Herseth opposes bill requiring card to vote
Posted: Friday, September 22, 2006
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) -- The U.S. House on Wednesday passed legislation that would make Americans show proof of citizenship in order to vote, but Rep. Stephanie Herseth says it could hurt the elderly and American Indians and predicted the bill won't get far in the Senate.
The measure, which passed 228-196 mostly along party lines, would require voters to present photo identification at polling places, starting in 2008. And in 2010, they would have to provide IDs proving they are U.S. citizens.
Right after the vote, the National Republican Congressional Committee said Herseth, a Democrat who voted against the bill, is against maintaining the integrity of federal elections.
"Rep. Herseth today rejected commonsense legislation that would help ensure that illegals are not influencing our political process by voting," Carl Forti of the NRCC said in a release.
Herseth, who pointed out that South Dakota's Republican secretary of state, Chris Nelson, also opposed the bill, said some South Dakotans might not get to vote if the bill becomes law.
"I think that the national Republican Party is way off base, that their actions were completely inconsistent with their stated philosophy of protecting states' rights, and it was, in my opinion, seeking to disenfranchise voters, especially in South Dakota, some of our older citizens and including our elders in Indian Country who may not have a birth certificate," she said Thursday.
In response to criticism that the requirements would be a burden for the poor, the bill says that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
Herseth, who called the bill an unfunded mandate, said the Senate has much to do before a scheduled adjournment in the next eight days, so she does not think the Senate will adopt the House version of the bill.
"So the Republican majority has just passed a law that will do absolutely nothing to protect the integrity of the federal elections in November of 2006," Herseth said.
Nelson had written Herseth earlier this week and pointed out the House measure would supersede states' authority to implement the level of voter identification needed to ensure the integrity of the election.
In contrast to the House measure, South Dakota's system allows the use of tribal photo IDs and student photo IDs, Nelson said. Also, voters without a photo ID at the polls can sign an affidavit swearing to their identity.
"Ours is a system which balances the need for election integrity with the goal of access by all legally eligible voters," Nelson said.
Herseth said there was some confusion over the affidavits and provisional ballots in the 2004 election. "We worked through that, and I don't think many people in South Dakota feel that there's a problem with our election system at this point."
She said that during Wednesday's debate, House Democrats were barred from having an amendment considered that would have allowed for uniformity in provisional ballots.
The measure, which passed 228-196 mostly along party lines, would require voters to present photo identification at polling places, starting in 2008. And in 2010, they would have to provide IDs proving they are U.S. citizens.
Right after the vote, the National Republican Congressional Committee said Herseth, a Democrat who voted against the bill, is against maintaining the integrity of federal elections.
"Rep. Herseth today rejected commonsense legislation that would help ensure that illegals are not influencing our political process by voting," Carl Forti of the NRCC said in a release.
Herseth, who pointed out that South Dakota's Republican secretary of state, Chris Nelson, also opposed the bill, said some South Dakotans might not get to vote if the bill becomes law.
"I think that the national Republican Party is way off base, that their actions were completely inconsistent with their stated philosophy of protecting states' rights, and it was, in my opinion, seeking to disenfranchise voters, especially in South Dakota, some of our older citizens and including our elders in Indian Country who may not have a birth certificate," she said Thursday.
In response to criticism that the requirements would be a burden for the poor, the bill says that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.
Herseth, who called the bill an unfunded mandate, said the Senate has much to do before a scheduled adjournment in the next eight days, so she does not think the Senate will adopt the House version of the bill.
"So the Republican majority has just passed a law that will do absolutely nothing to protect the integrity of the federal elections in November of 2006," Herseth said.
Nelson had written Herseth earlier this week and pointed out the House measure would supersede states' authority to implement the level of voter identification needed to ensure the integrity of the election.
In contrast to the House measure, South Dakota's system allows the use of tribal photo IDs and student photo IDs, Nelson said. Also, voters without a photo ID at the polls can sign an affidavit swearing to their identity.
"Ours is a system which balances the need for election integrity with the goal of access by all legally eligible voters," Nelson said.
Herseth said there was some confusion over the affidavits and provisional ballots in the 2004 election. "We worked through that, and I don't think many people in South Dakota feel that there's a problem with our election system at this point."
She said that during Wednesday's debate, House Democrats were barred from having an amendment considered that would have allowed for uniformity in provisional ballots.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 10 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
JL wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:29 PM:
Ruth wrote on Sep 24, 2006 11:04 AM:
JL wrote on Sep 24, 2006 5:33 AM:
Charlie Prochelo wrote on Sep 23, 2006 7:55 AM:
Okoboji wrote on Sep 22, 2006 4:42 PM: