When you apply for ACA insurance, you can register to vote! GOP don't LIKE that!

[KingOrfeo]

Story here.

Voters’ Rights groups have been keenly aware of this emerging issue, which is likely to be fought out in court. It became obvious to careful watchers in March, when a draft of the insurance application became public, that it would include the opportunity to register to vote. It was also obvious to those defending the right to vote that this provision is mandated by federal law — specifically by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. That law, more popularly known as the “Motor Voter Act”, specified that states had to offer voter registration in government offices. That’s why most states currently offer the option to register to everyone who gets a driver’s license.

The draft application got an immediate response from Congressman Charles W. Boustany,(R-Louisiana). As chairman of the House Committee On Ways And Means Subcommittee On Oversight (got that?), Boustany wrote a letter of protest to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. His objection was supposedly that applicants would be confused and think that voter registration was somehow linked to getting subsidies for their health insurance. Right … because Republicans have been so-o-o concerned that people get all the subsidies to which they are entitled.

California eagerly embraced the provision in May, becoming the first state to designate its healthcare exchange as a voter registration agency. New York and Vermont soon followed, while Connecticut and Maryland recently announced plans to do the same.

The difficulty, of course, comes from less progressive states. Their argument is over whether the exchanges are really government agencies, to which the 1993 law applies.

Boustany's letter of protest (pdf).

Issues for debate:

1. So -- can/must they do that? Are these health-care exchanges government agencies, or are they not?

2. Waitaminnit, Congressman -- if "The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to healthcare eligibility" -- where's the harm in that? All good patriotic Americans like you and me, concerned with the civic health of our great republic, which of course depends on maximum citizen participation in it, want all eligible citizens to register to vote -- don't we? Eh?! [prods Boustany's chest with index finger repeatedly] Eh?!

 

[Tryharder62]

The funny thing is that people are so crazy about the seperation of church and state but they are asking churches to host the registrations for the program.

 

[CandiCame]

How the fuck are you not registered to vote? Is that a thing? People are fucking obsessed over politics. You have to register when you get your license, and every time you do ANYTHING that requires the fucking court house they bring it up. When I go get my tags they're gonna ask me. Yes. I'm older than 18. I have done this thing.

 

[bronzeage]

I don't know why Boustany is so worried. Bobby Jindel has sworn to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act out of Louisiana, even if he has to run for Vice President to do it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The funny thing is that people are so crazy about the seperation of church and state but they are asking churches to host the registrations for the program.

Some churches also serve as polling stations. Never heard any objection before.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How the fuck are you not registered to vote? Is that a thing? People are fucking obsessed over politics. You have to register when you get your license, and every time you do ANYTHING that requires the fucking court house they bring it up. When I go get my tags they're gonna ask me. Yes. I'm older than 18. I have done this thing.

No, you don't have to register to vote when you get your driver's license, you are merely offered the chance to do so at that time. (GOP don't like THAT, either, but it's been the law since 1993.)

 

[mercury14]

The funny thing is that people are so crazy about the seperation of church and state but they are asking churches to host the registrations for the program.

Because asking churches to help with health care doesn't mean the church is endorsed by the government.

 

[CandiCame]

No, you don't have to register to vote when you get your driver's license, you are merely offered the chance to do so at that time. (GOP don't like THAT, either, but it's been the law since 1993.)

Yeah, but why wouldn't you? Who is an adult and isn't registered to vote?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yeah, but why wouldn't you? Who is an adult and isn't registered to vote?

Lots of eligible citizens are not registered. That's why there are voter-registration drives. Haven't you ever heard of those?

Now, if you want a real solution to America's real problems with election administration (those problems being 1) the system is hyperfederalized, every county doing things its own way, and 2) the system is partisan, election officials being elected officials rather than civil servants), Richard Hasen, at the end of his book The Voting Wars, provides it:

We need nonpartisan, professional election administration at the federal, state and local levels, with more power in the hands of the federal government than state government and power power in the hands of the states than the localities. Neutral election officials, whose allegiance is not to a political party or candidate but to a fair election system, should be the norm.

<snip>

"Let a thousand flowers bloom" should not be the model for how we run our elections. We should follow the path of other mature democracies. A nonpartisan election czar or panel of three should run our national elections, with political insulation and a long term of service. The czar should impose uniformity, competence, and discipline on the election process.

If used on a national scale, the president would make the nomination subject to a two-thirds or three-fourths confirmation vote by both houses of Congress. The large supermajority requirement would ensure that the person picked is a consensus candidate who cannot be easily manipulated by political forces. The election czar (or committee) should have the power to impose uniform standards on federal elections. Ideally, a voter should be able to walk into any polling place, anywhere in the country, and see the same voting equipment and the same ballot format. Election boards with balanced representation from both parties should have the power to monitor operations conducted by the nonpartisan official, with ample protection for either party to call for grand jury investigations if there are allegations of partisanship or incompetence.

<snip>

There should be uniform standards for how to deal with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Election laws should be updated so that the rules are clear and established in advance. States should conduct periodic election law audits to ensure that laws are up to date, clear, and match current voting technology. Uniformity not only minimizes the grounds for a potential postelection contest but benefits all voters by ensuring a fair process.

The registration rolls should be uniform as well. The federal government should be in the business of registering all voters, paying all costs associated with registration and voter verification. Registration should begin when someone graduates from high school (or drops out), and voter registration should follow citizens wherever they go with a unique voter identification number (which would differ from a Social Security number). The government should provide a voter identification card to each voter, but voters lacking identification would have the choice of using a thumprint or other means too verify their identity.

Votging machine hardware and software should have government approval. The source code and hardware should undergo rigtorous independent testing and full disclosure to government officials before rollout and implementation. Manufacturers should not be able to frustrate efforts to improve security by claiming that the source code is proprietary.

Forget everything you just read. None of it is going to happen. Despite the Florida debacle, states have not moved toward greater non-partisan election administration. Florida did get rid of its partisan elected secretary of state. But now the position is appointed by the governor, without the supermajority confirmation requirement that would keep the office apolitical. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see much benefit in giving up the chance to have one of their own as the state's chief election officer.

More generally, the Voting Wars have shown the parties the virtue of manipulating election rules for their advantage. The parties have a vested interest in keeping some partisan control. And local election officials fight for power against state officials, while both fight against federal control. There's no strong lobby for change. The window for change following 2000 closed quickly with the half-measure of the Help America Vote Act.

Nor is there support for mandatory, government-paid national voter registration with a voter identification -- much less with biometric information like a fingerprint. When I first proposed such a system, in 2005, I managed the nearly impossible feat of uniting the two political parties around an idea. Unfortunately, they were united in opposition. Republicans oppose federal control, oppose another government program, and oppose government control on principle. Democrats oppose voter identification requirements, even if the government pays for it and goes out and registers voters, even though a large majority of the public supports such identification. Civil libertarians don't like the government having your thumbprint. Barring a much worse meltdown than 2000, nationalizing our elections won't happen in our lifetime.

I'm not clear on why he thinks your voter registration number should be different from your Social Security number.

 

[neci]

Yeah, but why wouldn't you? Who is an adult and isn't registered to vote?

aye dios mio.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because asking churches to help with health care doesn't mean the church is endorsed by the government.

Let us also remember the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It's constitutional so far as the courts have ruled so far -- but there was some flak when it turned out mosques get to use it too!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yeah, but why wouldn't you? Who is an adult and isn't registered to vote?

Women on the run from abusive boyfriends or ex-husbands, for one.

Because to register to vote you have to give your home address, and women have been killed by their exes after they looked up their victims via voter registration records...

... which are published as public information.

 

[CandiCame]

Lots of eligible citizens are not registered. That's why there are voter-registration drives. Haven't you ever heard of those?

Now, if you want a real solution to America's real problems with election administration (those problems being 1) the system is hyperfederalized, every county doing things its own way, and 2) the system is partisan, election officials being elected officials rather than civil servants), Richard Hasen, at the end of his book The Voting Wars, provides it:



I'm not clear on why he thinks your voter registration number should be different from your Social Security number.

I think I have, now that you mention it. But it's still weird. I mean, literally everyone asks you every time you have to do anything even vaguely related to the government from the day you turn 18.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think it is a great thing.

Registering to vote to keep the benefit provided to you by a one-party edict is a great way to show your thanks and appreciation as you reach into the pockets of your fellow Americans. I sure hope the hell that the food stamp program and the unemployment office offer the same great service. Even better, would be a chance to register as an undocumented worker, to bring you out of the shadow and getting registered to vote at the same time. School loans and grants! Again a perfect opportunity to pay fealty to those who loot upon your behalf and benefit.

Sure beats the hell out of using cut-outs like ACORN.

This way, the government does not have to pretend to give grants to contributors who go out and hire the people who sign up the Dallas Cowboys O-line in Saint Louie.

Now you get trained government employees at every interaction with the begging public who will make sure the job gets done right. Like Lois Lerner did...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think I have, now that you mention it. But it's still weird. I mean, literally everyone asks you every time you have to do anything even vaguely related to the government from the day you turn 18.

Why would we leave something as important as a Democrat Party voter drive to rank amateurs like Democrats when we can use the career Bureaucracy to make sure that we get Democrats registered, not a the party expense, but at the people's expense?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Women on the run from abusive boyfriends or ex-husbands, for one.

Because to register to vote you have to give your home address, and women have been killed by their exes after they looked up their victims via voter registration records...

... which are published as public information.

Consecutive thread titles this morning:

Laurel, you don't get to decide what men's issues are.
LJ_Reloaded

Badbabysitter's home country bans the discussion of misandry from colleges.
LJ_Reloaded

I had me a good laugh today about women dumb enough to get raped.
LJ_Reloaded

Australian women are paying a terrible price for their alpha male worship
LJ_Reloaded

What in the hell am I doing wrong? I'm a nice guy!
LJ_Reloaded

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think it is a great thing.

Registering to vote to keep the benefit provided to you by a one-party edict is a great way to show your thanks and appreciation as you reach into the pockets of your fellow Americans. I sure hope the hell that the food stamp program and the unemployment office offer the same great service. Even better, would be a chance to register as an undocumented worker, to bring you out of the shadow and getting registered to vote at the same time. School loans and grants! Again a perfect opportunity to pay fealty to those who loot upon your behalf and benefit.

Sure beats the hell out of using cut-outs like ACORN.

This way, the government does not have to pretend to give grants to contributors who go out and hire the people who sign up the Dallas Cowboys O-line in Saint Louie.

Now you get trained government employees at every interaction with the begging public who will make sure the job gets done right. Like Lois Lerner did...

Oh I know, isn't this just awful!

Making it easy for all those less-than-desirables to vote!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Oh I know, isn't this just awful!

Making it easy for all those less-than-desirables to vote!

Now THAT'S the main reason why Republicans hate this law.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh I know, isn't this just awful!

Making it easy for all those less-than-desirables to vote!

Also from Hasen's book:

What really motivates the Fraudulent Fraud Squad? [American Spectator journalist Matthew] Vadum, one of the squad's newest members, inadvertently revealed what underlay his attack on ACORN and related groups. Registering the poor to vote, he contended, is "un-American," like "giving burglary tools to criminals." It is profoundly anti-social and un-American to empower nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is exactly why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

In other words, we should once again make wealth a condition of voting. Apparently this is no longer the kind of odious idea one should keep to oneself.

Hasen's not making that up, either. Vadum's article.

 

[richard_daily]

Lots of eligible citizens are not registered. That's why there are voter-registration drives. Haven't you ever heard of those?

Now, if you want a real solution to America's real problems with election administration (those problems being 1) the system is hyperfederalized, every county doing things its own way, and 2) the system is partisan, election officials being elected officials rather than civil servants), Richard Hasen, at the end of his book The Voting Wars, provides it:



I'm not clear on why he thinks your voter registration number should be different from your Social Security number.

Your social security number is not supposed to ever be used for identification purposes.

 

[tactful]

Yeah, but why wouldn't you? Who is an adult and isn't registered to vote?

Drop outs, druggies, people from outside the USA that are here illegally and others that can not read or write, for that matter.

 

[CandiCame]

Drop outs, druggies, people from outside the USA that are here illegally and others that can not read or write, for that matter.

I'm a dropout druggie.

If you're an immigrant when you file for your citizenship and get your weird as social security number that starts with a '9' part of your paperwork is voter registration forms. I've had to explain what the different parties were to different people. The US has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. And the folk who aren't citizens can't register- so I guess my question should have been more specific.

 

[CandiCame]

Why would we leave something as important as a Democrat Party voter drive to rank amateurs like Democrats when we can use the career Bureaucracy to make sure that we get Democrats registered, not a the party expense, but at the people's expense?

I guess the different parties have drives because they don't influence you when you get your forms. They hand you a bunch of paperwork and you pick which box to check. Unless you're renewing your license and it's already in the computer. Which is a pain in the ass. My family is in politics. The bitch at the counter KNOWS me- has known me since I was a toddler. She's still required to ask me if I want to keep the same party registration. I'm like, "Karen... seriously? Just give me my fucking license. I've been here a million years!!"

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your social security number is not supposed to ever be used for identification purposes.

Whyever not?

And I have often been asked for the last four digits, for identification purposes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Whyever not?

And I have often been asked for the last four digits, for identification purposes.

He's right, but I don't recall why. It's been that way for a number of years, I seem to recall a consortium of privacy-minded Democrats and Mark-of-the-Beast Conservatives enabling this restriction.