Same Day Voter Registration Bill
House Bill 265, introduced by TX Rep. Rafael Anchia, would make same day voter registration possible. According to the exact wording:
VOTER REGISTRARS MUST BE PRESENT. Two voter registrars must be present at each polling place while the polls are open.
The registrars would also be allowed to register voters on election day in the primary and general elections with proper documentation. The bill also makes these newly registered voters valid voters capable of voting on election day.
Another bill, HB 123, introduced by Rep. Aaron Pena, would require a paper trail for electronic voting machines.
A very good idea.
This isn’t a reason to not have it, but I’m just curios what you do about the fact that if the person is registering right before they vote, their vote might not be valid (if it isn’t a valid registration.)
Hey Timothy,
If you read the exact wording of the bill, it says it would make it a valid registration too.
They don’t have to verify it or check to make sure they aren’t already registered or anything?
Another big reform is to redo where you go to vote. I heard a rumor that we are going to have voting centers in Travis county, rather than precinct voting places, for the next election. In any case, I was in the Jester Dormitory Lobby reminding people to vote on election day. The two polling places for the dormitory prencint voted there, but many students confused it with early voting where you can vote anywhere in the county. Lots of students living off campus thought they could vote in Jester. Most didn’t know their precinct, but luckily we had a laptop to look them up and tell them where to vote. But I’m sure a lot of them didn’t vote because they didn’t want to find it, and the Travis county site for looking up voters was down and we were trying to use that the first half of the day so we couldn’t give directions to people. Their is a lot of confusion and I’m sure it significantly hurts the student turnout, especially when they change precincts so often. Large voting centers, where anyone in the county can vote, would be much much better.
It seems instead of trying to bring people to you, it’d be easier to go where people are. If we really wanted increased voter turnout, put a poll at every college and let the students run it to learn. We could place polls at shopping centers not just at churches.
I find it very odd that we do polling at churches to begin with. I do not go to church, nor do I find them particularly inviting.
My guess is that churches offer the space, while shopping centers don’t. It’s also common to have polling locations at schools.
They had an early polling location on campus taking up a lounge area, which was good. On election day their were polling locations in a dorm for people living in the on-campus dorms. The issue was students living off campus who thought they could vote in the dorm.
The best solution is to just allow people to vote in any polling location in the county.
I really hope this makes it. There are many people who don’t hear about candidates until right before the election (when there is more media coverage), and this will give them a chance to register if they make a decision to vote last minute.
It would also bring more voters to the polls, and if you have only one polling place per town, you could have the people running there as well. Sounds like a good idea.
The problem with same day registration is that of all voting recently. What if something goes wrong? What if hunderds of thousands of illegals decide to register as a “show of solidarity”? Tax payers and voters should not be penalized for undoing this mess. I’d be for same day registration provided there were clear cut methods of identifying and verifying that those registering to vote are who they say they are.
Centralized voting, particularly in large urban areas would drive voters away from the polls. Many voters, confronted with even a “little” more inconvenience, will simply stop voting. Ostensibly, that voting centers would be located in primarily inner city areas, suburban and rural voters (the people who are taxed to keep failed big cities alive) would be disenfranchised. Schools, rec centers and Police/Fire stations will remain the easiest sites for polling stations, as Churches and private business (shopping centers,,,etc) would be in conflict with polling station advertising that runs contrary to their interests (i.e. a Pro Choice candidate sign on church property).
One idea that has merit, would be to allow voters to vote near their jobs, even if it’s in a different county. This would eliminate the problem of sururban or rural voters having to stand in line before or after work, or not being able to make it to the polls on time either way.
Perhaps you could keep the precinct voting centers in suburban and rural areas. Or have voting centers and precinct polling locations, or allow people to vote at any precinct polling place. In any case, requiring urban voters, and especially students, to vote at their precinct voting location is bad, since many don’t even know where it is and/or try to vote somewhere else.
Tim,
If it’s asking too much of urban voters, and especially students, that they know where their precinct voting location is, what does that say about taking responsibility for our own lives? Do you think this type of voter truly analyses the candidates and issues, and simply ignores where he needs to go to vote his views and values. Voting shouldn’t be an “ass-whipping”, but by the same token, it shouldn’t be so mindless and pervasive as to make voter involvement meaningless. Voting should never be reflexive or punitive. We should vote our views and values, and not from anger or a need for “revenge”! That’s why the two party system retains control, neither party has any fresh ideas, and they all but exclude independent thought and independent candidates. We voters need a choice of candidates, not a choice of which party we hate or fear most.
Elections shouldn’t be about catering to specific demographics, but rather insuring that an informed public has a means of expressing their will.
Even if that means is a little inconvenient, or requires that the voting public actually expend some effort. A good case could be made that all voting could be accomplished by mail, thereby eliminating the need to know where to vote, but no one argues in favor of elections using completly mail in ballots?
We can assume that on-line voting will not occur in our life time (if we can’t block viagra ads, mortgage solicitations, and porn pop-ups effectively, I doubt that secured on-line ballots will gain much traction). Even if they did, this would disenfranchise voters who don’t want to vote on-line for whatever reason. I don’t think it’s asking too much of citizens that they at least make an effort to become informed on the issues and the candidates, and where to vote! Perhaps by doing a little “pre-meditated voting”, we, the people might actually elect a candidate that’s worth a damn.
The dust up over digital voting, and no “paper trail” for the voter is meaningless, as even when we had paper ballots; voters still didn’t get to take home a receipt (other than the stamp on the voters registration card indicating they voted)! What good would a receipt of who you voted for serve? In our nation who you vote for is intended as sacred, that’s why they still put curtains on some booths or otherwise obscure you’re actions while voting. Having a receipt, if a voter suspects wrongdoing, would be significant only if all other voters (or a least a substantial sub-set)had retained their receipts and were willing to come forward. Otherwise, the digital tallies, are no different that the paper ballots of old. Some disparity must be shown to proceed in any actionable cause. With the old paper ballots, a recount of something physical was truly possible. But even with receipts (remember privacy, who anyone votes for is sacred). But with digital ballots, an alleged disparity would have to be proven through use of receipts (of those who felt something untoward had taken place). Since those who were for the most part “happy” with the election results would most likely have disposed of their receipts, and their identities must remain unknown, I’m not certain what advantage exists for having a digital ballot audit trail, other than further complicating the voting process. But then again, I’ve never been in favor of digital voting anyway. Remember, digital voting became this nightmare because some people who didn’t like the outcome of one particular election went “ape S_ _ T because an amazingly small subset of voters weren’t able to punch a whole all the way through a ballot using a decades old method, that provided a physical recount mechanism. A method that remains the standard in most countries holding elections (except, now us).
Ed: I was very involved in the election and I didn’t know where my polling location was for election day until someone told me so I could help other people find it. Granted I voted early so it didn’t matter (and many UT students also got text messages telling them where their precinct voting location is, thanks to the Burnt Orange Report.) It says your precinct on your voter card, but not where you vote. In general, this hurts students and urban dwellers. Rural areas are less dense your not likely to end up at the wrong location, and rural people don’t move vary often so they don’t have to find their new location that often. And it is pretty confusing. Anyone could vote on campus in one building during early voting. Then they have to vote at their precinct on election day. Most students don’t have newspapers to look up their polling location and and wouldn’t know where to look online. I live in Jester west, which had a polling location for some other dorms in one of it’s lounges. Jester west residents voted in Jester east. You don’t think this is overly confusing? You don’t think this doesn’t unfairly suppress student turnout? You don’t think this makes it easier for rural voters than for urban ones?
Neither parties has fresh ideas? I would beg to differ. The parties also also have moderate members that lean independent. Their is a decent amount of cross over voting by representatives. It’s not so partisan and worthless as Kinky propaganda said (Kinky was just working off of stereotypes, it’s easy to criticize, it’s harder to actually lead). Kinky appealed to certain demographics just as much as any other candidate did, btw.
Tim;
Okay lets hear the “fresh ideas” that Democrats and Republicans offered that I apparently missed in my hubris to support Kinky. Bare in mind that these must be “fresh” ideas, and not just different ideas than what the Republicans offered. Some, hell many; people make the mistake of thinking that the ideas that their party offers are “fresh ideas” when they are not. That’s the key “fresh” and not just different. That’s why Kinky appealed to many Texans, from all demographics (I quit the RNC because of Kinky). For example, enforcing our existing immigration laws would be a “fresh” idea, rather than the two party approach of seeing who could devise the most convoluted, arcane, unworkable “amnesty” program.
Just an aside, polling locations are allways in flux. Long term residents of Dallas county frequently see their official polling locations change, often from election to election (i.e. local vs national). over 20 years as a registered voter in Dallas county, living at the same address, my polling location has been the same only twice. Tim, you’re early voting satisfied you’re voting needs, is there some impediment that forces students and urban dwellers to ignore early polling (save that they haven’t made up their mind)?
As with any intrusion by government (drivers license renewal, dog tags, school registration, etc…) there is a modicum of responsibility placed on the citizen. Again, if it’s just too dificult for anyone to find out where they are supposed to vote, or it’s just to inconvenient to vote, I doubt we could build or position polling places that would suit everyone.
Those who choose not to vote, for whatever reason, have still exercised choice in the matter.
There would doubtless be those who felt disenfranchised if they had to walk down the hallway to the kitchen to vote because it’s clearly easier for those already seated in the kitchen to vote.
Rural voters who don’t move often still have to make it to the polls even if the polling place is at the far side of the county. Sometimes weather conditions place added burdens on rural voters that are not visited on urban voters. Rural precincts also have trouble “manning” these polling places, as fewer residents means a smaller pool of individuals willing to devote the time. Location seldom plays much of a role in voter turnout. No one actually selects where they live based on proximity to a “polling place”. Plain and simple, those motivated to vote, will vote. Providing abundant resources (websites, flyers, hotlines, newspapers, etc…) to allow voters to readily access voting information prior to the election, plus the absentee voting and early voting opportunities in Texas, pretty much addresses the need of anyone who truly wants to vote.
Could we use more polling places? Hell yes!
Would it be likely to increase voter turnout? Arguably, no.