OH HB3 New Poll Tax on Naturalized Citizens MORE GOP SUPPRESSION!

[mod mom]

OH HB3 will make Voting Difficult for Naturalized Citizens

<SNIP>

Now, if a voter is challenged at the polls on the suspicion that he is not an American citizen, a native-born citizen can merely state that he was born, say, in Toledo, and then is free to cast a ballot. But if challenged, a naturalized citizen must produce a certificate of naturalization. If the voter doesn't have this document, he or she may cast a provisional ballot to be either counted or discarded as invalid after Election Day.

"They are required to take your word for it if you are a native-born citizen," says Daniel Tokaji, an election-law expert at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. "If you are a naturalized citizen, then you have to jump through this hoop."

It's an expensive hoop. Replacing a naturalization certificate costs $220 -- a poll tax for our times. And it must be obtained through the immigration division of the Department of Homeland Security, not known for its bureaucratic efficiency. A voter has only 10 days after the election to provide documents necessary to have a provisional ballot accepted and counted.

It sure seems unlikely that all of Ohio's estimated 187,556 naturalized citizens will be challenged at the polls. "Latino and Asian citizens are the ones who are going to get challenged on this," Tokaji says. "It's a good bet."

<SNIP>
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14267412p-15079108c.htmlMarie

[mod mom]

1. Links to details on this suppressive bill:

This link provides an overview of Ohio Election law:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PedanticallySpeaking/In_Progress
>>
>Here is an interesting and impressive
>elections law blog. This covers every subject imaginable, both links to
>articles and commentary. June 14 includes the commentary from the Sacramento
>Bee, but there doesn't seem to be any other reference to laws regarding poll
>challengers and naturalized citizens:
>
>http://electionlawblog.org/archives/2006_06.html
>
>
>Testimony of Daniel Tokaji, law professor,
>in June 2005 against Sub HB3. See page 4 for his testimony about challenges to
>naturalized citizens at the polls.
>
>moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/SubHB3Test-SenRules.pdf
>
>
>From the SOS site--here is a partial pdf of
>the law:
>
>http://www.sos.state.oh.us/LawsCF/Read.aspx?ID=44
>
>
>The bill summary
>Has lots of good information in it in addition to the language about poll
>challenges.
>
>http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=126_HB_3_&ACT=As%20In%20Committee&hf=analyses126/h0003-rh-126.htm
>
>
>Here's the actual language, from the
>summary above, for making challenges at the
>polls:
>
>
>Challenges made on the day of an election
>Election
>day challengers. Under existing law, any person offering
>to vote may be challenged at the polling place by any challenger, any elector
>then lawfully in the polling place, or by any judge or clerk of elections (R.C.
>3505.20).
>For the purpose of
>making such challenges, any political party supporting candidates to be voted
>upon at the election and any group of five or more candidates may appoint to any
>of the polling places one qualified elector who will serve as a challenger for
>the party or group of candidates.
>Similarly, any committee that in good faith advocates or opposes a
>measure may file a petition asking to be recognized for the purpose of
>appointing witnesses and challengers at that election. If recognized by the board, that
>committee may appoint a challenger in each precinct. Challengers so appointed, once they take
>an oath to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of an official
>challenger, are permitted to be inside the precinct during the casting of the
>ballots and permitted to watch every proceeding of the judges and clerks of
>elections from the time of the opening until the time of the closing of the
>polls. Challengers are permitted to remain in the polling place after the polls
>close and may observe the processing of the ballots and the sealing and signing
>of the envelopes or containers containing the voted ballots. (R.C. 3505.21 and 3506.13.)
>While the bill
>permits the right of a person to vote to be challenged on the day of an
>election, it restricts the persons who may challenge a voter on that day. Under the bill, only election officials
>may challenge the right of a person to vote on the day of an election. (R.C. 3505.20, 3505.21, 3505.22,
>3509.06, and 3513.19.)
>Since the bill
>eliminates the authority of persons other than precinct election officials to
>challenge the right to vote of a registered elector, the bill also eliminates
>the provisions of law establishing election challengers that are appointed to
>precincts for the express purpose of challenging a registered elector's
>qualifications. Instead, the bill
>creates a new category of persons entitled to be in the precinct during the
>casting of the ballots and to observe the processing of the ballots after the
>polls close. Under the bill,
>election observers may perform all of the duties currently performed by precinct
>challengers, except challenging electors.
>Additionally, persons designated as "witnesses" to the counting of the
>ballots under existing law also are renamed as election observers, although
>their duties generally are unchanged.
>The only changes relate to the appointment of the observers. Under the bill, observers who are
>appointed to the board of elections are permitted to observe at the board of
>elections and may observe at any precinct in the county. And, observers who are appointed to
>serve a precinct during the counting of the ballots only must file their
>certificates of appointment at the precinct before the polls close. (R.C. 3501.26, 3501.30, 3501.33,
>3501.35, 3505.16, 3505.21, 3505.22, 3505.25, 3505.26, 3505.27, 3505.32, 3506.12,
>3506.13, 3509.06, 3513.22, 3515.03, 3515.04, 3515.13, 3523.05, and 3599.38.)
>Election
>day challenge process. If a person is challenged on the day of
>an election, and if the board of elections has previously ruled on the question
>presented by the challenge, the decision of the board is final and the presiding
>judge must be notified in writing.
>If the board has not previously ruled, however, an election day challenge
>must be determined according to the following process. If the person is challenged on the basis
>that the person is unqualified to vote, the presiding judge must ask the person
>to swear an oath. After the oath,
>the judge then must ask several questions of the challenged elector. The questions asked depend upon the
>reason that the person was challenged.
>(R.C. 3505.20.)
>Questions
>asked for challenges based on citizenship. If a person is challenged as being
>unqualified on the ground that the person is not a citizen, existing law
>requires the judge to ask the following questions (R.C. 3505.20(A)):
>(1) Are
>you a citizen of the United States?
>
>(2) Are
>you a native or naturalized citizen?
>(3) Where were you
>born?
>The bill requires
>the following additional question to be asked of a person who is challenged as
>being unqualified on the ground that the person is not a citizen: What official documentation do you
>possess to prove your citizenship?
>The bill also requires such a person to provide the necessary
>documentation to prove the person's citizenship. (R.C. 3505.20(A).)
>Questions
>asked for challenges based on 30-day residency. If a person is challenged as being
>unqualified on the ground that the person has not resided in this state for 30
>days immediately preceding the election, existing law requires the judge to ask
>the following questions (R.C. 3505.20(B)):
>(1) Have
>you resided in this state for 30 days immediately preceding this election? If
>so, where have you resided? Name two persons who know of your place of
>residence.
>(2) Have
>you been absent from this state within the 30 days immediately preceding this
>election? If the answer to this question is yes, then the following questions
>also must be asked:
>(a) Have
>you continuously resided outside this state for a period of four years or
>more?
>(b) Did
>you, while absent, look upon and regard this state as your home?
>(c) Did
>you, while absent, vote in any other state?
>The bill changes
>and, in some cases, replaces the questions that must be asked of a person who is
>challenged on the basis that the person has not resided in this state for 30
>days immediately preceding the election.
>Under the bill, the following questions must be asked (R.C.
>3505.20(B)):
>(1) Have
>you resided in this state for 30 days immediately preceding this election? If
>so, where have you resided?
>(2) Did
>you properly register to vote?
>(3) Can
>you provide some form of identification containing your current mailing address
>in this precinct? Please provide that identification.
>(4) Have
>you voted or attempted to vote at any other location in this or in any other
>state at this election?
>(5) Have
>you applied for an absent voter's ballot in any state for this election?
>Questions
>asked for challenges based on precinct residency. If a person is challenged as unqualified
>on the ground that the person is not a resident of the precinct where the person
>offers to vote, existing law requires the judge to ask the following questions
>(R.C. 3505.20(C)):
>(1) Do
>you now reside in this county?
>(2) Do
>you now reside in this precinct?
>(3) When
>you came into this precinct, did you come for a temporary purpose merely or for
>the purpose of making it your home?
>The bill changes
>and, in some cases, replaces the questions that must be asked of a person who is
>challenged on the basis that the person is not a resident of the precinct in
>which the person is offering to vote.
>Under the bill, the following questions must be asked (R.C.
>3505.20(C)):
>(1) Do
>you reside in this precinct?
>(2) When
>did you move into this precinct?
>(3) When
>you came into this precinct, did you come for a temporary purpose merely or for
>the purpose of making it your home?
>(4) What
>is your current mailing address?
>(5) Do
>you have some official identification containing your current address in this
>precinct? Please provide that identification.
>(6) Have
>you voted or attempted to vote at any other location in this or in any other
>state at this election?
>(7) Have
>you applied for any absent voter's ballot in any state for this election?
>Questions
>asked for challenges based on age. If a person is challenged as unqualified
>on the ground that the person is not of legal voting age, existing law requires
>the judge to ask the following question (R.C. 3505.20(D)): Are you 18 years of age or more
>to the best of your knowledge and belief?
>The bill changes
>and adds to the question that must be asked of a person who is challenged on the
>basis that the person is not of legal voting age. Under the bill, the following questions
>must be asked (R.C. 3505.20(D)):
>(1) Are
>you 18 years of age or more?
>(2) What
>is your date of birth?
>(3) Do
>you have some official identification verifying your age? Please provide that
>identification.
>Resolution
>of election day challenges. If a challenged person refuses to fully
>answer any of the questions put to the person, is unable to answer the questions
>as they were answered on the person's registration form, refuses to sign the
>person's name, or, if for any other reason a majority of the judges believe the
>person is not entitled to vote, the judges, under existing law, must refuse the
>person a ballot. Under existing
>law, the decision of the judges is final as to the right of the challenged
>person to vote at that election.
>(R.C. 3505.20.)
>The bill eliminates
>the ability of a judge of elections to refuse a person a ballot. If a challenged person refuses to fully
>answer any of the questions put to the person, is unable to answer the questions
>as they were answered on the person's registration form, refuses to sign the
>person's name, or, if for any other reason a majority of the judges believe the
>person is not entitled to vote, the judges, must provide to the person, and the
>person may vote, a provisional ballot (see "Provisional
>ballots," below). The
>provisional ballot must not be counted unless it is properly completed and the
>board of elections determines that the voter is properly registered and eligible
>to vote in the election. (R.C.
>3505.20(D).)
>Challenges
>based on party affiliation.
>In addition to the reasons for which an elector generally may be
>challenged, a person appearing to vote at a primary election may be challenged
>on the basis that the person is not affiliated with or not a member of the
>political party whose ballot the person desires to vote. The person's party affiliation is
>determined by examining the person's voting record for the current year and the
>immediately preceding two calendar years as shown on the person's voter's
>registration card and by examining any political party designation form
>submitted by that elector (see "Voter registration: Political party
>designation," above).
>If the voter is challenged based on party affiliation, the person's
>membership in or political affiliation with a political party then must be
>determined by the person's statement, made under penalty of election
>falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the
>principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to
>vote. If the challenged person
>refuses to make such a statement, under existing law that person must be refused
>a ballot. (R.C. 3513.19 and
>3513.20.)
>The bill eliminates
>the ability of a judge of elections to refuse a person a ballot. Under the bill, if a challenged person
>refuses to make the required statement regarding the person's desire to be
>affiliated with the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote, the
>person must be permitted to vote a provisional ballot (see "Provisional
>ballots," below). (R.C.
>3513.20.)
>Challenges
>for the impersonation of electors. Under existing law, if any precinct
>officer, challenger, or other elector has reason to believe that a person is
>impersonating an elector, then that person, before being given a ballot, must be
>questioned as to the person's right to vote and must be required to sign the
>person's name or make the person's mark in ink on a card to be provided for that
>purpose. If, in the opinion of a
>majority of the precinct officers, the signature is not the signature of the
>person who signed that name in the voter registration forms, then, under
>existing law, the person may be refused a ballot. The person may appeal to the board of
>elections, and if the board finds that the person is eligible to vote, the
>person must be given an order instructing the precinct officers to permit the
>person to vote. The precinct
>officers are required to recognize that order when it is presented and signed,
>and the person then must be permitted to vote. (R.C. 3505.22.)
>Since the bill
>eliminates the ability of anyone, other than precinct officers, to challenge a
>person's right to vote on the day of an election, only precinct officers may
>challenge a person for impersonating an elector. If the precinct officers make such a
>challenge, it generally proceeds as under existing law. However, if a majority of the precinct
>officers believe that person's signature is not the signature of the person who
>signed that name in the voter registration forms, the person cannot be refused a
>ballot. Instead, the person must be
>permitted to vote a provisional ballot (see "Provisional
>ballots," below). (R.C.
>3505.22.)
>______________________

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

[mod mom]

2. Can't figure out why lst link will not print correctly. I copied it off

site but it keeps appearing like nonsense. Any ideas (P should appear in front of link.)?

[EFerrari]

4. And again with the voter suppression! Thank God my mom

doesn't live in Ohio!

She runs her own business and has more paper than she can keep track of. The last time we looked for her certificate, we gave up! She then went down to the immigration office and some idiot started shouting at her to go to the back of the wrong line. As this was during the Amnesty, that line was around the block and days, not hours, long. My mom was about 65 at the time and had been a citizen for over forty years.

We went back to the ranch and I had to go through every single file she had before I found it.

[mod mom]

5. Hold on to those papers. OH, like FL is the test ground. I believe there

was something added to the immigration bill that will nationalize these suppressive measures. I'll try to find it and link up.

[mod mom]

6. Here you go:

from the June 26 blog:

The Hyde Vote Suppression Bill

I've been in Washington, DC for the past few days and, on Thursday, attended a hearing of the House Administration Committee on H.R. 4844. Although somewhat lost in the last few days with the news that Voting Rights Act renewal has stalled (more on this to come), this is a very significant bill. Proposed by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the bill would make drastic changes to both the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that would drastically alter -- and, in my view, undermine -- the way they presently function.

As the testimony on Thursday made clear, the bill is a product of the intense and increasingly polarized debate over immigration. Briefly, the bill would require applicants using the federal mail registration form to provide a photocopy of documents proving that they're citizens of the United States. In addition, HAVA's limited identification requirement would be amended to require all citizens to provide "current and valid photo identification" in order to vote. Election officials would be forbidden from accepting "any ballot," including even a provisional ballot, from those who lack photo ID. The bill would take effect in the November 2006 elections.

I know that the words "vote suppression," which I've used in the title to this post are strong ones, and I generally try to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. But I don't know how else to describe a bill that would require voters to produce documents that many of them don't have, in order to register or to vote. As Rep. Hyde has undoubtedly noticed, there's no one document that all citizens have to prove their citizenship. And according to a task force report produced for the Carter-Ford commission in 2001, approximately 6-10% of adults lack a state-issued driver's license. The Hyde Bill is actually worse than the Georgia photo ID bill enjoined by a court last year, in that it doesn't even make a token effort to provide voters with identification they lack.

Is Rep. Hyde's intent to suppress votes? That I don't know. During his testimony, he displayed an astounding ignorance of the consequences that his bill would have on the many people who don't have the documents his bill would require. He also could provide no estimate of how many noncitizens actually attempt to vote. In fact, none of those who testified in support of this bill provided any such estimate. The closest anyone came was the Harris County registrar, testifying in support of the bill, who said that of 1.9 million voters, a total of 35 foreign nationals attempted to register. Note that these are only alleged non-citizens who attempted to register, not those who tried to votes -- and some may have been people applying for citizenship with no intention of actually voting until they gained their citizenship. But even if we assume that all of them tried to vote, those 35 people amount to 0.0018% -- or one ineligible voter for every 54,285 eligible ones.

<snip>
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/

[EFerrari]

7. Oh no! Thanks, mod mom. I can't believe this is happening.

:(

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Two words.

24th Amendment!