Conyers Opposes Baker/Carter Commission Report

[WhiteTara]

John Conyers has my vote for best person award! He is truly a hero.

"I am shocked that this Commission has decided to take us several giant steps back in the march for voting rights by recommending a national ID requirement for voters. This would inevitably disenfranchise minority voters and the most vulnerable among us -- those who live in poverty and the elderly. While I continue to believe that the 2004 elections showed our desperate need for election reforms, this misguided and highly controversial recommendation makes this Commission's entire report -- regardless of the merits of other recommendations -- dead on arrival from a civil rights and voting rights perspective. As a result, I am unalterably opposed to these discriminatory new requirements and will encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to join with me in doing so.

As the work of this Commission proceeded, I have made no secret of my view that it I thought it had substantial procedural shortcomings that stood in stark contrast to the Carter-Ford Commission of four years ago. Rather than gathering facts and then developing policy recommendations that follow from those facts, this Commission appeared to have developed its recommendations and simply went through the motions of a fair and deliberative process. At the very first hearing of this Commission, this voter ID proposal was mentioned twenty-two times.

The lack of a fair and open process like that used by the Carter-Ford Commission was evident throughout. In the last commission, civil rights groups submitted research, reports, and testimony. This time around, civil rights groups were essentially barred from the process. The only input from the civil rights community (Barbara Arnwine from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) was essentially ignored on this critical issue. It speaks volumes that the public could not participate in a process that would effect their most fundamental right, the right to vote. Moreover, the Commissioners spent only a short time deliberating on these issues.

If they had spent more time on the issue, they would realize that there are incredibly few documented cases of voter fraud to even respond to via legislation. Essentially, the Commission would have us create a massive and intrusive new bureaucracy, and one that discriminates and disenfranchises, in order to deal with a non-problem.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0919-04.htm

[nolabels]

1. Thank you John

At least there are still some voices out there in the wilderness :thumbsup:

[longship]

2. John Conyers, from my home town!!

Nominated and :kick:ed

[diva77]

3. Conyers for President '08!!!

[texpatriot2004]

4. You are so right Mr. Conyers...Thank you for speaking out. n/t

[journalist3072]

5. As usual....

Rep. Conyers hit the nail right on the head!!!

Why on earth would they propose voter ID? It just doesn't make good sense, and it's not good public policy.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. It's good public policy if ID's are free...

But right now that's not the case.

[journalist3072]

44. Exactly.....

I'm especially concerned about poorer Americans. How many of them can afford IDs? It even costs money to get a non-driver's ID.

This to me seems just like another barrier to voting. And frankly, I'm surprised that President Carter would have anything to do with an endorsement of such proposals.

The Republicans have endorsed voter IDs, trying to say that it would curb down on voter fraud. But voter fraud really hasn't been an issue in many of our elections. The majority of people don't go into the voting booth wanting to commit fraud.

[patdem]

6. Why not just add a poll tax and require a civics test to vote?

Talk about your backward thinking! :grr:

[journalist3072]

45. Funny you should mention that..

On November 16, 2000, Florida State Representative Tom Feeney told the Palm Beach Post:

"Voter confusion is not a reason for whining or crying or having a revote. It may be a reason to require literacy tests."

[BootinUp]

7. Can't just hide your head in the sand though

"We addressed this with a great deal of hesitancy," Carter said, adding that "24 states already require photo ID and 12 others are considering it." Carter said a national approach would prevent states from putting in laws that are discriminatory.
-------------------

The already passed Georgia voter card law costs $20 I think every time it is renewed.
The proposed National card:

1. Costs the voter nothing
2. The Government is tasked to find qualified voters that don't have it.
3. A provisional ballot can be used at the poll for those that don't have the ID card.

[xchrom]

8. carter should meet with conyers again.

i really want to see these two on the same page.

otherwise -- thank you mr. conyers.

[goclark]

17. Please let them meet again ----

Both want to make this a better system.
I can't believe that Carter would want it otherwise.


PLEASE meet, I love Conyers and Carter.

[WhiteTara]

23. I think that Jimma let Baker

walk all over him. Baker is consumate in his job of go to guy and Jimma is still a peanut farmer. Don't get me wrong, I really like and admire Carter, but he has never been able to play the Washington game (remember he lost the 2nd term to the consumate evil players). I heard that Daschle was on the committee too. Yikes, talk about milktoast. The whole thing is one step closer to concentration camps and gulags and ghettos (in the nazi sense of the word).

[Demoiselle]

27. Daschle spoke against the ID, according to NYTimes editorial today

....So where was he during the meetings? I'm really disappointed in Carter, too. What do you suppose they bargained it away for.

[wildeyed]

30. Isn't Baker the fixit guy for BFEE?

The one they call in when they need a heavy hitter. And you are right about Daschle and Carter. Sounds like they got played.

[WhiteTara]

31. that's the word I was thinking of

Fixer...yep, that's him. May he rot in hell with the rest of them.

[Helga Scow Stern]

9. He was on NPR news last night, saying how the ID cards would

disenfranchise the very voters that Carter sought to protect: the elderly, the poor and disabled, students, and people of color.

[anotherdrew]

28. what about the 24 states that already require state ID cards?

Does that not also disenfranchise? Where is the rush to get these state laws declared unconstitutional? Do you think this supreme court is going to find that way? I hate to say it but this carter-baker recommendation makes more sense than what we have now.

[wildeyed]

32. What 24 states are those?

I know GA is trying to pass some very restrictive voter ID laws requiring state issued ID, but it was my understanding that they would try to challenge them in the courts. The last time they tried this was LA in 1994 but it was struck down by the Justice Dept b/c it was in violation of the Voting Rights Act. I guess now, with Gonzalez in charge of Justice, they feel embolden to try again.

At least that is my understanding. Am I in error?

[anotherdrew]

33. I can't find source on this but thats what Carter says in post #7

"We addressed this with a great deal of hesitancy," Carter said, adding that "24 states already require photo ID and 12 others are considering it." Carter said a national approach would prevent states from putting in laws that are discriminatory.
-------------------

The already passed Georgia voter card law costs $20 I think every time it is renewed.
The proposed National card:

1. Costs the voter nothing
2. The Government is tasked to find qualified voters that don't have it.
3. A provisional ballot can be used at the poll for those that don't have the ID card.

[wildeyed]

39. I have no idea what he is referring to.

The only state I know of that requires state issued pic ID is GA. And that law has not gone into effect yet.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

35. And how exactly woudl they do that?

[MaineDem]

10. Howard Dean said basically the same thing

"The DNC is concerned and disappointed that the Baker-Carter
Commission on Federal Election Reform, over the strong dissent of some
of its most distinguished members, has seen fit to support a 'national
ID card' that threatens to deny the right to vote to millions of
citizens who are lawfully registered and eligible to do so. The
commission's recommendations create additional bureaucratic barriers
to the ballot box, despite the fact - as the Commission itself concedes
- that there is simply no evidence of the kind of widespread
impersonation fraud that could remotely justify imposing such a new
obstacle. In Ohio, the League of Women Voters found only four instances
of impersonation out of 9 million votes, and the Secretary of State of
Georgia reported that there was not a single instance of voter fraud
during her tenure.

"On a positive note, the commission attempts to address these
challenges by recommending national ID's with no associated costs. The
commission also highlighted the need for a paper trail, which we also
agree with. Unfortunately, while there are a number of positive
recommendations in the Baker-Carter Commission's report, their support
for a national voter ID creates barriers, not bridges, to voting.

[Toots]

11. I have no problem with ID cards as long as the government provides them

and does not charge the individual. I find no sound rational other than criminal for not possessing an ID. I do find it troubling if they charge for the ID cards an amount that is prohibitive to a lot of poor people. If the government makes it manditory then they should provide the cards for free. We do need a way to verify people are who they say they are. Republicans have been known for election fraud and usually it is by casting a vote as a dead person. We need verification of our ballots. That they are counted and able to be recounted by humans and not machines and that people are who they say they are when they show up to vote.

[wildeyed]

14. We do have ways to verify that a person is who they say they are.

And there is no evidence that a picture ID is anymore effective in doing that than any of the other types of ID that are used.

And why on earth do you think that only criminals don't possess ID? Do you have any actual information to back that statement up with? I personally know dozens of citizens who do not possess picture ID who are not criminals and perfectly legal to vote. And more to the point, all good, solid, straight-ticket Democratic voters.

This ID requirement is just another GOP tactic to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Here is the honest truth. We don't need to cheat. If grassroots volunteers are willing to do the community outreach, there is an almost unlimited supply of Democratic voters who are legally eligible to vote. It is simply a matter of doing the legwork necessary to get them to the polls. And the pugs know this. So they throw up as many barriers to legal voters as they can.

[Toots]

16. Most people are issued a voter's registration(ID) card when they register

What would be the problem with adding a picture to it at the time of registration? Voter's cards are free now and no one seems to complain about voters having to have them.

[wildeyed]

19. You would have to go somewhere official to get the picture taken.

To register, you just fill out the form and send it in. In my state you can pick the forms up at DMV or the Public Library. They are also available to activists in bulk. We did some huge voter registration drives in my state last year. Although it was not enough to give our electoral votes to Kerry/Edwards, it was enough to make some significant gains in local elections. And it is clear to me that it was the grassroots activism to increase voter turnout that made the difference. We intend to build on that success in the coming years.

Every step you add to the registration process is another percentage of poor, young, and elderly (and not coincidentally traditionally democratic) voters who will not make it to the polls. If there was evidence of significant voter fraud, I too would support more stringent ID process. But in the absence of fraud, I can only assume that the pugs want this to suppress democratic voter turnout. And in my experience, it will be effective enough to turn tight races, ie. Ohio and FL, to their advantage.

[trogdor]

25. And what are those ways?

You don't mention any. I'm not ripping on you, but the friggin' ID cards would shut a lot of people up, and as long as they are provided free of charge, I have no problem with them.

[wildeyed]

29. In my state, NC, you are not required to show ID at the polls

if you registered using a verifiable form of ID. DL number or SS number are both acceptable. When you get to the polls, all you need to do to vote is give your name and address. You are marked off the polls and vote. If you register without a verifiable form of ID, you can bring either a picture ID or a document showing your name and address. I always recommend something like a utility bill or a form from a government agency. But I was told by BOE that even a letter with a canceled stamp and the name and address of the voter was fine. It must match the registration info, of course.

Now I know that this sounds loosey-goosey, but guess what you need to get a picture ID in most states? Another picture ID or a document showing your name and address. So if you are set on cheating, you can do it anyway. And the point I made in another post, cheating is not necessary for dems. If we are willing to do the community outreach to turn the voters out, there is pretty much an inexhaustible supply of dem voters. So why even bother to cheat when it is easier to do it legit? Also, there is no evidence that cheating is occurring. This is just a ploy by pukes to disenfranchise some of our core constituencies.

If you let them have the ID restriction, it will shut them up. Because they won. We lost. Don't let that happen.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

34. As long as it is administered correctly....

I see no problem with requiring an id card to vote. But why limit to voting. A national id card coud serve the purpose for voting and several other useful purposes.

[Demeter]

12. Much As I Would Like A Better Class of Voters

I think that fixing the process from the ballot on up makes more sense than making barriers to universal suffrage.

Some improvement in the 4th Estate wouldn't go amiss, either.

[pazarus]

13. I don't think a free ID card violates any civil rights issues

And even the possibility of voting fraud should be enough to change the system. Give every registered voter a photo ID card, and check that any code for 'counting' votes is free and open source and verifiable with a paper trail. That, to me, is the ideal system. If I read correctly, that is actually what the Baker/Carter commission report was asking for.

Listen, if they can make the voting tabulators work without Republican code, then I would gladly accept a photo ID requirement. We need to be tougher on vote fraud than Republicans, and that includes any extra illegal votes. As long as the cards are free, it's the best system.

[wildeyed]

15. From the Conyers press release:

Though the Commission's report proposes giving away those cards to voters who cannot afford them for ""free,"" this is an empty promise. The Republican Congress has a consistent record of imposing mandates on the states and then failing to fund the implementation of such mandates. Even if the new cards are cost free, there is little doubt that the ID offices will prove inaccessible or expensive to access for many."

and this:

If they had spent more time on the issue, they would realize that there are incredibly few documented cases of voter fraud to even respond to via legislation. Essentially, the Commission would have us create a massive and intrusive new bureaucracy, and one that discriminates and disenfranchises, in order to deal with a non-problem.

So essentially, we are creating a bureaucracy for a problem that doesn't exist and putting a huge financial burden on the states. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

It is interesting to me that many DUers are so focused on the computer fraud issues that they can't seem to see that the ID requirements are just another facet of the same problem. And should be fought form just as diligently.

Also, many DUers are so hard on our elected representatives. How they roll over for the pugs and never fight. How they are no longer true populists. But here they are willing stand up and fight on principle for some of our traditionally democratic constituencies, and many DUers are saying, no lie down and die on this one. Don't fight. As long as we get paper back-up all is well. Let's compromise with them on this one. :shrug:

[pazarus]

42. but ideally, I'm saying

requiring photo ID should be fine. Yes, I'll fight for and demand that they be easy to get, but I can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't be the best thing if they were indeed free.


Everyone already has social security cards, why not offer to issue voting versions with ID on them? Or free down at the DMV? I have nothing against issuing every American a photo ID, and if thats the compromise--where we have to accept photo ID and they have to agree to transparent elections with verifiable voting records, I would be ecstatic.

[wildeyed]

43. "Everyone" does not have social security cards.

I lost mine 20 years ago and never had it replaced.

The hardest single thing I have trouble with making people here on DU understand about this issue is that not everyone has ID. Most of us here are middle class, we own computers, pay a monthly internet service charge. We have bank accounts, credit cards and on and on. It would be impossible to live our lives without an ID. But this is not the reality for many Americans. They are not bad. They are not criminal. They are citizens and entitled to vote. They are also mostly Democrats. And they (and by extension us) are getting screwed by this law.

From another post:

Every step you add to the registration process is another percentage of poor, young, and elderly (and not coincidentally traditionally democratic) voters who will not make it to the polls. If there was evidence of significant voter fraud, I too would support more stringent ID process. But in the absence of fraud, I can only assume that the pugs want this to suppress democratic voter turnout. And in my experience, it will be effective enough to turn tight races, ie. Ohio and FL, to their advantage.

[cyberpj]

18. How is it we don't need an ID card to pay taxes and they count those ok?

Conyers is right AGAIN.

But no one is listening but those of us who already know what they're doing.

Bush Admin succeeds in doing everything it wants by simply doing it all at once which leaves too many fights to fight and not enough fighters to do any of it.

[PurgedVoter]

21. Different process, no one wants to pay twice.

One is inclusion, the other is exclusion. I am still against the ID. Our social security number was intended to only be used for one thing. Now everyone uses it. I fear the use a national photo ID would be put to.

[WhiteTara]

22. that was funny! Of course they don't need ID's to

take our money. That's all we are to them, trickle down money...only poor people pay taxes, so make more poor people (Ronnie Raygun)

[PurgedVoter]

20. Voting ID would give them an extended Database.

This would allow individuals with access to the data to link a photo to Partisan data. Where drivers licenses have had fingerprint data added in states, this can cross reference name with photos and give a flawed but useful database with voting pattern, photo, address, and fingerprint. Voting in the primary for your party will allow someone to easily identify people who do not support the political ideals of those in charge. Welcome to advanced easy political profiling.

[Sgent]

24. I don't love the idea

But I really can't say that electorial history doesn't push us towards having them.

In many areas -- both D & R, the "dead" voting situation was especially bad. Many R's to this day feel the same way about the Kennedy/Nixon election that we do about Bush/Gore. This would promote election reliability for both sides.

Purging voter roles has its own set of problems -- see Flordia '00. I would rather provide a free ID or allow DL's to be used than see mass purges of former voters.

I also think some type of nationwide voter registry is needed. We know poeple voted twice, or did a "choose which area to be registered in" in '04.

Finally, although prosecution helps as a deterrance, its reasonable to expect that checks are involved to insure it never gets that far. Not having any controls just opens the door to fraud, and the perception of the same.

[potone]

26. This is a bad idea.

I live in Oregon, where we vote by mail. The system works well here. What would this picture ID mean for us? Would we have to give up our voting system and return to voting at polling places?
Once again Conyers is right. I hope his view prevails.
Potone

[anotherdrew]

36. don't forget: the Real ID Act is on it's way...

What does that mean for me?
Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.
News.context

What's new:
The House of Representatives has approved an $82 billion military spending bill with an attachment that would mandate electronically readable ID cards for Americans. President Bush is expected to sign the bill.

Bottom line:
The Real ID Act would establish what amounts to a national identity card. State drivers' licenses and other such documents would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security.

More stories on this topic

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.

How will I get one of these new ID cards?
You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous.

For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.

State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.

What's going to be stored on this ID card?
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."

Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.

Why did these ID requirements get attached to an "emergency" military spending bill?
Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on.

The House already approved a standalone version of the Real ID Act in February, but by a relatively close margin of 261-161. It was expected to run into some trouble in the Senate. Now that it's part of an Iraq spending bill, senators won't want to vote against it.

What's the justification for this legislation anyway?
Its supporters say that the Real ID Act is necessary to hinder terrorists, and to follow the ID card recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made last year.

It will "hamper the ability of terrorist and criminal aliens to move freely throughout our society by requiring that all states require proof of lawful presence in the U.S. for their drivers' licenses to be accepted as identification for federal purposes such as boarding a commercial airplane, entering a federal building, or a nuclear power plant," Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said during the debate Thursday.

You said the ID card will be electronically readable. What does that mean?
The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports, and Homeland Security wants to issue RFID-outfitted IDs to foreign visitors who enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

Will state DMVs share this information?
Yes. In exchange for federal cash, states must agree to link up their databases. Specifically, the Real ID Act says it hopes to "provide electronic access by a state to information contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other states."

Is this legislation a done deal?
Pretty much. The House of Representatives approved the package on Thursday by a vote of 368-58. Only three of the "nay" votes were Republicans; the rest were Democrats. The Senate is scheduled to vote on it next week and is expected to approve it as well.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has told reporters "the president supports" the standalone Real ID Act, and the Bush administration has come out with an official endorsement. As far back as July 2002, the Bush administration has been talking about assisting "the states in crafting solutions to curtail the future abuse of drivers' licenses by terrorist organizations."

Who were the three Republicans who voted against it?
Reps. Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, and Ron Paul of Texas.

Paul has warned that the Real ID Act "establishes a national ID card" and "gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit."

Is this a national ID card?
It depends on whom you ask. Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program, says: "It's going to result in everyone, from the 7-Eleven store to the bank and airlines, demanding to see the ID card. They're going to scan it in. They're going to have all the data on it from the front of the card...It's going to be not just a national ID card but a national database."

At the moment, state driver's licenses aren't easy for bars, banks, airlines and so on to swipe through card readers because they're not uniform; some may have barcodes but no magnetic stripes, for instance, and some may lack both. Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Will it be challenged in court?
Maybe. "We're exploring whether there are any litigation possibilities here," says the ACLU's Steinhardt.

One possible legal argument would challenge any requirement for a photograph on the ID card as a violation of religious freedom. A second would argue that the legislation imposes costs on states without properly reimbursing them.

When does it take effect?
The Real ID Act takes effect "three years after the date of the enactment" of the legislation. So if the Senate and Bush give it the thumbs-up this month, its effective date would be sometime in May 2008.

[anotherdrew]

37. more in Real ID - which EVERYONE will have to have anyway

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050509.html

so it's a moot point, you won't be able to access anything without a state issued ID card approved by the Department of Homeland Security, complete with 'electronic readability' likely at a distance with a RFID chip. Lovely, talking about requiring one to vote is a joke, you need to have one to collect social security checks, to enter an airport or federal building, etc. Soon you'll probably just be randomly stopped and forced to present ID. Wake up folks.

[lala_rawraw]

38. Yep and Carter can kiss my ass

[paineinthearse]

40. Links to other DU posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=340x196

Sources include Conyers blog, HuffPo & email.