The Wrong Angle

Last month, she reemerged. And she didn't return empty-handed. No, Sharron Angle introduced a voter ID voter suppression initiative. And she definitely succeeded in stirring up a hornet's nest.

But will Angle's initiative actually succeed? That remains in doubt, especially in the wake of two law suits being filed against it.



Both law suits challenge what plaintiffs consider to be an unconstitutional usurpation of power, since it commands the Legislature to enact something that the Legislature itself is supposed to decide. And both suits declare Angle's initiative to be an unfunded mandate (as it has no funding mechanism for its voter ID program), which would also constitute a constitutional violation. The ACLU of Nevada and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights have filed one suit, while a group of private citizens and activists filed the other suit.

We're left to wonder how much thought "Our Lady of Perpetual Campaigning" put into this initiative. We already knew that it targets a nonexistent problem. We also knew that this would instead create problems for thousands of Nevada voters who are simply trying to exercise their legal right to vote. But now, we're discovering another problem with Sharron Angle's "great idea": It may very well violate the very constitution she claims to hold so near & dear to her.

But then again, we are talking about someone who's still claiming nonsensical conspiracy theories as "evidence" that somehow the 2010 NV-Sen election was "stolen" from her. She still refuses to admit that she list that election all on her own. And now, she's demanding an initiative that's unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional as well.

Funny enough, Angle and her Nevada G-O-TEA disciples have been the ones crying about "integrity". Have they ever examined the integrity of their own voter suppression proposal?

RGJ Hands SB 63 Election Reform a Life Preserver. (But How Long Can It Last?)

This week has been a critical one on the voting rights front. Yet another study was released this week demonstrating how voter suppression is accomplished with the kind of voter ID laws desired by the "tea party". Meanwhile here in Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller faced a grueling hearing for SB 63, his election modernization bill featuring an electronic poll book proposal.

After yesterday's hearing, even more doubts emerged over the viability of SB 63 in the Nevada Legislature. Will certain Republicans try to amend the bill and replace Miller's preferred electronic poll book with the very ALEC model legislation that encourages voter suppression? And if/when that happens, how long/short will it take for Democratic leadership to kill the entire bill once and for all?

Today, Ross Miller can breathe a little more easily. That's because the Reno Gazette Journal published an editorial this morning singing the praises of SB 63. Here's the key passage.

It is inevitable the state will replace those paper election books,if for no other reason than to save money in austere times; Washoe County Registrar of Voters Dan Burk estimated at a hearing on Thursday that he could save $50,000 to $60,000 every election cycle by replacing those paper books.

Although some details remain to be worked out and it will take tax money to make it work, Miller’s plan is a good start at reaching that goal. [...]

So, it’s difficult to see how including a photograph —copied from those taken at the DMV, in most cases —would make things any more difficult for a voter. It wouldn’t cost any additional money, as obtaining a government ID may; nor will it require voters to make a special trip to obtain an ID.

What it would do is make it a little easier on poll workers to meet their responsibility to determine whether voters are who they say they are.

And what Miller’s Senate Bill 63 would do is bring Nevada’s elections into the 21st century. It deserves approval.

Of course, the RGJ framed this in a conservative way. "Why, of course voter ID makes perfect sense! And that's why we just love us some Ross Miller & SB 63!" However, I doubt Miller minds this at all. After all, this fits quite well into his strategy of "election geek jiu-jitsu".

It just remains to be seen if today's RGJ editorial can convince enough Republicans to back away from ALEC and its preferred voter ID model legislation. It also remains to be seen if skeptical Democrats can be assured that SB 63 will do no harm in inviting future voter suppression and/or more immediate complications to negotiations on otherwise unrelated bills (such as the budget and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants).

But at least for now, SB 63 is hanging on to see another day at #NVLeg. It just remains to be seen how much of an appetite legislators truly have for election modernization.

Can "Jiu-jitsu" Save SB 63? The Real Voting Rights Fight Behind the Theatrics.

Back in December, we discussed martial arts. Yes, that was something else. What was really impressive was analyzing Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and what the University of Minnesota's Doug Chapin famously proclaimed to be "election geek jiu-jitsu".

In January, we came to know this "election geek jiu-jitsu" as SB 63. Miller even hosted a symposium on this and larger issues of election reform & voting rights. Mayhem then erupted when "tea party" agitators screamed about nonexistent "VOTER FRAUD!!!" At that point, I sensed trouble ahead.

And today, that trouble emerged. And of course, it emerged from Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-ALEC).

MT @SandraChereb: Cegavske says cheaper, easier, to require voters to get own ID card. /Thus does GOP turn @rossjmiller's plan to voter ID.

That is, it's cheaper and easier for the radical right to initiate voter suppression. We know Cegavske is a member of ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. She must have been upset over Ross Miller supporting his own bill instead of ALEC's model legislation for voter suppression.



Remember that this is what Barbara Cegavske and the rest of the "tea party" are demanding when they call for strict voter ID laws. They want voter suppression.



When Cegavske and her "TEA" fueled allies cry "VOTER FRAUD!!!", they're crying about a virtually nonexistent problem that's already taken care of under current law. And the "solution" they're peddling disenfranchises young & minority voters. It just so happens that young & minority voters typically don't vote for Republican candidates. I'm sure you can do the math from here.

If not, then pay attention to this.



That's what's really at stake here.

Going back to SB 63, conservative support for Ross Miller's bill had always looked suspect. Pat Hickey may have tipped his hand back in December when he drove a wedge between Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders by trying to tie SB 63 to unrelated legislation regarding driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Now, Barbara Cegavske is confirming what we've been suspecting all along.

If conservatives really want election integrity, Ross Miller is serving it to them on a silver platter with SB 63. It has modernization. And it has visual verification. And it's not meant to disenfranchise legal voters. But wait, that may be the real problem certain radical right lawmakers have with SB 63. That explains Cegavske's call for (more) ALEC model legislation.

Unfortunately for Ross Miller, SB 63 may become "collateral damage" should Republican legislators demand the kind of voter ID legislation that promotes voter suppression. Democratic leaders clearly don't want that. Even Harry Reid has stomped his foot down on it. And not too many in Carson City seem to have the appetite to invest in modernizing Nevada elections. So Mr. Secretary and SB 63 may be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It remains to be seen if any kind of martial arts can save SB 63 at this point.

What Happened at Ross Miller's Symposium

So Ross Miller has been making headlines again this week. And his election reform bill now has a number: SB 63. Yesterday, he held a symposium to discuss SB 63 and the larger topic of election reform at UNLV. Robert Lang moderated, and among the other panelists were Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D), Las Vegas political consultant Andres Ramirez, and NYU Law School's Brennan Center's Lee Rowland.



The symposium started off pretty level-headed. Dr. Lang asked Ross Miller for more details on SB 63.





And Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie had a chance to explain why he's been pushing something very similar in his own state.



The Brennan Center's Lee Rowland also had a chance to explain the need for change to the election system.



But after opening statements and questions from Lang, questions came from the floor. Initially, there was a wonky discussion on how SB 63 opens up the real possibility of secure same-day voter registration.



But sadly, that didn't last long. Instead, a few "tea party" speakers saw the opportunity to hijack the discussion and spew out crazy Sharron Angle approved conspiracy theories on nonexistent "VOTER FRAUD!!!".





And herein lies the reason why SB 63 is facing such epic hurdles in Carson City. Even as Ross Miller may be seeking genuine policy solutions to the shortcomings of Nevada's election system, the Legislature is mired in a political brouhaha fueled by these very inaccurate conspiracy theories. G-O-TEA politicians have been pursuing voter suppression measures in order to please their "tea party" base and prevent likely Democratic voters from casting ballots.

What makes this worse is the budget brawl that's likely to consume Carson City this spring. As we discussed earlier this week, Democratic Legislature leaders may be aiming to prevent their Republican counterparts from scoring any kind of "leverage" that they can use to force further budget cuts and/or conservative policy "wet dreams". Unfortunately for Ross Miller, SB 63 may very well land into the crossfire of Carson City's budget war.





Last month, we looked into the "Election Geek Jiu-jitsu" behind what we can now call SB 63.

This may indeed be a brilliant strategy to secure progressive election reforms that otherwise would never be considered. Elections officials have wanted to replace those printed poll books with something more 21st century for some time. But because of the ongoing budget brawl and more pressing funding demands, they've been left in the dust. This may indeed be the best, and perhaps the only, way for Ross Miller to deliver the goods and upgrade our antiquated system.

And as we've discussed before, this may very well solve logistical problems that have stood in the way of expanding voter participation. How can extreme "tea party" outfits keep challenging and intimidating legal voters if poll workers can instantly verify those voters? And how can those same outfits continue arguing against reforms like same-day voter registration if the equipment is available to register and verify those new registrants right on the spot?

The key problem that Miller faces is that hardly anyone else in Carson City sees what he sees. Miller looks at SB 63 and sees a unique opportunity to revolutionize the election system. However, teabaggers just look at SB 63 and see a lack of robust voter suppression. And Republican Legislature leaders probably just notice SB 63 and see a chance to gain "leverage" in budget negotiations. And Democratic Legislature leaders still gaze at SB 63 and see an unnecessary distraction that can possibly metastasize into a horrendous way to derail a sensible budget deal while simultaneously causing more election problems in the future by disenfranchising legal voters.

This is why SB 63 faces some daunting hurdles in Carson City this spring. Can Ross Miller somehow overcome them? That remains an open question. How well does jiu-jitsu work in a land dominated by archaic fist fights?

Double-edged Sword? Underappreciated Jiu-jitsu? (Or Both?)

Early last month, we examined Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller's election reform bill. And we specifically looked deeper into the University of Minnesota's Doug Chapin's suggestion that Miller is engaging in some very clever "election geek jiu-jitsu" by cloaking his plan to modernize Nevada's election system in the cover of "addressing voter ID concerns".

Yesterday, we saw this dynamic in play in Reno when Miller pitched his bill to the Reno Republican Men's Club. Interestingly enough, the crowd there seemed to be digging it. But of course, there's a catch.

The group proved responsive to Miller’s proposal, with Washoe County District Attorney Dick Gammick telling the crowd at the Atlantis resort that “it’s about time Nevada gets a voter ID law.”

Gammick was cheered by members of Reno’s Republican Men’s Club after his comment.

Yet, the scene suggested it may be more difficult for Miller, a Democrat, to get his own party’s support. [...]

Miller also told the crowd that Democratic opposition to his bill is founded on “misinformation.”

“There are member of the Democratic party who are conditioned to think that it (voter ID system) means that there is an effort to suppress the vote or that this will result in individuals being disenfranchised.”

This has been Miller's problem all along. Early reports of Miller's bill sounded so good to conservatives wanting to hear "voter ID" that it scared the living daylights out of progressives hearing "voter suppression".

Yesterday, Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) reiterated his support for the bill... But did so in a way that can hurt Miller politically. He again tried to tie this to proposed legislation to allow for some sort of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, probably in hopes of sparking more anger on matters of immigration. And like the other Reno Republican men mentioned above, Hickey couched his support in terms of implementing "voter ID". So while Hickey's endorsement of Miller's bill may help boost Republican support for the bill, it also looks like Hickey is going out of his way to "help" Miller bleed Democratic support for election reform.

And there may be yet another dynamic at play here, one that I wasn't completely considering until I read between the lines here.

It could cost Nevada up to $10 million to implement the system. [Senate Majority Leader Mo] Denis [D-North Las Vegas] contents that would be a waste of tax money when there is no evidence that Nevada’s current system is prone to voter fraud.

“Part of this is on voter fraud, supposedly trying to fix the problem,” Denis said. “But we don’t really have any documented evidence that there is a problem. So when it comes to funding an issue, when we also have education and economic issues…that is not going to be a priority for us.”

Are at least some Republicans also chomping at the bit to pass Ross Miller's election reform bill in hopes of offsetting the costs of implementation with budget cuts elsewhere? May this be the true reason why Mo Denis and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) are just hoping to quietly kill this bill in committee? Would they rather deny Republicans even the slightest chance of (mis)using this as "leverage" to extract budget cuts and/or another conservative policy priority?

Already, it looks like there are some high-stakes political games happening behind the scene in Carson City while Ross Miller tries to gin up bipartisan support for his bill. At the same time, Ross Miller is trying hard to score an important policy win on election reform that may lead to dramatic results if passed and properly implemented. Perhaps Miller is also looking to score a key political win before officially announcing his poorly kept secret of a 2014 Attorney General campaign.

So there are already many intriguing layers to this fight for election reform in the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature. It just remains to be seen if this bill falls prey to #NVLeg power plays and "leverage" grabs... Or if Ross Miller can yet find a way to thread the needle and outfox all the "leaders" in Carson City.

Ross Miller's "Jiu-jitsu"

Much has been said about a Japanese martial art known as Jiu-jitsu. It helps to know what one is speaking of.

Jujutsu is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon. [1][2] The word jujutsu is often spelled as jujitsu, ju-jitsu, jiu-jutsu or jiu-jitsu.

"Jū" can be translated to mean "gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding." "Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force. [1] Jujutsu developed among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon, or only a short weapon. [3] Because striking against an armored opponent proved ineffective, practitioners learned that the most efficient methods for neutralizing an enemy took the form of pins, joint locks, and throws. These techniques were developed around the principle of using an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.

And it most certainly helps to know how to practice it. We know Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) has incredible MMA skills. So is it possible that he's now putting those to use in pursuing election reform? Doug Chapin from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs seems to think so. In fact, he's now calling Ross Miller's proposal "Election Geek Jiu-jitsu"!

I'm not sure that the issues of cost and lack of fraud are enough to kill the proposal, however. Indeed, it looks to me like Miller's goal in making this proposal (and spending the money) is not to prevent fraud but rather to end the voter ID debate in a way that simultaneously improves the state's election process.

By itself, ending the voter ID debate is a huge boon for states. I can't even begin to imagine how much time and money was spent legislating, litigating and fighting about voter ID in the last election cycle alone; this bill essentially settles the argument at what might end up being a fraction of the cost. Moreover, the electronic poll books the state is proposing are popular with local election officials like Clark's Lomax, who are looking to upgrade from the traditional printed poll books, and activists like Ramirez, who are tired of their voters becoming Election Day pawns in the voter ID battle.

Viewed from this angle, Miller's proposal could be described as an effort to use the momentum on voter ID to enact other desirable changes in Nevada's election system. Indeed, you could call it a kind of jujitsu, the martial art that "uses an attacker's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it."

I know this is something we already explored here earlier this week, but I think it's worth exploring some more due to the ongoing confusion over Miller's idea. And since Doug Chapin is from Minnesota, where this idea originated and where progressives are still battling radical right demands for voter suppression, he has some good insight on what this is really about.

This may indeed be a brilliant strategy to secure progressive election reforms that otherwise would never be considered. Elections officials have wanted to replace those printed poll books with something more 21st century for some time. But because of the ongoing budget brawl and more pressing funding demands, they've been left in the dust. This may indeed be the best, and perhaps the only, way for Ross Miller to deliver the goods and upgrade our antiquated system.

And as we've discussed before, this may very well solve logistical problems that have stood in the way of expanding voter participation. How can extreme "tea party" outfits keep challenging and intimidating legal voters if poll workers can instantly verify those voters? And how can those same outfits continue arguing against reforms like same-day voter registration if the equipment is available to register and verify those new registrants right on the spot?

What may be tricky is execution. Can poll workers be transformed into IT professionals? Will poll workers be able to handle voters whose looks may have changed since the last time they checked in with the DMV? And will the technology ultimately work? These are questions that may be worth exploring some more.

And of course, there's another matter hampering this, a matter that Doug Chapin should have perhaps took into stronger consideration. Remember that our state government is notoriously cheap. And because Carson City is gearing up for yet another extended budget brawl, who really has an appetite to "spend money on a nonexistent problem", as both Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Mo Denis have put it?

And it's still unclear as to Pat Hickey's true motives in talking up Miller's bill. Is he really considering supporting it? Or is he just (mis)using it to drive a wedge between Ross Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders? May he also be (mis)using this bill to simply muddy the waters on the issue of granting some sort of driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants? This is certainly something to consider.

But without a doubt, there's a method to what has seemed to be Ross Miller's "madness". And as I've found out the hard way, there's more than initially meets the eye here. Perhaps Ross Miller can even turn all this angst and confusion over his proposal to his advantage by appealing to Brian Sandoval's and Michael Roberson's desires to score some "moderate" looking "bipartisan" achievement. And perhaps while he's doing that, he can figure out a way to ease Democratic concerns regarding his proposal.

So maybe this dude from Minnesota is onto something. Perhaps this is "misunderestimated" brilliance in political martial arts. We just have to see if and how it becomes practical good politics, as well as actual good policy, here in Nevada.

Convergence.

A little earlier, we were wondering if Nevada Republicans could really change by dropping the xenophobia that scares away Latin@ and other minority voters. Now, we're starting to get a better sense of the answer. And top Republicans probably won't like it. And they have one of their own to thank for it!

Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, R-Reno, is considering supporting Nevada's proposed state-issued drivers license for U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action program but is confused by State Democrat Leaders who are opposing a similar program to improve the quality of Nevada's election process.

Democrat lawmakers are currently drafting a bill that grants all residents, legal and illegal, a "Drivers Privilege Card," in hopes that it will make Nevada's roads safer for everyone.

"On one hand, Democrats are proposing photo IDs for illegal residents in Nevada in order to makes our roads safer," said Assemblyman Hickey. "If photo IDs are a good idea for illegal residents on our highways-then they should also be a good idea for legal ones in our voting booths," continued Assemblyman Hickey.

As if right on queue, Pat Hickey arrives to rain plenty of strong "TEA" on other Republicans' "No Really, We Like Latinos!" parade. Just as we had feared, the "tea party" base just won't read the memo.

And in case that was not enough, Hickey's enigmatic press release is fueling even more intrigue. Will Ross Miller's proposed election reform legislation provide enough voter ID to Pat Hickey's liking? Or is he still pursuing outright voter suppression?

The only thing that's clear at this point is that Pat Hickey is preparing to blow up the nascent effort led by Brian Sandoval and Michael Roberson to engage in Latino voter outreach... And look more "moderate" & attractive to the overall electorate while they're at it. And since Ralston is correct that Assembly Democrats won't need Republican votes there to pass a bill allowing for undocumented immigrants to access some kind of driver's license, this will probably just sting Republicans exactly when they wanted to start healing.

But again, there's another element to this story that can't be ignored. Just how much of a push will Republicans make for legislation aimed at voter suppression? Will Sandoval and Roberson really have an appetite for another "hot potatoe" issue that will likely drive more of a wedge between Republicans and minority voters? Will Ross Miller's proposed "electronic poll book" really satisfy the likes of Pat Hickey? Or will Sandoval and Roberson see Miller's proposal as a way to simultaneously save face while still seeming to demand some sort of voter ID?

Oh, and what will Democratic legislators think of all this Republican angst? And will this encourage or discourage them from playing ball with Ross Miller? All of a sudden, #NVLeg 2013 is becoming far more interesting.

Voter ID? Or Something More?

Yes, we're back to talking about Ross Miller's election reform proposal. However, we saw another Democrat speak in favor of it today. Prominent Las Vegas based Democratic consultant Andres Ramirez took to The Nevada View to offer an alternative perspective to this debate.

[... T]he proposal being offered by Secretary Miller is an innovative and intelligent way to solve the concerns that people have about preventing fraud in our elections, as well as increasing protection for voters. Proponents of voter id laws generally claim that voters need a form of identification with a photo to provide the greatest assurance that the voter is who they claim to be. This proposal solves that issue without requiring and burdening voters to spend money on identification or taking additional time out of their schedules to obtain an identification card.

On the voter protection side of this issue, it is a common problem in minority communities for voters to get challenged at polling places by poll watchers intent on disrupting the process. Generally, they target people who are not carrying identification cards to force that voter to cast a provisional ballot or to intimidate the voter from casting a ballot at all. Oftentimes voters will just leave without casting a ballot after being targeted by unscrupulous poll watchers. Those voters that choose to stay and cast a provisional ballot are limited to only voting in federal races, and are denied from making choices in important state and local races. This process proposed by Secretary Miller will eliminate that situation from occurring, and ensuring that voters will not be denied the opportunity from casting a ballot due to not carrying an identification card. Secretary Miller may not need to prevent fraud in our elections, but there is definitely a need to increase the protection of voters’ rights at the poll. This proposal will actually benefit minority voters as opposed to disenfranchising them. Secretary Miller should be commended for tackling this issue in a smart and effective method.

This is another way to look at it. What about all the voters who are forced to cast provisional ballots after being challenged? Might this be a way to cut down on provisional ballots and allow more legal voters to vote whole ballots?

And might this be a way to actually cut down on voter suppression? Will teabaggers still be so eager to challenge voters if there was a way to instantly verify voters? And how can they keep harping on "voter fraud" if this kind of system is implemented?

May this also pave the way for more progressive election reforms? Since Ross Miller is seeking an electronic poll book to instantly verify voters, might this allow for same day voter registration? Can this actually increase voter participation?

Not everyone is convinced. Even some progressives are still expressing serious doubts about Ross Miller's proposal. Hugh Jackson announced on KSNV's "The Agenda" today that he's still not a fan.



And even Ramirez admitted that there may be better uses for the cost involved with this proposal. But then again, running elections well doesn't come cheap. Might this be worth the cost? Or is this just an unnecessary solution in search of a nonexistent problem that would only lead to further complication of the voting process?

I'm sensing this won't be the last time we talk about this.

Ross Miller's Shocking "November Surprise"

On Tuesday, we had to work through a whole lot of confusion regarding Ross Miller's voter ID proposal. Since then, we've been seeing some surprising reactions in and around Carson City. On one hand, Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey (R-Reno) seemed to like at least the concept of Miller addressing voter ID. Governor Brian Sandoval (R) also seemed to warm up to at least the concept of tackling voter ID next spring.

But on the other hand, at least some Democrats still have serious reservations about even debating the subject in Carson City next spring. Incoming Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) gave Jon Ralston a public statement expressing her doubts of the merit of this proposal.

Speaker-to-be Marilyn Kirkpatrick tells me she is not exactly excited by Miller's idea: "We don’t have that kind of money to solve a problem that doesn’t exist."

Although Kirkpatrick is so far the highest profile Democrat to publicly take a critical eye to Miller's proposal, she's not the only one who's been complaining about it.

Perhaps this is why Ross Miller went on Ralston's show. Even with his thorough explanation on Twitter on Tuesday, he still needed to clear the air. Yet even last night, Ralston still had serious doubts.



And frankly, I'm still trying to sort this out myself. So there's a "perception problem" with the public when it comes to voter fraud. And Ross Miller's proposal aims to properly nip that perception problem in the bud. And not only that, but he wants to do so without disenfranchising any legal voters. So what's wrong with this?

As Marilyn Kirkpatrick suggested, the key problem looks to be this quest to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. We all know "voter fraud" (as in impersonating voters and/or trying to cast multiple ballots) is incredibly rare, and that it's virtually always caught in time. Whenever a report surfaces of someone trying to commit this type of fraud, we know the system works because this person was caught in time. So why is there a rush to spend a whole lot of money on "a solution in search of a problem"? And in implementing this "solution", might it actually create new problems by creating new burdens for many thousands of Nevada voters?

Is it due to the perception of "fraud"? Or is there more to this story? There have been whispers for some time about the "tea party" lobby going all in to push for the kind of voter ID law that actually would suppress legal voters. Is this Ross Miller's way of being proactive in preventing real voter suppression?

That's why Minnesota's Secretary of State introduced his alternative voter ID proposal (which is where Ross Miller is drawing inspiration from). However, it was still not enough to stop the then Republican controlled Legislature from putting their preferred voter suppression/voter ID bill on the November ballot. But in the following months, everyone in St. Paul encountered a huge surprise: voter ID lost at the ballot box. Apparently as progressive organizations were educating voters about the ramifications of this bill, support dropped.

So can the same happen in Nevada? That's probably what's on a lot of people's minds right now. Is it better to address the perception of fraud and simultaneously prevent any real voter suppression? Or would this bill just add unnecessary costs and complications to the election process without really accomplishing anything?

Without a doubt, Ross Miller's bill is turning out to be "The November Surprise" that will be shaking up Carson City in the new year. I can't wait to see what happens when this finally lands in state legislators' hands.

Ross Miller Responds re His Voter ID Bill

Obviously, I was taken aback when I first learned of Ross Miller's proposed voter ID bill. Why would someone of his stature lend credence to nonsensical conspiracy theories and frightening efforts to prevent legal voters from casting their ballots? What. The. F**k?!

So perhaps I overreacted. Fortunately, Mr. Secretary of State was courteous enough to explain what he's proposing... Via Twitter.

@atdleft @LauraKMM this doesn't require an ID card to vote - we'd input photos from DMV into poll book & take photo for those lacking an ID

@atdleft @LauraKMM correct, no fee or requirement to bring an ID to polls; if you have a DMV photo we'd use that, otherwise we'll take photo

Wait... What? Basically, Ross Miller is now running with an idea originally proposed by Minnesota's Secretary of State as a way to do voter ID without resorting to voter suppression.

The gist is election judges would have photos of the voters right there in the poll books (the books the election judges have in front of them with voters' addresses and a place for their signature), which should satisfy advocates of photo ID, and they should appreciate that this eliminates one of the objections of those of us opposing photo ID requirements, namely that photo IDs can be forged (I sometimes wonder that advocates seem to have never heard of fake IDs). It also eliminates the argument that a current technology is getting enshrined in the constitution, assuming, that is, that electronic poll books aren't just added to the amendment bill.

Setting this up is still an unnecessary cost since it accomplishes nothing. I can also imagine the delays, especially the first time, as voters without photos have to have them taken and election judges struggle with unfamiliar equipment with the predictable technical issues. If the poll books connect to a central database, and it goes down on election day, well, every computer person reading this just shuddered. However, since the voter doesn't have to acquire a photo ID regardless of their ability to do so, it gets rid of the disenfranchisement argument. This assumes the rules for voter ID remain as they are, namely that non-photo ID remains acceptable for registering. Such being the case, I could live with the rest. Yes, it still seems unfair and pointless to make people without photo IDs go through the delay of getting their photo taken, at least when lines are long and there are equipment or operator problems (if this is set up and you need a photo taken, go vote in the primary for local elections or special elections --- no lines), but at least they won't be told they can't vote.

Seconded. This would still lead to longer waits at the polls if implemented. And as I mentioned earlier, there's still the $7-10 million price tag to consider. Frankly, I'd still rather fund road maintenance than this.

However, the intent of this clearly is NOT voter suppression. There is no poll tax involved. And no one will be turned away for lack of a driver's license. If we must have some kind of voter ID law, this is a proposal that progressives and civil rights advocates can live with.

I apologize for jumping the gun on this. Now that I better understand what Ross Miller is proposing, I can clearly see his voter ID proposal is nothing like the tea party's. Again, no voter suppression is involved.

Still, I am concerned about the "tea party" alternative to this. At the very least, this likely means we will see a fight over voting rights during the next session of the Nevada Legislature. And civil rights activists will have to keep their eyes out for what comes next. Fortunately, they can at least breathe easier about Ross Miller's bill.