Eliminate Political Parties in RI

We've finally gotten there, it's time to fully eliminate political parties in RI. I've long advocated for this as the whole party system is extremely antiquated anyway. The only real purpose they served was in a time when it was very hard to disseminate information to everyone, where farmers could be miles separated from their nearest neighbors. This wasn't exactly a time when a candidate could "walk the district." Instead, it would be easier for a candidate to toe the party line and then people could simply vote along party lines when they didn't understand the individual candidates' stances or were just unaware of them. This sort of thing is also what brings us straight ticket voting. Today, these are more for the uneducated or lazy voter. It's for someone who doesn't want to take the time to get to know the candidates and their stances on the issues.

But with that aside, one of the bills that Andrew mentions below will also deal such a blow to the political party system that they may as well be eliminated completely.

H7089: Allowing voters to choose their political party on the day of the primary, instead of having to be registered 90-days beforehand.

I often hear the exasperation in Dan Yorke's voice when he continually tries to educate his listeners on what political parties are and their primary means. Political parties are intended to be semi-private organizations who choose a candidate to rally around and to support for a given office. If you're not a member of this organization, not only should you not be allowed to help decide who its standard-bearer will be but even moreso, why should you care? I'm not a member of the YMCA but I don't get to vote for their leadership. I'm not a member of AARP, so I don't get a vote in their leadership elections either. Nor do I even care. If I'm not a member of the RI Democratic or RI Republican or RI Moderate party, why should I get a vote to elect their candidates either? Why should I care who their candidate is, I'll get to vote in the general election anyway.

Currently in RI, if you're a registered voter but carry the "Unaffiliated" designation, you can decide on primary day which party's ballot you get to cast a vote on. That in itself is ludicrous, as I've written about before. Affiliated yourself with a party and vote accordingly. If you don't want to affiliate, show up in November for the general election. Simple.

But what House Bill 7089 wants to do is not just blur this line for the Unaffiliated voters, it will do the same for people who are affiliated! If I'm a registered Democrat, why should I get the choice on the day of the primary to vote in the Republican election and vice versa? (Or the Moderate Party, not forgetting you guys, Ken) If this is what we're going to do then what's the point of political parties at all? The whole point is to let the organization choose their candidate to send to the general election. If we're going to eliminate that, then let's just eliminate the parties entirely and make everyone run on their own stances. Heck, all we ever hear is "He's a RINO" and "She's a DINO", so why not? They're all useless labels anyway and this bill will just remove the last vestiges of what the parties can do. I say, wipe 'em out.

Why Rhode Island Passed Voter ID: Or, Who is 'El Macho'?

Simon Van Zuylen-Wood--Brown grad and writer for the liberal New Republic--has written a piece trying to explain how "blue" Rhode Island has joined "red" states in passing a Voter ID law. His first instinct is that it's about race.

The perpetrators are all Hispanic and the accusers are mostly not. This underlines what is most likely at play in Rhode Island— anxiety over the state’s changing demographics. Since 2000, the state’s white population has declined by 55,000, while its Hispanic population has increased by 45,000, or nearly 50 percent. The immigration boom, coupled with a 10.8 percent unemployment rate (the third-worst in the country), has contributed to the open hostility toward Hispanics.

Zuylen-Wood also basically tags Senator Jon Brien as sort of the white puppet master manipulating fear and distrust amongst minorities to get Voter ID passed.

Voter ID proponents subtly capitalized on these fears. The bill’s main House sponsor, conservative Democrat Jon Brien, has “anti-immigrant credentials like no other,” says Latino activist Pablo Rodriguez. Brien has argued that illegal immigrants are usurping government resources, taking American jobs, and now, voting.

However, Zuylen-Wood doesn't think its solely a racial thing; apparently a form of modern day Know-Nothingism is also present as "here-firsters" are aggravated by newbies, regardless of whether they are in the same racial demographic:

A couple of established Latino state representatives voted for the bill, suggesting that they too may have concerns about the political influence of newly arrived immigrants.

Meanwhile, liberal college professors and anonymous state legislators thinks its much ado about nothing:

Besides, as Providence College professor of political science Tony Affigne told me, minority legislators who voted for the law weren’t necessarily fabricating their tales of voter fraud—they were just ascribing too much importance to them. “I’ve seen [some voter fraud] with my own eyes,” Affigne told me. “But it’s certainly not the kind of problem that [necessitates] a statewide draconian law.” One state legislator agreed, telling me, “I think they’ve fallen for the urban legend stuff,” adding that, because of their naïveté, they’re “being used as pawns by the anti-immigrant conservatives.”

Poor pawns, can't think for themselves. That brings us to the story of 'El Macho':

How does this alleged voter fraud work? According to [State representative Anastasia] Williams, a candidate hires a “recruiter,” who obtains a list of likely non-voters, and then pays willing foot soldiers to cast ballots in their place. A large Hispanic man who calls himself “El Macho” and works for the Providence Water Supply Board is rumored to be the most prominent recruiter. George Lindsey, a prominent South Providence African American, told me that candidates have long paid El Macho five or six thousand dollars per election. “What he’ll tell you is he’s basically a hired gun.”

I bet it would be interesting to figure out who exactly 'El Macho' is and get him to talk. Seems like there's a story to tell there, no?

Another Witness to Voter Fraud

When Rhode Island passed voter-ID into law this past summer, the RI Chapter of the ACLU responded by saying it had been passed "in order to address a non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud". State Representative Charlene Lima, who has introduced a bill in this legislative session to repeal voter ID, told WPRO radio (630AM) that "there is no voter fraud as far as people posing to be someone else at the voter booth".

Given the strong position taken in such claims, the buried lede in Simon van Zuylen-Wood's RI voter ID story at the New Republic website is the author's mention of another Rhode Islander (the first being State Rep. Anastasia Williams) who has directly witnessed vote fraud...

Besides, as Providence College professor of political science Tony Affigne told me, minority legislators who voted for the law weren’t necessarily fabricating their tales of voter fraud—they were just ascribing too much importance to them. “I’ve seen [some voter fraud] with my own eyes,” Affigne told me. “But it’s certainly not the kind of problem that [necessitates] a statewide draconian law.”

With the claim that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist having been put convincingly to rest (from a number of different sources), progressives in opposition to voter-ID laws are now left to explain how much cancellation of the votes of law-abiding citizens they accept as being consistent with the principle that every vote counts.

RE: Voter Fraud in Florida

As Patrick points out, while, apparently, voter fraud happens in Florida, it can't happen here....right? Breitbart has more:

A local Florida station invented an unprecedented way to check for voter fraud: jury excusal forms. NBC2 compiled a list of jury excusals based on not being a citizen of the United States and compared it to a list of registered voters in two counties. They discovered almost 100 illegally registered voters, many of whom had voted multiple times. "I vote every year," one woman told NBC2, despite the fact that she is not a US citizen. The woman had told the court that she couldn't serve on a jury because she wasn't a US citizen, but she doesn't seem to have a problem voting like one.

Based on the NBC2 investigation, local election offices say they'll now request a copy of every jury excusal form where residents say they can't serve because they're not a citizen.

Here is part 1 and part 2 of the complete report from NBC2 in Florida.

The Problem that Doesn't Exist

We've heard State Rep Charlene Lima liken Rhode Island's new voter ID law to "Jim Crow". We've heard from people like Dr. Pablo Rodriguez that it is "a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." And Providence immigration lawyer, Roberto Gonzalez said in reference to the law "They based their support on some perceived fraud that no one has been able to establish actually existing. So based on some phantom problem..."

People have said that there are few to no known cases of voter fraud in Rhode Island. Well guess what, until a local television station in Florida had done the research, few known cases existed there either. Their reporter dug up 94 cases pretty easily. We can easily surmise that they missed some, simply because of their methodology. They went through all the jury duty recusals due to "Not being a US citizen" and crosschecked that with the registered voters. So if you begged off jury duty due to not being a US citizen, yet you're registered to vote, that was flagged. So how many did they miss that have not been called to jury duty or those non-US citizens who did serve and didn't call out their own status?

This is a problem that doesn't exist? No, it's simply a problem that isn't known about. The voter ID law is a step in the right direction toward better protecting the legitimacy of our elections.

"Not Widespread" - Minimizing the Need for Voter I.D. By Cranking Up The Voter Fraud Threshold

Rep Charlene Lima (D-Cranston) has put in a bill to repeal Rhode Island's new voter id law.

What's interesting is that, in her arguments, Rep Lima is attempting to shift the metric by which the need for voter i.d. is measured.

Until now, opponents of voter i.d. have argued against its implementation by attempting to diminish the problem of voter fraud to the point of non-existence. It really wasn't a problem. There had been no prosecutions. Voter i.d. had been "a solution in search of a problem".

Now, however, as she has made the media rounds to discuss her bill, the rep from Lima ... er, Rep Lima has moved the goalpost. Now we don't need voter i.d. because voter fraud is "not widespread".

Presumably, this pronouncement is intended to be reassuring. Upon reflection, however, it is difficult to find solace in it.

Firstly, its credibility. As WPRO's John Depetro, among others, correctly pointed out, whether non-existent or widespread, it is not possible to quantify the extent of voter fraud in the absence of a voter i.d. requirement.

Secondly, the margin which it represents. Think about how many elections have ended in a vote count that was "not widespread". You don't have to ponder too long - Governor Chafee won by less than three percentage points.

Sorry, "not widespread" is not an acceptable level of voter fraud. Opponents of voter i.d. speak of protecting an individual's right to vote. Indeed, it should be - the right of all legitimate voters for their votes not to be diluted or negated by fraudulent vote casting.

Extrapolating (Possibly Unscientifically) the Extent of Voter Fraud in Rhode Island from Rep Williams' Experience

Though I was as surprised as Justin at its passage, bravo that Rhode Island has put a voter i.d. law on the books.

Arguments were made against the measure right until and even after Governor Chafee signed the bill, however. Rep Larry Valencia went so far as to say that we would be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Inasmuch as he sits near a victim of voter fraud in the House of Representatives, someone who also is the mother of a victim of voter fraud, it is completely unclear how the rep can make this assertion.

Such inattention aside, let's do some numbers.

Rhode Island has 702,000 eligible voters.

In 2006, Rep Anastasia Williams and her daughter went to vote and were told that they had already voted. Their votes had been stolen from them. (She's the colleague whom you want to inform, Rep Larry, that voter fraud doesn't exist.)

Rep Williams is one member of a 113 member body. 1 / 113 = .009

[Feel free to correct any of this math.]

So the percentage of General Assembly members who have been victims of voter fraud (that we are aware of) is .9%. That becomes our multiplier.

Final step: 702,000 Rhode Island voters X .009 = 6,318

Accordingly, presuming the rate of voter fraud victimization is the same for the general population as it is for members of the General Assembly (one in 113), there have been 6,318 instances of voter fraud in Rhode Island, with the caveat that the multiplier and the total for the state change considerably if even just one more member of the G.A. has been a victim.

RE: Voter ID Surprise

Justin wonders if there's a catch with the ease with which voter ID sailed through the legislature and the Governor's inbox. Here's a theory for you: RI GOP Chair Ken McKay was in for WHJJ's Helen Glover this morning and had on someone from GOLOCALProv touting their story about the disparity between census data and voter rolls in traditional Rhode Island "vacation" communities. They didn't go over specific numbers, but here they are:

A comparison of the new U.S. Census data with public voter registration records revealed significant discrepancies in at least four communities in 2010:

■ Block Island had 888 year-round residents aged 18 years and older recorded in the Census while 1,468 people were registered to vote—a difference of 65 percent.
■ Jamestown had 362 more registered voters than residents.
■ Little Compton had 236 more voters than residents.
■ Westerly had 2,289 more voters than residents—a discrepancy of more than 15 percent. (See below chart for the complete breakdown.)

Admitting he was cynical, McKay tied Voter ID into it and wondered if GOLOCAL was tipped off to the disparity by someone looking to suppress conservative-leaning, shoreline property owning (and property-tax paying) out-of-staters from voting in Rhode Island. As McKay pointed out, RISC started as the Rhode Island SHORELINE Coalition (since renamed the RI STATEWIDE Coalition) and advocated for voting rights for those who owned property in Rhode Island. He also prompted the GOLOCAL editor to give RISC a call for their thoughts. Further along in the piece, the possible repercussions are raised:

[T]he new state law on voter ID could have an impact on the number of vacationing New Yorkers and others voting in Rhode Island elections. The law mandates that voters show a photo ID at polling places. “If they produce a New York license that doesn’t work because you can’t have a New York license that has a Rhode Island address,” said the former state election official.

Instead, out-of-state voters would have to bring a passport, birth certificate, or other form of ID in order to satisfy the new rules.

Overall, the estimate is that there are around 10,000 out-of-state voters voting in Rhode Island. They can vote here if they declare RI as their legal residence and don't vote elsewhere.

Voter ID Surprise

Voter ID legislation moved along with surprisingly little fanfare, so much so that opponents weren't sure that Governor Chafee had signed until three days after the fact. Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but I can't help but feel as if I'm missing something.

The bill text is somewhat light on details, so I suspect that the ID cards will be easier to get than most Anchor Rising readers would like. Strictness and enforcement will also be critical aspects to watch. But still, the legislation looks promising.

This being Rhode Island, though, I can't help but wonder what the catch is or what other piece of legislation was bought with this coin.

Robert Healey, on the Master-Lever Lawsuit

The second subject I asked Robert Healey about at Saturday's Tenth Amendment rally at the Rhode Island Statehouse was the status of his lawsuit to eliminate the master-lever from the Rhode Island ballot by this November's election. In addition to his own suit, Mr. Healey also discussed a second suit, filed by independent Gubernatorial candidate Joe Lusi, seeking to have the master-lever removed...

"Our case is coming up for a hearing on September first. We're going to get a full-day hearing. Our expert witness that we have is Dr. William Salka, out of Eastern Connecticut State University...he ran the numbers we provided him from the Board of Elections and there's a clear pattern that in cities and towns that have non-partisan races the master lever would impact those races in a negative way..."

Audio: 48 sec

"...Joe [Lusi] is on the ballot and Joe has filed a Federal lawsuit as of yesterday...he's challenging the master lever and he's challenging the placements on the ballot because of the lottery situation. And he raises a very interesting point, because there's a Rhode Island statute that says that your name cannot appear twice on any ballot, and yet if you pull the Republican lever, you have a choice of pulling the lever, which is one time on the ballot or, if you pull the candidate lever, it's twice on the ballot..."

Audio: 1m 32 sec

"...Judge Smith has indicated at a conference that he would probably decide the matter within two days, so we should have a pretty definitive answer on the master lever at the end of the day on the third of September."

Audio: 22 sec

In NY Town, Vote Early and Vote Often (Legally)

Apparently, this is the new definition of "fair voting":

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas....

It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.

The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.

I get that everyone gets 6 votes, be they white, black, brown or Martian, so it is "fair"...but if you can't understand the fundamental problem with this...

Ahh, the Transparency of the Campaign Finance Reform Inspired 527 Schemes

We've heard the caterwauling in reaction to the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate political donations. But, whether you like the idea of big business giving directly to political candidates or not, you have to admit that at least it's a relatively transparent process. A simple check of any number of sources will readily reveal who gave how much to whom. The same cannot be said of other organizations--particularly 527's. Here's a good example of the shenanigan's that go on (emphasis is mine):

Continue reading "Ahh, the Transparency of the Campaign Finance Reform Inspired 527 Schemes"

On Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court Decision: Reflections from April 30, 2005 on Correcting the Bizarre Incentives Created by Campaign Finance Reform Laws

A nearly five year old blog post, reposted here in response to this week's Supreme Court decision about free speech:

Andrew has a terrific, focused posting entitled First They Came for the Radio Talk Show Hosts... that gets to the heart of the latest fallout from campaign finance reform here in Rhode Island. Once again, we have an example of how legislation has unintended consequences that, in this case, affect our freedom of speech.

Dating back to the post-Watergate reforms in the 1970's, I continue to be amazed at how people think it is possible to construct ways to limit the flow of money into politics. And so we have concepts such as hard money, soft money, donation limits by individuals, donation limits by corporate entities, political action committees, 527's, etc.

Like water flowing downhill, money simply finds new ways to flow into politics after each such "reform." Does any rational person really think all these limitations have reduced the influence of money on politics? Surely not. Have all these limitations changed behavioral incentives for people or organizations with money? Quite clearly, as the 527's showed in the 2004 elections. But all we have done is made the flow of money more convoluted and frequently more difficult to trace. Are we better off for all the changes? Hardly. And, the adverse and unintended consequences will only continue into the future.

What can we do differently? Here is an alternative, and arguably more straightforward, view of the world:

1. Government has become a huge business, which means there is a lot of money for various interest groups - of all political persuasions - to grab, some for legitimate reasons and much in the form of pork. Money flows into politics to buy influence because so much is at stake financially. While no one wants to talk about it openly, the flow of large sums of money into politics is yet another unfortunate price we pay for allowing government to become such a pervasive part of our lives. If we truly had limited government, the pressure to buy influence would be much reduced. It is nothing but foolish ignorance to seek limits on the flow of money without first reducing the structural incentives that currently give people an economic reason to buy influence.

2. Since money is going to flow into politics, one way or another, then we should stop setting up barriers to free speech like Morse notes have come out of the latest campaign finance reform law. Rather, why not take all limits off political contributions in America in exchange for requiring ALL details about such contributions be posted in a standardized report format on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt by either an individual politician or by a political party? Total transparency and accountability, unlike today. If a George Soros or a Richard Scaiffe contributes vast monies, anyone paying attention will see it and the public scrutiny will be immediate. No more PAC's, no more 527's, no more hard versus soft money distinctions, etc. Eliminate the incentives to play fundraising games like the alleged misdeeds by Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.

Such reform even has the potential to weaken the power of incumbents in both parties and create real competition in our political races. Think about Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and Ronald Reagan's various campaigns where each challenged the status quo and all of which were the result of having committed financial sponsors. Today many candidates have to be wealthy so they can spend their own money. Limiting the pool of candidates does not result in a better pool of candidates.

Total transparency and accountability in politics, with the potential for greater competition. Should not those be the policy objectives underlying our campaign finance laws? And, if successfully implemented, wouldn't that be a novel concept?

Of course, it is sadly ironic that achieving such transparency, accountability and competition will only happen if our incumbent politicians vote for new laws. Yet, given their own self-interest, our politicians have no incentive to support such changes and that lessens our freedom as American citizens. Yet another price we pay for big government.

Numerous links to commentaries about the Supreme Court decision can be found in the Extended Entry. If you do nothing else, listen to the Cato Institute video.

Continue reading "On Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court Decision: Reflections from April 30, 2005 on Correcting the Bizarre Incentives Created by Campaign Finance Reform Laws"

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is being extolled or excoriated as the end of McCain/Feingold type campaign finance reform. There are many places to go for extended analysis and I won't even pretend to understand the intricacies of the legal arguments. However, Matt Welch's explanation is the most cogent I've seen:

Free speech really does mean free speech, and the laws that the "Citizens" ruling overturned directly and heinously restricted the stuff. Forget for the moment the broad characterization of the ruling -- such as The New York Times claim that it "sweep[s] aside a century-old understanding" -- and drill down to the individual case in question.

Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled "Hillary: The Movie." By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.

Let's boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government.

You don't have to be a First Amendment purist to intuit that political speech was, if anything, the most urgent subcategory covered by the First Amendment's "Congress shall pass no law" restrictions. And you don't have to be a Hillary-hater to imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if MoveOn.org's 501(c)(4), Campaign to Defend America, had been blocked by George W. Bush's Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting "McCain: The Movie"? Wouldn't that stink, too?

Besides, it's not like there is no money in politics now?

House Judiciary Committee Throws a Spanner into Voter ID

Chairman Lally and the House Judiciary Committee have voted to hold Bill H 5097 "AN ACT RELATING TO ELECTIONS - VOTER IDENTIFICATION" over "for further study". The vote to do so was thirteen to one; the one "nay" was Rep Rod Driver.

What aspect of this concept might still need to be studied?

Let's see, there's the question of necessity.

The lack of a photo ID system creates the perception of voter fraud, shakes voter confidence and leads to lack of voter participation

Some of us would have stated the case a little more strongly than Secretary of State Mollis in 2007 by omitting the words "the perception of" and by appending a long list of instances of voter fraud, including here in Rhode Island. Excessive tact aside, does the Committee disagree with the substance of the Secretary's statement?

Secondly, the potential that a financial burden might be placed on the voter by this new law. Ah, but Section 2(a) of the bill stipulates that

voter identification cards will be issued upon request, and at no expense to the voters ...

... to provide voter identification cards to those voters who do not possess the identification listed in subdivision (a)(1) and (2) above.

Thirdly, constitutionality. But surely the Committee would be pleased to learn that the US Supreme Court settled that issue last year in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board when they affirmed the State of Indiana's voter identification law. In the main opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote

The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process

Necessity, cost, constitutionality - fully studied and answered. Why wasn't this bill given the green light to be voted on by the full House? Doesn't Rhode Island's electoral process deserve the same "integrity and reliability" as Indiana's?

Bi-partisan Effort to Stop Straight-Party Ticket Option

A couple freshman RI legislators--one a Democrat and the other a Republican--have introduced a bill (PDF) to discontinue straight-party ticket voting in RI. From the Projo Politics blog:

Freshmen Representatives Brian C. Newberry, a North Smithfield Republican and Democrat Michael J. Marcello, of Scituate, have teamed up to submit legislation that would prohibit straight-party voting: the law allowing voters to cast their entire ballots for one party's candidates by checking a single box at the top of the ballot.

Rhode Island is one of just 16 states that still allow straight-ticket ballots, a holdover from 19th century party machine politics. For years, Rhode Island Republicans have fought to eliminate the option, saying it makes it harder for GOP candidates to break the Democratic party's hold.

But rarely have Democrats and Republicans come together to push for the change.

"While the straight ticket voting option does make the voting process quicker for some, the controversy surrounding its use has unfairly called into question the legitimacy and fairness of elections," Marcello said in a statement, ironically issued by the Republican caucus.

"I believe that people who want to vote for all candidates from a particular party will continue to do so, and the elimination of straight-party lever will finally end the speculation that somehow election outcomes would be different."

"By eliminating this option, it would force candidates to reach out to communities and make their positions known, as opposed to relying on their party hold," Newberry said in the same statement."

The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing, but none has yet been scheduled.

I'm not holding my breath for a hearing. But we'll see.

Election Bills Before the RI House

There are two bills regarding election procedures, already pending in the Rhode Island House of Representatives, that are worthy of public attention:

• H5051, sponsored by Representatives Al Gemma (D-Warwick), Patricia Serpa (D-Coventry/Warwick/West Warwick), Joanne Giannini (D-Providence), Peter Kilmartin (D-Pawtucket) and Gregory Schadone (D-North Providence) which, to quote the official description, "would require all voters to provide proof of identification with their photograph issued by the state or federal government before voting."
• H5052, sponsored by Representatives Gemma, Peter Petrarca (D-Johnston/Lincoln/Smithfield), John DeSimone (D-Providence), Laurence Ehrhardt (R-North Kingstown) and Jon Brien (D-Woonsocket) which would place a non-binding question on the next general election ballot, asking if the straight-party voting option should be discontinued in RI.

California Does Away with Gerrymandering

Christian Whiton and Larry Greenfield report:

Proposition 11, which passed with the narrowest of margins (50.8 percent), could mark the most serious challenge to the political class by voters since the foiled term limit movement of the 1990s. It strikes at the core pillar of power: incumbency guaranteed through gerrymandered districts. Californians took away from their legislature the power to draw its own districts--a key element of nearly uninterrupted Democratic control since 1970. The task will now be handled by an eight-member commission chosen much like a jury, whose members cannot come from the political class.

Incumbent legislators have lost perhaps their best tool for avoiding competitive elections, long a disgraceful ritual in Sacramento and other state capitals following the once-a-decade census. The legislature still gets to draw districts for U.S. House seats, but here too it must adhere to rules that bind the new commission--namely keeping counties and cities whole as much as possible. Gerrymandered districts will now be more vulnerable to legal challenges.

Good idea, so how does it work?

The eight-member commission will consist of three Democrats, three Republicans and two independents. Most voters can apply to be on the commission, but anyone linked to elected officials, parties, lobbyists or political consultants is excluded, as are major donors. Independent auditors choose 20 applicants from each of the three groups. State leaders from both parties are allowed to strike up to eight people total from each group, similar to jury selection, and auditors then choose randomly the final eight commission members from those who remain.

The initiative passed narrowly, but undoubtedly attracted considerable non-Republican support in a state where registered Democrats exceed Republicans 44 percent to 31 percent and where Barack Obama won 61 percent of the vote. The California Democratic party opposed the measure, as did teachers and other government employee unions that have the most to lose in a fair redistricting of the state. A range of good government types from across the political spectrum joined the Yes on 11 campaign. These included groups as diverse as the AARP, the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce.

Of course, since Rhode Island doesn't have a voter initiative, forget about it happening here.

RE: Matt Allen Show - Straight Party

As a follow-up to my appearance on Matt Allen tonight, I thought it worthwhile to provide a link to VotersUnite.org, which I mentioned to Matt. As I said, they indicate that there are only 15 states that provide the straight-party option, though there are some caveats. For instance:

[1] North Carolina:
A straight party vote DOES NOT include the President. The ballot says:

"The offices of President and Vice President of the United States are not included in a Straight Party vote. This contest must be voted separately."

[2] Oklahoma:
Ballots often have straight-party voting options in multiple places on the ballot. A straight-party vote applies ONLY to the set of offices it precedes on the ballot. This means to vote straight-party in all contests, you must mark several separate straight-party selections.

So, for example, as this Tulsa County sample ballot shows, you can vote straight-party for one or more of: a) Presidential office, b) State Officials, and c) Congressional Officers. A straight-party vote for the Presidential office WILL NOT count for the state and congressional officer contests.

Most Agree: Straight Party Option is Bad

The ProJo's Ed Achorn used some of my data in his latest column in which he explains why the straight-party vote option in the Rhode Island is a stumbling block towards a two-party state.

This scheme...gets pernicious...farther down the ballot, in legislative races with lesser-known candidates. Minus the straight-ticket option, many voters who are ignorant of those candidates and their issues would leave those races blank, letting more knowledgeable voters decide the matter. With the option, voters blindly sweep into office candidates they’ve never heard of.

Rep. David Segal "tend[s] to support getting rid of the straight-ticket lever," but thinks Achorn is blaming all of the GOP woes on the SPV option and observes that most of the legislature would have gone Democrat without all SPV option votes anyway. True, but I don't think Achorn is blaming it all on the SPV, just pointing out that it is but one of the stumbling blocks to having a two-party state, which even George Nee supports (if with a wink). Besides, if a party is built from the bottom up, then it's not at the Legislative level--where Segal focuses--but at the school committee and town council level where candidates cut their teeth. As I've shown, Republicans and especially Independents are really outgunned when faced by the SPV option in such local, down-ticket contests.

TPublico, a contributor at RI Future, has also run the numbers (in more detail than me) and is similarly against the SPV option. He also notes of his fellow RI Futurites:

...it’s no wonder that some on this site don’t see a problem with straight ticket voting because though it’s true that Dems hold a significant edge on the SPV, it’s the so called “Progressive” candidates that lead the pack in SPV averages in the precincts and districts that they run in. Or maybe that’s a consequence of going door-to-door, or making phone calls, or sending out literature to vote “straight democrat”. But to push something as undemocratic as straight party voting on a voter goes against the very principles of elections because it’s no longer a person running for office – it’s a party that is… it’s a political party whose qualities are considered - and not a person. This is more than one party against another party, and how their strategies differ as to how they take advantage of the master level. This is about a voter putting into office a qualified candidate, not a vanilla version of some party principles.

A comment by Matt Jerzyk to TPublico's post provides proof to this point:

Well...we ran a kick-ass "vote straight Democrat" campaign in South Providence and I am glad to see that it worked.

Reps. Almeida, Diaz and Slater received 3/4 of their votes through straight Democratic voting.

Never underestimate the power of an organized electorate!

Matt also responded to Segal's post on the topic:

The bottom line is that the RI Republican Party is horrible at the basics of running a party:

1) identifying candidates
2) raising money
3) training candidates
4) running a GOTV program.

If and when they get to a point when they can do 1-4, then we can talk about systematic "hurdles" to getting elected.

Baby steps, RIGOP, baby steps.

So whether or not the SPV is unfair is only relevant if certain conditions are met by the party out of power? This is all just smoke-and-mirrors meant to convey "open-mindedness" to the idea of abolishing the SPV option whilst trying to make it impossible to affect by creating arbitrary milestones. Setting aside the "who" and "how" of determining when the milestones outlined have been reached, explain to me how these would apply to an Independent candidate? No, there will be no push to abolish the SPV option by those currently in the political majority, no matter their rhetoric. Fairness is relative, after all, especially if it may impede the maintenance of raw power.

ADDENDUM: The NEA's Bob Walsh has weighed in:

The greatest irony...in this entire debate is that the elimination of straight party voting empowers the groups that Achorn dislikes the most, as down-ballot candidates will be more, not less, dependent on the grassroots get out the vote efforts they (we) bring to the table.

Fine, let's get rid of it and let the vaunted grassroots do their thing. But I think that both Walsh and some commenters, including Matt J. and "Greg", are using Achorn's column as an excuse to gloss over the MAIN point that both TPublico and I are trying to pound. The SPV option should go because it enables so-called machine, party-over-person politics.

Secretary of State's Electoral Initiative: Too Much and Too Little - Part Three

Early Voting/Multi-Day Voting - Oh, No

And here is where the Secretary of State gets a little carried away. He announced this component October 21 on WPRO's John DePetro Show (podcast no longer available). Citing thirty one other states who engage in some form of the practice,

Part of our 2009 legislation package, we will be, I will be putting forth a early voting piece of legislation. Our original goal ... was to the point of having people vote on the Saturday before Election Day. But we're going to expand that thought in our new legislation and actually, hopefully open it up to more than just that one particular day before Election Day.

We're hoping to put forth a situation where you would be able to vote hopefully the week before Election Day.

This is a bad idea.

Ballots, blank and cast, as well as all the other polling place paraphernalia will have to be packed up and stored at the end of each voting day. Look at what happened during the West Warwick primary. Through an honest error, eighty seven signature cards went missing - fortunately, only temporarily.

If multi-day voting is introduced, will the workers at every polling place carefully pack and accurately inventory every piece of paper and the boxes which contain them with 100% accuracy at the end of an election day? Will they carefully unpack, re-check and assemble everything the next day with 100% accuracy? Can we count on this being done 100% of the time at all polling places? No. We're all human. It is much too easy to envision honest errors, along the lines of, "Wait a minute, we're missing some boxes from the storage location. Okay, people, who took what last night?" or, after the election, "Damn. I left a box in my car." Or, if all voting materials are left at the polling place, "Uh oh, someone was here last night ..."

Multiply by how many election days and how many polling places in Rhode Island?

The opportunity for honest - not to mention dishonest! - mistakes in our electoral process must be kept to an absolute minimum. Multi-day voting unnecessarily endangers the integrity of our precious electoral process. The fact that thirty one other states have engaged in multi-day voting provides no comfort, only the knowledge that the election process of those states has been subjected to such avoidable mistakes.

Secretary of State's Electoral Initiative: Too Much and Too Little - Part Two

Voter Identification - Yes

The Secretary of State's electoral initiative includes a requirement for all voters to show a picture identification when voting.

On the one hand, it is good news, indeed, that this critical measure has been proposed by the Secretary of State. It stops cold not one but two significant election frauds: voting a ballot that is in someone else's name and voting the ballot of someone who does not exist; e.g., fictional voter registration drive-and-dumps such as undertaken by ACORN.

At the same time, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision confirming Indiana's voter i.d. law on April 28 of this year. My enthusiasm for this initiative is a little dampened, therefore, by its tardiness and the realization that the Secretary of State's decision to put it forward in 2009 instead of 2008 enabled a presidential election to take place in Rhode Island without the requirement for voters to show identification.

Secretary of State's Electoral Initiative: Too Much and Too Little - Part One

Marc's two thorough analyses of straight party voting last Tuesday is a good cue to break the bad news that the legislative package to be introduced in January by Rhode Island's Secretary of State - one of the guardians of our electoral process - does not include elimination of the straight party lever. (That does not, however, preclude some good-government-minded legislator from introducing such a bill.)

I have broken the three important aspects of Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis' initiative into three posts, this first dealing with the aforementioned

Straight Party Lever - Untouched

About this omission, the Secretary of State, via his Communications Director, Chris Barnett, said in late October:

On Election Day 2006, about 20 percent of voters used the straight-ticket option -- 61,357 voted Democratic and 18,424 voted Republican, which was roughly the same proportion of voters in each party. Given that one-in-five voters used the master lever, we know that a significant number of voters value the option to vote straight party. Unlike a few critics of straight-ticket voting, we presume the best about Rhode Islanders. People who take the time to vote know their own minds. Straight-ticket voting is an endorsement of a platform of policies specific to a particular party. The straight-party option also has flexibility, too. You can vote straight-ticket and vote for an off-ticket candidate or candidates on the same ballot. A vote for a particular off-ticket candidate negates the straight-party vote for that particular office only.

Elimination of the straight party lever is long overdue. If a voter wishes to vote only in a particular race or on a particular issue, he or she can simply leave the rest of the ballot blank. As commenter Patrick said, straight party voting is

lazy, thoughtless and really just irresponsible.

And leaving the straight party lever in place is not only irresponsible but a bad governing practice.

Straight Party Voting - Down the Ticket

As I've mentioned, I've been looking at the election returns* with a specific interest in straight-party ticket voting. What follows is an analysis of how straight-party voting may have affected a few down-ticket contests.

The most extreme example I can offer is the race for 4th District Senator (North Providence, Providence) between incumbent Dominick Ruggerio (D) and Christine Spaziano (R). Ruggerio won the race handily by a margin of 7614 to 3317. Included in Ruggerio's total were 2982 straight-party (Democrat) votes (Spaziano received 533 GOP straight-party votes)--Spaziano would have nearly lost just based on the straight-party vote! 39% of Ruggerio's votes were via the straight party lever vs. almost 16% for Spaziano. She didn't stand a chance. Unfortunately, this just exemplifies the sort of hurdle that any Republican has to surmount to run in Providence.

On the other side, I took a look at Bob Watson's race in East Greenwich. Watson, the incumbent Republican, defeated Jean Ann Guliano 4052 to 3384. Watson benefited from 631 (15.6% of total) straight-party votes while Guliano garnered 621 (18.4% of total). A much smaller differential than the aforementioned Providence race and Watson's straight-party votes were onl slightly above the average GOP straight-ticket rate of 14%.

Next, I looked at a couple tight races involving incumbents, one from each party. Incumbent Republican State Representative Nicholas Gorham (Coventry, Foster, Glocester) lost to Scott Pollard (D) 3723-3605. Gorham benefited from 504 straight-ticket votes (14% of his total) while Pollard received 613 (16.5% of his total). Pollard beat Gorham by 118 votes and he received 109 more straight-party votes than Gorham. Take those away, and Gorham would have still lost, but by a razor-thin margin.

I also looked at the three-way race in Senate District 11 between Incumbent Democrat Charles Levesque (Bristol, Portsmouth), Republican Chris Ottiano and Independent John Vitkevich. The overall vote breakdown was:

Levesque - 5499
Ottiano - 5383
Vitkevich - 1547

Obviously, as an Independent, Vitkevich didn't benefit from a straight-party vote. Levesque benefited with 1333 votes (24.2% of his total) while Ottiano received 749 (13.9%). That's a straight-party vote differential of 584 and it's clear that Levesque owes his victory to the straight-party vote option.

Finally, based on a comment from my previous post, I checked out the affect that the straight-party option can have on such down-ticket positions as School Committee. Not all Rhode Island cities and towns designate these positions as partisan, but South Kingstown does. As a result, the four Democrats who ran started out with 1447 votes thanks to the straight-party option. The one Republican benefited with 668 votes and the Independents started from 0. Here's a breakdown of each candidate with the percentage of their total garnered by the straight-party option.

DEMOCRAT - Stephen Mueller - 7649 (21%)
INDEPENDENT - Elizabeth Morris - 7548 (0%)
DEMOCRAT - Richard Angeli, Jr. - 7081 (23%)
DEMOCRAT - Anthony Mega - 7036 (23%)
DEMOCRAT - Fredrick Frostic - 6402 (25%)
INDEPENDENT - Jonathan Pincince - 6327 (0%)
REPUBLICAN - Robert Petrucci - 5543 (12%)

There are many ways to look at this race with "ifs" and "buts". Taking all of the straight-party votes away won't accurately reflect what the totals would look like. Yet, if the straight-party vote option is the refuge of the uninformed or protest voter (aka college Obamaniacs at URI or many fed up Rhody Republicans), then let's assume that half of the straight-party voters were there for the Presidential race and had no clue about school committee. That would give the Democrats 809 votes and the Republican 334 (and the Independents still nada). The new tally would be:

INDEPENDENT - Elizabeth Morris - 7649
DEMOCRAT - Stephen Mueller - 6739
INDEPENDENT - Jonathan Pincince - 6327
DEMOCRAT - Richard Angeli, Jr. - 6272
DEMOCRAT - Anthony Mega - 6227
DEMOCRAT - Fredrick Frostic - 5593
REPUBLICAN - Robert Petrucci - 5209

That's a bit of a different School Committee, no? Of course, I'd also note that, in this just past election, the benefits of the straight-party option for the Republican were probably far outweighed by having to declare his party!

Anyway, the takeaway is that the straight-party option clearly benefits the Democrats in Rhode Island, particularly those running for down-ticket offices during a Presidential election year. Even in "Republican" enclaves like East Greenwich, the straight-party voters are roughly equivalent. None of this is a real surprise, now we just have the numbers to prove it.

But all is not lost. Based on another comment, I looked at the Town Council races in Coventry, which saw the GOP take 4 out 5 seats.

DISTRICT 1 - GOP won by 243 votes. DEM had 74 straight-party vote advantage.
DISTRICT 2 - GOP won by 80 votes. DEM had 209 straight-party vote advantage.
DISTRICT 3 - DEM won by 211 votes. DEM had 289 straight-party vote advantage.
DISTRICT 4 - GOP won by 125 votes. DEM had 220 straight-party vote advantage.
DISTRICT 5 - GOP won by 1885 votes. DEM had 287 straight-party vote advantage. This GOP Candidate ran UNOPPOSED!

So, its possible, but the GOP (and Independents) are still way behind the 8-ball with the edge the state Democrats have in mindless straight-party voting.

*NOTE: The original returns I looked at were obtained on 11/5/2008. I downloaded the data again on 11/13/2008 and updated the above post accordingly.

Straight Party Vote Advantage

I've begun looking at the statewide election result metrics (found at the RI BoE). The first thing I've focused on is the straight party ticket vote, and what I've learned is no surprise.

Statewide, nearly 27% of all votes for Barack Obama came via the straight party ticket vote. That percentage was just above 14% for John McCain.

Take home point: The average Democrat starts with about a 50% straight party vote advantage over the average Republican.

Here are the towns for which there were above-the-average straight party votes for each party's Presidential nominee [with %s rounded and total straight ticket votes in ( )]*.

First the Democrats
Central Falls - 59% (1811)
Providence - 46% (20405)
Woonsocket - 38.0% (3180)
Pawtucket - 36% (6302)
East Providence - 31% (4542)
North Providence - 30% (2892)

Then Republicans:
Central Falls - 25% (158)
Providence - 21% (1680)
Newport - 20% (574)
Jamestown - 20% (236)
Barrington - 19% (656)
Scituate - 18% (519)
Woonsocket - 18% (784)
West Greenwich - 17% (265)
Coventry - 17% (1177)
East Greenwich - 16% (545)
Exeter - 16% (228)
Tiverton - 16% (449)
Smithfield - 15% (662)
Hopkinton - 15% (241)
North Kingstown - 14% (851)
East Providence - 14% (849)

Couple points on the above:
1) The highest % rate of straight party GOP is lower than the lowest above-the-average community for Democrats.
2) For the communities with 20% or greater GOP straight party votes, it looks like the straight party option was used as a quick and easy method to lodge a protest vote against the entrenched party.
3) Though not on the list, the largest amount of straight-party votes for the GOP came from Warwick (2162) and Cranston (1874), which were just below the average of all GOP votes cast for President in those communities. Compare that to the highest for the Democrats.

I've also looked at the same overall stats for the congressional votes. The Democrats are about the same, with 26% of all votes for the Democrats (Kennedy and Langevin) coming via straight-party ticket voters and almost 20% for the Republicans (Scott and Zaccaria). As to the last, it would appear that, given their significantly smaller vote totals, a greater percentage of their votes came via the "protest" method alluded to above.

More to come....

* Updated 11/13/2008 with final numbers from BoE.

Re: MIA: Voter I.D. and Scrapping of the Straight Party Lever

Secretary of State Ralph Mollis appeared on WHJJ's Helen Glover Show this morning. He attempted to explain why a voter I.D. law that passed a US Supreme Court challenge by six to three cannot be brought to Rhode Island during this legislative session

The only logistic barrier to this law is the absence of a mechanism for the state to provide, free of charge, picture identification to those voters who presently lack it. The Secretary of State has been aware of this requirement for several months and has even suggested that such a requirement could be fulfilled by the DMV. Yet he took no steps in the interim months to facilitate this solution in time for legislative action.

What, then, is the real reason for the delay to this important election reform?

MIA: Voter I.D. and Scrapping of the Straight Party Lever

It appears that Secretary of State Ralph Mollis left the two most important reforms to Rhode Island's electoral process out of his "Voter First" Legislative Package.

The Secretary of State does not address at all his exclusion of a voter identification requirement from the package. As for the straight party lever, Secretary Mollis had this to say in yesterday's Providence Journal:

Mollis, however, said he does not want to get rid of straight party voting because so many state voters cast such ballots. In 2006 roughly 20 percent of Rhode Island voters chose to cast a straight party ballot, Mollis said.

“I’m opposed to removing something that, in 2006, one out of every five voters in Rhode Island used,” said Mollis.

Approximately one out of every five Rhode Islanders smokes, too. That is not a basis to encourage or faciliate such an unhealthy habit.

Supreme Court Rules on Voter Identification

The New York Times is predicting gloom, doom and lawsuits as far as the eye can see. But anyone who values honest elections is breaking out the champagne to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling yesterday which upheld Indiana's voter i.d. law, a law which is hopefully coming soon to a polling place near you.

From the Indianapolis Star:

“States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. “We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.”

While the ruling creates a precedent for other states to pass similar laws, it will also have an immediate impact specifically in Indiana as it was handed down just in time for that state's presidential primary.

The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week's presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The results could say something about the effect of the law, either because a large number of voters will lack identification and be forced to cast provisional ballots or because the number turns out to be small.

Eliminate the Primary?

[Note: the Devil's Advocate signed in for this post to write the concluding paragraph.]

From today's Woonsocket Call:

A move by the General Assembly to grant a waiver of the traditional waiting period for disaffiliating from a political party could put more voters at the polls for Tuesday’s Democratic Primary for the late Roger R. Badeau’s State Senate seat.

Badeau’s death while in office on Jan. 25 set the stage for a special election in the East Woonsocket and Cumberland Hill district to replace the veteran Woonsocket senator. The candidate filing period yielded three Senate hopefuls — Rosina L. Hunt of 68 Hamlet Ave., Roger A. Picard of 764 Mendon Road, and Cumberland’s contender, Thomas J. Scully of 66 Beamis Ave. All three are Democrats and without a Republican contender, the contest will actually be decided on Tuesday for all intents and purposes.

The changing of the rules to open up this primary and effectively render it a general election [edit] enable recently disaffiliated voters to participate is for a noble cause in this case: to ensure that all more voters in Senate District 20 have a say in the selection of their state senator.

The less lofty practice of cross party primary raids, whereby members of a party will attempt to pick the candidate of an opposition party by changing affiliation and voting in the primary of that party, is certainly not unheard of. Perhaps one of the better known examples of this is the recent "campaign" by a National Radio Talk Show Host urging Republicans to cross over and vote for a particular Democrat presidential candidate. "Do-overs" are presently being contemplated for the Democrat presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan, whose delegates were eliminated by the DNC because they moved up the dates of their primaries in violation of DNC rules. [In this matter, I agree with another National Radio Talk Show Host.]

In short, primaries are not always carried out as intended. Is it time to eliminate the primary altogether? Undoubtedly, they drag out the election process, a condition that has been exacerbated by the recent trend of states moving the dates of their primaries up and up so as to have a greater influence in the selection of presidential candidates. They can make it far more expensive to run for office. Under the American electoral system, we select our candidates by a plurality, not a majority. In that regard, there is no need to narrow the field with a primary. So why shouldn't we go straight to a general election?

Counting All of the Votes

Given that the State Board of Elections website is showing that 2 of Hugh Cort's 22 votes came from my precinct, I feel quite confident that here in the United States, every vote gets counted.

ProJo Looks At '06 Voting Discrepencies

Paul Edward Parker of the ProJo investigated the voter rolls and found some discrepancies.

The Board of Elections — which oversees the counting of votes — says 392,884 voters cast ballots in the Nov. 7 general election.

The secretary of state’s Elections Division — which oversees the state’s Central Voter Registration System and tracks who voted in which elections — counted 387,952 voters in the same election as of Jan. 16. In a new tally Monday, that number had risen to 390,340.

That leaves 4,932 ballots that were cast without a voter voting — or 2,544, depending on which number you use from the secretary of state.

The Providence Journal began examining the results of the November election this spring, after reporting last fall that the names of nearly 5,000 registered voters in Rhode Island appear on a federal list of dead people. The Journal sought to find out whether any of those dead people voted.

The newspaper’s review found no evidence of systematic fraud by people casting ballots in the names of voters who had died. But it did find a voter tracking system susceptible to error that could throw into doubt the results of close elections.

...

Robert Kando, executive director of the Board of Elections, attributed the discrepancies to errors in how voter tracking information was entered into the secretary of state’s computer system. “I don’t have the slightest inclination there was ballot stuffing.”

Kando said that comparing the number of votes cast to the number of voters who checked in at each precinct is not part of the process of declaring the results of an election. “We certify winners without doing that. That doesn’t mean we don’t validate our system by examining that.”

Feeling confident? You can find the numbers for your town here.

RI Senate Voting on Various Election Reform Bills

Perhaps I should say "election change"...? Today, the RI Senate is supposed to discuss and vote on:

S0020 - "This act would reduce the waiting period required for disaffiliation with a political party from 90 days to 29 days."

S0760 - "...an individual cannot file a declaration of candidacy for more than one elected public office, either state or local, in the same election cycle and the filing of a declaration thereby withdraws any previously filed declarations for an elected public office, either state or local, in said election cycle."

S0740A - "...move the primary date for election of delegates to national conventions from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February beginning with 2008 and every fourth year thereafter."

S0725 - "...limit political party committees from contributing more than $25,000 to any group of candidates as opposed to present law which limits such amounts to any one candidate. In addition, it would limit it to one thousand dollars ($1,000) the maximum allowed contribution that a political party committee can make to any candidate more in any one calendar year."

S0189 - "...prevent employees of local canvassing authorities from serving on local canvassing boards."

Stay tuned...

Charles Bakst on Election Reform

Choose for yourself which one of Projo columnist Charles Bakst’s thoughts on election reform is worse.

• Bakst opposes requiring photo-IDs at the polls…

  Without more evidence than I know of that voter fraud is a genuine problem, [Secretary of State Ralph Mollis] courts heartache by raising the prospect of requiring a photo ID at the polls. The idea will engender ill will and suspicion among disabled, elderly, or minority Rhode Islanders who now lack such cards and would find it inconvenient, or insulting, to have to acquire one.

  In other words, we have to wait until voter fraud occurs before we do anything -- even though we already know how we would improve the system if massive fraud were to occur. It’s like saying a dam might break, and we know how to make some improvements that will improve its strength, but since it hasn't broken yet, there's no need to do anything right now!

  There is a serious dose of the soft-bigotry of low expectations built into the anti-photo ID argument; if voter registration cards that include a photo are issued during the standard voter registration process, then why should disabled, elderly, or minority Rhode Islanders be more insulted than anyone else who registers to vote? And on top of that, shouldn't suspicions held by law-abiding individual citizens towards a lax process that can be easily gamed count for anything in our civic culture, or do you have to declare yourself as a member of an identity politics-focused interest group to have a voice in these matters?

• And then, for something completely different…

  A bold step would be to find a way to deter candidates from hurling slime at one another, or at least improve the public’s ability, now nearly nonexistent, to sort through it.

  Negativity and distortion especially plague races for higher office. One candidate runs an attack ad, the foe retaliates with a response ad yelling “Liar!” and the arms race is on. People decide one candidate is as bad as the other and throw up their hands.

  Let’s see Mollis & Co. propose a vehicle, some kind of legally constituted arbitration tribunal, to which candidates aggrieved by a particular ad or exchange of ads could turn and obtain a judgment as to whom is telling the truth. Maybe retired Supreme Court justices could sit on it.

  Would this panel have an ability to impose penalties? If so, there’s a real first amendment problem with the government potentially punishing people for the content of their speech.

  But penalties or not, ask yourself this question: who would ultimately be responsible for disseminating the findings of Bakst's panel to the public. The answer, of course, is the media -- the media that is already capable, on its own, of explaining the truth, falsehood, and nuances of the political and policy issues arising during a campaign.

  Whether he meant it or not, Bakst's implication is that mainstream media credibility has slipped to the point where the MSM now needs the voice of government behind it in order to make statements during political campaigns that will be trusted.

  This idea of forming a Ministry of Truth to monitor political campaigns needs to be filed under the category of "things not entirely thought through".

Charles Bakst on Election Reform

Choose for yourself which one of Projo columnist Charles Bakst’s thoughts on election reform is worse.

• Bakst opposes requiring photo-IDs at the polls…

  Without more evidence than I know of that voter fraud is a genuine problem, [Secretary of State Ralph Mollis] courts heartache by raising the prospect of requiring a photo ID at the polls. The idea will engender ill will and suspicion among disabled, elderly, or minority Rhode Islanders who now lack such cards and would find it inconvenient, or insulting, to have to acquire one.

  In other words, we have to wait until voter fraud occurs before we do anything -- even though we already know how we would improve the system if massive fraud were to occur. It’s like saying a dam might break, and we know how to make some improvements that will improve its strength, but since it hasn't broken yet, there's no need to do anything right now!

  There is a serious dose of the soft-bigotry of low expectations built into the anti-photo ID argument; if voter registration cards that include a photo are issued during the standard voter registration process, then why should disabled, elderly, or minority Rhode Islanders be more insulted than anyone else who registers to vote? And on top of that, shouldn't suspicions held by law-abiding individual citizens towards a lax process that can be easily gamed count for anything in our civic culture, or do you have to declare yourself as a member of an identity politics-focused interest group to have a voice in these matters?

• And then, for something completely different…

  A bold step would be to find a way to deter candidates from hurling slime at one another, or at least improve the public’s ability, now nearly nonexistent, to sort through it.

  Negativity and distortion especially plague races for higher office. One candidate runs an attack ad, the foe retaliates with a response ad yelling “Liar!” and the arms race is on. People decide one candidate is as bad as the other and throw up their hands.

  Let’s see Mollis & Co. propose a vehicle, some kind of legally constituted arbitration tribunal, to which candidates aggrieved by a particular ad or exchange of ads could turn and obtain a judgment as to whom is telling the truth. Maybe retired Supreme Court justices could sit on it.

  Would this panel have an ability to impose penalties? If so, there’s a real first amendment problem with the government potentially punishing people for the content of their speech.

  But penalties or not, ask yourself this question: who would ultimately be responsible for disseminating the findings of Bakst's panel to the public. The answer, of course, is the media -- the media that is already capable, on its own, of explaining the truth, falsehood, and nuances of the political and policy issues arising during a campaign.

  Whether he meant it or not, Bakst's implication is that mainstream media credibility has slipped to the point where the MSM now needs the voice of government behind it in order to make statements during political campaigns that will be trusted.

  This idea of forming a Ministry of Truth to monitor political campaigns needs to be filed under the category of "things not entirely thought through".

RE: Mollis Recommends Photo ID... Mollis forms "Voters First Advisory Committee"

Building on Andrew's post (and apparently this is a case of lunch-hour, blog-posting serendipity) Jim Baron of the Pawtucket Times reports:

Secretary of State Ralph Mollis has assembled a bi-partisan "Voters First Advisory Committee" -- which includes the woman who ran against him in the November election - to hash out a list of 10 election-related issues.

The North Providence Democrat says he wants the panel's input on those matters so they can be addressed with laws to be crafted by his office that he hopes can be in place for the 2008 election.
Some of the Mollis proposals the group will look at are sure to be controversial - such as his call for all voters to show a photo ID a the polling place.

"The lack of a photo ID system creates the perception of voter fraud, shakes voter confidence and leads to lack of voter participation," according to materials distributed by the secretary of state's office. "A fair and equitable photo ID system that would stand the test of our judicial system and address the concerns of our community needs to be established."
The photo ID requirement was one of the grounds for agreement between Mollis and his Republican opponent last year, Susan Stenhouse of Warwick.

Stenhouse is now a member of the commission, as is GOP Sen. June Gibbs. Other members include Woonsocket Rep. Jon Brien, Providence Rep. Joseph Almeida and Providence Sen. Juan Pichardo, all Democrats, as well as Ken McGill, registrar of the Pawtucket Board of Canvassers; Robert Kando, executive director of the state Board of Elections, and Jan Ruggiero, director of the division of elections in the secretary of state's office. Mollis will be chairman of the committee.

"It was a little weird when I got the call," to be on a panel of advisors to the man who defeated her, Stenhouse confessed in response to a question. "I almost fell out of my chair." Nonetheless, she said, "these are issues I am passionate about and I have always felt you don't have to have the title to make a difference."

Good for Mollis and a smart political move, too. Now, let's hope this actually goes somewhere.

The National Popular Vote Fallacy

Some proponents of having the Electoral College replaced by a National Popular Vote to elect the President write:

In today's climate of partisan polarization, the current system shuts out most of the country from meaningful participation by turning naturally "purple" states into simple "red" and "blue."

The result is a declining number of Americans who matter and a majority who don't. Youth turnout was fully 17 percent higher in presidential battlegrounds than the rest of the nation in 2004—double the disparity just four years before. The presidential campaigns and their allies spent more money on ads in Florida in the final month of the campaign than their combined spending in 46 other states....Candidates for our one national office should have incentives to speak to everyone, and all Americans should have the power to hold their president accountable. We're well on our way toward that goal with the Free State Initiative—escaping the shackles of the current bankrupt Electoral College system.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., who supports the idea, explains that the plan is a justifiable circumvention of the Constitutional Amendment process:

Yes, this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. That's the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system. Because three-quarters of the states have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election.

By over representation, Dionne means that Rhode Island, which has 4 electoral votes that are worth around 250,000 people each, has more electoral college power than California, whose 55 electors each represent around 665,000 people. So, yes, on the face of it, Rhode Island's people have a disproportionate amount of power over the people of California when it comes to electing the President. A fact that some Rhode Island legislators want to "rectify" by introducing National Popular Vote legislation in both the Senate and House.

But should this national popular vote idea take hold, there will undoubtedly be some consequences for small states that the popular vote proponents fail to acknowledge. Dionne attempts to knock down some anti-popular vote arguments

Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.

But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?

Well, some would say yes.

Yet, as the point is often made, the U.S. is a Republic and the system was designed to work this way such that there are really 50 separate presidential elections every four years. It's consistent with our Federal system and also in the spirit of the Founders inclination to distrust direct democracy (like it or not). At the heart of that distrust lay an antipathy to "factions." As Madison wrote in support of the current electoral system:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

For instance, besides state-centered factions, there was a very real country vs. city dynamic and a wariness against having a disproportionate amount of electoral power--especially when it came to the presidency--in the hands of one or another of these "factions." The reasoning behind this was that urban and rural people often have very different concerns and priorities. Breaking up the presidential election into separate state elections mitigated against the urban "factions" gaining too much power over the rural--or vice versa--because most states contained both rural and urban "factions." As such, politicians would be forced to address the needs of both groups.

Popular vote proponents make much of the fact that only certain battleground states get the lion's share of attention under the current system and smaller or more uncontested states are ignored. By going to a popular vote, they seem to think that the focus away from a few battleground states. There is also a flaw in the logic that argues that small states have too much proportional power yet don't get enough attention as "battleground states" under the current system. After all, despite all of the apparent electoral power that Rhode Island has over California, the Presidential candidates weren't exactly streaming into the state in 2003/4, were they? But, proponents would argue, that a national popular vote would make "every vote count" no matter where it is. Well, I wouldn't bet on it (some would count more often--badump-bum, tip your waitress, please).

Where can candidates get the most bang for their buck (and they're sure raising the bucks, aren't they)? In the cities. And while Dionne attempts to discount the shibboleth of a national recount, I wouldn't be so quick to do so. 3,000 Palm Beach Counties anyone? However, while I do harbor a fear of widespread vote fraud and corruption in the cities, my biggest concern is that candidates will be encouraged to concentrate on places where they are already popular for the sole purpose of cranking up their vote totals.

So while a Democrat could incessantly campaign in Rhode Island to jack up an overall popular vote tally, they would probably acutely focus on bigger population centers like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston etc.to maximize their turnout and run up their their popular vote tallies. Under a popular vote scheme, they could do that and still get the Rhode Island votes anyway. So where's the Democrat incentive to visit a small state like li'l Rhody for the sake of marginal popular vote gains when the big numbers can be had in the big cities?

Similarly, a Republican could adopt a similar, more rural strategy in a state like Utah or Wyoming, though it would be a whole lot more work because the population is more dispersed. They still might try it though, or they might try to take the Democrats on, city by city. If this were to happen, then the interests of the rural and suburban citizens could very well fall by the wayside--or at best be of secondary concern--as both political parties sought to tailor their message to the voters who live in large population centers.

What the popular vote movement does is replace one "ignored" population for another, all under the cloak of "equality." It's really just an electoral shell-game cloaked in populist rhetoric. There will still be battleground states, they'll just tend to be the ones that have big cities and big populations.

And maybe that's exactly the way the popular vote crowd wants it.