Don’t forget that Republicans have created barriers to voting by pushing Voter ID laws. Indiana’s voter ID law, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, actually led to 90 year old nuns being turned away from the polls because they did not have valid drivers licenses. Ridiculous.
A recent NY Times story showed the next trick in the Repub playbook – require proof of citizenship to further restrict the franchise. Note how both this and the Indiana voter ID law put the burden of proof on the individual. Too bad we don’t have a right to vote in the Constitution.
Also, don’t forget the role Gay Marriage referendums played in mobilizing the right wing on 04 (13 states, I think). This could certainly be used to do the same with Illegal Immigration replacing Gay Marriage as the wedge issue.
Here’s the Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…
Here’s the release from our friends a Demos:
I agree with same-day registration for general elections and non-partisan municipal elections, but not for primaries. I have come to believe this cycle that all primaries should be closed and thus restricted to those who have declared partisan allegiance ahead of time.
<
p>I also believe in showing ID when one votes and proof of citizenship when one registers. It’s just too easy for me to pose as someone else who I’m pretty sure will not be voting. For this to work, however, an ID needs to be issued at the time of registration or the first time one votes if registration is by mail. Another way to make it easier is to skip registration entirely and just show up with an ID that includes name, picture, and address. If one does not drive then they can get a non-driving state ID. I would also advocate free IDs to those who don’t have another form. All it would take is showing up at the local clerk’s office and getting your picture taken.
I have been wondering if primaries are anything but a waste of time and money. Could we not have done away with them for the last Gubernatorial race and implemented IRV? I am registered as partisan but find it egregious that the majority of voters in MA, the Unenrolled, have to declare a party to participate in the primary process. It is mindboggling to me that the majority of taxpayers in MA have not revolted against primaries, that in reality only serve the two party system.
<
p>Talk about a turn-off and turn-away.
<
p>Maybe D’s and R’s and should have to pay for their own primaries? Each party gets to put their top choice on the ballot and the taxpayers foot that bill. I don’t know, this is getting a little stream of consciousness…
<
p>I could see if a stable of D’s showed up again in 2012 to run for POTUS that there would be a need to winnow the field, but I am not convinced primaries serve the ideal of open, free and unemcumbered elections in local and state offices.
Election day registration, and closed vs. open primaries, are separate issues, though there’s a small bit of intersection. Currently we have open primaries in MA, but people still have to register in advance. It’s not the lack of election day registration that makes the primary open, it’s a conscious choice to make the primary open.
<
p>Democratic caucuses for the state convention are closed: limited to Democrats only. We effectively had election day registration for those caucuses one year: 2002, when Reich ran for governor. The result? A large influx of new, active Democrats, most of whom stayed active Democrats to this day.
<
p>If we had election day registration for primaries and “closed primaries” where you have to register as a Democrat to vote, the result would be a lot more Democrats. I think that’s a good thing, though IMO not good enough to outweigh the disadvantage of closed primaries. But regardless of how you feel about that, the 20 day registration deadline is a separate matter. It does nothing to change or enforce people’s party affiliations, it just acts as a barrier to voting.
…that the “lot more Democrats” you refer to would not necessarily be Democrats at heart. We’ve heard too many stories this primary season of Republicans voting in our primary just to meddle with us a la Rush Limbaugh and may be voting for the perceived weaker candidate. These people have every intention of voting for McCain in the fall anyway. This just brings us back to an open primary as a practical matter. Participating in our caucus/convention process requires more commitment so there may be less of a concern there.
This is like Republicans’ pushing ID requirements out of concern that lots of people will vote fraudulently, when the real porblem is legitimate voters being turned away. Stop stirring up your fear out of theory, and look at reality.
If it weren’t for our Secretary of the Commonwealth, we’d have had election day registration in time for the 2006 election. The legislature was going to do it, but he got them to stop. He claimed that he supports it, though. So will we have election day registration in time for this year’s election? We’d better. It’s popular with the public, it’s popular with the legislature, and it works well in neighboring New Hampshire.
<
p>If we don’t have it in time for this year’s election then I think it’s time to:
a) Pursue it through a ballot initiative
b) Try once again to dump Galvin
Some town and city clerks also opposed it because of fears of lack of resources. I think election day registration should have happened a long time ago, but the Secretary of State needed to be behind it and needed to allay any fears by the local clerks who will administer it. Secretary Galvin does not seem the type who is able to do that effectively, yet we keep electing him.
I was at a meeting about this issue a few weeks ago, and Clerks in attendance expressed support because it would render provisional ballots unnecessary. They said provisional ballots are a pain and are extremely unlikely to ultimately be counted.
22,293 may sound like a significant amount. It isn’t. It represents about 1/3 of 1% of the voting public in North Carolina.
<
p>Countries with strictly enforced compulsory voting, like Australia, have significantly higher voter turnouts.
<
p>Other significant factors include voter fatigue. last year, Westford held five separate elections. And we probably had around 50 articles come through town meetings.
<
p>I don’t consider taking out my wallet and showing an ID to be a barrier. I believe it should be done.
<
p>
But there are large groups of people who are less likely to own ID
<
p> * City dwelling adults without cars
* Senior citizens who gave up driving a long time ago
* 18-20.999 year olds city kids who don’t have licenses
<
p>The fact remains that these demographics aren’t “random” — they’re the very young, the very old, and the poor. Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that Republicans don’t consider it a barrier, after all Republicans don’t typically fit the demographics of people who don’t own IDs.
<
p>Oh, and in most states, IDs aren’t free. Why should anyone have to pay anything for the right to vote?
Homeless people have a right to vote, but often have no ID. You can register to vote with no address, but it’s hard to get an ID with no address.
<
p>College students, whom we have a lot of here in Boston, typically use their college ID, which ID laws tend to leave out. But they either don’t drive, or have out of state licenses.
<
p>And yes, that’s the point: Not that it’s a huge number, but that specific groups of people are affected disproportionately. So voter ID laws don’t just deny individuals’ right to vote (bad enough), but also skew elections in specific ways (to disadvantage these groups).
The idea of a nuisance fine for not voting has grown on me over the years. I don’t think disenfranchisement is a appropriate penalty for not voting (as they do in Belgium), but a slight fine may make the material benefit of voting a little clearer. In Turkey they pay about three bucks, Australia charges about $15, or the harassment of filling in paperwork to provide an excuse.
<
p>I also think a closer look at Oregon’s vote-by-mail experience wouldn’t be a bad idea, either…
… be an expansion of the time window if you want to add fines. Personally I figure there should be a stretch of 4 days to vote that include a weekend.
<
p>And as far as urgency is concerned… I thought the 2000 debacle made it apparent that it was at least a somewhat urgent issue almost 8 years ago.
I don’t necessarily agree that more people voting is such a great idea. Everybody has the opportunity to vote. If they choose not to exercise that right, that is because they can’t be bothered. So what does the addition of this person’s vote add to the process? Probabloy nothing. It may be a subtraction, if these are the type of folks interviewed for comedic purposes by Jay Leno.
<
p>So, we have a proposal that would be at least slightly more expensive than the status quo, would slightly increase the risk of voter fraud, and zero or slightly negative benefit.
<
p>No, thanks.
… going out of the way legislatively to make it hard to vote, is that necessarily begs the question hard for whom? Juggling voting with one’s work schedule, for example, necessarily has disparate effects on the ability to vote for different segments of the populous. Now you can wind up getting into the question of the ‘fairness’ of such measures and those questions are much more of a sticky wicket. In principal, that’s my main reason for wanting voting to be easier. Certainly you don’t want pollsters to bring the poling place to everyone’s door at their convenient schedule, but you also don’t want a situation where someone didn’t vote because there was too much in the way.
It ain’t that hard. Convenient registration at city/town hall, or at the RMV when you go for license. Polls open for longer than the office professional’s 11 hour workday.
<
p>If you find it that hard, it is because you can’t be bothered.
<
p>I still don’t see a benefit.
<
p>Perhaps the benefit is that the union guys can get more people to the polls to vote D on election day, and party activists always think that electing more from their team is best for everyone, but I don’t see it as a benefit to anyone other than the Democratic Party.
Anyone that works a long shift and / or has an unmerciful boss can / will have trouble getting past the 11 hour work day issue. My day may be 8 hours, but I have 3 hours of commuting plus lunch to think about. Thats just me. How many more like me are there on the commuter rail every day. Jobsite laborers , medical personnel, etc. will all have this as a potential problem.
<
p>I know I’ve missed at least one voting day because of work emergencies.
Problem solved. No new legislation necessary.
Nobody is 100% committed to voting. Everyone has some probability that they’ll miss a vote if things turn out too inconvenient. The threshold is different for each person, but it’s there.
<
p>What happens when you have obstacles that don’t need to be, that increase the inconvenience of voting disproportionately for some groups of people as compared to other groups? Obviously, the turnout for some groups decreases at a different rate than for other groups. People respond to incentives – even people who want to vote. So one bad effect of requiring registration in advance is that it skews the turnout to the advantage of those groups for whom it’s less likely to be an obstacle.
<
p>The most obvious example is homeowners vs. renters. Renters move more often, and when you move it’s typically a stressful time with a lot of things to juggle, so re-registering often slips through the cracks. Every election, some percentage of people who moved since the last election will only remember about this after the registration deadline has passed, because election day itself gets a lot more publicity than voter registration deadline day. A homeowner with exactly the same level of “caring” and motivation about voting might have forgotten as well, except that s/he didn’t move that year so it doesn’t matter – they still get to vote. Result: voter turnout among renters is depressed by a higher percentage than among homeowners, leaving candidates more interested in catering to homeowners, disproportionately to the actual homewner/renter balance in the district.
<
p>It also means cities with more transient populations, such as Cambridge and Somerville, get underrepresented compared to more stable-population cities, in races covering wider areas.
<
p>Also, cities and towns sometimes screw this up. I definitely have friends who haven’t been able to vote because they were still registered at their old address even though they did properly file a new form, and they only found this out on election day, and their old precinct was too far to get to. Again, this disproportionately affects people who move more often.
<
p>Other examples are new voters, poor voters, heavy travellers, homeless, … but the point is the same: level of convenience affects different groups differently, so obstacles skew the system in unfair ways.
<
p>This sort of thing is much less visible to those people who are much less affected by the obstacle. If you haven’t been moving frequently, or if you lead a well-ordered life and are an organized person and never forget to re-register when you move, then the number of times you’ve realized just before an election that “oops! you’re actually registered 40 miles away”, or gone to the polling place to find that they don’t have you, is probably quite low. The more it happens to you, the more you realize that it matters.