by publius
Discussing voter disenfranchisement, Scott Lemieux writes, “It’s almost impossible to overstate how much this matters.” I agree. So today, I want to follow-up on Hilzoy’s excellent post on voter fraud with some thoughts of my own.
Our national voting system is a disgrace. And while sham “voter fraud” plays an important role, it’s only one slice of a much larger and more systemic problem. To understand the scope of the problem, you must first understand that voting consists of far more than merely showing up on Election Day. There are many different phases along the way – and vote suppression can and does occur at any one (or all) of these phases, from the registration process up through voting day.
Before I outline these different phases, I should say that almost all of the information in this post comes from the Brennan Center for Justice (NYU) and its tireless efforts to protect the vote and educate the public. In particular, today’s post relies on this powerpoint (pdf here), which was part of a larger Brennan Center presentation at an ACS event in DC last year (which was great).
As the powerpoint explains, there are five different methods that states are using (or could use) to suppress turnout of eligible voters: (1) restricting voter registration drives; (2) erecting barriers to getting on voter rolls; (3) purging existing voter rolls; (4) imposing voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements at the polls; and (5) failing to ensure electronic voting machine security. Note that these suppression efforts arise at different stages of the voting process, often months prior to Election Day.
#1 – Registration Drives. Some states’ restrictions on voter registration drives are so absurd and punitive that they are, frankly, hard to believe. According to the Brennan Center, these restrictions include imposing insanely high fines and even criminal penalties on voter registration groups for what are essentially administrative errors. In Florida, for instance, the legislature imposed the following fines on voter registration groups: (1) “$250 for each application submitted . . . more than ten days after the form was collected”; (2) “$500 for each application . . . submitted after the [registration] deadline”; (3) “$5,000 for each application collected but not submitted to election officials.” These potential penalties obviously make people think twice about initiating, or participating in, voter registration efforts.
The Brennan Center has documented similar efforts in other states. In Ohio, individual registration volunteers had to personally turn in the forms they collected. In other words, they couldn’t hand them to a supervisor to be turned in collectively. They had to walk them to the office themselves. In New Mexico, they went a step further. There, “groups are given only 48 hours to submit the forms they collect to the state board of elections or face criminal charges.”
The effects are obvious. States are either making voter registration efforts extremely risky, or are increasing their administrative costs. The net result is less voter registration. And again, all this happens well before Election Day and outside the (watchful, Sauron-like) eye of the media.
#2 – Barriers to the Voting Rolls. A second voter suppression strategy is to bar people (post-registration) from getting on the approved voting rolls. One common method is to require a voter’s registration information to perfectly match information maintained in other government databases (such as driving records). For instance, if your registration form doesn’t match the information on your driver’s license exactly, you could be barred from the voting rolls in some states. As the picture below illustrates, there are numerous reasons why this information might not “match.” (Click on these images for clearer views).
For a more comprehensive discussion of this strategy, check out this report.
#3 – Voting Purges. Unlike the previous two voter suppression strategies, this one actually got some press because of Florida’s infamous felon purges (we’ll come back to that). Voter roll purging is similar to the methods used to bar people from getting on the voting rolls in the first place. Once names are added to the voting rolls, the rolls can be cross-checked with other lists such as the felony conviction list. If you show up as a “felon,” you’re purged.
Even assuming that states administer these purges properly, the purges disproportionately affect minority and lower-income voters. But as you might expect, they aren’t administered properly. Indeed, errors can pop up in many different ways. For instance, and as the Brennan Center powerpoint documents, voters have been purged simply because two people with the same name voted in the same election (i.e., “double voting” purge). Other unfortunate people have been purged because they happen to share names with convicted felons. Others have been purged because they’re on the felon list improperly in the first place (e.g., if they committed a misdemeanor rather than a felony). And on it goes.
But the award for the most transparent attempt at voter suppression goes to Jeb Bush’s administration in 2004. (I wrote about this story back in the glory days of the Legal Fiction Media Empire.) In the build-up to the 2004 election, Florida attempted to purge tens of thousands of felons from the voting rolls. Interestingly, roughly half (46%) of the purged voters were African-Americans. Even more interestingly, practically zero (0.1%) were Latinos even though 12% of Florida’s convicted felons are Latinos. Here’s a chart that illustrates what I’m talking about:
Latinos (in Florida) of course generally favor Republicans. African-Americans, not so much.
#4 – Voter ID Requirements. This brings us to perhaps the most significant voting restriction of all -- voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements. With more than a little anti-immigrant rhetoric, voter ID laws are all the rage these days.
The upshot is that voting ID requirements require people on Election Day to show some form of presubscribed voter ID in order to vote. On its face, this requirement doesn’t sound ridiculous. But when you look more closely, you’ll see why people like Georgia Republican legislators tend to like the requirements so much. For one, obtaining “approved” identification can be expensive. As a result, people without drivers’ licenses tend to be “the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and people of color.” See also “The People Who Didn’t Drive Away From Katrina.” Needless to say, these groups tend to vote for Democrats.
The most egregious example of this form of voter suppression is the voting ID law passed by the Georgia legislature (which was stayed by courts). Citing rampant voter fraud, Georgia Republicans pushed through a law that curtailed and strictly limited the types of ID that voters could show at the polls. (This is why it’s so important to know whether “voter fraud” allegations are accurate – the Georgia law is where the rubber hits the road so to speak.) Anyway, the law provided that people without a driver's license could obtain a special state-issued ID card from a Georgia Department of Driver Services office. The catch though was that only 59 of Georgia’s 159 counties had such an office. Check out the Brennan Center chart:
If, say, you didn’t have a car, this would be a pretty big problem. See also “The People Who Didn’t Drive Away From Katrina.”
[On an interesting aside, the career DOJ lawyers concluded that the Georgia law violated the Voting Rights Act because of its effect on black voters. But in the Bush DOJ, that and $2 will get you a Grande coffee at Starbucks.]
#5 – Electronic Voting Security. I won’t say much about this because I think (or hope) that it’s hypothetical at this point. But it’s an issue that deserves serious attention.
So what is to be done? As I mentioned above, I think progressives suffer from a lack of imagination on voting rights reform. It’s time to start thinking about reform on an entirely different order of magnitude. Things like universal registration. Things like federal preemption and a nationwide voting eligibility regime enacted pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment.
To be sure, the day-to-day efforts to fight purges or combat voter fraud allegations are important. But because voting suppression is a systemic problem, there’s a Whack-a-Mole element with respect to litigation and narrowly-focused reform. You might stop voter suppression in one phase only to see it pop up in another. That’s why it’s better to fix the whole thing all at once even if it takes decades to get there. And if it doesn’t work, it will at the very least shift the debate in a favorable direction.
With respect to this type of big picture reform, I haven’t thought through all the ins and outs. Consider me a big picture guy on this. But short of national registration laws, there are other more immediate steps we could take that would really help – many of which are outlined in this Brennan Center policy paper. These measures include weekend voting, barring prohibitions on registration groups, same day registration, transparent purge processes, and many others. As they say, read the whole thing.
I started with Scott Lemieux and so I’ll end with him -- “It's almost impossible to overstate how much this matters.” Amen to that.
Complete, total agreement, plus immense gratitude for laying it out so well, and for all the information.
Also: I think we actually posted at the exact same time. What are the odds?
Posted by: hilzoy | April 12, 2007 at 12:52 AM
it was bound to happen -- so many scandals, so little time. :)
Posted by: publius | April 12, 2007 at 12:54 AM
I'm about to post the new NYT story on voter fraud, unless you want to.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 12, 2007 at 12:59 AM
all yours - it's time for the daily show, then trader joe's cranberry clusters, then bed
Posted by: publius | April 12, 2007 at 01:00 AM
In New Mexico, they went a step further. There, “groups are given only 48 hours to submit the forms they collect to the state board of elections or face criminal charges.”
I'd imagine this law was put in place to punish the not-uncommon scenario where partisan groups conduct registration drives and throw out the applications belonging to the opposing party. You show up at the polls, thinking you're registered, but you're not.
On a related topic, there seems to be a recurring problem with some voter-registration drives generating large numbers of phony applications, because they hire homeless people and others who just don't give a damn. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the issue underlying the Ohio law requiring signature collectors to turn in their applications personally. But either way, I think this is an issue States are entitled to address.
Posted by: Steve | April 12, 2007 at 01:03 AM
"I'm about to post the new NYT story on voter fraud, unless you want to."
Probably the one I quoted at length from here?
Good post, publius.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 01:24 AM
Today one of friends on EbonyFriends.com asked me to have look at the article . I think your thought is very good and I will agree with you.
Posted by: Daniel Pennant | April 12, 2007 at 02:19 AM
I like your comment spam, too.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 02:38 AM
Awesome post. A couple additions I'd make:
#1 I second Steve's point on the not-turning-in-opposition-party's-forms. However the late fines are absurd (late fee to cover the overtime for a clerk? Sure. Hundreds of bucks? NO way), and the penalties for taking too long even if the form is turned in before the registration deadline are clearly made to make life difficult for voter drives.
#3 Actually, 2000 is competetion for being as egregious, but that time, they got away with it. A pretty good overview can be found here.
#4 You can get a grande coffee for $2 at Starbucks? Cheaper than I thought.
Though I'm not really up on it, I think Black Box Voting has some valuable info. . .I realize I should probably refresh myself on how worthwhile it is before posting the link, but it's 3 AM and I have homework left.
Posted by: Joe Thomas | April 12, 2007 at 03:59 AM
Here in Rhode Island, the state GOP got quite a shellacking in the last election: lost Lincoln Chafee's senate seat (their last federal elected official), failed to win any new statewide offices, lost one or two seats in the General Assembly.
Their response? Introduce a voter ID bill in the General Assembly.
The Rhode Island GOP claims they're not a bunch of wild-eyed extremists like the national party, but they seem happy to parrot the national party's "voter fraud" rhetoric and voter suppression tactics.
Posted by: Newport 9 | April 12, 2007 at 09:17 AM
I'd imagine this law was put in place to punish the not-uncommon scenario where partisan groups conduct registration drives and throw out the applications belonging to the opposing party. You show up at the polls, thinking you're registered, but you're not.
You mean like in this story, where a Republican group was throwing out registration forms filled out by Democrats?
Yeah, I can totally see how Republican efforts at voter fraud would logicaly lead to legislation aimed to suppress voter registration.
Btw, Steve, since this is, as you say, a "not-uncommon scenario", I'm sure you can provide a link to a story where a Democratic group was systematically throwing out Republicans' registration forms. Oh, and I'm going to have to insist that you link to a real news story from a real news outfit, like I did, and not some post from RedState or Free Republic. Since it's a not-uncommon scenario, you won't have any trouble finding one. Right, Steve?
Posted by: Newport 9 | April 12, 2007 at 10:11 AM
"Today one of friends on EbonyFriends.com asked me to have look at the article . I think your thought is very good and I will agree with you."
Lamest spam ever?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
"In Florida, for instance, the legislature imposed the following fines on voter registration groups: (1) “$250 for each application submitted . . . more than ten days after the form was collected”; (2) “$500 for each application . . . submitted after the [registration] deadline”; (3) “$5,000 for each application collected but not submitted to election officials.” These potential penalties obviously make people think twice about initiating, or participating in, voter registration efforts."
No question this type of law can -- and has -- been used to suppress the turnout of those(largely Democratic) who have not previously registered to vote. But there is a second side to this type of law: if the penalties were not strict, certain people (initials KR, perhaps) might get the bright idea of "registering" unregistered voters and then dumping the new registrations in the trash. That also works to suppress the vote, as people would think they had registered, only to be turned away at the polls.
And of course, if they registered twice in an effort to make sure they could vote, then they can be prosecuted for voter fraud.
Posted by: retr2327 | April 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Btw, Steve, since this is, as you say, a "not-uncommon scenario", I'm sure you can provide a link to a story where a Democratic group was systematically throwing out Republicans' registration forms.
You want me to build a case against my own team? I have no problem stipulating that, on the whole, Republicans are the dirty-tricks masters when it comes to voting shenanigans. But I'm not partisan enough to believe that there are NO individual Democrats out there engaging in any given stunt. Sometimes people do bad things.
Posted by: Steve | April 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I'd like to point out that a national registration system (aka "national ID card") would eliminate every one of the problems cited above. Once registered, a person is registered for life, can't be incorrectly purged from the voter rolls, and has an ID card that works on presentation. Wouldn't life be so much easier if we enacted this? Wouldn't there be fewer injustices?
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Don't these voter ID laws more or less constitute an unconstitutional poll tax? I would imagine that in states like Georgia there'd also be Voting Rights Act issues, not that I'd expect the Bush Justice Department to do anything about it.
Posted by: John | April 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
"Wouldn't life be so much easier if we enacted this? Wouldn't there be fewer injustices?"
Especially once everyone is forbidden to ever move again, and given that problems with databases are sure to be trivial. I'm sure glad we have a government database for who's on the "no-fly" list: it's made for ever so fewer injustices!
Trust your government! It's the best way to be safe!
Keep in mind that there will be no move whatsoever to add data to the database: credit card info, mortgages, bank records, supermarket card holders, criminal records, terrorism watch lists, prison records, surveillance files, and so on. There will be no impulse whatsoever for various government departments to all want access to the records, to use for their various purposes, such as finding terrorists, unearthing student loan defaulters, uncovering illegal immigrants, discovering who's driving without a license, making sure you've paid your taxes, and on and on.
There will certainly be only a trivial amount of errors, and any confusion between different people will be quickly and painlessly correctable!
Then, of course, there will be no move to make sure that, since we have national IDs, that they include biometric data. Naturally. And a chip to record it on.
But the chip will be completely secure! Technology guarantees it! And the convenience will be astonishing.
Oh, it's a wonderful, wonderful idea. What could go wrong?
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 12:18 PM
You want me to build a case against my own team? I have no problem stipulating that, on the whole, Republicans are the dirty-tricks masters when it comes to voting shenanigans.
The first step in a long journey.
Now if only Sebastian will chime in and acknowledge this truth.
True reform concerning voting problems is impossible so long as Republicans cling to myths about the problem. Presently, the "problem" serve more as cover for the dirty-trick masters than any actual problem.
Posted by: dmbeaster | April 12, 2007 at 01:03 PM
I'd like to point out that a national registration system (aka "national ID card") would eliminate every one of the problems cited above.
And create a host of other issues, which is why this idea has been a non-starter for at least four decades. In particular, it used to be conservatives who were most concerned with the implications of this type of mandated ID system.
Posted by: dmbeaster | April 12, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Gary,
Austria is an example where vote registration is a non-issue as the government already knows who lives where. That doesn't conform to the US attitude Re governing, but it sure makes the election procedure a *lot* easier.
In Vienna, the city administration communicates quite thoroughly who is allowed to vote: In each house of flats a note is on display how many people are on the roll for each flat. And every voter gets sent a card giving his polling place and his roll number to speed up the voting process.
Whenever you move, you are already legally obliged to notify the state, which automatically changes the voter registration for you.
Different countries, different philosophies.
Posted by: otmar | April 12, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Mr. Farber sarcastically dismisses the idea of a national voter registration, arguing that it would contain errors and be misused. Mr dmbeaster echoes Mr. Farber. There are two powerful counterarguments against these fears:
1. Whether you like it or not, that data already exists in computers somewhere. We're not talking about adding new data, we're talking about consolidating it under defined law with defined procedures for acquiring and accessing it. Right now the voter registration data is maintained on county computers with little, if ANY, security. In a national database, it could be secured. Right now, there are no laws controlling access to the voter registration database; anybody at the county courthouse can mosey on over to the computer during lunch break and look up anybody's data. If they're caught in the act, they don't go to jail, because there are no laws governing that. And this is the system you prefer!?!?!
Nor are there uniform laws governing how that data is used at present. The county clerk can hand it over to the Republican county chairman, and it could be perfectly legal -- depends on what state you're in. This is the situation you prefer!?!??
2. There are no uniform laws or even uniform procedures for correcting errors in voter registration data. If the county puts you down as a felon ineligible to vote, you might be able to change that -- but the standards of proof required, the presumptions made in disputes, the fees charged to make the change, and the time required to effect it, are all variable and in many cases undefined. With a national database we could have uniform standards for error correction. But you prefer the present chaotic and grossly unfair situation?!?!?!
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 01:33 PM
"In a national database, it could be secured."
Of course it could; when millions of people of necessity have input rights, and tens of millions, or more, can access information from it, it would surely be secure. Especially when databases are combined! That really limits errors. If we combine databases with variant errors, that won't multiply the errors from one database into the others, but instead the errors will magically be fixed!
Because that's how it's worked so far, and even if it didn't, we can do better next time!
Why, a month doesn't pass without a news story on how a government database didn't have a few million files stolen, or lost. And it's easy to get both private companies, and the government, to fix database errors, as everyone who has ever tried knows! It's a cinch.
Multiplying errors in a database that will determine if you should be arrested, can fly, might be a terrorist, have credit problems, and so on: nothing to worry about!
What could go wrong? National databases are fantastic, particularly for their security.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 01:50 PM
OT, but voting-related, from DC political commentator Mark Plotkin:
If you're in or near DC, join the Voting Rights March on Monday.
Posted by: KCinDC | April 12, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Mr. Farber, your reliance on sarcasm belies an insecurity with logic; your arguments will stand up better if not posed in hyperbolic format.
Yep, there have been lots of security problems with data systems. Your solution is to simply let things remain as they are, with lousy security, no uniform laws governing access, and no uniform procedures for correcting errors. I don't call that a solution -- I call it a problem.
The solution is to fix the problems, not impotently complain about them. We won't improve data security by leaving the data in unsecure county computers. We won't improve error correction by leaving it in the hands of computer-illiterate county employees.
I'm proposing a constructive solution to a serious problem -- and all you can offer in response is sarcasm?
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 01:57 PM
I'm proposing a constructive solution to a serious problem -- and all you can offer in response is sarcasm?
You get sarcasm because you don't actually offer any answer to the serious problems he poses - problems that have been obvious with national government identification registration ever since the concept was first proposed, which is why it never has been - other than "we can fix the problems."
Please explain how a system that, as Gary said, by necessity would have millions of people with access to it would be "secure" by any standard that isn't laughable, then maybe you'll get less snark.
Posted by: chdb | April 12, 2007 at 02:20 PM
This may be arrogant of me for a change but in this case I think Gary is the realist here as far as the US are concerned. While I do have trust in the the security of state&federal databases over here (and the courts have just stopped attempts to even marginal pooling of different ones again) I have no trust at all that something like it could be established in the US in the forseeable future. I simply consider the mentality of our different countries to be too different. Paradoxically in the US many see the state as per se untrustworthy but the controls are effectively (though maybe not theoretically) weak. Over here the government is seen as basically trustworthy/benevolent but the net of regulations and controls is extremly dense, as if noone could be trusted at all.
Posted by: Hartmut | April 12, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Mr. chdb, you overlook the essence of my argument, which is comparative rather than absolute. Yes, in absolute terms, no national system will ever be truly secure. But county systems are even worse by any measure. I am not proposing to create an entirely new database of information that doesn't exist anywhere else. I am proposing to take the current clumsy, inefficient, insecure, hodgepodge of voter registration and put in one place where we can implement stronger (note the 'er') security and more reliable error correction (note the 'more').
We have now had four comments that such a system will not be secure. We already know that. The question is, how can be improve the situation? Can anyone here offer an argument that a national database would be LESS secure than our current mishmash?
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 02:28 PM
"Can anyone here offer an argument that a national database would be LESS secure than our current mishmash?"
When people provide links, you ignore them.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Whoops, looking back, I see one of my links was bad; it was supposed to be this, not a link to Charlie's blog in general. Apologies.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 02:39 PM
"When people provide links, you ignore them."
Mr. Farber, I don't know what you're talking about. I have pursued many of the links presented. In some cases, I found them useful; in others, I did not. But in any case, my question remains: can you offer an argument that a national database would be less secure than county databases? Again, I emphasize the relative aspect of the question.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Wow. I catch a whiff of "Computers are MAGIC!" thinking here.
Here's a hint: Computers are dumb. Users are even worse. Computers + Users = mistakes. Computers + Users + Lack of Oversight = Horrible, Horrible Mess.
It's quite possible to secure a database. Database security and data reliability are, of course, two different things. Data accuracy is yet a third.
Posted by: Morat20 | April 12, 2007 at 02:59 PM
"But in any case, my question remains: can you offer an argument that a national database would be less secure than county databases?"
Repetition is rarely useful, but since you ignored my last three links, and "don't know what [I'm] talking about," I shall theorize that your browser visually makes links unclear, and so I'll try to make them more clear.
One.
Two.
Three.
Each of those words is a separate link; each presents such arguments. For starters.
There are vast public policy problems with large-call databases on citizens, both commercial and private, and in governmental hands.
The larger and more detailed the database, the more problematic it is, for a variety of reasons, including the increased number of people affected by errors, and the greater uses that are encouraged as size grows.
Necessarily, the smaller that databases are, and the more localized that they are, the better off we all are.
The worst possible problems come when disparate databases are combined, thus vastly multiplying the errors, and their effects.
The very very worst possible outcome would be one huge governmental database. The links I provided explain why.
HTH. HAND.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 02:59 PM
"large-call databases"
Should have been "large-scale databases." Sorry about that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Yes, Mr. Farber, I did read the links you presented; I simply didn't perceive any relevance in them. The first two links are to articles describing the many flaws in the UK National Identity Card System. He makes no comparison whatever to smaller systems. Mr. Schneier's article makes exactly the same point: that large national databases used for general-purpose ID have many serious flaws. Again, he does not address county systems.
So not one of your links bothers to address the point I made: that a national voter registration system could easily be made more secure than the current hodgepodge of local systems. That's why I didn't bother responding to them individually; I thought it would be obvious to you that they didn't apply to the point I was making. Just to be clear, let me repeat that point:
I claim that a national system of voter registration information would be more secure than the current voter registration data scattered all over the place. In order to present arguments against my claim, you need to make COMPARATIVE arguments that reference the strengths and weaknesses of national systems AS COMPARED TO county level systems. You have made no attempt to do so.
Two other points: you do make the good point that large databases are intrinsically more fragile than small databases. However, at this point I have to clarify my position. I have had in mind throughout this discussion a national voter registration database, not a full-fledged national identification database -- but I have also kept in mind the likelihood that, with time, a national voter registration database would grow into a national identification database. The "with time" aspect reflects the years -- decades, more likely -- that it would take to hammer out the details to make it workable. If you re-read my posts on the subject, you'll see that the emphasis is always on voter registration information, but I also got sloppy in a few places and wasn't so specific. In any case, the topic issue here is solving voter registration problems, and that has been the context in which I have been thinking.
The differences between a national voter registration database and a national identification database are huge. The amount of data maintained in the former case is small, and readily fits an easily-defined format. Therefore, the many problems cited in your references to very large databases are not anywhere near as relevant to the issue at hand.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 03:41 PM
The differences between a national voter registration database and a national identification database are huge.
elections and voting are the business of the states, not of the federal govt..
Posted by: cleek | April 12, 2007 at 03:47 PM
"So not one of your links bothers to address the point I made: that a national voter registration system could easily be made more secure than the current hodgepodge of local systems. That's why I didn't bother responding to them individually; I thought it would be obvious to you that they didn't apply to the point I was making."
In the real world, there is a massive press for a national ID card, to serve a variety of purposes, including proving one's citizenship for employment and other purposes (the role the Social Security card fell into, despite that being specifically illegal, and which the proponents of swore up and down could never take place, that the SS # could and never would be used for any other identification purposes than with the Social Security bureau), fighting terrorism, as a driver's license, and elsewise.
Any proposal requiring a national voter ID necessarily is making a proposal that would be swept into that card; we're not going to have two national ID cards, one for voting, and one for all other purposes.
Necessarily, the cards are pointless without the centralized database.
In the real world, the push to consolidate such databases in governmental hands is massive and ongoing. I've blogged more than a little about this in recent years.
So, in reality, rather than in the ideal schemes in your head, in vacuo, the topics are the same, and are not just relevant, but are essential.
If you wish to ignore them, you're discussing a fantasy ideal in your head, rather than the actual issues.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Yes, Mr. Farber, I did read the links you presented; I simply didn't perceive any relevance in them.
I would think a tad more imaginatively. I think there's quite a bit of relevancy.
Posted by: gwangung | April 12, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Mr. Farber, you equate a national voter registration card with a national identification card, saying that politically they are indistinguishable. This is a slippery slope argument. You are asserting that, if we accept A, then we'll inevitably end up with B.
Now, I'd first like to point out that the slippery slope argument implicitly concedes the merit of A. That is, it relies on the injury created by B and attributes no injury to A. So you are (unintentionally, I'm sure) implying that a national voter registration system would be harmless.
But now to address the flaw in slippery slope arguments: such arguments rely on the assumption that the second result is an inevitable consequence of the first. To make a slippery slope argument work, you have to demonstrate inevitability. You present the argument that there are many people in favor of a national identification card. I recall a reference to a poll showing that the majority of Americans are opposed to a national identity card -- if you seriously doubt that, I can try to dig up the link. That poll certainly argues the reverse of your claim, and thereby eliminates the inevitability necessary to your arguement.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 04:10 PM
It makes a lot more sense to me for the federal government to be involved in elections, which after all include the elections for federal officials, than for it be involved in setting the drinking age or speed limits or fighting marijuana.
That may be (though the Voting Rights Act indicates things may be more complicated), but don't you think that's one of the things that leads to the election problems we have?Posted by: KCinDC | April 12, 2007 at 04:13 PM
but don't you think that's one of the things that leads to the election problems we have?
oh i'm not defending it, i'm just sayin' that's the way it is. if you want the Feds to get into the business of monitoring voting, there's probably gonna need to be some Constitutional amending first.
Posted by: cleek | April 12, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Cleek, did it require a constitutional amendment for the things I mentioned in my comment? The federal government can certainly bribe or blackmail the states (or creatively interpret the Constitution) if an issue is deemed important enough.
Posted by: KCinDC | April 12, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Mr. cleek is correct in observing that voting is legally the responsibility of the states. But the Feds could intervene under the Equal Protection clause. In fact, that was the basis on which the infamous Gore v. Bush case was decided.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 04:47 PM
this federal voter database idea implies (to me, anyway) that the FedGov is going to be in control of deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't. well, how does that square with the fact that different states have different rules for who can vote and who can't (ex. felons) ? are we expecting the FedGov to update its list according to laws it doesn't write or enforce ?
yes, the FedGov gets involved with elections, i'm just not sure this kind of involvement would fly with the laws as they are.
of course, i'm not a lawyer, so i won't be surprised if someone who is knocks my theory to the ground.
Posted by: cleek | April 12, 2007 at 04:56 PM
"if you want the Feds to get into the business of monitoring voting, there's probably gonna need to be some Constitutional amending first."
The Justice Department has monitored voting since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and possibly to some degree before that since the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but I don't recall how significant that is, and it's not important enough to look up just now).
HAVA did a bunch in 2002.
Discussion here at this level of knowledge is pretty pointless. There's no shortage of expert organizations and advice to look to on what's proposed, and been done recently, in election reform. There's already a role for the Federal government in national elections. None of this has required any constitutional changes. Nor resort to "the Equal Protection clause" (who do you propose has standing, and to bring what suit where against whom over what?).
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 05:01 PM
Mr. Farber, standing under Equal Protection is defined by a number of criteria laid down over the years in case law. The jurisdictional specifications are well established based on the residence of the plaintiff and the location at which the election took place. If the existing specifications don't yield a clear result, then it bounces to the DC court.
Look up Gore v Bush to see how it's done.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Dammit, it's "Bush v Gore", not "Gore v Bush". Me and my aging memory. Sorry.
Posted by: Erasmussimo | April 12, 2007 at 05:13 PM
The Justice Department has monitored voting since the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
ok, wrong word. i meant "monitoring" in a more hands-on way - you know, like the way you're proposing. i see a big difference between monitoring elections to guarantee civil rights and telling individuals if they can and can't vote in state elections.
Posted by: cleek | April 12, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Thanks, Erasmussimo, for such clarity in responding to "who do you propose has standing, and to bring what suit where against whom over what?"
Everyone now understands the answer to that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2007 at 05:24 PM
Now, I'd first like to point out that the slippery slope argument implicitly concedes the merit of A. That is, it relies on the injury created by B and attributes no injury to A. So you are (unintentionally, I'm sure) implying that a national voter registration system would be harmless.
Not necessarily. A may not necessarily be harmless; the tradeoffs may outweigh the harm. However, the harm in A+B could certainly overweigh the good. This would in no way say that A is harmless.
But now to address the flaw in slippery slope arguments: such arguments rely on the assumption that the second result is an inevitable consequence of the first. To make a slippery slope argument work, you have to demonstrate inevitability.
Given what's happened to, say, social security numbers, I'm not certain you'd have to work very hard. Unintended condequences abound.
Posted by: gwangung | April 12, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Have to point out to the national database proponents that if we'd already had one, it would now most likely be administered by the DOJ under the direction of our Attorney General.
Just saying.
Posted by: eeyn524 | April 12, 2007 at 09:54 PM
It would be nice if somebody in the MSM would make the simple observation that Democrats are always working toward being more inclusive of voters while Republicans do everything they can to suppress the vote.
Posted by: global yokel | April 12, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Okay Erasmussimo, here's a couple very specific security complaints with regard to county vs. national databases. The advantage of increased physical security with a national DB is cancelled by the enormous numbers of users neccesary to operate such a beast. A single security breach with a national database could potentially put every citizen's data at risk, whereas a security breach on a county level obviously would not. The damage potential of a security breach with a national database is far greater, and it's attractiveness as a target is equally increased.
Posted by: Grocer | April 12, 2007 at 11:06 PM
These are the issues currently under debate.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Maybe this post is better here than in the thread above:
A lot could be done by making federal elections a truly federal thing. No special rules for individual states like different standards of eligibility etc.
Personally I am for a simple "(alive and adult) US citizens have the right to vote in US federal elections. This right may not be abridged for any reason.". Yes, that would include the Boston Strangler and Bin Laden (should he somehow achieve US citizenship). The practice of voter purges is in my view a far larger problem than the voting of criminals (that some unlike me see as an abomination).
Posted by: Hartmut | April 13, 2007 at 04:13 AM
I'm agreeing with Hartmut, both in the simple voting rights and in the national database issue. Though I also dislike our own databases; too many possibilities for misuse and not enough respect for privacy.
In the Netherlands everybody can vote, criminals too. Having your voting rights removed is an additional punishment and very rare.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | April 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM