News » June 9, 2008

The Right’s New Attack on Voters

By Jessica Pupovac

If the GOP gets its way, passports might become the new ticket to vote.

Last April, as a national debate raged over whether Indiana’s voter ID law protects election integrity or disenfranchises low-income voters, a more sinister and potentially damaging voter-vetting proposal sat quietly in nine state legislatures, attracting little attention.

Laws that would require proof-of-citizenship in the form of a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers in order to register to vote have been introduced in eight states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

That number was pared down from nine in late May, when, under popular pressure, the Missouri legislature ended their sessions without calling their proof-of-citizenship referendum to a vote. The Missouri bill—HJR 48—was the only such law that had the potential to go into effect prior to this November’s elections.

Birdell Owen, a Missouri resident who was displaced by Hurricane Katrina and has no birth certificate, was among those who celebrated the victory.

“I should be able to participate in my democracy, she says, “even if Louisiana can’t get me a copy of my birth certificate. I’m glad Missouri politicians had the sense to protect my right to vote.”

Supporters of proof-of-citizenship bills say they aren’t trying to dissuade people like Owen from voting. Their targets, they claim, are the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

“When we have close elections in this country, the people have to have confidence that it was lawfully decided by honest, legitimate voters, not non-citizens and illegal people trying to participate in the process,” said Mark “Thor” Hearne, national election law counsel for President Bush’s 2004 campaign and a prominent conservative voting restriction advocate, on NPR in 2006.

Hearne was an avid supporter of the recent Missouri proposal, but so far, he and other supporters have been hard-pressed for evidence of an immigrant electoral take-over.

In 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative — a nationwide effort to find and prosecute fraudulent voters. To date, the effort has nabbed only 15 non-citizens, according to research compiled by Lori Minnite, a Columbia University political science professor and author of The Politics of Voter Fraud.

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 of the Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, making it the only state where voters must prove citizenship in order to cast a vote.

“A lot of people said this isn’t going to affect me,” says Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, referring to the Arizona law. “But it turned out to be a lot more restrictive than many voters thought it would be.”

Perales, who is currently suing Arizona on behalf of disenfranchised plaintiffs, says the state has rejected more than 37,000 applications since Proposition 200 went into effect. She says the state also left uncounted more than 4,000 cast provisional ballots because of polling place ID requirements.

“A lot of these people had ID, but it wasn’t good enough under Prop 200,” Perales says.

The largest segment of the population affected by the new law is women. A November 2006 report by the Opinion Research Center and compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that only 66 percent of women surveyed had ready access to proof of citizenship bearing their legal names.

According to Maggie Duncan, national spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters, broadening documentation requirements could effectively “turn thousands of women away from the polls.”

And women wouldn’t be alone. People of color, senior citizens, people with disabilities and those with comparatively low incomes were all over-represented among those lacking citizenship documentation in the NYU study. Overall, as many as 7 percent of U.S. citizens surveyed—or roughly 13 million individuals of voting age—reported having no immediate access to the documents.

In Missouri, the League of Women Voters was at the forefront of a movement to defeat the new voting restrictions, and was joined by a broad coalition that included the American Association of Retired People, labor organizations, disability advocates and others.

“We are working in states throughout the country where we are making sure voters are educated and keeping a close eye on legislation,” says Duncan. If something were to pop up, our state leagues are on the ground in every state working to make sure voters are protected, and working closely with officials in those states.”

“Missouri was the biggest threat, because of the political climate, in terms of something happening this year,” says Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote, a D.C.-based organization that promotes voting in low-income and minority communities. “But anywhere there is a Republican-controlled legislature, it could feasibly pass in 2009 in places like Florida, Missouri and other states.”

“Given the potential impact of new voters in the 2008 election and their historical impact in the past two elections,” says Slater, “it’s no surprise that we see partisans trying to curb the participation of new voters.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Since you have to provide identification to drive a vehicle or cash a check, it would not seem to be too burdensome to provide identification when voting. 

  But that is not what the Leftists are up to.  They have whined constantly about the close Bush win in year 2000, but that is irrelevant now.  The new voter fraud issue is Obama’s theft of the Democratic nomination from Hillary.  There is no way a nobody from nowhere could hijack a presidential nomination without Soros’ money and political organization.  But that is exactly what we have seen happen.

  Posted by scorp on Jun 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM

  Yo Scorp-
  The right to vote does not carry with it the necessity to drive to a polling place nor does it require that you have a checking account.  The need for identification for those activities is completely irrelevant to the arguement.

  And what you saw in the Democratic Primary was not a hijacking nor was it voter fraud:  it was a Movement taking on the establishment, and the Movement won.

  Get used to it, because the Movement is not over.

  
  Great article once again Jes!

  Posted by willywinstonIII on Jun 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM

  Scorp,

  You have to have a photo ID to cash a check, or in case you get stopped, when driving a vehicle.  These IDs do not prove citizenship, which require documentation.  I mean come, this article was not that hard to read, but instead you decide to go off on your on conspiracy direction.

  Bush did not win in 2000.  If they had recounted all the votes in Florida, which is Gore’s biggest mistake, trying to cherry-pick counties.  As a believer in democracy, I thought then that ALL votes in Florida should be counted.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

  As Paul Krugrman stated, you know why republicans think that George Soros is some giant billionaire manipulator of American society (not the British pound), because that is what they are used to from the right side.

  Posted by chaoslegs on Jun 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM

  “An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where **voter intent** was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.”

  Even the article quoted relies on **discerning voter intent**. It is far from clear that “Bush did not win in 2000”.  And that Bush did in fact win. But given how close the contest was, it is even more clear that it was a statistical tie, and either side would have complained if they ended up on the wrong side of the tie.

  What is clear is that if Gore had held his home state he would have won the election. After that, who knows if things would have been better or worse? Bush had no foreign policy (never even traveled out the US before becoming president!) and started out as an isolationist, who ended up reacting to 911. Who knows what Gore might have done? All water under the bridge now.

  Posted by wolf on Jun 10, 2008 at 9:39 PM

  You know something’s wrong when someone who is properly concerned that illegal immigrants are casting votes and nullifying their own is characterized as a “voting restriction advocate”.

  And of course there’s no reliable way to know, and it’s impossible to prove, just how extensive the practice is, so without some kind of identification procedures in place you’ve just gotta have faith.

  The day that Democrats start approving of voter verification is the day that illegal immigrants and unqualified voters start voting Republican.

  Posted by Natalie on Jun 17, 2008 at 4:17 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also featured Death Squads in Oaxaca
Canaries in the Uranium Mine
The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Jessica Pupovac

• Same-Sex Marriage in the Heartland
  Iowa becomes the first state in the Midwest to extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians.Posted on April 3, 2009
• The Push to Privatize PEMEX
  Halliburton is licking its chops at the prospect of Mexico's state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos… morePosted on May 12, 2008
• Big Oil Imperils Polar Bears
  Just when it seemed like things couldn't get any worse for the polar… morePosted on March 13, 2008
• Silenced in the Barracks
  The Pentagon fails to protect U.S. troops from sexual abuse Posted on March 3, 2008
• Funding Iraqs Citizen Soldiers
  Is the Pentagon's neighborhood watch strategy protecting Iraqis or stoking the civil war? Posted on November 12, 2007