HAVA needs numerical-formula state goals to prevent "Voter ID"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

and other cynical Republican state legislative attacks on the right to vote, IMO.

"Voter ID" restrictions were actually encouraged by the pre-Help America Vote Act Carter-Baker Commission. HAVA needs to be amended to mandate a numerical-formula primary goal for every state and mandatory cost-benefit analysis, IMO.

The numerical goal for vote administration in each state should be maximizing, in every locality and among every demographic group, the proportion of voting-age citizens (including prisoners incarcerated in- and out-of state) who actually vote in statewide and National elections.

Cost-benefit analysis must be mandated to at least measure the impact of "vote-fraud" measures on the primary goal. How many legitimate voters would be disfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented? If this would be over 1.000, then such a measure must be barred by law.

Establishing by law such a primary benchmark for every proposed voting "reform" is IMO the only way to stop cynical but subtle attacks on the right to vote.

Jimmy Carter let us down a first time on voting rights by opposing mandatory national voting standards on the Carter-Ford Commission in 2001. Numerical goals and cost-benefit analysis must be mandated by national standards, IMO.

A dissent from the Carter-Baker Commission report shows how Jimmy Carter let us down again, by allowing Republican Prince of Darkness Jim Baker to slip a big one one by him.

From http://www.carterbakerdissent.com :

"Commissioner Spencer Overton, [e-mail]

DISSENTING STATEMENT

I am a professor who specializes in election law, and I served on the Carter-Baker Commission.

...the Commission's Report fails to undertake a serious cost-benefit analysis. The existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result of the Commission's ID proposal is exceedingly large.

According to the 2001 Carter-Ford Commission, an estimated 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans (approximately 11 million to 19 million potential voters) do not possess a driver's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID, and these numbers are likely to rise as the "Real ID Act" increases the documentary requirements for citizens to obtain acceptable identification. The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission does not and cannot establish that its "Real ID" requirement would exclude even one fraudulent vote for every 1000 eligible voters excluded. ..."

[ProgressiveEconomist]

1. Many other Federal programs of grants to the states have such...

benchmarks.

For example, the successor program to welfare cash for dependent children requires states to measure how many mothers and fathers getting the money are employed (rather than tying the Federal money to child poverty reduction!)

When Federal "strings" are attached to grants to the states, they generally toe the line. To paraphrase Ross Perot, "You don't get what you EXpect, you get what you INspect by means of precise numerical performance/accountability measurements."

When money goes out to the states without sensible gudelines, IMO politicians in power will use it to feather their own nests, in this case by suppressing votes for the Democratic party.

My cross-post to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/13/145049/554 got some interesting requests for clarification. Unlike DU, dKos has no time limit for editing OPs, so I was able to try to make my proposal clearer, in response to Kossack replies.