HB+362+Texas+Legislature+81st+Session


 * __Legislative Session : 81 (R)__**

[|SB 362] - **Relating to requiring a voter to present proof of identification.**

This bill would require registered voters to present valid photo identification when casting a ballot in Texas. It is meant to increase voter confidence that only legal voters are casting a ballot.

This bill was submitted on December 15, 2008. It was authored by Senator [|Troy Fraser] (R) District 24, Central Texas and Senator [|Craig Estes] (R) District 30, North Texas. The bill was co-authored by Senator: [|Jane Nelson] (R) District 12, North Texas and Senator [|Robert Nichols] (R) District 3, East Texas. There are two companion bills, [|HB 373], by Representative [|Charles "Doc" Anderson] - R, District 56 and [|HB3556,] by [|Dennis Bonnen]. - R, District 25.

__**TIME LINE** **HIGHLIGHTS**__ - [|Complete Time line] 12/15/2008 filed with the secretary of the Senate

03/11/2008 out of Senate committee

03/18/2009 this bill was laid before the Senate, read for the 3rd time, and passed. vote of 19 ayes 12 nayes

03/19/2009 the House received this bill from the Senate

03/31/2009 bill was read in the House for the first time, then referred to Elections

04/06/2009 scheduled and considered in public hearing, testimony taken, left pending in committee

04/07/2009 scheduled and considered in public hearing, testimony taken, left pending in committee

05/11/2009 out of House committe - reported favorable without ammendments, 5 ayes, 4 nayes

05/23/2009 placed on Major State Calendar

This bill has not yet been voted on by the House. The bill is currently stalled at Stage 5

__**PRESS RELEASES**__ Senate Bill 362 would require that each voter show photo identification before being able to cast a vote. "Phote ID is simply putting into practice the intent of the current law - that the person who shows up at the polls is who he or she claims to be," said Fraser. "Voter impersonation is a serious crime, but without a photo ID requirement we can never have confidence in our system of voting." Senator Craig Estes, R - Wichita Falls, is a co-author of SB362.
 * From the Office of State Senator Troy Fraser __"FRASER FILES VOTER FRAUD MEASURES"__**

[|Senate Bill 363] would require a voter applicant to prove that he or she is a United States citizen by furnishing a birth certificate or, if the person is a naturalized citizen, the city, state, and year of taking the naturalization oath. "Our current laws state that only legal citizens can cast a ballot. This measure simply verifies the accuracy of the information they provide on their registration application," said Fraser.

"Voting is one of our most important rights as an American, but it is also a responsibility," said Fraser. "In no way am I trying to prevent any legal citizen from voting. Instead, I want to insure that illegal aliens, non-citizens and people otherwise not qualified do not dilute the legitimate votes cast by citizens," said Fraser.

"Each session member of the Texas Legislature pledge to uphold the Constitutions of the U.S. and of this state. I take these oathes very seriously, and I believe these measures will secure the voting rights of our citizens provided for in the Constitution and protect those rights from being diluted by allowing people to vote who under our Constitution do not have the right to participate in our elections."(1)

"This measure is intended to protect the integrity of our elections, and to protect the rights of registered voters by insuring that every vote cast is a legal vote," said Estes.
 * From the Office of State Senator Craig Estes "STATE SENATOR ESTES FILES LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE VOTER IDENTIFICATION"**

Texas law already provides for requiring photo identification if a registered voter does not provide their voter registration card, but is listed on the list of registered voters.

Senate Bill 362 would require all voters to present a photo identification such as a drivers license or military identificaiton card.

If a voter does not have a valid photo identification, then presenting two forms of alternate identification such as a current utility bill or other documents provided by a governmental entity with the voter's name and current address would be accepted.

Senate Bill 362 also provides that voters without a valid photo identification my obtain without charge a state issued personal identification card for the purpose of presenting proof of identification. ([|refer to fiscal note])

"The public must have confidence that those serving in office at the local, state, and federal level are there by virtue of a legitimate democratic process," added Estes (2)

Democrats contend the GOP plan lacks sufficient safeguards to protect the elderly, minorities and some married women who have never changed their name. Without making voting easier, Democrats contend any voter ID bill would be more of an effort to suppress voter turnout (3)
 * __GRIDLCOK__**

Democrats complain that the GOP wants to suppress Democratic turnout by erecting hurdles that suppresses their base vote. Democrats also contend that there is no problem with voter impersonation and that requiring photo ID would harm elderly, poor and minority voters.

State Representative [|Norma Chavez,] D-El Paso, said she and other Democrats would do everything possible to stop the measure from passing. Chavez said requiring photo identification would particularly affect elderly voters who do not have photo ID. "Voter ID is intended to suppress voter participation and intended against Hispanic voters," she said. Chavez said she and other Democrats on the House Calendars Committee would use parliamentary maneuvers to try to prevent the bill from coming to the House floor for a vote. "All is fair in love and war," Chavez said (4)

For two days running, House Democrats have used parliamentary tricks to block a slew of bills leaving Republicans fuming that the signature reforms are going down the tubes as the session winds down. These tactics are similar to what the Republicans did with the filibuster rules in January. It remained unclear Saturday how much damage the partisan wrangling would inflict. College tuition relief, insurance reform, curbs on government condemnation power and tax relief for disabled veterans were among the items hanging in the balance as the extraordinary showdown enterd a second day. The House is almost evenly divided between the two parties, The Republican majority now stands at 75 - 74.

Democrats are demanding that the GOP change or pull down the bill tightening voter ID requirements. The legislation, in its current form, would require Texans to show a photo ID or two non-photo alternatives before voting.

Republicans say the bill is needed to prevent fraud. Democrats say it would keep marginal voters away from the polls so the GOP can maintain its electoral advantage (5).

One question that was posed by [|Senator Leticia Van de Putee] - (D), District 26, was "__Does the Secretary of State track the racial status of registered voters? If not, how will the state prove that Senate Bill 362 does not have an adverse impact on minority voters when the state submits the bill for preclearance"?

The answer from Colby Shorter, III, Deputy Secretary of State__, : Because racial status is not considered in a person's eligibility to register to vote the state prescribed voter registration application does not request this information from voters. As a result, the state does not have statistics regarding the race or ethnicity of registered voters in Texas. We do have data on the number of registered voters with Hispanic surnames, but this data is inconclusive as it simply matches the surname of registered voters against a list of identified Hispanic surnames provided by the U.S. Census Bureau

Every submission to the U.S. Department of Justice is different based on the unique aspects of the legislation. For instance, the Texas Legislative Council assisted with the compilation of data on race and ethnicity for redistricting bills. A similar effort to obtain such demographics may be required for a voter identification bill. Historically, we have also worked with legislators to ensure the best data available is included in submissions(6).

1. The Senate is comprised of 31 members, 8 of whom are ethnic minorities: Ellis, West, Gallegos, Hinojosa, Lucio, Uresti, Van de Putte, and Zaffirini. 2. On January 14, 2009, a motion was made to amend the previous rules of the Senate to allow for legislation relating to voter identification requirements, after being reported favorably from a Committee of the Whole Senate, to be set as a special order, therefore bypassing the need for a two-thirds vote of the Senate at any point during Senate deliberations, for legislation addressing only this subject. The motion prevailed by a vote of 18-13. All 8 Senators who are ethnic minorities voted against this motion. 3. On March 10-11, 2009, the Senate convened as a Committee of the Whole Senate, and took up and passed Senate Bill 362, which relates to voter ID requirements, by a vote of 19-12. All Senators who are ethnic minorities voted against passage of the bill from the Committee of the Whole Senate. 4. On March 11, 2009, the Senate voted to set Senate Bill 362, and no other bill, for special order. The vote on this special order was 19-12. All 8 ethnic minority Senators voted against this motion. 5. On March 17, 2009, the Senate took up Senate Bill 362 on second reading, as a special order. The vote on this legislation was 19-12. All 8 ethnic minority Senators voted against this motion. 6. On March 18, 2009, the Senate took up Senate Bill 362 on third reading. the vote on this legislation was 19-12. All 8 ethnic minority Senators voted against this legislation. 7. To date there have been no other opportunities during the 81st Regular Legislative Session in which members of the Senate had the opportunity to vote on legislation relating to voter identification, other than the ones lised above; and 8. Of all the opportunities members of the Senate have had to vote on voter identification legislation, or Senate process regarding voter identification legislation, no Senator who is an ethnic minority has voted in favor of such legislation or the process related to suh legislation (6).
 * __SOME INTERESTING FACTS__**
 * Statement regarding votes cast on Senate Bill 362**

Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for SB362, As Engrossed: a negative impact of ($2,000,000.) through the biennim ending August 31, 2011
 * __LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD__**

The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.

Other than stipulations related to providing and posting notice of identification requirements for voting and stipultions related to training, all of which would take effect September 1, 2009, the bill would take effect January 1, 2010.

The cost factors for the bill would be that of signs to be posted outside of the voting areas that state the ID requirements and give examples of acceptable ID. There are also training expenses for the election officers and a web site that would need changes of ID requirements(7).


 * __ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF PHOTO IDENTIFICATION__**
 * 1) a driver's license or personal ID card issued by DPS that was current or had expired no more than one year earlier;
 * 2) a U.S. military ID card that contained a photograph;
 * 3) a U.S. citizenship certificate that contained a photograph;
 * 4) a U.S. passport;
 * 5) a concealed handgun license issued by DPS that contained a photograph;
 * 6) a student ID card issued by a public or private institution of higher education that contained a photograph; or
 * 7) a valid ID card that contained a photograph and was issued by an agency or institution of the federal government; an agency, institution, or political subdivision of the state; or a tribal organization(8).


 * __ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF NON-PHOTO IDENTIFICATION__**
 * 1) a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government documents that showed the name and address of the voter and was not more than 90 days old;
 * 2) official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity, excluding correspondence related to voter registration;
 * 3) a certified copy of a birth certificate or other legal document confirming birth;
 * 4) U.S. citizenship papers;
 * 5) an ID card issued to the person by a state or federal governmental entity for the purpose of obtaining, public benefits;
 * 6) a temporary driving permit issued by DPS;
 * 7) a library card issued by a Texas public library that contained the person's name; or a hunting or fishing license issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department
 * 8) an original or certified copy of the person's marriage license or divorce decree;
 * 9) court records of the person's adoption, name change, or sex change;
 * 10) a pilot's license issued by an authorized federal agency(8).

SB362 would protect and strengthen the electoral system by requiring voters to present identification at the polls. The bill would establish a uniform standard, reduce voter fraud, bring voting in line with other transactions that require proper identification, and raise the bar in restoring election integrity.
 * __SUPPORTERS SAY;__**

Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of government. Many circumstances in everyday life require a photo ID, including air travel and cashing checks. Society has adapted to the requirements and benefited from the safeguards. When noncitizens, dead people, or otherwise unqualified individuals are on the voter roles, illegal votes will be cast, which cancels out legitimate votes. Stricter identification requirements would not impose an unreasonable burden on voters.Instead they would protect the rights of citizens, restore confidence that legitimate votes are counted and serve as a reasonable precaution to prevent ineligible people from voting. Proper identification is necessary to ensure that voters are sho they say they are, that voters cast only one ballot each, and that ineligible votersincluding illegal immigrants, felons, and persons using the names of deceased voters --- are not allowed to vote.

In May 2007, the Texas conservative Coalition Research Institue reported that Harris County cancelled 3,742 registered voters for non-citizenship, with 683 of those cancellations occurring between 2000 and 2007. The non-citizens were discovered when they were called for jury duty and claimed non-citizenship as an excuse not to serve. There is nothing that would have prevented these non-citizens from voting(9).

While measures of fraud or muliple voting in U.S. elections are comparatively rare, even a small amount of fraud could tip a close or disputed election, and the perception of possible fraud contribues to low confidence in the electoral system. A properly administered identification system could deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud, such as multiple voting or voter impersonation. It would ensure fair and equal treatment of all voters.

Contrary to claims of those who oppose strict ID requirements for voters, these laws do not suppress voter turnout but instead bolster the public's faith in the legitimacy of elections and lead to better turnout. Even though voter ID laws in other states have been heavily litigated, plaintiffs in every lawsuit filed against such requirements have been unable to produce a single individual who either did not already have an ID or could not easily get one.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year the constitutionality of Indiana's long-disputed law requiring unexpired government -issuedphoto identification for voters at the polls, In //Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,// the court ruled that a requirement to produce photo ID imposes only a limited burden on voter's rights and is justified by the state's interest in restoring confidene in elections and deterring fraud. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 state ask all voters to show some form of identification at the polls. In three of these states -- Florida, Georgia, and Indiana -- voters must show a photo ID.

The bill would not force anyone to bear great costs in obtaining the necessary identification. While many citizens undoubtedly would choose to present a Texas driver's license out of convenience, the bill would allow a voter to obtain a personal identification card at no cost. State and local authorities can educate voters about the forms of identification that they would have to bring to the polls, and even if there is some initial confusion, voters quickly would learn what they should bring to the polls in order to vote(10).

The voter ID requirements in SB362 would create substantial obstacles for certain groups that disproportionately lack proof of identification, including the elderly, minorities, low-income voters, and disabled persons--and would require them to obtain such identification for the sole purpose of voting. By placing an extra burden on voters who were otherwise qualified to vote, the bill effectively would lead to the needless disenfranchisement of many voters. The actual impact of stricter ID requirements would not be a reduction of voter fraud, but the suppression of legitimate votes. Citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote would be hassled and frustrated for no good reason.
 * __OPPONENTS SAY:__**

While almost all voter fraud involves mail-in ballots, the bill would do nothing to make mail-in balloting more secure. Instead, it would attempt to address the nonexistent problem of voter impersonation at the polls. Policymakers should examine empirical data to weigh the tradeoffs between ballot security and ballot access before enacting voter ID requirements.

There is little to suggest that requiring photo ID would protect elections from fraud. There is no evidence of organized, widespread voter fraud at the polls, and cases of voter impersonation are anecdotal at best. In fact, after a five year investigation of voter fraud, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew elections. It would be difficult to perpetrate the kind of fraud in an amount necessary to tip an election.

Most allegations of non-citizen voting and "dead people" voting do not uncover evidence of a concerted effort to improperly influence elections. Evidence does show, however, that voter error and administrative and clerical errors often explain the allegations. Of all the election related violations prosecuted in Texas over a six year period, most of the cases involved mail-in ballots, campaign finance violations, unlawful conduct at a polling place and ballot-related violations.

Many Americans mistakenly believe that almost all U.S. adults have a driver's license, but according to the Carter-Baker Commission, an estimated 12 percent of voting-age Americans, or 20 million people, do not. So, thousands, perhaps millions, of eligible voters could be disenfranchised. The percentage is even higher for seniors, women whose names have changed, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many of those citizens find it hard to get such IDs because the underlying documentation -- the ID one needs to get ID-- is often difficult to come by. There is also concern about the potential for discrimination by poll workers who do not administer these procedures fairly and voters being denied the right to vote because of discrepancies in addresses and names between the ID and voter registration cards or voter rolls. The costs, in both time and money, of obtaining the necessary documents could deter voting, resulting inlower voter turnout among those without easy access to government offices.

Similar legislation approved in several other states, including Missouri, Arizona, and New Mexico has been invalidated by the courts or is being challenged. In addition, while citizens are required to show proof of their identity in situations ranging from boarding an airplane and renting movies, none of those activities is a constitutional right. Texas should attempt to curb real voter fraud, vigorously investigate allegations of election fraud, and utilize the fullest extent of the law to prosecute violations, rather than enacting a law aimed at solving a nonexistent problem that would do far more harm than good by preventing or discouraging eligible voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote(11).


 * __JUNE 03, 2009__**

As of today, the bill is now marked with an X next to the out of committe stage. Due to time restraints the Voter ID bill is one that never made to a vote in the House. Unless Rick Perry calls a special session and puts this bill on the agenda, it is officially dead.

1. From the office of State Senator Troy Fraser, 12-15-2008. 2. From the office of State Senaotr Craig Estes, 12-16-2008 3. chron.com - Where Houston lives"Dems seek concessions over voter ID" by Gary Scharrer, 05-25-2009 4. Elpasotimes.com, "Bill requiring ID at polls 'won't survive', its author says, by Brandi Grissom, 05-12-2009 5. chron.com - Where Houston lives "Gridlock grips Texas Legislature in final days" by Jay Root, 05-23-2009 6. Senate Journal - Eighty-First Legislature - Regular Session, Twenty-third day, 05-18-2009 7. Legislative Budget Board, Austin, TX - Fiscal Note, 81sth Legislative Regular Session, 04-05-2009 8. House Research Organization - bill analysis - pges 4 & 5 9. House Research Organization - bill analysis - page 10 10. House Research Organization - bill analysis - page 11 11. House Research Organization - bill analysis - page 13-14
 * __BIBLIOGRAPHY__**