There were a lot of politics at play in Thursday’s House Administration Committee meeting in
At the same time, some interesting points were made by proponents and opponents that revealed the complexities of the issue.
The topic is tangentially related to the issue current Congressional hearings around the nation are purported to address: immigration.
At the hearing, which was attended by about 100 people, Republicans made claims of widespread voter fraud and lawbreaking, while Democrats scoffed at the idea that any such problem exists.
Present were the committee’s chair, Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Michigan; committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; and Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., who is not a member of the committee but participated anyway.
Remember, he’s up for re-election this year. And the hearing was held in his Congressional district.
Republicans definitely took advantage of the hearing. Those allowed to testify included Vicki Perea, the Republican running for Secretary of State this year, and State Rep. Justine Fox-Young, R-Albuquerque, who is in a tough race in Albuquerque to keep her seat.
Not called to testify were the Democratic secretary of state, who might have had a more expert analysis than Perea, or any legislators who have led the push for voter reform in
That’s no shot at either Perea or Fox-Young, who both spoke competently. I’m just pointing it out.
Though Ehlers attempted to keep politics out of the hearing, Lofgren and Pearce traded barbs.
Lofgren referred to rising gas prices, fighting in the Middle East and the war in
She pointed out that Republicans have held 27 hearings across the nation on immigration, and joined other Democrats who have called the hearings an attempt to unite the conservative base before November elections and stall meaningful immigration reform until after November.
“I think it’s pretty clear that it’s an effort to try to stir up an issue for political ends,” Lofgren said. “… I really have to call attention to that fact.”
Pearce began his remarks by recognizing State reps. Mary Helen Garcia and Joseph Cervantes of
He referenced the conviction several years ago for elections violations of former Doña Ana County Clerk Ruben Ceballos as evidence of a widespread problem, and said, “If it takes 27 hearings to get closer to the truth, I think we should take time to get closer to the truth.”
“We’re trying to balance these things from all concerns,” Pearce said later in the hearing. “We don’t come into this as a partisan issue.”
Politics aside, the hearing was revealing. One point all agreed to is that implementing a meaningful, secure voter identification system is going to cost a lot of money.
“If we are serious about doing this, we are going to have to face the fact that it’s going to be expensive,” Ehlers said.
He appeared to truly listen to the concerns of those who opposed voter ID for practical reasons. Many American Indians live far from any town where they can obtain an ID and don’t have transportation or, in many instances, birth certificates. Elderly and disabled people also have a problem with access, and often can’t afford ID cards.
Ehlers suggested that a system might be set up that is paid for by the government, so ID cards are free, that would include the ability of workers to visit the homes of those who can’t travel to get an ID card.
Opponents said such concerns would have to be addressed, or voter ID would only disenfranchise more voters. Many opposed to voter ID pointed out that there are harsh penalties for non-citizens who vote (including years in jail and permanent bans from entering the
Opponents made other suggestions, including a more concerted effort to purge the voter rolls. That would help ensure others can’t vote in the place of those who have died or moved.
That came in response to repeated claims by proponents of voter ID of incidents of people fraudulently voting. Perea provided proof of one such instance, but there was no evidence for many other stories that were told.
Many Republicans would have us believe this problem is swinging elections in favor of Democrats in
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Fraudulent voting is happening at times; however, were it widespread, we would have more evidence than stories told by supposed witnesses or people who heard from other people. Some of those stories are likely true; others are nothing more than gossip.
Purging the voter rolls would help. Republican analysis has found many dead people still registered to vote in
Like many other problems, solving this one is going to cost more money. Are we willing to spend it?