Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Mexico Voter ID reform splitting parties

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:51 PM
Original message
New Mexico Voter ID reform splitting parties
Dzika posted this interesting article on the Saturday 1/29 Election Fraud, Reform, & Updates Thread.

January 28, 2005

New Mexico Voter ID reform splitting parties
By Shea Andersen
Tribune Reporter


SANTA FE - Rep. Danice Picraux doesn't think a voter identification bill will get too far this session.

Why not? Because Picraux, an Albuquerque Democrat and former House majority leader, has tried one herself, once.
..
On Thursday, Picraux voted to table a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Justine Fox-Young, an Albuquerque Republican.

"My bill was a little bit different," Picraux said.

Her bill, she said, gave the benefit of the doubt to a voter whose signature didn't match up on Election Day. They would get to vote, but their record would be checked later.

In Fox-Young's bill, voters whose autograph doesn't match their registration signature has to return on Election Day with some form of identification or their vote doesn't count.

"There's a real difference between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent," Picraux said.

But after watching two of her bills get tabled by a Democrat-dominated committee, Fox-Young may have learned the same lesson Picraux learned years ago: Voter identification doesn't get a lot of traction in the Roundhouse.
..
On Thursday, two of 12 bills she prepared on election reform were tabled by the House Voters and Elections Committee, chaired by Rep. Ed Sandoval, an Albuquerque Democrat.

<http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local_state_government/a... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. why not just look at a driver's license or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Some people don't have them.
But there probably could be bi-partisan support for a means to do it. That's what hurts reading this article.

See:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. this would make republicans happy
their big worry seems to be illegal immigrants voting seven times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. More Republican voter suppression in this bill than anything else.
"In Fox-Young's bill, voters whose autograph doesn't match their registration signature has to return on Election Day with some form of identification or their vote doesn't count."

So, people who do not write well will have to go to the polls twice, once to be told they don't write well, and once after they go get proof that they are who they say they are?

How about if we just make poor people produce documentation, and if you wear a suit you can vote without proof?

This is the sort of idea that just opens up the door to discriminate against minorities and educationally disenfranchised individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah. I didn't like that bit.
I preferred the one where they could vote provisionally if there was a hang-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. Problem wasn't voters; it was the counters & official fraud, malfeasance
New Mexico(& Ohio & Florida)
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

U.S.(over 20 states)
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wilms
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Gotcha. Sorry and thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC