Partisan politics blocking compromise on Voter ID law

One of the local stories to emerge on Primary Day was the Project Veritas undercover video showing reporters obtaining ballots in the name deceased citizens. Legal or not, the report shows the potential for voter fraud in New Hampshire.

The Legislature passed a Voter ID bill last spring, but SB 129 was vetoed by Governor Lynch. Under the legislation, citizens without photo IDs could cast provisional ballots that would be counted provided identification was submitted to the Secretary of State's office within three days. These terms were deemed unacceptable by Gov. Lynch (read veto message) and Secretary of State Bill Gardner.

While I'm a staunch supporter of Voter ID requirements, I agree with Lynch and Gardner's concerns surrounding SB 129.

So what's the next step? Compromise legislation is the obvious answer. The GOP-heavy Legislature clearly supports Voter ID. Both the Governor and Secretary of State also support some form of Voter ID, according to this report in the Union Leader.

The problem is... the motives of each side. House Speaker Bill O'Brien threw partisan politics into the mix with his quote about college kids voting liberal.

In a Twitter discussion with the Live Free or Die Alliance, State Rep. Christopher Serlin (D - Rockingham, District 16) expressed his disinterest in a Voter ID bill. Rep. Serlin does not view voter fraud as a legitimate threat in New Hampshire. He is also concerned about which voting block will be impacted by such legislation.

Problem is the video shows simply that someone who wants to violate the law may be able to do so. But that does not mean we have mass issue of fraud. And only coordinated, mass fraud would be a problem big enough to encumber *everyone's* right to vote freely. Problem with this is it's a false equivalence argument. "A few people intentionally break voting laws" = "we have a voter fraud problem in NH therefore we need Voter ID (in a form that happens to dis-proportionally encumber those who vote for Democrats BTW).

I think many are open to suggestions. But "Voter ID" as proposed makes voting more difficult, more time consuming and can prevent legit votes in name of securing voting process. Too high a price and I won't support that sort of solution. Problem is...really..that what GOP want to pass here and nationwide is NOT about securing the vote (and nothing else). That's the impasse.

I support Voter ID because it makes sense. As Wall Street Journal writer Kris Kobach writes," You can't cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without ID. Why should voting be different?"

A rooting interest in a political party does not factor into my internal debate.

If only our legislators could do the same.