[EL] Rhode Island and voter ID

Wed Jun 8 18:53:19 PDT 2011

I've been in politics in this state for 10 years, and the answers to 
this question are probably almost as opaque for me and most political 
actors here as they are for outsiders.  But I'll try:

I see this issue as wrapped up in the bigger ball of issues that relate 
to immigration, where Rhode Island's a similar outlier:  Rhode Island's 
come closer to passing immigration restrictions, such as state-wide 
E-Verify requirements (compelling employers to check immigration status 
of potential employees) than any other blue state. These bills are 
frequently sponsored by Dems, and E-Verify passed the House by a vote of
 54-17, I believe, even though the partisan breakdown of the chamber was
 65D-10R.  The Senate killed it.  And our former Repub governor actually
 signed an exec order that required anybody getting state funds to use 
E-Verify.

The Dem Party here, even moreso than in other New England states, 
encompasses the entire political spectrum, with several Dems as 
conservative -- or more conservative -- than most Repubs.  The Church 
has a lot of power here (most Catholic state in the country) and has 
focused much of energy on supporting candidates who are opposed to gay 
marriage and abortion.  In the minds of most candidates and voters those
 positions generally coincide with support for increased restrictions on
 immigration (even though the Church supports, at least nominally, more 
lax restrictions on immigration).

The actors behind the Voter ID push are almost precisely congruous with 
those who propagate support for more restrictive immigration.

Chafee hasn't made a statement on ID yet, but was backed by much of the 
Common Cause sphere for his bid for Governor, so there's a decent chance
 they'll be able to convince him to oppose.  

Hope that helps bit.

David Segal

(Former Providence City Councilman, RI State Rep, and CD1 candidate for Congress.)

> From: dlieberman at advancementproject.org
> To: Justin.Levitt at lls.edu
> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:04:38 -0400
> CC: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Rhode Island and voter ID
> 
> While you are correct that many of the other photo ID proposals require those without ID to cast provisional ballots that will be counted only if the voter returns to the election authority within a specified period of time with the proper ID, other states do have provisions like this related to certain categories of voters without ID, and they are not the savings provisions that many believe. For example, Missouri's new photo ID law exempts senior citizens and people with disabilities (among others) from the photo ID requirement, but makes them cast a provisional ballot that will only be counted if the signature on their ballot matches the signature on their voter registration. 
> 
> We argue that this is not truly a savings clause -- especially for seniors and people with disabilities (but others as well), there is a significant chance that their signatures will not match that on their voter registration. (My mother, for example, has developed a hand tremor as she has aged, and she will never be able to replicate her earlier signature. Her provisional ballot will be rejected.) Moreover, the determination of when the signature matches is left to the total discretion of the local election official. Instead, if these ID proposals must be considered, states should consider provisions of states like Michigan that allow voters without the specific photo ID to sign an affirmation under oath attesting to their identity and cast a regular - not provisional - ballot. 
> 
> For more information on the rash of photo ID proposals that swept the nation this year and some of the legal concerns with them, see our report, “What’s Wrong With This Picture? New Photo ID Proposals Part of a National Push to Turn Back the Clock on Voting Rights,” which can be found at:
> 
> http://advancementproject.org/news/press_releases/2011/04/advancement-project-report-highlights-perils-of-photo-id-proposals
> 
> 
> Denise Lieberman, Senior Attorney
> Advancement Project
> 1220 L Street NW, Suite 850
> Washington, DC 20005
> Cell: (314) 780-1833
> dlieberman at advancementproject.org
> www.advancementproject.org
> 
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> 
> > I don't know whether this answers the question about partisan affiliation or not, but one factor may be that the Rhode Island bill at least has a safeguard for those who do not have the right photo ID, a feature missing from many of the other recent bills.  Under the Rhode Island bill passed by the state Senate, if you don't have ID, you cast a provisional ballot that will count if the signature on the ballot matches the signature on the voter's registration form.
> > 
> > Justin
> > 
> > On 6/8/2011 8:59 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> > D'oh.  I meant supported almost exclusively by Republicans and opposed almost exclusively by Democrats.
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/8/2011 8:57 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> > I noted on the blog a few weeks ago that the Rhode Island Senate approved a voter id bill.  According to this report<http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2011/05/12/ri_senate_to_take_up_voter_id_bill/>, it is going on to the House.  I have no idea if the governor would sign it.
> > 
> > Everywhere else I'm aware of, these bills have been supported almost exclusively by Democrats and opposed almost exclusively by Republicans.  Yet the effort in Rhode Island appears bipartisan<http://www.projo.com/news/content/RI_voter_ID_27_03-27-11_J6N78NR_v10.14192d3.html>.
> > 
> > Can anyone shed any light on why Rhode Island is different?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Rick Hasen
> > Visiting Professor
> > UC Irvine School of Law
> > 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> > Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> > 949.824.3072 - office
> > 949.824.0495 - fax
> > rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> > http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> > 
> > William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> > Loyola Law School
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> > 
> > --
> > Rick Hasen
> > Visiting Professor
> > UC Irvine School of Law
> > 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> > Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> > 949.824.3072 - office
> > 949.824.0495 - fax
> > rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> > http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> > 
> > William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> > Loyola Law School
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Justin Levitt
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> > 919 Albany St.
> > Los Angeles, CA  90015
> > 213-736-7417
> > justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> > ssrn.com/author=698321
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110609/e3f3ecda/attachment.html>