Nebraska Secretary of State's ID Proposal Draws Fire from Both Partisan Flanks

[Image courtesy of 123rf]

Nebraska’s Secretary of State is getting criticism from both parties after proposing a scaled-down voter ID proposal that would target recent movers. Omaha.com has more:

Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale thinks he has a less expensive, less intrusive “Nebraska” solution to the politically charged issue of requiring voters to present identification before casting a ballot.

But it was hard to find anyone who liked his compromise plan on Wednesday.

Gale said he plans to seek legislation that will require only a portion of registered voters — about 75,000 — to present ID before voting.

Everyone else, about 94 percent of the 1.2 million registered voters in Nebraska, would not have to present ID.

The secretary of state said his “voter integrity” proposal resolves his concerns about previous voter ID legislation, which he felt would cost too much money to implement and would place a burden on too many people.

He said his plan would target a segment of registered voters most susceptible to impersonation. Those are voters who have informed the post office of a move from a county but have failed to confirm that with election officials.

“This is a Nebraska answer to the issue of voter integrity,” Gale said.

Not surprisingly, though, Gale’s attempt at finding a middle way is unpopular with legislators who are still fighting an “all or nothing” battle on voter ID. Pro-ID legislators signaled that they were still prepared to push for 100% ID:

State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont, who introduced Legislative Bill 381, said that he’s glad that Gale has “finally come to the party” but that his proposal doesn’t go far enough in warding off voter fraud.

“This sounds like selective enforcement,” Janssen said. “Given my druthers, I’d rather have the ‘Nebraska way’ be that everyone shows their ID.”

In 2012, the senator came within three votes of halting a filibuster and advancing a bill to require all Nebraska voters to provide government-issued photographic identification.

Janssen, a Republican candidate for governor, tried again last year with a similar measure, but LB 381 failed to advance from the Legislature’s Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

And, just as predictably, opponents of ID think even a scaled-down proposal still goes too far:

Two opponents of voter ID measures said that even the secretary of state’s scaled-down version of voter ID serves to attack a problem that doesn’t exist: fraudulent voting in Nebraska.

“Before we impose these burdens, there needs to be evidence of a problem,” said Adam Morfeld of Nebraskans for Civic Reform, a voting rights group.

Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln, chairman of the government committee, said he’s willing to look at Gale’s ideas, but he has not been presented with any credible cases of voter fraud. He said voter ID bills are designed to suppress voting by the elderly and minorities — groups more likely to support Democrats and who might have problems obtaining the proper identification.

“This is part of a nationwide campaign by the Republican Party that doesn’t have any place in Nebraska,” said Avery, a Democrat.

But Gale isn’t deterred, saying his proposal is intended to address fraud concerns without saddling election offices and voters with unnecessary requirements:

Gale, who was officially neutral on the ID bill last year, said he senses that there’s interest in a lower-cost, less burdensome approach.

Much of the opposition to Janssen’s proposals, he said, sprang from the estimated cost of educating voters and poll workers about blanket ID requirements. He said his proposal would cost less because it would affect only 6 percent of the state’s voters.

Gale said that as a conservative, he believes government should not place a burden on people without a good reason. But he’s concerned about a group of about 100,000 voters at any given time who have told the post office they’ve moved but have failed to confirm that.

Gale said he thinks he has the power to deal with about 25,000 of those voters. That’s because the National Voter Registration Act applies only to people who move to a new county or state, he said. Thus, he believes he has the legal authority to issue an executive order to remove from voter rolls those 25,000 voters who move within the same county.

That led him to focus his proposal on the remaining 75,000 registered voters he calls “phantom voters” most susceptible to potential fraud.

Those voters have notified the post office that they’ve moved to a new address, but have not responded to letters sent by county election officials to confirm that. Without such confirmation, election officials cannot remove their names from voter lists unless they’ve fail to vote in two consecutive federal general elections, according to the National Voter Registration Act.

Gale’s plan does have some support; Douglas County (Omaha) election official Dave Phipps says that he thinks the plan is “a reasonable attempt by a ‘conscientious’ official at striking a balance.”

Gale’s idea – reminiscent of Nevada Secretary Ross Miller’s photo e-pollbook proposal, which is also unpopular with legislators from both sides – is the latest attempt by an election policymaker to negotiate a solution to the seemingly intractable issue of voter ID.

Whether or not you believe fraud is a problem, I think there is reason to root for such efforts to find solutions to long-running debates like voter ID.

But, then, I always root for underdogs.

Stay tuned …