Voter ID Impact on NH Taxpayers

get out and vote

When New Hampshire voters went to the polls this year they were asked to show an ID due to the new Voter photo ID bill. On September 1, 2013, that law changes and becomes more restrictive by limiting the list of ID’s that will be accepted in order to cast your vote. The law removes the ability to use most forms of photo ID including those issued by a state, county or municipal government, a valid student ID, an ID determined to be legitimate by local election officials, and simple identity verification by local town officials. Voters without acceptable ID’s will not only have to sign an affidavit but will be required to have a poll worker take their photo before being allowed to vote. The poll workers will then have to print a color copy of the photo in real time and affix it to the voter’s signed affidavit. Not only will the number of individuals who get caught up in the process increase but so will state expenditures to implement the changes.  How much more will this cost the state? Roughly a quarter million dollars was requested by the Secretary of State’s office for FY14 & FY15.

America was founded on the principle that we’re all created equal.  Inside the voting booth, all Americans have an equal and unencumbered voice in our democracy. But instead, some want you to believe it’s a privilege to vote and not a right and those people are willing to make it harder for some to cast their ballot. That’s the real reason why they want to limit the number of ID’s that are acceptable. They will try to convince you that voter impersonation is rampant in New Hampshire, but we know from thorough investigations that this just is not the case. There have only been three cases of voter fraud according to fraud reports issued by the SOS and AG’s office since 2006. The most recent case at the polls in NH was that of James O’Keefe, the conservative activist who was attempting to make a point that voter impersonation is possible, but fell short of proving anything about actual voter impersonation; instead all he proved was his unfamiliarity with New Hampshire voting law, landing himself in hot water. We all agree that protecting the integrity of our elections is vitally important—that’s why we already have strict laws and protections in place.

Proponents of Voter photo ID will also try to convince you that Voter ID laws are no big deal – that you need an ID to get on an airplane or buy a beer. The problem is that neither of those actions is enshrined in our Constitution – voting is. And contrary to their belief, not everyone does have an ID. Just this past election 5,424 people in New Hampshire didn’t have an ID to vote. That’s 5,424 people who might not  cast a vote next election year because they lack ID – no matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like and who they vote for, that’s 5,424 too many.

If those reasons alone don’t give you pause to think twice about the real implications of voter photo ID, then I hope the financial implications will. It is just too expensive to implement when there have only been three cases of voter fraud as reported by the Secretary of State’s office and the Attorney General in the last 8 years. More people get struck by lightning than impersonate another voter at the polls. Is a quarter of a million worth those odds? I think not.

Jess Clark
Political and Field Director
America Votes

If you are on the Daily Kos, click here to Comment and Rec.

Protect Your Right to Vote!

vote

New Website
www.NHVoterProtection.org

Educates Granite Staters of Voting Rights, Responsibilities
Website Launched to Protect NH Voters After Slew of Anti-Voter Legislation

Last session the New Hampshire Legislature passed laws that added new steps and confusion to the voting process in the Granite State.

To help counteract the negative effects of these changes, Granite State Progress Education Fund and New Hampshire Citizens Alliance have created a website dedicated to educating voters about the changes and ensuring Granite Staters exercise their right to vote.

The website, www.NHVoterProtection.org, contains a breakdown of the new laws that affect voting, and what to do if you are unfairly challenged at the polls.

 

 

NH State Rep Urges You To Vote No On Ballot Question 1 & 2

get out and vote

NHLN Note: Below is an editorial submitted to NHLN from Chris Serlin State Rep from Portsmouth. He also published this article on the Portsmouth Patch

New Hampshire Voters Should Reject Amendment Questions 1 and 2 this November

By Chris Serlin
State Rep 

This November election day, in New Hampshire, we will not only be voting to elect a President, 2 US Representatives, a new Governor and on down through the ballot – but we will all have a chance to voice our opinions on 3 questions that involve our State Constitution. They are referred to, simply, as “Question 1″, etc., and they will be at the bottom / reverse side of your ballots.

It is VERY important that voters make their thinking known on these questions.

Two of those questions, 1 and 2, are of great potential consequence to New Hampshire for decades to come, and I urge everyone to reject them – soundly. What follows are my thoughts on why we all should do so for Question 1. I’ll address Question 2 in a separate post – but I’ll give you a hint about why you should reject it: “Separation of Powers”. It’s what makes our system work, let’s not change it.

On to the question at hand.

Question 1 seeks to amend our constitution to forever prohibit an Income Tax. It’s “The Pledge” on super-duper steroids. The darling of today’s Republicans in New Hampshire; something they have dreamt about for so long, they used their super-majorities this past session to put this question to the people this November.

I believe this initiative is, at least in part, a typical GOTV effort. After all, in New Hampshire, how do you get your right-wing base to the polls? Talk about same-sex marriage? No, not really – not here. An Income Tax question? You betcha!

But taken as is, the question is, IMO, a cynical effort to play on the emotions of voters instead of a logical argument that might garner rational support. When people hear “income tax”, they say “where!? Yikes!” – and that’s what the New Hampshire GOP wants you to do. Don’t fall for it.

A bit of history: New Hampshire has no income tax. We never have, at least, in a manner that fits a modern definition of one (calculated upon a stated amount of actual revenue). In colonial times, pre and post Revolution, in reality we did have an income tax because then “Property” taxes were established based on a presumption of one’s ability to generate revenue based on the amount of property held and its use (timber, apples, grains, etc.). But that’s another conversation for another day – one which I hope we do have.

So, with no income tax, never having had one, and with current majorities and candidates opposed to one (for the most part), what’s the risk? Why must we enshrine a prohibition against a very specific revenue policy choice in the instrument that documents the core morals and beliefs we all agree to live by, and which establishes our system of government and defines its powers?

Well, I do not believe there is good reason to do so. Quite obviously our system works. We don’t have one and we’re not getting one anytime soon. Even if we did, magically, have an income tax passed through some (currently unimaginable) confluence of events – we have a unique political system in New Hampshire that allows “we the people” to completely change government every 2 years, from the Governor on down all the way into County offices. A repeal, under that bizarre circumstance, is all that would be needed to eliminate the tax if that was what the people wanted.

“Well”, proponents are arguing, “isn’t it better just to change the Constitution to eliminate even that chance?”

No. It is not.

Our constitution is not a sandbox to play with and see what ideas stick. As proponents most certainly know, (in fact they’re counting on this), once done it is *very* difficult to undo a change to our constitution. That’s the mechanism we have for such changes and it is a good one – assuming our constitution is changed with good reason, and careful consideration. But our system is setup so that only 34% of people voting on a given constitutional question (not 34% of the electorate and not 34% of those casting ballots on any given election day – 34% of voters who vote on the question(s) specifically) can hold the remaining 66% “hostage”. It’s a firewall against radical changes, in perhaps radical times. But as it applies to what revenue policy choices future generations, and their elected representatives *may* make, we will not be well served if such a minority can thwart the will of so many in some later time even during a period of crisis or national emergency. Revenue policy is best left to the fluid nature of our Legislative process – not set in concrete. None of us should feel safe giving such power to such a small group of the voting public.

But if a constitutional argument isn’t quite your cup of tea, I’ll offer another – the “law of unintended consequences”.

Question 1 specifically allows any tax already in place to stay in place, and provides that they will not be impacted by this amendment language. Also, though not currently in place, this amendment would *not* prohibit a sales tax in New Hampshire.

Spending and revenue to match will always be a controversial subjects. As well they ought to be in a republic like ours. But let’s agree that at times in the future the legislature will need to increase revenues to suit the needs of the day. To what sources might they turn, if an Income Tax is 100% off the table?

Property taxes. Hate seeing your property taxes always go up – wish there were a more equitable way to spread the cost of government, education, services? Don’t vote for Question 1.

Are you a business owner? If you vote for Question 1, BET and BPT are on the table for hikes in some future scenario even if most people would prefer to spread any necessary increases to the wealthiest among us . Own a business bordering VT, ME or MA? A sales tax is on the table. Will that make you more or less competitive? Are you retired, know someone who is – or otherwise derive any income from investments? Dividend and Interest tax is on the table. Restaurant or hotel in the family? Meals and rooms tax ripe for a bump.

Hunt? Renewing your car registration? Selling real estate? Enjoy our park system? The list goes on. All of those taxes and fees would be fair game in any effort to raise revenue if an Income Tax is off the table until such amendment could be repealed; itself an arduous process matching passage. Regardless of how severe the need, the process of repeal could take years – even generations. It’s very difficult to get 67% of voters to agree on something.

“Well [Chris] we’ll keep spending super low, and none of those scenarios you just discussed will occur – we won’t need more revenue.”

Come again?

It’s fantasy to believe that we can keep cutting gov’t spending and not *ever* have to raise new revenue dollars or hike existing streams. That’s not because government is wasteful, it’s math and common sense.

Anyone try running a business w 2012-rate expenses but 1980s revenue streams? How well does anyone think that would really work? In many cases here in NH, that’s what we do. Our deficit is structural. And you can only cut so much. Sooner or later the Legislature will be forced to consider other revenue sources. And not necessarily to add to what we pay now. I personally favor an income tax to replace some or all of our property taxes. It is, IMO, a far more equitable way in which to generate revenue. But even replacing existing taxes w an income tax is off the table if Question 1 passes.

Some proponents of the question have said that the greatest legacy of this Legislature will be that we made it possible for the people to forever prohibit an income tax in New Hampshire.

As a legislator, citizen and father I believe the greatest legacy we can leave our children (and theirs, and theirs, etc.) is the freedom to make their own choices in their own time, just as we have been able to do. About all things. Revenue and spending most of all. That’s not risky – that’s liberty.

It most certainly will not be to bequeath to them a New Hampshire where in a single area of tax policy, we have forever tied their hands.