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).

Bob Edgar has called for radical change with Common Cause's Fresh Start for Democracy Campaign.  GrannyD, Doris Haddock, veteran champion of election and campaign finance reform, likes to characterize what is needed as a "velvet revolution," a term borrowed from the Ukrainian transformative election of 2004.  

This kind of revolution implies the absence of the weapons of war, but no less the fervor.  Edgar's emphasis on urgency reflects that fervor and the immediacy of the need for change.  He speaks of 2008 being the year in which "we have got a fundamental choice to make."  That choice, to be embraced, has to be predicated on a truthful understanding of what went so terribly wrong and why.  Understanding the past is an important step in formulating enduring change for the future.

A revealing example of the diabolical nature of our democracy's recent decline and the intricate strategies used by those responsible can be examined through the lens of the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections and is continuing today.

One only needs to be reminded of Orwell's 1984, to begin to understand what is going on in plain sight.  In a recent priceless example to divert attention from the truth, the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized on Nov. 24 that:

John Fund is a sophisticated journalist, so it surprised me that in his commentary yesterday on Opinion Journal he confuses the issue of "voter fraud," a minute problem, with the more massive problem of "election fraud," which was the actual issue brought before Congress on Jan. 6, 2005 because of the contested Ohio elections.

Although he cites some examples of alleged voter fraud that have come to light recently, I doubt many of those phony registrants were able to actually vote because of the transparency of the system of checks and balances which catches most of the errors in registration before election day.

On the other hand, as he is aware, there was extensive evidence of anomalies from Florida to Ohio and New Mexico in the 2004 election.  But because of the non-transparency of the voting machines and the lack of checks and balances on that system, and because of not-so-subtle voter suppression, we may never know the extent of the criminality in the 2004 election.  However, there are cases still pending in court, that if allowed to go forward, will prove significant fraud in that election.  Who was responsible remains to be seen.

Yesterday, several of our interns attended a hearing in the Senate about an important voting rights issue; I've asked them to share their observations here. - Kirstin

Yesterday the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a subcommittee hearing to examine S. 453, to prohibit deceptive practices in federal elections. The sponsor of 'Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007,' Senator Obama (D-IL), offered testimony in addition to Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Feingold (D-WI). These three proponents addressed the "shameful amount" of "despicable" deceptive acts that plague campaigns and elections, specifically targeting minorities, and the need for strong penalties to prevent this form of voter intimidation, fraud and deception. Currently, there is no statute on the books that makes it a crime to offer misinformation as a means to alter a voter's conduct and such trickery exists as a dirty yet effective political tactic.

Witnesses testified before the committee, and some of them gave first-hand accounts of voter intimidation and suppression. Maryland County Executive Jack Johnson and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler both endorsed this legislation because "the health of our democratic system depends on our ability to ensure that all citizens entitled to vote may do so."

Here's an update on the fast changing world of election reform.

Florida's House unanimously passed the same bill that passed the Senate and that Governor Crist will sign. Who'd have thought this was possible a year ago! Kudos to the activists in Florida who've fought night and day for years for this.

Word has just come in that the scheduled committee mark-up on HR 811, "The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessiblity Act of 2007" (AKA the "Holt bill") has been postponed due to next Tuesday, May 8, due to the number of proposed minority amendments. See this DailyKos comment by Ian Storrar.

Yesterday, the U.S. House voted to ask the GAO to investigate the case of Sarasota's District 13 voting problems. For more, read The Hill's report.

The Kansas legislature has killed a Photo ID bill.

And evidence continues to mount in the link between the DOJ U.S. Attorneys Firing scandal and efforts to create a perception of rampant voter fraud, as described in this hard-hitting McClatchy article, "2006 Missouri's election was ground zero for GOP." I'll end with this juicy quote:

Barb may have more to say on this, but the New York Times headline here makes a clear, simple point:

The myth of "widespread voter fraud" is simply a tool to disenfranchise voters. The Bush administration and others who have perpetuated and overhyped the notion of a voter "fraud" conspiracy are, on this issue, simply frauds. And now they find themselves embroiled in a scandal in part because they pushed U.S. Attorneys to further this sham.

There have been some recent good pieces on the connection between the U.S. Attorney firings and the manufactured fear of voter fraud at the polls.

In yesterday's Washington Post, Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote:

See also the Brennan Center's new Web site, truthaboutfraud.org, debunking the myth of rampant voter fraud.

Yesterday's LA Times had an OpEd, "Bush's long history of tilting Justice" by Joe Rich, who I mentioned in my earlier post on this subject. Rich had this to say:

Ohio's new Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, promised to restore trust in Ohio's elections. Having made many constructive changes in her few short weeks in office, last week, in a dramatic move, she has decided to clean house at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.  

Prompted by the many scandals and irregularities that have marked that county's elections, especially the recent conviction of two Cuyahoga County election workers and their sentencing to 18 months in prison for rigging a recount in 2004, Brunner took the bold move last week of asking for the resignation of the two Democrats and two Republicans on the Cuyahoga Board of Elections.

As of today, the two Democrats have resigned, but the two Republicans, Sally Florkiewicz, and Robert Bennett (who acts as the BOE chair, while at the same time serving as chair of the Ohio Republican Party) have resisted. According to the Columbus Dispatch, Bennett blames the voting machine vendor for the problems in 2006, and says that County Prosecutor, William Mason, was at fault for the 2004 problems, claiming Mason knew about procedural problems and did not correct them.  It has been reported that Mason has asked for an investigation of Cuyahoga BOE's conduct in the 2004 election.