Voter ID Settlement details
Submitted by staff on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:12am.
Chandra writes
(1) All absentee ballots will be counted even if they do not include one of the required forms of identification, a driver's license number, or the last four digits of a social security number. This includes absentee
ballots that used the wrong number off the driver's license, i.e., photo number that is more prominent will be counted.(2) Applicants for absentee ballots need only provide a driver's license number or social security number, even if they apply for the ballot in person. They do not need to provide one of the required forms of identification. Blackwell had tried to impose more onerous burdens on absentee voters in person.
(3) Voters who do not have one of the required forms of identification, but do have a social security number, can now cast a provisional ballot. They could not vote under the existing law. This included many homeless people and college students, who were in court with us yesterday.
(4) Voters who have a military identification with a social security number can show that identification and cast a provisional ballot. The statute had created an impossible rule that that military IDs have current addresses, which they do not.
(5) The test for whether a provisional ballot should be counted is clarified, making it highly likely now that provisional ballots will be counted.
(6) A utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document will be "current" and acceptable if it is dated within one year before the election and shows the voter's name and current address. Voters who provide this identification can cast regular ballots. Blackwell's rule was six months.
(7) "Other government documents" are more specifically and broadly defined to include, for example, documents from public universities or colleges that show the voter's name and current address. Voters who provide this identification can cast regular ballots.
This sounds like a very good agreement. I'd like to hear Strickland and legislators talk about modifying HB3 to reflect this agreement.
This is particularly good
Submitted by Jello2028 on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 10:25am.
This is particularly good because it's a settlement, rather than a decision, so it won't be appealed.
Chandra is outstanding!
Submitted by Retired in Ohio on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:41am.
I pray he continues to be active in state politics. God knows we have few enough good HONEST people running who are in public service because they want to make this nation better - and not to make themselves wealthy etc.
Chandra has my support if he decides to run again! Besides I love the pictures of his triplets and want to hear more of their adventures!
Great job, Subodh!
Another AG run?
Submitted by Hiram on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:45am.
I love Subodh. As much as I like Dann, Subodh was a great candidate -- I can't believe how bad he lost in the primary. I hope he's building up his connections for another run at office. Maybe AG in 2010 if Dann loses...
suggestion
Submitted by J-Dog on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:57am.
Assuming Ted Strickland's numbers hold and he wins, I'd hope he'd think of Subodh for an appointment to the Ohio Supreme Court for any vacancy that might pop up in the next 4 years.
I was very impressed
Submitted by SusanD on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 1:49pm.
with Subodh Chandra. I believe he would have done a lot of good for Ohio and Ohioans. If he runs again I'll be proud to support him.
Sorry, I am not impressed
Submitted by Little Giant 78 on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 10:42pm.
I work for a county Board of Elections.
- 1. Voters who used only the last 4 digits of the SSN could always vote a provisional ballot. The concern was for people like me, who registered long ago and never provided the information. Before this agreement, we were told that any provisional vote cast in this manner would be counted after registration was confirmed. So, nothing new.
- 2. Absentee balloting. This was a change. This agreement means an absentee voter won't have to be provide the same informataion (last 4, driver's license #, bank statement, etc,)twice-on the application and on the privacy envelope. But, the voter still has to provide the information on the application, or no ballot is provided. Not much of an accomplishement, especially since historically, absentee voting favored Repubs. (This advantage may change with no-fault absentee.)
- 3. There was never a requirement that in-person absentee voters show a photo id. I have processed many in-person absentee voters and never required a photo id.
- 4. "Current" utility bill defined as no more than one year old, instead of six months old. This is a great victory?
- 5. The clairification of the military id and "other government documents" is good, but not much of a victory.
The problem is that the stupid, bogus unconstitutional poll tax disguised as voter fraud protection is still in force. This settlement has done nothing to get rid of this bill. If anything, the Repubs can say we reached an agreement with Democratic groups and they have agreed to retain the photo id law. The law is the problem-how does a year old phone bill establish anyone's identity? I certainly hope that Strickland tries to get this unnecessary poll tax repealed. But, I think this agreement may make that even harder.
It's a huge victory for me
Submitted by Jello2028 on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:08pm.
It's a huge victory for me at least, because now a letter from my university stating my address is good enough to get me a regular ballot.
The main problem right now was not that the requirements are onerous (they are) - it was that county BOEs had no consistency in applying them, which probably violates equal protection and, if nothing else, is a huge practical problem. County BOEs were refusing to make decisions about whether a lot of documents would be permitted, and now it's clear. The immediate problem wasn't the law; it was the inconsistency in what would be accepted.
minority
Submitted by staff on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 11:21pm.
Well I guess you'll have to settle for being in the minority on this one. This agreement is, simply stated, a massive improvement over the original provisions.
But yes- the law needs to be changed. gotta win elections to do that.
What was that loud slapping
And why is Blackwell rubbing his cheek?
-tw
www.wallofcats.com