 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Cross Your Fingers | Main | Time for a Media African Safari » December 29, 2007Theft of Nashville Election Commission Laptops Highlights Need for Voter Photo ID Law
The law bans companies, nonprofit groups and even government agencies in most cases from sending mailings containing Social Security numbers or from requiring Web site visitors to log in using Social Security numbers. It also forbids displaying Social Security numbers on most identification cards.Well, good. But perhaps the new law also should have prohibited government agencies from storing the full Social Security numbers of 337,000 registered voters - along with their names and addresses - on easily-stolen laptops, especially if said laptops weren't going to be stored in an ultra-secure place. The theft of some laptop PCs holding just such information from Nashville's Metro Election Commission offices over the Christmas holiday has put 337,000 people at heightened risk of becoming a victim of identity theft. The crime also highlights the need for the state legislature to pass new laws requiring voters to show picture ID at the polling place. Having the names, addresses and Social Security numbers of thousands of registered voters would enable mass voter fraud if the information was in the hands of people who had that intent - but not if state law required a picture ID to vote. Also, if state law required a photo ID to vote, election commissions wouldn't need to provide so much identifying information on laptops to poll workers. The Tennessee Republican Party has endorsed voter photo ID legislation, but Democrats in the state legislature have largely opposed such efforts to make voter fraud - and identity theft - less possible. In the last session, Senate Bill 0227/House Bill 0938 was a Republican bill with multiple Republican co-sponsors but only one House Democrat co-sponsor. It passed the Senate on 18-10 vote, with all 16 Republicans plus independent Sen. Micheal Williams and Democrat Sen. Doug Henry voting for it. The ten votes against the sensible voter ID legislation? All Democrats: Charlotte Burks, Ward Crutchfield, Lowe Finney Thelma Harper, Joe Haynes, Roy Herron, Tommy Kilby, Rosalind Kurita, Jim Kyle and Beverly Marrerro. (Dickson Democrat Doug Jackson was recorded as "present, not voting.") The legislation was never even acted on in the Democrat-controlled House. It matters who governs. Why do Tennessee Democrats not want to make vote fraud more difficult? (While the voter photo ID legislation as proposed was good, I'd suggest that in light of the Nashville election commission laptop theft, legislators should actually go beyond requiring a photo ID to vote and require that election commissions issue a voter registration card with the voter's picture on it, the same way that driver's licenses have the driver's picture. Such cards could contain the person's name, photo, and voting precinct information, but no Social Security number or address. The technology exists. The need exists. Unfortunately, the political will among Democrats, who still control the state House, does not.) Posted in Campaign Season
Comments
Great ideas, Bill. I wish we lived in a world that didn't require such careful identification, I remember those days...but between voter fraud, illegal immigration and nonsense like this, what are the alternatives? Posted by: Kay Brooks at December 29, 2007 8:45 AMUltimately, I'd like to see us have voter ID cards with photo and a bar code or magnetic stripe, and a pin number. But at least a photo ID requirement - that should be the minimum. Why Democrats are, for the most part, against requiring proof of identity before voting is beyond me. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at December 29, 2007 8:49 AMWell, I'd go further. Part of the accommodation of fraud is two weeks of early voting in areas where no one knows you. The same people have been the poll workers in my neighborhood for eons. I can't imagine someone getting away with fraud in front of them. Posted by: Kay Brooks at December 29, 2007 9:08 AMBill: I don't think it's so hard to understand, but it is hard for me to swallow, why Democrats are against voter fraud. For all the caterwauling about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, the truth is that voter fraud in metropolitan areas is rampant, and that a close state, such as Wisconsin, was possibly tipped to Kerry by voter fraud in Milwaukee. Remember the party activists who slashed tires and were convicted? Do you think it would be getting the low key treatment had they been GOP activists? I think this is one of the great underreported stories of the past several years: the Democratic party's reliance on fraud to pad their vote totals in urban areas, and the GOP's fecklessness in doing anything about it. In the pre-Internet era, I could understand it to some extent (e.g., 1960 presidential election and the absence of a vigorous effort by the MSM of the day to investigate independently), but in this day and age, why Republicans are so passive about this is beyond me. If nothing else, they should put the Democrats on defense, forcing them to answer why they favor lax protocols (Motor Voter, allowing illegals to vote, etc) that dilute the value of an honest vote. In the short term, it might energize voters in other areas to get out and vote against the fraud-mongers. The ultimate goal, of course, would be to put an end to the fraud (or severely limit it), but the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail, as the electoral votes of the Great Lakes states would be in peril for them. Remember the county red-blue map? The Dems do - and their approach to dealing with it is to maximize the votes from the blue urban areas by any means necessary. Posted by: Paul at December 29, 2007 9:09 AMI've been out of town so perhaps have missed some details of the theft. But, besides the voter fraud issue other questions arise. What is Metro policy regarding security of personal information on laptops? (Or is there one and, if not, why not?) Were these laptops in a secure locked closet, locked in desks or just sitting loose on top of desks? If not locked, why not? Were they secured with computer cables if left out? If not, why not? What were the plans to secure these computers en route to and from precincts from someone downloading the information in transit or on-site at the precinct? And, where else in Metro Government are there loose laptops with sensitive information? Posted by: Martha Brown at December 30, 2007 3:03 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
The Tennessean 