sorry about that

HR 4844

I read the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109tgy2R8 and it does not mention requiring Proof of Citizenship at the Poll -- only a Photo ID.  It does not specify that it has to show citizenship.

However, it appears they're requiring proof when one registers to vote, which I agree with, and it is not onerous proof, but requiring a PHOTOCOPY of proof of citizenship to be attached with Voter Application or Re-Application.  I read this as "going forward, new registrants will need to prove citizenship."  

A birth certificate is proof for people born here, and for immigrants, they routinely provide their papers anyway.  

For states that allow same-day registration, voter must present a photocopy of proof of citizenship.  

It does ask that a photo ID be shown at the Poll, but in practice, Illinois and Tennessee already do that -=- I'm not familiar with all states, of course.  Even if this is new, this is not a big deal!

I hope someone from Common Cause explains what appears to be an overstatement of alarm here...

bonadea

Voter ID

Why National Voter ID Is a Problem

"What's wrong with that?" you ask.

Plenty.

Regarding proof of citizenship:

--People born in the U.S. prove citizenship with a birth certificate. But not everyone has one. For example, rural, elderly, and poor people are more likely to have been born at home and their birth to have never been officially registered. Also natural disasters like Katrina have destroyed government records of many citizens.

--People who have been through multiple crises are more likely to have lost track of personal documents and are the most likely to need to spend time and money to reassemble them.

--Citizenship papers for naturalized citizens are not standardized; officials can't necessarily tell real documents from false ones. Officials may reject real documents.

Regarding proof of identity:

--Elderly, poor, and disabled people are the least likely to drive and therefore to already have photo ID.

--Students and others who move frequently are less likely to have photo ID with current address; only 3 percent of Milwaukee college students do.

--Come on, you know what it's like waiting at the DMV, fighting the lines and the bureaucracy. These may only get worse as more people need ID. And people working hourly will have to forego paid work time to obtain the ID. Oh, and if they require a ride to the DMV, someone else may need to lose paid work time too.

--A Social Security card is usually required to prove identity to get ID. See the problem re: missing documents and personal crises above. Also consider this: Homeland Security regulations have made it much more difficult to get an original or replacement Social Security card.

Regarding the problems HR 4844 is supposed to solve:

--A head of elections in a populous western county with a large Latino population recently told me that noncitizen voting simply is not a problem in her county. I figure if someone stands to be deported for voting illegally, they probably don't make a point of showing up at the polls.

--The spokesperson for the Missouri Secretary of State told me that they have not had a single reported instance of voter impersonation in the last 20 years. Yet her state recently passed a bill requiring government-issued photo ID at the polls.

--The Department of Justice reports only 52 convictions for fraudulent voting out of nearly 200,000,000 votes cast in federal elections since 2002. Most of these were for fraud that would not have been prevented by restrictive Voter ID.

Regarding HR 4844 supporters' real intentions:

--As many as 20 million U.S. citizens do not have government-issued photo ID; they are disproportionately poor and urban.

--Last year the House passed HR 1461, which (if a matching provision had passed the Senate) would have barred agencies receiving housing funds targeted first for Katrina evacuees from participating in "voter registration, voter identification, or get-out-the-vote activities" or from associating with agencies that do. Notice the inclusion of "voter identification."

--Just before Georgia passed its strict Voter ID bill requiring voters to obtain ID at a state Department of Motor Vehicles office, it closed many of its DMVs, including the one in Atlanta's Fulton County.

--When Indiana passed its strict Voter ID bill, it included a clause saying the state would not be required to notify voters of the change.

--After passage of the draconian HR 4437, which would have made it illegal for agencies or churches to even give food to undocumented immigrants, illegal immigration burst into the national consciousness. The stage was set for the argument that proof of citizenship is a must at the polls. (See above for the difficulty of proving citizenship.)

--One of Justice Roberts's claims to fame is that he spearheaded Ronald Reagan's legal attempt to water down Voting Rights Act renewal in 1982. He argued that discriminatory effect of voting laws was irrelevant if intent to discriminate couldn't be proven. And intent is very difficult to prove.

So whaddaya say? Is there something wrong with that?

Fight it all the way!!

"It's a blatantly partisan attempt to limit the ability of some groups of voters to cast a ballot."

That is the truth, written by this very intelligent woman, Ms. Burt.

We as Common Cause members are not going to put up with this kind of anti-Democrat anti-liberal garbage.

This will hurt the poor and uneducated voters, in some areas of the country. We depend on these votes to get our people--Democrats--into office.

And why should we have to show any ID at all, when I pay with my credit card I get asked to show a picture ID, when I get pulled over by cops they always ask for ID, that should be enough. So what if a few illegal aliens voted in the Los Angeles mayoral election, as long as they're voting for our party, who cares. If they were voting for Republicans that would be a different story, then  common cause would rightfully demand an end to this and I would support them.

Just Say No to Bush!!!

Kirstin the right winger?

1) Kirstin, I used to think you were one of the good guys, but clearly your a traitor to the cause of righteousness and civil rights. Why don't you leave the party and go join the Republicans then!!

2)Im sure the far majority of members of Common Cause are Democrats(probably 90%). You know that as well as I do. I doubt outside of you, that there are any other Republicans that work for Common Cause. The far majority of groups that sponsor our causes are liberal groups. Our power and financial base comes from Democrats,not Republicans. If we got rid of the "were nonpartisan" stuff and promoted ourselves as a liberal government watchdog group which is what we really are,we would grow by leaps and bounds, sure we would lose a very small percentage of Republicans that are part of our group, but we would gain so much more support and we would be so much more effective. You can interpret my comments any way you want, I tell it the way I see it!

No more Right-Wingers and no more lies.  

Don't get it.

No..