I thought it was a bad bill and I still think it is a bad bill. While I don't think it is quite the "Republican Party Preservation Act" that was quoted in the Blade there were alot of flaws in the last version of the bill I read.
Not to mention it's not going to cut down on fraud, since there wasn't that much to begin with. It will however make it harder for some people to vote. Not something I believe is a good thing. We will however probably have a record number of provisional ballots.
I tend to agree with this quote in the Toledo Blade
"It's the death of a thousand cuts, a nibble here and a nibble there," said Peg Rosenfield, spokesman for the League of Women Voters of Ohio. "We've made everything difficult, except it isn't going to make it difficult to do stuff that has gone on for years, like people telling people the wrong place to go, the wrong date to vote, or screw-ups with registration. None of those things would be affected."
posted by psyche777 at 10:39 A.M. EST on Wed Feb 01, 2006 #
The League of Women Voters has long been a shill of the left.
posted by MemyselfandI at 05:52 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 01, 2006 #
Voting is Difficult?
Can anyone tell me what makes voting "difficult"?
(I mean, beyond having a Sec'y of State that is perfectly OK with the idea of very few voting machines in heavily Democrat districts, leading to people lining up to vote for hours?)
Votes occur about once or twice a year. The poll hours are quite open and allow any shift worker to plan to vote. When showing your face at the polls, you have to sign in and show your ID (at least I do). All polls should be handicap-accessible; even if not, there are people there to help, even (gasp!) your fellow man.
Registration problems are things you can take care of either (1) by checking every time you renew your driver's license, and (2) by knowing your rights as a voter (to wit: provisional balloting).
Demanding ID is only sensible. We demand that our vote system be accurate, which means auditing, and that can only subordinately demand ID and paperwork at the polls. Note also that a person can get a photo ID even if they don't or can't drive.
If the legistlature is now demanding ID at the polls, then that's a good thing for the vote system overall.
Petitioning Only for Natives?
What does it matter if the petitioner is not an Ohioan? Ohioans have to sign the petitions anyway. Don't we trust Ohioans to know what they sign? Don't signatures on a petition mean that Ohioans agreed to the petition itself? Aren't petitions demonstrations of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY (note well: a Republican platform plank)?
This is clearly a retribution case against Reform Ohio Now and others. Great way to show your agenda, Ohio Republicans.
(Sheesh. And here I thought the primarily Democrats don't like actual Democracy.)
posted by GuestZero at 03:48 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 02, 2006 #
Nope, GZ, I'm going to disagree with you, for once. If it only affects MY state-where I live-I DON'T want people who DON'T live here coming in & trying to change things in the state I live in. Let 'em get a petition drive up in the state THEY live in if they want to change things. But leave mine alone. There are enough nuts, yuppie scum, & goofballs right here to get petitions up without having to recruit them from other parts of the country.
posted by Foolkiller at 07:09 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 02, 2006 #
This doesn't make voting more difficult, just more secure. And requiring some sort of identification is part of a secure voting process.
The quote by the LoWV is just stupid. Unless you are moving every year, figuring out where to vote might be difficult one time. Considering that unless it is a special election elections are always held on the same day, the date complaint is irrelevant. The registration problems this time around had more to do with the volume of registrations and the fact that some groups, like ACORN, where sending in fraudulent ones.
GZ, I understand where you are coming from with the petitioners being only Ohioans rule. I don't think the logic is that Ohioans can not figure out what a petition may be for. I believe the thinking is that if an issue is important to Ohioans, then Ohioans will be and should be the ones doing the work to get it on the ballot, not outside groups bringing in outside hired help.
Your quip about the number of voting machines was addressed by the bill. I believe the requirement is not set that there be one machine per 175 voters, if I remember correctly.
Overall I think it is a solid bill with a lot of good reforms.
posted by Terrahawk1 at 07:30 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 02, 2006 #
Im gonna have to go along with foolkiller - keep out of state petitioners out.
GZ asks "Don't we trust Ohioans to know what they sign?"
Its not the Ohioans I dont trust, its the petitioners. At the polls last november, I was approached by a petitioner for the smoking ban. He asked me if I would sign a petition to ban smoking at child care facilities. It just happened that Ive got family in the child care business and already knew that you already cannot smoke in such facilities, so I called him on it - and when the truth came out, the lady who had signed just before me, and was still standing there made him scribble her name out. I dont think she was ignorant - I think she was intentionally fooled.
I just think this part of the bill would keep other states coming in and misrepresenting themselves in such a way that might be good for them, but detrimental to us.
Like foolkiller said, if they dont like something that's going on in Ohio, they should go to their congressmen and take it up on a national level.
posted by billy at 07:49 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 02, 2006 #
I'd ask how many of you actually read the bill.
The original House Bill pretty much mirrored what was necessary as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
In the Senate it was changed and a couple of hundred pages added to it as well as going beyond what the Federal requirements were in some areas. That's why it was delayed, the original writer DeWine in the House even felt the Senate made too many additions/changes.
As far as the League of Women Voters? Left, Right or in between they do have people who actually study these bills and are pretty knowledgeable about the election process.
The Senate version was such a mess I called both Republican and Democrat Senate offices to get clarification on several parts.
As a quick example rather than go thru the whole 391 page bill, this is what one part states:
"Voters must bring identification to the polls in order to verify identity.
Identification may include a current and valid photo identification, a military
identification that shows the voter's name and current address, or a copy of a
current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other
government document, other than this reminder or a voter registration
notification, that shows the voter's name and current address. Voters who do not
provide one of these documents will still be able to vote by providing the last four digits of the voter's social security number and by casting a provisional
ballot. Voters who do not have any of the above forms of identification,
including a social security number, will still be able to vote by signing an
affirmation swearing to the voter's identity under penalty of election falsification
and by casting a provisional ballot."
Which means in reading it, you don't need a photo id to vote if you are not a first time voter. What will be kind of neat is the new voting data base will contain your name, your address, your precint number and your voting history on line.
Some of the concerns still exist though when it comes primarily to absentee ballots. I think everyone agreed that people who registered to vote for the first time via mail or a voter registration drive should have to provide proof that they "exist". The absentee ballot changes also will affect those in the miliary. They will have to provide additional documentation to be able to request an absentee ballot.
I still think it's a bad bill because it was very badly written and it's going to cause some confusion. Some of the changes I read in the House Journal address a few of the areas but? Time will tell.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a court challenge on the areas that exceed the Federal Law on voting.
posted by psyche777 at 09:45 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 02, 2006 #
The sentiment against non-Ohioan petitioners is strong. Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree. {stomps foot like little child}
I haven't read the bill, but what is the requirement for state residency? Can't the next batch of out-of-state so-called reformers just rent an apartment in Ohio and claim residency from that? Or does the group itself have to be registered in Ohio ... itself not much of an obstacle when you get down to it?
As for ID .... after reading a synopsis of the details of what constitutes "identity", once again I can see that it just makes it a little harder for vote fraud to take place. Voting is very important, yet isolated ... which means that it's vitally important to make sure each vote is unique, but those records really don't go anywhere (at least, anywhere that voter-registration records don't already go). Bringing in any old piece of trash with a name and address on it is a bad idea.
P.S. I've also have a bad experience with a petitioner. The guy didn't know anything about his petition (which he had in many pages of tiny type, proposing amending the city charter for some reason), and didn't even know where to refer me. What a dope. I didn't sign it. To this day I still don't know what that crap was about.
posted by GuestZero at 08:05 A.M. EST on Fri Feb 03, 2006 #
How many instances of voter fraud have there been in Ohio? What, do people learn forgery to sign in as someone else?
Anything that adds to confusion or frustration at the polls will suppress voting.
posted by ssteel at 05:51 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 03, 2006 #
Does producing ID at the bank suppress banking?
The recent Fitrakis/Wasserman article is very disturbing on this account. I can't agree with them on this. We can't have a system that is fully accomodating to such population sectors as the "homeless, elderly and impoverished" without a great lack of ID confirmation. Without ID confirmation, people can be (and have been) rounded up from street corners and taken to the polls to vote Democrat. The dead can vote (as has happened so many times in Chicago).
One person, one vote. We have every right to audit such a thing.
posted by GuestZero at 11:34 A.M. EST on Sat Feb 04, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
