Two tier voting systems in two states

posted at 5:01 pm on October 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled on Arizona’s voter ID laws, people following this debate have wondered if or how the state would deal with the local and state level elections which were not covered by the ruling. The New York Times has a predictably biased piece on that subject this weekend, but it does cover some of the particulars in how that state, and Kansas, are choosing to proceed.

Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona is complying — but setting up a separate registration system for local and state elections that will demand such proof.

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

The states are using an opening left in June by the United States Supreme Court when it said that the power of Congress over federal elections was paramount but did not rule on proof of citizenship in state elections. Such proof was required under Arizona’s Proposition 200, which passed in 2004 and is one of the weapons in the border state’s arsenal of laws enacted in its battle against illegal immigration.

This sounds to me like it’s certainly doable, but it’s going to be complicated. What does the process look like on election day when voters show up at the polls? Assuming you arrive with no valid ID which qualifies under the law, you can’t vote in the state and local races, but you have to be allowed to vote in a national election. But in every state where I’ve lived, there’s only one ballot set up for the voter to use. Would this require, for example, a 2016 ballot which is broken into two pieces, one for the national races only and a second one with all the choices? The article indicates that’s precisely what they’ll need to do.

The two-tiered system — deemed costly, cumbersome and prone to confusion by many of its opponents, as well as election officials in both states — threatens to derail an effort by Democrats and their allies to increase voter registration and turnout among Latinos and the poor, part of a push by the party to pick up local offices and seats in the states’ legislatures, where policies have been largely dictated by Republicans in recent years. The states would create separate ballots covering only federal races for voters who do not provide proof of citizenship…

On Monday, Mr. Horne instructed county election officials to create separate rolls for voters who signed up using the federal form and those who used the state form, the first step to determining eligibility. In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest, the exercise turned up 900 people who did not show proof of citizenship, a small fraction of the roughly 1.9 million county residents registered.

It’s not clear to me precisely how much this would “drive up costs” beyond the baseline issue of printing for locations using paper ballots. If you’re using a computer based system, it would seem that you’d solve the problem through software and any additional costs incurred would just come in initial application development. Either way, a lot of states will be watching closely to see how this works and what bugs need to be ironed out of the system. If it functions as intended and doesn’t run into any more court challenge issues, there are plenty of other states which may choose to follow this path.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections,

And this blocks thousands of people from voting how?

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Democrats fighting for voter fraud and ignoring our immigration laws

Grunt on October 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Where I vote, they have the ballots on electronic cards. If you present proper ID, you would receive two cards. Without it, you get only one.

Better yet, they could have two stacks of cards. One has both ballots, the other only the national races.

I think this could work. Suck on it, SCOTUS.

Kafir on October 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

Do they even comprehend what they write?

Having to prove you’re actually a citizen “could keep thousands of people from participating.” That’s the damn point! If you can’t prove you’re entitled to vote, you shouldn’t be able to vote. It’s not that hard to understand… Unless you’re a brainwashed Leftist.

mankai on October 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between Indiana and Georgia voter ID laws (approved by SCOTUS) and that of Arizona (disapproved)?

Athanasius on October 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I suppose you could have state and local elections requiring id on a different day and Federal elections which apparently must rely on an honor system on a separate day. It would be interesting to compare the two turnout rates.

KW64 on October 13, 2013 at 5:17 PM

A two piece ballot isn’t much of an issue. Many years the ballot where I live is in two pieces where there are a lot of state, county, and city initiatives and there are just more things to vote on than one ballot sheet can hold. So splitting the ballots into federal /non-federal won’t be an issue in many places and will likely make the non-federal ballot fit on one sheet. It would be a logical splitting point anyway.

crosspatch on October 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM

I think if you do not pay income tax federally you should not get to vote in a presidential election…

If you do not pay state taxes where it applies no vote there in Gov., Senate etc…

Both county and city could get a bit more dodgy because of property tax, car tag tax and sales tax (goes to state) could be argued as paying both state and local and I am sure someone would argue buying a lotto ticket should be considered tax but what the hell…

Tilly on October 13, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Be careful what you wish for democrats. We’re smarter than you (at least at the state level).

SouthernGent on October 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I am honestly not seeing the issue here. From my quick google search there are 30 states that require an ID of some kind to vote and they have no issues. I am going to do some quick research but I suspect that other 20 that do not require an ID have a history of voter fraud. Just speculation on my part, but something I am going to look at.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections

…need to revisit that!

KOOLAID2 on October 13, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between Indiana and Georgia voter ID laws (approved by SCOTUS) and that of Arizona (disapproved)?

Athanasius on October 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I think it’s the difference between providing “ID” to “identify” yourself and providing “proof of citizenship” to prove you’re a citizen. Non-citizens can have an ID.

Kohath on October 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Well here are some of the states that do not require and ID to vote are California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between Indiana and Georgia voter ID laws (approved by SCOTUS) and that of Arizona (disapproved)?

Athanasius on October 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Indiana and Georgia require an approved ID, some forms of which may be issued to non-citizens. Arizona required proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The citizenship requirement, with regard to federal elections, is what SCOTUS struck down.

Steve Eggleston on October 13, 2013 at 5:41 PM

think if you do not pay income tax federally you should not get to vote in a presidential election…

If you do not pay state taxes where it applies no vote there in Gov., Senate etc…

Both county and city could get a bit more dodgy because of property tax, car tag tax and sales tax (goes to state) could be argued as paying both state and local and I am sure someone would argue buying a lotto ticket should be considered tax but what the hell…

Tilly on October 13, 2013 at 5:28 PM

We have a slight problem with the 24th Amendment then:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Steve Eggleston on October 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Well here are some of the states that do not require and ID to vote are California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Wow, lots of Red States there!

/

Del Dolemonte on October 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM

During the primary elections states with closed primaries offer two different ballots. I don’t see the problem. Of course I don’t live in a state with touchscreen voting.

Rose on October 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Wow, lots of Red States there!

/

Del Dolemonte on October 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM

LOL, I wasn’t going to say it, I just put a quick list out there, and I did not list every state that doesn’t required and ID. Kentucky for example does not require an ID, but someone must vouch for you at the poll if you do not have an ID, so there is that.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM

What does the process look like on election day when voters show up at the polls?

Change state and local elections to the 5th of May.

Ok, I jest.

Seriously, move the non-federal elections to another day. Why is that so hard?

BobMbx on October 13, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Under Obamacare, thought chips will be installed and subsidized.

Mandatory!

Eich ben eien obamar.

patman77 on October 13, 2013 at 6:01 PM

A two piece ballot isn’t much of an issue. Many years the ballot where I live is in two pieces where there are a lot of state, county, and city initiatives and there are just more things to vote on than one ballot sheet can hold.
crosspatch on October 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Exactly.

I can’t vote for the mayor in the next town over, because, um, I have a different ballot.

Not that hard, really.

MichaelGabriel on October 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Time for state legislatures to start choosing their own electors again.

Lanceman on October 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Bottom line: DARN FEW people will NOT have an ID. And, wanting to vote the entire ballot, will produce them.

michaelo on October 13, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Jazz, you obviously have never been an election judge in Illinois and certain other Progressive states.
They already have to have those in Illinois. a “Federal Only” ballot, with Congress and Presidential elections or primaries only.

http://www.chicagoelections.com/page.php?id=164
5th answer

http://www.elections.il.gov/votinginformation/faq.aspx
part of 3rd paragraph

jhnone on October 13, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Seriously, move the non-federal elections to another day. Why is that so hard?

BobMbx on October 13, 2013 at 5:59 PM

You just doubled the expense to all local jurisdictions that’s why.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I love how liberals turn into fiscal conservatives the moment states try to prevent election fraud. These states are derailing Democrat election fraud schemes at the state level, and with this data, they will be able to compare state and federal registrations to finally quantify false voting. That is really what scares the libs. When only 10,000 people vote on state ballots on a given day, but 20,000 vote on the federal ballots, the questions will start and hopefully the criminal investigations.

Spartacus on October 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM

…someone will sue!

KOOLAID2 on October 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

The beauty of this is it makes it easier to check out voter fraud.

bflat879 on October 13, 2013 at 6:59 PM

[Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM]

New York doesn’t either, however it does require you sign the voter log and they have your signature on the log, covered, which is then checked by poll workers. It’s not fool proof, (actually it is, but it’s not less-than-a-fool proof) and I’ve seen a signature contested.

Dusty on October 13, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Well here are some of the states that do not require and ID to vote are California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM

AZ does require ID to vote.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/prop_200/poll_identification.html

In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest, the exercise turned up 900 people who did not show proof of citizenship, a small fraction of the roughly 1.9 million county residents registered.

And 900 votes may not be a lot compared to the total number of registered voters in Maricopa County, but 900 votes is more than enough to swing an election in the county . . . or in the state . . . or even in the nation, in some instances.

AZCoyote on October 13, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Sorry, bad link above.

Try again:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/prop_200/poll_identification.htm

AZCoyote on October 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM

…someone will sue!

KOOLAID2 on October 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Someone named Eric Holder? ;)

Been there, done that (many times).

AZCoyote on October 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM

The New York Times has a predictably biased piece

and dihydrogen monoxide has been proven to be wet in most circumstances.

Myron Falwell on October 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM

New York doesn’t either, however it does require you sign the voter log and they have your signature on the log, covered, which is then checked by poll workers. It’s not fool proof, (actually it is, but it’s not less-than-a-fool proof) and I’ve seen a signature contested.

Dusty on October 13, 2013 at 7:20 PM

New Jersey is set up the same way. When you register to vote, you have to sign the application and this is what they print in the voter log next to your address. Then you have to sign the log before you can vote.

timberline on October 13, 2013 at 7:51 PM

As backward as New Mexico can be in some ways, the City of Albuquerque does elections fairly well.
There are 40 early voting places open weeks before the election. You can vote in any precinct, just show your I.D. And the poll worker who checks you in prints your specific ballot on plain paper on a laser printer sitting on the table next to each worker. Makes it really convenient to vote and eliminates trying to distribute pre-printed ballots to each precinct and gets rid of voting machines altogether. Separate ballots would be easy with this method.

Allahs vulva on October 13, 2013 at 7:58 PM

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

WRONG!!! No one is excluded. Just get a valid ID.

alanstern on October 13, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Do it. The contrast will be most interesting.

pat on October 13, 2013 at 8:31 PM

“Turn out was strong tonight across New Mexico in the presidential election, with over 1.5 million votes cast. Turn out was much lower in the governor’s race, however, with barely 1.45 million ballots. Officials attributed the 70,000 vote difference to Mexicans.”

Ted Torgerson on October 13, 2013 at 8:41 PM

The two-tiered system — deemed costly, cumbersome and prone to confusion by many of its opponents, as well as election officials in both states — threatens to derail an effort by Democrats and their allies to increase voter registration and turnout among Latinos and the poor,

How many years has it been since the Left’s been asked, “HOW does showing a photo ID limit anyone from voting” and NOT answered it?

Still waiting for a lucid response to that question.

Since the Left seems to have an abundance of photo IDs available per individual among the Left for to get “free stuff” from the government. ANd to drink and buy tobaccy. But somehow it’s a huuuge blockade to them to come up with a photo ID to vote? “Harms the poor” is a failed excuse because we know “the poor” has no trouble with photo IDs when it comes to just about everything else.

Lourdes on October 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM

“Turn out was strong tonight across New Mexico in the presidential election, with over 1.5 million votes cast. Turn out was much lower in the governor’s race, however, with barely 1.45 million ballots. Officials attributed the 70,000 vote difference to Mexicans.”

Ted Torgerson on October 13, 2013 at 8:41 PM

EXACTLY.

(In the Presidential election vs. the governor’s), “Officials attributed the 70,000 vote difference to Mexicans.”

Lourdes on October 13, 2013 at 8:56 PM

And this blocks thousands of people from voting how?

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

It keeps the Democrat dead and illegal vote in check.

Kevin71 on October 13, 2013 at 9:09 PM

The citizenship requirement, with regard to federal elections, is what SCOTUS struck down.

Steve Eggleston on October 13, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Which is wrong on so many levels. SMH

GWB on October 13, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Democrats are petrified of photo id requirements. They should be. We know college students double vote; (in Canada, students have to vote AB from their home towns – no voting on campuses); felons vote; and citizenship often is not checked.

Just think – for anyone who votes who is not a citizen – they’re undermining the reason they came here in the first place. PART of the reason they come is that the US still works. One reason it still works is the Rule of Law. Once O and company tear it down completely, many who came here for work will find that we don’t work, either. Just so very sad.

Dems must be doing something wrong b/c they fight voterid so much. I hope we can get this turned around.

MN J on October 13, 2013 at 9:27 PM

which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections

…Only if those thousands are not citizens, and therefor not eligible to vote in the first place.

GeeWhiz on October 14, 2013 at 7:56 AM

Who doesn’t have an ID of some kind?

HotAirian on October 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Ironically, enrolling in Obamacare ‘Marketplaces’ requires ID – that requires verification by the Gubmint.

Hmm, no screeching or squeeling about that…go figure.

socalcon on October 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Steve Eggleston on October 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Make it dependent on property ownership, at least at the local tax level.

dominigan on October 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Where I vote, they have the ballots on electronic cards. If you present proper ID, you would receive two cards. Without it, you get only one.

Better yet, they could have two stacks of cards. One has both ballots, the other only the national races.

I think this could work. Suck on it, SCOTUS.

Kafir on October 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Here in Omaha, I vote by blackening a circle on a preprinted ballot. I’m pretty sure that we get at least two preprinted forms — one for national elections and one for state and local. It would be very easy to provide only the federal election form should the prospective voter not be able to provide the proper ID.

Doing that would also demonstrate whether the percentage and numbers of Democrat voters remains the same in both federal and state elections.

catsandbooks on October 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I think if you do not pay income tax federally you should not get to vote in a presidential election…

If you do not pay state taxes where it applies no vote there in Gov., Senate etc…

Both county and city could get a bit more dodgy because of property tax, car tag tax and sales tax (goes to state) could be argued as paying both state and local and I am sure someone would argue buying a lotto ticket should be considered tax but what the hell…

Tilly on October 13, 2013 at 5:28 PM

It gets easier if you eliminate all taxes except the personal income tax.

Count to 10 on October 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM

And this blocks thousands of people from voting how?

Johnnyreb on October 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Minorities fear whitey so they live under the radar and don’t have IDs. If an ID is now required by law it means that they will never be able to vote again. For them it’s a choice between voting or staying alive. There are also a great number of elderly people living on a fixed income that have never gotten an ID because they never needed one. Now they have a choice of jumping through hoops and spending their meager income to get an ID or playing BINGO.

Dr. Frank Enstine on October 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM