[Texgreen] The 'Harder to Vote' Act

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:33:26 -0500

http://tinyurl.com/m2m4t
www.civilrights.org
published Tuesday September 26

Voting Rights
Op-Ed: The 'Harder to Vote' Act

By Wade Henderson
TomPaine.com
September 21, 2006

Wade Henderson is the executive director of the Leadership Conference=20
on Civil Rights.

Just two months ago, the nation watched Congress, both House and=20
Senate, overwhelmingly reaffirm a commitment to voting rights when it=20
reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law guarantees access=20
to the voting booth for all Americans for the next 25 years.

So it boggles the mind why we are having yet another national=20
discussion about who can and cannot vote in this country.

Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the "Federal Election=20
Integrity Act of 2006" (HR 4844), sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,=20=

which would require all voters to obtain and show government-issued=20
photo IDs proving their citizenship before they could vote.

Proponents of this ill-advised legislation say it is necessary to=20
prevent voter misrepresentation--people showing up at the polls=20
pretending to be someone they're not.

While our electoral system isn't perfect, the supporters of this bill=20
are inflating voter fraud into a problem that just doesn't exist.=20
Congress and the states have proven extremely successful at preventing=20=

non-citizens from voting and ensuring that voters are who they claim to=20=

be.

Far greater problems loom over the electoral system than voter=20
misrepresentation--scarcity of polling places, ill-prepared poll=20
workers, faulty voting machines and lack of language-appropriate voting=20=

materials, to name just a few.

Just one week ago, on September 12, for example, countless voters in=20
Montgomery County, Maryland, went to vote in the primary and found=20
their regular polling places shuttered. In other cases, they were=20
confronted with broken voting machines and a lack of paper ballots,=20
with the result that they were turned away, disenfranchised, unable to=20=

cast their votes

Far from addressing such structural problems, the House-passed=20
legislation creates another one--one that would disenfranchise hundreds=20=

of thousands of registered voters.

On the surface, the bill seems reasonable. Many citizens might wonder=20
what's wrong with showing their government-issued driver's license when=20=

they go to vote. But most states don't require proof of citizenship to=20=

issue a person a driver's license.

The only document that meets the bill's requirement for proof of=20
citizenship is a passport. According to the State Department, only 25=20
percent of Americans over age 18 have a passport. Passports can cost as=20=

much as $100.

In order to get a passport, you need your birth certificate. Do you=20
know where your birth certificate is?

Many would probably have to pay for a replacement copy of their birth=20
certificate so they could get a passport. At least another $20.

Let's face it: HR 4844 is the equivalent of a poll tax since voters=20
would have to pay for a passport to prove their citizenship in order to=20=

vote.

So we are left then to wonder why the need for this reckless law that=20
will actually discourage, confuse and discriminate against voters. If=20
passed, this onerous bill would prevent many eligible voters from=20
exercising their right to vote, disproportionately affecting people of=20=

color, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, rural and Native=20
American voters, the homeless, low-income people and married women, who=20=

studies show to be less likely to carry a photo ID.

Election reform in this country is necessary and a very serious matter,=20=

but HR 4844 is simply not the vehicle to address it.

The Senate is due to take up the bill shortly. We expect that, like its=20=

98-0 vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, the Senate will give=20
measured consideration of this bill and put an end to attempts to=20
disenfranchise American voters.