LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Melvin Udall
Online
Last seen: 11 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

I came across LD 434, working its way through the committee process. I believe it is sponsored by Sen. Deb Plowman.

[quote]An Act To Allow a Voter To Preserve the Confidentiality of That Voter's Presence at the Polls
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 21-A MRSA §671, sub-§1, as amended by PL 2005, c. 453, §55, is further amended to read:

1. Name announced. A voter who wishes to vote must state the voter's name and, upon request, residence address to an election clerk who shall announce the name in a loud, clear voice except that, upon the request of a voter, the election clerk may not announce that voter's name.

summary

This bill allows a voter to request that an election clerk not announce that voter's name.
[/quote]
Can someone help me understand what this is really about, and why this bill is in the system??

If the voter has already stated their name, what the hell would be the reason to request that the election clerk NOT announce that name???

This sounds like a move to further minimize the concept of poll watching as a way to ensure the integrity of the voting process.

I understood Sen. Plowman to be a friend to conservatives. What am I missing here??

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

(Psst -- I'm Nancy Pelosi, and I want to vote here today)

Registrar:

"Mrs. Nancy Pelosi"

Poll Watcher:

"I wish to challenge the ballot. She's from away."

Get it? It facilitates challenges.

Melvin Udall
Online
Last seen: 11 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

TJC:

I think you're saying the presumption I made, that this is to further neuter the concept of "challenging," is correct.

Did I hear you right? Eliminating the "loud clear voice" part is tantamount to making not only the ballot secret, but the act of casting it secret. Next will be a bill to eliminate the clerk making a notation in the rolls, if the voter even shows up in them, that the voter actually voted.

This all has the ring of precluding any improvement in the quality of voter rolls and the records of voting associated with them. I can think of only one reason to move in this direction, and that is to protect the ability to abuse and distort election outcomes.

Where am I wrong, counselor?

Doug Thomas
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/29/1999 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

I'm a co-sponsor of the bill in question. In one of our polling places this fall voters were required to identify themselves to the clerk which is normal and reasonable, but then they were required to call out their own names loud enough for everyone in the room to hear before casting their ballot.

Some voters complained to us they thought it should be enough to identify themselves to the ballot clerks, and didn't see the necessity of the announcement to everyone present. We agreed.

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

"Hear ye; Hear ye; Hear ye. I am Roger Ek and I intend to vote. If any person objects let him speak now or forever hold his peace."

This is an attempt to reduce fraudulent multiple votes by alien criminals and college students. I worked to implement a cross check at least on a random basis of college student votes. Our party would not touch this. They are comfortable with letting Democrats collect fraudulent votes rather than expose the fraud.

Kevin R
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

So what's the penality if the Poll Checker asks the clerk for the name again and the clerk replies?

Town Manager
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2006 - 9:40pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

When the clerk "announces the name" he/she is also letting the election worker know what party the voter is from. I dont know what other towns do, but in our town, if the voter is an R, the D election worker hands the ballot, and vice versa. If the voter is unenrolled (Independent) then its a toss up.. This is just another archaic law that has been on the books forever. MMA tried to get a bill passed a few years ago to clean up ALL old laws that make no sense today and the legislature said no thanks, we prefer to deal with them one at a time, instead of all at once. I guess with 2,000 plus bills, I can understand their logic. NOT! :twisted:

Town Manager
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2006 - 9:40pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

BTW, all you poll watcher supporters...please send compentent watchers to the polls. We spend more time babysitting some of these folks than we really should be. We enjoy their company, but do not enjoy doing their job.

Kevin R
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

Example please. We only send the best in Kennebunk.

Town Manager
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2006 - 9:40pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

Well, I have to say, the problem is with the democrat party. They tend to send anything with a heart beat. I don;t want to sound crude, but its been my personal experience. I have NOTHING against the hearing impaired, but they are not the most suitable to be a poll watcher, yet two elections in a row, the dems send this guy that can't hear the clerk announce the name of the voter from two feet away.

Kevin R
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

D or R, You've gotta love the guy for being there. I don't see enough interest in politics from the young ones. Many are turned off to the idea of politics and the cynicism runs deep. Maybe there is a better spot for him with less ambient noise?

Calvin
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

[size=24][/size]Annouce name

[size=12][/size]some do, some don't
my town is in the don't list

Melvin Udall
Online
Last seen: 11 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

Doug...I understood it to be the election worker's obligation to say the name loudly and clearly, not the voter.

And when I worked at the polls, not doing so would have made my job totally impossible.

I'm not understanding at all.

Voter gives name; election worker repeats it loud enough for challengers/watchers to hear.

"Preserving confidentiality" sounds way too suspicious.

The concept of voter lists and poll checking requires knowing who is there to vote.

Town Manager
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2006 - 9:40pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

[quote="Kevin R"]D or R, You've gotta love the guy for being there. I don't see enough interest in politics from the young ones. Many are turned off to the idea of politics and the cynicism runs deep. Maybe there is a better spot for him with less ambient noise?[/quote]

I wish there were! We are working under very tight quarters. Hey, we won't kick him out. It's his right to be there.

Town Manager
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2006 - 9:40pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

[quote="Melvin Udall"]Doug...I understood it to be the election worker's obligation to say the name loudly and clearly, not the voter.

And when I worked at the polls, not doing so would have made my job totally impossible.

I'm not understanding at all.

Voter gives name; election worker repeats it loud enough for challengers/watchers to hear.

"Preserving confidentiality" sounds way too suspicious.

The concept of voter lists and poll checking requires knowing who is there to vote.[/quote]

I agree. Its the election worked that repeats it loudly. Too all you legislators, the money spent on the accessibility phones could have been better spend on PA systems! :D

Kevin R
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

I have some friends who were very upset when they went to vote recently. They were all concerned wondering why there were so many people at the table when they announced their names and why was more than one list being checked. They didn't understand the concept of poll watchers and what they did and these were well educated, intelligent middle-aged people. Once I explained what was going on, they accepted it.

This legislation addresses the "emotion" that Rep Thomas's constituents were feeling when voting (much like my friends). IMHO, a bad reason for submitting it, sorry Representative. Although the ramifications will probably be slight, it's still a bad idea to pass bills in an attempt to make some feel "comfy" by legislative action, when there were probably other solutions not tried.

Kevin R
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???
JimP
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 08/13/2006 - 8:55pm
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

I guess I'm quite the radical then, I think that people should have to present photo ID, maybe two. I am proud to vote. Can we dip our fingers in purple ink? That would stop double voting. I think a load of it happens now. Oh, and no student voters unless they are Maine Residents. Again 2 ID's... 8)

Melvin Udall
Online
Last seen: 11 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
LD 434: Preserving Voter Confidentiality....WTF???

Photo ID for sure, with address matching voter list. Given residence requirements, it should be drivers license, or a BMV issued alternative.

pmrmsm
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 05/08/2006 - 10:52am
delete

delete

pmrmsm
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 05/08/2006 - 10:52am
State Rep. Rich Cebra has

State Rep. Rich Cebra has submitted legislation that would require voters to produce a photo ID at polling places before being issued a ballot, a change that he said would reduce the risk of voter fraud.
The bill, An Act to Strengthen Maine’s Election Laws by Requiring Photo Identification for the Purpose of Voting, was submitted to the Legislature’s Revisor’s Office on Aug. 4.

WMTW

Lets revive this 3.5 year old thread. We can thank for State Rep. Cebra for this one. All I can say on this subject is:

IT IS ABOUT TIME !!!!

With all the voter fraud running rampant in our state something has to be done and this would be good first step. I would be happy if we also had either a 14 or 30 day hold period on all voter registrations prior to an election, just my opinion.

Log in to post comments