« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
CONFIRMED: 19 STATES HAVE VOTING REQUIREMENT COULD DISENFRANCHISE U.S. CITIZENS
I as posted here, like Missouri there are 18 other states that have pending legislation that could potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. The Brennan Center for Justice has documented all 19 bills that could have far reaching effects on the outcome of the 2008 General Election. If you live in one of these states (CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, MD, MA, MI, MO, MS, NY, OK, SC, TN, UT, VA, WA) you need to immediately get involved at the local level to make sure these bills do not pass. In most cases, the documents needed for proof of citizenship are not clearly defined.
If you don't think that these bills present a problem to the democratic process, consider what happened to tens of thousands of people in Missouri who lost their Medicaid benefits because they were unable to document their citizenship (see http://www.cbpp.org/5-15-08citdoc.htm).
No state is immune: blue states like MA and NY are facing the same kind of patriotic jingoism as red states like MS and OK. I don't know enough about each state to know if this is a Republican tactic, but I can't think of any other party that would benefit from lower election turnout in this cycle, especially if you consider the massive participation numbers of the primaries.
The point is this: these are quiet, backdoor end runs that are seeking to shut out eligible voters. If we (and yes, I'm in one of these states) sit back and let it happen, we have no one but ourselves to blame. If you live in one of these 19 states, GET BUSY AND CALL YOUR REPS! If you live somewhere else, keep your ears to the ground and your eyes on the capital: you can bet good money that a similar proposal is headed your way.
(Please rec this so that it makes it out to the front page where more people can see it -- this is VERY IMPORTANT!)
Comments (18)
Recommended, and will do.
May 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No comments?
Is that because everyone's on the phone with their reps, fighting this thing?
I hope so, and I hope it's not only a Clinton-Obama fight that moves people to comment here.
This is the next step in election theft that the Repukes have mastered since 2000, Florida, ChoicePoint, the massive "felon" (except they weren't) voter purge that just happened to be 80+% African American, caging (which Dems still haven't wrapped their brains around, despite hearings with Goodling and her ilk), Blackwell's Ohio shenanigans in 2004, and so on.
As soon as we begin to unmask and counter one strategy, they unveil the next one.
And this one has been endorsed by the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court, a court that exists because cowardly Democrats refused to filibuster the Roberts and Alito confirmations. Thanks all you "moderate" Democrats. You may just have buried your own party.
Meanwhile, Schmedley, you are right. We have to do whatever we can to stop this. Phone calls are just the first step.
Rec'd.
May 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this alert! I am checking OK...haven't found that it passed, but I put out a request on the Obama list. We just held the Voter Registration drive here and nothing was said about proof of citizen ship from the attorneys who were present.
May 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an example of how these laws gain momentum, from Texas.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/texas-ag-treads-familiar-voter.php
May 19, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so people know, proof of citizenship is only required in one state currently: Arizona.
The 19 states referenced above are where measures are pending.
So gettex should be okay out in OK.
For more info you can go to Project Vote's Election Legislation tracking website: www.electionlegislation.org (registration required).
May 19, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to minimize the issue, but I note from the chart prepared by the Brennan Center that the measures appear to have already failed in 9 states (CA,CO,FL,GA,MD,MS,UT,VA,WA); and it looks as though the bills are already law in 2 states (DE,KS) and so appear to be pending in 8 others (IL,MA,MI,MO,NY,OK,SC,TN).
May 19, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's a bit misleading to have this blaring headline about 19 states. This is an important issue, and overdramatizing it is unnecessary.
May 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks from Illinois. Will be calling.
May 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just checked the information on the bill in MA. Proposed by Paul K. Frost, one of the 19 Republican members of the Massachusetts House (out of 160 total). It was filed on January 8, 2007. While I certainly encourage people to contact their representatives (especially in states less liberal that Massachusetts), it seems unlikely that this particular bill has any chance of passing.
May 20, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd take this more seriously if you showed a modicum of concern for the millions of voters in MI & FL who were disenfranchised by the DNC in the democratic primary. Are democrats the party of every vote should count again? It's so hard to keep track these days.
All sarcasmm aside, I will recommend because this is a critical issue for the fall and beyond.
May 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is pretty awful when those Democratic politicians in MI and FL showed not a modicum of concern for the millions of voters in their own states. If those politicians had cared about their own voters, they would not have put them at risk by trying to game the primary calendar which they themselves agreed to a year ago. They were warned of the consequences late last summer, but went ahead anyway to throw their rule-breaking wrenches into the primary calendar.
Now that the rules are being enforced, those same MI and FL Democratic politicians [as well as certain folks in Hillaryland who also want to ignore the primary rules] are trying to use those same voters whom they themselves disenfranchised as hostages in their lame attempts to blame the DNC.
May 20, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's deal in facts here shall we? Actually it was a republican governor and republican legislature that changed the date in Florida, not the democratic party. So why should Florida democrats be held reponsible? In addition the party rules that FL was punished for violating was to make sure OH, NH, SC & NV were first. Which they were since SC moved up their primary to 1/26. No harm, no foul. But rules are rules and the rules said the states could petition to be seated which is what they are doing. For the Obama campaign and supporters to support puniching millions of FL democrats when they had record turnout and they had no control over the election date is pathetic. My party was the party of every vote should count. You lose your moral authority to make that argument when you willingly disregard millions of voters.
May 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps there is something that I am missing, but I don't see a problem with requiring people to show some proof of citizenry when they register to vote. With the influx of illegal immigrants, I think it is important that we ensure that only legal citizens are voting in our elections. I imagine that the amendment requiring documentation is non-specific about documentation so that it can be established that proof is required without narrowing it down. For example: What if we go to a National Identification and the amendment requires a passport instead? To change it to the Nat'l ID card would require going back through the whole amendment process again which is timely and costly.
May 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why not require them to pay a poll tax? That isn't too much of burden, either!
Seriously--this represents a burden for many people. How would you prove, right now, that you're a citizen? With a passport? Well, good for you. Now consider what portion of the voting public routinely has passports?
May 20, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let's deal in facts.
HR 537 passed unanimously in the Florida House, and with only two “nays” in the Florida Senate. This was not a Republican coup. If the voters of Florida did not want this bill to pass, they should have made their objections known to their representatives.
May 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be more clear - if Florida Democratic state legislators had objected to the change in date, they could have voted against it.
Sure, there may have been some measures bundled in the legislation that they dearly wanted, which influenced their votes.
But - they chose, as representatives of the voters of Florida.
May 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the RNC punished them by taking away 1/2 of their delegates. The DNC took away 100% of their delegates. The democratic leader in the FL state senate offerered an amendament to change the date which was defeated (makes sense since it again is a republican controlled body). It was a bill about lots of things including the primary date among election reform, election machines etc. And per the DNC rules they have every right to petition that they be seated. The principle was the IA, NH, NV & SC had to be first. SC was originally set for 2/5 but moved their date up to 1/26 to be ahead of Florida.
I see no rationale why 100% of democratic voters in FL should be disenfranchised because of a state legislature and governor decision. The florida state dems could have voted against it 100% and it wouldn't have mattered.
May 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's preventing a bill criminalizing malicious disfranchisement? Perhaps even conspiracy to commit same?
That might have been a good one to bundle with a supplemental defense appropriations bill.
May 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment