Georgia’s election laws are subject to a controversial section of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 known as Section 5. Basically what this particular section does is force Georgia to get ‘pre-approval’ before we make any change to our voting laws and procedures – even something so basic as moving a polling place to the other side of a wall in a building if the other side of that wall has a different address.
About a week ago, the US Department of Justice used their power under Section 5 to strike down some procedures that were in effect during the 2008 election. These procedures tried to match voter data (the ‘R1′ report which attempts to verify basic information like first name, last name, DOB, drivers’ license number, and the last four digits of the SSN) and citizenship data (the ‘R2′ report).
If a name is kicked out on either list, it is then sent to the county registrar to attempt to verify the data and thus the voter. However, the Feds take issue with this procedure due to the fact that under state law the local registrar can require the voter to physically come to the elections office on a week day during normal business hours with only three days’ notice.
Furthermore, the DOJ notes that “As an example, recent deposition testimony by state employees [for pending legal proceedings] indicates that an error as simple as transposition of one digit of a driver license number can lead to an erroneous notation of a non-match across all compared fields.”
Most importantly to this post, the DOJ further states “Perhaps the most telling statistic concernes the effect of the verification process on native-born citizens. Of those persons erroneously identified as non-citizens, 14.9 percent, mroe than one in seven, established eligibility with a birth certificate, showing they were born in this country. Another 45.7 percent provided proof that they were naturalized citizens, suggesting the driver’s license data base is not current for recently naturalized citizens”.
In other words, the DOJ noted that 60.6% – 3 of every 5 – of the people the verification process identified as non-citizens were in fact citizens of this country and thus eligible to vote.
In statements on Ms. Handel’s own campaign website, she has said “The Obama Administration completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.” and “It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections”.
I’m sorry, Madame Secretary, but your own employees pointed out that something so simple as human error transposing a drivers’ license number could throw out a person as a non-citizen. The DOJ analysis showed that SIXTY PERCENT of those supposed ‘non-citizens’ you are so worried about are, in fact, citizens.
So yeah, if you want to tout a 40% success rate as good enough, that’s cool. That’s your choice. But back when I was teaching, you had to get 70% to pass the class.
And when it comes to denying someone the most precious and basic right we have as citizens of the United States of America, a 99% success rate is too low.
That said, I completely agree that “clearly politics [has taken] priority over common sense and good public policy” and “It is a sad day for the rights of our state and the integrity of our elections”.
The problem, Ms. Handel, is that is is YOUR politics that have taken priority over common sense and good public policy.
Just a question Jeff. What is your “common sense” solution? Instead of complaining about the current system can you give us some sort of method that we can impose on non-US citizens who go and vote anyway? I know that if I was in the %60 of people who got denied I would do whatever it took to make sure that they knew I was born in this country. That’s the problem, people take their rights for granted. They suppose that it is something that is given to them with no work involved or no effort in showing that they are rightfully theirs. I strongly believe in the right to vote in US election, but I also strongly believe that it is the right SOLELY of a United States citizen. If I have to go the extra mile to protect both of those rights so be it. I will gladly do it. While it truly sucks that some people may have to get off their ass and sacrifice for the greater good it is a sacrifice that I am willing to make. It’s not denying rights if all you are doing is asking for verification. I get asked about verification for property rights (credit checks), freedom of speech (getting a permit to protest in certain areas), the right to bear arms (gun license), the right to vote in the first place (registering to vote), among other things.
I’m not Jeff obviously, but one solution I heard that I thought would be pretty doable and still accomplish the goal is a notation on the photo ID. Since the ID has to be shown prior to voting, it can serve as a verification that they are indeed a US citizen. I’m not sure how well that one would go over with the DOJ, but I agree that only US citizens should vote in our elections.
Verification is something that should be done. However, with only 40% of those flagged being illegally registered voters, it tells me there’s something wrong. In addition, the limited time to correct the discrepency is a problem for me. People have to work, so why not accomodate them a bit. Setting up different hours or a longer time period to correct those problems would work well for me.
However, I have to disagree with a few of your examples though. A credit check isn’t a verification of property rights. It’s not required unless you are entering a contract for a loan, and even then it’s not mandated by law IIRC. It’s merely a tool lenders use to make sure you’re a good risk. Property rights have nothing to do with your right to acquire property, but more to do with your rights after you acquire it. Getting a permit isn’t a verification of your freedom of speech either, but actually a restriction since you’re breaking the law by exercising your freedom of speech without it. Gun licensing is another limitation, this one on the right to bear arms, since you are breaking the law without it. The license itself is actually controversial in many circles due to the wording of the second amendment.
I see where you are coming from Tom. I made a mistake by not differentiating between restrictions and verification. Either way you are having your freedoms tested and having to do some extra work to get freedoms that some might suppose they already have. In regards to the right of property and credit checks I would guess that most individuals HAVE to get a loan in order to obtain property and because of this credit checks become the prerequisite to obtain property. Not saying that there is anything wrong with credit checks, just saying that many times it is part of that extra mile that one has to go in order to obtain a right.
Good post. Alot more intellectual then most post on peach pundit.
I agree with you on the ability for most to purchase property. The vast majority will need a loan, but not everyone which is why I took issue with it. My grandmother bought a duplex with what came from my uncle’s life insurance after he passed away. I’m sure there are plenty of others who did similar.
Thanks for the compliment. We try to be as intellectual as possible, since that’s really the best way to make a point.
Drifting Through The Grift: My Afternoon Jay
http://griftdrift.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-afternoon-jay.html#links
[...] I wrote about Karen Handel’s problems with the US Department of Justice, specifically the face that DOJ ruled some of the procedures her office as Secretary of State put [...]
[...] recently stumbled across the document started the process that brought about the DOJ letter I have already written about. That document is the North GA US District Court ruling in the Morales v Handel case, and this [...]
[...] already seen here that the DOJ had a right to order her to change the Voter Verification procedure that had a 60% [...]
[...] this is a perfectly valid thing that the Secretary of State’s Office has recently been screwing up. That said, I do have three specific reasons to OPPOSE this bill: The first is due to the clause [...]
[...] documents to show exactly where MS. Handel erred in this situation, and those posts can be found here, here, here, and here for more details on the particulars of the [...]