voter registration

71% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Allowing Voter Registration

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on the federal government’s challenge of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. But most voters think everyone should have to prove their citizenship before being allowed to sign up for voting and don’t believe such a requirement is discriminatory.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her U.S. citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree and oppose such a requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Senators aim to reach bipartisan immigration deal next week

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eight senators aim to cap months of talks next week with a comprehensive deal to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, a member of the bipartisan group said on Thursday.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a longtime reform advocate, said once the agreement is done, aides will draw up legislation that could be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee in April.

"That's our goal," Menendez told Reuters. "We hope to agree on all of the major issues, hopefully, by the end of next week. But it could slip a bit," he said, perhaps by a couple of days or so.

"I'm not rigid about anything other than getting it right," Menendez said.

The timetable Menendez spelled out mirrored one that the group suggested earlier this year. It said it aimed to have a bill in March and a vote by the full Democratic-led Senate in June or July.

The eight senators - four Democrats and four Republicans - announced a "framework for comprehensive immigration reform" in January and have been working to flesh it out.

There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, many of them living in the shadows while seeking work and trying to avoid detection.

The eight senators have tried to draft a plan that would include a pathway toward U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants while strengthening border security.

They also want to create a more effective system to guard against U.S. employers hiring undocumented immigrants, and develop a program to better forecast and meet future U.S. workforce needs in a bid to curb illegal immigration.

The eight senators came together shortly after the November 2012 election results reflected the growing power of Hispanic voters and their pleas for immigration reform.

"There have been hard and tough negotiations, but it has been done all in the spirit of achieving the goal, in which compromise has been made on both sides," Menendez said.

The senators have worked with the encouragement of the White House and reached out to members of the Republican-led House of Representatives.

This week Obama met separately with Republican and Democratic lawmakers, mainly to talk about budget deficit concerns. But immigration reform also was discussed.

On Wednesday, Obama told a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats that immigration was "'something that we can get done,'" Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland said.

On Thursday, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the group of eight, said he thanked Obama for "playing a role that's behind the scenes."

Flake said the issue of future immigration to the United States is a sticking point for Democrats, and that Obama could build support for that part of the pending immigration bill.
 

Investors Business Daily publishes OFIR VP article

Once again, OFIR's Vice President Rick LaMountain has written an exceptional article.  An overview of the GOP's folly of a plan to woo the Hispanic vote, 'Illegal-Alien Amnesty Gives Democrats 7 Million New Voters'  dissects and breaks down the plan with indisputable facts.

Is support for an illegal-alien amnesty the key to GOP salvation?

OFIR Vice President Rick LaMountain explains the folly of the GOP chasing the Hispanic vote by way of an amnesty.  Read Rick's article in Wednesday's Investor's Business Daily.


 

Dropping out is not an alternative

Dropping out is an appealing escape route, and many good men and women have already taken that path. But true patriots will resist and overcome that temptation.

I'm certain you have all noticed how the media handles the stories of the day.  But it's our job to point out to them that we see it and don't like it.  We must insist on honest, fair and complete reporting without the media bias we have become so accustomed to.  It's shameful!

Read Tom Tancredo's excellent article and you decide if it's time to speak up.


 

Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans

The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.

If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.

And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.

Driver licenses for illegal aliens create bigger problems

Governor Kitzhaber has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he wants to restore driving privileges to illegal aliens living and working in our state.  Perhaps he should take look at what Washington State is dealing with due to their "welcome mat" approach to illegal aliens.  Read more here.

Oregon does not require proof of citizenship to vote in state or local elections

OFIR often receives e-mails and phone calls from members asking if the state of Oregon requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote. While one must be a citizen to vote in federal elections, unfortunately Oregon does not require proof of citizenship in order to vote in state or local elections.

Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) has tried to pass legislation that would bring Oregon voter registration in line with federal law, thereby allowing only U.S. citizens to vote in state and local elections.

In a September 7th statement Representative Thatcher wrote:

“I’ve been working hard on legislation to bring Oregon in line with federal standards for providing identification when registering to vote for the first time. Let me explain. Under the national Help America Votes Act one has to provide identification in order to register to vote in federal elections. However, in Oregon there are no ID requirements for voting in state and local elections. None.”

Thatcher went on to write: “Current state law doesn’t spell out what kind of identification first time voters are required to provide when they register to vote in Oregon. We need to add more accountability to state and local elections and apply the same standards already used by officials across the state when deciding who can vote in federal elections.”

“Yes, the Oregon Constitution says “every citizen” is “entitled to vote” basically as long as they meet eligibility standards. That part of the document is called “Qualifications of electors.” Shouldn’t we be more careful to ensure voters meet constitutional qualifications to vote on the important issues and races facing Oregonians?”

OFIR agrees with Representative Thatcher. Only U.S. citizens should be able to vote.

In 2004 Arizona voters approved an initiative requiring proof of citizenship to vote in Arizona. The League of Women Voters and other pro-illegal alien groups sued to stop its implementation. Fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear an appeal by the state of Arizona Arizona’s law provides options for meeting the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Acceptable documents include a driver’s license or other state-issued ID, a birth certificate, a passport and naturalization papers.  Read more here.

Voter Proof-of-Citizenship Law Gets Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether states can demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote, taking up an Arizona case with racial overtones and nationwide implications.

The case, which the court won’t consider until after the Nov. 6 election, tests states’ power to impose requirements that go beyond the registration procedures set out by federal law. A U.S. appeals court invalidated Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship law.

That ruling would “interfere with the states’ ability to protect the integrity of their elections,” Arizona argued in court papers. It is one of at least four states -- along with Alabama, Kansas and Georgia that require would-be voters to show evidence of citizenship.

The case presents legal issues different from those in the voter-identification battles that have garnered headlines leading up to the November election. The new high court case doesn’t directly involve allegations of racial discrimination. Instead, it centers on the constitutional roles of the state and national governments in overseeing elections and on a 1993 federal law designed to increase voter registration.

The court will hear arguments early next year and rule by June.

Arizona’s law, approved by the state’s voters in 2004, provides options for meeting the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Acceptable documents include a driver’s license or other state-issued ID, a birth certificate, a passport and naturalization papers.

Leading Role

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 9-2 to strike down the Arizona law, saying the Constitution’s elections clause gives Congress the leading role to set the rules for federal voting.

“The states are obligated to conform to and carry out whatever procedures Congress requires,” Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote.

The 9th Circuit said the 1993 law bars the Arizona registration requirements. The federal measure establishes a national voter application and requires every state to “accept and use” it.

The law “does not give states room to add their own requirements” to the federal application, Ikuta wrote.

The 1993 law was informally known as the Motor Voter Law because of a separate provision that requires states to let residents register to vote when applying for a driver’s license.

Voter Advocacy Groups

The Arizona law was challenged by minority and voter-advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. The Obama administration backed the lawsuits at the lower court level.

The 9th Circuit upheld other parts of the Arizona law, including its requirement that voters show identification at the polls.

The Supreme Court hasn’t considered an elections clause case since 1997, when it struck down Louisiana’s system of holding a nonpartisan congressional primary in October, followed by a runoff in November if no candidate received a majority.

The Supreme Court said that system violated the federal law that requires all congressional and presidential elections to be held on a single November day.

Candidates Forum: Candidates for the Office of Oregon Secretary of State. Plan to attend this Friday.

Alert date: 
October 16, 2012
Alert body: 
 
OFIR recommends Knute Buehler for Secretary of State.
 
This year five candidates are vying to become the next Oregon Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is a constitutional officer and statewide elected official whose duties include serving as:
  • Auditor of public accounts
  • Chief elections officer
  • Keeper of public records
The Secretary is responsible for five divisions:
  • Executive
  • Archives
  • Audits
  • Corporations
  • Elections
The Secretary of State also serves on the State Lands Board and chairs the Oregon Sustainability Board. In Oregon, the Secretary of State is first in line of succession to the Governor. Please join us Friday, October 19, to meet the candidates:

KATE BROWN (Democrat) Secretary of State Kate Brown holds an under-graduate degree from the University of Colorado and attended Lewis and Clark College where she earned a law degree and a certificate in Environmental Law. She practiced family and juvenile law, taught at Portland State University and worked with the Juvenile Rights Project. She was appointed to the Oregon House of Representatives in 1991 and twice reelected. In 1996 she won a seat in the State Senate. In 2004, Kate Brown was chosen to serve as the Senate Majority Leader. In 2008, She was elected to serve as Oregon’s Secretary of State. Brown has received awards from the Oregon Commission for Women, the Military Voter Protection Project, and the Oregon State Firefighters Council, among others.

KNUTE BUEHLER(Republican, Independent)
Knute Buehler is the Republican and Independent Party Nominee for Oregon Secretary of State. This is his first run for public office. He is a physician and business owner, and attended Oregon State University where he became OSU’s first Rhodes Scholar. He earned a master’s degree in politics and economics from Oxford University, and attended Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. In Bend, Dr. Buehler helped build and manage a medical clinic that employs 170 staff members. He developed innovative computer assisted surgery techniques, and received patents for products widely distributed. Buehler serves on the boards of the Ford Family Foundation and St. Charles Medical Center. He has worked on initiatives to reform state election laws.

Bruce A. Knight (Libertarian)
Bruce A. Knight, of Portland, represents the Libertarian Party as its Secretary of State candidate. In 1996, he ran as a Libertarian for the District 3 Congressional position. Knight has an Associate’s Degree from the University of New York and has studied computer science and business data processing in various institutions. Knight is currently a team leader at the Portland State University Bookstore.

Robert Wolfe(Progressive)
Robert Wolfe is the Progressive Party’s candidate for the Secretary of State. He lives in Portland where he is the owner of The Oregon Pinot Noir Club, described by Wolfe as “the nation's most significant national retailer of Oregon Pinot Noir and other high-end Northwest wines.” Wolfe is a former, award-winning journalist and a prominent wine writer. Wolfe wants to “reclaim the initiative process, get big money out of Oregon politics, stop government incompetence and save the state forests from clear-cutting.”

Seth Woolley (Pacific Green)
The Pacific Green nominee for Secretary of State, Seth Woolley, lives in Portland after attending Willamette University in Salem. He is a software engineer with an extensive background in computer security auditing. Woolley describes himself as the only candidate with a strong, progressive platform based on healthier native forests, real election reform, and better, transparent auditing.

Please join us Friday, October 19, 2012, as we host the five candidates for Secretary of State at Willamette Heritage Center at the Mill in the Dye House. For lunch reservations email rsvp@salemcityclub.com before noon Wednesday, October 17, 2012. Parking is free. Doors open at 11:30 AM. For more information on this program please go to www.salemcityclub.com.



 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - voter registration