Wisconsin Wednesday: Everybody's talking 'bout FRAUD

Especially the sore-losing Republicans. Really--go click through the list. Some of them are feeling unjustly vindicated; some are being pretty rude about it. Still, there's nothing in today's news that gives them anything to really crow over. (Even if you decide to skip the rest of this post, please click through that last link and take the poll!)

At any rate, I noticed in my third reading of the US Attorney's report (.pdf) something interesting:

The task force has individually reviewed hundreds of names and addresses associated with the various databases suggesting that thousands of people registered and voted using suspect names and/or addresses. To date, the investigation has concentrated on the 70,000+ same-day registrations. To date, we have found that a large majority of the reported errors were the result of data-entry errors, such as street address numbers being transposed. However, the investigation has found more than 100 instances where votes were cast in a manner suggesting fraud.

The report then lists the specifics. But what I bolded there is the key: In order to register at the polls--the task force only looked at these--you must show ID. That means every single one of these 100+ fraudsters showed some proof of identity when they got to the polls!

The major push on now from the right and Republicans is to require photo ID at the polls. I guess I should say it's the only push, given that in the four years since Florida 2000 and the three years since the Help America Vote Act, the single election reform offered by our state's Republican leaders has been the photo ID requirement. Yeah, yeah, there's a "Special Committee" in the legislature "investigating" election reform, but every time anyone else--the Milwaukee daily paper, for example--suggests we wait until we have a handle on the problems instead of legislating in haste, they are mocked repeatedly by bloggers, politicians, and right-wing media figures. (The acronym is IOKIYAR--it's okay if you're a Republican.)

But to me, the fact that the Republican legislature has passed photo ID twice without any evidence that it would prevent fraud--or at the very least, that its benefits would outweigh its disadvantages (more on that in a minute)--shows how photo ID is mere partisan politics, not good electoral reform.

What's worse, there is no way any sane person could possibly believe that the current flaws--exploited now by people already showing proof of identity--would not continue to exist were photo ID required. Right now, here's what you need to register at the polls:

Voters who miss the voter registration deadline may-on election day-go to the polling place that serves the election district or ward in which they've qualified to vote, and ask that they be allowed to register, then vote. Voters must provide proof of residence-for 10 days or more-in the election district or ward. Acceptable forms of identification include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Wisconsin Driver's license.
2. Residential lease that is effective for a period that includes election day.
3. A gas, electric or telephone bill for the period beginning not more than 90 days before the election day.
4. University, college or technical institute fee card.

Of course, the photo ID is optional; but if you're going to go to the trouble of faking a lease, stealing a utility bill, or knocking off a college ID, what's to stop you from getting the fake photo ID? Nothing! I will say it again (you can say it with me): The photo ID requirement will not stop those determined to break the law. It will, however, stop those who--because they are old, poor, transient, homeless, shut-ins, or paranoid--don't have or can't produce their IDs.

Let's put it another way. You've heard it said--I mean, even I have said it before--that if the photo-ID law were to go into effect, we would end up with voting laws as strict as South Carolina. (There's nothing like trying to scare us nice northern folk with threats of becoming good ol' boys, eh?) But there is something to be said against adopting a law that would make it harder to vote in Wisconsin than in two-thirds of the rest of the country.

But let's look at South Carolina: In 2004, Wisconsin's turnout was third highest among eligible voters (not just registered voters!) at 73.9%. South Carolina was third from the bottom, at 51.9%. Admittedly, SC beat the recent nation-wide trend of fewer than half of eligible voters voting, but in a year when turnout overall was up 6.4%, you'd expect that. By another set of numbers (there's a lot going around) that gives full data, Wisconsin is second in turnout, and South Carolina is last except for Hawaii--the state that votes last and always has the poorest turnout (and which, incidentally, requires photo ID). The photo ID states, in fact, rank 51 (HI), 50 (SC), 43 (GA), 30 (LA), 14 (FL) and, oddly, 8 (SD). States that require ID (not necessarily a photo) at the polls rank 49 (AR), 43 (AZ), 40 (AL), 39 (TN), 33 (KY), 29 (VA), 20 (MT), 18 (DE), 13 (MO), 9 (CO), and 6 (AK). In other words, the bottom half of states require ID far more often than the top.

By any set of data, Wisconsin had 22% more of its eligible citizens voting than SC did. Certainly, some of that is due in part to same-day registration--which can boost vote totals by up to 5%--but not all (the top five states all have either same-day registration or vote-by-mail). I also don't want to say that 22% of people will stay home on election day, either, if they have to show ID. But some will--some of the discrepancy between SC and WI must be the ID requirement. Not all 22%, of course, but something. So split the difference: What if 11% of Wisconsin's voters stopped voting due to the ID requirement? Using 2004 turnout numbers, that would be 330,000 people.

Here's my question: Are Republicans in this state really willing to cut 330,000 people out of the process? Even half that--150,000--is obscene. And this is all because there are maybe--maybe--150 people committing fraud? Are we really willing to trade five or ten percent of our electorate for a requirement that probably won't stop the .005% who are breaking the law?

Here's the bottom line: I've seen the conservative half of Wisconsin's bloggers seriously asking the question: Should it be easier for someone to vote than to buy beer? lease an apartment? rent a movie? get a fishing license? The answer, of course, is yes. Voting is not a privilege. Voting is not a right. Voting is a fundamental obligation for people living in a democracy, even a representative one like ours. Any obstacle--whether it be a poll tax or a draconian ID requirement--that keeps people away from the polls is unacceptable. Anyone who tells you that voting should be hard is out to suppress the will of the people. Remember when they finally got the state's biggest lobbyist to admit that more voting would "turn out the wrong people"? This is what the vote suppressors in Wisconsin want--to keep the "wrong people" (read: Democrats) from voting.

I am a big-D Democrat. I admit it; I'm even obtusely partisan at times. But more than that, I am a small-d democrat. I believe in the will of the people, the voice of the people. I believe that our goal must always and only be 100% voter participation. I will not abide those whose sole desire seems to be making it harder for people to vote, especially when the provisions they wish to enact will not stop or deter those determined to commit fraud in the first place. I am proud of Wisconsin's ranking as second only to Minnesota in voter turnout; anything less would be a tremendous black eye on the very face of our small-d democracy.