Michael J. Hanmer Discount Voting, Voter Registration Reforms and their Effects (2009)

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Six Democratsand one Republican signed the majority report; five Republicans and oneDemocrat signed the minority report.On June 8, the House adopted themajority version on a seventy-nine to fifty-five vote, thus keeping EDR.The vote closely followed party lines, with 91 percent of the votes forthe majority version coming from Democrats and 87 percent of the votesagainst coming from Republicans.The Senate also considered both LD 1864 and LD 1865.During thedebate on the floor of the Senate, Republican Bennett Katz argued againstEDR.Senator Katz asserted that if the government were to becomeunstable due to civil unrest, widespread fraud would be easier underEDR and that although he[did not] want to take anyone s rights away,.Americancitizens.haverespon-sibilities and [he was] equally concerned that Americans today do not necessar-ily live up to their responsibilities as much as they should (Legislative RecordJune 17, 1977, p.1779).9When requested and agreed to by one fifth of those present and voting, roll call voteswere recorded; for these motions, such a request was not made.The Purposeful Adoption of Election Day Registration 63Also speaking on June 17 was Democratic Senator Peter Danton.He be-gan by expressing his hope that the issue not be made a partisan one.10Senator Danton went on to say he talked with local officials and made itclear that if they thought there wasn t going to be any registration onelection day, they were just kidding themselves but that the process couldbe made easier, something LD 1864 sought to do.On a vote of sixteenfor and nine against, LD 1864 prevailed.Without further delay, LD 1864passed through the Legislature, was sent to the Governor, IndependentJames Longley, on June 22, and was signed on July 1, becoming Chap-ter 431 of 1977.The analysis just provided indicates that in the spirit of making votingeasier, Maine made a number of changes to the laws governing regis-tration and voting.Although one might argue that EDR was simply thebyproduct of a concern with establishing a statewide standard, furtheranalysis fails to support such a view.Establishing a statewide standardwas surely an important goal, but it could have been accomplished in twoways: 1) by eliminating EDR in municipalities with 2,500 or fewer peo-ple; or 2) by expanding EDR to all eligible citizens.If increased partici-pation was not a central concern, option 1) or maintaining the status quocould have been chosen.In addition, because differences in the dates forclosing registration prior to its reopening on election day were preserved,applying a single standard could not have been the primary motivation.Wisconsin (EDR Moves Forward in America s Dairyland)Wisconsin was the third state to adopt EDR, doing so in 1975.11 Theanalysis that follows is based on records from the Journal of the Assembly,the Journal of the Senate, Wisconsin Session Laws, and public hearingreports.Upon a request from the Democratic Governor, Patrick J.Lucey,twelve Democratic State Senators and one Republican, along with threeDemocrats in the State Assembly, introduced Senate Bill (SB) 234 of 1975,10The 1977 Senate was made up of twelve Democrats and twenty-one Republicans, andthe House was composed of eighty-seven Democrats and sixty-four Republicans.SenatorDanton alluded to the advantage held by the Democrats in the House, asserting that ifLD 1846, with its modifications to current law that would ease the burden of EDR onlocal officials, did not pass, the House would surely just allow the status quo to prevail.11Election administration in Wisconsin is handled at the municipal level.Prior to the HelpAmerica Vote Act s statewide registration database requirement, municipalities withfewer than 5,000 people did not have to require voter registration.The previous closingdate in municipalities requiring registration was thirteen days.64 Discount Votinga bill to reform voter registration laws in Wisconsin.A key componentof this bill was a provision to allow EDR.Partisan battles over SB 234 were waged in both chambers.TheDemocrats controlled the legislature; the Senate was made up of nineteen(58 percent) Democrats and fourteen (42 percent) Republicans, and theAssembly had sixty-three (64 percent) Democrats and thirty-six (36 per-cent) Republicans.When the bill passed the Senate, the vote was eigh-teen for passage and fourteen against; all of the votes for passage werefrom Democrats, with a lone Democrat voting no and one Republicannot voting.Republicans in the Assembly fought the bill to the end.Afterconsideration of all amendments, four attempts to prevent passage weremade by Assembly Republicans.Each attempt was thwarted, with votingalong party lines at each turn.The bill ultimately passed with a sixty-oneto thirty-one vote; fifty-eight of fifty-nine Democrats voted for passageand thirty of thirty-three Republicans voted against.Statements regarding the intent of the law can be found in the records ofthe public hearing, in the text of the law, and in a message from GovernorLucey.Each presents similar sentiments.Records from the Addendum toBill History, prepared by the Legislative Council Staff, document thearguments that were raised in favor and against SB 234 at the publichearing.Because there were not any appearances against the bill, therewere not any arguments against it.Among the arguments raised in favorof the bill were that it would rectify many of the shortcomings andinequities in our present voter registration laws and that the bill isdesigned to remove all unreasonable impediments to voting and to insurethat all qualified electors will be afforded ample opportunity to registerand vote (Addendum to Bill History, 1975 Senate Bill 234, p.3).The intent is also captured in the text of the law, and perhaps mostclearly:The legislature finds that the vote is the single most critical act in a democraticsystem of government; that voter registration was not intended to and should notprevent voting; that registration should simply be a remedy against fraud and itsburden be placed upon administrators, not the electorate.and that the act ofpersonal registration is a major cause of limited electoral participation.Therefore,pursuant to the policy of this state and nation to ensure all people the right tovote, the legislature finds it imperative to expand voter registration procedures(Wisconsin Session Laws 1975, c.85, � 1).Governor Lucey, in a letter to the Senate on October 9, 1975, presentsa positive view of the EDR component of SB 234:The Purposeful Adoption of Election Day Registration 65By providing for postcard registration and registration at the polls on electionday, it will remove some of the artificial barriers which have discouraged voterparticipation in past elections [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Linki