Suppression v. Participation

In April 2012, then Assembly Member Mark Sherwood (R-Henderson) threw a fit. For some reason, he felt compelled to troll Twitter during the Clark County Democratic Party Convention. And he decided one of his final acts as a state legislator would be to demand more voter suppression.

And he wasn't alone. In 2011, a slew of G-O-TEA legislators were firmly behind Sherwood's voter suppression agenda. One of them was State Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley).

And she didn't stop after Sherwood left the Legislature Building (as a legislator, only to reeenter later as a lobbyist). Rather, Barbara Cegavske decided to sabotage Secretary of State (and current Attorney General candidate) Ross Miller's (D) election reform agenda by demanding voter suppression in lieu of SB 63, Miller's electronic verification bill that would have guaranteed secure elections without disenfranchising lawful Nevada voters. But for Cegavske, she didn't see the point of passing any kind of election related bills that didn't disenfranchise lawful Nevada voters (especially the ones least likely to vote for Republicans).

Now, Barbara Cegavske is running to succeed Ross Miller as Secretary of State. And of course, she's running on a platform of dismantling all the progress Miller and his predecessors made in protecting Nevadans' right to vote. (Start at 14:15 below for the good stuff.)



Basically, Barbara Cegavske wants to import the national G-O-TEA voter suppression agenda into Nevada. And if she wins next month, we can expect more of this here in The Silver State.



At the very least, Barbara Cegavske offers a stark contrast from her opponent, Kate Marshall (D).



Ultimately, this race comes down to this: How strongly do we value our right to vote? Do we think it's OK for well heeled out-of-state G-O-TEA aligned special interests to come in and install someone with a stated goal of preventing people from voting? Or do we want to ensure all legal Nevada voters have the chance to participate in the "small d" democratic process?

Caught

Last week, someone was arrested. She registered to vote in Clark County... Twice, as a Republican and as a Democrat. And Biqui Diana Parra Rodriguez has been caught.

In April, Hortencia Segura registered as a Republican in Washoe County... Even though she's not a citizen. And she was caught.

Last week, Washington State Rep. (and aspiring Hollywood beefcake) Mike Hope (R) resigned from the Washington Legislature when news reports revealed that he has been registered to vote in Washington State and Ohio since last summer. Once he resigned, Mike Hope then revealed that he hasn't had a permanent address in his district for a while. In fact, he no longer has a permanent address anywhere in Washington State. He's now relocating back to Ohio. Oh yes, and he has been caught.

Notice a pattern here? For one, all these registration fraud cases just happened to involve Republican voter registrations. And ultimately, all of them were rather quickly caught.

But of course, certain G-O-TEA politicians (cough- Barbara Cegavske -cough) are now demanding voter suppression. And of course, they do so whenever stories like these emerge. Never mind that members of their own party were doing it. Never mind that they're advocating a system where voters are presumed guilty before they can prove their innocence, something that is the exact opposite of American legal tradition. And never mind that the tiny handful of people who try their hands at voter registration fraud are ultimately caught in a rather short amount of time.

So why are they now demanding voter suppression (again)? Why do they want to risk violating the legitimate voting rights of many thousands of Nevadans and millions more Americans? Why are they demanding a "solution" in search of a problem?

The jig is up. They've been caught. We can see right through this latest political stunt, and we sense we're not alone.

Like Clockwork

Haven't we seen this before? It's now like clockwork. Every so often, a certain local media pundit declares his disdain for early voting. And whenever that happens, G-O-TEA politicians & media personalities respond with glee... And with legislation to restrict and/or abolish early voting.

Like clockwork, the above mentioned local media pundit went on another tirade against early voting. But this time, national G-O-TEA media personalities became involved. And this time, the local media pundit contracted a case of the sads when he was caught in the middle of Dave Weigel's rebuttal of the G-O-TEA case against early voting.

Whenever the above mentioned local media pundit rails against early voting, he cries, "SLOTH!" And whenever G-O-TEA politicians rail against early voting, they cry, "INTEGRITY!". But in reality, early voting neither encourages "sloth" nor threatens "integrity". Rather, it's simply a way to allow more voters to participate in our ("small d") democratic process.

And that brings us back to Weigel's Slate column... And to Wisconsin State Senator Dale Schultz (R). He voted against his own Republican Party's plan to severely restrict early voting. And he didn't hold back when he explained to a Madison, Wisconsin, radio station why he did so.

It’s just, I think, sad when a political party — my political party — has so lost faith in its ideas that it’s pouring all of its energy into election mechanics. And again, I’m a guy who understands and appreciates what we should be doing in order to make sure every vote counts, every vote is legitimate. But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud. 

The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote. And it seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to make it easier, to help these people get their votes counted. And that we should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future, rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.

And Dale Schultz is not alone in saying this. In fact, the bipartisan presidential commission that was appointed after the 2012 Election recommended expansion of early voting in order to avert the kinds of long lines and voter dropout that occurred in states like Florida & Ohio, where Republicans had severely cut back early voting opportunities.

And that was no accident. A Republican Florida State Senator had actually declared, "This should not be easy", when he voted to cut early voting. That State Senator, Mike Bennett, is now the Election Supervisor for Manatee County. And ironically enough, he just convinced county supervisors there to slash Election Day voting sites in order to "save money and allow the county to offer more early voting sites in the future".

This is why we have such a hard time accepting G-O-TEA excuses for attacking early voting, even when a certain local media pundit attempts to validate their excuses. There's no "integrity" in eliminating citizens' ability to participate in our democratic system. There's no "virtue" in forcing hardworking Americans to choose between voting and keeping a job &/or taking care of their families. And there's certainly no "value" in deliberately creating long lines on Election Day that discourage people from voting.

At least Assembly Member Pat Hickey (R-Reno) had a moment of honesty last September when he admitted 2014 will be a "great year for Republicans" so long as we don't vote. That's what they're counting on. They're hoping we don't vote. And they're hoping by eliminating our opportunities to vote, we'll give up and simply don't vote.

Like clockwork, G-O-TEA politicians attack our voting rights. And like clockwork, they come up with elaborate excuses as they attempt to cover up their dirty misdeeds. It's just irritating that like clockwork, a certain local media pundit fails to recognize what's really behind their campaign against early voting.

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?

Hickey's Honest Hiccup

While most of our attention has been focused on Washington lately, we can't completely ignore recent rumblings from Carson City. One, in particular, is quite disturbing. And of course, it's the one from everyone's favorite Nevada G-O-TEA bomb thrower, Assembly Member Pat Hickey (R-Reno).

In a recent conservative talk radio interview, Assembly Member Hickey experienced some diarrhea of the mouth got candid about Republicans' plan to win the 2014 Election cycle. In short, they're hoping you don't vote.



And there's actually more to it than just that. As ThinkProgress' Ian Millhiser noted, G-O-TEA campaign strategists want to take advantage of the US Supreme Court's recent attack on the Voting Rights Act to make the playing field even more favorable for their side. So get prepared for another onslaught of voter suppression.

While Nevada Republicans haven't been successful in legislating voter suppression, they have so far succeeded in blocking progress on strengthening voting rights in this state. And to make matters worse, Nevada Republicans in Washington haven't said a peep as their G-O-TEA Congressional colleagues are dead-set on killing any chance of Congress fixing the Voting Rights Act. And as long as that isn't addressed, G-O-TEA forces plan to impose state sanctioned voter suppression in several states with Republican controlled governments.

Of course, Pat Hickey is now attempting damage control. Don't pay attention to that. Rather, pay attention to what his party does and doesn't do on voting rights. After all, actions speak louder than words.

And really, Pat Hickey was only saying aloud what G-O-TEA forces have quietly been working on all this time.

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.

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.

WTF, SoS?!

Just minutes ago, I noticed that Secretary of State Ross Miller had announced his plan to sponsor a voter ID bill early next year when the Legislature returns to Carson City. And my eyes were about ready to pop put. What. The. F***??!!

In looking at the details, it doesn't seem quite as gruesome. Apparently, registered voters without DMV approved ID's would have their pictures taken while signing affidavits stating who they are. Still, this is raising serious red flags.

For one, there's the $7-10 million cost of implementing this. For all the complaining about the budget, why take this on now? Couldn't that money be better spent maintaining roads?

Also, there's the issue of "voter fraud". Long story short: One is far more likely to be struck by lightning and/or encounter an UFO than to witness "voter fraud"! This truly is a "solution" in need of a problem...

Unless one takes into consideration a distinctly political problem that Republicans have. Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) alluded to it at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte in September.



Even if Ross Miller believes he's acting in good faith by reaching across the aisle and proposing a voter ID bill, chances are most Republicans have no plan to do the same. Rather, they may see this as an opportunity to snatch some "bipartisan cover" to push voter suppression. This is truly disappointing.

(What's more likely is Miller is setting himself up for a "Nixon goes to China" moment to boost his political future. We'll see how well this goes...)

What They Really Mean When Crying "Integrity"

Today, the local "newspaper" posted an editorial on the importance of voter suppression "election integrity". They actually claimed that because some non-citizen accidentally got a postcard encouraging online voter registration, somehow Ross Miller is trying to steal the election for Obama... And use this to further his own career! In case you just can't read the entire piece, here's a quick summary.



No really, they might as well have let her write it. Even Jon Ralston tweeted that earlier. And it's crystal clear as to what they really want when they cry about "integrity".

Yet again, the G-O-TEA is demanding voter suppression because that's the only way it can win. As we've discussed before, the kind of "voter fraud" that Sharron Angle and The R-J Editorial Board claim to worry about so much is so rare that it's virtually nonexistent. If anything, they should be worried about the denial of voter registration to the state's poor, as well as the continuing voter registration fraud scandal started by operatives in their own party.

But they're not. Instead, they keep pursuing "integrity" via voter suppression. It pretty much reveals where the G-O-TEA's true priorities lie.

The "Integrity"... No, the Hypocrisy.

One thing I'm starting to pay more attention to in the wake of the Nathan Sproul voter registration fraud scandal is continuing G-O-TEA hypocrisy on matters of "integrity". We recently saw this on full display in New Mexico, where the state Republican Party has actually been training poll watchers on deceptive voter suppression techniques.



The Nation's Lee Fang has more details on this new disturbing development.

The poll watchers are told to request identification from voters, even though the law in New Mexico does not require voter ID. There are other troubling parts of the video and poll watcher instruction manual, including a call for poll watchers to instruct some voters to vote by provisional ballot even if they are registered correctly in their precinct. Poll watchers are told to deceive Spanish-speaking voters by telling them ballots that interpreters are not available, when in fact New Mexico law provides for language assistance for minorities and Spanish-language ballots.

At CPAC Colorado, a conservative conference today in Denver, I asked Congressman Steve Pearce, a Republican lawmaker who represents New Mexico, about the brewing controversy. Pearce appeared to be aware of the NM GOP’s poll watching efforts, and supported them.

“We’re simply saying that we’re going to start, we’re going to take it back it into our hands,” said Pearce. “We should check for ID since you have to show an ID to do anything in America.”

He did, however, admit that doing so would be against the law. “Its against New Mexico law to check for ID,” the congressman conceded.

So Congressman Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico) is actually advocating his party breaking the law... And do so in order to pursue crimes that rarely ever occur (and probably can't be deterred by what Pearce is advocating)? Sure, that makes plenty of sense. (/snark)

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. The "tea party" backed "True the Vote" group is aiming to have 1,000,000 poll watchers across the country... And they may already be starting to surface here in Nevada. Here's what we know so far about "True the Vote".

We've been covering the Tea Party-organized group, which trains volunteers to challenge voters' registrations and then voters themselves at the polls. True the Vote aims to have a million poll watchers ready for November, so every precinct in America gets at least one. Those watchers are supposed to give voters a feeling like "driving and seeing the police following you."

We knew that True the Vote raised $64,687 (pdf) in 2010, the first year the group sent watchers into the polls, and we knew that True the Vote reported its revenue as coming from contributions, gifts and grants. True the Vote's founder says they get money by passing around an old felt cowboy hat at meetings.

Now that we've got True the Vote's 2011 tax returns, we can tell you the old felt hat has gotten a good bit heavier. The group took in twice as much money that year --$136,957 -- as the one before. More than half of that came from three contributions: $50,000, $19,000 and $5,000. We know the amounts because the IRS requires nonprofits to itemize large donations. We don't know who made the donations, because the IRS doesn't require nonprofits like True the Vote to reveal that, and True the Vote redacted the names in the copy they sent us. [...]

True the Vote was founded by King Street Patriots, a Houston Tea Party chapter. In August 2011, according to the tax papers, the founders moved to change the official name from KSP/True the Vote to just True the Vote. The idea, they wrote, is that King Street Patriots has a different mission. In September 2011, True the Vote reached a "facility use agreement" in which it pays the King Street for "occupancy costs." By December 2011, True the Vote owed King Street Patriots $22,038 for "occupancy related costs" and "certain costs paid by King Street Patriots for programmatic activities of True the Vote."

So this shady organization that claims to be nonpartisan, yet is fully dependant on the "tea party" for survival, and refuses to release its own finances now wants to "ensure election integrity" across the country? Why are we supposed to take this group seriously?

And why again are we supposed to believe G-O-TEA spinners when they claim they just want "integrity"? Clearly, they operate with none. And what again is so "ethical" and "full of integrity" about preventing law abiding citizens from exercising their legal right to vote?

Is This What Republicans Mean by "Voter Fraud"?

Honestly, I may have "misunderestimated" the grave danger behind this video that we found on Tuesday.



Believe it or not, there's more to this story... And BradBlog has been continuing to dig into it. Apparently, Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have hired none other than Nathan Sproul and his company, Strategic Allied Consulting, to do "voter registration". Sproul's company is known to handle "voter registration" for Republicans in Colorado, and in other swing states. And it turns out that Nathan Sproul has quite the history when it comes to "voter registration".

Brad Friedman has put up a history of Sproul’s companies, and their work for Republican interests. They range from antics like gathering signatures to put Nader on the ballot and being banned from Walmart for partisan voting drives to more serious offenses, like allegedly destroying Democratic registration forms in several states while on the payroll of the RNC. [...]

In 2004, a voter registration worker in Nevada hired by Sproul’s firm told reporters that he had witnessed his surpervisors chucking registration forms signed by Democrats. “They were thrown away in the trash,” he claimed. Sproul’s canvassers in Oregon confessed to doing the same thing, and other reports emerged across several swing states. In Minnesota, workers said they were actually fired for bringing in registration forms signed by Democrats. CBS News obtained faxes showing that Sproul's firm had even impersonated the left-leaning America Votes! to organize voter registration drives at libraries.

Oh yes, that's right. Sproul has a history here in Nevada. And it looks like he's back for more!

Strategic Allied Consulting recently put up a proxy to hide the fact that its website was registered by Sproul; but not before Flynn took a screen shot. Flynn notes that the firm has been aggressively hiring in Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. He flagged two large payments to the firm from GOP committees in Florida and North Carolina.

This brings me back to what happened at the Henderson DMV last Friday. There, I saw Shadow GOP Team Nevada staff barking "Quick Poll: Romney or Obama!" at people while hiding voter registration forms under a tally sheet. Funny enough, they were deploying the same tactics as the young woman in Colorado... Except that they weren't stupid enough to claim they were working for the Clark County Election Department.

But is there more to Team Nevada's "voter registration project" than what we've seen in public? What's happening behind the scenes? And if Nathan Sproul has indeed returned to Nevada (as his recent hiring spree suggests), is he engaging in the same kind of fraudulent activities that nearly jeopardized Nevada Republicans in 2004?

We've already been catching a glimpse of suspicious activity in Colorado. And now, the Palm Beach County, Florida, election supervisor is asking her state to investigate fraudulent voter registration forms given to her office by the Florida Republican Party (which hired Nathan Sproul to handle "voter registration"). Might this be happening (again) here in Nevada?

2:45 PM UPDATE: MSNBC's First Read reported earlier today that the RNC announced it's cutting ties to Nathan Sproul. However, First Read also noted this.

Sproul, who runs both Strategic Allied Consulting and Lincoln Strategy, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from NBC News. Besides Florida, the firm has been hired to register GOP voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia. In Nevada, the RNC was paying the firm directly; in the other four states, the firm was being paid by state parties with the funds reimbursed by the RNC.

So indeed, Team Nevada was using Nathan Sproul. That explains the strange tactics they've been using at the DMV.

Oh, and First Read also provided an update on the Florida investigation.

Christine Weiss, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, told NBC News Thursday that the alleged voter fraud by a Strategic Allied Consulting employee is "currently being investigated" by prosecutors in her office after it was brought to the attention of prosecutors on MondaybyPalm Beach election supervisor Susan Bucher.

Paul Lux, the Okaloosa County Supervisor of Elections, and a Republican, said that an employee of the firm had dropped off suspected fraudulent registration forms with his office for both Okaloosa County and nearby Santa Rosa County. Some of the Santa Rosa County new registrants appeared to be dead people, he said.

“It’s kind of ironic that the dead people they accused ACORN of registering are now being done by the RPOF” [Republican Party of Florida], said Lux.

Out of 304 Republican voter-registration forms recently dropped off by a firm employee at a small "satellite office" of the Palm Beach elections office, 106 were flagged as potentially fraudulent -- including "a lot" with "similar looking" signatures and others with apparently phony addresses, Bucher said in an interview.

Among the suspect home addresses were those that matched a gas station in Miami, a medical building in Boca Raton and a Land Rover dealership elsewhere in South Florida, she told NBC News.

Indeed, it's ironic. The G-O-TEA forces always cry about "voter fraud", yet it increasingly looks like they are actually the ones who are committing fraud!