Will the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a facial challenge to Indiana's law requiring voters to present a picture ID before they vote have any effect on the vote today? And has the Supreme Court, the last line of defense in upholding individual rights, bought into the Republican's most successful voter suppression scheme?  

The Toledo Blade editorialized yesterday that,  "...the GOP's concocted argument that voter ID requirements are necessary to deter the possibility of voter fraud found a simpathetic audience among the justices."

Republican operatives through an organized strategy in 2005, helped Republican leaning state legislatures, as in Ohio, pass into law restrictive ID requirements. Although the Court, in this case, chose not to see this as a burden to certain minorities, the poor, students and elderly voters, others, including the plaintiffs, perceive it as a kind of "poll tax," that even if the ID were free, could cause other burdens (maybe not understood by those more fortunate).

The issue of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is rearing it's ugly head in Colorado once again. Each year in the legislature, a bill of this sort comes up at least once. And each year, we at Common Cause work hard to defeat the bill because we believe in removing barriers to our voting process, not adding them. But this year, El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Bob Balink is taking a different approach. Balink belives that if the legislature won't pass a bill requiring proof of citizenship, a lawsuit would force the issue. Those who believe that we should require proof of citizenship claim it's not that difficult to obtain the proof, and you would only have to do it once. An editorial in this week's Denver Post says: To say that proving citizenship is not onerous is wrong. It is expensive and time-cosuming, not to mention infringing on our basic voting rights. The citizenship requirement is aimed at illegal immigrants and discouraging them from voting. But, there is little to no evidence of voter fraud in Colorado. This is a solution in search of a problem. The possibility of having to bring even more identification to the polls is going to discourage people from voting. In a democracy where voting is a fundamental right, we should be passing laws that make it easier to vote, not harder.

Like many voters, I walked into my polling place today with high level of skepticism - would my vote count?  First, in Fairfax County, VA we vote on paperless electronic machines.  Who knows what happens?

A common problem for voters is their name missing from the voters list.  My name was there, but my son (also Edwin) had voted absentee - and they had checked off my name as voting already.  After multiple back and forths, and confusion about our names that was finally resolved by the chief election officer, I voted - after proclaiming that "I ain't voting no provisional ballot."

My problem was minor and fairly easily resolved. But what if I was someone else -- not a middle-class white guy in a polling place populated with people like me -- and the pollworkers had not started with the presumption that I was telling the truth?  We know that pollworkers react differently to different voters and the result is often the a discouraged voter or a provisional ballot that is never counted.

As a part of our ongoing election protection activities Common Cause/Ohio joined the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing (COHHIO), League of Women Voters of Ohio, Ohio VOTES and People for American Way in a news conference highlighting the confusion that still exists around the new voter ID requirements that became law when HB 3 was passed.  

Bill Faith of COHHIO referenced a study from Cleveland State University that showed how many registered voters might have to vote a provisional ballot because their license ID might have an old address on it.  Legally, it should still be proper ID to vote, but because it doesn't match the poll book address, there is bound to be confusion.  To illustrate how many voters could be affected by this, he asked those at the news conference whose valid license has an old address on it.  Eight out of the thirty in the room raised their hands.

The Colorado Legislature has been called into special session.  And after two days, it is clear that this session is about partisan fighting and political posturing, not real debates about real issues.  To make matters worse, there are measures under consideration that would threaten the rights of Colorado voters and make it harder to cast a ballot.  Colorado Governor Bill Owens is urging the legislature to require proof of citizenship in order to register and vote.

Similar bills were defeated during Colorado's regular legislative session earlier this year. Yesterday, Common Cause, joined by the ACLU and other organizations, testified in opposition to a bill that would have required proof of citizenship to register and vote, and other onerous ID requirements for voting.

Attempts to add oppressive ID provisions only serve to intimidate and deter voters from participating in democracy. Forms of ID such as a birth certificate or passport cannot be obtained without some fee from $20 - $90.  In some cases, where records have been lost -- as many have been recently in New Orleans -- they are not easily obtained. In fact, these requirements end up having the effect of a poll tax.

Through the weekend and into this morning there were many editorials on voting rights. The U.S. House's failure to vote on Voting Rights Act renewal (H.R. 9) last Wednesday spurred debate on op-ed pages throughout the country.  I found most of the voting rights coverage frustrating. The debate and commentary over voting rights issues is generally being viewed through political rather than substantive goggles. Granted, infighting and electoral significance drive media coverage of politics. Nevertheless, it disappoints me that editorials on voting rights mostly lack substance. The focus is generally significance for the November elections or President Bush's approval rating. Thankfully, there has been some substance in editorials.