The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
Lawmakers appear closely divided over a House subcommittee's recommendation to close off all public access to Virginians' personal voting history.
What's giving some of them heartburn: the fear that losing access to the information will raise the cost of their re-election campaigns.
The issue elicited a lively debate Friday before the House Privileges and Elections Committee tabled it on a 10-9 vote. Working under the gun of a threatened lawsuit, the panel has only one more meeting in which to act on the matter before the General Assembly adjourns.
The State Board of Elections has already been sued once by the Know Campaign, a nonprofit group that planned and then aborted a mass-mail campaign last fall calculated to push people to the polls by sharing with their neighbors how often they'd voted.
The group sued after learning that current state law allows voter history lists to be provided only to elected officials, candidates and political parties. That suit was settled, but the group has promised to sue again if the law is not changed to allow wider access to the lists.
The lists don't reveal which candidate people voted for - only which elections they participated in. But that's valuable information to a candidate looking to carefully tailor a campaign mailing to minimize the cost.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office has advised lawmakers that the current law won't stand up in court because it gives candidates and parties privileged treatment over others seeking access to a voter history list.
"We can't make it available to us and no one else," said Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, chairman of the subcommittee that studied the matter. "We had two options. We can make it available to everybody or we can make it available to no one."
The subcommittee decided to come down on the side of protecting voters' privacy, he said.
Some committee members were clearly uncomfortable with that option.
"This is something of a Hobbesian choice," said Del. Tim Hugo, R-Fairfax County.
Del. Dave Albo, another Fairfax Republican, said the cost of running a campaign in a competitive district is already burdensome. Losing access to voter history lists, he said, "makes it practically impossible to run for office."
Albo speaks from experience. He spent nearly $1 million last year winning re-election to his $17,640-a-year delegate's job.
Cosgrove retorted: "We shouldn't be making decisions about what it's going to cost us to run a campaign. We ought to be making decisions about what's best for citizens."
Del. Johnny Joannou, D-Portsmouth, agreed: "Voting is a private function of a private citizen. If it costs too much money to run, don't run."
Bill Sizemore, (804) 697-1560, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
not so fast
Elimination of the electoral college would only insure that California, New York, Florida, and Texas would choose the President.(Sheer population numbers would nullify all other states, be careful what you wish for) Now if you are in favor in only these four states having a voice then you have a serious disenfranchisement problem for the other 46 states.
Not to mention the fact that elimination would require a constitutional amendment ratified by all 50 state, and I just don't think the states are going to slit their own throats.
This is the problem
with staggered primaries and the electoral college. Politicians are by definition lazy and partisan. They only want to work so hard for votes. I believe a one day primary and the elimination of the electoral college would make them work hard for every vote instead of targeting certain areas, demographics or states. But politicians being the lazy dogs they are will never approve of a law that will make them work harder. Too bad we don't have the power to make that happen.
Evolution: Mountains of trash from Holy Lists
Do politicians know that nobody reads the "junk mail" appearing with every election? Shredders are working at double time! So much, few read it. It might be best to vote for whoever sends the least trash. I seem to be on every list of every political party known to man. I just separate it on the way to the door to shred immediately. I am not alone. I guess this meaningless printed drivel is a jobs program for people who produce it and haul away the shredded remains as Virginia Beachers may pay a monthly fee which grows yearly..may get pricey. Few people read the trash that comes in the mail from these "Holy Lists". We just pay and pay to have it hauled away. And if I should start using the fireplace again, trash pickup and recycle might have layoffs. These lists are public record, but have no meaning or value but to say I voted. To send out specific information from the list to individuals in the community about an individual (previous news item)...that is a problem. During election time, everybody complains about phone calls and junk mail. Because you can, doesn't mean you should harass the electorate.
hmmm
There is no requirement to vote, so trying to embarrass people into voting aught to fall under the category of civil rights violations. If someone feels that there is no one running for elected office that represents their views they have every right to abstain. This is intimidation, pure and simple, and our elected officials aught to do the right thing and not make this information available to anyone.
Outlaw campaign funding.
"makes it practically impossible to run for office."
I don't care which of my neighbors vote
If and when and for whom they vote is their business and theirs alone and shouldn't be provided to ANY candidate regardless of party affiliation. It makes far better sense to make sure that the person appearing at the polls to vote is the same person they are claiming to be by means of having them produce a valid state issued ID card with the address where they live on it.
Why?
The number of votes cast at every polling place is already a matter of record, including how many for whom. This should be sufficient for the stated purpose of determining total votes per area. The idea of who voted is not, in my opinion, a matter of concern to anyone else but the voter. It seems to be the first step to enforce mandatory voting. Those who think mandatory anything is wrong should be the first to object.
How about making it the voter's choice?
The voter checks a box at the polls indicating whether or not he or she wishes to have his voting record released.
I would check "NO."
Too simple?
not how but who
The issue is not how the person voted but who voted.
How about a compromise? Make voting records private between the voter and no one else. The compromise - since the STATE collects all the voting info, the STATE should release the name. No address, no precinct and no locality. The STATE should release only the NAME (and age, sex, race) so statistical models may be made but WE will not be "PRESSURED" with those direct mailings and phone calls.
Everyone wins - except those who want to be able to "PRESSURE" people to vote a certain way.
But then there is one thing that should be transparent - voter ID, and like the instant background check for gun purchasers - establish an instant check to see if the voter is registered to vote anywhere else.
Sorry Wiz. We disagree.
I seldom go head to head with other posters. Everyone has their opinions and the freedom to express them. I respect that. They read mine. I read theirs. I move on.
To ME, "transparency" is having access to be able to clearly see what is going on in my government, not what a private citizen is doing.
I don't see this issue as one of transparency, rather one of invasion of a citizen's privacy (i.e. whether he or she voted ... or not).
Just my humble opinion.