Another Alleged Case of Voter Fraud
For the second time, local prosecutors contend a new state-run database has caught someone double-voting in Milwaukee County.
Ronald Hoppus, 49, of the 2800 block of S. 71st St. was charged this week with a single felony count of election fraud for voting twice in the November election, according to a criminal complaint filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. He would face up to 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted.
Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf said investigators found Hoppus’ alleged multiple votes when Milwaukee elections officials attempted to enter his Nov. 7 voting information from the Fairview School polling place on W. Kinnickinnic Parkway into a statewide database used to track who voted.
“They got a big buzz” indicating Hoppus was already in the database from election records from Brookfield that same day, Landgraf said.
Hoppus told investigators in March that he voted at Fairview School in the morning, then took a utility bill from a house he owns in Brookfield, where his fiancée lives, and registered to cast a ballot in Brookfield “on some local issues that he felt were important,” the complaint says.
I’m starting to love the state voter database.
OK, before all of the liberals start pooh-poohing voter fraud and saying that it’s not a problem, let’s run through a few scenarios…
In Wisconsin, we don’t need a picture ID to vote. If you are registered, all you have to do it give them your name and address and you will be allowed to vote. Also, we allow same day registration. You can take several forms of documentation to prove identity (not necessarily a picture ID) and register to vote on the same day of the election. How many ways can you fraud the system?
I could steal, forge, or borrow a utility bill, register to vote, and cast a ballot. When the elections board tries to confirm my registration after the fact, it wouldn’t matter because the vote is already cast. I could never be prosecuted because there’s no way to prove what I did. Thousands of same-day registrations proved to be invalid after the 2000 and 2004 elections in Milwaukee alone.
I could vote as a felon. There’s no way for the people working the polls to check. I could be prosecuted after the fact, but it’s a hard case to prove because I could just claim that someone voted under my name. Since identity is not verified at the polls, there’s no way to disprove my claim. Watch how many of the 82 cases of this actually result in a guilty verdict. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that very few will be convicted.
If I move, I could vote in both jurisdictions. It is the responsibility of the local clerk to purge the voter rolls of people that no longer live there. But often, they have no idea that you’ve moved until someone else comes in to register to vote with your address. Furthermore, many clerks are just lazy and don’t purge the rolls. Odds are, I could still vote in Germantown, where I haven’t lived for four years. Again, you could prosecute me after the fact, but I could claim the same thing that the felon did and you couldn’t disprove my claim.
I could just walk up to the polling place, look at the book, pick out a name and address, claim that I’m that person, and vote. The only way anyone would ever know is if the real person came in later. But you would never find me or be able to prosecute me.
I could pick a name and address out of the phone book and go into vote. As long as the person hadn’t voted already (and the odds are in my favor in low turnout elections), I could cast a ballot and nobody would ever know. If the person had voted already, I could just turn tail and walk out. I can probably outrun the octogenarian manning the polls.
If I own property in two or more districts, I could vote in each of them. Again, you could prosecute me after the fact, but you would be unlikely to get a conviction because I could just claim that someone else voted with my name.
If I am an illegal alien from Iowa that went to Wisconsin to get a drivers’ license, I could use that license to register to vote… and then vote. Although I’m not a citizen, I could still cast a vote.
I could go on, but I think that reasonable people get the point. With our current system, almost anyone with a brain stem can fraud the system and it is impossible to prove that they did it.
This is why I support voter ID. It would help deter voter fraud and make convictions of voter fraud more attainable. This is why I support the state voter database. It will allow for cross-checking and cleaner voter rolls. This is why I support better training and oversight of poll workers. It will help ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed on election day. This is why I support the Real ID bill, which helps make sure that only citizens can get a drivers license - the key to legitimacy. This is why I support abolishing same-day registration. It is a policy designed for abuse.
Will these things make elections completely secure? No. But it helps make it better. And it helps make sure that our elections reflect the real will of the people and not the will of a fraudulent few.
One guy. One crackpot.
There is probably yard work that would be better spent than the 18 inches above on something which happens on occasion, on rare occasion.
But you sure advocate for something that is swatting a fly with a Howitzer and is another term for voter suppression.
Let me take one real world example of why this is a pain in the ass for no good reason.
Since we know many people who are poor don’t have driver’s licenses and so we would make them go to the DMV to get ID.
Been to the DMV lately? Thanks to you all bawling for tax cuts there is hardly any staff and so you better bring reading material because you will be there for hours. Now let’s throw some more people in there applying for ID’s. But maybe they won’t because the most of the poor are working poor holding down two or three jobs, and won’t have the time. In other words. Voter suppression.
Fortunately those Texas tactics will be blocked thanks to one state house in the legislation not under the hand of the GOP. It would be nice if these folks would devote their time on real issues which we have in abundance instead of trying to game the system.
This is bogus. This is transparent. But once you guys get a fetish you can’t shake it no matter how much reality clubs you over the head.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1234 hrs
kr,
That’s just total crap.
Since we know many people who are poor don’t have driver’s licenses and so we would make them go to the DMV to get ID.
Really? Do we know that? How many? Why not? Is it because of the inconvenience or because they don’t want to? The voter ID bill that was proposed offered free licenses to poor folks. There was even talk of a mobile license van to accommodate poor folks. And what cost does society take for accommodating folks who are too lazy to get a license? Are 10 fraudulent votes acceptable for this convenience? 100? 1000?
I know that in your little fantasy world, you think that I just want to suppress the vote. There’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. But in reality, I just want fair elections. I don’t want my vote to be invalidated by the vote of someone from Chicago, or an illegal alien, or a huckster, or a felon, or anyone else.
One vote. One person. That’s all I’m asking for.
Posted by Owen on April 14, 2007 at 1254 hrs
>Since we know many people who are poor don’t have driver’s licenses and so we would make them go to the DMV to get ID.
The last incarnation of the Voter ID bill did not require a drivers license, and did not require the “poor” to pay any fees for a state photo ID. Hell, even if a person did not have an ID, they could still vote, if someone who does have a photo ID would vouch and sign for them.
Where’s your righteous indignation at the poor not being able to purchase certain over the counter medications without showing a photo ID. That bill had huge support by both parties, why doesn’t showing an ID to vote? Maybe because one party is extremely hypocritical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1423 hrs
kr, what you are basically saying is that poor people would have have to wait- well too bad and that drivers will also have to wait- probably, but you know what, it won’t be that much longer. May be if you brought some reading material next time you go to the DMV, you won’t make such stupid comments.
It’s not voter superession, unless you are advocating supression of illegal voters, which you are.
So what if it was person, but it has been more than 1 person and probably more than a thousand people, but we’ll never know because low lifes like Doyle, other liberals and other advocates of no photo ID keep blocking photo ID bills.
Let’s see, you need a photo ID to rent a movie, get perscriptions filled if picking up a narcotic, library card, cash a check, get money from the bank, get a job etc.. Are the poor being discriminated against or is it just that you, kr, just want a bunch of illegals, felons and other people not qualified to vote, be able to vote and as many times as they want? And what do you say to the person whose vote was cancelled out by this moron? No big deal?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1509 hrs
This Wauwatosa case looks like fraud, agreed—because there appears to be evidence of intent. Intent is required for fraud.
So I hope to see lots of those orange t-shirts at the polls there next time, before Wauwatosa is allowed to continue to bring down democracy.
But when a felon presented an ID that clearly said “FELON” on it, and it was accepted, and he voted—that was not fraud. That was error on the part of the poll worker. Same with several other cases incorrectly called voter fraud. So let"s not go there again
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1554 hrs
If you recall the case of Donovan Riley we have laws already against multiple voting.
Come on. We’re not stupid. We know what this all about. Stick to some real issues.
Recent evidence demonstrates that multiple voting and illegal voting is not at all widespread.
My righteous indignation is for the status quo in which injury is very minimal. Yours is voter suppression. Yes, and I agree with you on the BS on the medications so the point is mute.
And Dan, regarding my point about wanting illegals to vote—you know where you can file that one (notice the politeness Jed).
As far as the extent of illegal voting Dan, don’t speculate, read this—http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html.
Since this is not a real problem this is simply a tool to get people like you hot and bothered over nothing.
And you are so much for fair elections does that indignation extent to paperless voting. What about insufficient resources to have enough polls and poll workers so that people don’t have to stand in line eight hours. Those are the real problems.
This other one is basically made up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1602 hrs
The state database IS a good idea. The fact that it links to the DOT and DOC databases is also step in the right direction. Without photo ID, however, it will never reach it’s full potential. Hopefully, when we do get a governor and legislature that is committed to stopping voter fraud, the tools will be put to better use.
As a poll worker, I would like to correct you on a few things. First, local felons have been removed from the poll lists and a list is provided by the DOC to check in case they try to re-register. Second, the clerks are supposed to clean the poll lists after the Presidential election to keep them accurate (I know ours has done this). When you move, the clerk in your previous municipality is notified of the change and should remove you from that poll list. You’re right, though, that without photo ID and with same-day registration, there are plenty of loopholes if a person is willing to risk it, including the “pick a name and address out of the phone book” scenario.
ps. Since I’m not an octogenarian I might be able to catch you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1654 hrs
Good to see you’re doing your bit Wiggie;)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1735 hrs
wiaggie,
I echo kr. Thanks for doing the work.
Posted by Owen on April 14, 2007 at 1749 hrs
kr - Maybe I’m just missing it, but please explain to me with a logical step-by-step rational argument how asking someone to show a photo ID is voter suppression?
For those very few people that don’t have one - because they are needed for all of the reasons stated above - all proposals have made accomodations to go out of their way to make getting an ID quite easy. Lines at the DMV notwithstanding, too bad, I am employed and have to wait in lines too.
Could the reason really be maybe, just maybe, that most of the “poor” (illegals, felons, central city residents, etc.) vote liberal? That seems a far more plausible explanation for the outrage expressed.
I don’t care if you vote liberal, I don’t agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. The point is, 1 legal citizen = 1 legal vote
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1758 hrs
How would the Real Voter ID bill deal with these problems:
1. Someone moves close to an election or is temporarily without a permanent residence and the address where they live does not match the one on their driver’s license.
2. A person has a suspended driver’s license which can happen for failure to pay tickets, child support, civil judgments, municipal fines.
3. Students, particularly out-of-state but not neccessarily, who attend Wisconsin Universities or Colleges, but have no local IDs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1804 hrs
The Real ID bill doesn’t deal with any of those issues. It deals with requiring proof of citizenship to get a license. But I’ll answer your questions in a general sense:
1. So what? Most states require someone to register to vote a couple of weeks in advance. I’ll concede that a few people might not be allowed to vote in this circumstance, but that’s a small price to pay for a secure ballot box.
2. Voter ID does not require that a license be valid - only that it validate the person’s identity. A suspended license would work just fine.
3. Again, so what? If the student wants to vote in his or her home district, then they can do so. If they want to vote in the district in which the school is, then they can change residence and get a license. It’s not that big a deal.
Posted by Owen on April 14, 2007 at 1812 hrs
When I was in college they had this new-fangled thingy called an absentee ballot…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 1823 hrs
As for the case at hand, how would voter ID have prevented the double-voting? If the man owned property in Brookfield, and could prove it, he could easily have had an ID for that address. I have two old drivers’ licenses from the two apartments I lived in before I bought my house (I cannot fathom why the DMV doesn’t take the old ones). If someone can explain how voter ID would really stop someone like him who wants to vote twice, I will gladly listen.
I’ve had this argument here before, and no one seems to care: Voting is our most fundamental right in a democracy. Any impediment, any action that, by design or by accident, prevents eligible voters from casting a legal vote should be avoided at all cost. Period. We know from a comprehensive analysis that voter ID laws decrease voter trunout by far more than any reasonable estimate of voter fraud. That trade-off is unconscionable.
Posted by folkbum on April 14, 2007 at 1827 hrs
folkbum,
As for the case at hand, how would voter ID have prevented the double-voting?
It wouldn’t have, but it would make prosecution easier. This is a target for the state voter database.
Any impediment, any action that, by design or by accident, prevents eligible voters from casting a legal vote should be avoided at all cost. Period.
Here’s where we disagree. You see, I think that a legal vote that is prevented from being legally cast is as bad as an illegal vote, because an illegal vote cancels out a legal vote. Some reasonable requirements to prove that one is legally allowed to cast a vote is better than allowing the possibility of fraudulent votes.
Posted by Owen on April 14, 2007 at 1835 hrs
Owen, you lost me. In your post at the top, you say that voter ID would deter voter fraud. Now you say it wouldn’t, but at least it would allow prosecution afterward. So it wouldn’t result in one voter, one vote.
That is, this is not a big deal in the case of a few votes in a big town, but if it is the source of widespread problems, as you say, then it could affect election results, right? And that wouldn’t be solved by prosecution some time afterward—unless you also see the law as requiring a reversal of such results? (I don’t see that in it. But maybe that’s because it would revert to other laws already in place to reverse election results.)
So is the intent of voter ID to deter voter fraud and ensure elections are run well, or is it to punish afterward? Or if you see that it would do both, as you probably do since you said both and didn’t mean that the second comment replaces the first comment, please clarify how it would achieve both?
Because if it doesn’t, then there still is need for a better bill, because the laws to punish double voters and the like obviously already are in place. And so is the state voter database.
So I’m lost as to what the voter ID bill really would do to prevent these election problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 2212 hrs
What this boils down to is a handful of voter violations. What it also boils down to an abandonment of conservative principles. Doesn’t the idea of everyone having some kind of government picture ID smack of government control?
But what the hell. We have one house of the state legislature. This ain’t going to happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 2217 hrs
The clients I see at my job are at or below the poverty level. Well over 90% of them are of color. I’d say more than three quarters have no driver’s license or photo ID. (When they do have a license, it’s suspended because they couldn’t afford to pay tickets or parking fees). Now let’s say your wonderful voter ID bill sends mobile ID units out to poor neighborhoods to offer free IDs to folks. That’s great. The reason I see these people is because they are facing eviction. So many of the poor people I deal with don’t stay at one address for more than a year. Many times they’re forced to move several times during the course of year. (A reality that is reflected in federal law that requires a school district to provide transportation for these poor children to their original school so they don’t bounce around from school to school and fall behind). By the time the next election rolls around that voter ID will be several address behind their current one. Essentially, it’d be useless. Unless they go and wait in line at the DMV or wherever and get a new ID. Now, how does this NOT put a burden on one population that makes it more difficult for them to vote? And who will be the first ones to shout fraud when Joe Smith with a free photo ID with an address that he doesn’t live at?
A free ID is wonderful. But it doesn’t solve the problem. The reality of the chronically poor in central city Milwaukee is one that is not the least bit of you are familiar with.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 2230 hrs
MichaelP- bull sh..t. i used to teach at North Division and did home visits in the neighborhood. I also used to live by KK and Lincoln, so I do know what is going on in those neighborhoods.
Voting takes some effort and responsibility from everyone. Granted, for some people, it takes some extra effort. The people you are talking about have to take some responsibility for both voting and responsibility in their lives.
You are just making some excuses for them. They can get the ID’s if they want to. You are just have low expectations of your clients, perhaps you should set some higher standards.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 14, 2007 at 2336 hrs
Dan, this was my Saturday, based on your litany on #4
“you need a photo ID to rent a movie”
Nope, Blockbuster card
“library card”,
Just a library card
“cash a check”
Nope—Pick and Save card
“get money from the bank”
Simply wrote a checkAs far as the narcotic medication, I believe when I did a Joe Theismann on my ankle last year my wife just showed up and got it at Walgreens.
Any how, none of these are rights per se, voting is. What comes with rights is the trust that people will exercise them legally. If not, we have legal recourse. We do not make those rights more difficult to exercise.
My God. You people want something bad here for some reason. That reason is probably not legal elections. That reason is because some GOP strategist thought hey, let’s get our mob fired up and at the same time supress what we regard to be Democratic voters. And you wonder why Blacks don’t swing over to your side. In one word…
Intelligence
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 0013 hrs
Dan, this was my Saturday, based on your litany on #4
“you need a photo ID to rent a movie”
Nope, Blockbuster card
“library card”,
Just a library card
“cash a check”
Nope—Pick and Save card
“get money from the bank”
Simply wrote a check
But how did you get these things in the 1st place?
You can’t just walk into one of these places and say I’d like a card. You need to show an ID, or other form of identifaction 1st.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 0127 hrs
You are right Cheaney, you had to show some ID—for a library card you needed a utility bill, a credit card for a blockbuster card, and nothing for a pick n save card. And like KR said, none of these are like voting, the foundation of our democracy.
Dan, I find it laughable that you know what “those neighborhoods” are like because you once lived on KK & Lincoln. But you really don’t answer the problem I mentioned. “Higher standards” does not remove the obstacles that a poor person would face to obtain an ID, sometimes everytime they had to vote since they move a lot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1021 hrs
Michael, I’m glad you have such a sense of humor. Since I have the same qualifications as you- working with people in the inner city, that must mean you find laughable your qualifications as to know what poor people go through.
A little about myself- I moved 4 times in the past 12 months, yet I had and have a current photo ID at each residence. I have been homeless, many years ago, so I know what is to be broke and poor, but I didn’t make excuses. I pulled myself up by working at jobs that barely paid minimum wage and worked my way up and never got government assistance. I paid my way through college- never taking a loan and now am a special ed. teacher. So, don’t give me this crap about how a photo ID bill hinders people- it’s bullsh..it. I know first hand.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1054 hrs
Dan:
I wouldn’t worry about Michael P. if the people he worked with had personal responsibilty, he’d be out of a job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1123 hrs
As I read these comments, I think Dan made the best point in #19. Voting is important and should take a little effort because it is a responsibility. We’re not talking about calling in a vote to American Idol here…elections have a huge impact on all of our lives.
The arguments against tightening the rules are all based on the assumption that we need to make it as easy as possible to cast a vote…to the extent that there really few impediments to voter fraud. I think we’ve been fortunate that people have not taken more advantage of the loopholes, like some of the ones Owen pointed out. I believe the burden should fall on the individual to have their affairs somewhat in order. We could always resort to the purple dye like in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Michael P - Once legitimately registered, it’s up to the individual to keep his proper polling location up-to-date…the database is there only to track the changes (which is why DL# is considered mandatory when you re-register in a new place). It is not considered fraud to vote in a place you don’t live. There are retirees who still request and cast absentee ballots in their former place of residence. College students also would fall in this category.
None of the proposals I’ve seen in any way prevent legitimate voters from casting a ballot. If your license is suspended, the DOT makes provisions so that you can still keep it as a photo ID. Proposals all make accommodations for those who have exceptional situations. If your life is such a mess that you don’t have a permanent residence, voting probably isn’t your highest priority, but you’ve probably got an address where you’ve made arrangements to get your government checks (my step-son is in this situation right now with unemployment). The rules do, however, need to have enough teeth to prevent misuse and the punishment severe enough to deter people from risking it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1136 hrs
As far as the narcotic medication, I believe when I did a Joe Theismann on my ankle last year my wife just showed up and got it at Walgreens.
Does ANYBODY see ANYTHING wrong with THIS picture?
You can walk into a Pharmacy, give them your name -or anyone elses for that matter-, and walk out with vicodin, oxycontin, valium or ANY other narcotic medication, that is supposedly “regulated” but you CANNOT, purchase over the counter or “non regulated’ Allergy or cold medication, WITHOUT a photo ID?:bug:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1137 hrs
I fully agree Michael.
But this nonsense about the cold medications being used for meth labs is as overblown and as much political grandstanding as alledged voting fraud. Notice we’re back on topic.
The New York Times said it best today:
The more we learn about the White House’s purge of United States attorneys, the more a single thread runs through it: the Bush administration’s campaign to transform the minor problem of voter fraud into a supposed national scourge.
Last week, we learned that the administration edited a government-ordered report on voter fraud to support its fantasy. The original version concluded that among experts “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.” But the publicly released version said, “There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.” It’s hard to see that as anything but a deliberate effort to mislead the public.
Because charges of voter fraud are a key component of the Republican electoral strategy. If the public believes there are rampant efforts to vote fraudulently, or to register voters improperly, it increases support for measures like special voter ID’s, which work against the poor, the elderly, minorities and other disenfranchised groups that tend to support Democrats. Claims of rampant voter fraud also give the administration an excuse to cut back prosecutions of the real problem: officials who block voters’ access to the polls.
There is one big catch, as Eric Lipton and Ian Urbina reported in The Times last week. After a five-year crackdown, the Justice Department has not turned up any evidence that voter fraud actually is a problem. Only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud crimes as of last year - most of them Democrats and many on trivial, trumped-up charges.
The Bush administration was so determined to pursue this phantom scourge that it deported a legal Florida resident back to his native Pakistan for mistakenly filling out a voter registration card when he renewed his driver’s license. And it may well have decided to fire most of the eight federal prosecutors because they would not play along.
But you all SO MUCH want to believe. What’s with the allergy to facts?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1625 hrs
I think the whole issue can be summed up in 3 words: “perception becomes reality”
But just as you stated earlier that the whole cold medication/Meth lab connection is overblown and Political Grandstanding, so too (I believe) is the argument that the Elderly, Minority, and “other disenfranshised groups” somehow will be even more disenfranshised or intimidated by having to show an ID, to vote is absurd.
BTW: Great job shifting back to topic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 1656 hrs
But why have anyone go through inconvenience when no widespread crime has been committed, as Bush’s DOJ has proven (or failed to prove).
The real reason for this is withering away as we speak. This is equivalent to meteor pebble strikes 68 woman and so we demand meteor shields must be installed every where (I do have better analogies).
This is whole thing is perception becomes reality—for a small group of hard core rightwingers.
I would think that the Bush administration’s extremely poor record about advocating for anything be it WMD’s to now abstinence only education as this week’s Congressional research showed, shows it has been filed for divorce from reality than Zsa Zsa Gabor has from husbands.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2000 hrs
Just a question- the cases of voter fraud where charges are filed- are these in federal court, state court or both?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2007 hrs
This is an All-Star Cheddarsphere Pier 6 brawl - awesome with lots of good points to go around on BOTH sides.
This is blogging at it’s best - thanks for leading the way to all of you!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2157 hrs
Agreed—I keep coming back to learn more perspectives, too.
The point about how small the problem may be—I know and agree that even one miscast (for many reasons) vote is wrong, but —makes me wonder if anyone remembers what the cost of the voter ID, database, etc., all was going to add up to be? I seem to recall reading it, and with some surprise at the size of the cost.
If it is a sizeable cost, in the current budget climate, perhaps the thing to do is phase in various parts of it, trying out any part of it on a small scale, in a couple of counties, before trying to do so in the most populated counties. So many times, it seems that only then are problems seen that cost even more to fix.
I don’t think that we can afford any more of those cut-rate attempts to do things on the cheap in this state, with so many problems with the computer systems that weren’t sufficiently staffed. I don’t think that we can afford to keep passing laws that have a lot of costs that we only find out about later (and usually find out that they’re to be paid not by the state but by the counties, cities, etc.)
But if there is something that we really must do, let’s try doing it a step at a time, to spread out the costs and maybe cost less by trying it out first before trying to make it work everywhere at once.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 15, 2007 at 2231 hrs
Any illegally cast vote is a problem. One vote can turn an election, so whether it’s thousands or 82 or 1, it is still worth addressing.
Voter suppression is an equal problem whenever you increase barriers to voting (like requiring a photo ID or eliminating same day registration).
So let’s talk about ways to keep access open (allow people to vote) but secure the ballot box (prevent people from voting who aren’t eligible).
First, use available technology to verify voters. Forget touch screens and all that, there is simple scantron technology that’s been available for 3 or 4 decades that electronically tabulates ballots and preserves the paper trail. If you are going to invest in something, invest in systems that allow the people working at the polling place to run the magnetic strip on state issued ID’s so that the person isn’t marked off only at one location, but at all locations.
Second, create a system where people without ID’s or same day registrants can cast provisional ballots that will be held until they are verified as eligible voters. ID scans/swipes would solve a lot of this, even with same day, but those without ID’s can have their ballots set aside.
Third, remember that election results are not determined the night of the election. Just because a news organization reports preliminary vote totals doesn’t mean they are final.
Fourth, between election day and when totals are officially announced, allow clerks to verify any outstanding ballots and voters with provisional ballots to come in and verifiy their address. In a race where the margin was 5,000 votes, but only 1,000 provisional ballots were cast this won’t be necessary. But in a race where the provisionals are greater than the margin this would allow all votes to be counted.
I’m sure that there are other steps that could be taken, like motor voter, or address verification across different state DB’s. I would personally argue for two or three day elections, although the impact on voter turnout this has had in other countries is debateable.
At the end of the day though, we can take this out of the political realm where some people really do want suppress votes and others really aren’t concerned with the integrity of the ballot box, and find a common sense solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 16, 2007 at 1416 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).