×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

More proof needed for voter ID rules

By Staff | Apr 28, 2013

Considering the bile-infused partisan logic affecting virtually any and all political debate in America today, it’s not surprising that New Hampshire’s voter identification debate has been needlessly tainted by a reckless disregard for common sense.

One side of the debate is populated by conservative Republicans. They seek to limit voter participation among college students and same-day registrants because they believe those voters favor Democratic candidates. In their dreams no one would be allowed to vote without a notarized birth certificate.

Another side of the debate is populated by liberal Democrats. They seek to increase voter participation among college students and same-day registrants because they believe those voters snub Republican candidates. In their dreams a Best Buy rewards card would be adequate proof of identity.

These motives are often masked by the debate over voter fraud. One side says the state must protect against unqualified voters casting ballots while the other side contends a voter ID crackdown isn’t necessary because there is no evidence of cheating.

Much energy has been spent the past two legislative sessions trying to find the right balance between these two points of view. After much discussion and compromise, the 2012 voter ID law phased in new restrictions that took effect last November.

For the first time, poll workers were required to ask voters for photo identification. Those who didn’t have an ID or refused to offer one were required to fill out an affidavit attesting to their identity. Town clerks were then required to
send those voters verifying letters.

Although there was much consternation over how these procedures might disrupt election day, things went pretty smoothly. Expected delays didn’t happen because the vast majority of voters willingly offered identification.

However, lawmakers are having second thoughts whether the next round of tougher restrictions, set to take effect in September, are wise. House Bill 595 would set aside those provisions and allow local election officials to identify people they know who do not have an acceptable photo ID

“It is time to stop, take a breath and see what we learned from the first phase,” House Majority Whip Gary Richardson, D-Hopkinton, said Wednesday during a two-hour-plus Senate hearing on the legislation.

Drawing the most criticism was the requirement that anyone without an ID, or those who refuse to present one would have their picture taken with the digital image placed on file at local election offices.

State election officials said this would cost the state more than $140,000 per year to purchase cameras for all polling places and to train election workers. Other estimates have projected the cost as high as $900,000 over the next four years.

Also joining the chorus in favor of halting phase two were the Town and City Clerks Association and the New Hampshire Municipal Association. Representatives for both said it would be too costly and cumbersome.

Even Rep. Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, who favors voter ID laws, said he would be willing to wait until the results of the attorney general’s investigation into voter fraud in the last election is completed.

It’s difficult to argue with such a rare occurrence of unanimity on such a controversial issue. Until there is proof tougher voter ID restrictions are necessary, reason is on the side of House Bill 595.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *