From opposite ends of the Cable Political News Spectrum, MSNBC and Fox News had their analysis of what might be a major factor in the 2012 election. Several new laws passed throughout the states that have changed the voting eligibility status of up to 5 million citizens, according to the non-partisan Brennan Center. The following is a summary of their Voting Law Changes in 2012 report.
Analysis
The Brennan Center's Voting Law Changes in 2012 report analyzed how a series of laws imposing new restrictions on who can vote and how could significantly change the electoral landscape. As states continue to introduce and consider new restrictive measures, we will be updating the summary below and this detailed compilation of potentially restrictive laws related to voting that were proposed nationwide in the 2011 and 2012 state legislative sessions, and that have been passed or remain pending. We note that the number of currently pending restrictive bills is declining as states’ 2012 legislative sessions end.
Numbers Overview
At least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.
47 restrictive bills currently pending in 12 states.
24 laws and 2 executive actions passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin).
16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia). These states account for 214 electoral votes, or nearly 79 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.
Of these, 13 laws and executive actions are currently in effect in 9 states (Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia).
Analysis
•Identification laws (read a detailed summary of laws passed since the beginning of 2011)
•Photo ID laws. At least 34 states introduced legislation that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote, and an additional four states introduced legislation requesting that voters show photo identification to register or to vote. Photo ID bills were signed into law in eight states — Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — and passed by referendum in Mississippi. In addition, Minnesota's legislature has passed a bill proposing a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would require government issued photo ID to vote in person. The amendment will be voted on by referendum at the 2012 general election. By contrast, before the 2011 legislative session, only two states had ever imposed strict photo ID requirements. The number of states with laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification quadrupled in 2011. To put this into context, 11 percent of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID; that is over 21 million citizens.
•Voter ID laws. Virginia has passed a law changing its voter ID requirements by eliminating the option of executing an affidavit of identity when voting at the polls or applying for an absentee ballot in person, while expanding the list of acceptable IDs. New Hampshire’s new voter ID requirements require a voter to produce documentary ID or submit an affidavit of identity. After September 2013, a voter must produce a New Hampshire or US government photo ID or execute an affidavit of identity, no other form of identification will be accepted.
•Proof of citizenship laws. At least 17 states introduced legislation that would require proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, to register or vote. Proof of citizenship laws passed in Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee. The Tennessee law, however, applies only to individuals flagged by state officials as potential non-citizens based on a database check. Previously, only two states had passed proof of citizenship laws, and only one had put such a requirement in effect. The number of states with such a requirement has more than doubled.
•Making voter registration harder. At least 16 states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilization efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities. Florida, Illinois and Texas passed laws restricting voter registration drives, and Florida and Wisconsin passed laws making it more difficult for people who move to stay registered and vote. Ohio ended its weeklong period of same-day voter registration, and the Maine legislature passed a law eliminating Election Day registration. Luckily, Maine voters later repealed the law. In addition, some opponents of the Minnesota constitutional amendment have argued that it has the possible effect of eliminating Election Day registration as it currently exists in that state. That amendment will be voted on by referendum at the 2012 general election.
•Reducing early and absentee days. At least nine states introduced bills to reduce their early voting periods, and four tried to reduce absentee voting opportunities. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia succeeded in enacting bills reducing early voting.
•Making it harder to restore voting rights. Two states — Florida and Iowa — reversed prior executive actions that made it easier for citizens with past felony convictions to restore their voting rights, affecting hundreds of thousands of voters. In effect, both states now permanently disenfranchise most citizens with past felony convictions. In addition, South Dakota recently passed a law imposing further restrictions on citizens with felony convictions by denying voting rights to persons on probation on top of existing requirement that any term of imprisonment or parole be completed before the state will restore their voting rights.
See a complete list of passed and pending legislation.
The Database Dilema
Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.
Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid orare significantly inaccurate.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population.
Several other findings are included in the report: Innacurate, Costly and Inefficent .
On of the problems the Pew Center study did not find was a high number of fraudulent voters. However, that seems to be how law makers have tackled the problem since 2008.
Blog here your opinion, are mandatory photo ID laws to vote needed, necessary and good policy ideas, or do they disenfranchise some citizens taking away a basic human right in a democracy?
1 comment:
I think that in general, laws restricting voter eligibility by requiring ID disenfranchise voters. These disenfranchised voters are tax-paying citizens of the country and therefore deserve a voice in the government no matter what party they support or what background they come from. Also, from what I have observed, voter restrictions tend to be based on partisan concerns which are masked by the fear of voter fraud, which is really not a problem in the big scheme of things. (How much can the vote be thrown off with a little voter fraud compared to a huge number of people who are limited from voting?) Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of doing this; however, the example I remember best (I think it was on NPR maybe half a year ago) was a law in a state I unfortunately can't remember making it more difficult for out of state college students to vote by changing the ID requirements thereby disadvantaging the Democrats since most often young people tend to vote Democrat.
Post a Comment