Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Voter Intimidation in the Sixth Worcester District

By

I’ve spent a fair amount of my free time over the past few months volunteering in the special election that is being held as a result of a tie vote. The primary was on Tuesday.

It looks like the Sixth Worcester District is ground zero of the efforts to suppress voters here in Massachusetts.  The Worcester Telegram covered the issue of voter suppression in yesterday’s primary.  This includes this billboard which appears to attempt to create the impression that you have to show an ID to vote.

I was on the streets in Southbridge, encouraging people to vote. I was in a number of different neighborhoods and the word was spreading that Latinos were being asked to show their ID to vote. I did meet a voter who told me that she had been turned away from voting for Geraldo in the last election in a situation in which she should have been given a provisional ballot. According to the T&G:

Town Clerk Madaline I. Daoust said yesterday she witnessed “unnecessary challenges” geared toward mentally challenged people and Hispanics.

It is clear that this effort and the efforts to create legislation to force voters to show ID are about voter suppression, not about voter fraud.  The sole reason to do this is to discourage people from voting.  

In statehouses across the country, Republican lawmakers are raising the specter of “voter fraud” to push through legislation that would dramatically restrict the voting rights of college students, rural voters, senior citizens, the disabled and the homeless. As part of their larger effort to silence Main Street, conservatives are pushing through new photo identification laws that would exclude millions from voting, depress Hispanic voter turnout by as much as 10 percent, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In the next few months, a new set of election laws could make going to the polls and registering to vote significantly more difficult – in some cases even barring groups of citizens from voting in the communities where they live.

We need to fight this, both in being vigilant in our efforts in these elections and in educating voters about the actual impact of legislation requiring voters to show ID.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. You need to show ID to buy beer yet something substantially more important such as voting requires nothing remotely close to an ID. What exactly are democrats worries about? No ID no vote. Pretty fair.  

        • at the moment, ID is not legally required.  Therefore, saying that ID is required is, well, a lie.  Pretty simple, actually.

          • You said:

            <

            p>

            Therefore, saying that ID is required is, well, a lie.

            <

            p>My opinion expressed below:

            <

            p>

            I think the rule should change so that ID is required to be shown before voting.

            <

            p>Thus I never said it was required. I only said that I thought the law should be changed and an ID should be required.

            <

            p>So follow along. I did not lie. I expressed an opinion that you don’t like.

            <

            p>Are we cool!

            • I was responding to your “paranoid” comment to John, who is obviously referring to the subject matter of the post (which deals with people trying to misrepresent current MA law).  Neither John nor I ever accused you of lying, as you would be perfectly well aware if you had actually read the post and the comment thread and “followed along.”  The people who are trying to persuade MA voters that they need to show ID – they are the ones who are lying.  They should stop it, as I trust you would agree.

              <

              p>As for whether or not I “like” your opinion, that’s a silly question.  You’re entitled to your opinion.  It happens to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean I don’t “like” it.

              <

              p>So sure, dude, we’re “cool!”

        • in the few posts that we’ve commented back and forth you seem to somehow turn it inward and make the argument about your beliefs, and completely removing fact from the discussion.  I’m all for debate, but we’re debating the facts, not how you “feel”.

          <

          p>Be cool.  

      • Make the case to me why it is so difficult and unfair to ask for a voter to produce an ID.  

        • Voting is a fundamental right.  

          <

          p>The government can impose burdens on fundamental rights only if it can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so.  (The NRA can explain how this works.)  

          <

          p>As Kate’s post shows, once again, there is no voter fraud problem warranting an ID requirement. There is, however, a voter suppression problem. It is being created by people who  tell the Worcester T&G that voting is not a right, but a “privilege.”                

          • I think the rule should change so that ID is required to be shown before voting. Not much left to argue about since we certainly will agree to disagree, but do so appreciating each others point of view.

            <

            p>Enjoy the beautiful day!

        • because voter fraud never happens.  Underage people buying alcohol, in contrast, happens all the time, thereby necessitating the need for ID.

  2. This is from the October 8th, 2010 Rumbo. It’s Spanish/English paper in the Merrimack Valley. There is no link because it’s .pdf only, but you can go to http://www.rumbonews.com and read it yourself.

    <

    p>These events occurred during the primary last fall and it involved Democratic candidates.

    <

    p>Election troubles in  Lawrence  Rumbo, Oct. 8th, 2010

    <

    p>Not too many people are talking  about the recent problem with a warden  in Ward C-3 but I know it reached the  Secretary of State’s Of  fi ce.  A volunteer representing Debbie  Silberstein’s campaign wrote a letter  to the Elections Department at the  Secretary of the Commonwealth listing  many irregularities he witnessed. In hot  water is Warden Oscar Rodriguez who  got caught marking up absentee ballots  and then putting them through the voting  machine.  There were multiple occurrences  of the warden asking elderly Spanish speaking  voters if they needed help  completing the ballot in the voting  booth. He would them gesture to one  of the ladies sitting in the room to assist  the voter in the booth. Poll workers are  instructed during training sessions not to  initiate contact with voters and to only  address voters upon the request of the  voter.  The volunteer claims that he observed  the check-in clerk identify voters on an  inactive list and provide them a ballot,  let them vote and place the ballot in the  ballot box then ask them to complete a form  that seemed like an af  fi davit that stipulated  they were continuous resident in the city. In  only one instance did he observe the clerk  challenge a voter for an ID, after the voter  had already placed the ballot in the ballot  box but could not produce a positive ID.  He also noticed that the check-in and  check-out clerks spend most of the day  calling back and forth to each other whose  names they had checked off, crosschecking  and adjusting their tallies to correct many  discrepancies. In some instances, the  check-out clerk would listen to the names  being given to the check-in clerk and cross  it out on her list long before the ballot was  inside the ballot box.  There were complaints about poll  workers asking voters to vote for Barry  Finegold but the warden denied that it  was happening. When City Clerk William  Maloney asked the police of  fi cer present  at the poll location he said that they were  speaking Spanish all day and he doesn’t  understand Spanish, so he has no idea if  that was the case. Mr. Maloney reminded  the poll workers and police of  fi cer that they  were not allowed to endorse or advocate for  any candidate at any time.  So much for training and transparency!  I’m sure that went on at other polling places,  too

    <

    p>

  3. She’s related to one of the candidates.

    <

    p>Her ballot box in the “tie” election was mysteriously missing a seal.

    <

    p>The “spoiled” ballot which was eventually counted was in that ballot box.

    <

    p>She also has a history of this from even before last election.

    <

    p>So of course she makes a fuss.

    • Unlike you, she has no reason to take her right to vote for granted.   So she’s probably more sensitive to conservative attempts to roll back the last sixty years.

      •    Is related to candidate Alicea. Of course she will do whatever it takes to keep her cousin in office. She should be in jail for election fraud.
          I spent some time in Oxford, volunteering for Empower Massachusetts. No problems in Oxford, the most POWERFUL town in Massachusetts, they have three State Representatives.  

        • A town that has three state representatives is lucky to have one who will show up once in a while.   In a smaller town such as Oxford (or my own, Middleborough), one generalyl gets ignored, as one is a tiny slice of the representative’s electorate.   Occasionally, one is lucky enough to have a representative who goes out of her/his way to be attentive to the tiny bit of their constituency within their town lines, but ask an Oxford selectman if they’d rather have one state rep. very concerned with their town, or three of whom who each hope someone else will go to all the meetings, and you’ll learn something.

          <

          p>And I’m sorry you don’t think relatives of candidates should have any concern for their rights.

          •    Do they still have an item on the selectmen’s docket to “free them from the pike”? You see, they feel they are exempt from turnpike tolls since there is not an exit in Oxford.
              Do you know Franklin is the intellectual hub of the 3rd CD?
              Do you know that Worcester has more in common with Fall River than Millbury? I think the 3rd CD Congressman needs to stop hanging out with his Columbian friends, That second hand smoke is getting to him.
              Yes, I was at the redistricting meeting in Worcester on Monday night, where the last two spots of brilliance were mentioned.

  4. Why would an ID requirement ‘depress Hispanic voting by 10%’?

    <

    p>If a person is Hispanic, a citizen and entitled to vote, why would ID be an issue?  If they are NOT a citizen or entitled to vote, then it would, but I would assume that would not be the case.  Right on this thread, David asserts that voter fraud never happens.

    <

    p>I find this kind of racist.  A person from Haiti, or Laos, or Singapore, or County Cork is equally likely to be eligible/not eligible to vote – so why are Hispanics singled out?

    • then voting?  That’s my question.  If you can show us the widespread fraud the please provide it to us.

      • And the continued assertions that this is only a conservative issue is untrue.  These people had all kinds of statistics on how Coakley had actually won the senate special election, and Brown’s voter fraud last year.

        <

        p>Now answer MY question – the one I asked – why are Hispanics singled out?

          • This artilcle wasn’t in the original post; I didn’t know I had to do research to validate the assumptions of the poster – I thought it was ‘up to you to prove’, as you stated above.

            <

            p>20% of women don’t renew their drivers licenses?  What percentage of men?

            <

            p>And the entire article is predicated on the fact that the only form of ID that would be considred valid is a driver’s license.  As a non-driver, I know there are alternatives.

            <

            p>And again – why are Hispanics singled out?

            • calling someone else a racist.  Shouldn’t you have something available to back it up?  I do find it hilarious to hear you, of all people, complaining about “linkless assertions.”  😀

              <

              p>

              why are Hispanics singled out?

              <

              p>Honestly, PP, did you even read the article I linked to?

              <

              p>

              Recently, election experts at Rutgers and Ohio State universities found that states that had implemented voter ID laws saw a 3 percent across-the-board reduction in voter turnout during the 2004 presidential election. The drop was worse among minorities: African-American turnout was depressed by 5.7 percent and Hispanic turnout was depressed by 10 percent.

              <

              p>Now, why didn’t the post quoted above also mention the decrease in African-American turnout?  I suspect because the number is smaller.  Ten percent is a more impressive effect than 5.7%, and therefore makes the argument appear more powerful.  It’s a rhetorical device.  It’s certainly not a racist one.

              • The poster didn’t know it was a rhetorical device, because they had read an entirely different article, with nothing about Rutgers in it.  In fact, you don’t even know if the original citations were aware of the study.  Which has its own flaws – again, why assume a driver’s license is the only valid for of photo ID?

                <

                p>BTW – if you read Galvin’s legal summary, are you aware that people CAN be asked for “written” ID even now?  It can be a license, but also a utility bill with the person’s name, a rent receipt of landlord’s letterhead, anything with the voter’s name and address.  The request must be “not discriminate in any way and may therefore be: entirely random, consistent, or based on reasonable expectation”.  So were’re not ‘ID Free’ now.

      • ensuring MORE integrity in our system then accepting LESS?

        <

        p>Currently with a limited amount of research, you can walk into a polling place, claim to be John Smith at 123 Happy street and cast a ballot.   This despite the face you are in fact Joe Blow.   Frankly, just because you are registered doesn’t mean you are the one casting the ballot.  We all know there is potential there.

        <

        p>The assertions here that voting fraud is not happening amuse me.  Okay, you think this is true, prove it.  

        <

        p>I show my ID several times a week.  I fail to see the overwhelming problem with requiring it to ensure the person who walks up to a polling place is the person they claim to be before allowing them to cast a ballot.  

        • And by the way, since you are the one lobbying for a change in law, YOU own the burden of proving a problem exists.  That’s the way laws are made.  The fact remains that there is no credible evidence that voter fraud is an issue, your protestations notwithstanding.  

          <

          p>The desire for “integrity” is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to suppress voter turn-out, pure and simple.  By claiming there is a problem where non exists, people get to varnish their bigotry with something that looks, at least on the surface, respectable.  But everyone knows what this is about.  Everyone.  Proponents of voter ID laws, given that they’re all about integrity and all, should at least have the intellectual “integrity” to admit it.  

        • Know what the penalty is for casting a single fraudulent ballot in Massachusetts?  5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.  Know what the odds are of swinging the election?  Virtually zero: of all the elections in Massachusetts every two years (10ish for Federal, over 200 for the state house, plus 1000s for local elections), how many end in a tie?  Even if we exclude those which were a 10 point margin or more*, it’s still an incredibly low possibility.

          <

          p>And for what?  Changing the outcome of a single state rep or senator isn’t going to change much about the General Court.  Smaller races are closer, but less powerful.

          <

          p>Committing non-conspiratorial voter fraud is simply not an efficient way to throw an election.  Are you prepared to allege a conspiracy?

          <

          p>

          <

          p>P.S. I think lightiris overstates a bit.  I agree that the folks who work hard on this issue are interested in caging, but jus’folks are persuaded that it’s reasonable, and those jus’folks don’t have the public policy and social policy understanding to figure out on their own that this is about caging.  Hell, they don’t even know what the word caging means in this context.  I recommend a more gentle hand.  Requiring ID doesn’t solve any known problem, but it does create additional burdens because the disbursement of IDs in society is not uniform — those less likely to own an ID include those who are close to 18, seniors, racial and ethnic minorities, and the poor.  They are also the folks for whom getting an ID is an additional burden, either of money, transportation, time, language, or otherwise.

          <

          p>

          <

          p> * If it’s 10+ point margin, folks likely knew that a single fraudulent ballot wouldn’t help much.

          • is roughly the same as the incentive to vote at all, except the latter only wastes a half an hour rather than minimal risk of prison time.

            • I’m happy to point out that there is no rational reason to vote, but even less of a reason to cheat with a single vote.  

              <

              p>EV[voting] = Pr[your vote changes the outcome] * (value of your guy winning minus value of other guy winning)
              Cost[voting] = (time spent voting) * (value of that time)
              Cost[cheating] = Pr[getting caught] * ($10,000 + five years in jail) < 0 we’ll assume getting caught is a negative

              <

              p>EV[voting] < Cost[voting] in nearly all cases.
              -EV[cheating] < EV[voting]

              <

              p>

              <

              p>Then again, what’s the incentive to salute the flag?  To have a prayer or moment of silence on memorial day?  To thank a veteran on any given day?  People vote because it’s their civic duty, not because it results in a windfall for themselves.  Whereas voting is a civic duty, cheating most decidedly is not.

    • Peter, it would apparently surprise you to learn that many American citizens lack IDs.  Statistically a disproportionate number of these citizens are poor, a disproportionate number are over 65, and a disproportionate number are members of racial or ethnic minorities.  It is also true that racial and ethnic minorities, including Latinos, are more likely to be questioned about their right to vote than Anglos.  Basically, that’s why ID requirements would depress voter turnout disproportionately.    

  5. You say there is no voter fraud or more proof is necessary, yet one or two people claim voters are being intimidated by the presence pollwatchers and a billboard (note no one quoted is an actual person feeling intimidated, they are all interested outside parties) and that is somehow gospel truth?

    • You say there is no voter fraud

      <

      p>Yes, yes I do.

      <

      p>

      or more proof is necessary

      <

      p>It’s not a question of “more proof.”  It’s a question of “any evidence whatsoever.”  And yeah, I’d say that some scintilla of evidence is needed before adopting a solution to a problem that, as far as the available evidence shows, does not exist.

      • There is a city election this November, then you can see it for yourself.

        <

        p>There is evidence that in the Taunton recount (Fagan vs O’Connell) Fagan thought he had the recount in the bag- was smiling and joking during the process and in the first recount whammo- 18 votes are gone from O’Connell. Oh, and 18 votes (the paper ballots) are also missing from all the other Republican candidates, which could easily be explained by someone grabbing 18 out of the box (again a compromised box, but I guess like in Southbridge you don’t care). Only when O’Connell’s attorney expressed the seriousness of the situation (after the first recount) did people realize their actions could result in jail time and they straightened up. I guess they weren’t used to a fight.

        <

        p>Hearsay? Well I got it from someone who was there. Newspaper? They don’t report it.

        <

        p>I am going to continue to periodically use your “no evidence whatsoever” line whenever I feel that the documentation of an argument is not up to MY standards.

  7. That in the 2004 Presidential elections, when I went to vote I was told that I had already voted.  My name and address where checked off on both the entrance and exit lists, so it was not a mistake.

    <

    p>I had to show id and get a provisional ballot….. but, whoever used my name the first time got their vote counted.

    • It would seem that your anecdote suggests that an instance of voter fraud has occurred.

      <

      p>How often does your scenario [which, by definition, under counts the instances of this kind of fraud] actually occur?  If the number is high, it does suggest a reason for some kind of reform.  If the number is low, it may not.

      <

      p>Is this data kept?

      • …it is worth it to achieve absolute integrity of the most important function of self-government.

        • because he wasn’t able to obtain an ID due to
          * insufficient funds
          * insufficient transportation
          * inability to show up at a gov’t office 8-8 M-F due to employment or otherwise

          <

          p>is it worth it?  How many people are you willing to disenfranchise to ensure that one fraudulent vote isn’t cast?

          • But while I am mindful of the concerns you raise I continue to insist that these concerns do not need to be absolute obstacles.

        • but any argument that starts with “If it happens only once it is worth…” is fundamentally flawed on so many levels that it’s likely a waste of time to bother with what follows.  Sound public policy, let alone law, should never be predicated on such a faulty and simplistic premise.  That’s the sort of lazy, categorical thinking that gives us the extremes of our political parties now.    

          • …but I’m of the ounce of prevention worth pound of cure school of thought.  I think whenever a problem arises we need to at least ask what can be done to prevent repeat.

    •    Your party was just helping you out by filling out your ballot for you. Don’t worry, I’m sure they voted the party line.

Archives