Esperanto? We couldn't even count the votes in english.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven J. Reyes" <sreyes@kaufmandowning.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:15:12
To:<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
I haven't read the particulars of the IN law, but even provisions "allowing" provisional voters to return to the county registrar with their ID (if they have one) are problematic. In AZ, for example counties seats are often 100+ miles from many points in the county thus entailing a 4+ hour round trip. Even if not as far in IN, this requirement creates a practical barrier for those who didn't have a valid ID for whatever reason (forgetfulness/registrar error/poll worker error/just moved, etc.). For older folks and the poor, with less access to transportation, the process becomes even more complicated. And don't forget all that time off from work that people might have to take to do all this (if they can afford to). The list goes on and on and on....(and for what? to "secure" the ballot from the massive voter fraud that no one seems to be able to point to?) As you can tell I'm not a fan of these types of voter ID laws. --- Original Message --- From: "DemEsqNYC@aol.com" !
<DemEsqNYC@aol.com> Sent: Sat 5/6/06 8:41 am To: "JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net" <JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net>, "election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> Cc: Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law Jason: With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the nature of disenfranchisement. If I am allowed to vote by walking into my living room any day I want and pushing a button, but you have to go to Alaska and vote in a 20 minute window on one day of the year, in esperanto on by chiseling your vote into granite, have you been technically disenfranchised, perhaps not. Have you been practically disenfranchised, certainly. The extreme nature of the example above not withstanding, everything else is a matter of degree, but the principal is the same. Any obstacle thrown up in the path of an otherwise qualified voter is a step towards disenfranchisement. The fact that the vets chose not to jump through the hoops an!
d over the obstacles put in their way does not change the fact!
that th
ey were disenfranchised. They showed up to vote, they were not allowed to vote. The fact that these voters were veterans is significant only in one aspect. They had a government issued photo ID, it just wasn't the RIGHT government issued photo ID card. This goes to show the absurdity of the entire voter ID system. It makes the right to vote contingent on bureaucratic niceties rather than on whether there is any realistic question as to the voter's identity. Your references to military votes in Florida are, of course, irrelevant to this debate. I will note that the people who now do not see a problem with these vets being excluded were on the other side of the issue then (and vis a versa). What disturbs me the most is your reference to "at most, 170,000 people" as if this was a negligible and unimportant number. By my fast and dirty calculations, this is about 4% of the voting age population in Missouri. Even if the number were considerably smaller, I !
will remind you that the Voter ID movement was founded on the mere rumor of a possibility that someone somewhere might be voting fraudulently. There is virtually no proof of anyone, anywhere voting in person under someone else's ID (absentee balloting is another story). If potentially 170,000 people being disenfranchised in a single, not particularly populous state is not significant, then why are we at all concerned about the voter fraud issue. It seems to me it always comes back to whether you view voting as a right or a privilege. To me that is easy, it is not only a right, it is a duty. It should not be reserved to those rich enough, educated enough, or just aware enough to possess (and carry) the right ID, it is for all of us, even those mere 170,000 "undocumented voters" in Missouri. Howard Leib