write, "now Richardson is being called a Fascist."

Not by me. I'm just posing a question and sdeeking opinions.

I'm willing to identify myself to vote, but I don't have to. I just vote. The restrictions placed on voting can be used to limit the rights of targeted populations, like persons least likely to have a drivers licences or other ID. That subset is known to be minorities moreso than the national average.

There is an element of guilty of fraud until proven innocent in requiring voter IDs. I like voting without having to prove who I am. I know my name, I walk in, I state my name, I vote. What more do we need? If so, why?

And what of national standards? Should all states have the same rules? Are elections fair when they do not?

[davidgmills]

11. Fascism

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of corporate and governmental power." Benito Mussolini

Now that you know what the term means, according to the godfather of fascism, do you care to reevaluate your analysis of Gov. Richardson?

[Colorado Blue]

17. I know what Fascism means, thank you. And if you are...

accusing Richardson of Fascism then you

1) have NO sense of history or proportion
2) might as well accuse everyone in this country of Fascism, unless they live completely off the land or their own resources - for example - they make clay beads and string them and sell them on the street. By my definition one must buy nothing and sell nothing, via, for example, newspaper ads, art galleries or the Internet.

We are all involved in the corporate world. Do you work for a corporation, drive a car, buy national brands, use gasoline or heat your abode? You're involved with corporatism, buddy. Big corporations are the tail swinging the dog these days and WE ARE ALL PARTICIPANTS. Most of us quite willingly, I might add.

FASCISM means the complete centralization of power in government, supported by and supporting a centralization of power in industry, as well as several other key points including nationalism, dominance of "religious values", "moral values", militarism, etc. Several people have posted definitions of Fascism lately and Bill Richardson ain't it.

I will agree that we are moving, with the right wing/big corporation/religious right dominating the political scene, perilously close to that edge. It really worries me.

[Amaryllis]

7. He sure did all he could to impede NM recount efforts, and their numbers

sure loooked funny.

[kster]

8. Wasn't

what he did illegal to ?

[Amaryllis]

9. Yes. David Cobb said he was as bad as BLackwell in his obstructions.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Yes, it did and I was incensed and do NOT understand it. nt

[L. Coyote]

12. ARTICLE: Opinion: The pros and cons of photo IDs at the ballot box

February 15, 2005
Opinion: The pros and cons of photo IDs at the ballot box
By Brian E. Fraley and Michael Tate,

In this week's WisPolitics column, Brian E. Fraley defends the photo ID requirement at the polls saying it reduces fraud and incompetence. Michael Tate disagrees, saying the ID requirement adds an unnecessary burden to voting.

http://onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/wispol021505.html?6588

PRO: " A voter ID requirement, properly administered throughout the state, would at the least restore some minimal level of confidence in the system and correct most bureaucratic bumbling before invalid ballots are counted.

For that reason alone, the requirement to show your (free) photo identification before you receive a ballot has merit."

...."This requirement doesn't target poor, minority or urban voters. It targets inefficiencies in a system wherever they may arise..."

CON: " The Republicans have decided the way to cut down on these errors isn't to ensure more training or additional poll workers but to instead reduce the number of citizens who will be able to vote. Requiring photo identification may sound like a reasonable requirement to many citizens. However, the reality is that for thousands of Wisconsin residents, it would impose an extra, often insurmountable, burden that deny the vote to many citizens whose voices desperately need to be heard. A photo identification requirement would make it much harder for students, senior citizens and the disabled to vote. "

"....The reason I believe many Republicans are behind this push for photo identification is purely partisan. They know this bill will prevent large blocks of Democratic voters from going to the polls. "

Any other articles out there to link?

[dmac]

14. I have comments for several things in this thread -

One, I have always puzzled over why people get up at arms about having to show ID. Since most everyone of voting age drives in our country, I do not understand why this is a problem. Secondly, if it is about minorities not having ID that can easily be remedied by having photo ID opportunities available with registration to vote - just as photo ID's are required for passports.

Secondly, the comment "There is an element of guilty of fraud until proven innocent in requiring voter IDs." Let's be careful here - the same could be true of our insistence to have verifiable voter paper ballots - the fact that we want this as a requirement is because we fear cheating and fraud. I personally believe the same can be said of requiring ID - because without it, cheating and fraud are made easier.

And last, this

"We need to moderate our tone, I think, or we will NEVER acquire national office again. Politics is a business of give and take. One can have theoretical purity and remain powerless in the real world; is that what we really want?"


I am concerned we will never acquire national office again if we do not have election reform. It doesn't matter how we moderate our tone, and or how much we reach out to appeal to the other side, if we do not fix this one thing, I believe all other efforts are in vain.

Edited to add: further, any SoS's who stand in the way of recounts, or opposing legislation to demand them, should understand their motives immediately make them suspect. This is very true of Richardson, Blackwell, as well as Cathy Cox of GA - and probably quite a few others. 2/3 of those listed above are Dems and if Republicans cannot see that we are equally disturbed by their actions, they are not looking. Something needs to be done to highlight the bipartisan nature of this kind of legislation. It seems both sides want to believe the legislation targets one party over another - when in reality it only targets ANYone who even considers standing in the way of the intent of the people.

[emcguffie]

16. Many Native Americans --

do not have photo IDs. So this is discriminatory to them. And many of them would have trouble getting one. But the last four digits of your Social Security number, I have no trouble with that.

As long as there are a few things, of which a voter need only one to be allowed to vote, so that there are easy alternatives, that's reasonable, I think.

[Filimon]

15. Why?

"Why does Richardson want to make voting more difficult for minorities?"

Why does having to show valid ID make it difficult for minorities?

Are there impediments to minorities in receiving ID's?

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Filimon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Land Shark]

19. every "reasonable" regulation not for compelling reasons

denies that voting is a RIGHT.

IF it is a right, then like freedom of speech, you can not gag people in advance in anything but the most extraordinary circumstances, instead you must allow the speech and sue for defamation (or whatever) AFTERWARD.

There is a big move to call and treat voting as a "privilege". the Framers would be horrified. Nothing could more certainly lead to tyranny than to allow the govt to tinker all the time with the right to vote.

In light of the above, having felons vote is not a gift to the felons, but a protection for all of society from tyranny so that a govt can not jail certain segments of the population in order to keep them from voting. Thus, "allowing" (very bad frame) felons to vote shows the felon that it is the felon who is the tyrant, not the government or society.

We desperately need to frame voting as a RIGHT. And a RIGHT that is in special class of "inalienable" because of its function to prevent tyranny and fact that it existed BEFORE our constitution and was used to ratify the Constitution itself. It's a "power retained by the people" and not granted to government to take away.

Most other rights can be taken away with due process, like freedom. But I say voting is sacred and special.

Always ask yourself if a voting proposal is consistent with voting as a right or not. If we start debating about the "merit" of various voters, then why not give lawyers like myself 3 or 4 votes? Why not give business owners like me an extra 2 vote bump? Get the picture?? YOu don't take away the vote of "dumb" people who don't follow every instruction precisely.

Or, if we do, then George Bush should have his right to speak taken away for failing to follow grammatical instructions!

[Igel]

21. Voting is a right ... for citizens.

Rights frequently entail responsibility. The right to private property doesn't extend to illicit or injurious materials; the right to liberty is curtailed for students in school and criminals in jail; the right to free speech is curtailed by laws against endangering the public and inciting to riot.

The only way I can prove that I have this right is to present ID. Else I may well be usurping a right. Sort of like being seen breaking into a house or a car ... it may be my house or car that I'm breaking into, but I'm unlikely to object if a policeman stops and asks what I'm doing. It might be damned inconvenient (standing in your robe, with a newspaper and cup of coffee), but if the officer's reasonable, it's not a problem.

[Filimon]

22. well intentioned argument I'm sure...

"IF it is a right, then like freedom of speech, you can not gag people in advance in anything but the most extraordinary circumstances, instead you must allow the speech and sue for defamation (or whatever) AFTERWARD."

I agree with your premise, but you draw an incorrect conclusion.

U.S. Citizens have the right to vote. 'People' in the US do not have the right to vote. Since the United States of America enjoys the presence of millions of foreign legal residents and tourists, and apparently 'tolerates' the presence of millions of illegal aliens, it 'should' necessary to positively identify yourself as a US citizen prior to casting a vote. How else would be able to differentiate between people with voting rights, and people who are just here?

If the US did not allow foreigners on its soil, then we could logically assume that everyone located in the US was a US citizen, but this is not the case.

Any US citizen has the right to vote, regardless of religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation,lack therof, and etc.

[L. Coyote]

23. This discussion needs to differenciate registering to vote and voting

Some screening is in order when a person registers to vote, but then the burden should fall to the state to have reasonable cause to deny a regiatration. Thereafter, you should be able to vote without impediment. The burden of insuring that individuals vote only once and are registered only once should fals to the election body, not the individual.

Making voting more difficult disenfranchises specific classes of individuals. Is anyone arguing against this premise?

[Filimon]

25. registering and voting

How can you establish the fact that the person who shows up to vote is the same person who is registered?

How does this disenfranchise anyone? Please give me an example.

I just don't understand your concern.

Do you worry that people will be unable to prove who they are? Do you know of anyone who without a bit of preparation (voting dates are usually published in advance), could not prove their identity?

Or do you have some agenda you'd like to share with us?

[L. Coyote]

27. My agenda: Did you read the title of the thread? "Opinions sought" n/t

[New Earth]

24. don't you mean

Democratic Governor?

oh wait, this is Richardson we are talking about.....heheheheheh :D

[L. Coyote]

26. WI: Voter ID Requirement Out of Committee, Dems oppose it

Voter IDs, Medicaid bailout advance
Doyle likely to reject lawmakers' efforts on the former, accept the latter
By STACY FORSTER Feb. 16, 2005

Madison - A powerful Legislative committee took steps Wednesday to fix what many consider to be two major problems: It advanced a bill to require voters to show photo IDs at the polls, and redirected money to keep the state's Medicaid program afloat.
50043Legislative Action

The Legislature's budget-writing Joint Finance Committee approved the photo ID bill with a 12-4 party-line vote; Republicans generally support the measure, and Democrats oppose it, saying it could disenfranchise voters.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/feb05/302318.asp

Again, the Repubs are solidly behind this issue, but not the Dems.

[Cocoa]

28. interesting article

but your inflammatory commentary makes it impossible to discuss.

and P.S. it's democratic, not democrat. Just so you know...