Houston Democrats

• mary.denny@house.state.tx.us
• dwayne.bohac@house.state.tx.us
• todd.smith@house.state.tx.us
• rafael.anchia@house.state.tx.us
• charles.anderson@house.state.tx.us
• bryan.hughes@house.state.tx.us
• jesse.jones@house.state.tx.us

The following is a request from the State Democratic Party (reformatted for online viewing).

First, many thanks to those who have already been out front against this bad bill.Now that HB 1706 bill has been temporarily slowed down in the House by a point of order, a group of us around the House is working to expose this bill on the House floor through informed debate and some more floor amendments.

Although we all know the Senate is the place we can hopefully kill this stinker, the Senate will take more notice if folks contact Democratic House Members to inform them of our concerns andget them raise a fuss - accurately - on the bill's faults.

In fact, some of them may think showing a driver's license makes sense, and some may be under the false impression that under current law, an election worker can require a voter to show photo ID. In fact, neither state not federal law now require a photo ID to vote - under any circumstance. Even if a voter does not have a voter registration card in hand, other non-photo ID is sufficient.

Here are some things to know about HB 1706 borrowed from work we did on the Legislative Study Group's Floor report on the bill.

• HB 1706 would create some of the most restrictive voting laws in the nation - and for no good reason. This bill is not based on evidence of fraud – there have been no hearings documenting such. This bill is a "solution" that will cause problems where none exist today.
• The effect of HB 1706 would be state-sanctioned voter suppression that reduces voter turnout that is already far too low.

Summary of Key Provisions

Under current law, if a voter presents a valid voter registration card that matches the name and address on precinct voter list, they are allowed to vote without any additional form of I.D. If a voter does not have a registration card because they left it at home, for example, there are a number of legally acceptable forms of number of ID, including some that are not photo ID’s, that may be used by an election official to establish the voter’s identity as the person on the precinct poll roster.

HB 1706 would require that a voter show a picture identification or two forms on non-picture identification in order to vote. If a voter cannot meet these requirements, the voter could be allowed to vote provisionally or the voter would have to go home to retrieve the necessary ID and come back to cast a regular ballot.

HB 1706 would require that voters who cast provisional ballots accepted by the early voting ballot board must provide one photo identification or two non-picture identifications within 5 days after the election.

 

How HB 1706 Could Suppress Voting – Practical Problems

• Many voters could be encouraged to - or would just decide to - cast provisional ballots instead of going home to get the required ID and taking even more time to vote.
• Most voters are not informed that only a regular ballot is certain to count, and that most provisional ballots do not
• Many “provisional voters” would not take the time to meet the onerous new provision in HB 1706 - that they would have to provide the county acceptable ID within five days, especially if the results of the higher profile elections were already known, although their votes could have an impact on a close down ballot election.
• This “after election day” provisional ballot ID requirement is a particularly offensive idea that would require legitimate voters to act twice to prove they had the right to vote once.
• Many election officials already are confused about voter ID requirements, and no doubt they would improperly demand by a photo ID even if the voter provided two other acceptable forms of ID, denying regular ballots to eligible voters.
• Certain voters are more likely to be denied regular ballots because the address on a photo ID differs from an address where they are legitimately registered to vote.
• The elderly, renters and working families who move more often, college students and newly registered voters are less likely to have additional ID - and often do not change the address on a photo or paper ID until it's time for renewal.
• Because election judges have been known to improperly ask about conflicting addresses on photo ID's and voter registration cards under current law, the practical effect of HB 1706 would cause more voters to be denied a regular ballot even if they have a valid voter registration card for the precinct where they live.
• Elderly voters who have enough difficulty getting to the polls on election day – and elderly voters who vote by mail – could be denied the right to vote a regular ballot when they attempt to show up at the polls or vote a mail ballot like they always have. These voters are also less likely to follow the cumbersome follow-up procedure to “prove” the right to have a provisional ballot count.

Other Key Arguments: HB 1706 is a “Solution” for a Problem that Doesn’t Exist

• HB 1706 supporters will argue about preventing fraud and protecting “legitimate” voters. However, recent elections provide no statistics or evidence of such problems that show a substantial problem fraud.
• A very good Texas case study is the 2004 HD 149 Vo – Heflin race. For all the claims about fraud made in the legal contest, there was no evidence of systematic voter fraud and only one voter was found to be a non-citizen – and that voter openly checked the box on the registration form identifying himself as a non-citizen.
• It is likely that many eligible voters have never had any of the forms of photo ID required by HB 1706 (see the paragraph at the top of page two in the attached DOJ objection to a similar photo ID scheme proposed in Louisiana a decade ago).
• For example, a person who does not drive, hasn’t traveled internationally, has no employment-related photo ID, and doesn’t carry a concealed handgun, may not have the proper photo ID to vote. And very few of these eligible voters would carry birth certificates, government-issued mail, etc. to the polls when a normal person would assume a legitimate voter registration card should serve the purpose for which it was intended.
• Voter ID should not be equated with the fact you can’t get on a plane without a photo ID. The red alert here is the threat that this bill could deny Texans' their right to vote, not that people trying to vote pose a terrorist threat at the polls. In fact, we are told that a photo ID was not required to vote in Iraq this year.