OPINION & EDITORIAL
Legislation harmful to voters
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jackie Lantz:
- Students overlooking diversity (March 11, 2005)
- Progressives in Madison, unite! (February 25, 2005)
- Legislation harmful to voters (February 11, 2005)
- Dean wrong for chairmanship (January 18, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Wisconsin election ripe with voter irregularities (January 24, 2005)
- Voter-fraud claims hold little weight (March 16, 2005)
- Republican actions hurt student votes (November 3, 2005)
- Voter-ID bills create new barrier (September 28, 2005)
- New
votersfraud project (October 6, 2004)
by Jackie Lantz
Friday, February 11, 2005
After each election cycle, problems invariably arise and legislators start working to reform the system and tighten up the voting process.
This cycle is no different.
In response to voter-fraud claims in Milwaukee, legislators began working to reform the voter registration process by requiring a state identification card in order to cast a ballot. While voter fraud should be investigated and those who broke the law should be prosecuted, the plan in the state legislature would efficiently limit the number of voters while inefficiently working to eliminate voter fraud.
On November 2, 2004 more Wisconsin voters turned to the polls than in any election since 1960. With 73 percent of registered voters participating in the election, Wisconsin had the third-highest turnout in the country (with Minnesota ranking number one at 76 percent and Oregon second at 74 percent). Nationwide turnout only reached 59 percent, and Michigan, another Midwestern swing state, only reached 66 percent turnout.
Way to go Wisconsinites!
The primary reason why voters came out in such large numbers on Election Day was because it is relatively easy to vote here. While early registration is available, voters could wait until Election Day to register so long as they have proper proof of address showing their residence in the state. Even if someone forgets their proof of address, a registered voter could vouch for their residency. This is by far one of the most user-friendly voter registration systems in the country and ensures that everyone who wants to vote can.
That doesn’t mean there weren’t problems across the state, though. While nothing as bad as Florida 2000, Milwaukee encountered errors and fraud is blamed. It seemed that more ballots were cast than voters who showed up. In some precincts, more than 500 additional votes have been recorded, the majority of which went to Democratic candidate John Kerry.
In response to the allegations of fraud, Steve Freese (R-Dodgeville), Chairman of the Campaigns and Elections Committee, along with colleagues Jeff Stone (R-Franklin) and John Ainsworth (R-Shawano), have mobilized legislation that will require voters to show a valid drivers license or state identification card to register to vote. If voting absentee, a photocopy of a valid identification card must be mailed in as well as the registration and voting paperwork. While this may not stop the most determined voters from casting their ballot, it is indeed a significant obstacle for first-timers attempting to vote.
If voters do not have their identification, then they will be turned away from the polls. That is unacceptable. If the state legislature is going to write legislation that impacts voting, it should be legislation that makes it easier to vote, not harder. Even the smallest deterrent to voting, such as this legislation, will reduce the number of ballots cast. This is counter-intuitive to the very core of Democracy and is intolerable.
These Republican lawmakers cite the integrity of the state’s election process as the reason for these reforms. Buttressed by the Milwaukee claims, Republican lawmakers are hoping that this time the legislation would be passed, unlike in 2003 when Republican legislators sent a similar bill to Governor Doyle’s desk, only to have it vetoed. The Democratic governor has signaled that he would veto this legislation if it passed in the State House.
Voter fraud is a serious problem and requires a proper investigation to uncover how something like that could happen. By utilizing existing laws to uncover any wrongdoing, the inconsistencies in Milwaukee will be straightened out. However, by pushing for this legislation, Republican lawmakers are politicizing irregularities for the benefit of having their name on a piece of legislation by proposing a solution that will restrict voting, not make it error-proof.
Jackie Lantz (jslantz@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 4:06am):
Well said. There's no doubt that there can always be improvements made to the process, but if folks would actually think it through for a minute instead of hopping on the Ditto-wagon, they'd realize there are more effective and less harmful ways of protecting the integrity and accessibility of the polls, such as educational campaigns about voter eligibility, improved notification to felons about their current ability/inability to vote, and most importantly, better funding for more, better trained poll workers.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 9:05am):
It's easier to register to vote than to get a license to fish. I think it is more important to prevent illegal voting than illegal fishing.
There is nothing to prevent a person from voting multiple times - maybe you need some purple ink?
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:18am):
Exactly what is in place to prevent a UW student from voting both in Milwaukee at their parents' address and in Madison? As far as I know, exactly nothing. The problem is even worse for people who hold addresses in two states.
Requiring a state-issued voter ID is essential to implementing a cross-check system. The driver's license works for those who have them. Those who don't have a driver's license (like 2% of non-felon adults) should be required to get the equivalent so that we can close these outrageous loopholes.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:42am):
I am tired of people comparing voting to renting a video, buying beer or getting a fishing license. No one has a constitutional fundamental right to rent from Blockbuster or fish, but every U.S. citizen that hasn't otherwise lost their right to vote has a fundamental right to cast their ballot. For many, including the very poor, those intimidated by the authorities and the temporarily transient, getting an ID borders on impossible. To deny them the right to vote based on this is a travesty. I am concerned as anyone about voter fraud but this is not the answer.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:46am):
"Voter fraud is a serious problem and requires a proper investigation to uncover how something like that could happen."
Yeah, something like this happens because you don't have to show any photo ID! And stop saying that we need to punish those committing fraud -- they all used fake names and addresses, how the hell are you going to find them? As far as the massive corruption and incompetence in the Milwaukee Election Commission and local precincts, they should definately be fired and/or locked up, but thats not fixing the root of the problem: it is too easy to commit fraud.
And stop arguing that any more "restrictions" to voting are bad: "Even the smallest deterrent to voting, such as this legislation, will reduce the number of ballots cast. This is counter-intuitive to the very core of Democracy and is intolerable."
Yeah it would reduce ballots cast, probably at least the 8,000 fraudulent ones cast in Milwaukee! There are 2 sides to this coin, stop ignoring the defrauding of the rights of the rest of us who did vote legally. You need a photo ID to do almost everything else (much of it a lot less important than election), it is NOT a stretch to require it for voting.
Just come right out and say it, "I want to keep the status quo because it enables my side to continue cheating." There is no other reason not to support photo IDs.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:48am):
Legislation harmful to voters?
ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE
Fraud dilutes the votes of law abiding citizens.
PS. I have a constitutional fundamental right to own land. Try to buy some without any ID and let know how that works out for you.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:50am):
You do not moron
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 10:54am):
"No one has a constitutional fundamental right to rent from Blockbuster or fish, but every U.S. citizen that hasn't otherwise lost their right to vote has a fundamental right to cast their ballot."
Where in the constituion does it say "let everyone vote and use the honor system to keep them from voting more than once"? Just because its a right doesn't mean you can't regulate it. Its a constitutional right to own a gun too, and you have to show ID for that and even in some cases endure a waiting period and registration. You even said it yourself, we don't let felons vote, so dont act like its unconstitutional to restrict who votes and how. The rest of us who legally vote have a right to not be canceled out by frauds too.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 11:02am):
You are confusing Constitutional rights with fundamental rights.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 11:10am):
"Just come right out and say it, "I want to keep the status quo because it enables my side to continue cheating." There is no other reason not to support photo IDs."
Yes, because all voting fraud focuses on liberal leaning fraud right? Outside of Milwaukee, every other case of voter fraud has centered on imbalances to the right. Of course there's the Florida scandal of 2000, where every possible study showed that Gore would have won if a full recount was done. And there's the less publicized results from Ohio in 2004, where usual democratic districts with electronic voting went almost 3 to 1 for Bush. Voter fraud is a huge problem in this country and to try and pin in on the backs of the Democrats would be irresponsible. It is possible a state representative was elected too easily, but it is a fact that two times a president was elected without fully investigating the numerous cases of voter irregularity. American voting needs sweeping changes to be made if it ever hopes to be somewhat legitamate. The fraud that already exists in most states would not be dampened at all just by showing some ID.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 11:19am):
Actually, every study/report/recount done in Florida had Bush winning.
And your Ohio 2004 fantasy is plainly not true.
Might be time to get back in touch with reality.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 11:21am):
The Reps know that their base is much less likely to be impacted by this legislation as the majority of those who do not have and are less likely to get IDs are those that would benefit from Democratic ideas and programs. One would hope, despite the prevalence of poor rural Republicans, those without ID would vote in their economic interest like the suburbanite CEOs do.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 12:23pm):
About the only people over 18 who do not have identification are illegal immigrants who are not supposed to be voting anyway. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible to function without identification. To cash a check, or to get a job so that you can get a check to cash, you must show identification. Also, if you rent a movie or buy alcohol, you too must usually show identification. We could go on and on with examples, but the point is made.
Also Jackie, you conveniently left out an important part of this proposed legislation. Anyone who does not have identification because they cannot afford it will be given identification for free. That kills any voter disenfranchisement argument.
The only reason for opposing this legislation is if you support continued vote fraud in Wisconsin.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 12:31pm):
It's amazing that when liberals claim voter fraud they are living in a fantasy world, but when conservatives claim it it is cause for alarm and for action to be taken. I wonder what the how the neocons would operate if they actually had to think of their own ideas instead of blaming all the evils of the world on democrats.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 1:35pm):
The simple fact is that Republicans will do everything in their power to suppress the votes of African-Americans and students, two reliably Democratic voting blocs that tend to live in geographically confined areas. Witness the Students for Dave Magnum piece that spread lies about voting information. This piece was distributed to every UW dorm resident with the express intent of causing havoc on election day and decreasing the student turnout.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 2:23pm):
Amazing how every chance to help reform a system is automatically met with claims of suppressing the vote.... give me a break. Let me sum up this article for you. "Yes, there is voter fraud, but as I have stated, it clearly helped John Kerry. THerefore, I will say we need to do something about it to look good, but prevent any real action from taking place so we don't loose those illegal votes." Seems to me that is the argument from every democrat.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 2:33pm):
No, republicans just want people to vote no more than once. I can see how that can be confused with voter suppression.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 3:29pm):
Say what you want now because even if this law passes and the Guv signs it the new law will be challenged at the first election. The courts are gonna find it unconstitutional because they are not going to risk even one person losing her fundamental right to vote, even in furtherence of something as important as preventing voter fraud. God bless those Rs though, they do love them some democracy.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 6:21pm):
I like the title and what it conveys. Translated: "New laws harmful to those who vote on the people who make the laws." Genius.
Anonymous (February 11, 2005 @ 6:56pm):
Nope, Jackie is right. Only dickheads want to keep from voting. Undemocratic, fascist, dickheads.
Anonymous (February 14, 2005 @ 12:15am):
The courts are NOT going to find this unconstitutional. Many states have such laws on the books. Wisconsin would just be following suit.
