Election Reform Bill Stalls on Voter ID Demand

WASHINGTON —  A sudden partisan firefight over a proposal to require proof of identification from first-time voters threatened Wednesday to torpedo a Senate bill to upgrade voting systems across the country.

Democrats, opposing the proposal, say it could depress turnout in areas with large populations of minority or elderly voters, who often do not have identification handy when they go to the polls.

Republicans, decrying lax regulations in some states that allow the names of dogs and dead people onto voter rolls, say a requirement of a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, or some other verification of identity and residence, is essential to deter fraud.

In a preliminary vote Wednesday, Democrats prevailed 51-46 as they advanced an alternative allowing voters to vouch for their identities with a signature. But the issue was not settled, and Republicans demonstrated enough strength in the vote to deadlock the Senate indefinitely.

With Republicans beginning a filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said he would yank the election reform legislation from the floor if he could not get the 60 votes needed to force final action. The Senate Democratic leadership scheduled a showdown vote for Friday.

“We cannot disenfranchise minority voters and older voters who oftentimes don’t have photo IDs,” Daschle told reporters. “I would hope that we could resolve this matter and bring the bill to a conclusion.”

But a Republican active in the reform legislation, Sen. Christopher S. “Kit” Bond of Missouri, shot back: “We see now that it’s the Democratic Party that does not want to stop fraudulent voting. If that’s the way they’re going to be, I don’t see a lot of prospects for a bill.”

The debate laid bare one of the sharpest partisan fault lines in what has until now been a largely bipartisan movement to overhaul how state and local officials conduct elections--an issue that came to prominence in the disputed 2000 presidential election. It also echoed periodic disputes in California involving dueling allegations of voter fraud and voter intimidation.

In general, Republicans have sought to crack down on fraud while Democrats have sought to expand the electorate. For example, Republican Robert K. Dornan charged after his 1996 loss to Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an Orange County congressional race that groups allied with her had facilitated illegal voting by noncitizens.

Democrats, who won a lengthy battle in the House to enable Sanchez to claim her seat, countered that Republicans were simply trying to undermine efforts to encourage voting by immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens.

Underlying the Senate debate is a bill that would enable voters to cast ballots more easily, ensure that those votes are counted accurately and prevent assorted forms of polling discrimination and fraud.

It also would earmark $3.4 billion in federal funds to help states upgrade polling equipment, create statewide voter registration systems and comply with new standards.

A bipartisan compromise in December agreed on an outline of the bill that would both target fraud and encourage participation--to “make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat,” in the words of Bond, who participated in the negotiations.

As a result, a provision in the bill would require anyone who registers to vote by mail to show proof of identity when voting for the first time--whether in person or absentee. Such proof could be a valid photo ID card issued by a state, or another document that shows the voter’s name and address, such as a utility bill, a government check, a paycheck or a bank statement.

Republicans contend that such verification would help prevent flagrant abuses. Bond cited the case of Ritzy Mekler, a mixed-breed dog born in Los Angeles who was registered to vote in St. Louis in October 1994.

Voters who fail to bring identification to the polls would be able to cast “provisional” ballots that could be double-checked afterward by election authorities, proponents of the anti-fraud measure said.

But Democrats said that was not good enough. Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed an amendment that would allow states to verify a voter’s identity through signature matching. Republicans called it a sham. But in Wednesday’s action, the Senate failed to table, or kill, the Schumer-Wyden proposal. That left the matter in limbo while the Senate considers whether to sustain or end the filibuster.

California’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voted with their party. The only Republican to break ranks was Sen. Gordon H. Smith from Oregon, a state that pioneered elections conducted entirely by mail.

Twelve states--not including California--require voters to verify their identity at a polling station, according to the Constitution Project, an organization affiliated with Georgetown University that tracks election reform. California does, however, require signature matches to verify the authenticity of mail-in absentee ballots. About 25% of the California electorate votes by mail, officials estimate.

If the Senate can break through the impasse, there is a good chance that a major election reform could become law. The House passed its own version of the bill in December. It differs in several ways from the Senate measure, but advocates in both chambers have expressed optimism that those differences can be reconciled. President Bush, who won the 2000 election in an outcome still disputed by some Democrats, has also expressed support for the reform effort.

But anti-fraud measures are proving unexpectedly difficult to resolve. Conny McCormack, registrar-recorder for Los Angeles County, said that election officials nationwide are concerned about any measures that would require subjective judgments by poll workers on who is eligible to vote.

Conceivably, McCormack said, the anti-fraud measures supported by Republican senators could lead poll workers to give the benefit of the doubt to voters they know while giving closer scrutiny to those they don’t--many of them immigrants, or younger or lower-income voters. “It’s discriminatory on its face,” she said.