How the Democrats passed Voter I.D.
Elections committee chair Todd Smith has researched the history of Voter I.D. legislation in Texas. He shared his findings with me. In 1997, Elections chair Debra Danburg, a Democrat, brought HB 330 to the floor. The bill amended the Election Code to require an election judge to ask for a photo I.D. in the event that a voter did not have a voter registration card and his name did not appear on the voter rolls. If the voter did not have a photo I.D., the election judge could not allow the voter to cast a ballot.
The bill was not controversial. It passed out of committee by a vote of 9 to 0. Steve McDonald of the Texas Democratic Party registered in favor of the bill. So did Mary Ann Collins of the Republican party. The House Journal records merely that “HB 330 was passed to engrossment.” This means that the bill passed on a voice vote. No member registered his opposition to the bill in the Journal, so all members are presumed to have voted aye. The following Democrats who are currently members of the House were shown as present on the day when the bill passed to engrossment and thus can be presumed to have voted for the bill:
Burnam
Chavez
Coleman
Davis
Dukes
Dunnam
Dutton
Edwards
Eiland
Farrar
Flores
Gallego
Giddings
Hochberg
Hodge
T. King
McClendon
McReynolds
Naishtat
Oliveira
Olivo
Pickett
Raymond
Thompson
S. Turner
Thompson was not shown as present on the day when HB 330 passed on third reading.
So, what happened between 1997 and today to make Voter I.D. such a white-hot issue? The answer, I believe, goes back to the Bush 43 presidency and to Karl Rove’s decision to make an issue of voter fraud. This in turn led to the uproar over Bush’s firing of U.S. attorneys who declined to prosecute for voter fraud. Here is an excerpt from Rove’s speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association in 2006: “We are, in some parts of the country, I’m afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. I mean, it’s a real problem, and I appreciate all that you’re doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot—the integrity of the ballot—is protected, because it’s important to our democracy.”
Readers will recall that the first fight over Voter I.D. in Texas had taken place a year earlier, when Mary Denny (who had been a co-author of Danburg’s bill in 1997, tried to pass a more restrictive photo I.D. bill in 2005. But it was Rove’s involvement in the issue, and the subsequent nationwide publicity over the firing of the U.S. attorneys, that really got the Democrats’ attention. I don’t know whether a photo I.D. requirement will reduce Democratic voting, but it appears to Democrats as if Republicans think it will, and that is why the battle is raging.
Tagged: democrats, todd smith, voter ID.
Anonymous says:
Paul – Glenn Smith posts at BOR that he thinks Craddick is running this show. Do you agree? Or do you think this is all on Straus?
www dot burntorangereport dot com/diary/8674/havent-we-seen-this-before-oh-yeah-it-was
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Well, even if Paul won’t weigh in on this question, it appears that Straus has tried to answer it himself. He seems to have accepted the Todd Smith analysis as well. And he indicated that Craddick is not telling him what to do. I wonder how that point of order is going to shake out. If that is not sustained, then we really do have to wonder who is advising him.
trailblazersblog dot dallasnews dot com/archives/2009/05/joe-straus-sounds-off-on-voter dot html
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
you can bet your ass that Craddick has a lot of control over the signers of that list – Straus isn’t working with him (what a laugh) but Craddick has to be enjoying and exploiting this in the caucus.
Lets just not forget all the bills that died as he scrambled to protect his fiefdom last session, shutting it down early every night as the floor got low on supporters.
Reply »
hwy360 says:
I believe it important to note that for the most part the members are conducting themselves in a very professional manner. They are not taking this personally. The House has in a very short time regained the ability to disagree without being disagreable.
Reply »
cyrus says:
Oh good Lord this is just flat-out obtuse.
key sentence, Paul:
“… in the event that a voter DID NOT HAVE A VOTER REGISTRATION CARD and his name did not appear on the voter rolls.”
There’s no contradiction here. Under the ‘97 law a voter reg. card was still enough. Under the new proposal it will not be.
Reply »
Dukeofduval says:
People don’t cheat at the ballot box. They cheat at home. All those mail-in ballots run by the local mafia is where it happens. Put a cork in that and you get nearer to fair elections. Make those folks who canvass the Senior’s list for absentee mail in votes get a photo id and register! Leave the rest of us alone.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, do you have a summer vacation planned too? I appreciate your research. Thanks for your impartial analysis.
Reply »
west-texan says:
Anything that puts the brakes on the ACORN-eating Democrats/Obama and their voter fraud is a good thing.
You should most definitely have to prove who you are…and that you are an American citizen before you vote.
I have no problem showing my driver’s license and SSN card before I vote…
And only a criminal or illegal alien would have a problem with showing ID when voting.
Gotta love how the blog spell-checker here…likes McCain…but underlines Obama as an error!
Reply »
Harold Cook says:
What Cyrus said. Total apples-oranges kind of deal.
Reply »
Glenn Smith says:
I agree that Rove is a good bellweather. If he’s for it, it’s bad for democracy. If he’s against it, it’s good for democracy.
In any case, as Harold and others have pointed out, the ‘97 proposal is completely different than current efforts at voter suppression. Under the current proposal, you can be on the rolls, have a registration card, and still be required to produce a photo i.d. It’s not even apples and oranges. At least their both round. This is apples and shoe boxes. Or something.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
this is a typical Democrat line of attack, which is to attack personas such as Rove and Craddick as the key to stopping a bill.
Right now Glenn Smith is in a “throw as much mud on the wall” mode through Tuesday, regardless of facts or inklings of evidence. To say craddick is controlling the show is a ruse.
The fact is Straus is keeping temperatures down, even though there is likely no middle ground on this issue. He is leading, but with a much quieter hand than Craddick.
I just hope that sometime between January when he was elected, and sine die on June 1, that Glenn learns how to spell his last name.
Reply »
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Yeah, screwed up Craddick. Also wrote “their” for “they’re.” My most sincere apologies for the errors.
It’s the Craddick backers who have demanded the hard-line. That’s why Strauss is in a box. If voter i.d. passes it’s the people he vanquished who will claim the credit. That’s why the former speaker (I don’t want to risk another misspelling) is so animated on the floor and behind the scenes.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Try Straus.
west-texan says:
Anyone who shows up to vote without ID is either a crook or a forgetful dufus.
It’s good to slam the door on ACORN and the rest of the Democrat voter fraud.
Reply »
west-texan says:
Voter suppression = Democrats upset because they can’t do their voter fraud.
Only an idiot or a crook will show up to vote without proper ID.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Only an idiot thinks they don’t already have to.
Reply »
Ed Martin says:
Paul, this is not “research.” You just bought a Todd Smith spin to confuse the issue. Like Harold and Cyrus said, it’s apples and oranges. Bottom line is there has no voter impersonation at the polls under the 1997 law, so the 2009 Voter ID bill is not needed as a matter of public policy and has no business being on a Major State Calendar before or after anything.
This is only being discussed because people like Rove made it a national Republican push. They are the only ones for this Voter ID agenda – the Democrats, along with the League of Women Voters, academics, AARP and local election officials know this is pure BS. Don’t get lost in the “he said, she said” scoreboard watching. This whole mess has been caused by the more extreme Republican partsans and a bunch of their Members are following even though they know better. That is the only reason the Legislature has been held hostage by this non issue since the first day of the session.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I didn’t “buy” the Todd Smith spin. I presented it.
Reply »
House Watcher Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Yeah, you “presented” the 1997 vote as “Voter ID” making it sound like the same issue we have now. You must have bought the Todd Smith spin, because you didn’t examine the issue objectively and present any side of this argument except for Todd Smith’s.
Reply »
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
However, much as I like to bash Rove, your suggestion that there must be intervening political circumstance to explain this year’s opposition to voter I.D. is a non sequitur once the radical differences in the proposals is made clear.
And, I can simplify the suppression effects: if you place additional hurdles between humans and any activity fewer humans will make it over the hurdles.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Sort of like Democrat tax policy: the more they raise taxes, the more they suppress productivity.
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Maybe we should just drop voter registration all together, Glen. Waddaya think?
Why don’t we require everyone to vote, and give them $5 when they do? If they don’t show up to vote, fine them $50. Treat it the same way we do jury duty.
Anonymous says:
Perhaps the difference is that the 1997 law expanded voting rights, by allowing an alternative to having a voter registration card, whereas the voter i.d. bill today restricts the right to vote? Isn’t that a rather important distinction?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
First anon, the way to know Baby Kos is lying is when they put a post up.
Reply »
Glenn Smith says:
Jo Straus. Got it.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
No no no. Now you’re being obstinate.
Glenn, it is spelled: “D-E-N-I-S-E D-A-V-I-S”
Reply »
John Johnson says:
All of this brouhaha over a voter ID bill that 80% of Texans favor, yet if you asked them if they wanted it to hold up and sink all the bills that might save them money on electricity, insurance, and maybe get some ethics and campaign finance issues in place, you would get a resounding “NO”. Are all of you chameleons going to use this impasse as an excuse when you send out your newsletters after sine die and tell us, “I tried, but….”? How can you ask anyone to give you their vote next go-round? Grow some balls!
Reply »
Anon says:
Why isn’t requiring a voter registration card “disenfranchisement”?
Reply »
Ed Martin says:
OK, Paul. Presentation accepted.
And John, the Republicans put this non-issue on the Calendar in front of all those important issues, just like they made it item numero uno on Day One in the Senate, despite the fact that polls indicate less than 1% of voters think Voter ID is a major priority.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I agree, Ed. If the Republican Party of Texas thinks this is how voters want them to go about the business at hand, they are not listening … or they just don’t care. They don’t care because they continue (Repub’s and Dem’s alike) to support the Big’s and special interest groups who fill up their campaign coffers. This is why campaign finance bills, ethics and lobbying bills never make it out of committee. The whole system stinks. I can only hope that sooner, rather than later, voters pull their heads out of the sand and realize what’s going on. The fact that the majority in Austin won’t do what’s right … won’t work toward change without being prodded says it all.
Reply »
Ghost Writer says:
Agreeing with those noting the 1997 bill is different from the 2009 bill, Paul should know that just because a Member did not record a no vote in the Journal means the Member favored passage of the bill — at least not in 1997. While it is true during the 2005 and 2007 sessions that the Rules provided that failure to register a “no” vote as the “functional equivalent” of a “yes” vote, but that was not the case back in the 75th. As Hugh Brady notes in his book, the failure to register a “no” vote can be viewed as being due to absent during the vote, so that the Member cannot know exactly what he is voting against.
Reply »
Elizabeth says:
Oooh, Todd Smith did some research, and like a good stenographer, you put it on your blog. The 1997 proposal is completely different for all of the reasons that others have listed above. Voter ID, as incorporated in SB 362, is just a repackaged poll tax. You’d think Todd Smith would have something better to do than throw out this useless argument.
Reply »
KJS says:
Props on the regurge of Todd Smith talking points.
A 12 year old story that has no relevance to this voter id bill – and his list of those who may or may not have voted for it – is just the supercallafragalistic journalism we’ve come to expect.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Republicans were stupid for labeling it numero uno, and the Democrats are stupid for shutting everything else down because of it. I hope everyone gets burned by their actions. This will happen only if the news media gets the word out. I can’t wait to see the spin each puts on this boondoggle. It will be like cats in a sandbox.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
If only we could vote on the posts here – I would vote for your post 1,000 times. You nailed it. The hard-core partisans on both sides suck with regard to how they’ve handled this.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
My cats poop in sandboxes. I don’t understand the reference.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Don’t they try and cover up their crap? That’s what is going to happen in Austin. “Sorry, folks – it wasn’t my fault”.
Reply »
paulrobeson says:
Paul,
The information provided on HB 330 is very misleading. As I read the bill, it requires the election judge to ask the voter “to present proof of identification” and execute an affidavit. Prior to passage of the legislation, only an affidavit was necessary.
Proof of identification, as defined in the bill, certainly includes photo identification. However, while the bill makes it possible for the judge to ask for a photo id, there are a variety of photo-less documents that could be asked for.
The following section was added to the Election Code by the bill:
Sec. 63.0101. DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. The following documentation is acceptable as proof of identification under this chapter:
(1) a driver’s license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;
(2) a form of identification containing the person’s photograph that establishes the person’s identity;
(3) a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity;
(4) United States citizenship papers issued to the person;
(5) a United States passport issued to the person;
(6) pre‑printed checks containing the person’s name that are issued for a financial institution doing business in this state;
(7) official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;
(8) two other forms of identification that establish the person’s identity; or
(9) any other form of identification prescribed by the secretary of state.
And here’s the current statute is as follows – note the modifications for the sake of clarity:
Sec. 63.0101. DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. The following documentation is acceptable as proof of identification under this chapter:
(1) a driver’s license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;
(2) a form of identification containing the person’s photograph that establishes the person’s identity;
(3) a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity;
(4) United States citizenship papers issued to the person;
(5) a United States passport issued to the person;
(6) official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;
(7) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
(8) any other form of identification prescribed by the secretary of state.
Reply »
paulrobeson Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Just to be clear, the first section listed above comes from the Election Code as it was amended by HB 330 in 1997. The second section lists the Election Code as it exists now. At no point do I quote the language of SB 362, the voter id bill currently under consideration.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Someone down there please stand back and take a look at what’s happening. You’ve turned a molehill into a mountain. Two kids arguing over who gets to ride shotgun.
This being said, it would appear that the Dem’s know what they are doing; the Repub’s …not so much. Dewhurst should be tarred and feathered, and all you pusses who did his bidding should be, as well. Don’t try and come out of this thing thumping your chests becasue you have absolutely nothing to be proud of.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This blog entry is disingenuous at best, incompetent at worst. The headline, “How the Democrats passed Voter I.D.” Quotes: “The bill was not controversial.” “The following Democrats…presumed to have voted for the bill.” “So, what happened between 1997 and today to make Voter I.D. such a white-hot issue?”
This blog post CLEARLY equates the 1997 bill with this session’s bill. Even if one is ambivalent about this issue, there is no denying that posts like this are deceptive and bring down political discourse by equating the 1997 issue with today’s. Anyone with a scintilla of intellect and information can see that they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The average voter isn’t informed about the details of this issue, and the average voter reading this article would scan it and come away with the idea that, “yeah, the Democrats are hypocrites! They liked it then? What’s the problem now?” Just as Todd Smith’s partisan spin was designed to accomplish. And Burka, to quote another commenter, like the good little stenographer he is, just posted this drivel without emphasizing the SCREAMING, KEY DIFFERENCES between the 2 bills.
Paul’s lame response that he was merely “presenting” Todd Smith’s obviously partisan position unquestioningly should disturb anyone who reads this forum. What happened between 1997 and today to make Voter I.D. such a “white-hot” issue? As if the bill then was the same as the bill now, so why are Democrats “suddenly” upset about it?
ZERO credibility, Paul. Shame on you.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Amen. Paul is such a worshiper of the seemingly adult behaviors of “bipartisanship” and “cooperative legislation,” I’m wondering if his “inner child” was triggered by the D’s chubbing and his little boy decided to get even!?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
What are you people defending? In ‘97, for whatever reason, many D’s voted to require voters to prove who they were. Period. Paint it anyway you want to, but that was the gist of the vote. Who cares if the reasons have changed? The spin you are trying to put on this is not working. Stop this foolishness. NOOOOO ONE cares what you think. NOOOOO ONE care what the R’s think. The teacher needs to come into the room, grab you both up by the ears, paddle your rear ends, and set you back down after she is sure that you have gotten the message. Get to work and knock off the foolishness.
Reply »
jz says:
Can anybody tell me what happens when voters can’t meet the ID requirements? I understand they will be offered provisional ballots. How will the Ballot Board know better than the local election officials if a voter is indeed who he/she represented himself/herself to be?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
To Anonymous rear-end paddler:
Way to simplify the issue and strip the relevance from the differences between 1997 and today. “Duuhh… in 1997 photo ID was in a bill and today photo ID is in a bill so they must be the SAME!” Is that your argument? Do you have to have the differences spelled out to you, or can you read the bills and determine them on your own? Because they are completely different. Burka claiming that “something must have happened between 1997 and today change the Dems’ minds on this SAME issue!” is patently absurd and robs him of credibility. And you, as well, if you say they are the same thing.
Your attempt to portray everyone who takes a side on an issue as “children” would be condescending if it weren’t so obviously self-righteous. the “i’m above it all” lecture is exactly why Burka has no actual principles and why he doesn’t dare become adversarial with his oh-so-valuable sources of information.
Whether you agree with the Rs or the Ds on the 2009 Voter ID issue, there is no disputing that this blog posting is simply an unchallenged regurgitation of one side’s partisan spin. To a lot of people that’s not a problem. You’re one of them. Congrats on that.
Reply »
texun says:
I hope that somebody else has noticed how easy it would be for perps to forge some of the documents that are accepted for identification. Bank statements and preprinted checks? Utility bills? Right up there with birth certificates that don’t have raised seals?
Let’s face it: if the bill was intended to discourage illegal voting, it falls way short of doing so. If it was intended to discourage voting by the elderly and by racial and ethnic minorities, it might just succeed.If they no longer drive, many elderly voters have let their drivers’ licenses lapse. Those resident in some retirement facilities don’t have utility bills. Others, who moved around a lot, have lost birth certificates and other public documents. They might not use preprinted checks because many receive ETFs and their bills are paid by others.
The whole issue looks more and more like a combination of voter supression and cultural warfare.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hopefully Roland Gutierrez and Richard Raymond are the number 1 and 2 on your 10 worst list.
Reply »
where demand meets supply says:
Look at what R’s have won…first voter id dead, well ok? The UI bill dies, the governor doesn’t want any stimulus money from the government. That UI bill could help many rural/urban Texans, yet its just a stubborness that resembles R’s strategy. TDI sunset with its 200 amendments. This may help or hurt many Texans, yet the issue is being blindsided by voter id. Its very convenient….avoids a veto and kills a good bill (Eltife’s bill).
TWIA may be dead. These issues involve the governor’s argument against stimulus money, especially when unemployment is on the rise but you also had the convenient lack of TTC to attract more anger. People are pissed all around, the public is left puzzled by whats going on now. This sunday I heard the entire House debate. It was a trainwreck, everyone looks bad. R’s win, D’s do not…they lose by not bringing in that stimulus money….They can’t help their constitutents, what then for the election?…UI, TDI and TWIA affect a lot of folks, people need that money. Who ever delivers the final blow wins but still loses. Its a horrible version of a Mexican standoff…goofy…MUD bills, come on guys…disposal of sewage by certain boats, i mean really? D’s need to get federal money in a red state…Perhaps voter id was a great trojan horse…went all in and lost a lot.
Reply »
CBC says:
While annoying, Gutierrez and Raymond were simply bit players in the Failed Dunnam Scheme. What a waste of time, money and oxygen. Dunnam is locked in a game the rest of the House isn’t playing anymore. He may have served a purpose under Craddick, but it is more and more obvious that the D’s need to look elsewhere for leadership.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am
one can be a bit player without being a petulant, arrogant and overtly insincere pain in the ass.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Voter ID was the top agenda item for the lege leadership, right? From the very start in the senate. I don’t really understand how failing to pass that item constitutes anything but a failure of leadership.
Reply »
CBC says:
Voter ID would have passed -or failed to pass- on the merits of the bill if the D’s would have had the courage to have a grown up debate. Instead they used the rules to obstruct the process, making fools of themselves and the people who entrusted them with their vote. I would suggest next time they just consider breaking quorum again. The mindless blathering is more than just annoying, it is also excellent fodder for a future campaign. Hopefully Texans across the state will decide next time to send big boys and girls who aren’t afraid to take on tough issues and votes.
Reply »