I've read enough to not especially like it. Among other things, the bill would:
Make Election Day an official holiday;
Require states to allow same day registration as well as early voting;
While the act trumpets "establishing voter identification," it would do just the opposite, by prohibiting the requiring of driver's licenses, social security numbers, or proof of citizenship. Here's a portion of the text:
In other words, states would be required take you at your word that you are who you say you are and that you're a citizen.
There's also provision for photo id cards to be created and issued based on "voter affidavits..."
States would be required to allow felons to vote.
There's much more -- and the language is replete with identity politics jargon.
Personally, I don't like the idea of Election Day as a holiday, or of allowing anyone to run in at any time, early, late, whenever, without proof of anything. The whole thing reeks of sentimentalized corruption, political partisanship, and above all, dumbing down the vote.
While I dislike followers (who tend to be the dumber elements of both parties) the Democrats seem particularly beholden to enshrining and catering to voter stupidity. I think this act is another attempt to make it easier for the smarter people to tell the dumber multitudes how to vote -- along the lines of turning Election Day into a giant MSM, Make Every Vote Count, propaganda extravaganza.
I think we should just count "intentions" and call it a day. No voting required.
J. Peden · March 1, 2005 01:48 AM
I'm against it. It also interferes with the traditional prerogatives of states to set their own election laws as they see fit, as per the Tenth Amendment. It will certainly undercut any federalist arguments against a Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment if such an amendment comes up again, and if Democrats choose to oppose such an amendment for whatever political reasons. Marriage, election laws, education, drug laws, and many other things must be left to the states.
What about a paper trail? Should we make one mandatory? I think California already has a law doing that in all elections from '06 onward.
fog · March 2, 2005 11:00 AM
Well, as someone who has worked the elections in Sacramento County, I can say that the system we use is very commonsensical (and has been in use for over a decade in another county.) Basically, the voter fills out a bubble sheet, just like the SATs (or, as our trainer said, "filling out a Lotto slip.") That ballot is run through a scanner and drops into a box. The scanner counts the votes, and the voted ballots (aka paper trail) are saved as well. So you have the immediate count, but you also have your backup in case of a challenge.
And if you claim that filling in little bubbles is too difficult for the average voter, well, that's too bad.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Wow. Felons. Little verification. Same day registration.
In other words, everything that contributes to Democratic victories, mostly by illegal means.
Hooboy, those people have no shame.