About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Voting Issues

And Also: The NY Mets announced its new general manager, Sandy Alderson getting a four year deal while the old GM still is being paid. The opening announcement was bland, but one hopes for the best.

A Slate article recently argued that it simply isn't that rational to think (as compared to argue, one might say) that voter fraud is a real threat to democracy. As the article noted:
And for what? The prospect of winning a few extra votes for a candidate you support simply isn't worth the risk of jail time. (This is especially true for illegal immigrants, who want to vote even if it means risking deportation, according to some anti-fraud crusaders.) And for large organizations, there are much better, safer, more efficient ways to steal an election, such as bribing an election official or tampering with voting machines. The punishment is just as harsh, but those methods require the participation of fewer people.
Another article in fact did provide reasons to be concerned about those voting machines. Some continue to worry about the snipe hunt though and unlike some snipe hunts, real harms result [see one reply by Arlington here]. One example are the real burdens that occur when stringent id laws exist. I'm with the dissenting appellate panel vote in the ultimate voter id law (a facial challenge, the controlling opinion leaving open some challenges) that reached the Supreme Court:
I believe that most of the problems with our voting system--like deceased persons or felons on registration rolls, machines that malfunction, and confusing ballots (think butterfly)--are suggestive of mismanagement, [**22] not electoral wrongdoing. And I recognize that there is, and perhaps there may always be, a fundamental tension between claims of voter fraud and fears of disenfranchisement. But Indiana's law, because it allows nothing except a passport or an Indiana ID card to prove that a potential voter is who he says he is, tips far too far in the wrong direction.
I think the dissenting votes in the Supreme Court ruling were correct as well. The Arizona voting law case that was subject to some discussion of late, particularly given Justice O'Connor (sitting as court of appeals judge) took part, deals with id questions as well. The ruling held that citizenship provision was preempted by federal law (which it held required a weaker rule) but that upheld the id aspect. This included a reference to the 24th Amendment, holding that any cost was not what "tax" meant there. It is of note that the law does NOT require photo id; two non-photo ids that appear to be fairly easy to obtain (see FN2) will do.

Over here, we simply sign in, but showing a utility bill and bank statement etc. seems acceptable, though I can understand if there was some problems in certain cases that would have to be addressed. The U.S. Supreme Court case involved a state photo id, which is quite different. When a $1.50 poll tax is not acceptable, since it was seen as a way to suppress turnout with racial implications, the costs and bother of such id (and who are most negatively affected) would seem problematic as well. If nothing else, as a general illegitimate burden on voting, such burdens including of at the creative kind, and those clearly meant to favor certain groups. As the dissenting appellate judge previous referenced noted:
Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.
The Supreme Court in Crawford did not treat the question as a 24th Amendment issue as such. But in another case, involving another troublesome area (felony disenfranchisement, which has improved over the last decade), the dissenting opinion noted there was some debate on the subject among the courts that handled the question. I think the matter is pretty obvious. The case itself was a tricky one: "conditioning restoration of their voting rights on payment of court-ordered victim restitution and child support obligations." One aspect: the dissent notes that a small part of the money collected has a flavor of a tax. Anyway, as one case cited noted:
While requiring payment to obtain a birth certificate is not a poll tax ․ it is a fee ․ [and] Harper makes clear that all fees that impose financial burdens on eligible citizens' right to vote, not merely poll taxes, are impermissible under federal law.
That is, when the id required costs money in some fashion, in effect you are being required to pay something by the government to vote. Of course, voting could in some fashion cost something, in some sense. A trip to the DMV might cost carfare or gas. But, actually, it very well might cost nothing, at most a stamp to send the registration or mail-in vote in. An official non-driver's id and so forth does cost money though. The Carter/Baker Commission (see Breyer's dissenting opinion in Crawford) suggesting requiring picture id, but over a span of time, those financially unable having a chance to obtain it for free. Arguably, if it's a poll tax, ability to pay isn't the issue. It's illegitimate overall.

Still, we need not be absolutist here. The principle, however, is that voting is not supposed to be a burden or requirements discriminatory. In various situations, this rule is violated. 2004 Ohio underlined various possible problems, including certain districts having sub-par machines or long lines. Bush v. Gore flagged the problem of different voting standards, though the true victims were not the plaintiff in that case. The second Slate article underlines that it is still not that clear that our voting machines provide an evenhanded counting of votes, certain machines more problematic than others.

As noted in 2004: "Voting is kind of an irrational act anyway. It’s easy to discourage people from doing it." TPM has done yeoman work reporting the partisan nature of the effort against "voter fraud," leading the way reporting it as a key issue in the firing of the Bush prosecutors. Even when a few unlikely people who are found that have broken the rules, it is basically never nefarious. Some alien thinks those on the road to citizenship can vote. A released felon isn't aware of the rules. Some tricky rule leads to a double vote or a vote in the wrong place. The token number among millions of voters underlines that using a hammer to kill a fly is liable to lead to more problems. Overall, voter suppression, direct or indirect, intentional or de facto, is the true problem.

The Supreme Court basically said that the real concern behind voter id and similar laws was the image of purity, not actual evidence of a serious problem. This is not something to sneer at though the solution is not burdens on people's right to vote. The problem of distrust in the system, including voting, is clear. It should be, but is not, a bipartisan effort that addresses the various sides in a reasonable manner. One can add the issue of campaign finance, reforms in disclosure laws something that some bipartisan majority should find some room for agreement. The Arizona law shows an id law in a conservative state can be balanced; even picture id laws can be possibly handled if done correctly. Ultimately, it is important for our republican values, voting a core matter there, to do things right.

I fear that the results on Tuesday will not help the issue. We shall see. I think I shall skip the drawn out results watching and wait to the view them. Too much like watching the Giants hold on to a lead, well, before the World Series.