Bill shows Democrats' problem

Daily Lobo column

by Jeremy Reynalds

Daily Lobo Columnist

State Rep. Joe Thompson, R-Albuquerque, had a good idea for a new bill. Passage of his proposed legislation should have been a no-brainer.

However, like most good things proposed by House Republicans in the Democrat-controlled New Mexico State Legislature, it wasn't to be and the bill sadly died a premature death at the hands of House Democrats last week.

Thompson's bill was aimed at preventing fraud by requiring voters to present identification such as a driver's license or a social security card when they vote.

However, without even discussing the merits of the bill, members of the House Voters and Elections Committee voted to table - read "derail" - House Bill 14.

Democratic opposition occurred despite the results of two automated telephone polls on the issue. Last week the state Republican Party issued the results of those polls.

Almost 85 percent - 84.9 percent, to be precise - of the constituents in the district of House Majority Leader Denise Picraux, D-Albuquerque, and 74.6 percent of voters in Voter and Elections Committee Chairman Ed Sandoval's district in Albuquerque supported the measure. Despite the results, Picraux and Sandoval voted with other Democrats to kill Thompson's bill in committee.

Thompson had some ideas about the Democratic opposition to the bill. He said the real issue to those who scuttled his bill is that its successful passage would have prevented people from assuming other identities and voting.

Thompson said, "They'll (Democrats) go through old voting records and see that `John Smith' has never voted in the last 10 years, but he's still alive ... It's three o'clock on election day and he hasn't voted, so then they'll say, "I'll get my brother or friend to say they're John Smith."

However, Democrats weren't about to give that reason for sinking the voter identification bill. They just latched onto the tired old liberal rhetoric pushed by activist groups nationwide who lobby against voter identification.

In a recent interview, Thompson said, "They said some of the consequences would be bad for minorities and other under represented constituencies - that people who are poor don't have ID and people who are recently emigrated to the country - those folks would be afraid to get ID for some reason. To me those concerns are baseless."

They are indeed. That's because you are unable to vote legally in American elections unless you are a U.S. citizen, and that is not an overnight occurrence. Recent immigrants who enter the United States legally are first granted what is called permanent resident status and obtain a "green card," which they hold for a number of years before applying to become a citizen.

And as a former British citizen who emigrated to the United States in 1978, obtained permanent resident status in 1979 and became a U.S. citizen in 1999, I know the system quite well.

The Democrats' concern that the poor would be afraid to get identification is also without merit. I can again speak to that issue with good authority, having worked with the poorest of New Mexico's poor, our state's homeless, for more than 18 years. The homeless guests who stay at the agency I direct either already possess identification or quickly apply for it.

Government benefits are unavailable without identification and it is becoming increasingly harder to find legitimate employment. It appears that the only reason you would not have identification and be unwilling to apply for it is if you have either entered the country illegally, in which case you shouldn't vote anyway, or you're a criminal on the run from the law.

I'm forced to assume the Democrats who voted against Thompson's bill are really just trying to protect a system that favors them. Especially in light of language in the bill that reads, "If a voter is entitled to vote except that he is unable to present one of the forms of identification listed above, he shall be allowed to vote only after he executes a statement swearing or affirming that he is the named registered voter who he claims to be."

You can see that Thompson's bill wouldn't even have stopped all potential voters without identification from voting. Could it be that Democrats were afraid of Section B of his bill, which reads "Knowingly executing a false statement constitutes perjury ... voting on the basis of a falsely executed statement constitutes false voting ... "

So what's ahead for voter identification in New Mexico? Well, as long as Thompson is in the New Mexico Legislature, he told me that he'll keep bringing the bill back. In the meantime, it might be worth it to call Picraux and Sandoval in Santa Fe and ask them the real reason for their opposition to Thompson's bill.