From the Washington Post, August 11:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.

* * * *

This should put an end to the discussion about rampant voter fraud. Impersonation is simply not a viable strategy for fixing an election. There are not enough incidents to make it worthwhile. And yet, Attorney General Abbott continues to make it a priority of his office. Voter fraud, at least in the form of impersonation–which is what Voter I.D. is created to prevent–is statistically rare.

Last fall McClatchy newspapers traced the origin of Voter I.D. legislation to Karl Rove. He alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he discussed voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association, highlighting the importance of about a dozen election battleground states.

Fraud by impersonation is a myth, perpetuated by Republicans to justify Voter I.D. laws that suppress turnout. You’ll never convince me otherwise. It’s one of the worst things that has happened to American democracy.

Tagged: voter ID

This mass e-mail was sent to me by SREC member Mark McCaig.

Dear Texas Republicans,

Like the vast majority of Texas Republicans, I am a strong supporter of legislation that will require photo identification to vote. As a member of the State Republican Executive Committee, I supported efforts by the Republican Party of Texas to pass Voter ID legislation and worked with members of the Legislature to accomplish this. Unfortunately, these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. This issue remains at the forefront of the public policy discussion in Texas and I look forward to helping pass a Voter ID bill during the next legislative session.

It is not a surprise that the Voter ID issue has come up in certain campaigns in the upcoming Republican primary. In particular, this issue has come up in House District 92, where House Elections Committee Chairman Todd Smith is facing a primary challenger. It is very disappointing that Chairman Smith’s opponent and others have chosen to lie about his efforts on the Voter ID issue.

A website recently launched by an Austin based Political Action Committee accuses Chairman Smith of “stopping” Voter ID legislation and making “elections less secure”, among other claims. The statements contained on this website are patently false and the dissemination of such inaccurate information is a reprehensible political stunt that is to be condemned.

After the 2008 General Election, the Republican Party held a very narrow majority of 76-74 in the Texas House of Representatives. The absence of one Republican member from a significant portion of the legislative session while recovering from a massive heart attack coupled with the custom of the House Speaker not to cast votes resulted in a practical partisan tie much of the session. With members frequently off the floor for meetings, events in their districts, illness, graduations, or other reasons, there were many times last session when there were more Democrats than Republicans present on the House floor.

Facing this situation, Chairman Smith spent countless hours working with members of the legislature and others to craft a bill that would increase the security of our elections. This was no easy task, as the Voter ID issue was the most contentious issue addressed by Texas legislature last session. This was also a task that was time consuming, as groups on both sides of the Voter ID debate undertook extensive efforts to have their networks voice their opinion on this issue.

While not perfect, the Voter ID bill that Chairman Smith proposed to the House represented a significant improvement over current law that would have gone a long way in protecting the integrity and security of Texas elections. More importantly, this bill had sufficient support to pass in the House. Chairman Smith would have been derelict in his duties as Chairman of the House Elections Committee to present a bill that potentially did not have enough votes on the House floor at a particular time to pass.

Unfortunately, a group of Democratic legislators engaged in an unprecedented abuse of House procedure in order to kill Chairman Smith’s Voter ID bill (along with a number of other important bills). In absolutely no way was Chairman Smith responsible for stopping or hindering the passage of a piece of legislation he devoted an incredible amount of his time and energy to.

Simply put, no legislator worked harder than Todd Smith to pass a Voter ID bill in the Texas House of Representatives last session. His efforts should be recognized and commended by Republicans in his district and across Texas. It is my hope that the Republican Primary voters in District 92 will repudiate these and other deceitful campaign tactics and strongly support Todd Smith for re-election.

Sincerely,

Mark McCaig

State Republican Executive Committeeman- SD 18

* * * *

Smith is under heavy attack by self-appointed Republican enforcer Michael Quinn Sullivan. In his e-mail opposing Smith, he says that the Republicans were four votes short of passing Voter ID. This is pretty much the way I remember it. Smith could hardly be the bad guy when his side didn’t have the votes.

Smith wanted to craft a Voter I.D. bill that could pass–and work. The Republicans on the committee would not support anything except Betty Brown’s version of the bill, which probably could not have passed on the floor. The Democrats probably could have defeated Brown’s bill (the Senate version), but, rather than risk fighting it heads up, they resorted to a mini-filibuster of the local and consent calendar, thereby running out the clock of the session before Voter I.D. was eligible to be voted on. Republicans didn’t want to vote on the insurance sunset bill, so the two parties found common ground to kill the bills they didn’t want. Todd Smith was left hanging out to dry. The Democrats had run rings around the Republicans on the floor and in Calendars all session, but their leadership wound up sacrificing their members’ bills to kill Voter I.D., which was already on life support by this time, to the great displeasure of many of their own members who had worked all session to get their bills passed. All these decisions were made way above Todd Smith’s pay grade. The end of the session in the House was one of the worst moments I can recall in my years of watching the Legislature, equaled only by the beginning of the session in the Senate.

Tagged: mark mccaig, todd smith, voter ID

On the night that the House debated the Appropriations bill on the floor in 2007, Democrats were able to add amendments for a teacher pay raise and against school vouchers. Craddick lieutenants went onto the floor to try to turn the votes but were unable to do so. The next day, a veteran Democrat said to me, “The horses are out of the barn.” In short, Craddick had lost control of the Republican caucus.

That’s where we are today on Voter I.D. The speaker cannot control the Republican caucus. Craddick lost control because he held the reins too tightly. Straus lost control because he didn’t have any reins. But the effect is the same: The Republican caucus is out of control. This doesn’t mean that Straus is ineffectual. It means that the horses are out of the barn on this issue.

Matt Angle of the Lone Star Project recently circulated his observations about Straus:
“Rather than demonstrate bipartisan leadership, Speaker Straus has allowed the most partisan and divisive Republican members of the House to set the agenda. While Straus was looking for cover, Tom Craddick stepped into the breach. The famously partisan, mean-spirited former Speaker argued successfully to hold fast to the partisan Republican game plan to hold key legislation hostage to consideration of the Voter Photo ID bill.”

Craddick still has a band of followers, no doubt about that, and they’re going to take hardline positions, no doubt about that either. But I don’t agree that Straus has been weakened by the Voter I.D. debate. This is his first real test, and he stood firm against the Democrats. If anything, this has improved his standing with the Republican caucus.

So Voter I.D. will die, and TDI Sunset, and unemployment insurance. These bills were more about politics — getting the other guys to cast a bad votes — than they were about the real problems of the state. The remaining question is whether Perry will call a special session, with the likely reason being windstorm insurance. I’m not sure that he will (notwithstanding my earlier rants to the contrary). He has called a bunch of special sessions, and none of them have served him well. Governors seldom get what they want out of special sessions. Perry is sailing along quite well. Why rock the boat?

Tagged: speaker joe straus, tom craddick, voter ID

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

Remember Albuquerque. The Senate Democrats found themselves stuck in New Mexico without an exit strategy. The situation is similar to congressional redistricting in that the governor holds the cards. He can call a special session on any subject and open the call to Voter I.D. Except that the House Democrats’ position is worse. In 2003, they were fighting against a power play by Tom DeLay, one of the most villainous figures in the country. DeLay and Perry were pushing an unprecedented midcensus congressional redistricting plan. Voter I.D. is a very different matter. The UT poll in Februrary-March found that Texans favored the requirement of a photo I.D. by 69% to 18%. Polls I have seen from states in the upper Midwest, where illegal immigration is not a problem, show support in the 80%+ range. If they walk on this issue, they will do harm to their party. It makes no sense to go nuclear over an issue on which public opinion is 70% against you. And that number will climb if the D’s walk.

Tagged: senate democrats, texas, voter ID

By Abby Rapoport, Texas Monthly Intern

The Elections Committee sent Voter ID out of committee over lunch—but it’s not the bill most wanted. After going through several versions and so-called “compromise bills”, the committee ultimately voted on Troy Fraser’s Senate version, identical language and all. The meeting, a chaotic gathering at Chairman Todd Smith’s desk, first showed signs of strain when Bonnen, a previous supporter, passed on his vote. (He eventually voted no.) Then Heflin gave a short talk before he voted, saying “I trust the chairman that we’re going to work to get some of [the previous language] back in … It still needs a lot of work.” Although Heflin voted aye, the bill left committee with a vote of 5-4. After the meeting, even Betty Brown expressed concern. “I think it’s a good beginning,” she explained. “We’re hoping to improve it yet.”

Tagged: joe heflin, todd smith, troy fraser, voter ID

Fifty-two of the seventy-six House Republicans signed a document prepared by the Republican Party of Texas (a link is on the Quorum Report) pledging to insist on the inclusion of four core principles in a Voter I.D. bill. These principles are:

1. Ensure a valid photo identification is needed to vote
2. Take effect at the next possible uniform election date
3. Be free of any registration requirements such as same day voter registration that dilutes the intent of the bill, which is ensuring fair and accurate elections.
4. Increase criminal penalties for voter fraud and registration

This list makes any compromise extremely unlikely, not that there was much reason to hope for one, and all but ensures that Voter I.D. will be as acrimonious in the House as it was in the Senate.

Here is the list of Republicans who had not signed as of yesterday. I have updated the list to include members who have signed since I posted this list. Thanks to the RPT’s Eric Opiela for the update. It is believed that Corte has likewise signed, but this is unofficial.

Bohac (signed)
Bonnen
Branch
Cook
Corte
Darby
Eissler (signed)
Hamilton
Hardcastle
Hilderbran (signed)
Howard
Jones
Keffer
S King (signed)
Kolkhorst
Kuempel
McCall
Merritt
S Miller
Patrick
Paxton (signed)
T Smith
Smithee
Straus

Tagged: house republicans, republican party of texas, voter ID

You can love Dunnam or you can hate him, and I’ve done both, at times, but I’ll say this about him: He doesn’t miss much. He had some Voter I.D. proposals to present to the Elections committee today, and when the hearing started, Todd Smith spoke generally to the audience about the procedure and other matters. One of the things Smith said was that Senate Bill 362 would be the vehicle for any changes. Dunnam immediately saw the significance of Smith’s casual remark:

“If 362 would be used as the vehicle, then any changes have to be germane to Senate Bill 362. If you limit it to the vehicle, then you are prohibiting any changes or alterations to 362 that are not germane to 362. Therefore, the House is going to be constrained by the Senate’s approach, and we will not be able to go beyond the changes that the Senate made. If the decision has already been made that 362 will be the vehicle, then my changes may not be germane, and I want to know if that decision has already been made.” And, he might have added, who made it.

The Democrats already feel that they have been betrayed on Voter I.D. by the makeup of the committee Straus appointed. This exchange didn’t help.

Tagged: jim dunnam, sb 362, voter ID

The vehicle is HB 71 by Corte. The crucial question is whether a Voter I.D. amendment is germane. The caption and the text of the bill are quite specific. In a rational world, a point of order would have to be upheld, but since when is the Texas House a rational world? The text of the bill follows. I do not have a copy of the amendment.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the establishment of a program to provide a ballot by electronic mail to military personnel serving overseas and their spouses and dependents residing overseas.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 101, Election Code, is amended by adding Section 101.0072 to read as follows:

Sec. 101.0072. ELECTRONIC MAIL BALLOT PROGRAM. (a) The secretary of state shall implement a program to allow the use of electronic mail to provide balloting materials for a general election for state and county officers to an overseas voter who is:

(1) a member of the armed forces of the United States; or

(2) a spouse or dependent of a member of the armed forces of the United States.

(b) A county with a population of 100,000 or more shall participate in the electronic mail ballot program. A county with a population of less than 100,000 may participate in the program only if:

(1) the early voting clerk of the county makes a request to the secretary of state to participate; and

(2) the secretary of state approves the request.

(c) The early voting clerk in a county participating in the program shall send balloting materials to an electronic mail address in a form and manner prescribed by the secretary of state if the voter:

(1) is an FPCA registrant and is eligible for early voting by mail under Sections 101.001(1) and (2)(A);

(2) provides a current address that is located outside the United States;

(3) provides an electronic mail address that contains the voter’s name and the suffix “.mil” or provides an electronic copy of a letter from the commanding officer of the member of the armed forces that indicates that the voter is a spouse or dependent of the member and is residing overseas; and

(4) requests that balloting materials be sent by electronic mail.

(d) Balloting materials sent to an electronic mail address under Subsection (c) shall include a signature sheet for the voter.

(e) If the early voting clerk provides a ballot to a voter at an electronic mail address under Subsection (c), the clerk must provide ballots to all voters who qualify under that subsection.

(f) If the early voting clerk provides a ballot to a voter at an electronic mail address under Subsection (c), the clerk shall amend the voter’s federal postcard application for future elections with the voter’s current address.

(g) A ballot sent to an electronic mail address under Subsection (c) must be returned with the signature sheet by the method provided by:

(1) Section 101.008; or

(2) Section 105.001, regardless of whether the voter would qualify under that section.

(h) An electronic mail address provided under this section is confidential and does not constitute public information for purposes of Chapter 552, Government Code. The early voting clerk shall ensure that an electronic mail address provided under this section is excluded from disclosure.

(i) If a voter returns both a voted ballot mailed to the voter under Section 101.007(a) and a voted ballot provided electronically to the voter under this section, only the ballot that was provided electronically may be counted. A ballot returned under this chapter shall be processed in the same manner as any other ballot voted by mail as provided by Chapter 87.

(j) All other provisions of this code that would normally apply to a ballot voted under this chapter apply to a ballot voted under this section, including the deadline provided by Section 86.007 and electronic transmission of a ballot under Section 105.001.

(k) The secretary of state may adopt rules as necessary to implement this section.

(l) Nothing in this section may be construed to impose liability with respect to the electronic mail ballot program created under this section on:

(1) an Internet service provider;

(2) an interactive computer service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 230;

(3) a telecommunications service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 153; or

(4) a cable operator, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 522.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

* * * *

This is a very clever move. The most likely result is that Straus will uphold a Democratic point of order that the amendment is not germane. But this result provides Republicans with an opportunity to appeal the ruling of the chair. This would force conservative Democrats (and perhaps some sympathetic Republicans) who aren’t eager to vote on the issue to go on the record. This is a no-lose proposition for Republicans; at the very least they will get a record vote on the appeal. If the appeal loses, so what? They still have a shot at passing the Senate bill, which is awaiting action in the Elections committee. And they will have put the heat on Straus and the WD-40s.

Maybe Calendars should not have been so eager to send this bill to the floor. Straus and his allies are not going to be successful this session if they can’t see a couple of moves ahead. The Republicans are going to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey on any election bill this session.

Tagged: frank corte, hb 71, Joe Straus, voter ID

For the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished file: Chairman Steve Ogden at this morning’s Senate Finance meeting stirred up a hornet’s nest when he offered a rider of $2 million contingent upon passage of the Voter ID bill.

Democrats were quick to point out that the bill carried a fiscal note of zero– in keeping with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s request that the Senate not hold hearings on bills with fiscal implications —  and suggested that Ogden’s proposal was a tacit admission that the bill would carry significant costs to the Secretary of State and to counties.

If Vote ID passes, “prudence would dictate that we provide the Secretary of State with additional funds to make sure everyone in the state of Texas knows the new rules (requiring identification at the polls),” Ogden reasoned.

“Will the fiscal note for the bill still be zero?” asked John Whitmire. Royce West suggested that the rider indicated the true cost of Voter ID was $2 million.

Ogden said he believed the fiscal note, but “I just think they (the Secretary of State’s office) need more (money).”

“That doesn’t sound like the chairman I know,” West said.

“Nobody’s perfect,” Ogden quipped.

The proposal prompted a testy exchange when Voter ID advocate Tommy Williams observed that “the very people who are complaining (about costs of the bill) are opposing what appears to be very generous funding.”

“What’s absurd is that someone is trying to have it both ways,” Whitmire shot back.

Tagged: david dewhurst, Steve Ogden, voter ID