Voter ID mandate

Richard L. Hasen wrote in CSMonitor .... The National Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker looked perfect: a high profile, bipartisan effort to identify ways to fix America's decentralized, increasingly politicized, and underfunded election system. Unfortunately, by taking sides in a fight over voter identification requirements, the Carter-Baker Commission squandered its political capital, perhaps even setting back the cause for reform.

In other words they included something the author does not like.

That is unfortunate for the country. There is much good in the Carter-Baker report, issued Monday. Most important, the commission recommended a move toward nonpartisan election administration. (The US is one of the few democracies that use partisan election officials to run their elections.) Carter-Baker endorsed a suggestion I offered in testimony to the commission that states remove election responsibilities from partisan elected secretaries of State, placing them instead in the hands of professional election administrators appointed by governors and approved by a supermajority vote of state legislators.

In other words, people the Dems think they can bribe.

The supermajority requirement ensures that there is true bipartisan support for the election administrator. At the very least, state election officials should promise to abide by a code of conduct that keeps them out of the business of campaigning for other candidates or ballot measures.

The commission also correctly recommended ways to improve voter registration, including the requirement that states take proactive roles to register voters. Registration reform could significantly lower the chances of post-election meltdown; my study of the post-2000 election litigation shows that many of the court cases involved problems with registration rules.

One good change would be eliminating the Motor Voter law.

But the commission blew it by taking a strong partisan position requiring voter identification at the polls. The recommendation is aimed at preventing voter fraud, but doesn't properly target that problem.

Sure it does, and that is why Dems hate it.

Here is what we know: Some voter fraud (probably not much) occurs on the local level; some voters cast ballots twice, in two separate states; and the bulk of fraudulent voting appears to occur through absentee ballots.

Regardless of where or how it occurs, there needs to be significant criminal penalties for voter fraud.

Requiring voter identification at the polls addresses only the first (and least significant) of these problems.

Not really. They could require you to show the ID to get an absentee ballot.

In addition, voter IDs tied to drivers licenses (as the commission suggests) will place an onerous burden on the poor and those (especially the elderly) who lack driver's licenses.

Not really, since the recommendations included a procedure for getting a photo id if you dont have a drivers license. And you need a photo id to board an airplane, buy booze, cash a check, etc.

National voter identification is needed to prevent real fraud (especially through absentee voting and double voting across states) and to keep public confidence in the election process. But it should be coupled with a government-mandated voter registration plan, so that both Democrats concerned with voter access and Republicans concerned with voter integrity can get on board with the proposal. When someone registers to vote, the state should collect a thumb print that can then go in voter rolls and on every absentee ballot (in such a way to assure secrecy of voting). The voter IDs should be free to everyone, and any voters who show up without their ID should be able to vote by giving a thumbprint.

I like the idea of including a thumbprint, and perhaps even an iris pattern code and other bio factors on the ID. Voting just by thumbrint would be ok only if there is a significant criminal penalty for voter fraud.

The commission compounded the problem with its voter ID endorsement by appearing to stifle dissent. It prevented commission member Spencer Overton from publishing a 597-word dissent, imposing a cap of 250 words. In response, Professor Overton has set up his own website (www.carterbakerdissent.com) to disseminate his important objections to both the voter identification recommendations of the commission and to the process by which the commission reached its decision.

If the Carter-Baker commission report is dismissed as a failure, and election reform issues are swept under the rug until 2008, it will be too late to fix problems in time to avert a potential election meltdown. Like dealing with hurricanes or earthquakes, advanced planning is the key to avoiding disaster.