Delegate Kipke to Fight Voter Fraud

Given the fact that Maryland voters just approved the silly concept of early voting, I am proud to say that my Delegate and my friend Nic Kipke is going to fight the issue here in Anne Arundel County, with this information that we're breaking here and at RedMaryland:

Today, with just over one month until Maryland’s next legislative session, Delegate Nic Kipke (R-Pasadena, Md.) officially requested a bill that will require a major election law change in Anne Arundel County. The legislation will require all Anne Arundel County voters to present photo identification to be eligible to vote. “I personally have always had an issue with the fact that photo identification is not required to vote in Maryland. After this last election, I heard from many county residents that they share the same concern. It seems to me that no matter where you stand politically, everyone wants to ensure that the integrity of our elections are not undermined by fraudulent activity,” said Delegate Nic Kipke.

While this policy would break new ground in Maryland, the concept is not new to most of the United States. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, seven states require photo identification to vote and twenty-four states require other forms of identification.

Read the whole thing here.

I am glad that Nic is taking this step forward and trying to bring some rational common sense to the issue of voter verification and identification. It is ridiculous that it takes more identification and more effort to buy groceries with a credit card than it does to vote! And I hope that we are able to put some of our local Democrats on the spot on this issue. Since this is a local bill, our Anne Arundel County Delegation is going to have to take a stand on this; it puts some of our local "conservative" Democrats on the spot. It is going to make them have to choose between their constituents and their party.

We'll be watching.

Silly Silly Silly

Syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker seems to think that common sense voter ID laws like the recently upheld law in Indiana are some sort of Republican plot:

So what's the real motive for these punitive voter ID laws? Republicans are trying to block the ballots of a few poor and elderly voters, those least likely to have driver's licenses. It's probably no coincidence that those blocs tend to support Democrats. (Indiana's prohibition against out-of-state licenses would also work against all of those Obama-loving college students.)

President Bush has touted democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, proudly pointing to the purple-ink-stained fingers of voters who were able to cast ballots without fear of political retribution. But in this country, the president's political party denies the ballot to elderly nuns.

Of course, as usual, Tucker's reasoning is asinine and devoid of logic. The fact of the matter is that it requires identification to cash a check, it requires identification to enter a government building, so why in the world should something as precious as the right to vote be treated any differently? It has nothing to do with partisan politics; it has everything to do with protecting the sanctity of the ballot and ensuring that somebody who shows up to the polls on Election Day is casting their vote legally and properly.

I just wonder why so many Democrats seem to think that voter ID laws are some evil Republican plot. What exactly do they have to hide, anyway?

What's the Big Deal?

Catching up from yesterday, the Sun had an editorial bemoaning the Supreme Court's decision in an Indiana case requiring voters to identify themselves before casting their ballot:

By upholding Indiana's voter identification law, the U.S. Supreme Court has virtually ignored the nation's ignominious history of disenfranchising certain groups and sanctioned an overly restrictive solution in search of a problem. While the court's 6-3 ruling is not expected to have a major effect on the coming presidential election, it is likely to encourage more states to follow Indiana's lead, guaranteeing that more Americans could be denied one of the most basic rights in a democracy. Maryland should stick to its convictions and continue rejecting stricter voter ID requirements.

I am extremely confused by the Sun's logic on this one. On one hand, the Sun wants to protect "one of the most basic rights in a democracy" while simultaneously refusing to support ID measures that would strengthen that right. The fact of the matter is that when somebody casts their vote illegally, it cheapens the vote and diminishes the rights of all of those individuals who do the right thing, follow the law, and only vote legally.

Furthermore, the argument that ID requirement would negatively impact the poor and the elderly is just spurious. How in the world can anybody logically survive these days without some sort of identification card? And when you consider that the Motor Vehicle Administration issues non drivers-license identification cards, I'm not sure what the argument is.

Finally, the Sun trots out this silliness:

Rooting out voter fraud may be a legitimate concern, but ID laws such as Indiana's have taken on a distinctly partisan cast - generally favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats - and seem to be more about limiting the right to vote. In a nation where voter participation is pretty pitiful, states such as Maryland that have successfully resisted stricter voting requirements come closer to the democratic ideal.

Again, there is no logical sense in this argument either. While sometimes the arguments for voter ID take on a partisan take, they really should not. It's not about limiting the right to vote, it's about limiting voter fraud, something that is all too common in places like Maryland, that do not have strict voter ID requirements.

If we all want to protect the sanctity of our votes, we all should support common sense voter ID laws like the Indiana law the Supreme Court just upheld.

A Random Idea

Here is a piece of legislation; SB 77 will, ostensibly, require that names be rotated when appearing on the ballot. The current structure is that the Governor's party is listed first, followed by the top minority party, etc. In races with multiple candidates, the candidates are listed in alphabetical order by party, much as they are in the primary election.

However, this bill would only provide the randomization of names on the ballot within party affiliation in a General Election. For example, in District 31 the 2006 ballot started with Don Dwyer and went Dwyer, Kipke, Schuh, Cadden, Fleckenstein, Reynolds. So, with the passage of this law, the order of the Republican trio and the Democratic trio would be randomized, but only within their own subgroups; the Governor's party would still be listed first. The text of the legislation basically assures that such randomization would only be used in House of Delegates races in multi-member districts.

If we truly wish to seek ballot randomization, then we need to completely randomize the ballot from top to bottom in both primary and general elections. This would mean that the order of the candidates would rotate regardless of party affiliation and regardless of the position in the alphabetized list. If that means in delegate races the Republican and Democratic candidates get interspersed, so be it. The current text of SB 77 accomplishes little useful randomization, particularly consideration that the randomization of the ballot would most help candidates in a primary election.

Though, perhaps that is the point behind this legislation. Its sponsors can claim ground attempting to "level the playing feel" through randomization while in reality maintaining the status quo for 90-percent of the ballot...

The First Salvo

The First Salvo in this legislative session is the proposed Constitutional Amendment to allow for Early Voting. A PDF copy of the text of the proposed amendment is here.

If people are already allowed to vote by absentee ballot without an excuse, why are we as a state so hard-up to allow for early voting? What possible benefit will it have for the people who already have this other option? And, given the text of the document, does this even accomplish what the Democratic leadership wants to accomplish?

And what about the practical effects of this kind of legislation? Look at it from the perspective of an activist; how will politicking outside of the polls be conducted for five days? Will yard signs clutter schools, senior centers, community centers, and places of worship for five days instead of the one day that already currently irritates many a voter?

And can somebody please tell me how this will protect the integrity of the electoral process?