Watch for Rep. Charlene Lima to introduce legislation today to repeal the Voter ID bill that passed last session and was signed by Governor Chafee. She has been circulating the legislation in the House and has about 15 co-sponsors. It will likely be coming today in tandem with her press statement which was not completed yesterday.
While I’m a big fan of clean elections, I do not support Voter ID because it doesn’t actually fix any of the problems that its advocates seemingly imagine are rampant. Clearly, Voter ID will prevent the impersonation of another individual at a polling station. I will not be able to cast a ballot in South Providence this year claiming to be Sen. Harold Metts, and that is a good thing. But in a state that went to such great lengths to restore the vote of the formerly incarcerated, it is unfortunate that Rhode Island enacted this legislation to correct a problem that doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful way. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law puts it like this:
Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.
Voter ID merely takes a snapshot in time (quite literally) of individual voters and freezes it. Once the IDs are issued, there is no follow up to determine residence in future elections. Voter ID doesn’t prevent people from moving from one district to another and vote in the former district, or double voting, which are what I image fraudulent voting to be. However, the marginal benefit of voting in one district over another is exactly one vote, out of hundred, thousands, or tens of thousands (depending on the election), which is exactly why it so rarely happens. When was the last time an election was decided by a single vote? What Voter ID also ignores is election fraud, which is much more significant an issue, but does not involve voters at all. To quote Scott MacKay on this point:
In recent memory, Rhode Island political chicanery has not involved imposter voters. From Almeida to Zambarano, Cianci to Celona, Martineau to Maselli, it’s been the politicians, not the voters, who have been guilty of corruption.
Here are some clear examples of what Voter ID doesn’t do:
- Case 1: I am a college student living in Providence and register to vote upon arrival. After my first year I move out of the dorms into another district, but continue to vote in my original district using my Student ID. Voter ID does not prevent this.
- Case 2: I am a business owner living in Smithfield, but operating a business in Johnston. I use the utility bill for my business, addressed to me, as proof of my residence. I vote in Johnston, rather than Smithfield. Voter ID does not prevent this.
- Case 3: I use a piece of mail delivered to my house, but addressed to the previous resident, as proof of my residence. I register to vote using this different name and vote twice using two different identities. Voter ID does not prevent this.
- Case 4: Provisional ballots, which are valid once the signature on the ballot is verified as matching the signature on the original voter registration form, will be used for everyone who did not bring an ID to the polling booth. I forge my address on the voter registration form, never bring an ID to vote, and cast provisional ballots at every election in a district where I do not reside. Voter ID does not prevent this.
- Case 5: There is another person named Brian Hull who lives in the same neighborhood in Providence (he was also born in the same year I was). He never registered to vote, but votes at our local precinct, before I do. My name gets crossed off as having voted when I did not actually vote. When I appear at the polling place, I am unable to vote because the other Brian Hull already voted. Voter ID does not prevent this.
- Case 6: There are about 1,400 registered voters on Block Island, a community which has a voting age population of just 825? Voter ID does not prevent this.
To its credit, the Secretary of State’s office understands the legitimate concerns voters have regarding the use of photo IDs to cast a ballots and it began issuing free Voter ID cards earlier this month, albeit during working hours of 8:30-4:30, Monday through Friday (I suppose if you are lucky enough to have a job, good luck getting a Voter ID if you need one). For the period of time between January 3rd (when the Secretary of State first began issuing IDs) and close of business on January 18th, a total of 17 IDs were created and will be mailed out soon. To increase the issuance rate, Mollis’ office will be going to Senior Centers and community groups to provide Voter IDs (you just have to contact the Secretary of State’s office to arrange this). While this will be helpful, it does not actually address the problems likely to be caused by implementation of Voter ID: transient, homeless, elderly, and other population groups that already suffer from underrepresentation will be denied the right to cast a non-provisional ballot when they go to vote for lack of the proper Voter ID.
Here is the press release from Rep. Lima:
Representative Lima announced today that she plans to introduce legislation that will repeal the ill-advised and unneeded Voter ID legislation signed into law last year.
Calling it nothing more than “Jim Crow” disguised as election reform, Representative Lima said that the only reason that the Voter ID bill passed was complacency. No-one believed Rhode Island founded by Roger Williams with a history as a sanctuary for individual rights, free thinkers and religious tolerance since the 17th century would pass such a backward leaning and anti-democratic piece of legislation whose only purpose is to rob our senior citizens, our economically disadvantaged and our growing minority population of their equality at the voting booth under the guise of make- believe voting fraud. The proponents of voting equality were caught off guard and the bill passed.
In 1841 Thomas Dorr led a People’s Convention in RI to give suffrage to many landless and voteless working citizens. Rhode Island voters overwhelmingly supported the voting reforms and on May 19, 1842 in Providence Thomas Dorr and his militia led an unsuccessful attack against the opponents of voting reform and then fled to Chepachet where they hoped to reconvene the People’s Convention. Later Dorr was imprisoned and spent several years in prison before being pardoned in 1845.
However because of the Dorr War and the People’s Convention the Rhode Island Legislature passed some of the most meaningful voting reforms ever seen in November of 1842.
By contrast in 2011 the Rhode Island Legislature took a giant and shameful leap backward in voting equality that surely caused Roger Williams and Thomas Dorr to turn over in their graves by the passage of the Voter ID law of 2011.
Twenty States in 2011 considered legislation that would have required voter ID and to the astonishment of the nation Rhode Island with its Democratic-controlled legislature and proud history of believing in the principles of the freedom and individual rights was the ONLY state with a Democratic controlled legislature to have passed a voter ID law.
Representative Lima said that the Voter ID law is anti-democratic and robs the elderly, the low income, the minorities and our of age students of their constitutional right against impediments that make their voting right more difficult to exercise.
Additionally the voter ID law will cost the State between $1.6 and $4.9 million dollars to implement properly and effectively, according to a recent study released by the Democratic National Committee and referenced in the Projo on July 6, 2011.
Representaticve Lima said, “the main reason for this law can be summed up in two words, “voter fraud”. The only thing fraudulent about voting in Rhode Island is the proponents of Voter ID claims that voter fraud is rampant in Rhode Island. Voter fraud in Rhode Island is nothing more than a manufactured crisis to justify the passing of the voting rights killing ID law. The only thing rampant in Rhode Island is the new migration of the Jim Crows.
It is with some degree of hope that I see so many groups and elected officials rushing to voice their opposition to the voter ID law. Over twenty Representatives have co-sponsored my bill so far.
Also voicing opposition are groups such as the ACLU, NAACP, Univocal Legislative Minority, Progresso Latino, RI coalition of the homeless, the Providence Youth Student movement, COMMON CAUSE, Direct Action for Rights and Equality and the RI Disability Law Project. Our full Congressional delegation has also voiced their opposition to the Voter ID law. With their support for the passage of my legislation and the repeal of Rhode Island’s voting equality bashing ID law I think we can undo the damage done to Rhode Island’s reputation as a protector of individual rights and freedoms. I will be looking for their full and public support because we must work together is we are to effectuate real change to this bad law. I look forward to their help and support.
I will be sending this release to all the groups above as well as to our full delegation in Washington seeking their public input.
[...] www.rifuture.org//rep-lima-to-introduce-voter-id-repeal-legislation.html ProJo: Ed Fitzpatrick: R.I. to get on board with online fiscal notes (A1) By Edward Fitzpatrick It’s exactly the kind of list we don’t want to be on. On Jan. 11, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the American Civil Liberties Union issued a report saying Rhode Island is one of seven states that fail to provide the public with online access to fiscal notes. digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/ProJo/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=VFBKLzIwMTIvMDEvMTk.&pageno=NA..&entity=QXIwMDQwMQ..&view=ZW50aXR5 ProJo Letter to the Editor: In agony without pot (B7) By Stuart Smith Governor Chafee has stated repeatedly that he supports the use of medicinal marijuana. Unfortunately, he has failed to translate his words into effective action. The General Assembly approved professionally-run, state-regulated, non-profit centers. The governor chose not to let these centers open. digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/ProJo/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=VFBKLzIwMTIvMDEvMTk.&pageno=MTk.&entity=QXIwMTkwMw..&view=ZW50aXR5 This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← AS Daily News Roundup: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 [...]
Isn’t there also a huge loophole? I was under impression that the new law also made it a lot easier to vote by mail, in which case voter fraud has been made much EASIER by this law. I may be wrong about this provision, but if it’s true, then the bill is silly not only in that it is a voting barrier that purports to solve a problem that barely exists, but also doesn’t solve the problem and possibly makes it much worse.
Craig, it’s not mail ballots, but provisional ballots. The legislation mandates that EVERYONE cast a provisional ballot if they do not bring their Voter ID. Those signatures are confirmed by the local boards, but no address matching is required.
Voter ID simply restores the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections. We respect the fact that not everyone is in favor of Voter ID, but nearly 85 percent of RI’s registered voters say they are. That’s as strong an endorsement from the people as you’ll ever get.
PS: RI’s Voter ID bill did not address mail ballots. An unrelated bill reduced the number of reasons voters could give for requesting a mail ballot from nine to four — including one for voters who believe it is unlikely they will be able get to their polling place on the day of the election.
Chris,
It’s all about question framing… Asking “Do you approve or disapprove of this approach to stop illegal voting?” will give you inflated approval numbers because it puts the assumption in people’s minds that rampant illegal voting is happening. Just the word ILLEGAL activates a counter response in someone’s mind.
If the question were worded, “Do you support the state of Rhode Island spending up to $1.5 million dollars issuing Voter IDs to people in order to fix a problem that doesn’t actually exist?” I’m sure the results would be very different.
What an extremely disingenuous description that I’m sure most news agencies picked up.
As Brian says, I just can’t imagine a world in which the words “illegal voting” weren’t construed as to make the bill seem more effective (that direct opposite response to “illegal”) than it actually is.
They could have even said “voting reform”, and I would have been interested in the response difference.
Jake, even voting “reform” automatically brings to mind that the process of voting was somehow flawed previously, so obviously it needs to be “reformed” and that reform is a good thing. It’s honestly one of the most difficult issues with polling. How the questions are worded can produce VERY different results.
Brian – Your point is a good one, but not the counterexample you chose. On the merits, nobody can rightfully deny that VoterID is intended to prevent “illegal voting.” There are other ways of framing the idea, but even opponents would have to admit that it is technically factually accurate. Your hypothetical differs in that it supplies your own conclusion about the scope of the problem. Simply using the word “illegal” in a question is not some egregious manipulation of perception.
With regard to the source article, I’ve never heard that elderly voters are “underrepresented” before. That’s a new one. The traditional understanding of political campaigners has been that the elderly are the most coveted demographic because they are hugely overrepresented in voting.
RTW,
Very true. I was using the Oxford comma, intending to imply four distinct groups:
1) the transient population
2) the homeless population
3) the elderly population
4) other population groups that already suffer from underrepresentation.
I didn’t intend to imply that the third group is underrepresented.
Here’s something from the “You Won’t Believe This” department, the South Carolina Voter ID law (dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/state-lawmakers-sc-voter-id-law-would-prevent-dead-people-from-voting/) was not able to prevent 953 dead people from voting (www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries). Oh, the irony.
W need voter ID laws that are even stronger. I don’t buy that immigrants and elder don’t have photo ID’s. I’m an immigrant and I have an ID, my father is is not only an immigrant he is 79 Years and has ID’s with photo. This is just a simple bunch of excuses for not cleaning up the system. In RI the most represented group is the elderly population, simply look who keeps getting voted in; are you kidding me? Let’s not use what happened in South Carolina because all it means is that the law is not strong enough and doesn’t go far enough.
“I don’t buy that immigrants and elder don’t have photo ID’s.”
But the facts aren’t with you on that.
“Citizens Without Proof: A survey of americans’ possession of documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification”
*******
As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.8 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID.
Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. Survey results indicate that seniors disproportionately lack photo identification. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID.9 Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6 million senior citizens.
Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.10 Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification. Our survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical significance.11
Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess photo identification. Citizens earning less than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo identification as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID.12
Photo identification often does not reflect current information. For many of those who possess current, valid government-issued photo ID, the documentation does not reflect their current information. For example, survey results show that ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo ID with both their current address and their current legal name. The rate is higher among younger citizens: as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have photo ID with current address and name; using 2004 census tallies, that amounts to almost 4.5 million American citizens.13
*******
But isn’t the whole progressive schtick that rights aren’t unlimited and therefore “reasonable” restraints should be placed on them through the political process? I don’t see how obtaining a free piece of plastic, to which any citizen of the United States is entitled, is any kind of a meaningful burden if a citizen wants to vote. The risk or even perception of noncitizens voting is something that undermines our entire political process.
Technically there is constitutionally protected right to vote. Perhaps there should be. For now, it’s just a question of whether we chose a system that enfranchises the poor. minorities, and the elderly or we don’t.
“I don’t see how obtaining a free piece of plastic, to which any citizen of the United States is entitled, is any kind of a meaningful burden if a citizen wants to vote.”
And what about those that don’t have a birth certiifcate or have a birth certificate with information different than their current legal name? Granted in RI you can just show a bogus health club id and get a fake ID card, no problem. The law here doesn’t do much to stop actual fraud (not that there was much if any to stop anyway). Unfortunately many legitimate voters are sure to get caught up in this.
Er, technically there is NO constitutionally,,,
You have a Constitutional right to vote. The right is recognized in the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 25th Amendments and mountains of case law. It is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions.
I’m just not convinced by these “racism” or “ageism” arguments. VoterID is a neutral law of general applicability and it doesn’t burden any class of citizens beyond obtaining a free piece of plastic from the government, to which they are legally entitled. Nothing you describe is a significant obstacle to doing so.
These arguments also don’t strike me as principled and seem to be entirely outcome-driven, which I’ve already pointed out is a troubling pattern with progressive politics. Progressives are usually unpersuaded by overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness arguments against highly flawed policies they happen to support, such as affirmative action.
“VoterID is a neutral law of general applicability and it doesn’t burden any class of citizens beyond obtaining a free piece of plastic from the government…”
No burden and yet so many people don’t have a valid picture ID.
Notably you don’t dispute that the RI law is a farce with regard to stopping those actually intent on commiting voter fraud (reminds me of “The Jerk” – OK, as long as you have a voucher! Anything else, Mrs. Nussbaum?). But tighten those rules, and I think the courts would see the law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
I’m an agnostic on the question of how many illegal votes such a law would stop. I think only a delusional person would claim that it never happens, but putting aside the extent of the problem for a moment, I support the requirement because it’s such a miniscule burden and it would go a long way to restoring the perception of integrity of our voting process, which has greatly eroded in recent years.
Corruption is a similar issue in some respects. It’s not that there are a ton of politicians out there taking cash bribes, but when it does happen, it does so much damage to the public perception of our government that it’s worth prosecuting at huge legal expense. From a short-term cost-benefit perspective, prosecuting Chuck Turner for a $1000 bribe isn’t worth it, but it’s important to ensuring the perception of integrity of our government.