Pedantic Political Ponderings: New York

Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts

25 June 2012

25 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

11 June 2012

11 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

28 December 2011

Repudiation: NOM Hypocrisy on Out of State Money

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is complaining, again, about out of state money influencing the New York legislature in its approval of marriage equality. They feature this YouTube interview of New York State Senator Jim Alesi.

A NOM staffer writes:

When asked why he intends to run for re-election after voting for same-sex marriage and losing the endorsement of the NY Conservative Party as a result, Sen. Jim Alesi responds: "I have to run as a Republican because I have to be able to say 'you can vote for marriage equality as a Republican and you can survive."

Say to who? His constituents? Or the out-of-state millionaires who paid him off for his vote?

NOM's contact address is in Washington, D.C. and they have a post office box in Philadelphia. Both are out of state for New York. That did not stop them from committing two million dollars in October, out of state millions, to overturn marriage equality.

Hypocrisy!

20 December 2011

Praise: Diane Feinstein, Jerrold Nadler, and the Respect for Marriage Act

The effort to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from 1996 has been slowly gaining momentum. On 15 March 2011, California Senator Feinstein introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) to do so. At this time, she has thirty co-sponsors (twenty-nine Democrats and one Independent).

Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 - Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited a state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a same sex marriage.

Amends the federal rules of construction added by such Act concerning the definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" to provide that, for purposes of any federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any state, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a state. Removes the definition of "spouse" (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).

The news this week is that New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, who once voted for DOMA, is now supporting RFMA. Sadly, it does not matter if this is voted on in the Senate as it is languishing in the House.

Since New York Representative Nadler introduced the RFMA in the House of Representatives, he gained 134 co-sponsors (133 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida). It has been sent to the sub-committee on the Constitution where it is likely to stay until it is re-introduced in a future Congress.

23 November 2011

Repudiation: AP Misleads on Cost of OWS

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an estimate that the municipal cost of the Occupy movement is at $13 million and climbing.

During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.

The heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.

There is an important breakdown for these figures that is missing from the article. The most expensive parts are said to be monitoring, which one can argue is an important service for both the protesters and the cities, and the evictions, which one can argue is an unnecessary cost. Allegations of violence on the part of the protesters can be found on various Fox News articles and assorted right-wing blogs, but not so much in the mainstream news. The same event (about a week ago) in the British news focused on police brutality.

The spending comes as cash-strapped police departments have cut overtime budgets, travel and training to respond to the recession. Nonetheless, city officials say they have no choice but to bring in extra officers or hold officers past their shifts to handle gatherings and marches in a way that protects free speech rights and public safety. In some cities, officials say the spending is eating into their overtime budgets and leaving less money for other public services.

Protesters blame excessive police presence for the high costs in some places. And they note the cost has been minimal in other cities, and worth the spending because they have raised awareness about what they call corporate greed and the growing inequality between rich and poor.

Cities and their police departments are cash-strapped largely because of an economy devastated by the unregulated misdeeds of what the Occupy movements calls the 1%. An article on Think Progress today puts the numbers into some perspective.

$13 million for policing of ongoing protests all over the country for two months is not a particularly large sum. For example, the 2004 Republican National Committee protests, which lasted for a single week and took place in a single location, cost $50 million to secure. A small tea party rally in November 2010 that attracted only a few dozen people cost $14,000, paid for by official congressional money.

The cost of securing these protests against economic inequality and political corruption also pales in comparison to one large figure: the wealth destroyed by Wall Street’s recession. The recession caused by Wall Street’s misdeeds destroyed $50 trillion of wealth globally by 2009, $20 trillion of that wealth in the United States alone. ThinkProgress has assembled the following chart to visualize these comparative costs:

Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $13 million every 40 minutes this year, and the multibillionaire magnate Koch Brothers increase their wealth by $13 million every eleven hours.

The chart is slightly misleading. Think Progress was unable to depict the left column as smaller than one pixel in height. If you grossly round up the left column to $20 million dollars, then it is easy to compare $20 million to $20 trillion. The left column should be less than 0.0001% the height of the middle column. A much larger chart would not be convenient for a computer screen, but the columns currently look closer than the really are. Considering how many months and how many cities and how many people have been involved, $13 million dollars seems pretty inexpensive.

Some of these costs, monitoring citizens expression of their right to assembly and right of free speech, are reasonable. Most of the police have done a good job in working for the benefit of their cities and their citizens. Some, spraying a chemical weapon in the faces of those who were not engaging in violence, was a violation of decency and an unreasonable waste of taxpayer dollars.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

14 November 2011

Repudiation: Speaker Boehner defends DOMA

I had written earlier about President Obama's decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the administration believes to be unconstitutional. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, early this year authorized the expenditure of up to half a million dollars in defense of DOMA. Later, that amount was tripled. It may now be going up again.

The Speaker is using the so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a panel consisting of the Speaker and the leader and whip of each party, as the means of defending DOMA in the courts. I say "so-called" because the BLAG is split along party lines. This is not bipartisan, what is happening is entirely Republican.

In August, Paul Clement, the attorney hired by BLAG, filed briefs on why Edie Windsor's marriage should not be recognized by the federal government when her partner of 44 years, Thea Spyer, died and she was laden with much higher estate taxes than married couples pay when one dies. The couple had wed in Toronto and resided in New York. Think Progress had an excellent article on Mr. Clement's briefs at the time.

It isn't over. A similar case is now in Pennsylvania, except that this time it is a suit between family members. As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

David and Joan Farley, the parents of the late Sarah Ellyn Farley, are fighting with Ms. Farley's wife, Jennifer Tobits, about who should get the $41,000 or so left from Ms. Farley's profit-sharing plan with Cozen O'Connor. The parents argue the ERISA-qualified plan implicates federal law, meaning DOMA would not allow the term "spouse" in the plan to be considered a person of the same sex.

Ms. Tobits argues that because ERISA doesn't define the term "spouse," the parties need only look to the plan itself and don't have to reach whether DOMA applies.

As written in the Legal Intelligencer

The case has picked up steam since first filed, with both the Farleys and Tobits changing counsel midstream. The Farleys are now represented by Chicago-based Thomas More Society and Tobits is represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The House advisory group said Cozen O'Connor and the Farleys told the group they did not oppose its motion to intervene and Tobits said she would take no position on the matter. The DOJ also said it would take no position on the motion, according to the group's filing.

In its memorandum in support of its motion to intervene, the advisory group said the DOJ would not be intervening to defend DOMA, but rather to "attack the statute," as it has done in a number of other cases. As part of the DOJ's policy shift moving away from defending DOMA, it has been advising the House of cases where the constitutionality of the law is at issue in case the House wanted to defend the law. The DOJ alerted the House to Cozen O'Connor on Sept. 23.

Because the DOJ will almost certainly look to attack the statute rather than defend it, the group said, the legislative body should be given the opportunity to step in to defend the law. The group also argued that the Farleys do not have the expertise to defend DOMA like the House does.

How many more taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted in attacking widows? DOMA is blatant discrimination. It is to for full equality and recognition of the love and commitment in every marriage.

06 November 2011

Praise: Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known as Lady Gaga, has been an advocate for the LGBTQ community since she started performing. Her hit song Born This Way seems to have become the new gay and lesbian anthem. Along with Harvard University, the MacArthur Foundation, and the California Endowment, Lady Gaga is creating the Born This Way Foundation to empower youth and combat bullying. The Born This Way Foundation will officially launch in 2012.

Thanks to the Huffington Post for the heads up.

22 October 2011

Pattern: Understanding Marriage Equality

The anti-equality folks give lots of reasons (look through the discrimination label) for not wanting the LGBTQ community to have equal rights. Those reasons are based on fear of contagion, fear of angering God, fear of indoctrination, and fear of loss of superior status. But, sometimes they express concerns about what same sex marriage might be. On 20 October, Brian Raum, an attorney and head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, wrote a column on First Things, an on-line religious journal, and partially reprinted on the NOM-Blog where he made some confusing claims about same sex marriage that is now legal in New York. He begins

In the wake of the New York Legislature’s decision to pass the so-called “Marriage Equality Act,” there has been a renewed discussion among homosexual activists over whether they really ought to be pursuing an institution historically rife with “heterosexual” values such as exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy.

This much is true. The LGBTQ community is a very diverse group of non-traditional and traditional views of sexuality, of relationships, of marriage. But, let's be clear, the same Bible that bans same sex male relationships (Leviticus 20:13) because of the long history of male homosexual behavior also bans adultery (Leviticus 20:10) because of the long history of heterosexual adulterous behavior. So, the claim that exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy are the domain of heterosexuals is shown to not be entirely true three lines before talk of homosexuality.

There have always been people who did not fit into those historic "heterosexual values". Mr. Raum continues with quoting those who have concern over the religious exemption in New York.

[Howard Chua-Eoan, writing in Time Magazine was] lamenting the fact that “gay marriage will not quite be marriage even in New York” because of exemptions for religious institutions in the bill. “Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn’t the real thing,” he writes. “Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?”

Though Chua-Eoan later writes, “The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong,” he is at least partly mistaken about the realities of this interaction of church and state. When the relationships of “gay people” need societal validation, some of them, at least, have made it clear that it’s not all that wrong to stop dissenters from living according to their beliefs.

It is certainly the case that some (I think it is a minority) of the LGBTQ community want the religious institutions to change to meet state laws. Far more of us want the religious institutions who object to us to stop trying to influence laws that are explicitly against us.

The Separation of Church and State -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; -- also known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is clear in one direction only. The government cannot promote any one religion to be the state religion and cannot stop a religion from their practice of their faith. While the Establishment Clause does not say that religion cannot try to influence government, since there are many religions the influence of any one would be to the detriment of others, possibly violating the Establishment Clause. This gets a little tricky.

When it comes to marriage, we have always allowed clergy to determine who they would wed and who they would refuse to wed. The government has always allowed a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman to wed in civil ceremonies.

I had a good straight friend and his wife wed twice, once in each families church, to keep peace in the families (along with a little lie that each was converting to the other's faith). Neither church would allow a "mixed marriage", each being different sects of the same Christian denomination. It is my contention that each church had the right to set the limitations that they chose. If they were only going to allow people who had attained seven feet in height to wed, that should be their right to set that limitation (although the tall marriages would be relatively rare).

If a church does not want to conduct same sex marriages or opposite sex marriages or differing skin shade marriages, that should be their right. If one can't marry in one church find another. But, the limitation should be set by the church, not by the government. To do otherwise would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

And if you’re a New York clerk who has a problem of conscience with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Gov. Andrew Cuomo says you need to give up your job, despite New York law that states otherwise. After all, as one Albany law professor who apparently doesn’t bat an eye about putting this on par with racism says, “There is just not a good legal argument that you have the right to discriminate.”

The wall between Church and State is important to protect each. Town Clerks need to follow civil law. In their jobs, they are the representatives of the government, not the representatives of their church.

So if you’ve been on the fence about protecting marriage—wondering how someone else’s same-sex “marriage” will affect your marriage—now you’ve got a good bit of the answer: if you’re part of the 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman, prepare to be regarded as the Ku Klux Klan member next door—and for your children to be taught the same perspective at your local government-run school.

Okay, there is a lot wrong with what Mr. Raum said in this little clip. First the numbers have been changing for some time. The Pew Research Center published a report on the trend of greater acceptance of marriage equality last year. In March of this year, ABC News and the Washington Post found 53% acceptance of same sex marriage. By May, a series of polls found even greater acceptance. The claim of 62% opposed to marriage equality is dubious. If you ask the questions carefully enough, then you can get different results.

Children should be taught to accept all others in our society. That does not mean indoctrination or contagion. Silly concepts. I've already refuted the fears expressed by the links to changes in California education.

The message is frequently that recognition for same-sex unions will have no effect on those who disagree with them, but the evidence clearly says otherwise. As Princeton politics professor Robert P. George notes, “once one buys into ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has traditionally been denominated as ‘marriage’ loses all intelligibility . . . one will come to regard one’s allegiance to sexual liberalism as a mark of urbanity and sophistication, and will likely find oneself looking down on those ‘ignorant,’ ‘intolerant,’ ‘bigoted’ people—those hicks and rubes—who refuse to get ‘on the right side of history.’”

Same sex unions do not have an effect on opposite sex unions. The difference is that gays and lesbians are seen as equals. Marriage does not lose, it is enhanced. Society gains greater stability. But, Dr. George is correct that those who condemn a minority will be viewed as the bigots that they are.

We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to “stigma, discrimination, and victimization”—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are travelling down. Instead, we tell them “it gets better” when, in fact, it does not.

Mr. Raum and his fellow bigots are the cause of many of the health problems that he cites. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that the social environment of hate that the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage and their ilk create leads to depression and suicide. While Mr. Raum tries to prevent things from getting better, Mr. Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project endeavors to make things much better.

Yes, marriage as the union of a man and a woman is practical. Its stabilizing nature is undeniable for those without blinders. As political analyst Mona Charen wrote in a recent column, “Much has been made by Democrats of the increasing inequality of income distribution in America. That inequality is real. But it’s not the result of tax cuts. It’s an artifact of family structure. And unless we find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow. Gay marriage is a distraction. The country depends on traditional marriage.”

Let's try a short rewrite: Marriage as the union of two consenting adults is practical. Its stabilizing nature is undeniable for those without blinders. Unless we find a way to discourage unwanted childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow. Gay marriage is marriage.

It will take a long time before the LGBTQ community reaches a consensus as to the meaning of marriage in same sex relations. Just as heterosexuals don't agree on the acceptability of a brief fling (which I have heard argued as being healthy for a marriage), homosexuals will need time to get that close to being in agreement with each other.

The history is awkward. The LGBTQ community was entirely underground until the Stonewall riots in 1969. (Frank Kameny filed the first, unfortunately unsuccessful, lawsuit for equal rights in 1961, but few noticed). Gays and lesbians and cross-dressers were so despised at that time, were so far from being accepted, that many created new forms of relationships. For many, one-night stands were the only sexual relations that they had. Others formed quiet families and pretended to be straight. Shifting from a complete lack of acceptance to a majority favoring marriage equality in less than half a century is remarkable. From the Emancipation Proclamation to the acceptance of "mixed color marriages" with Loving v. Virginia took a full century.

Despite this, many filled the streets of New York to revel in the unraveling on June 24, just as they did during the parades the day after the legislature’s vote. USA Today made note of “one parade attendee dressed as half bride and half groom.” The symbolism couldn’t be any more poignant or clear: Not a bride, not a groom. Both and neither at the same time. Marriage but not marriage. The elimination of distinctions. The pursuit of “marriage equality” is nothing less than an assault on marriage integrity.

Marriage but not marriage, perhaps. We will need time to see. There is, however, no assault on the integrity of any extant marriage or prospective heterosexual marriage. We don't seek marriage for gays instead of marriage for straights, we seek equality. Mr. Raum can pretend that there are other goals. We seek equality and acceptance. The only thing he has to lose is the artificial distinction that he is a first class citizen and thus superior to those who are second class. It is time for him to lose that.

11 October 2011

FollowUp 2: Discrimination Upside Down

With thanks to Joe.My.God, as is often the case for finding interesting news, there is a third New York town clerk who is now discriminated against because she will not do her job. Ms. Sheldon's post on YouTube is interesting in that she started out by doing the right thing, resigning since she feels that she cannot do her job based on her religious beliefs. The "Courage Campaign" seems to think that she is the victim of marriage equality in New York.

Of course, this is all upside down. If a judge has two people come before the court who are legally entitled to wed, the judge does not have a choice. The wedding does not include the judge's endorsement, the endorsement is by the state. The same is true for the town clerk who issues licenses to wed. There is no personal endorsement. Often a clerk will have never met the people who plan to marry. The clerk's job is to certify that the forms have been filled out correct and that all of the criteria required by the state have been fulfilled. I can respect Ms. Sheldon's choice to resign. If she is now a victim, then discrimination is upside down.

6 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article

10 October 2011, FollowUp 1

16 November 2011, FollowUp 3

10 October 2011

FollowUp 1: Discrimination Upside Down

Four days ago, I wrote about three instances where people are discriminating and, while doing so, crying that they are discriminated against. The NY county clerk situation is repeated with another clerk who resigned over what she considers religious discrimination. Here is a YouTube link of Ms. Fotusky. (Thanks for the link to Joe.My.God).

6 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article

11 October 2011, FollowUp 2

16 November 2011, FollowUp 3

Praise: Metropolitan Community Churches

Today's Huffington Post has an article by Nancy Wilson, the head of the Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC). Dr. Wilson focuses on the different approaches to sexuality and charity between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and MCC. Before continuing, I should note that I am Jewish and take no religious side between any of the factions of Christianity.

The only reason that this caught my eye is because the RCC has been regularly attempting to influence American politics. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States begins with

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Read liberally, there is little to prevent any religious body from attempting to influence U.S. politics. The First Amendment ensures that the United States will not be a theocracy and will favor no religion more than any other. So far so good.

It should be no surprise that religions and, in the case of the MCC and the RCC, factions of a religion do not always agree. The MCC welcomes people as full equals, requiring only faith in Jesus, without regard to sexuality. The RCC, as evidenced by a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to President Obama, does not welcome people as equals.

Of course, there is no rule that says that any religion has to welcome everyone. I would be opposed to any such outside rule. The First Amendment is a great guide ... let religions act for themselves, not by government directive. If a religion wants to welcome only people who are over six feet tall, of Asian ancestry, and natural red-heads, that should be their right (although the congregation is probably going to be fairly small).

But even as the government should not going butting into the internal rules of a religion, I would like the opposite to be true. Sadly, it is not. In addition to the RCC, many evangelical protestant organizations attempt to sway politics, like the Liberty Counsel, affiliated with the church of the late Jerry Falwell, the American Family Association, originally Methodist and now the church of Bryan Fischer, and some non-Christian groups like the Orthodox/Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn.

It is refreshing that Dr. Wilson is speaking against the bigotry of the RCC:

As the head of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) with churches in 40 countries, I can tell you that church dictates against gay people cause real harm, and I will not stay silent. I speak because Jesus sided with the poor and socially outcast people who were daily excoriated by the religious leaders of his day.

Would that she did not have a reason to do speak against the RCC. I'll give Dr. Wilson the last word on this, from the end of her article:

Bishop Dolan! Catholic officials! Listen to your people. More Catholics in the pews support marriage equality than any other Christian faith group. Bishop Dolan, hit the restart button on the Gospel. You don't have to read between the lines to know that we are called to love and serve, not judge and condemn. I call that good news.

06 October 2011

Pattern: Discrimination Upside Down

I've always assumed that when someone said that they were being discriminated against because of their religion it was because they were being denied access or products because of their faith. In fact, that is close to what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says. This is far more broad than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which only applies to government (federal, state, and local).

When it comes to the private sector, the EEOC has specific wording about discrimination in the workplace:

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Recently, I am noticing more and more cases of people saying that they are victims of religious discrimination because of what they are required to do as part of their jobs. Here are a couple of examples:

A pharmacist in Idaho refuses to fill prescriptions that are against her faith.

A town clerk in New York refuses to sign wedding licenses that are against her faith.

A graduate student in Michigan refuses to counsel as part of a course as it is against her faith.

My view on this is fairly simple, if one cannot do a job without the duties of that job violating one's beliefs then one needs to find a different type of employment. In none of these cases are the "victims" being asked to worship or participate in a different religion from their own. None of these "victims" are being denied access or services, they are the ones who are denying access or services to others. The discriminator as the one being discriminated against is upside down.

10 October 2011, FollowUp 1

11 October 2011, FollowUp 2

16 November 2011, FollowUp 3

03 October 2011

Political Landscape: Voting Rights

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has published a review of Voting Law Changes in 2012. These changes restrict voting rights for millions of citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. The entire sixty-four page document is worth reading. Here are a few highlights of types of changes and my opinions.

1. Photo ID laws. The idea of requiring a government issued photo ID in order to vote makes sense on a gut level. No one wants voter fraud and showing your id would decrease the likelihood of fraud. The Brennan Center has a study that indicates that there is little voter fraud in the United States. Is there another view? Of course, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners believes that the numbers are much higher in an article they published in 2006. There are many other studies out there (Google it).

My opinion: a picture ID is a reasonable requirement only if it is reasonably easy to obtain and free; to do otherwise is a new poll tax. In Alabama, US Representative Sewell is concerned about people's ability to get to a location where they can get the new ID. In Kansas, the ACLU is concerned about residents born out of state acquiring valid birth certificates in order to qualify for the new ID. Rhode Island is different among these states in that any official Rhode Island or federal photo ID is good. In South Carolina, the new ID requirement may cost hundreds of thousands the opportunity to work; twenty-five were given free rides to acquire their ID. There is concern in Tennessee about the elderly being able to vote. In Texas, the voter ID law is being challenged because it may be discriminatory to minorities. In Wisconsin, the DMV is charging $28 for the new voter ID unless people happen to know to request that it be free.

It does not look like these are all being implemented in a fashion that is free and fair. Again, I favor requiring a photo ID for voting ... as long as it can be easily obtained by those entitled to vote and that it not be a new poll tax.

2. Proof of Citizenship laws. As with photo ID, this makes sense on a gut level.

My opinion: the problems with these laws are the same as those for photo ID. In Alabama this slows down automobile licensing and eventually voting. Republicans feel this enhances the integrity of voting in Kansas. There are concerns in Tennessee about ambiguous requirements.

3. Making voter registration harder. Maine removed same day registration to vote. Ohio removed same week registration to vote. Florida and Texas are restricting voter registration drives. Florida and Wisconsin are changing requirements to vote after moving.

My opinions: Same day voting sounds problematic at the gut level. However, we have citizens who are legally entitled to vote whose jobs keep them on the road. We have ex-patriots who return to the United States for the purpose of voting (or vote using an absentee ballot) all legally. Requiring them to stay in town for extended periods could be a hardship ... and unfair burden. There have been experiments with provisional ballots that make more sense than restricting registration.

Restricting registration drives does not make sense. It simply doesn't. The principle of one person - one vote (originally one man - one vote) has long been enshrined as a hallmark of American democracy. Unlike requiring a photo ID, this limits new voters only. It is partisan and flatly unAmerican.

Similarly, restricting eligibility to vote based on moving does not make sense. If moving means that there is a need to double check and make sure that the voter is not voting twice, then use provisional ballots until there is verification. Don't stop people from legally voting.

4. Reducing early and absentee voting. I have mixed feelings here. Eliminating the option for either early or absentee voting would be wrong. Limiting it depends upon the details.

Florida's early voting has more hours for eight days with extended hours instead of fourteen days. Georgia is cutting back from forty-five days to twenty-one days but adding a Saturday. Ohio's new restrictions in early voting appear to be on hold. Tennessee and West Virginia have tightened their schedules as well. Early voting for all states is on-line at long distance voter.

5. The most controversial of the laws, Florida and Iowa have made it more difficult, if not impossible, for ex-cons to regain their voting rights. While ex-cons are always uncomfortable to discuss, these are citizens who have already paid their dues to society for their crimes and have been allowed to rejoin society. Never allowing them to become full citizens again seems wrong.

Conclusion: While photo IDs may be implemented as a reasonable requirement to vote, I question them way many states are doing so, particularly Wisconsin with its "free if you are in the know" IDs. The governors and legislatures enacting these laws claimed that their goals were to reduce taxes and increase jobs. Restricting voting does neither. Most of these restrictions appear to have the goal of disenfranchising new eligible voters. Limiting access for those who are legally entitled to vote is unAmerican.

More changes may be in the works. Governing the States and Localities has an interesting take on the future of voting regulations.

14 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
22 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
6 November, FollowUp 3.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.

Various Direct Links