As a follow-up to my voter ID post, I wanted to point out that this report has been issued by the Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and the Minnesota Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance/Association of Universalist Women.
Here's a story on it from MPR that summarizes the findings.
I'll be reading the 44-page report as soon as I can.
(MUUSJA website here.)
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
ID Me
I served as an election judge again this past Tuesday for the general election. It was only my second time doing so, the first being at the primary in August. I enjoy being involved in our political process, and this seemed like a logical extension of that. It's a long day (14 and a half hours, at the least), but it goes by surprisingly fast, even when turn-out in your precinct is only 22%, as it was for the primary (this was unfortunately rather high, in reality). I knitted six washcloths that day.
On November 2, I did not expect to get that much knitting done (only four much smaller dishcloths) because turn-out would be higher. Indeed, we had 59% in our precinct, which is also, unfortunately, considered high.
We were warned by our head judge that there may be issues with voters wearing "ID Me" buttons or insisting that we check their ID. Just a few days before the election, the Supreme Court had denied a case brought by "Tea Partiers", in which they wanted the right to wear these materials. It was deemed to be covered by the "no campaign or political materials in the polling place" law, and we were to ask people to cover any such items. This includes sample ballots from specific parties and tee shirts that say "Wellstone!", even though he was clearly not running for election.
I did not see any buttons that said "ID Me," but I did have some rather forceful or snide individuals, muttering comments or stating outright nonsense regarding voter identification. I was only on the roster table for a few hours, so I am not sure what other judges may have heard, but I had three notable people offer their opinions. One woman was rather incensed, having "just found out today that Minnesota does not require ID to vote."
"I mean, that's ridiculous."
"It's the law, " I replied.
"Well, it's a stupid law," she said.
Another muttered, when I said that it was the law, "No wonder this state is so screwed up."
The final major comment was from a gentleman who proffered his ID in my face. When I said that we do not require ID, he said he knew, but wanted me to check his ID. I said it was the law that Minnesota does not require ID to vote, and I asked his last name. He remained silent and held the ID in my face. Once I had given him his ballot receipt, he said "It's the government's law that you have to have ID on you at all times. It's the law."
I closed my lips together firmly to keep from answering. He moved on.
Now, I have to say, "Really?" Where does he live, and where is he getting this information, and moreover, why does he believe it?
Voter fraud is a current specter striking fear into the hearts of white people across America. As this issue does divide mostly along partisan lines, with republicans favoring more Voter ID requirements and Democrats being against them, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Is voter fraud a big problem? If so, would identification laws solve it? What's the big deal about requiring ID? You need ID for a lot of things, and voting is pretty important, so requiring ID to do so seems innocuous. Why does it divide along party lines? Who benefits and who loses? Why do some people assume that everyone else is lying, even when they themselves never would? Why didn't these people get upset in 2000 or 2004 when there were massive voting irregularities? Do they believe that liberals are stealing elections through voter fraud, and ID laws will fix that? Do they think that Minnesota is the only state that does not require ID?
In reality, 24 states do not require ID, and the other 26 have varying degrees of requirements. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Furthermore, from what I could gather, voter fraud of the type that would be caught by requiring ID is so rare as to be statistically uncountable, leading Project Vote to say:
"Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem."
So, if voter fraud via voter impersonation is not a real problem (Again, the kind that would be caught by requiring Voter ID), then what is this really all about?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as much as 12% of the eligible voting population does not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of these people are seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, students, and women. It seems to me that Voter ID hoopla is meant to instill fear in a certain sector of the population, that certain other sectors of the population are voting illegally, so that ID laws can be passed, making it harder for those certain other sectors of the voting population to vote.
If we are truly concerned about fairness in elections, then we need well-funded, well-trained election oversight departments and officials, who can track down irregularities when they occur. We need to pursue cases of voter intimidation, which, unlike voter impersonation, actually do happen. We need to make information about voting and voting rights as well as election and polling information easily available to the voters.
The "Voter ID" issue is a low-hanging fear-fruit. It "sounds good" when you hear it, and people will shrug, thinking it's no big deal. That's often because they have not thought any deeper about the issue, such as barriers to obtaining government-issued ID, how those barriers affect different groups of people, and who it is that these laws would keep from voting.
It only "sounds good" when you don't have to think about it, and it doesn't affect you.
On November 2, I did not expect to get that much knitting done (only four much smaller dishcloths) because turn-out would be higher. Indeed, we had 59% in our precinct, which is also, unfortunately, considered high.
We were warned by our head judge that there may be issues with voters wearing "ID Me" buttons or insisting that we check their ID. Just a few days before the election, the Supreme Court had denied a case brought by "Tea Partiers", in which they wanted the right to wear these materials. It was deemed to be covered by the "no campaign or political materials in the polling place" law, and we were to ask people to cover any such items. This includes sample ballots from specific parties and tee shirts that say "Wellstone!", even though he was clearly not running for election.
I did not see any buttons that said "ID Me," but I did have some rather forceful or snide individuals, muttering comments or stating outright nonsense regarding voter identification. I was only on the roster table for a few hours, so I am not sure what other judges may have heard, but I had three notable people offer their opinions. One woman was rather incensed, having "just found out today that Minnesota does not require ID to vote."
"I mean, that's ridiculous."
"It's the law, " I replied.
"Well, it's a stupid law," she said.
Another muttered, when I said that it was the law, "No wonder this state is so screwed up."
The final major comment was from a gentleman who proffered his ID in my face. When I said that we do not require ID, he said he knew, but wanted me to check his ID. I said it was the law that Minnesota does not require ID to vote, and I asked his last name. He remained silent and held the ID in my face. Once I had given him his ballot receipt, he said "It's the government's law that you have to have ID on you at all times. It's the law."
I closed my lips together firmly to keep from answering. He moved on.
Now, I have to say, "Really?" Where does he live, and where is he getting this information, and moreover, why does he believe it?
Voter fraud is a current specter striking fear into the hearts of white people across America. As this issue does divide mostly along partisan lines, with republicans favoring more Voter ID requirements and Democrats being against them, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Is voter fraud a big problem? If so, would identification laws solve it? What's the big deal about requiring ID? You need ID for a lot of things, and voting is pretty important, so requiring ID to do so seems innocuous. Why does it divide along party lines? Who benefits and who loses? Why do some people assume that everyone else is lying, even when they themselves never would? Why didn't these people get upset in 2000 or 2004 when there were massive voting irregularities? Do they believe that liberals are stealing elections through voter fraud, and ID laws will fix that? Do they think that Minnesota is the only state that does not require ID?
In reality, 24 states do not require ID, and the other 26 have varying degrees of requirements. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Furthermore, from what I could gather, voter fraud of the type that would be caught by requiring ID is so rare as to be statistically uncountable, leading Project Vote to say:
"Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem."
So, if voter fraud via voter impersonation is not a real problem (Again, the kind that would be caught by requiring Voter ID), then what is this really all about?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as much as 12% of the eligible voting population does not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of these people are seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, students, and women. It seems to me that Voter ID hoopla is meant to instill fear in a certain sector of the population, that certain other sectors of the population are voting illegally, so that ID laws can be passed, making it harder for those certain other sectors of the voting population to vote.
If we are truly concerned about fairness in elections, then we need well-funded, well-trained election oversight departments and officials, who can track down irregularities when they occur. We need to pursue cases of voter intimidation, which, unlike voter impersonation, actually do happen. We need to make information about voting and voting rights as well as election and polling information easily available to the voters.
The "Voter ID" issue is a low-hanging fear-fruit. It "sounds good" when you hear it, and people will shrug, thinking it's no big deal. That's often because they have not thought any deeper about the issue, such as barriers to obtaining government-issued ID, how those barriers affect different groups of people, and who it is that these laws would keep from voting.
It only "sounds good" when you don't have to think about it, and it doesn't affect you.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Vote, America.
"...because he won't raise my taxes..."
It's time to Vote, America. And you may be hearing a lot of people making the above statement, as in, "I am voting for [fill in the blank] because he/she won't raise my taxes."
This has never occurred to me as I make my choices at the polling place. I don't get all worked up about my taxes or about my having to pay taxes (though I may get worked up about fairness). In my mind, they are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, with a stable government, a cared-for population, and a working, solid infrastructure. Now, we may not always be getting what we pay for, and we can't all have our way. We don't get to send in our tax forms with a check box, stating that we want our share of the federal pot to pay for schools, health care, public transit, and aid to families. Nope, us bleeding hearts get to pay for wars and pricey government contracts to Halliburton, plus tax breaks for wealthier citizens and corporations as well as our little pet projects.
So what do I vote for, and why do I vote as I do?
First and foremost, I am looking for a person who is reasonable and rational, and who seems to have the capacity for thoughtful consideration of not only solutions, but of the problems and their causes. This is not always easy to discern in our heated political climate of overblown rhetoric, grandstanding, and fear-mongering, but I can look for certain things, such as whether or not a candidate "believes in" anthropogenic global warming and/or evolution. If he or she does not, I am going to hold all their opinions suspect. If he or she is not behaving in a fact-based manner about these issues, then he or she is either ignorant of or anti- science or is pandering to a segment of the population that is fundamentalist and denialist. How can I trust that person's ideas on how to tackle public problems, if they lack the cognitive sophistication to understand scientific evidence at its most basic? Are they intelligent enough to tackle complicated economic issues?
In Minnesota, our departing governor (who is coming for the GOP nomination in 2012; indeed, we rarely see him here. If you find him, you can keep him.), refused to "raise taxes" even as the economy tanked. He denied a tool in the public policy box, unable or unwilling to recognize that we needed revenue, using accounting shifts and cuts to human services to "balance" the budget, and we are now facing a 5.8 billion dollar deficit. His refusal to raise taxes resulted in some higher fees as well as higher property taxes and various referenda and assessments levied by counties and cities to raise necessary revenue.
It is ridiculous to remove a tool from your policy toolbox. No family, sitting around the kitchen table, would say, "Well, we won't look for ways to increase our revenue. We can only look for ways to reduce our expenses."
If you are running for governor in this state, and you are saying that you will not only not raise taxes, but will lower them in some instances, and you will balance the budget, then you are, quite frankly, either lying or you are deluded. The idea here is that you keep the revenue the same (or you even cut it somewhat), and all the difference is made up in cuts to government. Then businesses and rich people will create jobs and buy more stuff. It makes some average voters scream and cheer, but the reality is that cutting government is cutting people. Cutting jobs, cutting income, cutting into purchasing power of not only individuals but government itself, which pays many private industries through contracts ranging from construction to professional development to consulting.
Everything is connected, and someone always has to pay. Cut over here, and you will lose over there.
And people who lose their jobs often wind up on public assistance of some sort, be it unemployment or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Because what often happens is that the people who can least afford to lose their jobs are the people who are cut first, straight from the bottom. With fewer resources to begin with and less of a voice in the public sphere, they disappear into statistics, but they show up in the budget.
It is not reasonable or rational to look at any problem and put away some of your tools without even considering them and their relevance to the job at hand. What I am looking for is evidence of thoughtful consideration and the ability to apply that consideration to a variety of problems, using a variety of tools. I am looking for someone who can recognize facts, process them, and disseminate them to the general public without obfuscation.
Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, that person does not usually get elected in America.
It's time to Vote, America. And you may be hearing a lot of people making the above statement, as in, "I am voting for [fill in the blank] because he/she won't raise my taxes."
This has never occurred to me as I make my choices at the polling place. I don't get all worked up about my taxes or about my having to pay taxes (though I may get worked up about fairness). In my mind, they are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, with a stable government, a cared-for population, and a working, solid infrastructure. Now, we may not always be getting what we pay for, and we can't all have our way. We don't get to send in our tax forms with a check box, stating that we want our share of the federal pot to pay for schools, health care, public transit, and aid to families. Nope, us bleeding hearts get to pay for wars and pricey government contracts to Halliburton, plus tax breaks for wealthier citizens and corporations as well as our little pet projects.
So what do I vote for, and why do I vote as I do?
First and foremost, I am looking for a person who is reasonable and rational, and who seems to have the capacity for thoughtful consideration of not only solutions, but of the problems and their causes. This is not always easy to discern in our heated political climate of overblown rhetoric, grandstanding, and fear-mongering, but I can look for certain things, such as whether or not a candidate "believes in" anthropogenic global warming and/or evolution. If he or she does not, I am going to hold all their opinions suspect. If he or she is not behaving in a fact-based manner about these issues, then he or she is either ignorant of or anti- science or is pandering to a segment of the population that is fundamentalist and denialist. How can I trust that person's ideas on how to tackle public problems, if they lack the cognitive sophistication to understand scientific evidence at its most basic? Are they intelligent enough to tackle complicated economic issues?
In Minnesota, our departing governor (who is coming for the GOP nomination in 2012; indeed, we rarely see him here. If you find him, you can keep him.), refused to "raise taxes" even as the economy tanked. He denied a tool in the public policy box, unable or unwilling to recognize that we needed revenue, using accounting shifts and cuts to human services to "balance" the budget, and we are now facing a 5.8 billion dollar deficit. His refusal to raise taxes resulted in some higher fees as well as higher property taxes and various referenda and assessments levied by counties and cities to raise necessary revenue.
It is ridiculous to remove a tool from your policy toolbox. No family, sitting around the kitchen table, would say, "Well, we won't look for ways to increase our revenue. We can only look for ways to reduce our expenses."
If you are running for governor in this state, and you are saying that you will not only not raise taxes, but will lower them in some instances, and you will balance the budget, then you are, quite frankly, either lying or you are deluded. The idea here is that you keep the revenue the same (or you even cut it somewhat), and all the difference is made up in cuts to government. Then businesses and rich people will create jobs and buy more stuff. It makes some average voters scream and cheer, but the reality is that cutting government is cutting people. Cutting jobs, cutting income, cutting into purchasing power of not only individuals but government itself, which pays many private industries through contracts ranging from construction to professional development to consulting.
Everything is connected, and someone always has to pay. Cut over here, and you will lose over there.
And people who lose their jobs often wind up on public assistance of some sort, be it unemployment or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Because what often happens is that the people who can least afford to lose their jobs are the people who are cut first, straight from the bottom. With fewer resources to begin with and less of a voice in the public sphere, they disappear into statistics, but they show up in the budget.
It is not reasonable or rational to look at any problem and put away some of your tools without even considering them and their relevance to the job at hand. What I am looking for is evidence of thoughtful consideration and the ability to apply that consideration to a variety of problems, using a variety of tools. I am looking for someone who can recognize facts, process them, and disseminate them to the general public without obfuscation.
Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, that person does not usually get elected in America.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Undecided
There was a four-person wide line snaking around the venue, across a bridge spanning a four-lane highway, and down a few more city blocks. People were standing in that line for two hours or more on a 27 degree early February day. Were they giving away front loading washers? Free tickets for the Superbowl? Naked ladies?
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)