Secretary of State Sam Reed will hold another public meeting of the "Election Reform Task Force", Monday, February 14th, 6 - 8 pm at Highline Community College Student Union Building in Des Moines.
Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to make it. My wife expects to be travelling for business and I expect to be staying home with our 3-year-old. But I encourage everybody who doesn't have, say, a pressing childcare situation or other very important commitment to go to the meeting, show up early to get your name on the agenda, wear something orange and tell Secretary Reed courteously but firmly what kind of election reforms you want the Task Force to propose.
If I could be there (and if I can't make it in person, I'll send a letter to the same effect) I would ask for the following:
1) Have a revote for governor, so we can have a legitimate governor with an actual mandate.
2) Clean the voter rolls. Require everybody in the state to reregister, with photo ID, proof of citizenship and proof of residence.
3) Require ID to be shown before casting a ballot
4) More provisions to accommodate military voters
5) Require that ballots and voters be reconciled before certification. In the event that there are irreconcilable discrepancies, any race where the apparent margin of victory is less than the total discrepancy should be automatically set aside.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: flexnfx on February 13, 2005 11:58 PM"None of the above" as an option. I p-s me off big time when I don't like either candidate and the only option available is to write someone in. That hides the fact that I don't want either one.
I'm looking forward to the day that "None of the Above" wins ... well, not really, because I'd like to see better people running for office, but this is not likely to happen.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 12:03 AMSam Reed is the Secretary of State. He can't order a revote.
Posted by: Erik on February 14, 2005 12:23 AMTomorrow the court hears Martin Ringhofers case to recall Sam Reed....
This will be interesting...
After seeing it listed and spelled out - how many times Sam Reed violated his own department policies and the state election laws during this November election fiasco - Plus how Reed sided with the Dems in the early days of the recount...and the latter days of certification...
I see no reason to be courteous with the man...
He had the power to run a clean election - yet he turned his back..
He knew of the problems and potential for disaster with the various county election systems..- yet he did nothing to improve them.
He sided with the Dems in allowing the addition of unverified provisional ballots to be included in the hand recount! For God's sake!
I still want to know what his role was in staggering the county vote tallys in November...
We are missing something here....Something has been going on with the state's elections and it's going to be interesting when it all comes out...
Posted by: Deborah on February 14, 2005 12:27 AMYour 1-thru-5 are very good.
Here are two more that I would like to see added:
(6) Neither the SOS nor individual counties make certified election results for any county public until all 39 counties have formally reported to the SOS; so that no county gets to be the "last county" like KC was in 2004, with the ability to see BEFORE they report exactly how many votes are needed for a particular candidate to win a particular race.
(7) The SOS gets a charter to maintain a State-wide voter database, with the appropriate data elements accessible to the public on the web in a consistent and user-friendly format; i.e.: All voter data that is public record but you have to go to individual counties to get it (in who knows how many different formats), becomes available from the SOS. Free access on the web; nominal charge for copy to CDs / DVD.
.... Make it 3:
I agree with aka Iguana:
(8) Add "None of the above" as a choice for each race, in conjunction with prohibiting discretionary "interpretation" by local election workers of what THEY "think" the voter meant.
BTW: Snoho Auditor Bob Terwilliger was whining on film @ 11 tonight, about how including none-of-the-above 4 all races would make the ballot longer. Tough: That is so far down in the noise it doesn't even register, compared to all the other problems.
Methow Ken
There are those who argue that Reed was only fulfilling his aoth of office by certifying those results. Well, maybe, maybe not, but there comes a time when we must all choose which Master we will serve. Will it be the way of truth, or the way of political expediency?
If in his heart of hearts Sam Reed believed that the election was flawed and that the true winner of the governor's race was undetermined, he need not have certified the results. How? By resigning his office to make the point. Now you can say, that's easy for you to say, you're not sacrificing anything. And that is true. It is true that such an act would require sacrifice and some measure of courage. But it is equally true that showing leadership by example, believing in and acting on one's principles, often leads one down such a path. In the end, speaking the truth and standing on principles and beliefs costs less than selling one's soul.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 14, 2005 05:17 AMThere are those who argue that Reed was only fulfilling his aoth of office by certifying those results. Well, maybe, maybe not, but there comes a time when we must all choose which Master we will serve. Will it be the way of truth, or the way of political expediency?
If in his heart of hearts Sam Reed believed that the election was flawed and that the true winner of the governor's race was undetermined, he need not have certified the results. How? By resigning his office to make the point. Now you can say, that's easy for you to say, you're not sacrificing anything. And that is true. It is true that such an act would require sacrifice and some measure of courage. But it is equally true that showing leadership by example, believing in and acting on one's principles, often leads one down such a path. In the end, speaking the truth and standing on principles and beliefs costs less than selling one's soul.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 14, 2005 05:17 AMI realize that King County took advantage of the knowledge of how many votes were needed. Let's clean up King County procedures, then. Let's not put the rest of the state under a blanket of secrecy.
Posted by: Janet S on February 14, 2005 07:22 AMIt also requires that the Sec of State maintain voter validity. When Dean Logan stated it is not his job to check for felons he was half right. He is supposed to work in conjunction with the Sec of State to do this.
This act provided grant money to the state to implement voter reform. This act was passed after the 2000 election mess. To state there is no money to clean the voter rolls is a flat out lie.
I have yet to find a formal way for those not at the meeting to submit written comments. There is an online feedback form allows you to briefly submit two new items, but, so far, that's it.
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 07:49 AMI put my name on the recall effort, which probably will not get far. Read the items listed on the recall petition, and then decide if we need Republicans like SoS Reed in office.
I do not think that SoS Reed and others really want serious election reform, yet. I think they want to gloss over real problems to placate the public over the 2004 governor election fiasco.
An argument could be made that Reed violated his constitutional duties by opening the sealed election returns from the counties before delivering them to the legislature. But you can't hold him legally liable for certifying this mess of an "election".
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 07:59 AMSoS Sam Reed certified the results of all three counts.... the first count and the subsequent machine recount and the manual recount. In certifying the final manual recount thereby presenting the results to the WA state legislature for final certification, he bestowed a aura of legitimacy upon the fraudulent election of Gov-Pretender Fraudoire. For that he deserves to be horse-whipped or at the very least recalled for certifying an election which by that time he and his staff knew to be filled with errors, irregularities and fraudulent votes. He should have done the honorable and the right thing, which would have been to refuse to certify the results and take whatever consequences that would have led to. SoS Sam Reed lacks both courage & conviction, as well as total ineptness in allowing the fraudulent miscues & irregularities to go unchecked.
Posted by: RalphR on February 14, 2005 08:28 AMDuring presidential elections there is a large number of people that only vote for president and leave the rest blank. This bill would reduce the chance for fraud in local elections. Even if none of the above has the most votes it does not effect a winner.
The Libertarian party takes it a step further in that if none of the above has the most votes then the postion stays vacant and a new election is called. At least that is what Ruth Bennett stated in my interview with her.
AMEN!
The recall results will be interesting.
Posted by: Susu on February 14, 2005 08:53 AMKen - I am surprised that very few people have talked about this. It seemed pretty obvious to me that someone was waiting to see how many votes were "needed" ... yet, nobody has called for a change made here.
The problem I see though is that these people are so crooked that they would communicate among themselves, out of the public eye, in order to determine how many votes are needed for the Democrat totalitarian to win. Then, we wouldn't be able to see the "magic" being worked, like we did in this past election.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 09:08 AMI agree with poster RalphR in the sense that whatever authority Sam Reed had as SoS wrt this flawed election, he could have used it either to lend legitimacy to a flawed and fraudulant process, or shine the light of truth on a cast of dishonest creeps and frauds. To his discredit, Reed chose the former. Acting like a mindless rubber stamp hardly seems fitting as a function of the SoS of the great state of Washington.
At this point, the choices aren't many. Reed either believed in his heart that, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, the election was honest and Fraudoire is the legitimate governor, or he doesn't believe that but for whatever reasons, self-serving or not, he is willing to live with being a part of a dishonest and corrupt process, and has sold his soul for whatever thirty pieces of silver he might gain from that. Based on what I've seen, I'm inclined to believe the latter. Reed has agreed to be Fraudoire's chief Commissar on this bogus "electoral reform" panel, and has been less than cooperative with citizens' requests for information to do the job elected officials have shirked (ensuring honest elections). Maybe he hopes this one will "slide by" and that Dino Rossi can "get them the next time". But that's crap. There is no "next time" if fraud and dishonest elections are the norm. Rossi, or any other Republican, doesn't have a prayer, as long as the democrats can fix things at will, and those in a position to expose the dishonesty do nothing. "Next time" is a fool's errand.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 14, 2005 09:39 AMHave a Great Week!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 14, 2005 09:47 AMAs for your numbers 2 through 5, the one key overriding principal for true election reform is to make all registering and voting as simple and as easy as possible for ALL legally appropriate voters. No hoops, no red tape, no nothing. This past election was marvelous because of the immense turnout of both eligible and registered voters.
But we can do even better in the future if we make registering and voting simple and easy for everyone; everyone who is legally entitled to vote, of course.
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 09:51 AM"What is proof of residency?Posted by s-choir at February 14, 2005 09:16 AM "
I would presume your latest property tax statement if you are a property owner, or your lease/rental agreement if renting.
Posted by: NW Mike on February 14, 2005 09:53 AMIn a 'farewell' speech to the party last week, Terry McAuliffe mentioned how Christine Gregoire called him for help raising money for the handcount.
He ACTUALLY SAID "she'd won the race but the Republicans were trying to steal it".
What??????? He didn't even say she'd 'tied'. He said she'd WON before she'd ever won a single count. I doubt these DNC members even know what baloney they've been fed--
Posted by: Michele S on February 14, 2005 10:00 AMThere isn't any such thing as a revote. If you want a special election, say so.
Posted by: Christine G on February 14, 2005 10:00 AMNelson please explain "eligible" vs "registered". Only Registered Voters are allowed to Vote. Maybe that is where the problem is, KC counted Eligible Voters ( ie anyone over 18, who resides in this state, and is not a felon or Dead, or illegal alien) But they MUST BE REGISTERED to count as a legal vote.
How can you call this past election Marvelous is beyond me. We have and will continue to spend good tax money on the biggest Political FARCE in Washington State History.
Get a Grip Nelson, this is a Non Partisan Issue. The Taxpayers in this state want the TRUTH.
Posted by: Chris on February 14, 2005 10:07 AMHey, you, Stefan - did YOU hear that????
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 10:20 AMBoooooooooo booooooooo booooooooo
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 10:28 AMI disagree. Registering should NOT be simple or easy. It should be a conscious decision by the legal voter to exercise his/her responsibility to vote and to be a good citizen.
Voters in Iraq stood in lines with suicide bombers killing 40 or so of them. In one case, after a bomb went off, the voters remained standing in the line and the voters behind the blown up bomber calmly stepped over his body parts to continue in the line and vote. And vote they did!
Meanwhile in America more and more of us are demanding absentee ballots so it doesn't interfere with our lives. Absentee ballots should be the exception not the rule. Permanent absentee registration needs to be a thing of the past. In it's place should be two full weeks of early voting at the polls with lots of observors with weekends and nights too.
The voter registration files are so totally screwed up that everyone should have to reregister BEFORE any election, with proof of address in hand. After all are reregistered, all county auditors need to MAIL a new voter registration card to the "lived at" address, if it comes back as undeliverable, the name is NOT added to the voter registration files.
Too EASY!
Posted by: SGMMAC on February 14, 2005 10:33 AMI can't listen, I'm Las Vegas,
What are they saying?
1) Have a revote for governor, so we can have a legitimate governor with an actual mandate.
Hey, if it can be done, then it should be done. Your friendly Token Leftie (TL) agrees. Can we open it up to other candidates? Maybe the Libertarians will run a real candidate this time, instead of a spoiler. (Of course, that's not really party-neutral, as it seems that my party's candidate only opens her mouth to change feet.)
2) Clean the voter rolls. Require everybody in the state to reregister, with photo ID, proof of citizenship and proof of residence.
Nice idea, but requiring all of them ends up with it being much easier for the well-off than the poor, homeless, etc. Even your friendly TL would have to send off and wait for documents. Also remember the 24th Amendment. Voting cannot cost the voter money.
Now, re-register, with either photo or other positive (free of charge to the voter) ID method, giving sufficient data for the state to verify (if it chooses to), TL can agree. Otherwise I'll have to get out my "voting is a right" drum again. Can we at least try to make this party-neutral?
3) Require ID to be shown before casting a ballot
I'd also cut back on the number of absentee ballots. The fact that "Survivor" is on tonight is not a good enough reason to vote absentee.
We can debate which party gets the most benefit from the potential fraud that is encouraged by wide-spread absentee voting, but on the fact that it is a problem, we can certainly agree.
We also need to ensure that there is a free ID method available. It's that pesky 24th Amendment again. Good news is that by doing this, you prevent at least one Constitutional challenge to the law.
4) More provisions to accommodate military voters
Darn straight. Lets start by moving up the primary and allowing the Federal Write-in ballot for all state and local races. They're actually doing this now, but it isn't in the law and causes some confusion. While there's really no excuse for late mailing of absentee ballots, these changes would remove one obstacle should the unforseen arise, and make it less likely that the ballots will be mailed late.
5) Require that ballots and voters be reconciled before certification. In the event that there are irreconcilable discrepancies, any race where the apparent margin of victory is less than the total discrepancy should be automatically set aside.
Amen, brother! Put it in the law, along with an automatic remedy before it happens again.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 10:40 AM
I'll be happy to explain what I was talking about. I was talking about precentage of turnout, of those two groups of people. I believe we were near a record turnout of more than 58% of ELIGIBLE voters and almost 80% of REGISTERED voters.
In previous recent elections, we barely exceeded 50% of ELIGIBLE voters and had a turnout of about 65% of REGISTERED voters. That's abysmal for a democracy like ours.
Ease of registering and voting, plus interesting and hotly contested races drive up voting percentages.
We must, as a country, make it VERY EASY AND SIMPLE to register and vote, so we can be assured that the people elected represent the wishes of the largest numbers of our population.
We don't want ELITISM in our electorate (although some of you clearly do; you would therefore approve of dictatorships & not democracy). One poster's example of Iraq is telling. Everyone was impressed by the TURNOUT there; that's what made it a real election. Their turnout was 58% of eligible voters! Sound familiar?
It's a travesty that in our country when we get that turnout everyone says WOW! that's great. It's still abysmal. With our history of free and open elections, we should get over 70% of ELIGIBLE voters coming out. On the other hand, getting an 80%+ turnout of REGISTERED voters is quite good. The reason we don't get a higher turnout of ELIGIBLE voters is that we continue to make it difficult to register, and then vote.
Maybe we should look at abolishing advanced registration altogether and just have people, with appropriate ID, show up and vote. An even better idea might be to use some data base to automatically register every eligible voter and send them out mail-in or absentee votes to make things simple and easy. With today's data processing capability, that is probably the type of reform we should look at.
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 10:54 AM"...he could have used it either to lend legitimacy to a flawed and fraudulant process, or shine the light of truth on a cast of dishonest creeps and frauds."
Now that statement I do agree with. My earlier point was simply on the legal basis of challenging his actions.
"Reed either believed in his heart that ... the election was honest and Fraudoire is the legitimate governor, or he doesn't believe..."
Once again, I don't want to be Reed's defender, but you should look at all of the observable evidence. No one has mentioned the positions he has taken in court. In most of the motions that the Ds brought before the judge, Reed has supported the R's viewpoint. The briefs filed for the SoS were supportive of the R's position with one minor exception. Even the exception was not supportive of the Ds. Regarding the issue of remedies should the Rs win the contest, he said that the judge should not appoint Rossi, rather that the people be allowed to vote.
So, to me it looks like Reed could have done a lot better during the recounts. Since then, he has been supportive of the contest proceeding. Mixed messages? Yes. But nothing illegal here.
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 11:01 AMhttp://www.governor.wa.gov/electionreform/
The feedback form is at a link in the menu in the upper left side of the page at that URL.
If any of you have been reading the bills already introduced in the legislature, I would appreciate knowing what you think about the ones I've already mentioned at "Croker Sack."
Nelson wrote:
We don't want ELITISM in our electorate (although some of you clearly do; you would therefore approve of dictatorships & not democracy).
Hold on there. Let's start with the position that everyone just wants honest elections, and we have some disagreements about priorities.
There have been a few (very few) that seemed to be in favor of making voting harder. For most, I'll take them at their word that they simply want to remove the cheating, and do not want to keep legitimate voters away from the polls.
Every eligible voter should get to vote, with the absolute minimum of obstacles needed to prevent cheating. We can all sign onto that.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 11:18 AMI personally don't want obstacles that prevent eligible voters from voting. I am a Republican. That said, it IS disgusting to me that Urban voters in Forida and Ohio stood in line for hours.... I stand for 5 minutes at the maximum. BUT I also disgusted by cheating and by the attitude of many who think everything is disigned for their personal convenience! Letting everyone register helped create this monster. Paying people 2 bucks for every person that they register is insane. Paying people crack cocaine to register their fellow voters is a total outrage...... It inspires fraud. I am offended that Mickey Mouse continues to vote every four years!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 14, 2005 11:32 AM"Letting everyone register helped create this monster."
I'm not sure that came out as you meant it. The idea that we have to have some control over the registration process makes sense. Is that what you're saying? If so, I can agree. After all, taking voter registrations and then shredding all the Democratic ones is also an outrage.
I've posted (at far too much length for many on these boards) that we really can find common ground here. After all, what Republicans are saying is that every vote should be from a legal voter and what Democrats are saying is that every legal voter should be allowed to vote. These concepts are not contradictory.
If we keep those two principles in mind, we can solve many of the problems we're facing.
Why must registration be "easy" and impediment free? Everything requires an investment which is directly related to the importance of the outcome.
If people can't take the time or effort to register how can they possibly be counted on to do their civic duty to this Union and become informed voters?
Registration cannot have a *financial* cost, but our Republic is not served by having the numbers padded by the ignorant, misled or coerced.
Posted by: lee egg on February 14, 2005 12:03 PM"Why must registration be "easy" and impediment free? Everything requires an investment which is directly related to the importance of the outcome."
I'll take this one on.
The answer is also easy. It is that voting is a right and that the state has no right to put impediments in the way of exercising that right.
That it is a right is not subject to debate. The Washington State Constitution spells that out.
SECTION 19 FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS.
All Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.
That's why.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 12:32 PMEvery registered voter should be allowed to vote; Every eligible voter should be allowed to register.
If we can make the registration process more robust, then we will lessen problems at the voting booth.
Voting is a right, but it is not a right for all of us. There are many people in our society who do not have this right. In order to protect our right, and not water it down by allowing ballots to be cast by those who do not have this right, we must put obstacles/check-points in the process.
Voting at a polling place should be as easy as possible for all registered voters. The prevalence of absentee ballots is an entirely different subject. It is during the registration process that we should put in these obstacles, thereby making less than easy for some. Registering to vote should be free, and should not place hardships on some groups of eligible voters that are not on other groups of eligible voters. But should it be easy? Probably not. It should be as easy as possible to ensure that everyone who wants to register and is eligible to register can register.
Voting should be easy. Registering to vote should require a little work. Certainly that is a price we can pay for the greatest democracy in the world???
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2005 12:32 PMYou have many quotes and references that voting is a right and should be easy. I cannot disagree.
But I don't see anything in your above quote that says that registering to vote must be easy and hassle-free. As long as the registration process does not impose hardships on any particular groups of eligible voters, how is the subsequent election not 'free and easy'?
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2005 12:37 PMI don't think anything specific came out of this. It was more of Logan's whitewash in his presentation and then the Council members did not get into many specifics with their questions.
Apparently, there is another meeting or two that are designed for getting into specific questions.
Patterson showed what a pathetic member of the council she is; Hammond was impressive.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 12:56 PMI think this 24th amenment thing is being taken a bit far. I have to pay for the stamp on my ballot, or the gas for my car to get to the polls. Having to get a valid ID is pushing it a little to equating that to having to pay to vote.
and
As long as the registration process does not impose hardships on any particular groups of eligible voters, how is the subsequent election not 'free and easy'?
I have the right to walk down to my polling place and cast my ballot free of any charge. It may be a couple of miles, but that is my right. Even if I have no car, no home, no stamp and even no shoes, I can still vote.
Asking a single mom to decide between putting $15 into groceries and putting that same $15 into a photo ID so that she can exercise her right to vote is the problem.
Whenever a citizen is required to spend money on behalf of the state, that is a tax. This is a very Republican idea that even your friendly token leftie believes. $15 (current cost of a Washington ID, even without the cost of the other items required to obtain it) is far more than the average "poll tax" that was outlawed by the 24th Amendment.
Additionally, since getting an ID for that single mom might well help her get a better job, get off welfare and become self-sufficient, just giving her a photo ID could end up saving us far more than it costs.
In essence, some (not all) of the ideas presented here do "impose hardships" on some "particular groups of eligible voters".
$15 is no particular hardship to me now, but there was a time, many years ago, when it would have been a choice between eating and voting. Poor people are eligible voters too.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 12:58 PMRepublicans want only legal votes to count. Please don't insult us by claiming that Democrats only want the same thing. If they did, they'd hold the voting franchise as sacred as the Republicans do. Republicans want to win straight up. Democrats want to win...period. Otherwise, you wouldn't have this motor-voter crap.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 14, 2005 01:01 PMWhy is it that the Iraqis can vote under threat of death and be required to show ID; but some here in America are more afraid of excluding someone than perserving the true nature of democracy- which is a free and FAIR election.
Voting by absentee ballot, as we see with the military ballots, is also problematic and should be minimized as much as possible. It is one thing to be unable to get to the polls, it is quite another to be too lazy to go, and if you are that lazy, you should not be allowed to vote in the first place. I submit that voter registration and participation would be higher if more of Americans believed that their vote would be counted and treated fairly, and that corruption would be minimized and doggedly persued whenever and wherever it is found.
Methow Ken- I agree with your assertion that the totals should be released simultaneously. Another way this could happen is to stagger the canvassing/counting of the ballots so that the counties would all report their results the same day. This may seem to be overly cumbersome, however, with the 2004 election we now have a precedent for appropriate timelines for the different counties and their respective workloads for both machine and hand counting procedures.
Posted by: Boomer on February 14, 2005 01:03 PMThank you. Well said.
Polling should be dirt simple. Registration on the other hand should involve, at the VERY least, proof of citizenship, residency and valid approved identification.
John Barelli,
These things we are asking for do not cost money, are applied to all individuals and do not "interfere with or prevent the free exercise of the right of sufferage".
If getting an approved ID costs money, make that part of the deal and remove the fee (I agree there shouldn't be one for something so necessary). Don't try to use that cost as subterfuge to allow illegal voting and fraud.
These things actually strengthen the Democratic process by ensuring that only eligible Citizens are voting thus increasing our confidence in the electoral process. They also strengthen the Democratic process by weeding out individuals too lazy to become informed voters ... if they can't even make the tiny effort needed to register how on *earth* will they find it in themselves to actually *LEARN* about that which they're voting on? Such individuals are death for a Republic/Democracy (history is replete with examples if you don't care to take my word for it).
Can you honestly say that these recommendations to strengthen the registration process places an undo burdon on people?
Posted by: lee egg on February 14, 2005 01:19 PMJonathan wrote the paragraph about the 24th amendment, not me.
In any case, I always thought that having a valid ID on your person is necessary to prove that you are not vagrant. Having a valid, state issued ID cannot be construed as an unfair hardship to some, because everyone is supposed to carry identification. Else, how could the police ascertain your identity?
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2005 01:24 PMPlease remember that this isn't Sam's show. It's the former attorney general's show. She commissioned the task force; she appointed the members; she set the meeting dates and places.
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 01:28 PMHowever, there is still an undercurrent of elitism amongs some of the more conservative posters here. You don't seem to realize that if an occasional ineligible voter slips through the cracks, that vote becomes far less important (or dilutive) if the turnout of eligible, legal voters is dramatically higher.
An eligible voter is simply any living citizen 18 or older, period. They may be technically and temporarily disenfranchised, by rule, if they are unrecovered felons or if they have not established legal residence in a particular location. I don't know of any other reason why someone who is a citizen at least 18 years old would be ineligible to vote.
So automatically registering people by data base may not really be a big problem. Everyone is right that the registration process is by far a larger blockage to higher turnout than is the actual process of voting.
Also, all mail-in voting or extended polling place access are excellent ideas. Oregon had one of the highest turnouts in the country because of their all mail-in vote methodology.
As for moto-voter registration, that is simply one of the best ideas to have ever come down the pike, but it still doesn't get everyone possible registered. We should be able to have passive, automatic voter registration by database. If I can get solicited by a credit card company or a telemarketer through database searches, I should certainly ought be able to be located by a local election board that would tell me I'm now a registered voter in that jurisdiction.
I shouldn't have to do anything except then make the effort to vote, either in person or by mail.
If through this we can get turnout up to the 70% of eligible voters level, then we have essentially solved the problems of potential fraud in elections since the perpetrators of fraud would have to come up with thousands more illegal votes than they have to today with our small turnouts.
More legal voters is really the answer to the fraud or mistakes issue, not fewer legal voters.
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 01:59 PMThe problem is with the last statement, the sos has no way to check the last four digits of the SSN. Call and ask, I did.
Nelson,
My statement above is the single biggest problem with a vote-by-mail system, it's completely possible to register by mail with a false last four digit SSN. You never have to show up any where and prove who you are. Fix that loop hole and it is a great idea, as we lazy Americans are more apt to vote.
I must say I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I really do. However, while such "feel good" desire to get every eligible person to vote is admirable, it is deadly for the Democratic process.
For example, I find it extremely surprising that you'd make a statment that "an occasional ineligible voter" is unimportant in light of this last election's lunacy. Specifically it's not just ineligible voters that are a problem, it's the ease with which fraud is perpetrated just because some people feel it an imposition to actually *prove* the voter and the registration card actually match up.
Lastly, it is not "elitism" to expect people doing their civic duty by voting, actually be informed about the issues they're voting on. Adding more people just for the sake of numbers is actually quite detrimental to a democratic process. Again, I urge you and all like minded individuals to read some history on the subject or our nation will end up as theirs did.
Posted by: lee egg on February 14, 2005 02:19 PMThis doesn't completely invalidate the premise you were making because there is a loophole that allows that if the person registers in person, they do not have to show any ID, either when registering or when voting.
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 02:34 PMThis is assuming people are honest. As we have seen in the last election not everyone is.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on February 14, 2005 02:38 PMI think you are going a bit overboard here. Saying that someone has the right to walk to their polling place still costs something. If this person you are referring to actually exists, how will he/she be informed about where the polling place is located, never mind what is actually on the ballot. If you have to leave work to vote you have a right to, but you do not have a right to be paid while you are gone. That is not unconstitutional.
There is actually more than just being 18 years old and breathing to be able to vote. There are citizenship and residency requirements. It is not up to the state to disprove you lack any of these requirements. The motor voter law takes this to an extreme. The states are upset of having to ask for the applicant proof of eligibility (bill just passed in the US house) but seem not to have an issue with registering voters, diluting the votes of legal voters. The citizens should be outraged that we are signing literally anyone up to vote in our elections with no proof whatsoever.
The way to solve that is to provide ID cards free of charge. I know, it would be hard to keep it free of charge, because Democrats like to tack all sorts of charges on these things due to their insatiable appetite for more government revenue. For example, they are tacking more fees on the cost of getting a marriage license.
Getting married, it seems to me, should not only be for rich people. But, the state has decided that marriage is a bad thing and they do pretty much everything they can think of to make it too expensive and high risk for a man to want to do.
But, perhaps, just maybe, if this ID card is required to vote, for once, Democrats wont tack a fee on it.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 14, 2005 03:01 PMOn the contrary, if you read my full post, I clearly stated that the more legitimate voters that come to the polls, the less important an occasional ineligible voter is. It's simply a numbers game. If there are 300 ineligible voters out of a universe of 1 million votes, vs. 300 ineligible voters out of a universe of 3 million votes, aren't the ineligibles only one-third as significant in the second example?
A tiny handful of ineligible voters are always going to slip through the cracks. It's inevitable and an accident of nature. Thus, the effort should be made to dramatically increase the turnout of LEGAL voters to dilute the significance of these accidental ineligible voters. It's certainly a heck of a lot easier (and far cheaper) to get tens of thousands more legitimate voters to the polls than to weed out several dozen "needles in haystacks" of ineligible voters who show up.
Furthermore, if it's actual fraud that you're worried about, larger turnout works even better. Someone interested in perpetrating fraudulent votes would think twice -- and probably not bother -- if the size of the universe they had to impact was 25-50% larger. Simply put, they couldn't do enough fraud to make an impact if the number of legal voters was that much larger.
For example, in Ohio last election, we know that one Republican county over-counted GWB's total by more than 4,000 votes by putting into circulation an extra ballot box that couldn't be traced. Whether that was by accident or on purpose we don't know. But whatever the motive, it made no difference whatsoever in the final Ohio tally, simply because the turnout was so large.
No-one in their right mind would attempt fraud where there would be a huge turnout. We're having this discussion here in WA because of the oddity that despite a massive turnout last November, the election was so close that a few votes here or there do matter. But nobody could have ever predicted that, so no fraud would occur.
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 03:26 PMNo, I think it should be considered a crime.
Consider baking a cake and just adding "just a little dog feces" as an ingredient. Sure, a bigger cake would perhaps make that nasty stuff not so dangerous, but the cake would still be tainted to some degree. How many "accidents of nature" are we willing to except as inevitable?
(Please excuse the bad analogy, but both are as repugnant to me.)
This is great, well not really, for national or state elections, but what are the effects on local elections. 300 ineligible voters in a medium size county concentrated in one district could have a big effect on the outcome of council positions, port positions, or even legislative positions. We are then right back to where we started, only eligable voters should be allowed to register and the process to gain eligability should be thourough.
"If getting an approved ID costs money, make that part of the deal and remove the fee (I agree there shouldn't be one for something so necessary). Don't try to use that cost as subterfuge to allow illegal voting and fraud."
Absolutely agreed. We have achieved "common ground".
Oh, and for Larry. No, there is no requirement that a citizen going about his or her lawful business present an ID to anyone. The Police can ask for one, but unless they have reason to believe you have committed a crime, you don't have to give it. Even if they do have such evidence, you are not required to give an ID, although it may make the difference between getting a ticket and getting a trip downtown.
Jg wrote:
Consider baking a cake and just adding "just a little dog feces" as an ingredient. Sure, a bigger cake would perhaps make that nasty stuff not so dangerous, but the cake would still be tainted to some degree. How many "accidents of nature" are we willing to except as inevitable?
(Please excuse the bad analogy, but both are as repugnant to me.)"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you eat cake, you are also eating bug feces. It is an inevitable part of the process. The trick is to make it as clean as possible. You will probably never completely eliminate it.
Politics has often been compared to the making of sausage. Trust me on this one. If you ever want to eat another sausage, don't even ask about what's in them. But we still want it as clean as we can make it.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 04:17 PMNow, the state law that implements this is RCW 29A.08.010 "Information required for voter registration." (Effective January 1, 2006.)
As used in this chapter: "Information required for voter registration" means the minimum information provided on a voter registration application that is required by the county auditor in order to place a voter registration applicant on the voter registration rolls. This information includes the applicant's name, complete residence address, date of birth, Washington state driver's license number, Washington state identification card, or the last four digits of the applicant's social security number, a signature attesting to the truth of the information provided on the application, and a check or indication in the box confirming the individual is a United States citizen. If the individual does not have a driver's license or social security number the registrant must be issued a unique voter registration number and placed on the voter registration rolls. All other information supplied is ancillary and not to be used as grounds for not registering an applicant to vote. Modification of the language of the official Washington state voter registration form by the voter will not be accepted and will cause the rejection of the registrant's application.
Although the language in state law does not take effect until Jan 2006, the registration and ID requirements were supposed to take effect January 2003. I do know that the information required on registrations is being collected now, despite the state law effective date. I do not know if the ID requirement before voting is being enforced, but HAVA says that it is supposed to. There is a waiver provision that allowed Washington to delay implementation of the statewide voters list until January 2006, but it does not appear that the ID requirement is covered under that waiver.
Posted by: north clark county on February 14, 2005 05:00 PMYou have a right to study and apply for a drivers license, but THAT right involves responsibility... responsibility to pass the test, responsibility to understand the rules, responsiblilty to have insurance, responsiblity to have your car inspected, responsibility to have your car properly licensed, responsiblity to be sober and straight on the road, etc.
The right to vote is THAT important, if not more - why shouldn't it take work (responsibility) to exercise that right?
Very few adults DON'T have a drivers license these days. Very few adults won't have proof of an address (tax bill, leases, utility bills). These are not hardships to produce for 99.98% (now why does THAT number sound familiar?? :-o ) of the voting eligible population.
I am very much in favor of a total population re-registration with stringent eligibility proofs.
IF I'M THE ONE THAT WANTS TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO VOTE IT IS MY RESPONSIBILTY TO DO WHATS NECESSARY TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT. It is NOT the reponsibilty of the election officials, the political parties or the government to chase me down like a 5 yr old and make sure I have my homework. Voting is an adult activity and we can and should expect voters to behave as PREPARED adults or face the consequence of being turned away.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 14, 2005 05:34 PMAnd what is our legislature doing? They are trying to enact a county pilot project to eventually move ALL voting in the state to absentee!!! Absentee voting is possibly THE number one reason for our current and past problems here in Washington !
From the previous years late absentee ballot mailings, and the felons hired to print, process, sort and mail the absentee ballots, to the mysterious duplicate ballot mailings, to the unverified registered voters voting absentee via PO BOXES, to those voters with dual residency voting absentee, to the excuse KC uses for delaying their final tallys (they have not received all of the absentee ballots in the mail..)so they can gauge how many votes are needed for their candidates to win...
Absentee voting has become the number one way to commit fraud, error and ensure confusion in our election process!
Why on earth are they rushing to expand this type of voting?? They should be looking for ways to minimize it!
We are being railroaded by the Dems in the legislature as we wait for this election scandal to play out! Incredible!
As we are now reviewing all of these watered down RCW's and WAC's that pertain to our elections...and we are wondering how in the heck these loopholes were created without notice and objection - take a look at how the legislature is rushing through their agenda right now while we are distracted. This is how they do it.
Posted by: Deborah on February 14, 2005 07:52 PMNo. 129 is not greater than 537. But Gregoire WON the election with 129 MORE votes than Rossi. Bush on the other hand had FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND less votes than Al Gore. And yes, I know about the electoral college in presidential elections. But to compare apples to apples in a statewide contest, where there is no electoral college, any normal individual would only compare the POPULAR VOTES!!!!!
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 07:53 PMCheryl -- that simply makes you an unAmerican elitist who only wants votes to count from people you know and like and expect to have the same political philosophy as you have.
We have UNIVERSAL suffrage in the US and any patriotic American should do everything they can to make it as easy and simple as possible for every single citizen over the age of 18 to vote. The only exceptions shoud be unreconstructed felons and people who have moved two recently to establish a legitimate residence. Period. End of story.
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 07:57 PMLatest the tactic, SB 5744 / HB 1754, is disguised as "convenience and efficient", while allowing control over "irregularities".
-------------------
-------------------
Summary of Bill:
With express authorization from the county legislative authority, the county auditor may conduct all elections entirely by mail ballot. The county must give at least 90 days notice to the auditor before conducting the first all mail ballot election. Additionally, all registered voters must be notified of the change to an all mail ballot election. If the county and auditor decide to return to polling place elections, 180 days notice must be given.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Testimony For: Some counties have up to 85 percent absentee voters, so moving to all mail ballot elections makes sense. This doesn't mandate mail elections, rather it gives counties a local option. Counties will still have disability access voting machines available for use in the county as well as multiple ballot drop off stations where voters can return their ballots. Voter turnout is increased with all mail elections and voters make more informed decisions about candidates and measures. It may make more fiscal sense for counties with electronic voting machines to switch to all mail elections rather than bring voting machines into compliance with a paper trail requirement.
Testimony Against: None.
Who Testified: PRO: Sam Reed, Shane Hamlin, Katie Blinn, Office of Secretary of State; Kim Wyman, Thurston County Auditor; Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Auditor; David Anderson, Your Vote Counts; Bob Terwilliger, Snohomish County Auditor; Chris Stegman, Green Party.
-------------------
Original Bill Said:
The auditor shall send each inactive voter either a ballot or an application to receive a ballot at least eighteen days before a primary, general election, or special election. The auditor shall determine which of the two is to be sent. If the inactive voter returns a voted ballot, the ballot shall be counted and the voter's status restored to active. If the inactive voter completes and returns an application, a ballot shall be sent and the voter's status restored to active.
-------------------
Election Reform Brought By:
---Senators---
Haugen --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/haugen
Berkey --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/berkey
Fairley --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/fairley
Sheldon --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/sheldon
---Representatives---
Hunt --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/hunt
Nixon --R
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/nixon
McDermott --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/mcdermott
Haigh --D
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/haigh
-------------------
-------------------
And when the fans of absentee/mail-in/extended voting have "election worker" opening their ballots early so signatures can be verified and votes can be enhanced, remember.. Its convenient, efficient and cost effective.
RECOGNIZE THE SCAM!
Posted by: Splatter on February 14, 2005 08:39 PM> "....until all 39 counties have formally
> reported to the SOS"
Ken - I am surprised that very few people have talked about this. It seemed pretty obvious to me that someone was waiting to see how many votes were "needed" ... yet, nobody has called for a change made here.
The problem I see though is that these people are so crooked that they would communicate among themselves, out of the public eye, in order to determine how many votes are needed for the Democrat totalitarian to win. Then, we wouldn't be able to see the "magic" being worked, like we did in this past election.
======================================
While there may be arguments to be made on both sides of this particular issue, on balance I would still go for "all counties at once" reporting of election results. Rationale: While there can always be a few bad apples who would violate the rules, on the whole I am willing to accept that most County Auditors / Election supervisors are basically honest. I certainly trust the elections supervisor in my county.
Anyway, if there was an "all counties report at once" rule, then in a close election almost ALL counties would have to collude in order to figure out the margin. I don't believe that will happen.
Plus in the real world pulling off and keeping quiet about a wide-spread conspiracy that would have to reach into many independent organizations all over the state on something like an election that is watched very closely by a lot of sharp people would be VERY difficult if not impossible: People talk; word gets out; investigations get started; and penalities for perjury in front of grand juries are severe.
Methow Ken
Anyway, I am for really clean elections (and very clean food). I think we have the capability with technology to run much better elections, if the political powers that be will allow it.
Posted by: JG on February 14, 2005 08:56 PMCheryl -- that simply makes you an unAmerican elitist who only wants votes to count from people you know and like and expect to have the same political philosophy as you have.
We have UNIVERSAL suffrage in the US and any patriotic American should do everything they can to make it as easy and simple as possible for every single citizen over the age of 18 to vote. The only exceptions shoud be unreconstructed felons and people who have moved two recently to establish a legitimate residence. Period. End of story. -Posted by Nelson at February 14, 2005 07:57 PM
UNAMERICAN??
UNAMERICAN ELITIST??
Why is that Nelson?
Because I don't think it's too much to expect for voters participating to be able to prove who they are?
Tell me then Nelson, how UNAMERICAN ELITIST is it to have to provide identity proof when buying cigarettes?
Or alcohol?
Picking up a prescription?
Boarding a plane?
Crossing the border?
Cashing a check?
Applying for a damned innocuous little library card?
Head on over to your local King County library, Nelson... give it a try.
My son is a high school wrestler. He had to provide a PHOTO ID TO PROVE HE WAS THE STUDENT ATHLETE HE CLAIMED TO BE IN ORDER TO WEIGH IN for the regional tournament last Saturday (as I am absolutely positive he will have to this weekend at the state tournament) - a tournament in which he was prior qualified to compete. How disgustingly elitist of those WIAA refs. Really, why should he even had to weigh in? Those horrible elitist refs should just have accepted he was who he said he was and just believed that he was not overweight for his competition weight class. What a damned dope he was to starve for 2 days for that weigh-in proof they so unfairly required of him.
It seems to me if a LEGAL ELIBLE VOTER has nothing to hide, he should have no problem with re-registering and providing identity proof. It makes one wonder what it is YOU'RE hiding from Nelson.
It is just that kind of attitude (and please note how I refrained from saying LEFTY, IF IT FEELS GOOD DO IT, LIBERAL, ATTITUDE) that makes me mourn the loss of a civics class requirement for our students.
All set here Nelson? ...I'm about to blow your socks off kiddo.
I vehemently disagree it should be "easy and simple as possible".
Not only do I believe that proving identity is an absolute necessity to enjoy the privilege of voting, I have no shame in saying that I also fervently believe would be voters should also have to pass a rudimentary civics exam proving that they understand the government in which they wish to participate and that they hope to influence with their vote.
Have at it Nelson.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 14, 2005 09:49 PMIs the civics exam in essay or multiple choice format?
Who gets to decide what questions to ask on the exam?
Who gets to grade it?
Is it going to be graded on the curve?
Do we have to offer remedial education to those who fail the exam?
Posted by: Micajah on February 14, 2005 10:28 PMApply for a Library Card
Welcome to the King County Library System! You are invited to fill out a KCLS library card application online. Your new library card will be mailed to you within 14 days. The first time you use your new card at the library, you will be asked to present photo ID with birth date (e.g., a driver's license, Washington State ID card, or passport) and identification that verifies your current address. If you have photo ID with birth date but not proof of address, you may check out two items at a time until address verification is provided.
http://www.kcls.org/libcards/card.cfm
Debating with you isn't worth my time, but supporting a "patriotic American" like Cheryl is (like she needs it).
You say, "make it as easy and simple" to vote in America? Maybe you are right. Before the Democrat party was taken over by Socialists, their voter base may have been willing to WORK FOR DEMOCRACY. Now I'm afraid Democrats need simple and easy voting. It represents the party itself. Democrats government to make their lives "simple and easy". Socialism.
Ask our founding fathers how "simple and easy" our nation was created.
Ask American veterans how "simple and easy" freedom is defended.
Ask legal immigrants how "simple and easy" American citizenship is.
Simple and easy is for the ignorant and lazy.
Someday you may understand the hardest things in life are often the most important. Patriotic Americans understand that.
Posted by: Splatter on February 14, 2005 10:39 PMCheryl, Is the civics exam in essay or multiple choice format?
Neither, it's fill in the blank - you either know the answers or you dont.
Who gets to decide what questions to ask on the exam?
Good question, I'll get back to you on it.
Although, civics is civics and facts are facts. I don't really see where there are/could be questions that could skew the results. I think the very same questions that are/used to be on a citizenship test would probably work.
Who gets to grade it?
It will be graded the very same way your written drivers tests are.
Is it going to be graded on the curve?
You've got to be kidding.
Do I sound like someone that would grade on a curve? Not a chance!
Do we have to offer remedial education to those who fail the exam?
Nope. Voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility. If you fail your drivers test does the state offer you a class or are you expected to to find a class and study on your own?
Thank you very much!
Posted by: Cheryl on February 14, 2005 10:48 PMI scored 47 perfect turns, average error 6 miles.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 14, 2005 11:07 PMMe got: 49 perfect; average error = 2 miles
(Darn PA messed me up: missed the placement on Lake Erie by a bit)... expect having a high-res LCD monitor helped my old eyeballs on this one... but I also took WAY to long to finish.
Not quite sure why this was such an atractive game.... but it was. :-]
Methow Ken
What test did you fail? Why, of course, the one where you talk about requiring people to pass a test to have the right to vote!!!!
If you knew anything at all about American history, government and civics, you would know that for decades, Southern states used the literacy test -- exactly what you are calling for -- as a method to systematically disenfranchise African-American voters.
The US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled that such tests were blatantly unconstitutional.
Therefore, if one endorses your idea of a "civics test," the first question should be: "Under the US Constitution, is it legal to ask prospective voters to pass any kind of test before they are allowed to vote?"
Based on your post, you would answer "YES," thereby failing the test completely and being thrown out of the polling place!
How would you like that?
Like I said, what you are proposing is absolutely unAmerican and Unconstitutional.
And as for having to show photo ID for some things like the items you mentioned? No problem, as long as it's a wide variety of different IDs and not a universal federal identification. And all your garbage about no IDs when you vote is just sheer nonsense. You do have to sign the book or sign your absentee or provisional voter envelope. Your signature is looked at for a match. That, to me, is the same as showing an ID, if not better.
Since you have a teenage son (the wrestling team, remember?), you might ask him if he, and all his friends, have forged driver's licenses to use for phony ID. They are very easy to do, so anyone wanting to perpetrate a voting fraud, and not just buy illegal booze or cigarettes as the kids do, would simply forge such an ID.
Seems to me a signature is a lot better security for voting.
So you've failed two key civics questions. Gee, I don't know if you should ever vote....
(I'm being facetious here. I would defend your right to vote in this country as best I can. I don't agree with anything you stand for, but you have every right to have whatever political philosophy you have and to express it here and in the voting booth. Too bad you don't seem to want to offer that same right to everyone else).
Posted by: Nelson on February 14, 2005 11:47 PMYou see, not all Kids are into those Evils. If he is active in sports, he is most likely not a "ID FAKER", as his extracurricular activities (sports) take up most of his time.
And using your analogy, I doubt that people would go to that much trouble to forge an ID, just to vote. The American People today are to self serving to go to that length to vote illegally. And if they did, what are they hiding (unless underage, and I dont think we have that many aspiring politicians).
Matching Signatures doesnt work as well as you seem to think it does. Yesterday in the Televised meeting of KC, there was mention of a husband signing his Disabled Wife Ballot. KC elections didnt CATCH this. The man came forth with an affidavit, saying so. So matching signatures is not as accurate as providing picture ID, Pictures dont lie.
One more thing Nelson, since you seem to be an expert on the Fake ID's and say they are easy to do, Just how does one do it?
Posted by: Chris on February 15, 2005 06:53 AMBecause Chris, people make judgements of OTHERS based on their own personal experiences and the facts they know from their own lives.
AND, for your information nelson, the ONLY photo ID the student athletes can present are CURRENT, VALID school based ones, which you SHOULD have surmised.
Secondly, proving they are who they say they are is NOT the only requirement to participate: student wrestlers have to PROVE they are qualified EVERYTIME they enter competition by PROVING their weight EVERYTIME to the refs... even 1/10 of an ounce over their weight class DISQUALIFIES THEM.
It gives me oh so much confidence in our government and our election process when even high school wrestlers have far more stringent participating requirements that have to be proven everytime than would be voters, she says with no shortage of sarcasm.
And YES, Nelson - I do indeed want that same right, that same requirement for everyone. That you're implying some kind of racism/bias on my part is insulting. I haven't said ID proof or my wishful qualifying tests would/should only be for SOME.
Why is it NOT racist/bias to prove you know the facts for your drivers license, kiddo?
Isn't being knowledgable ABOUT government least as important as being knowledgeable as road rules?
Isn't a well run government chosen by informed individuals at least as important to our societal well being as driver safety instruction is to our physical safety?
Surely, somewhere along the line Nelson, you were taught that there is no 'free ride' in life, that ANYTHING worthwhile you hope to obtain takes effort ON YOUR PART.
The ability to influence government with your vote is that worthwhile and should take effort on the part of those who wish to participate.
I don't believe in the 'come one, come all voting for dummies' tack certain political parties are peddling. I believe you should be able to read the ballot, follow the instructions and make your choice based on thoughtful reflection of the facts after you have educated yourselves on the issues and proven you are who you claim to be.
On a separate note, I saw a post somewhere about ballots and a place for voters to chose NOT to vote for a candidate or issue (as opposed to just leaving the ovals blank). I think it would solve all those divination problems the ballot enhancers are creating if the choice was "I DECLINE TO VOTE FOR THIS POSITION/ISSUE" as opposed to "None of the Above".
Posted by: Cheryl on February 15, 2005 08:46 AMWork at being educated, informed, and most importantly, exercise that right, but accept the responsibility that goes with it.
This is America, and you have all these Glorious Rights, as an American, but along with the rights, are responsibilities. That is why you must be 18 to vote, you are suppose to be old enough to accept the responsibility.
Nelson, if you want something to rant about, here is something to chew on: People who dont own Property (property tax payers) should not have the RIGHT to Vote on Ballot Issues regarding Property Rights and Taxes.
Well, I bet you guys didn't bake a giant map of the united states out of dough when YOU were in 4th grade like I did. so there. :)
Posted by: kristen on February 15, 2005 09:31 AMCheryl -- you just proved my point that you are an "election elitist snob." The fact that you don't accept the law of the land that NO TEST OF LITERACY OR KNOWLEDGE IS PERMITTED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION proves to me that you "don't get it," and continue to espouse unAmerican views.
Nobody has to have any rationale for voting for whomever or whatever they choose. Millions of Americans simply vote by party label. Is that logic or intelligent? To them it is. Millions of Americans simply vote for the best looking candidate or the one who is of the same ethnic background that they have. Is that logic or intelligent? To them it is.
First off, we have a secret ballot, so we only have the right to ask someone why they voted the way they did if we're doing a macro survey. As it happens, Democrats would be very happy if the stiffest civics tests were given to voters since survey data shows that the highest levels of education (graduate school and college professors) vote liberal and Democratic in the highest percentages! But we're not the elitists you Republicans are. We actually do want EVERYONE WHO IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO VOTE to have a simple and easy and uncomplicated ability to cast their ballot -- and cast it anyway they wish.
Now, on another matter, of the IDs. You and others came to a rip-roaring defense of your son and his wrestling team buddies over the issue I raised of phony drivers' license IDs floating around teenagers. I have no knowlege as to whether your son or any of his friends have ever done this and I didn't presume to judge. I was only saying that as someone who has a teenager in the family YOU would know that fake IDs to buy cigarettes or booze was highly prevalent amongst teenagers in general. Don't be afraid, assume your son and his teammates don't do any of it, but ask him about the rest of the students in his high school.
And one more thing -- signature matching is indeed far more effective than producing some ID if the idea is to prevent fraud. Your endorsement of ID showing is simply to prevent LEGITIMATE voters from voting, because you're afraid they won't vote the way you want.
Just get off your unAmerican elitist kick and endorse the right of every legal American to have the simplest and easiest path to doing the American thing -- voting!
Posted by: Nelson on February 15, 2005 09:36 AMHonesty, integrity and "quality" (capability) of voters.
As a society we should not settle for less.
Honesty, integrity and "quality".
I expect no less of students in the educational system (although we all know those in government school are indeed getting a diluted, feel good education). Want proof? Ask that teenager and a few of his/her pals that you purport to have to take this little 8th grade test hailing from a time when an education actually meant something: http://www.goodschools.com/test.htm
Honesty, integrity and "quality".
I expect no less when I shop for groceries or buy a car.
Honesty, integrity and "quality".
I expect no less from my doctor, my lawyer, the professors whose salaries I am helping to pay over at WSU, the guy that fixes my roof, cleans my windows or puts new brakes on our cars.
Honesty, integrity and "quality".
I simply cannot fathom why anyone, such as you, Nelson, would fight for and choose to settle for anything less.
Surely, your furnace installer would want to have his installation as "simple and easy" as possible, while still maintaining his honesty, integrity and quality.
Simple and easy is NOT expedient. It is a worthy and difficult goal in any endeavor, to assure the widest possible participation, particularly in elections.
You continue to want, by inference, to disenfranchise people. That is obviously because you know your political views are in the minority and you are afraid of having them come to light. You don't have to be embarrassed to be in a minority group.
I'm sure "some of your best friends are minority people."
Good luck on your furnace installation. Make sure you check the installer's contractor license and check his references, too. Hopefully, if he's a good one, the installation will indeed by "simple and easy."
Posted by: Nelson on February 15, 2005 10:49 AMYou continue to want, by inference, to disenfranchise people.
Oh nonsense.
I want them to "enfranchise" THEMSELVES by proving who they are and being capable and exhibiting capability of making intelligent, rational choices. (Golly, gosh, gee whiz, could that be called that horrible, awful ick, blech, ugh, ptoeey CONSERVATIVE ideal known as personal responsibility?)
I'm sure "some of your best friends are minority people."
Cute non-sequitor there Nelson.
You just can't help yourelf can you?
It simply doesn't appear possible for "you" (as in the grand sense of you and those who share your ideology) to be able to have a productive conversation without throwing in completely IRRELEVANT, completely ugly, completely condescending, completely insulting and completely baiting comments that serve nop purpose other than to insult and bait.
First off, you don't seem to understand that we live in AMERICA.....Period.
Learn the language
Learn to abide by our LAWS
Learn to be productive in Society. Get a Job, Consume goods with money earned from the Job, and stay off public assistance. Being a citizen of USA doesnt mean a FREE RIDE, although most liberals think it OK.
You dont have to be involved in a political party to accomplish the above. If a person who lives here doesnt speak the language, how can we expect them to READ IT, or understand it. I am sick and tired of hearing about the disenfranchised voters who can't READ, DRIVE, or Speak our language. ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH.... Hell there are 18 yr old HS Graduates of this country who cant Read or Write, but are allowed to Vote. Do you really think they are informed, and a contributor to our society on a daily basis.
Get Real Nelson, Wake Up. America is falling apart because of "EVERYBODY GET OUT AND VOTE" crappola that the Dem's started. The only reason you encourage it, is because the Dem's can persuade the Poor, Lonely, Read and Write Challenged, and non english speaking people to register. The Dem's promise them the world, and never deliver.
I have one question for you.
Since your obviously Democrat, are you proud of Mr. Clintons Demoralizing conduct while in the White House? Do you and all your liberal friends understand how the USA appeared to all the other countries. He, himself and his conduct while president, drowned this country in Scandal.
Posted by: Chris on February 15, 2005 11:35 AMhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-english14feb14,1,5808851.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
February 14, 2005
"LEBANON, Tenn. — A judge hearing child abuse and neglect cases in Tennessee has given an unusual instruction to some immigrant mothers who have come before him: Learn English, or else..."
Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had. His accomplishments in both domestic and foreign affairs were spectacular. As for his "scandal," no one died, no one was hurt and only foolish partisans complained.
Compare that with the character that is in the White House now -- a guy who went AWOL while in the service yet sees nothing wrong with sending thousands of American servicemen and women to be killed and wounded in a foolish war that accomplishes nothing, except to line the pockets of Halliburton with taxpayer (yours and mine) dollars.
A man who single-handedly turned a surplus of hundreds of billions into a deficit of trillions in 3 short years.
That, sir, is the real scandal in Washington, not some irrelevant fling with a floozie. And as for what the world thinks of America, when Clinton was president, the US was the toast and the envy of the entire world. Under Bush, we're viewed as the most dangerous country to world peace on the face of the earth.
Now, as to your relevant comments about the issue at hand:
"First off, you don't seem to understand that we live in AMERICA.....Period.
Learn the language
Learn to abide by our LAWS"
I certainly understand that we live in America...period! That's why if YOU KNEW the law of the land, you would know that no means, literacy or civics test as a prerequisite to voting is permitted. Those qualifications are patently unconstitutional.
Second, your "Learn the Language" comments clearly shows that you also know nothing about American law. WE HAVE NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN THIS COUNTRY. True, English is spoken most widely, but it is not the official language of the US. There simply isn't any official language in this great country.
And finally, "Learn to Abide by Our Laws." I agree. That's why you should learn to abide by the Constitutional requirement that all elections be open to all, and they be simple and easy with no cost, no test, no nothing except for someone to be a US citizen at least 18 years of age. Period. End of story. (Oh, and I forgot. Because I know the law, if you're an unreconstructed felon -- such as all of the Republicans convicted of tax evasion or for bombing abortion clinics -- you lose your right to vote, and also, if you have not established a legal, local residence, you might not be able to vote in a certain jurisdiction).
Other than that, if you actually knew the LAW, you would say, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SIMPLE AND EASY PATH TO VOTING.
Posted by: Nelson on February 15, 2005 12:17 PMSadly though, that worn out rhetoric (Bush AWOL, the deficit, Haliburton, the glory of Clinton, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah) is indeed just that: old rhetoric trotted out whenever "your side" can't take the heat or come up with convincing ideas and as such deserves to be ignored. It has ALL been refuted TO DEATH more times than we can count by more people than we can count and is incredibly B O R I N G!
It's been quite interesting and educational (though, I'm sure not in the way you had hoped) chatting with you.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 15, 2005 01:22 PMIt's unconstititional ONLY if they're discriminatory and not applied equally.
Nice try, Nelson.
As an interesting side bar, my first post in this subject was at 5:34pm yesterday. In the short time since then I have been
1. called "an unAmerican elitist" ... repeatedly;
2. had my honesty called in to question: "Since you have a teenage son (the wrestling team, remember?)";
3. called an "election elitist snob.";
4. told that I continue to want to disenfrachise people, especially minorities;
5. have been found guilty by association "such as all of the Republicans convicted of tax evasion or for bombing abortion clinics";
6. told "you also know nothing about American law".
Such lovely, uplifting and quite revealing "civil discourse" from those who disagree with me.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 15, 2005 02:02 PMhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment15/01.html#f17
Posted by: Cheryl on February 15, 2005 02:10 PMHere's proof: "literacy test
A test of a voter's ability to read and understand and hence vote intelligently, typically used in a discriminatory manner in some states until Congress suspended the use of such tests in the Voting Rights Acts of 1970 and 1975."
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against any type of literacy test for voting for any purpose and Congress overwhelmingly outlawed all such tests in both 1879 and 1975 in the two Voting Rights Acts.
As for your dismissal of the so-called "worn out rhetoric," it also proves you have no sense of reality. You're just stuck in your safe little coccoon for far right wing nonsensical propaganda and have no understanding for the real world of American politics.
It's too bad. Your son is not getting a real education if you're passing your views onto him. Try doing some reading. Anything that helps educate voters is valuable, you know.
Nelson what if the "voter" can't READ English, are you willing to Teach Them?
That was my whole point earlier, it is not up to ME to make sure/pay for another american to READ ENGLISH. IT IS THE VOTERS RESPONSIBILITY to be able to READ THE DAMN BALLOT, and UNDERSTAND what they are voting on.
And surely do you think the Liberals of this great nation would allow a Literacy Test? I dont advocate a Test, I just want those that cant function/contribute to AMERICA, to do something about it(not rely on Uncle Sam), so they CAN be productive Americans.
Posted by: Chris on February 16, 2005 06:46 AMCheryl -- it's really tiresome "debating" someone who doesn't have a clue... -Posted by Nelson at February 15, 2005 09:21 PM
You invited yourself to the party, kiddo.
You're just stuck in your safe little coccoon for far right wing nonsensical propaganda and have no understanding for the real world of American politics. -Posted by Nelson at February 15, 2005 09:21 PM
Right.
Who was it that trotted out AWOL, Haliburton, deficit and Clintons 'pecadillos' in a debate about the responsibilities of voters?
It's too bad. Your son is not getting a real education if you're passing your views onto him. -Posted by Nelson at February 15, 2005 09:21 PM
I suspect that is your barely veiled contempt over the fact that I am actually teaching my SONS (yep there's 3 of them: 1 in high school, 1 a WSU senior and 1 a 3rd yr law student back East) the values that made this country great instead of the liberal pap regularly regurgitated by the those agenda pushers attempting to addict the electorate to their convoluted, wrong-headed ideas for the sole purpose of simply achieving power. Fortunately, I have THINKING sons as opposed to simple followers.
One more time:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment15/01.html#f17
"At an early date the Court held that literacy tests which are drafted so as to apply alike to all applicants for the voting franchise would be deemed to be fair on their face and in the absence of proof of discriminatory enforcement could not be said to deny equal protection."
SOURCE: US Constitution, Amendment 15 Annotated (notes 17 and 18)
I have noticed Nelson, you haven't bothered to cite a source for your talking points... er, information.
Pardon me, but I decline to simply take your word on the subject.
So I'm going to help you out here, pal...
What you are attempting to cite simply reinforces the NON-DISCRIMINATORY requirements:
"Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect."
That was simply extended for 5 years in 1970 and for another 7 years in 1975.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
Pay close attention here, Nelson:
Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and for seven years in 1975. With these extensions Congress validated the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the scope of Section 5. During the hearings on these extensions Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of at-large elections, and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens, and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for language minority citizens.
In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.
Nice try.
As is typical of right wing propagandists, you cite half-truths and misleading data to attempt to support your failed positions. The clear implication of your post is to claim that the Federal prohibition against literacy tests was allowed to expire in 1982, seven years after 1975. While I exerpted a longer post and citation of yours, nowhere does it point out that in 1982 Congress passed a new version of the Act that extended that prohibition FOR ANOTHER 25 YEARS!!!!
Literacy tests AND English language requirements are expressly forbidden as voting qualifications under Federal law.
Here is a good explanation of all of it, and pretty complete, that I found on a website published by Santa Cruz, CA: http://www.votescount.com/votrights.htm
I expect your apology shortly.
Posted by: Nelson on February 16, 2005 09:05 AMHad you actually pursued and read my link you would have noticed that it is UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE posting.
Nice try.
And, I have to wonder if you actually read your own citation, as it clearly confirms everything the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE posting says and then simply gives us DEFINITIONS (whoop de do), including the definition of a literacy test you tried to pass off as the statute.
What the US CONSTITUTION actually says, and what has been REPEATEDLY upheld by the Supreme Court, is that it is NOT discriminatory to have literacy tests, but that they cannot be discriminatory to "language minority citizens".
I expect your apology shortly. -Posted by Nelson at February 16, 2005 09:05 AM
And I know better than to ever expect yours.
Posted by: Cheryl on February 16, 2005 09:35 AMI expect your apology shortly. -Posted by Nelson at February 16, 2005 09:05 AM
And I know better than to ever expect yours.
I think all those Voters' Nelson is Worried about should READ his Link. Then they will be informed voters and know their rights.
But Jeesshhh, what if they can't read english?
Nelson, I think you better start that "School" for Non English Speaking/Reading/Writing Voters, you would be doing us all a favor.
And as far as a Literacy Test goes, I don't advocate it, but I think that Voters should have to fill out their own ballot, without assistance. No Helpy Whelpy from anyone. Then there would be no need for this argument at all.
Oh Did I mention, the Ballot should only be in ENGLISH..... Look at the Financial Opportunity NELSON, you could set-up "Schools' for Democrat's all over the country, and spread your liberal ideas, while teaching "ENGLISH".
Posted by: Chris on February 16, 2005 10:24 AMKudo's to you! And you should be proud of yourself for raising three free thinking citizens, who are heading in the direction of being productive, active citizens of this Great Country.