GOP says 5,000 non-citizens voting in Colorado a 'wake-up call' for states

GOP says 5,000 non-citizens voting in Colorado a 'wake-up call' for states


By Debbie Siegelbaum - 03/31/11 01:23 PM ET

Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.
“We simply cannot have an electoral system that allows thousands of non-citizens to violate the law and vote in our elections. We must do more to protect the integrity of our electoral processes,” Harper added.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.
Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican John Buck.
Colorado conducted the study by comparing the state’s voter registration database with driver’s license records.
“We know we have a problem here. We don’t know the size of it,” Gessler said in testimony to Administration’s Elections subcommittee.
He told Harper that Colorado would look to create a registration system that would allow his department to ask that some people provide proof of their citizenship in writing.
If individuals did not respond to the request, their registration as voters would be suspended.
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was “impossible to provide precise numbers” on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.
Gonzalez asked Gessler, a former prosecutor, if he would have pursued a court case on such evidence.
Gessler responded that the goal of the study was to expose voter registration issues and pursue administrative avenues to resolve them.
“We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote,” he said.

If the sole basis for determining that someone was a non-citizen was that they did not have a driver's license, that, in and of itself, is not determinative of citizenship.

People don't have driver's licenses for lots of reasons other than citizenship ones.

And since citizenship is determined at the federal level, it's doubtful that the State of Colorado has any inkling whether or not a person is a citizen.

Now, if Colorado want to put ALL voters through the "proof of citizenship in writing" process, I wouldn't have a problem. But targeting certain persons with a system that would automatically take away their voting rights because it is assumed by not responding they are not citizens...well, I think that would be a faulty system b/c you would undoubted disenfranchise citizens in the process.

I believe the state should be required to prove voters are not citizens before disenfranchising them.

If the sole basis for determining that someone was a non-citizen was that they did not have a driver's license, that, in and of itself, is not determinative of citizenship.

People don't have driver's licenses for lots of reasons other than citizenship ones.

And since citizenship is determined at the federal level, it's doubtful that the State of Colorado has any inkling whether or not a person is a citizen.

Now, if Colorado want to put ALL voters through the "proof of citizenship in writing" process, I wouldn't have a problem. But targeting certain persons with a system that would automatically take away their voting rights because it is assumed by not responding they are not citizens...well, I think that would be a faulty system b/c you would undoubted disenfranchise citizens in the process.

I believe the state should be required to prove voters are not citizens before disenfranchising them. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Would you agree that it is a problem and something needs to be done?

Now, if Colorado want to put ALL voters through the "proof of citizenship in writing" process, I wouldn't have a problem. But targeting certain persons with a system that would automatically take away their voting rights because it is assumed by not responding they are not citizens...well, I think that would be a faulty system b/c you would undoubted disenfranchise citizens in the process. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You were in charge of the screening process for the TSA, weren't you?

Define problem? If I have a cut on my finger I could call that a problem, but how serious would it be?

In a strict legal sense, perhaps there is a small problem. But with a voting age population of about 3,000,000 the percentage being discussed is rather small and lets face it with most things .2 percent would rarely be discussed as a problem. And, would the cure be worse than the problem?

Define problem? If I have a cut on my finger I could call that a problem, but how serious would it be?

In a strict legal sense, perhaps there is a small problem. But with a voting age population of about 3,000,000 the percentage being discussed is rather small and lets face it with most things .2 percent would rarely be discussed as a problem. And, would the cure be worse than the problem? Originally Posted by discreetgent

How about the Minnesota senate race?....that vote had a small margin and some large national consequences...not that unusual either.....but for a nail, the horse lost a shoe, etc etc.

Bush/Gore Florida?

Yes, some races are close. Lets assume for the moment that a small number of non-citizens voted in Minnesota or some other close election, the question that is unanswerable is would the result have been different if they did not vote?

Yes, some races are close. Lets assume for the moment that a small number of non-citizens voted in Minnesota or some other close election, the question that is unanswerable is would the result have been different if they did not vote? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Is it possible to say no election results would be different? Certainly Florida would have changed history for the worse if it went the other way......

Is it possible to say no election results would be different? Certainly Florida would have changed history for the worse if it went the other way...... Originally Posted by Marshall

I do not know if it would have been better but it would be impossible for it to have been worse.

I do not know if it would have been better but it would be impossible for it to have been worse. Originally Posted by WTF

Of course it could have been worse. Come on, Al Gore is an out and out lunatic, CO2 a pollutant??? WTF, you are smarter than that. I said all along W was too liberal, but at least, in this case, he was the lessor of two weevils.

I voted libertarian that year because I just could not imagine many people being gullible enough to actually vote for Gore. My faith in my fellow Americans (and whatever number of illegals involved) was severely shaken that year.

I think the NYT investigation proved that Gore won FL. Gore's mistake was to contest only certain county votes, not the state as a whole. Sandra Day O'Connor should have recused herself from the Court deliberations and decision after participating in a pro-Bush party on election eve. But all that shit is water under the bridge...as is the Minnesota race (which, BTW, went through recounts, appeals and court decisions--so it would be hard to contend the outcome would be different).

To try and get this thread back on track: yes, I agree voting should be limited to citizens and legal residents (state and local precinct). If one wants to put some screening on the front end of voter registration, I don't have a problem with that...everyone who registers after a certain point has to prove citizenship.

Likewise, if they want to put a screen on for anyone (ie, all voters) who vote after a certain point as far as citizenship or legal residency is concerned, I don't have a problem with that either. It could be done at the polls, but for everyone who wants to vote, and done in every election from that date forward.

But I'm leery of targeting just certain groups. What's good for one is good for all.

To try and get this thread back on track: yes, I agree voting should be limited to citizens and legal residents (state and local precinct). If one wants to put some screening on the front end of voter registration, I don't have a problem with that...everyone who registers after a certain point has to prove citizenship.

Likewise, if they want to put a screen on for anyone (ie, all voters) who vote after a certain point as far as citizenship or legal residency is concerned, I don't have a problem with that either. It could be done at the polls, but for everyone who wants to vote, and done in every election from that date forward.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Am I assuming correctly that you wouldn't require people to produce a birth certificate to vote?

Am I assuming correctly that you wouldn't require people to produce a birth certificate to vote? Originally Posted by Marshall

Nope. Birth certificate have nothing to do with citizenship. And I assume you are talking about citizenship. There are other issues you have not raised.

Define problem? If I have a cut on my finger I could call that a problem, but how serious would it be?

In a strict legal sense, perhaps there is a small problem. But with a voting age population of about 3,000,000 the percentage being discussed is rather small and lets face it with most things .2 percent would rarely be discussed as a problem. And, would the cure be worse than the problem? Originally Posted by discreetgent

The United States presidential election of 1960 was the 44th American presidential election, held on November 8, 1960, for the term beginning January 20, 1961, and ending January 20, 1965. The Republican Party nominated Richard M. Nixon, Eisenhower's Vice-President, while the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Eventually, Kennedy was elected with a lead of 112,827 votes, or 0.1% of the popular vote, giving him a victory of 303 to 219 in the Electoral College. One ward in one precinct in one city: Daley's Chicago.