Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/9/05 |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 11/9/2005, 8:13 AM |
To: election-law |
Norm Ornstein offers this
Roll Call commentary (paid subscription required). A
snippet, for those who have been following the Carter-Baker Commission
controversy:
Their commission has been given a bum rap, heavily criticized for one of its recommendations — that we move to a required photo ID for voting. Carter-Baker had made this recommendation with a series of caveats. Under current federal law, there will be a requirement in a few years that a photo identification, the REAL ID, be used for homeland security purposes. If such a requirement is to exist anyhow, why not use it as well for voting? At the same time, the commission said that any photo ID requirement must provide the IDs free of charge to everyone who lacks them and make them readily accessible. The panel did not accept the noxious Georgia standard, which is a latter-day poll tax.
But leave the controversial ID requirement aside and the other recommendations are important and necessary. These include moving rapidly to update statewide voter registration lists, to make them interoperable across states, to make sure that polling places have enough machines with adequate paper trails for validation and recounts, and to have enough trained poll workers.
The Chicago Sun-Times offers this
report on the latest of a series of House hearings on renewing the
expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
AP has this
wrap-up. This
AP report credits the Judge Wapner ads for the defeat of
Proposition 77 in California.
Those who think we made enough improvements in election
administration should think again. In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger had
to cast a provisional ballot. A
report from Virginia says that some voters are having trouble
casting their votes for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. More
problems in Ohio.
UPDATE: Apparently the California governor was allowed to cast a
regular ballot. The story was not clear to me on this point. It is very
troubling, however.
Donna Brazile has written a commentary,
"Vermont Case Offers Chance to Embrace Spending Limits," for Roll
Call (paid subscription required). A snippet:
There's nothing wrong with that, and a lot that's right. Opponents will raise the constitutional issues they always do on the topic, but if we truly want our democracy to remain a representative, responsive and honest one, we desperately need a conversation about our current campaign finance system. That's why seasoned politicians from across the partisan divide-- from former Sens. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) to Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) --- support campaign spending caps. It’s long past time to put this good idea on the table.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 - voice (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org