Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Official disputes unverified voter tally

[Wilms]

Official disputes unverified voter tally

10,000-vote figure based on estimate, she says

By GREG J. BOROWSKI
[e-mail]
Posted: Jan. 21, 2005

A week after questions arose over 10,000 voters who registered on election day but whose identity couldn't be confirmed with verification cards, Milwaukee's top election official declared Friday that the number is inaccurate because it is based on an estimate.

-snip/more-

<http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/295308.asp>

[EC]

1. Why are they going through this again...

they already said most were legitimate - people moved since registering or mistakes...



On edit: this is Repubicans saying Democrats "created voters"

[Wilms]

2. Yep. I'm watching stuff like that.

As are the Freepers I'm sure.

If there's anything to it, perhaps an opportunity for bi-partisan support for reform?

[NationalEnquirer]

6. Exactly, lets use their paranoia for our own good!

Republicans are always raising a stink about fraud, but not, of course, when they win.
So I say what the heck, we can co-opt their fears and put it to good use.
We WILL NEED some republican support.

[ClassWarrior]

10. IF is an awfully big word in this case.

If there's anything to it, yes, we need to use this to build a coalition. But I fear it's another case of the Radical RW crying wolf. You know:

1. The RepubliCON party commits fraud.

2. The Dems cry, "Fraud!"

3. The RepubliCONs cry, "Fraud!!!"

4. The Corporate Media reports, "Both sides accuse one another of committing fraud."

5. The court of public opinion decides, "They're all criminals."

6. The Radical RW gets away with another crime.

7. Our beloved democracy shrinks a little bit more.

NGU.

[Wilms]

13. So far...

It look's like the tires WERE slashed by these guys.

AND the Repubs are stretching it out to suggest it delayed poll watchers for two hours.

Two wrongs...you know the drill. :)

[WI Independent]

3. It shouldn't matter which side cheated...

fraud is fraud. Letting someone vote twice is the equivalent of denying someone else the right to vote.

I live in Wisconsin. Our voting laws are ridiculously open to fraud... same day registration (no way to validate address), no ID required, lax absentee ballot rules, etc... Add that to the fact it would be virtually impossible to prosecute someone (all they have to do is say it wasn't them) and it would be very naive to think nobody took advantage of the situation.

The sides are switched on this one... the Republican majority legislature passed a law last summer requiring ID and the Democratic Governor vetoed it. We need to get past the partisanship on both sides and pass laws that insure a fair election for everyone.

[righteous1]

5. Agreed, only when we get both sides working on this issue

will anything of substance be accomplished

[electropop]

7. Reid is proposing national location-less ballot

This would let any voter vote anywhere in national elections. I think it's a great idea and would mostly eliminate worries about exact address/precinct, etc for national elections. Ballot would be nationally administered and could be used to prevent state line crossing double-voters as well.

[qwghlmian]

14. You would have to first pass a

Constitutional amendment that would eliminate Electoral College and separate national elections from local elections. This amendment will be seen as an attack on State rights. The rules about passing amendments to Constitution make it practically impossible for this to happen, since not only 2/3 of both Senate and House have to approve it, but 2/3 of the States have to pass it as well.

[johnaries]

8. Yes. As you say, fraud is fraud. We need to openly attack it no

matter which side is doing it. If we support their efforts to verify clean elections, then they can't accuse us of only claiming fraud when a Dem loses (well, they will anyway, but it will be an OBVIOUS lie!).

[dragonlady]

9. Not true

Same day registration does require a form of ID showing place of residence (lease, utility bill, etc.), just not a photo ID. (Someone else vouching for the voter is also accepted.)

The reason the Democrats have opposed photo IDs is that many people especially in the urban areas don't have drivers licenses, move around a lot, or have a hard time getting to the DMV for a state-issued (non-driving) photo ID. It affects the poor differentially, because the more affluent are more likely to have a drivers license as a matter of course and more likely have an established residence (home ownership). The only way this could be made somewhat fair is to make the state ID free (not like a poll tax) and keep DMV offices open for more hours or set up satellite stations at neighborhood locations to give people more opportunity to get them. The state budget most likely doesn't have anything extra to implement this.

Same day registration is an excellent way to cure some of the problems of fraud that were seen in this election (e.g., shredding registrations of Democrats), when prior registrations are somehow lost by the bureaucracy, and in case people have to move during the period between the registration cutoff and election day.

[WI Independent]

11. To clarify... No ID required if the name is already registered.

I've been registered here for years. I just walked up and told them my name and address. I could have just as easily told them the name and address of any registered voter that had not already voted. The possibility of abuse does exist.

Showing a utility bill or similar is not always strictly enforced. A woman I work with moved recently. She went to her new polling place, told them her name, her old and new address, and voted... didn't show them anything. She was amazed because she realized she could have easily gone to her old polling place where she was still registered and voted again. Again, there is a possibility it will be abused.

I wouldn't want to see Wisconsin disenfranchise legitimate voters by implementing overly strict laws like some other states. I just think there should be a happy medium somewhere that doesn't put an undue burden on some while still protecting the votes of others. I'm pretty sure they amended the ID bill to subsidize ID cards for those that couldn't afford them. As far as the hassle... I think voting should be a high enough priority to make sure your ID is current. It would still be easier to register and vote here than it is many places.

[Wilms]

12. I agree that not showing ID seems risky.

Should the bank hand cash to someone claiming to be me?

Do you know what are the concerns expressed with regard to using ID?

[WI Independent]

15. dragonlady outlined the ID concerns pretty well in the post above.

When the Governor vetoed the bill he made a comment about his elderly mother not being able to get an ID.

Personally, I wouldn't mind some of my tax dollars subsidizing IDs or even additional efforts needed to get IDs to those that can't afford them or can't get to the DMV. It's a small price to play for a fair election.

I'm interested in this because I live here and it bothers me that my vote might be nullified by someone double voting. Since the perception of Republicans is that double votes here went to the Democrats advantage, this should be held up as another example by Democrats of why we need to reform and standardize voting practices throughout the country. It will take away some of the "sore loser" perception.

[Wilms]

16. Oops.

I do also think I heard something like certain populations feeling uncomfortable with being asked to show ID. Any thoughts?

For ID, how about the post office, or the various gov't agencies that, for instance, the poor deal with.

How about same day registration and ID? Would that work? Instead of touchscreens, cameras.

[WI Independent]

17. I've heard that also...

I'm not sure what the concern is for showing an ID to a poll worker. If they are worried because they have outstanding warrants, quite frankly I don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for them. I wouldn't condone the police using voting as a method of rounding up criminals, but neither do I think we should compromise the integrity of the system to accommodate them.

Issuing IDs from any government agency should be acceptable as long as it's tied in with the DMV. If it's not, we still have the potential of someone using a drivers license at one poll and another ID at another poll.

Same day registration has it's advantages (as dragonlady pointed out), I think we should make every attempt to keep it. I think it should be more of the exception than it is today with tighter controls. I voted about an hour before the polls closed. Since I was registered, I walked straight up to the poll worker and got my ballot. The registration line had at least 100 people in it, maybe more. This is not a poor section of town... I seriously doubt the concerns that make same day registration necessary applied to more than a couple of those people (if any).

[Beth in VT]

4. I remember that paper having a hideous and biased profile

of Dean before a debate there during primary season.