I am writing separately to express my dissenting views to the Carter-Baker Commission’s photo ID proposal. Unfortunately, the Commission rejected my 597-word dissent and allowed me only 250 words (this limitation on dissent was first announced at our final meeting). I believe that the issues before the Commission are of great consequence to our democracy and deserve more discussion. Thus, my concerns with the Commission’s ID proposal and the shortcomings of the Commission’s deliberative process are examined in greater detail here.
Brad Friedman‘s put together a preliminary roster of reactions.
IPA queries, amoungst others, Rob Richie from FairVote:
Richie is the executive director of the group FairVote and co-author of the book Whose Vote Counts? He said today: “The Commission report has a few sensible recommendations, but its chief failure is to accept the United States’ position far outside international norms in standards for free and fair elections. Consider that the report doesn’t call for direct election of the president despite the Electoral College’s malfunction in 2000 and the fact that the candidates focus on only a handful of battleground states. It is silent on establishing a constitutional right to vote despite the obvious adverse impact of more than 13,000 jurisdictions having the power to make independent decisions about running federal elections. It neglects instant runoff voting despite recent high-profile elections with non-majority winners and finger-pointing about ‘spoilers.’ It overlooks nonpartisan redistricting and proportional voting systems as the necessary means to take on the shocking lack of voter choice and distortions in representation in our legislative elections. It accepts that the citizens of the District of Columbia have no voice in Congress.”
More Information