Real ID, HB 1582

[CNHT]

http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news735079.html


The real ID issue
07/25/06

THE STATE?S mandatory photo ID for voters having now been shelved by the courts until after the runoff, perhaps the general election and maybe even longer, as being in probable violation of both the Georgia and U.S Constitutions, this becomes an opportune time to ask the more reflective question regarding this entire concept. The U.S. District Court in Rome, and the Georgia Supreme Court, both have restrained the new law?s use until several specific challenges can be determined. These involve its potential effects, possibly discriminatory in outcome if not necessarily intention, such as making it more difficult for the poor, limited-mobility seniors, many minorities to claim their right to vote..

As federal jurist Harold L. Murphy noted, there?s nothing illegal about a state legislature messing with election laws unnecessarily or even doing so with the intention of improving their party?s election chances. There probably should be (see redistricting), but there isn?t. Indeed, Murphy noted that the legislators could try, try again to come up with something constitutional ? and the General Assembly has already rewritten it once ? but that in this instance there is sufficient reason to believe it might violate both the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

A LEGISLATURE, he warned, ?cannot pass and enforce a voter ID law with a discriminatory purpose.? Murphy?s written opinion, to support his immediate injunction ordered from the bench, makes for an interesting read, even though it approaches book length.

Thus far the legal debate has concentrated, as such matters must, on relatively narrow points of attack, although there are so many of them that it would seem difficult, once the dust settles in the U.S. Supreme Court some years in the future, for some of the challenges not to stick. The real issue may be far more fundamental.

On what basis does the government pursue the notion that it can require the 99.99 percent of Americans who are qualified to vote to prove they are so legally entitled? Should not the government, rather, be out after the 00.01 percent of voters who might be cheaters?

Isn?t this rather like arresting everybody in the country and giving them the third degree on the dubious justification that this would catch whatever terrorist sympathizers might be in our midst?

Our system of government was formed out of thin air by ?We the people? ? indeed, those are the first three words of the U.S. Constitution. The government did not grant the people the right to participate in government but rather the people granted government the privilege of existing so long as it followed certain spelled-out rules.

MOREOVER, the Declaration of Independence, in which the same ?we the people? launched a revolution in order to govern themselves, similarly declares:

?We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.?

The primacy of ?the people? and their superiority over ?government? is made rather plain. And ?consent of the governed? is saying nothing more than ?voting? as there is no other method by which general consent may be granted. To be sure, the government acting as agent for ?we the people? has a responsibility to protect the process against fraud and ineligible participants. Indeed, that is the camouflage used in trying to slip such laws as the voter photo ID through.

And, there?s nothing wrong with the idea although there may be a lot wrong with the way Georgia?s mostly Republican legislators went about it. Basically they sought to assure elections would be as American as apple pie and instead concocted a pineapple upside-down cake.

WORSE, IN TRYING to re-invent a wheel that already existed (you?ve already got to sign up to vote beforehand and prove that you are you in the process) they concentrated on in-person voting and left absentee voting untouched even though the state has had no in-person voting fraud cases in at least a decade. The sanctity of absentees, particularly of the by-mail variety, is far less certain.

The central issue, for those of a contemplative state of mind, is actually whether the government, which is the creature of ?we the people,? can turn around and decide who is allowed to be in ?we the people.? This would, of course, be a revolution in itself, amounting to government seizing final authority from the people ? in effect, coming full circle to make itself King George III.

If government, in the process of trying to assure election purity, accidentally or intentionally removes even one fully qualified and eligible member from participating in the ?consent of the governed? then the action should and must be considered unconstitutional. If even one of us is denied the ability to ?consent? (or oppose) then the entire enterprise instantly loses its justification.

This is assuredly a high standard to which to hold elected representatives. But then, our entire system of government was formed to insist that those temporarily acting on the behalf of ?we the people? would abide by higher standards of protecting freedom and individual liberty than had ever appeared in the world before.

THERE IS SIMPLY no reason to retreat from such high goals ? ever.

[mr.apathy]

I heard some new news today out of www.nonationalid.com:

"The opposition to the REAL ID Act has been great and unrelenting. DC Downsizers, one of many groups who oppose Real ID, has so far pumped out 40,362 messages to Congress calling for the repeal of the REAL ID Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2005. Two Senators, Democrat Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Republican John Sununu of New Hampshire, are now threatening to sponsor legislation that would attempt to repeal the REAL ID Act if the Department of Homeland Security does not adopt new regulations.

ACLU Lauds Akaka-Sununu Real ID Fix Bill, Says Additional Privacy and Civil Liberties Safeguards Still Needed

The American Civil Liberties Union is welcoming bipartisan legislation authored by Senators Daniel Akaka and John Sununu that would add privacy and civil liberties safeguards to the Real ID Act. The "Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2006" would address several of the shortcomings of the controversial legislation. The Akaka-Sununu bill would eliminate most of the requirements that laid the foundation for a National ID card, such as the obligation that all data and systems be standardized."

Does anyone know anything about this RealID fix bill?
One thing is for sure, we should all keep lobbying against Real ID.

[CNHT]

ACLU Lauds Akaka-Sununu Real ID Fix Bill, Says Additional Privacy and Civil Liberties Safeguards Still Needed

Does anyone know anything about this RealID fix bill?
One thing is for sure, we should all keep lobbying against Real ID.

I have not researched this yet, but I'll bet a call or email  to Sen. Sununu's (R- NH) office might yield some results.
http://sununu.senate.gov/webform.html

[aries]

Does anyone have contact info for Paul hodes?

[CNHT]

Does anyone have contact info for Paul hodes?

You can try but someone here did before the elections and never got an answer. Hodes is a slick liberal lawyer who defends criminals.

[d_goddard]

I think you'll find it much more effective to contact your State Reps and your State Senator and tell them that you are against the RealID, and you support any legislation to opt NH out of such a system:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp

Think of it this way:
The Feds get 40,000 emails, and the most libertarian 2% of the Senate introduces a weak bill wth no teeth trying to oppose RealID, and that bill is highly unlikely to pass anyway.
In contrast, just 12 NH Senators killed HB1582 (which would have oped NH out of Real-ID). Most of those Senators were not re-elected. Governor Lynch has publicly said he'd sign similar legislation if it crosses his desk this upcoming session.

As such, a few hundred people contacting their legislators virtually guarantees there will not be any RealID for the citizens of New Hampshire... apply your energy where it counts!!!

[KBCraig]

Hodes is a slick liberal lawyer who defends criminals.

Hey, some of my best FSP friends are criminals. Russell, Mike, Lauren... 

They didn't use lawyers, though. 

[CNHT]

Hodes is a slick liberal lawyer who defends criminals.

Hey, some of my best FSP friends are criminals. Russell, Mike, Lauren... 

They didn't use lawyers, though. 

Well! I think you know I mean people like one of those mentioned stealing the tax money!

[Spencer]

Does anyone have contact info for Paul hodes?

You can try but someone here did before the elections and never got an answer. Hodes is a slick liberal lawyer who defends criminals.

I'm a slick libertarian lawyer who defends people the government calls criminals.

[Rocketman]

Does anyone have contact info for Paul hodes?

You can try but someone here did before the elections and never got an answer. Hodes is a slick liberal lawyer who defends criminals.

I'm a slick libertarian lawyer who defends people the government calls criminals.

That deserves karma.  +1.

[KBCraig]

I'm a slick libertarian lawyer who defends people the government calls criminals.

That deserves karma.  +1.

+1 for both of you. And Jane too, except I'm in the 12 hour lockout from the last time I gropedapplauded her.



Kevin

[KurtDaBear]

Another state balks at the cost and in conveniece of Real ID:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/24/MNGIHK4CT01.DTL

Long waits looming for license renewals
DMV officials fear new federal ID rules will lengthen lines
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Monday, July 24, 2006


(07-24) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Starting in 2008, all 22 million licensed California drivers will be required to go in person to a DMV office and prove their identity and address with three different documents before getting a new, federally approved state license.
---
The bill that would allow the DMV to continue preparing the state for Real ID compliance also would grant driver's licenses to undocumented workers.
---
The Real ID Act permits, but does not require, states to provide driving-only licenses to illegal immigrants. It states that such licenses must have a distinguishing color or mark, an idea Schwarzenegger had proposed at one time but Cedillo had resisted until the federal law was written.

Last year, Schwarzenegger said he wanted to wait until the federal rules were out before he signed the bill. Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said the state cannot even begin to guess what the federal government will say is required to prove the identity of someone born outside the United States, or how the license should be different from that granted to a citizen.

This is typical vintage California politics.  They're just too happy to jump on the real ID bandwagon, but want to be sure to include undocumented aliens.  As far as making licenses for undocumented aliens a different color, how many TSA agents are going to know the color of a normal Calif. license once you get a state or two away from Calif.?

The irony here is the paragraph about guessing what the Feds will require for proof of ID for legal immigrants--the governor may fail to qualify for the program he's championing.

[error]

"Driving-only" licenses for "undocumented aliens" aren't good for proving identity, so stringent proof of identity isn't required.

Tennessee already issues them. I think a few other states do as well.

[Tom Sawyer]

New Hampshire now has a REAL-ID compliant license.

Not a whisper of this from all those that fought hard to prevent it? Or am I missing all the activity on that wonderful organizing platform of Facebook?


NH Senate approves bill allowing Real ID compliance


So many of us were involved in the anti-REAL-ID efforts. Now we see that the politicians screwed over the will of the people.

The Senate voted 18-4 to approve House Bill 1616 after defeating an attempt to make a Real ID compliant license the standard, and allowing those opposed to opt out.

I don't see how this isn't a direct assault on the bill passed in 2007 that we fought so hard to attain.

Lawmakers passed a 2007 law that forbids state officials from complying with Real ID, but now citizens without a compliant state license or identification cannot enter federal buildings or facilities. And beginning in January 2018, they can't enter airports unless they have a passport or go through enhanced screening.

[blackie]

Maine still isn't compliant.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/12/homeland-security-wont-extend-deadline-for-maine-compliance-with-federal-id-law/


Maine is one of only five states that Homeland Security has deemed noncompliant and have not been granted extensions. The others are Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. The remaining states have either been granted extensions or already have come into compliance.