Jan 152015
 

During the past few years, several states have passed laws restricting the registration of voters, the time available to cast a ballot, and the type of identification needed to do so. These laws have made it significantly more difficult for students, those with disabilities, minorities and elderly citizens to exercise their most basic constitutional right. The governors and legislators of these states claim these laws were passed to prevent voter fraud and protect election integrity. They also say that identification is required for many purposes other than voting, so it is logical to require voters to show a picture ID at the polls. Critics claim the purpose of these laws is to suppress and discourage certain groups of people from voting. They say extensive studies have proven that voter fraud does not exist. That is, unless one considers 31 fraudulent votes out of the one billion ballots cast since 2000 to be enough justification for voter suppression laws that deny many millions the vote. Studies show that about 11% of all Americans eligible to vote do not have the type of identification these states require. Until 2013, these new photo ID laws were prohibited until our Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, saying there is no longer a need for the protections of this section. Within days and weeks of its decision, several states passed restrictive voter laws that had been judged illegal before the Court’s ruling. Advocates say many people don’t drive cars or have a picture ID, and that poll-tax laws make it illegal to force them to get one in order to vote. They claim these undemocratic voter suppression laws are an anathema to our Forefather’s legacy, saying our efforts should be spent helping Americans vote, not obstructing those who are eligible from doing so.

Pending Legislations:

S.123 & H.R.12 – Voter Empowerment Act of 2013

I oppose reforming current election procedures policy and wish to defeat S.123 & H.R.12

I support requiring each state to make available official public websites for online voter registration; promoting voter registration, such as same day registration and voter registration of individuals under 18 years of age; prohibiting hindering, interfering with, or preventing voter registration; assisting voting for those with disabilities and making grants to eligible states to conduct pilot programs enabling individuals with disabilities to register to vote and vote privately and independently at their own residences including by telephone, and wish to pass S.123 & H.R.12

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

We may vote for our President and Vice President every four years but the Electoral College decides who will win these elections. Electoral College members are independently selected by the state they represent. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of its members of Congress. However, as we discovered several elections ago, winning the popular vote does not guarantee a candidate victory. It is estimated that at least 1 million more Americans voted for Al Gore than voted for George Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Electoral College supporters claim this system gives smaller states a bigger voice in federal elections. Opponents say the Electoral College was created to protect the country from an uninformed populace – which is certainly not the case in today’s Internet age. They claim the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated and unnecessary.

Pending Legislation: None

I oppose reforming current Electoral College policy

I support identifying a legislator who will sponsor a bill to enact a long-term campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

Many people say that most of the problems with our political system result from the large sums of money needed to finance election campaigns. It is estimated that about $6 billion was spent during the last presidential election. Some have proposed that the funding for these campaigns should be provided by taxpayers rather than special interest groups. Most campaign funds are spent on radio, television and Internet advertising. Critics claim the candidate who airs the most television commercials will win an election regardless of any other factor. Politicians often complain that fund-raising activities now take up more of their time than state business. Advocates claim the public funding of election campaigns would help rid our politics of undue influence, level the playing field between candidates and control the amount of money spent in these contests. Currently, there exists a system for the partial public funding of presidential elections. This system includes a program in which the government matches the first $250 a person contributes to an individual, a party convention and the general election campaign. To receive subsidies in the primary, candidates must qualify by privately raising $5,000 in at least 20 states and agree to limit their spending according to a preset formula. Candidates that refuse these matching funds are free to spend as much privately-raised money as they wish. Those who support public campaign funding say incentives need to be higher in order for more candidates to choose the public funding option.

Pending Legislation:

H.R.270 – Empowering Citizens Act

I oppose reforming current public funding of elections policy and wish to defeat H.R.270

I support establishing a system of public financing for Congressional elections; reforming the system of public financing for Presidential elections including increasing the amount of matching funds for presidential primaries from a one-to-one match to a five-to-one match for contributions of $250 or less from individuals; limiting the total amount of payments to a primary candidate to $100 million, and wish to pass H.R.270

 Posted by at 12:00 am