Remember Empower Massachusetts? Kate wrote a post about voter intimidation in the Sixth Worcester District this spring during the Democratic special election. Empower Massachusetts and Show ID to Vote were heavily involved in monitoring the polls on Election Day, and even went to the expense of putting up a billboard that said “Protect the Integrity of the Vote – Show ID!” in an area of the district considered friendly to the Democratic incumbent. These groups also observed voting around the district.
The Worcester T&G reported that Southbridge town clerk Madaline Daoust said that during the primary election “she witnessed ‘unnecessary challenges’ geared toward mentally challenged people and Hispanics.”
Empower Massachusetts and Show ID to Vote people were on the ground in the Sixth Worcester election, and were they back on the ground in the Twelfth Bristol district last Tuesday.
Rep. Elect Keiko Orrall had a great ground game in the Twelfth Bristol. She won handedly, and I give her and her team credit for that. With Public Policy Polling finding 56% of Massachusetts residents find the Republican Party to be too conservative, tea-party Orrall might even help us elect Democrats next fall. The fact that she won on Tuesday with 2,135 votes and her Democratic predecessor won in 2010 and 2008 with 8,744 and 12,151 respectively doesn’t hurt our 2012 chances either.
I haven’t heard anything about unnecessary challenges, but Show ID to Vote certainly had boots on the ground – they shared the following Facebook post with the world today:
Show ID to Vote Facebook Update https://www.facebook.com/ShowIDtoVote/posts/234634659917993
Why in the world would Show ID to Vote, a group committed to making it law to show ID at the polls, be interested in videotaping people voting? Just like their campaign to require identification and their campaign to misinform voters into believing they must show ID now, this is about one thing: Voter Intimidation.
According to the Center for Citizen Media it’s probably not illegal to record a polling place in Massachusetts unless you are able to see marked ballots. Some states do not allow any videotaping inside polling places. Alabama is one of those states – their website includes the following frequently asked question:
Can I take photographs or videotape inside my polling place?
No. Each voter has a right to cast a ballot in secrecy and in private. The U.S. Department of Justice has advised that photography or videotaping inside a polling place does not serve any useful purpose and may instead actually intimidate voters who are exercising their right to vote.
Upon further research I found that in 1998 the DOJ found that the North Carolina Republican Party’s plan to videotape voters in Charlotte and Fayetteville may violate the Voting Rights Act. The Republicans cited voter fraud, Democrats cited voter intimidation. The DOJ opinion according to Alabama’s website flat out says that videotaping serves no purpose and intimidates voters.
The Twelfth Bristol seat that Keiko Orrall won on Tuesday night is made up of parts of Freetown, Lakeville, Middleboro, New Bedford, and Taunton. I don’t have the exact district handy, but I know for a fact that it does not include all of New Bedford or Taunton. Of those cities and towns Freetown is 96% white, Lakeville 97% white, Middleboro 96% white, Taunton 92% white, and New Bedford is 78.86% white. You’ll never guess where Show ID to Vote leader Ralph Zazula reported (on his public facebook page) being on Tuesday to videotape voters. I’ll give you a hint: 52% of voters there are registered Democrats. It was so important to the voter suppression crowd that Empower MA treasurer and Greater Boston Tea Party president Christen Varley set up shop there on Tuesday, too! You guessed it: New Bedford.
Orrall’s opponent won New Bedford handily, but turnout was very low – less than 11%. That low turnout, as reported by the Boston Herald, helped propel Orrall to victory.
I don’t know if voter suppression played a major role in this election. Keiko Orrall probably would have won either way. But the damage is done. People saw the cameras on Tuesday, and they’ll remember that. They’ll pass it along to friends. If even one person is discouraged from voting because of the presence of cameras, the Show ID folks should be ashamed.
I challenge Show ID to Vote to release their videotape, unedited and in full, to show us what they were doing in New Bedford on Tuesday. Show us that you don’t have footage of a single ballot. Show us you weren’t making unnecessary challenges against minorities and the mentally challenged. I doubt they’ll comply, but it’s worth a shot.
Show ID to Vote has made it clear that they’re not interested in preventing voter fraud but instead intimidating voters from coming to the polls. With a DOJ report saying videotaping serves no purpose other than intimidation, 11 percent of African Americans without IDs and a ballot question backed a by a guy who can’t cite any voter fraud we know what this is all about This is simply another piece of evidence.
Andrew Breitbart’s recent visit (discussed on BMG earlier this week) was a fundraiser for Empower Massachusetts — to sponsor the work they’re doing “to ensure fairness in our elections.”
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
…of when the KKK would ride around on election day firing off guns, “to remind the colored folks that we intend to have a fair election”.
It is heartening that they would elect a non-Caucasian woman over a white male labor organizer.
Of course, Republican women have been elected at quite a clip lately….
2010 was a wave year for Republicans at the US House and Senate. Lots of GOPers elected. Yet the total number of women serving in the US Congress decreased for the first time in thirty years.
So much for that theory.
By your logic, the House members in MA would have declined due to national disgust with the Democrats.
Whoops! They did!
(Stomv – this is a favorite tactic on BMG. If a national trend contradicts the local one under discussion, drag that in as a pseudo-relevant argument. We were discussing the ridiculous analysis of voter race in Lakeville as a reason why you lost, and I pointed out that the winner wasn’t white. Or male.)
(Also – you would think that celebrants of diversity like BMG would be please to see two Asian House members, I believe for the first time. But they don’t seem to count, as they are both Republican.)
First off, we did elect the first Asian members to the State House. Tackey Chan is a Democrat and Donald Wong is a Republican. So you’re wrong on that.
Second, you mention “the ridiculous analysis of voter race in Lakeville as a reason why you lost” – not true at all. I never said anything about race having anything to do with Orrall’s victory. I’m well aware that she’s not a white man. My breakdown of the race in these cities and towns was to explain why the voter suppression groups focused on New Bedford. Nothing to do with the victory at all.
So good try, Porcupine. I liked you better before you dropped your first name.
…as Orrell is Asian as well.
Actually, I don’t remember seeing anything about Chan here – it’s odd that a barrier like that is broken three times, and no notice.
Plymouth Rock volunteers were in Lakeville, etc. New Bedford didn’t get the only attention.
Chris – you’re trying to manufacture a conspiracy. The other day, another poster tried to show that ballot chicanery was the reason Coakley lost, too. Since November, there have been 4 special elections – which is weird in and of itself – and the GOP has won 3 of the 4. When the NEXT special comes up in a couple of months when Tolman leaves to work for the AFL-CIO full time, and we win that too, will that be MORE ballot fraud? Or do people just not want to buy what you’re selling?
Peter, just stop. I never said this is why Orrall won. I made it clear she won with GOTV in my post. I made that clear again in a comment above.
New Bedford is where the videotaping took place according to Show ID to Vote. New Bedford is where the voter intimidation took place. I don’t care where the Plymouth Rock Tea Party was. The Plymouth Rock Tea Party doesn’t matter. There idea of activism is standing in front of a campaign office screaming while Dem GOTV volunteers walk in and out actually doing something that matters. I’ve seen it happen. Empower Massachusetts and Show ID to Vote are the big guns, and the big guns were in New Bedford.
You have a huge hangup on race, Peter. Forget about the break downs. The issue here is that voters were videotaped voting, which according to the Department of Justice serves no purpose other than to intimidate voters.
Members of YOUR party are the ones constantly crying fraud without proof. Members of YOUR party are the ones committing voter intimidation in the name of fraud prevention. You’re just as guilty for defending it
Where is this “Department of Justice” of which you speak? What floor is it on? I don’t want to get off there accidentally.
I don’t think responding to your post demonstrates MY hang-up on race when it was your straw man in the first place. I don’t think Alabama law and a Carolina DOJ decision are relevant here, except you are trying to find excuses – from ANYWHERE – as to why this white male Democrat lost so handily.
Apparently, only TEA Party volunteers you recognize are ‘big guns’. This is the attitude that helped lose that race – who are those other people, not important enough for us.
Peter, I’m going to say it for the third time: Orrall didn’t win because of videotaping voters. Do you get it? Do you get that’s not what my post is about?
I’m upset that Show ID to Vote was videotaping voters. I pointed out that they did it in the most diverse part of the district. Just facts. The DOJ decision IS relevant because they found no reason to videotape voters, and that videotaping voters can intimidate voters. That’s all.
We were discussing voter intimidation. The diary post includes Brietbart (not-MA), a photo of Rove (not-MA), the US DOJ (not-MA), Show ID to Vote (not-MA-I-think), the North Carolina Republican Party (not-MA) and Center for Citizens’ Media (not-MW).
So long as you’re going to bring up a wholly irrelevant sidebar (women being elected), why would you beef for me pointing out that it didn’t happen in Congress? Oh, that’s right. Because it’s embarrassing for the national GOP, and especially for women who work hard for a GOP which behaves as if the only people worth speaking for are white heterosexual Christian US-born men who make $250k per year.
How do we combat this? We face an issue that has some popular support. Kudos to Gov. Patrick for opposing ID’s. I’m confident that the legislature won’t pass such a bill (or by numbers that could override a veto). However, there remains the popular pressure that says Why shouldn’t you have ID laws? The popular perception is divorced from or indifferent to the reality that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. How do you combat that.
In a related and frankly more sinister and vile vein, is this active voter intimidation. We could pressure the legislature to pass a law banning video-taping in polling places. But that only solves half the problem. I mean we could form a group to intimidate voter intimidation thugs, but would that do the trick? Their interference with the process is all they want and there appears to be little we can do. Winning hearts and minds does not help people who avoiding voting to avoid getting hassled.
We need to brainstorm.
We DO have ID laws, just not PHOTO ID. A poll watcher can demand a variety of ID, like a lease, a utility bill, etc. per the Sec. of State’s web site as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory way.
Asking EVERY voter, or every 4th voter, is not discriminatory and perhaps that will be done. Of course, the photo ID IS an acceptable option under the current law, it merely cannot be compelled.
It is a question of what kind of ID can be compelled. My understanding is that is primarily enforced for first-time registrants or if you change your voting address. This is not necessarily unreasonable, the problem is making it any more onerous than that as many people like the poor, elderly and students may move every few years or more frequently. Requiring a photo ID every time would be a hassle and a deterrent for voting. I’ve lived in Boston and seen the September shuffled (and lived through it). Not allowing a lease or utility bill as proof alone is just asinine, but it’s hard making that argument to people that fear a non-existent problem and lived in their home for twenty years non-stop.
But seriously, we need a secure federal database that all the voting rolls tie into. No more local rolls, because people should only be allowed to vote once and shouldn’t be on multiple local rolls. You’d still go to the city hall to register your new address (with a deadline a few days before an election), but instead of them entering you on their rolls, they’d update your record on the national voter database, automatically taking you off the rolls in your old city. Because even if we have an ID law, there is still the problem of people voting more than once if they remain on the rolls at their old address.
I wasn’t aware that people were voting in Massachusetts, then driving to another state to cast another vote. Is this called “voter tourism”?
I am not aware of it either, but it seems to me it would be easy to vote in multiple places, and therefore I have less confidence in elections. How do they check for this?
And isn’t requiring states to keep track of American citizens and requiring a republican form of government an “unfunded mandate” that should be assisted and streamlined by the government that we are citizens of? I’m not a citizen of Massachusetts, or Arlington, so why do they have to keep track of my voting eligibility? (I think local elections are a different story, and maybe people should be allowed to vote in multiple local elections, if they are property owners in multiple towns. Why should Arlington care if Swamscott lets me vote for selectmen there?
It’s entirely possible that a person would be able to actually vote in two different cities or towns in MA on the same day.
The odds that either or both of that person’s votes will change the outcome of the election? Extremely low.
The odds that the person will be caught? Extremely high. After all, the list of people who vote in each city and town is compiled through the Sec of Commonwealth’s office. If you show up twice on the same list*, you’re busted.
Is it worth $10k fine and/or 5 years in jail. Nope. It is not.
* When you register to vote, you include the last for digits of your SSN or drivers license number. That’s how they deal with all the people named John Smith, etc.
So after the election they go through the crossed off names and enter them into a central database? Who does that work? Do they ever find anyone voted twice? And what about crossing the state line to vote twice? Is that possible?
Seems to me a American citizen voter registry would be much more efficient and relieve the cities and states of redundant efforts and increase security.
Why are we wasting so much effort to solve a problem that we don’t really have?
I found a document on the Sec of State’s website entitled:
Election Day Legal Summary. It states the following:
Challenging Ballots
Any person may challenge a voter for any legal cause. G. L. c. 54, §§ 85, 85A (2002 ed.); 950 C.M.R. 54.04(23). Such reasons are numerous and include that a person: is not who they say they are; does not live where they say they live; is not registered in the correct district; is not qualified to vote by absentee ballot; was not registered to vote by the close of registration; or, has already cast a ballot. It is not sufficient for the challenger to simply say that a voter is not qualified; the challenger must state the specific reason for challenging the right of a person to vote, and that specific reason must be recorded on the ballot. If a person makes a challenge for an unspecified reason, the election worker should thereafter ask the challenger what specific reason they wish to have recorded. If, after being so questioned by the election official, the challenger gives no specific reason, the voter should be permitted to vote, and should not be considered a challenged voter.
Once the warden, clerk or election officer is informed that a voter’s ballot is being challenged, the election officer must:
1) issue the challenged voter’s oath to the challenged voter;
(the challenged voter’s oath is as follows: “You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you are the identical person whom you represent yourself to be, that you are registered in this town and that you have not voted at this election..”); and
2) before the ballot is marked, require the challenged person to
write his name and current residence on the ballot;
3) the warden then adds the name of the challenger to the ballot
and the cause of the challenge. G. L. c. 54, § 85 (2002 ed.).
4) The ballot is then cast and counted like all others.
Please note that there are criminal penalties for challenging a qualified voter for purposes of intimidation, or of ascertaining how they voted, or for any other illegal purpose. G. L. c. 56, § 31 (2002 ed.).
This does not imply to me that a pollwatcher has the right to ask for ID. And please note the paragraph about criminal penalties.
I have a hard copy of the CMR’s referred to, but there is
THIS LINK http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/ballot_questions_10/personal_id.html
doing a summary on the site. It’s also a paraphrase, like the document you found, but it does outline what the Sec. of State deems to be acceptable ID.
And I’m SORRY to be pasting in a long thing, so please fix, Editors.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/ballot_questions_10/personal_id.htm
I’m not making this up, mjm. It really is the law.
I don’t seem to be able to get my reply to fall under the comment I am replying to! Help I am an amateur!
This may be a matter of interpretation. The link you gave me does not imply to me that a poll watcher can demand ID. ID can be required of a first time voter or from people who don’t respond to the town census. I assume the poll warden can ask for ID, but they are well trained and know both the law and their precinct.
What does everyone else think this means?
They register their questions with the voting official.
Example – person on list is age 72. Person giving name appears 26. Watcher can ask official to challenge for appaarent age. And so on. Official registers challenge.
But to me that is different from the statement than
They can ask the poll warden can who say no if he/she is confident that the person is who they say they are. The watcher would then have to go through the formal challenge process including signing the challenge.
That’s the whole purpose. The purpose cannot be to stop widespread voter fraud of ineligible voters, because it doesn’t exist. The voter ID movement is intended to have the same effect as the video and other tactics, those that were used against the blacks in the south til just recently. To intimidate voters. That is the definition of voter fraud. We are moving backwards.
The poor, women and minorities are more likely not to have an ID, to be transient and have more difficulty producing bills with their name and address. These are the classes that have been identified to be likely to vote to oppose their candidates.
The main problem in MA is the high number of eligible citizens who do not participate. Fix that! Anything that discourages participation in the Democratic process is un-American.
.
I’m going to send my state rep an email about this issue today. If we can’t take a picture of our own ballot, why should anyone be able to video tape what’s going on in a polling place?
Framing the argument against voter identification would be a conversation to have at the Progressive Massachusetts event on 10/2.
.
Even if there is no voter fraud, there is certainly a lot of distrust and anger because people SUSPECT that there is voter fraud. That distrust and anger is a drag on society, it makes people drop out and work against society, it makes people want society to crumble and government to fail.
So even if there is no voter fraud, why not give in on requiring a photo ID? The resistance to such an obvious requirement is very strange.
If it’s a problem of lots of people not having ID’s, then lets figure out how to get them ID’s. That shouldn’t be hard, maybe we could pay people instead of charge for them, give a little stimulus as a reward for going to the trouble of getting ID’s. And maybe we need to open more RMV offices, instead of closing them. If Scott Walker can accomplish this, why are we lagging behind?
1) It costs lots of money – $20 million in Missouri, for example.
2) It suppresses people from voting, because it is one more step that people need to take to cast a ballot, and at each step, people will drop out. Those steps are harder for the elderly and the poor (who often have no cars) Republicans have openly stated that they don’t want poor people to vote, and that they want to suppress people from voting, and they have been caught in voter suppression more times than anyone has been caught voting more than once.
3) It is a fictitious problem – no one can provide a shred of proof that this is happening.
Let’s use your logic for a minute. I’m under the impression that a lot of businesses cheat the government out of taxes. I know others who believe this too. So let’s audit every business every single year, just to put to bed the idea that this is happening, even though I can’t supply a shred of proof to you that it is happening.
OK, lets audit businesses to restore confidence that they aren’t cheating us. Probably don’t need to audit every one every year, just a spot check of businesses, random, or triggered by red flags.
How does it cost money to require photo ID’s?
Yes, needing ID suppress some people from voting, but volunteers could help people get ID’s. That’d be actually useful to them, instead of just dragging them out to vote, to have to drag them out to get an ID first. The ID will help them with all sorts of things besides voting.
No, let’s audit every single one.
In fact, let’s make a law that says that every business in the state, including sole proprietorships, need to hire an accounting firm to audit them each year. Because I don’t believe that there is zero fraud taking place, and even one instance of fraud undermines confidence in the entire system. Maybe we can provide free auditing by the state’s DOR if a business can’t hire their own. If some businesses go out of business because of this new requirement, oh well, at least we have a newfound confidence in the process, so I guess it’s worth it.
That’s the argument that you’re making – that we aren’t absolutely, 100% sure that people aren’t fraudulently voting (despite no evidence of it), but since someone could do it, we should impact every single resident with this requirement, even it it means some people won’t vote, oh well, at least we have a newfound confidence.
One of the reasons some people don’t vote is because they have no confidence in elections, because voters don’t show ID.
It’d be too expensive and unnecessary and impossible to root out all fraud from business. Just accept that some fraud takes place, and audit a few business to minimize it.
The ID will help people with more than just voting.
Give me a break. We can’t just assume there is an infinite supply of “volunteers” to allow you to pretend that it won’t cost the government anything. These volunteers simply don’t exist.
I am sick of people whining about government waste one day and calling for more the government to waste money on nonexistent problems the next.
First, you *prove* there is a problem. Then we can discuss a solution.
His Motor Vehicle Staff were told to only give constitutionally required free ID’s when asked and fired somebody who tried to tell his coworkers that they could give away the ID’s for free on their own.
I know, they were clinging to the revenue, it was a farce. But now everyone knows they can ask for them to be free. Can’t do that here, here we have to pay, even the indigent.
Who wants to bet anybody on the right is going to line up for a Federal takeover of Voter-registration, etc. While it would be entirely constitutional (especially for federal office), I’m sure it would provoke a freak-out. You get the tea party on board en masse and we’ll talk.
Remind them the Union won.
I suppose this naive, but it ought to be about as acceptable to interfere with the franchise, to disrupt voting, and to intimidate voters as it would be to take a dump on the flag.
Less so, since it is a real civil-rights violation.
I’m in favor of stronger measure too, where possible, but why isn’t this monstrous, un-American, anti-American lynching of Constitutional rights more of an issue in political races?
As in, which side are you on?
As in, All those soldiers served and died overseas and you want to destroy what they fought for?
I know of course that the so-called Right has its own narrative about voter fraud etc., but they only get away with that (as with so many things) because no one calls them on it.
Push back and they will suffer consequences; suffer enough consequences and they will stop.
Apparently it’s the greedy insurance companies thinking that there is insurance fraud.
I think they are trying to intimidate me.
Also they are trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
right-wingerss (excludingour prickly pal) on this thread is like trying to clean your windshield with the rag you just used to check your oil.
Voter suppression is alive and well and a major strategy of the Republican Party (See the links below for recent events); voter fraud is virtually non-existent. The push for Voter ID has two reasons: 1) to distract from the ongoing GOP suppression with the canard of fraud 2) to suppress more of the vote.
Although fraud is just a typical Republican fiction, there are non-voter ID,non-supressive ways to prevent it, including:
I know some our righties don’t like to read, but the truth will set the rest of us free.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2011/09/is-voter-id-is-voter-supression-it-is-in-wisconsin
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2011/08/voter-suppression-in-wisconsin
It is very easy for me to claim to be someone else when I check in. To be clear I am not offering evidence that such practice is widespread because I’m not making that argument. They MUST be free and obtainable at the time of registration. For me it’s just a matter of for the most important thing we do in the exercise of our self-government we should get all our ducks in a row. My university required that students show ID to vote in student government elections and certainly real-world elections are more important. It also protects the voters because if they are challenged all they have to do is flash the ID to confirm their legitimacy.
Until fairly recently that was never required for the Democratic process. Why is it more necessary now than it was before. I mean, hell, drivers licenses didn’t even have photos for many years. Now, that’s a no-brainer, but the key is license, which is a (revocable) privilege. Our franchise is a privilege, too, but only in a philosophical sense. Otherwise it is right.
All that said, photo ID can only be mandated if their creation and distribution is automatic. In other words, when you register, it automatically send you an ID to your register address. If you don’t have a driver’s license or liquor ID, which can cross reference with your ID’s number, then you’d need to get your picture taken at the registrar’s office. But what do you do if you’re a student registering on the quad or in a poor part of town outside the post office. Where will you get the photo into the system then? That is where it gets hairy.
It’s easy for you to claim to be somebody else. It’s hard to catch you if you do it well. It’s extremely hard to influence an election with a single additional vote. The time you serve if you get caught is hard too… five years of hard time, and/or a $10k fine.
If you want to much with elections, there are far more effective ways with far lesser punishments. Hell, start slashing the tires of a GOTV vehicle — the punishment is less, and the time spent changing the tire instead of GOTVing will cost that campaign more than a single vote. Plus, you don’t have to brazenly commit your crime right in front of government officials and a police officer.
was not actual encouragement for anyone to commit the acts described therein.
Yrs, Capt. Obvious
“They MUST be free and obtainable at the time of registration.”
Are you suggesting that the city halls have a photo ID machine to make free photo ID’s when people register? I don’t think that is feasible, because they aren’t equipted to verify people’s identities the way the RMV offices are. And it’d be expensive and time consuming for the city hall staff. We already have a photo ID infrastructure in place, and people already use it. The only problem is they’re not free, but they are free in Wisconsin, so why not here?
I wonder if, in that empty space to the left of “Logged in as dont-get-cute. Log out?” it could say either “@ christopher” or “Comment on Diary” so we might see a little reminder that we forgot to hit Reply. Or maybe it should be down at the Submit button.
Sorry, I don’t buy the “why not here” argument. Wisconsin is wrong. They should be asking themselves “why not like Massachusetts”.
Making voting into a multi-step process makes people less likely to vote, and desiring that goal is both anti-democracy and anti-American. I think it borders on treason.
Many poor people don’t have cars. They work low-wage service jobs, many of which don’t offer vacation time. That means asking them to take time off work to take a bus to a Registry of Motor Vehicles, which might involve such a convolution of bus transfers that it might not even be realistic, is constructing a huge barrier for that person to vote.
Of course, that’s the precise goal here, which is why Republicans are so hot on this topic.
Think about the wait time at the RMV – if you get there at a busy time it could be two or three hours out of your life. Is someone making minimum wage – say $320 or so a week, really going to give up $25 in work to go spend $25 on an ID? That’s a $50 poll tax right there.
Having an ID is pretty essential to be able to rent apartments ans cash checks and open bank accounts and things like that. Those are much more important to people than one vote in an election that won’t hardly make a difference in the outcome anyway (as stomv points out above). Why are you against poor people getting ID’s? They can get them in Wisconsin, they opened new RMV offices and made them free.