Wednesday, April 16, 2008

New Technological Age Voter ID One Day One Way

There needs to be some way of determining that a voter who casts a polling-place ballot, a curb-side ballot, or an absentee ballot is one and the same whose name appears on the disturbingly bloated voter registration databases around the country, or to assure that the person behind the name even exists. Those databases have yet to be clearly accurate, and remain ripe for misuse.

Having said that, I'm against a permanent voter id card. I believe the ID should be used only for one-voting day and one-voting way.

Given technology advances, the ID would be generated for each voter who wants to vote during that election. I don't even think a photo ID is necessary, as polling place officials are not going to check photo against person when they don't now even check signature against signature.

(We're into automated photo recognition devices down the road)

The ID number would only be connected to the person's act of voting, not the way the person voted that day. The debatable issue is to require a finger-print submission at the time of act of voting. That would be entered into a database, but after the election, the finger-print record is eliminated. In fact, there'd be no need for a permanent voter database, either. (The better to track you with, my dear)

I'm opposed to any sort of national real ID card, for any purpose. the thing is, there is a problem with elections on a variety of fronts, and if the voter database is inaccurate, the very foundation of the election is untrustworthy, no matter what methodolgy is used to carry out the voting process.

(Net the Truth Online)

Food for thought

A Clearer Picture on Voter ID
By Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III
3 February 2008

This Jimmy Carter and James Baker III op-ed was published in the Feb. 3, 2008, edition of The New York Times.

THIS is a major election year. Unfortunately, our two major political parties — Democratic and Republican — continue to disagree on some of the rules that apply to the administration of our elections. This divide is perhaps most contentious when the issue becomes one of whether voters should present photo identification to vote.

Twenty-seven states require or request some form of ID to vote. Supporters of this policy argue that if voters identify themselves before voting, election fraud will be reduced. Opponents of an ID requirement fear it will disenfranchise voters, especially the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely than other voters to have suitable identification. The debate is polarized because most of the proponents are Republicans and most of the opponents are Democrats.

In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.)

No state has yet accepted our proposal. What's more, when it comes to ID laws, confusion reigns. The laws on the books, mainly backed by Republicans, have not made it easy enough for voters to acquire an ID. At the same time, Democrats have tended to try to block voter ID legislation outright — instead of seeking to revise that legislation to promote accessibility. When lower courts have considered challenges to state laws on the question of access, their decisions have not been consistent. And in too many instances, individual judges have appeared to vote along partisan lines.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has taken on a case involving a challenge to Indiana's voter ID law. The court, which heard arguments last month and is expected to render a judgment this term, has the power finally to bring clarity to this crucial issue. A study by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management — led by Robert Pastor, who also organized the voting commission — illustrates the problem at hand. The center found that in three states with ID requirements — Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland — only about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID. While the sample was small, and the margin of error was therefore high, we were pleased to see that so few registered voters lacked photo IDs. That was pretty good news.

The bad news, however, was this: While the numbers of registered voters without valid photo IDs were few, the groups least likely to have them were women, African-Americans and Democrats. Surveys in other states, of course, may well present a different result.

We hope the court will approach the challenges posed by the Indiana law in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way. As we stated in our 2005 report, voter ID laws are not a problem in and of themselves. Rather, the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase — not reduce — voter participation. The recent decision by the Department of Homeland Security to delay putting in place the Real ID Act for at least five years suggests that states should move to photo ID requirements gradually and should do more to ensure that free photo IDs are easily available.

The Supreme Court faces a difficult and important decision. If the justices divide along partisan lines, as lower courts have, they would add to the political polarization in the country. We hope that they will find a nonpartisan path that combines both legitimate concerns — ballot security and full access to voting — and underscores the importance of applying these laws in a fair and gradual way. It is also important to remember that our commission's report addressed other pressing election concerns. There is much more that Congress and state legislatures need to do to improve the electoral process and restore confidence in our democracy. We have outlined 87 such steps in our commission report.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue. It has the opportunity to inspire the states, our national leaders and the entire country to bridge the partisan divide on a matter that is important to our democracy. It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat.

Jimmy Carter was the 39th president. James A. Baker III was the secretary of state in the George H. W. Bush administration.


Fingerprint & Signature Capture

Printrak announces new portable fingerprint ID solution.
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Tuesday, December 10 1996
Subject: Product introduction, Fingerprint identification equipment
Company: Printrak International Inc. Product introduction 00227522
Product: Manufacturing industries, not elsewhere classified, Fingerprint ID Kits, All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing

You are viewing page 1
ANAHEIM, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 10, 1996--

Hand-Held Single Finger Station Features High-Quality Scanning and
Networking Capabilities for Large-Scale Database Searches
A new portable automated fingerprint identification solution featuring real-time matching capabilities is being introduced Tuesday by Printrak International (NASDAQ:AFIS).

Printrak Reduces Voter and Social Services Fraud in Latin America With National ID and Passport Programs
Business Wire, July 14, 1999

Thursday, January 17, 2008
Voter ID law
Instead of requiring voters to show a state issued ID, they should simply store digital images of registered voters at polling places. That way, if I get mugged on my way to the polling place, poll workers would still be able to verify that I am me. Provisional ballots would still be available for those who grow or shave off facial hair, and those who have disfiguring accidents.

Any new computer equipment purchased towards this end would still be cheaper than the ongoing lawsuit. Even though SCOTUS is expected to uphold the Voter ID law, this law could be challenged again when the court gets some new members.

The claim that no new measures are needed because no one has been convicted of voter fraud in this state is a hollow argument. There have been no hijackings in this state, do we still need metal detectors in our airports? There have been recent recorded cases of voter fraud in Illinois and Ohio. There may be voter fraud in Indiana if Evan Bayh becomes a running mate and we become a battleground state. We owe it to ourselves and the rest of the country to have an voter identification system that is fair, convenient, and reliable.

Posted by Robert Enders at 6:03 AM

Case Study - Haiti voter ID card

L-1 Identity Solutions modernize Panama's National and Voter Registration ID system
Wednesday, February 13 2008
L-1 Identity Solutions extends their relationship with the Tribunal Electoral de Panama to upgrade the country's multi-purpose National ID system which also serves as Panama's voter registration system and help Panama prepare for the 2009 Presidential elections. Under the terms of the $3.7 million contract, L-1 will deliver a complete multi-biometric solution that includes new enrollment devices, an upgrade of the biometric national registry, and integration services

No comments: