House Committee Approves Voter ID Legislation

Legislation requiring photo identification to cast a ballot passed a House committee today.

Senate Bill 4 would require citizens to provide “proof of identity” before voting. Under the bill, proof of identity could be established by producing a document containing a photograph of the voter that was issued by a state, federal, county, municipal, or tribal government.

The legislation also would allow voters to cast a ballot if they showed their free voter identification card issued by the state election board.

“It has been proven that requiring a voter ID card does not suppress voting, and in fact several states with similar laws in place saw increased turnout last November,” said Rep. Sue Tibbs, House author of the bill. “This legislation will not prevent a single Oklahoman from voting, but will in fact improve the confidence voters have in the process.”

If the voter is unable to provide any proof of identity, they would be allowed to sign a statement under oath swearing to his or her identity. Anyone found to have signed the oath falsely would be subject to felony punishment.

“This legislation is important to protecting our democratic process and ensuring that every voting Oklahoman is eligible and can know with certainty that their vote will count,” said House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa.

The bill also extends the state’s early voting, allowing Oklahomans to start voting at 1 p.m. the Wednesday prior to a general election. Currently, Oklahomans can vote early on the Friday, Saturday and Monday prior to an election.

“The extension of early voting will ensure that all Oklahomans who wish to vote, and are eligible, have ample time to do so,” said Tibbs, R-Tulsa. “This bill is about protecting the process, pure and simple.”

Senate Bill 4 passed the House Rules Committee today and will now move to the full House for consideration. Senate Bill 692 also passed the committee, which would send similar language to a vote of the people.

House Approves Bill to Require Candidates to Provide Proof of Citizenship

Legislation requiring candidates filing with the Oklahoma State Election Board and any county election board in Oklahoma to provide documentation of their citizenship has been approved by the House.

House Bill 1329, by state Rep. Mike Ritze, would require prospective candidates to provide a birth certificate showing U.S. citizenship, a non-birth U.S. citizenship certificate, a certificate of naturalization or a passport in order to file. U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates would not be able to use either certificate of naturalization or passport. It would also make those documents subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

“I think that it would be a travesty for a non-citizen to get elected to a government position,” Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, said. “I also think that it puts aside any doubts by those who would question a legitimate candidate. It is a common-sense bill and I am glad to see the House pass it.”

House Bill 1329 now awaits a hearing in the Senate.

House Passes Voter ID Reform

Legislation ensuring the integrity of Oklahoma’s electoral process by cracking down on voter fraud passed the House today.

House Bill 1037, by state Rep. Sue Tibbs, would require citizens to provide “proof of identify” before voting. Under the bill, proof of identify could be established by producing a document containing a photograph of the voter that was issued by a state, federal, county, municipal, or tribal government.

“In the last election cycle, turnout was higher than ever before, including in states that took this simple step to reduce fraud,” said Tibbs, R-Tulsa. “This bill in no way will prevent a single Oklahoman from voting, but will in fact improve the confidence voters have in the process.”

The legislation would allow a voter to sign a statement under oath swearing to his or her identity if the voter is unable to produce a photo ID. Anyone found to have signed the oath falsely would be subject to felony punishment.

“The foundation of our democracy depends on voters having confidence in our system,” said House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa. “This bill will protect the integrity of our process.”

In recent election cycles there have been reports of voter fraud in numerous states, prompting lawmakers to enact new reforms. For example, ACORN, a liberal activist group that has registered millions of voters across the country, has been embroiled in countless fraud allegations and was the subject of an FBI investigation.

Some ACORN employees were accused of submitting false voter registration forms – including some signed `Mickey Mouse' and several in Nevada listing Dallas Cowboys players’ names, though none of the players live in the state. Another Nevada ACORN worker was caught filling out voter registration forms using names and addresses copied out of the telephone book.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a similar law in Indiana that required voters to show photo identification.

Earlier this year, former Federal Election Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky noted in the Wall Street Journal that Georgia and Indiana saw record numbers of Democrats vote last November, despite having some of the nation’s toughest voter ID laws.

"With every election that has occurred since states have begun to implement voter ID, the evidence is overwhelming that it does not depress the turnout of voters,” von Spakovsky said in the Journal. "Indeed, it may actually increase the public’s confidence that their votes will count.”

“The evidence is overwhelming that this change does not depress the turnout of voters,” said Tibbs. “The opposition to this bill is nothing more than a scare tactic. We are simply trying to protect this most precious right we have in our country; the right to vote in free elections.”

House Bill 1037 passed the House today with a vote of 59-39 and will now move to the Senate for consideration.

SENATE SENDS VOTER ID TO HOUSE

The State Senate approved Voter ID legislation on Tuesday that will ensure clean and fair elections for generations to come.

Senate Bill 4 requires any individual that votes in person to show “proof of identity,” which can be a document that includes the voter’s name, a picture of the voter, and is issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation. In instances where an individual does not have any of these methods of identification, the voter may show their county issued Voter ID card.

“Many daily activities require valid identification, such as writing a check, boarding a plane or even getting a library card in some states,” said Ford. “When voters get the opportunity to decide who will run our state and our nation and what laws will govern our citizens, it is prudent to verify their identification at the polls.”

Ford stressed how critical it is to be pro-active in keeping elections clean and fair.

“Opponents of this responsible and reasonable reform offer unsubstantiated claims of voter disenfranchisement to bolster their case,” said Ford. “Contrary to what they would have you believe, the states with the most stringent voter identification requirements saw greater turnout compared to their neighboring states with similar demographics in 2008,” he continued.

“The time for this election reform has come, and I’m pleased to send it to the House for their approval, and on to the governor,” Ford concluded.

Full Senate Next Stop for Voter ID Bill

The Senate Rules Committee has approved a pro-active bill designed to strengthen the integrity of Oklahoma's elections. Senate Bill 4, by Sen. John Ford would require anyone voting in person to show proof of identity.

Ford said voters could use a photo ID issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma or a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation. Voters without a government issued photo ID could simply show their county issued Voter ID card.

"I believe that we have a right and a responsibility as citizens to vote, but as a state, we have a responsibility to make sure that every vote that's cast is a legitimate, valid vote," Ford said. "That's all this bill does."

Ford, who represents Nowata, Craig and Washington Counties, said providing identification is a part of every day life, and is required for writing checks, boarding a plane, as well as many other routine transactions.

"I truly believe that this enhances the quality of our election process. In no way will it disenfranchise any group--it doesn't keep anyone from voting, and it is not a poll tax because there is no expense to the voter. It simply gives greater protection to our system against the possibility of fraud."

Ford Files Voter ID Bill - Legislation calls for clean and fair elections

Senator John Ford, R-Bartlesville, has introduced legislation that will help protect the integrity of the election system in Oklahoma.

Senate Bill 4 requires any individual that votes in person to show “proof of identity,” which can be a document that includes the voter’s name, a picture of the voter, and is issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation. In instances where an individual does not have any of these methods of identification, the voter may show their county issued Voter ID card.

“Valid identification is required in our daily activities, such as writing a check, boarding a plane or even getting a library card in some states,” said Ford. “So when it comes to voters deciding who will run our state and our nation and what laws will govern our citizens, it is prudent to verify the identification of voters at the polls.”

“During the election season last fall, we heard of the many fraudulent registrations being conducted,” Ford continued. “It is critical that we prevent this from happening in our state.”

Although voter fraud has not been wide spread up to this point in Oklahoma, Ford believes it is important to take these steps to protect from future fraud. In a report published by pollster John Zogby, it was reported that 9% of Americans don’t believe their votes are counted accurately. This number increases to 13% among Hispanics and 18% among African Americans.

Dirty little secrets of same day voter registration

Dirty little secrets of same
day voter registration

by Jan Tyler,
Denver Election Reform Examiner


Registration and voting should be easy!

If registration and voting are not easy, voters are disenfranchised! More voters would vote if registration and voting were not so hard.

Same-day voter registration. Give it to me! I'm entitled to it! I pay taxes (probably not income taxes though)!

Easy registration and voting does not
improve voter turnout.

Substantial research by the London School of Economics and American University indicates that easy voting measures - same day voter registration, early voting and mail ballots - do not improve voter turnout except in certain states.

Minnesota and eight other states have same-day voter registration. In January, both houses of Congress will consider legislation to federalize same day voter registration. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Right now registration rates exceed 80%. We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make registration easier for 20% of the population.

Besides the cost, what is wrong with letting the Federal government take over our election systems? I like to point out how elections work in Kazakhstan, a dictatorship faking democracy.

The Constitution leaves the time and manner of elections to the states. There will be opposition to federalizing what historically has been a states' rights issue.

A dirty little secret - most of those ten or fifteen academics in cahoots with activists who convinced everyone to junk millions of dollars worth of voting machines were disgruntled Gore supporters from 2000. As a so called voting integrity activist, an election administration coup by the Federal government should scare you more than the Supreme Court deciding an election.

Outrage won't come from the Democrats. Funny thing happened on the way to election reform. The Democrats are all over it, while the Republicans are shuffling off their Buffaloes. I'm not even sure the Republicans understand how elections are actually run. That would explain why they just react, instead of being proactive on issues like the mounting same day registration movement.

I wouldn't depend on the Republicans to defend our election systems against same day voter registration.

Until the Pentagon or some other agency invents a fail safe way to assure voter's eligibility, including current residency, same day voter registration should be left up to the states'.

States with same day voter registration find it is not problem free, as the media would have you believe. Significant problems exist, including nonresident's voting in local elections and inability to verify voter eligibility.

ElectionNeutralityNow's main objection is the partisan nature of enacting federal legislation clearly benefiting one party. Even if it is your party benefiting, what about when you aren't in control?

Are you willing to denigrate our election systems to benefit 20% of the population? Why not empower those voters by educating them to their civic responsibility.

Of course, if you like the government of Kazakhstan, perhaps you want to take responsibility for those citizen's votes?

Jan Tyler is a former Denver election commissioner, certified election registration administrator, veteran of eight international election-observation missions, and blogs at www.electionneutralitynow.com

Indiana Photo ID Law Works

As the Indiana polls opened at 6:00 am on May 6, opponents of Indiana’s Photo ID law eagerly anticipated word from our more than 5,500 precincts that the state’s requirement that all voters show a photo ID at the polls was causing havoc. It’s what they told the United States Supreme Court would happen. To them, it was time to watch Indiana’s most highly anticipated presidential primary in generations collapse under the weight of the requirement.

In Indiana, our election officials and voters are fully committed to increasing confidence in and the integrity of our elections. We have invested a great deal of time, money, and energy over the last few years in needed improvements to our election processes. The central component to this effort is the preservation of the fundamental right of each citizen over the age of 18 to have ONE vote, and to have that vote count.

In recent years, sweeping reforms and improvements to the way we administer elections have included new voting systems in all 92 counties, improved accessibility of polling places, educational outreach and training, and absentee ballot reform. One of the most significant and important reforms has been our photo identification law, which requires voters to prove their identity by presenting a photo ID before casting a ballot.

One week prior to Indiana’s primary elections, the United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law. The Justices agreed that, with our law, Indiana is paving the road to better voter confidence for states by preventing in-person voter fraud.

Jeffrey Milyo, a professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri, had noted in a recent study that overall voter turnout in Indiana has actually increased since the implementation of the photo ID law. I attribute this directly to voters having better confidence in the process, and therefore, being more willing to invest their time in it.

Several other studies by organizations like the Universities of Nebraska and Delaware and the Heritage Foundation tell us requiring ID at the polls does not reduce voter turnout.

On May 6th, opponents to the law were left disappointed. Indiana experienced one of its highest turnouts ever for a primary election. Turnout increased from 21 percent in the 2004 primary to around 40 percent for the 2008 primary. Presumably, the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary brought scores of new voters to the polls. Nearly 76 percent of the participants took part in the Democratic primary.

By comparison, in 2004, only 40 percent of those who participated voted in the Democratic primary.

Simply put, Indiana voters showed up by the hundreds of thousands to fulfill their civic duty with a photo ID in hand. According to our figures, the number showing up to vote without ID continues to be miniscule, dropping slightly even from previous elections when the rate has been two-tenths of a percentile. In fact, opponents of the concept of having a voter identify his or herself still cannot produce one voter who has experienced a violation of his or her rights.

The deadline to file recounts with the state recount commission has passed. Despite close contests in both the Democratic presidential race as well as that party's gubernatorial primary, no one has filed for a recount. No one has found reason to question the results our closely watched, closely contested statewide election.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, election leaders across the country can now confidently move forward with their efforts to protect voters and improve the integrity of the election process. Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas are all states where photo ID requirements were debated and voted on in legislatures this year, and scores of other states have called my office wanting details on the law.

Sure, my staff was in place before sunrise on primary day, ready to ensure a smooth election by helping voters find their polling places, answering questions, and looking into any polling place issues that would come up. But of the more than 1,300 calls we took that day from voters, only two even related to enforcement of Indiana’s photo ID law -- neither demonstrating that someone was shut out from voting.

And even if they were, photo ID opponents fail to point out one very important Federalist notion – that states have the right to put parameters on, and therefore, introduce order into their electoral processes. To not do so would allow chaos to ensnarl the process, rendering it useless. Results would be in doubt and voter confidence shredded. The likelihood of increased participation would dwindle.

Indiana has now conducted eight successful elections since the passage of the photo ID law. There has not been one proven instance of a voter who was unable to exercise his or her right to vote due to the law. The law itself helps prevent this, including provisions to allow voting by those who forget their ID, can’t make it to the polls on Election Day, or who have religious objections to being photographed. The well-publicized nuns in South Bend, who were reportedly unable to vote during this year’s primary election due to not having proper photo ID indeed had the opportunity under the law to cast a provisional ballot and have their votes count by producing ID within ten days. This is eight days longer than Jimmy Carter even suggested when the Carter-Baker Commission suggested photo ID was needed in the polling to boost election integrity and participation. Sadly, they all waived this right to participate in the election process.

Indiana’s photo ID law is our state’s means of protecting the integrity of elections in a manner that creates the least burden for citizens. Furthermore, it’s a right and duty given to us by the 10th Amendment. It is about ensuring accuracy through increased integrity. It’s a 21st century way to manage our election process that gives us confidence again in exercising our franchise -- our most sacred civic transaction. I look forward to an exhilarating 2008 general election with this issue finally settled.

Todd Rokita is the Secretary of State of Indiana. We are proud to note that he was an intern at Human Events in 1992.

Democrats Kill Voter ID Bill in Partisan Vote

Republican state senators expressed their disappointment that Senate Democrats voted along party lines to kill a bill designed to stamp out election fraud by requiring voters to show a form of identification at the polls.

Senate Bill 1150 received 24 votes in favor, and 23 votes opposed, but 25 votes were required to pass the bill and send it to the governor’s desk.

The leader of Democrats in the Oklahoma State Senate – President Pro Tem Mike Morgan of Stillwater – skipped the vote despite being on the floor moments earlier and voting for a procedural motion that brought SB 1150 to a final vote.

By skipping the vote, Morgan prevented a tie that could have required Lt. Gov. Jari Askins to break the tie.

The bill’s author, Sen. John Ford, R-Bartlesville, said, “I am very disappointed that this bill failed, especially that it was defeated by Democrats on a partisan, party-line vote. Oklahoma citizens – both Democrats and Republicans – want to be assured that our elections are fair. SB 1150 helped ensure fairness, and would not have disenfranchised any group or individual. I will keep fighting for voter ID and voter integrity in Oklahoma,” he stated.

“Judging by their blatant display of partisanship today, Senate Democrats seem intent on turning the State Senate back into the Legislature’s graveyard for good legislation. That’s not good for the Senate or for the people of Oklahoma,” said Senate Co-President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City.

Ford can bring the bill back up for a reconsideration of the vote within three legislative days.

US Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.

Excerpts from Monday's 6-3 Supreme Court decision
upholding Indiana's law requiring voters to present a
picture ID before they vote:

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing to uphold the law:
"Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

"The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religious objections to being photographed. ... In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

"Finally we note that petitioners have not demonstrated that the proper remedy — even assuming an unjustified burden on some voters — would be to invalidate the entire statute."

"In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor" of the law "and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it. ... It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact" the law and "if such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may assume" that the law "would suffer the same fate as the poll tax. But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.

Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring:
"The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law 'may have imposed a special burden on' some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny. That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality as well as adherence to precedent, I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners' premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified."

"This calls for application of a deferential 'important regulatory interests' standard for nonsecure, nondiscriminatory restrictions, reserving strict scrutiny for laws that severely restrict the right to vote."