Suit Filed Against Ohio Voter ID Law

[greeneyedboy]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ohio-Election-Lawsuit.html

Suit Filed Against Ohio Voter ID Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:59 p.m. ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Labor and poverty groups sued to block Ohio's new voter identification law Tuesday, claiming that inconsistencies in how the law is applied make it unconstitutional.

''There's a significant risk here that tens of thousands of ballots will not be counted,'' said Subodh Chandra, a Cleveland attorney representing the group.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, seeks a temporary restraining order on behalf of Service Employees International Union Local 1199 and the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless.

Chandra, a one-time Democratic attorney general candidate, said Ohio's 88 county boards of elections are inconsistently applying the new law in voting that is already under way. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ohio-Election-Lawsuit.html

[maseman]

1. THANK YOU

We need people to stand up for the rights of the voters in Ohio. Before AND after the election.

[babsbunny]

2. I keep praying for miracles here in Ohio

Thanks for this post!

[ryanus]

3. Can some one sum up the argument against voter ID for me?

Cuz I don't really see what the big deal is. If we are an open society, but only citizens can vote, then it make sense to me that we should have a way to validate citizenship at the polls.

If the problem is that the poor are less likely to get an ID then I would think the effort should be to make Id's easy to get. If the problem is that the requirements aren't consistent across polling place, then it makes sense to me that the effort should be to standardize that.

I don't really understand the opposition.

[rmgarrette64]

4. I've said something similar before

This is a little sad to say, but I think this one comes down to playing politics more than principle - on both sides.

In general, any additional requirements you add - no matter what they are - will tend to depress turnout at the margins. Also in general, we tend to benefit when turnout is higher, and Republicans when it is lower. As such, Democrats tend to oppose any additional verification measures, even ones that are as simple as an ID requirement. I think we're wrong, and we should have those checks, but that is not the general party stance.

On the other hand, we tend (and on this one rightly) to support longer polling hours, more polling stations, or anything else that makes it easier for people to get to the polls. Again, I think we're right to do so, but we also do have the political motivation, that this increases turnout at the margins. By the same token, we tend to find the GOP opposing such measures - and we tend to ascribe this to mean spiritedness, rather than the same political motives.

Sad, but probably true,

R. Garrett

[roseBudd]

5. People with jobs and cars tend to assume that everyone has ID and that it

is simple to get. Even if social service agencies attempted to get everyone an ID it would be virtually impossible. Think about the census and what is involved in that enterprise.

Also even homeless people have the right to vote.

It's not fair that people who drive, don't have to do anything special to vote. The poor who lead chaotic disorganized lives will have to. And even if they get the ID, they will lose it or have it stolen, or get evicted and lose it, or suffer a house fire and lose it, or move suddenly when their girlfriend kicks them out and lose it. Everytime they move they will have to get anothr one. And they move alot.

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. It is way too risky, and requires too many bodies to swing an election. Anyone doing identity theft is going to do it for big $$$, not to vote.

[ryanus]

6. Hmmm

Every state has a generic ID card, separate from a driver's license.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that people should show evidence of their citizenship. For every locality I know of in the US, you cannot vote in the local elections until you've been a resident there for at least a short period of time. This is so groups of people from neighboring localities couldn't all come over and swing the election. That makes sense and doesn't discriminate against anyone.

Same thing for larger scale elections. I wouldn't want people from the next state coming over and voting in our state elections, but polling workers need to have some way of determining who is a resident of the state.

For national election, same thing. Only citizens are allowed to vote. That makes sense for the same reasons it made sense at the local level. We wouldn't want another country to come in and vote in our elections.

But you do have to do something special to vote: you have to show that you are a citizen. That is not unreasonable and doesn't discriminate against anyone. If the problem is that there are some people who just can't make it to the local state branch that issues IDs, or that they are going to lose it, I mean c'mon, that's the opposition argument?

And voter fraud is "nonexistent?" I'm done playing. This is lame.

on edit: what about 1 person 1 vote? Don't the people in my town have the right to have elections only for the people of the town? Don't we have a right to decide things for ourselves? That's democracy. If we never checked who was voting, or how many times, then we effectively are not having our own election. An ID card is ok with me, assuming it's not hard to get and is only used for proof of residency or citizenship. Where I live, they don't require ID but the check if your name is on a roster. Your name gets put on a roster based on your residency. I'm not sure what homeless people do to get on the list. For them it would probably be better to have a card.

on edit again: What do we do if people lose their absentee balot? Just let them write a note saying who they vote for? What is someone goes to the wrong place to vote, and ends up being unable to vote because the correct polling place closed. Should we allow that person to vote the next day? I mean seriously, there needs to be some measure to ensure the integrity of the election. If we need more polling places, then open up more of them. If they need to be open longer then uniformally keep them open longer. If IDs need to be obtained then make it as easy as possible to get IDs, as long as it doesn't compromise the integrity of the election.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Is it reasonable that 11 MILLION voters should be disfranchised

.in order to "prevent' a theoretical problem of which there is absolutely no evidence?

Have you ever heard of cost-benefit analysis? How many times have poll workers or registration officials caught people trying to impersonate legitimate voters? I haven't heard of even one such case, but let's be magnanimous and say there were 11 nationwide. Would it be reasonable to disfranchise a million legitimate voters, with red tape and poll-tax-like expenses and incomvenience, in order to prevent one impersonation at the polls?

The 11 million estimate for disfranchisements comes from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (at http://www.cbpp.org/9-22-06id.htm ).

There's a gread DU discussion of that report at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2841188

There already have been court decisions overturning "Voter ID" in Missouri and Georgia because they would have disfranchised hundreds of thousands in each of those individual states. See also a big DU thread on a NY TImes editorial against HR4844, archived at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2184544

Lots of good links there. We are one House re-vote and one Senate vote away from NATIONAL voter id that would negate state constitutional prohibitions against "Voter ID". If this should happen, because those who would be disfranchised vote Democratic overwhelmingly, Democrats well could become a permanent minority in Washington and in most of the 50 States.

You may be a sincere person who's just been hoodwinked by the most deceptive policy proposal I've ever encountered. It was brought to you by Jim Baker, the architect of Dubya's post-election "victory" in Florida. See the 2005 "Carter-Baker Commission Report" and the dissent by Commissioner Spencer Overton referenced at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2184544 .

[ryanus]

11. They are not disenfranchised

An election has to have some rules to it, like where and when people vote. Showing evidence of citizenship\residency does not disenfranchise anyone, as long as everyone can easily get that evidence, like in the form of an ID.

Cost - benefit is not a good standard for how an election should be run. You would have more voting if people voted through the internet, but it is not secure. You would have more voting if people could vote over an entire week. You would have more voting if employers were allowed to collect the votes of their employees at work.

And what do you say about my town restricting voting in the town elections to only people in my town? Are you saying there is no chance that people from other places would vote in our town election? Are you saying that there is no chance that someone could "stuff the ballot box?" If voter turnout is 20%, then a small increase in the number of votes could swing an election. How would you know if those votes were from legitimate residents of the town?

There is no issue about whether only residents of my town should be able to vote in our town elections. Only town residents should be allowed to vote. Using an ID is one way, as it a roster, assuming that getting the ID or getting on the roster is not too difficult.

You tell me, how can my town have confidence that the town election has only residents of the town voting in it, and that each person cannot vote more than once? How should we do that?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. Courts in Missouri and Georgia say they ARE disfranchised The kind of

cost-benefit analysis I referred to in my previous post was the basis for overturning "Voter ID" in both Missouri and Georgia. Cost-benefit analysis is simply the LOGIC of deciding whether a proposed change in law would bring the goals of that law closer or push them farther away. If the Ohio state constitution is at all similar to Missouri's and Georgia's on the goals of democratic elections, that same cost-benefit analysis will result in overturning the Ohio "Voter ID" law. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2184544&mesg_id=2185783 .

So you are saying IT'S OK TO TAKE AWAY ELEVEN MILLION PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO VOTE on absolutely NO evidence of noncitizen voting or impersonation of voters. Nice logic.

[ryanus]

14. Turn the caps lock off

I am not taking anyway anyone's ability to vote. Everyone has to register, right? Isn't that going to prevent some people from being able to vote?

You don't even address my points. You just cite come court decision and yell at me with caps. Nice discussion with you.

[AngryOldDem]

7. Homeless and voting

>>Also even homeless people have the right to vote.>>>

A lot don't have any kind of ID, and what they do have is not current. Some have out-of-state ID, also most often expired.

Yet, we are encouraging them to vote anyway. I wonder how much grief they will encounter when they try to do so, because under Ohio law I think they'll be in for a rough time.

And a note about getting IDs: They aren't free. Even if we may consider the cost to be nominal, for a lot of people it is an expense. Some agencies do help with IDs, but that takes time -- and also money.

[wildeyed]

8. There is no evidence of voter fraud

that this type of legislation could address. Just adds bureaucracy for the state and inconvenience for the voter. Ain't broke, so don't fix it.

Every step you add to the registration process is another percentage of poor, young, and elderly (and not coincidentally traditionally democratic) voters who will not make it to the polls. If there was evidence of significant voter fraud, I too would support more stringent ID process. But in the absence of fraud, I can only assume that the pugs want this to suppress democratic voter turnout. It will be effective enough to turn tight races, ie. Ohio and FL, to their advantage.

[AngryOldDem]

9. You think?

The motives behind all of these rule changes is to make voting such a pain in the ass that many will just not do it. There are about three or four threads here this morning about all the last-minute jerking-around Ohio is doing with its election laws (claims that absentee ballots can't be counted in time, yadda, yadda, yadda). I thought we had a chance in this state to have something of a "clean" (more or less) election. Now, after reading all this, I'm not so sure. But if things this time around are just as skewed as they were in 2004, and if nobody contests anything, then it's time to turn out the lights.

Maybe we should just rename Election Day "Diebold Day" and be done with it.

[ryanus]

12. This is how it should work

This would be as fair as possible and still protect the integrity of the election.

1. Residents themselves must register to vote. Make this easy. Have forms at the library, the DMV, have the local elections officer send mailings to residences, advertise it.
2. Polling locations have lists of people who are eligible to vote at that location. The lists of names at the polling places should be exclusive, meaning, no name is on two lists.
3. Have enough polling places that people can get to them in a reasonable amount of time.
4. Have all polling places open and close at the same time, and have them open early in the morning and close late at night.
5. Have voters show evidence that they are who they say they are. Just like how you have to show proof of who you are to get a passport, a driver's license, a Social Security card. Make generic State ID cards free.
6. Have the voter sign the voter list when they vote.

Easy. That's it. No one is disenfranchised. Yes it does require voters to actually register, and actually show up to vote (unless they do absentee), and it does require voters to show who they are. This is a minimum to ensure that only residents\citizens vote and that they don't vote more than once.

In my area, I could vote for all my neighbors if I wanted to, if they haven't voted already. They don't check who I am. I just walk up, say a name, they look up the name in the book, and tell me to sign on the line by the name. I have run for office in an election where the winner got 200 votes. How easy would it be to get a few people to say they are some other person to swing the vote?

Note this doesn't include how they counting should be done, but that's a different topic.

[OzarkDem]

15. Its ok if the address on your DL isn't current

as long as your DL is. Heard this at a meeting last night, a Dem attorney had to argue for quite a while at our county BOE to convince them it was ok for someone to vote if their drivers license was current, but the address was old.

Wonder how many people will be turned away for things like that.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. kick

[Doremus]

17. Why do groups always wait until the last minute for these suits?

If they had filed it last summer or even last month, there would have been plenty of time to spread word of the decision and these same groups could have been helping people get their IDs (if necessary).

How many people will hold off now that the requirement has been called into question? If the decision isn't handed down until next week, there's no time to get the word out OR help those without.

Nuts.

I'll tell ya what else is nuts. That people focus on individual voters when they think of election fraud. Just how many people live in the average precinct? Ours has probably a couple of thousand. What are the odds that 1) somebody would risk incarceration to cast a couple of extra votes, and 2) even if they tried, that they --or the person they were voting on behalf of-- wouldn't be recognized by someone in the average precinct polling place? Pretty slim, imo.

The ID requirement is just another GOP roadblock, erected under the pretenses that election fraud is rampant. People who buy into it are allowing themselves to be manipulated in the same way that the repukes like to focus on welfare cheats while shoveling out millions in corporate welfare.