Only 768 votes separated Congressman Matheson and challenger Mia Love, and according to emails and this story, in the Salt Lake Tribune, if comfortable incumbent Republicans had been less greedy with grabbing high turnout Republican areas during the redistricting process, the sole Democrat Matheson would be packing instead of celebrating a very narrow win. Republicans apparently also hoarded safe conservative areas in their districts thus reducing the chance that a challenger to Matheson would have an easy path to victory.
“Election adds to debate over (Arizona) redistricting”
Link to an article in the Arizona Republic.
Arizona’s redrawn political map is still sparking controversy, even after the first election using it has been settled.The results, particularly in the U.S. House races, have added fuel to
complaints that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was
rigged to favor Democrats. Others, however, point to close races in
three toss-up districts as an indication that the commission did a
balanced job.All three toss-up House races went for Democrats. As a result, the
state’s delegation to Washington will be led 5-4 by a rare Democratic
majority.
The article reveals rare bipartisan agreement. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the “independent” redistricting commission drew lines last year resulted in Democrats now controlling a majority of the nine congressional seats and make some inroads in the state legislature that has been solidly controlled by Republicans. As “independent” academics feign their objectivity by pointing out how close and “competitive” the races were that Republicans lost, Senior Democratic congressman Ed Pastor (Phoenix) chuckles and points out that “the maps performed as designed.”
Arizona Republicans should take note of the chuckling of the “rare Democratic majority.”
“Military vote system needs streamlining”
Link to Express-News Editorial Board.
“The Voter ID compromise” – Photo ID for early voting, not Election Day?
One columnist in North Carolina has a suggested voter ID compromise. He wants to use the Chicago voter ID model as a compromise solution – photo ID for early voting, but no photo ID for election day voting based on the reasoning below:
The irony, of course, is that Democrats oppose Republican efforts to require a photo ID to vote.
And yet President Obama happily pulled out his driver’s license to vote in his hometown and even joked that the photo didn’t show as much gray hair as he has now.
I didn’t support the voter ID law proposed in North Carolina, but it may be that Illinois has a good compromise. Only require a photo ID for early voting.
Why? Because voter fraud by impersonation probably would be much easier to pull off at an early voting site where election officials are less likely to know you.
At my relatively small precinct, people know each other. You’d be taking a big risk to walk in there and claim to be someone you aren’t.
The reasoning is flawed as most communities except in the most rural areas, are so populous and transient, that even neighbors in a highly populated suburb or city often don’t know each other well enough to confirm the identity with a high degree of certainty – much less know all voters in a particular precinct. Poll workers would have to serve as the identity police vouching for all voters in a precinct. Just as photo identification makes sense in early voting for the unique identity security reasons associated with the form of voting, it also makes sense for election day precinct voting for many of the same reasons. Reactionaries against photo ID should note that the process can work in all types of voting situations and is not some nefarious racist plot to suppress voters. Just as photo ID is appropriate for early voting in heavy blue states like Illinois and federal law for first time voters, it is appropriate for other states in other situations and forms of voting, including absentee voting.
Iowa Secretary of State pushing for voter ID and voter fraud investigations
Ohio Man Allowed to Vote Twice
The Lorain County Board of Elections is investigating a Henrietta Township man who cast two ballots during the presidential election. The man, who could potentially face criminal charges for voter fraud, requested an absentee ballot on Oct. 23, and the ballot was returned to the elections board Nov. 3, according to board records. The man then voted at his polling place Nov. 6. Elections board Director Paul Adams said the voting book at the polling location indicated that he already cast an absentee ballot but was allowed to sign the book over where it said “absentee sent.” Adams said the voter should have been told that he had already voted and was denied a ballot or given a provisional ballot if he insisted. The presiding judge at the polling place told elections officials that she did not recall what happened with the voter, but Adams said her conduct also is under review. “This is definitely a problem for this poll worker,” he said. And a problem for our electoral system. Whether due to poor training, indifference, or collusion, the effect of poll workers ignoring the law is the same: election results that don’t reflect the will of the voters.
More than just exposing a single fraudster casting multiple votes (votes that cannot be uncast), this Chronicle-Telegram story reveals a more fundamental challenge to election integrity: poll workers who do not follow election laws.
Virginia Voter ID a Success – Project Vote Alerts Otherwise
“Virginia Voter ID House Bill 1377 was filed yesterday. The bill would eliminate the use of utility bills, bank statements, government checks, or paychecks as proof of residence to vote.” Or rather, Lee misquotes – what the Post actually reported: “Preliminary figures indicate that most Virginians came to the polls on Election Day prepared to comply with the state’s new voter identification law. State Board of Elections figures show less than 5 percent of the 11,581 provisional ballots recorded as of Thursday were cast because the voter didn’t have the proper ID.” That’s less than 600 provisional ballots attributed to Voter ID (not 190,000) out of over 3.8 million votes cast, or about .015 percent. A 30,000 percent mistake, or a deliberate dishonest exaggeration? The anti-ID crowd is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own math.
In her November 21 Election Legislation Bill Alert email, Project Vote’s Erin Ferns Lee alerts:
Lee then quotes a startling figure: “About five percent of voters had to vote provisional ballots on November 6 as a result of the new law, according to a November 18 Washington Post report.”
Michigan Secretary of State recommends expansion of absentee voting and integrity measures
Michigan Live has the op-ed piece from the Secretary of State Johnson – excerpt below:
“While some communities saw lines at local precincts, largely due to a lengthy two-page ballot, nearly 4.8 million residents voted in the Nov. 6 election, determined to be a part of democracy, to have their say.More than 1.2 million of those voters cast their vote by absentee ballot. I believe it’s time to expand Michigan’s absentee voting by allowing all voters to cast an absentee ballot without an excuse – not just those who qualify now because they’re age 60 and older, will be out of town during the election or have a disability.
This change, however, must be paired with measures to ensure integrity in the process, namely to require the same reasonable photo ID rules now required at local precincts on Election Day.“
Representative Jackson resigns amid investigation into misuse of campaign funds for personal use
Link.
“After City of Detroit Ignores Civil Rights Suit, Federal Judge Declares Default, Awards $1.1M”
link.