Rush Holt is the most principled, most in-touch, most intelligent, most eloquent member of the New Jersey congressional delegation. Bravo to him for standing up for the rights of the least enfranchised among us. I hope that once Lautenberg retires (if he ever does; they'll most likely have to cart him out of office), Dr. Holt will become New Jersey's next senator. He would truly do us proud.

Holt’s bill, which would ensure a verifiable paper trail for electronic voting, is long overdue, and this measure should receive bipartisan support. Consider that many of the election errors in 2000, 2004, and 2006 happened with electronic voting machines and that Volusia County in Florida recorded a net negative amount of votes for Gore.

Holt, incidentally, is a passionate, informed congressman who I have been impressed with when I’ve seen him on C-SPAN; certainly, he is the smartest N.J. congressman, and he has been a powerful, pro-science voice in favor of expanding stem cell lines and research.

it sounds good, but do we get to see a printout right after we vote that says who we voted for? and what if we do see there was an error, how do you "correct it"? Do poll workers have the ability to change votes? i feel like there will be a lot of mistakes and corrections in Hudson County...

Have you read the bill, H.R. 811? I think it should answer your questions; Dr. Holt has indeed thought out all of these contingencies and has responded to them in his characteristically scientific and pragmatic fashion. 

`(i) The voting system shall require the use of or produce an individual voter-verified paper ballot of the voter's vote that shall be created by or made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast and counted. For purposes of this clause, examples of such a ballot include a paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand or read by an optical scanner or other similar device, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device or system, or a paper ballot produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the voter is permitted to verify the ballot in a paper form in accordance with this subparagraph.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the voter-verified paper ballot before the permanent voter-verified paper ballot is preserved in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i).

`(iii) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verifiable paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote.

[...]

 `(iii) In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic vote tallies and the vote tallies determined by counting by hand the individual permanent paper ballots produced pursuant to subparagraph (A), and subject to subparagraph (D), the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.

Decent first step, but how do the dead people who vote in Camden verify who they voted for. Can we chisel it onto their tombstone or just give it to the ward leader. If Holt has any balls the Bill would also require identification to vote.

Voter identification schemes are a kind of racist code that I am frankly disgusted to see here. I recall the recent flap in Georgia about just this issue. No matter what type of identification you suggest, there are drawbacks. Driver's license? Well, maybe some poor elderly citizens of Camden do not have one. Passport? I am a middle class white male and I do not have one. Coercing presentation of these sorts of IDs is tantamount to an [unconstitutional] poll tax or a literacy test. The only non-discriminatory possibilities are social security card or birth certificate, but neither of those include photographs and thus could in theory be commandeered in the name of the dearly departed. One already must sign in at the polling place--a legally binding affidavit. Anything else, frankly, seems like overkill and could quite possibly constitute discrimination.

Mind you, I am not advocating for voter fraud (e.g., corpses showing up in the election tallies). I am just as concerned about it as you are. I simply do not believe that voter identification is a viable or just means of preventing such electoral malfeasance. I acknowledge that the problem is somewhat of a tautology--we need to crack down on voter fraud, but we are barred constitutionally and by conscience from perhaps the most effective method of doing so. Another possible means of stemming voter fraud would be, for example, to use optical fingerprint scanning. This technology is used, for example, in computer testing centers as for the MCAT or LSAT and thus could easily be adapted to polling places relatively inexpensively. Voters would have to scan their fingerprint, which would be entered into a computer database and would therefore be barred from voting more than once as the computer would turn up a match if they tried. After a set amount of time after the election, the fingerprint files would be stricken from the hard drives, and no other public or private agency would have access to the files. In terms of absentee voting, a fingerprint could be affixed to the paper ballot and likewise scanned into the computer. This is just an amateur's idea, but it serves to demonstrate that an ID is not the only way to crack down on voter fraud. Also remember that no system will be perfect and airtight, but this could significantly reduce the incidence of electoral tampering.

Voter ID doesn't hurt or discriminate against anyone. There are way too many dead people voting in NJ and across the nation. Everyone has ID.....driver's license, SS card, heck, even a utility bill would be fine (dead people don't pay utilities). Also, it would be nice to check someone's signiture and perhap ask for their address.....I thought both were the law in NJ, but neither ever happen. As for Holt, he's not a bad guy.....not a wacko like most Dems in Congress. Personally, I like him just for the fact that he's not another d-bag lawyer. We need more scientific voices in Congress.

If you cannot aquire an ID suitable to prove you are eligible to vote than you have no right to vote at all. Any excuses just play into the welfare mentality that is destroying this State. Remember any Illegal vote may be taking away my/your legitimate vote and therefore we are the ones being disenfranchised. Don't make excuses for people not having ID, make them step up to the plate and be counted. Any form of Id would be fine, I'm not advocating any particular form. As far as scanners for fingerprints, I'm all for it, although there will be a black market for dead peoples fingers.

So, basically, you feel that disenfranchising people largely based on their race is just fine? There is no law whatsoever to back up your claim that "If you cannot aquire an ID suitable to prove you are eligible to vote than you have no right to vote at all." That is simply cloaked racism. The past two posts show just how little most people know about/understand the history of the franchise in this country and the evolution of the common law thereunto. One need not pay PSE&G monthly or drive a car...or even have a home...in order to vote in this country. Some may feel that only a superior, privileged class should be able to have their voices heard (e.g., propertied white men), but in an advanced republican society such an idea is odious to the very spirit of its continued existence.

Why do you scream Racism, when all we are asking for is legitimate voters. That card has been well worn out. Surely with you Ivy League education you can understand how people would not like their vote nullified by an illegal vote. Nobody on this thread mentioned race or socio-economic standing.

Whether you agree with voter ID being required or not is irrelevant since the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) already requires there be ID for individuals to vote. It is not specifically a driver's license, but ID is definitely a requirement. NJ has also already passed a state HAVA law that follows the federal law and requires some sort of ID.

I have never voted in New Jersey in person...I'm only 20 years old, so I've voted twice in Pennsylvania and once absentee in New Jersey. However, in PA, the only required ID to vote is a signature. I did not have to present any form of ID whatsoever. As for my absentee vote in NJ, I suppose the fact that my ballot was mailed to a specific address constitutes an implied form of ID? I'm not sure. I do know, however, that I did not have to provide any additional ID to vote absentee in NJ except for my signature on the ballot.

And votedemsout, it is not of the illegal vote that I speak (do you have any statistics, by the way, about the numbers of illegals that do vote to justify your concerns?). Rather, I am referring to the poor African-American and Hispanic-American votes in our inner cities--the voting rights of people who are just as much American citizens as you or I. Perhaps because I live in West Philadelphia and I see abject poverty practically daily I am better able to attest to the factor of accessibility with respect to the franchise. African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans who live in the ghettos of WPhil (and, indeed, wherever else) often do not have the luxury of cars for which to have a license or to travel to a polling place, or many times even homes on which to pay utility bills. This, however, does not preclude them constitutionally from voting. It cannot. If all else were equal--that is, if members of all races were equally represented in the squalor of the inner city as well as in the McMansions of Upper Saddle River, NJ and Gladwyne, PA--then perhaps race would not be a concern. However, we must think in terms of the real world--African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are indeed overrepresented among the poor in this country, and as a result are especially vulnerable to disenfranchisement in comparison with those of higher SES--who also happen to be predominantly white or Asian-American. That those above-mentioned minorities in particular must live in abject poverty is a well-known fact and, as a result, an attempt to disenfranchise the urban poor is simultaneously and consciously an attempt to disenfranchise African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. I could go on further into stratification theory and argue that it is in large part past and present racial discrimination that put them there in the first place--to which I doubt there is serious objection--but that need not be further elaborated. So, you see, by disenfranchising the urban poor who are just as much American citizens as we are, it is effectively racial discrimination. And that is surely something into which we do not want to immerse ourselves in this day and age.

pennquaker08 - Why do you think that blacks and hispanics don't readily have valid forms of ID? In general, I don't see why the "poor" wouldn't have acceptable ID. I don't believe I ever seen any data making this point.....obviously, I may be wrong.

... there are exceptions. I was attending court in Newark on behalf of the GOP during the Franks/Corzine melee and a woman petitioned the court in order to vote.  She told the judge she had just moved to NJ from Maryland and wanted to vote that day.  The judge asked her for her address and she replied "1 Gateway Center, Raymond Blvd., Newark, NJ".  Some laughter broke out in the court room.  You see, that address was for the Gateway Hilton, at which she was currently staying.  Even more laughter broke out when the judge actually found that she had established sufficient ties in NJ to allow her to vote.  Hotel rooms notwithstanding, to obtain a court order to vote you have to produce an electric bill or some other form of ID fixing you to a particular location.  And to register as a voter, you are listed by district/ward based on your address.  So by definition, any voter likely has access to an identifying document of some kind. 

Perhaps the best explanation about why the photo ID requirement is tantamount to discrimination can be found in a recent case from Georgia. The state attempted to require photo ID in order to vote in the state. However, U.S. District Court judge Harold Murphy enjoined enforcement of the requirement, ruling it tantamount to an [unconstitutional] poll tax--a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Goodman, Brenda. "Federal Judge Rules Voter ID Card Law in Georgia Is Illegal." The New York Times (Online). 13 July 2006. The New York Times Company. 22 May 2007. www.nytimes.com.) Thus, such a voter ID law is unconstitutional...that trumps any other claim to its validity.

A voter identification requirement in and of itself is not unconstitutional. Having a valid address or a social security card, or even a birth certificate, for example, would not run afoul of the courts because [in theory] every American citizen should (or at least could) have these. However, there is no form of photo ID that every American would likewise possess, hence the difference. The use of one of these forms of identification, however, would not solve the problems brought up herein, namely about illegal aliens or dead people voting, as there is no real (see: constitutional) way to verify at the polls that a birth certificate or social security card does not belong to he who presents it. Thus, the only solution to this quandary would be to require a photo ID, but this as we have established is unconstitutional. And therein lies the tautology.

This is all very simplistic, however. The disenfranchisement that faces African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans disproportionately is due to larger matters than only voter identification. For an excellent examination of such factors, see:

• James, D.S. (1987) The Yale Law Journal. 96(7):1615-1640.
• Quinlivan, M.T. (1989) University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 137(6):2361-2395.

... does not stand for the proposition that requiring proof of identification to vote is unconsitutional.  This decision dealt specifically with an official State of Georgia ID card that cost the voter $20 and was effective for a 5 year period.  Prior to attempting to require this official ID, Georgia accepted 17 different forms of ID for the purpose of voting.  The Court's decision was tailored to the specific requirement under the Georgia law.  ***I see you amended your original post -- you are now correct in your application of the decision.  Good job! 

With people like you the black race will never be succesful. Racism exists in this Country and your type of racism is the type that keeps people from striving to do better.

.....that case doesn't make the conclusion you says it does. Let's think of this logically, if someone doesn't have any legitimate ID, how did that person register to vote in the first place? You can't register to vote based on a claim saying you are a particular person. Voter ID (whether picture ID or not) is not a big deal.....

You apparently did not carefully read what I wrote. Go back and try again. I don't feel like explaining it again to you. And perhaps ID is nothing out of the ordinary for a Somerset suburbanite replete with all of the expected consumer good accouterements, but for the sick and elderly with whom I do volunteer work in West Philly, such a glib attitude is not always possible. (By the way, I registered to vote with just an address and a signature. Nothing more.)

LordXenu pointed it out.....you were wrong on the case's main point. You must have registered in Hudson County or maybe Camden.....it's been a few years, but I had to at least show proof of my address.

Once again, why do you think that black and hispanic people don't have legit IDs in significant numbers? Asking for ID is a way to keep dead people and illegals from voting.

NOTE: This is an edit in response to SomersetRepublican. (BTW, sticks and stones can break my bones... :-P. I am a suburbanite replete with all of the consumer good accouterements from good ol' GOPer-land Burlington County myself, but that does not blind me to or lead me to pooh-pooh the plight of the less fortunate.)

The point, in the nature of reiteration, is this: requiring photo ID (either a government-issued voter ID card or even a driver's license) in order to vote is unconstitutional! What do you not understand about this? From the Times article I cited above:

Judge Murphy...said [the law] violated the First and 14th Amendments because the severe burden on the right to vote discriminates against disadvantaged groups, those least likely to have a photo ID.

In a state court case, a precedent was also established:

In issuing a permanent injunction against the latest version of the Voter ID Act, the judge, T. Jackson Bedford Jr. of Fulton County Superior Court, said legislators overstepped their authority when they imposed a condition on the right to vote by requiring a photo ID. ''Nowhere in the Constitution is the legislature authorized to deny a registered voter the right to vote on any other ground, including a possession of a photo ID,'' he wrote.

--Goodman, Brenda. "State Judge Voids Georgia Law Requiring Photo ID of Voters." The New York Times (online). 20 September 2006. The New York Times Company. 22 May 2007. www.nytimes.com.

For another illustration, look at Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. ___ (2006), from the Supreme Court of the United States:

• In this case Plaintiffs, registered voters in Arizona and voters' rights groups, challenged Proposition 200, a law that imposed new restrictions on voter registration and voting. Among these restrictions was the requirement that registrants provide proof of citizenship; the six forms of identification valid to prove citizenship are: (1) a state issued driver's license; (2) a U.S. birth certificate; (3) a U.S. passport; (4) a U.S. naturalization document; (5) another immigration document that proves citizenship; or, (6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number. When voting at the polls, voters must provide identification with their name, address and photograph, or two forms of identification with their name and address. Voter mail registration applications, prescribed by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, are no longer provided.
• Plaintiffs claimed that the State of Arizona did not obtain preclearance to stop using the prescribed voter mail registration applications. Plaintiffs also alleged that the voter identification requirements disparately impact Latinos as Latinos are less likely to possess the forms of identification required to register to vote and cast a ballot. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that the enforcement of these new voter identification requirements diverts funds from programs that would encourage voter turnout. Accordingly, Plaintiffs sought a Preliminary Injunction preventing the enforcement of these voter identification requirements.
• The district court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 11, 2006. --Foley, E.B. Election Law Litigation: Purcell v. Gonzalez. Election Law @ Moritz. 16 October 2006. Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. 22 May 2007.

How does this, then, strengthen my point? Ohio State University law professor Edward B. Foley analyzes this as such. Apparently Mr. Justice Kennedy, writing per curiam, felt that the permissibility of non-photo ID did not place undue duress on voters:

• it is worth observing that Arizona's new polling place ID requirement is not as stringent as others subject to pending litigation.  It would permit two pieces of non-photo ID as an alternative to one piece of photo ID -- and would permit a wide variety of non-photo IDs to satisfy this requirement, including utility bills, bank statements, property tax records, motor vehicle registration or insurance forms, Native American tribal identification, other government-issued identification, or a voter registration card. [emphasis added] --Foley, E.B. "ID Equities?" Election Law @ Moritz. 16 October 2006. Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. 22 May 2007. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/freefair/IDEquities.php.

It is furthermore noteworthy that, in his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Stevens writes:

• Allowing the election to proceed without enjoining the statutory provisions at issue will provide the courts with a better record on which to judge their constitutionality. At least two factual issues remain largely unresolved: the scope of the disenfranchisement that the novel identification identification requirements will produce, and the prevalence and character of the fraudulent practices that allegedly justify those requirements. Given the importance of the constitutional issues, the Court wisely takes action that will enhance the likelihood that they will be resolved correctly on the basis of historical facts rather than speculation. [emphasis added] --Stevens, J. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. ___ (2006).

In other words, Mr. Justice Stevens acknowledges the need to prevent voter fraud, but at the same time to protect the franchise for those most vulnerable to its abrogation by discriminatory electoral laws. As a result, he importantly leaves the door open for the Court to later consider, based on a sort of pre-ordained historical "experiment," the effectiveness both in combatting voter fraud and in simultaneously protecting the franchise of this non-photo ID requirement in the law. As I have said, I am personally sceptical of the ability of non-photo ID to, for example, prevent the exhumation of corpses in order to vote, but far be it from me to question the wisdom of the Supreme Court. I guess we'll just have to trust their logic for now, since they don't know if it will work either.

These two scenarios (i.e., from Georgia and Arizona) when taken together strongly corroborate my point. Thus, I must empahsize again that my point is not that any requirement of voter ID is unconstitutional or should or could not be required. My only concern herein, and according to the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the Georgia Supreme Court it is a valid one, is that requirement for photo ID is unconstitutional. However, only a photo ID (besides, as I suggested above, fingerprinting or perhaps a DNA sequence) could guarantee that somebody is not voting using a false identity. Using a proof of address like a utility bill, a birth certificate, or a social security card are all well and good, but they do not necessarily assuage concerns of voter fraud; there is no constitutional way at the present time to prevent against, for example, dead people casting ballots. This, and nothing more pretentious, is my point.

Whether or not they have legitimate IDs in significant numbers is immaterial (although in my experience working in the neighborhoods, that does seem to be the case unfortunately). It is not a function of their race in particular, but rather of their SES which, as I have attempted to explain above, stems in part from racial discrimination. Remember, the Constitution does not only protect large groups, but individual rights as well. By the way, I have registered absentee Burlington County and in person in Philadelphia County. Neither time required a "proof" of address. Only an actual address to which to mail the registration card and a signature.

pennquaker08 - I just saw your edited post.....ah, class warfare. Well, this "Somerset suburbanite replete with all of the expected consumer good accouterements" always enjoys how quickly libs reach for this. It normally comes right after the race card. Good job.

Just a side comment if I may, I've been in the Monmouth County area quite a bit and now I'm temporarily living there, and I have never ever seen Rush Holt. Even during election season, I found myself asking who the heck he was. The same can't be said for Congressman Pallone, who is very active in the community. (Yeah yeah, I just gave a Democrat credit)

To register to vote you must provide a name, address, birthdate and signature. If you need those things to register, you should need them to prove your ID when you vote.

 Pennquaker stop being a racist, black people can have homes and addresses. stop saying they are all homeless. I take offense to that. people like you are disgusting.

No, black people cannot have homes and addresses! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

More to the point, though, do spare us your crocodile tears, for it is you who is racist. Indeed, it is one of the most notable hallmarks of racism to downplay or outright deny the existence of discrimination as you do. I neither stated nor implied that "all" African-Americans are homeless or impoverished. That is simply your choleric take on my well reasoned analyses. I am the only one around here standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, as Dr. Holt is courageously doing in Washington. Moreover I fear the threat of voter disenfranchisement to poor whites as much as poor African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, but my research has shown that it is not as prevalent a problem among whites. I have cited two well-known articles above, which I will restate here for your benefit, that I suggest that you read that will show you just what pernicious effects racism has on voting rights in this country.

How typical, though, of a conservative to shoot his mouth off without knowing the facts or even having considered the evidence. I spend my weekends working with the impoverished here in Philadelphia, so I know firsthand about the plight of the urban poor who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic-American. This sad reality stems from long-time racism by folks like you who think that nothing is the matter and they should just suck it up and move on. Poverty and chronic joblessness are not their problems specifically and solely, but rather they are societal problems to which you as well are contributing. You truly are out of your depth, and your ignorance is astounding, tragic, and even sickening. What do you do to speak authoritatively on these matters? I'm assuming you sit on your derrière and look at Fox News. My personal experience stands in company with noted professors from Yale Law School and the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, among many others. You stand in company with Bill O'Reilly and the Jersey Guys.

It is so typical of our political debate in this country for progressives to present well reasoned, researched arguments based on factual evidence and scholarly analyses while conservatives can only resort to rhetoric, talking points, and puerile mudslinging. Grow up, take the blinders off, and recognize that you are living in a world in which anybody who is not in the majority necessarily suffers economically and politically, not to mention physically, due to human nature.  

.The crux of PennQuaker’s larger claim, that is, that institutionalized racism exists and is manifested through antiquated voting laws that target minorities, particularly for their disenfranchisement, is sadly in this day and age correct. The Georgia case that was cited was particularly controversial not because it required a picture ID but because it required said ID to be retrieved from places miles away from residences in question – mostly African American, mind you – and the very process of getting the IDs brought into question why the Georgia government would make it more difficult for certain, targeted voters to vote.

As someone who moved here from the South, I can attest that some of these institutionalized practices that discourage African Americans from voting still exist. For example, we would get word that, in upstate South Carolina, some polling stations had whites standing outside the area who would discourage blacks from going inside and voting. In the 2004 elections, outdated voting machines in urban, predominantly African American parts of Ohio, made it so voters were once again disenfranchised, as they were left standing outside for 7-9 hours just to cast the ballot.

I’m afraid this issue goes beyond just the basic idea of getting and ID and then casting a ballot: voting rights and the systematic obstacles in place to discourage certain groups from voting are centered around accessibility, convenience, and verification, which in themselves are paths to discouragement if targeted towards certain voters.

All any of us wants is for everyone who is eligible to vote can vote. VOTE ONCE, and that's that. The ideas of an ID have been debated, and suggesting them shouldn't warrant calls of racism. Their constitutionality should be debated, and their effect on society should be debated. But we need to stop attacking each other and scream "racism" when a civil discussion is better for all involved. It is a disgrace to the actual racism in our society. If an ID is not acceptable, then let's come up with something else. Penn sugggested that the signed statement is acceptable, and perhaps it is, if there were SEVERE penalties and prosecutions for breaking that law. Unfortunately, there is little to no enforcement. My problem is more with the power brokers in the inner cities that shuttle around the poor minorities to vote exactly how they tell them to. They bribe the poor and elderly into voting the way they want with the promise of a pack of cigs or a hot meal. How do you suggest we crack down on that practice, Penn? What if they say, "Hey I already voted!" and the ward captain says "Just come in this van and do what I say, and I'll give you five bucks!" You are correct that the inner city minorities are abused in this fashion in disproportionate numbers, but it isn't Bill O'Reilly and the Jersey Guys doing that, it's the Democratic machines in Philly and Newark, et. al.  I've seen this type of voter bribery happen firsthand, and it's probably the reason people want some sort of ID. 

pstchrisp, While a signed affidavit does have the force of law, and I feel that therefore it should be enough, I do recognize the potential problems. Thus, I already offered a suggestion on exactly this upthread on how to cut down on some forms of voter fraud. With respect to voter bribery, I am afraid that unless you can catch somebody in the act of bribing a voter somehow, there is really no way to do anything about it. We could add a statement to the poll book stating something like "I hereby certify that my vote is my own, and that I have not been coerced in any manner to vote against my will" (I am sure the lawyers could make it sound much prettier than I have here, but that could be the gist). Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes coercion is clearly a subjective matter. What role does subtlety play? If a party operative offers a pack of cigarettes to an indigent voter while wearing all sorts of buttons and such touting the nominee of a particular party, does this constitute compulsion? Or only if they say, "I will give these cigarettes to you only if you promise to vote for XYZ"? If even subtle coercion is repugnant to the unfettered rights of voters, which it most likely is given the stance over the years of the Supreme Court in various cases, then why could we not also say, for example, that evangelical leaders likewise compel their flock to vote for particular candidates under threat of hellfire and brimstone that will result from installing the "wrong" candidates in office? One cannot deny that this takes place, what with the novel practice of megachurches doling out "voter guides" outlining the godliest candidates for whom one should vote. How is this substantively different than the offer of a hot meal? To many, the salvation of one's soul is just as important as the physical nourishment thereof. If we are going to crack down on voter intimidation, we must do it with equanimity. We also must ensure protection for First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. How can all of this be done? Clearly, there is no simple solution. Have you any ideas? I will not, however, back down from the notion that requiring a photo ID to vote is a racist practice. Requiring non-photo ID, while not inherently discriminatory, will have the disadvantage of not providing the best possible level of scrutiny, allowing some types of voter fraud that you have illustrated to take place, hence the tautology.

I will also add that the incident of voter disenfranchisement that LordXenu brought up likewise is patently unjust and odious to the spirit of republicanism. I most vociferously protest any form of voter fraud, intimidation, or coercion. The political process must be as open and equitable to all American citizens (well, at least those over 18 and not incarcerated) as possible. In this spirit, I also applaud Dr. Holt for tirelessly and courageously working to ensure that the political process works properly and fairly for everyone. Believe you me, we progressives are especially sensitive to problems with voting machines and other such irregularities; they seem to happen all over the place :-D. (My favorite example: I had a class here at Penn with Mary Frances Berry, who used to be the head of the US Civil Rights Commission. She told us a story about a hearing she conducted centering on a particular polling place in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. This polling place was surrounded by a deep ditch and there was no way that handicapped people could access the polls. Upon complaint, the precinct workers literally said, "Too bad." Nothing was done to rectify this unbelievable travesty.)

As far as O'Reilly and the Jersey Guys, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I didn't say that they are responsible for voter fraud. Clearly, the party machines (yes, both Democratic and Republican, each in their native habitats) hath wrought as much themsleves. Rather, I fault the shock jocks for propagating the myths that discrimination and disenfranchisement are overestimated in comparison with the various legal scholars who provide ample social scientific evidence to the contrary. O'Reilly and the Jersey Guys just talk, often without much understanding of about what they are jawboning. Scholars actually analyze real evidence and data.

Martin, I completely agree with your points. As I stated upthread:

>>This is all very simplistic, however. The disenfranchisement that faces African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans disproportionately is due to larger matters than only voter identification. For an excellent examination of such factors, see:

• James, D.S. (1987) The Yale Law Journal. 96(7):1615-1640.

• Quinlivan, M.T. (1989) University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 137(6):2361-2395.

Just so you realize that voter suppression is a two-way street, I will recount a most abhorrent incident that occurred in the City of East Orange several years back.  Barbara Dennis was an African-American attorney running for Assembly in the "old 27th" district (which then included East Orange, Montclair and parts of Newark).  Her mother resided in East Orange and attempted to vote for her daughter on election day.  She was told in no uncertain terms by a poll worker that "Republicans can't vote here".  Her plight caused a minor stir, with then Star-Ledger columnist Lawrence Hall lamenting the fact that an African-American woman's voting rights had been denied on the basis that she belonged to the "wrong" party.  The story died a quiet death and there were no repercussions for the denial of said voting rights.  I can't even begin to recount how many complaints I've received over the years regarding levers for GOP candidates not working or political signs being placed inside the polling place indicating what party to vote for (take a guess which one).  Fully credentialed election monitors are often afraid to even step foot in certain polling places in urban Essex.  For instance, my friend's 5'0", 99 lb. wife was once chased out of just such a place by three large men who threatned to "beat her ass" if she ever came back.  You can also meditate over the notorious intra-party shenanigans that characterized the James-Booker (two African-American candidates) mayoral Texas death match.  Regrettably, politics is about attaining and maintaining power.  This lust for power is colorblind and indemic to people of all races.  My wife is from Africa and she tells me they do the same things in the post-colonial struggle for sef-determination (or much worse - her brother was jailed for two years by the incumbent "president for life" for handing out an opposition candidate's literature during an allegedly "free" election).  So it's essentially a matter of human nature, albeit the darker side of our nature.  Our challenge as responsible citizens is to move beyond playing the race card and work together to eradicate these pernicious evils.  In this spirit, I commend Rush Holt for his hard work.