Sen. Gibbs for Voter Disenfranchment

As if it's not already difficult enough with long lines and often a fair amount of walking required, the good Senator along with Bates, Cote, Blais, and Breene have an idea to even make it "better." No, it's not a law for "no-fault" mail-in ballots. This bill would require every person to produce either one form of identification with their name, address and photograph, or two forms of identification that bear the name and address of that person.

Having been in the past a highly mobile person, even I can see problems with this. Suppose I've just moved & have no current i.d. proving this. College students may also find this problematic. Their i.d. may not reflect current addresses. Many of the elderly no longer have a valid i.d. and any i.d. that they have may not reflect their current address. What about those with no drivers' license? Even state i.d. costs $25 and you need the proper i.d. to get it. Sometimes when I go to vote others go with me. They often don't have any i.d. on them. Ever have your i.d. "temporarily" lost?

I don't know about you, but I no longer have my Soc. Sec. card (heck, it was made of paper & just disintegrated). Zilch on my birth certificate. Fortunately, I still have a valid passport. BTW, replacing/obtaining these documents is neither easy nor cheap.

"We believe photo ID is the kind of confidence-building measure that is warranted in light of past fraud,' said Mark 'Thor' Hearne, the chief election lawyer for the 2004 Bush campaign and now counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, a conservative advocacy group. He predicted the identification laws will prompt higher turnout." (Do you suppose he said this with crossed fingers behind his back?)

"Mary G. Wilson, national president of the League of Women Voters, said identification laws, particularly ones requiring photo IDs, are 'odious' and added: 'There is very little evidence there's been any kind of voting by people who are ineligible to vote. We view this as basically another unnecessary hurdle voters are being put through.'"

"...study after study and investigation after investigation show that polling place fraud of the sort that identification would prevent has rarely occurred. Meanwhile, thousands—perhaps millions—of eligible voters would be disenfranchised by such a requirement, affecting election outcomes. Identification requirements would be most likely to impede the poor, minorities, the disabled, the young, and the elderly—all groups that historically have tended to vote for Democrats. And identification advocates who raise concerns about voting place fraud are closely associated with the Republican party." Tova Andrea Wang, Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.

The few states that have laws like these find them, under attack in the courts. The ACLU, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters are all against this attempt to institute what amounts to a national voting i.d. We should be making voting easier instead of more difficult.

So where is the voter fraud that demands this action? Do you think it has anything to do with them being (dare I say it) Republican? Another act this group of legislators presented takes away the party lever. Go figure.