Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trojan Horse: How CA Democrats Might Use Voter ID To Turn Back the Clock

Opinion

Trojan Horse: How CA Democrats Might Use Voter ID To Turn Back the Clock

Voter IDs are a requirement in almost every democracy in the world. But legitimate concerns over voter suppression efforts in the American south led to a different ethic inside Democratic Party circles.

Image generated by IVN staff.

Voter IDs are a requirement in almost every democracy in the world from Europe to Mexico.

But legitimate concerns over voter suppression efforts in the American south led to a different ethic inside Democratic Party circles. Over time, Voter ID plans have been presumptively conflated with claims of “voter suppression” without much analysis of the actual impact of proposals.


To be sure “Voter ID” efforts have been thinly disguised efforts at voter suppression, routinely including language that would have dispirit and likely unconstitutional impacts on specific voters.

In California, of course, the subject is intertwined with both racial bias and heated disagreements over immigration.

Election officials insist that voter rolls are legitimate. Democrats agree. Republicans insist, however, that those rolls are cluttered with ineligible voters.

There are dozens of arguments over detail. What should qualify as an ID? How do you handle mail in ballots? And those details have always served to stymie any effort to introduce Voter ID in California.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio has led the most recent effort to put Voter ID on the ballot. The final language of his proposal just went public and it has caused quite a stir.

The commotion is not over how “bad” the language is. Quite the contrary, the panic is over how precise and thoughtful the proposal is. It adheres to California’s single subject rule. It thoughtfully addresses mail ballot issues, embraces the most liberal criteria for voter ID qualifications, and appears to meet all constitutional standards.

But most importantly, it polls with 80% approval. Reaction amongst Democrat operatives can only be reasonably described as panic.

Polling is already in the street testing a counter measure for a November 2025 Special Election that would bundle a Voter ID plan with a repeal of the nonpartisan primary and reapportionment reforms.

Special interests have repeatedly succeeded in scuttling reform efforts by placing competing measures on the ballot. But the Special Election gambit is an effort to preempt DeMaio’s initiative and use its popularity to accomplish the real goal to undo nonpartisan reforms that are unpopular with political operatives in both parties.

This is exactly the kind of insider politics that two decades ago led to a series of voter revolts starting with term limits and culminating with voter approval of nonpartisan elections and reapportionment reform.

This generation of Legislators were not around to see how quickly things turned on incumbents in both parties. But if the partisan operators convince the Legislature to take this dark turn that could change on a dime.

I previously wrote about the need to “reform the reform” by expanding California’s nonpartisan Top Two system to a More Choice Top Five system.

More partisanship is the last thing we need. Returning to partisan primaries would disenfranchise more than a third of California voters who choose not to join a Party and empower political operatives at the expense of both Democratic and Republican rank and file voters.

The cynical ploy to bundle these regressive plans with a Voter ID proposal they hate, but know will pass, is precisely the kind of skullduggery that voters targeted in the reforms.

The State Supreme Court should (but only might) throw such a plan out based on its obvious conflict with the State’s Constitution’s Single Subject Rule.

But they should not have to. The Legislature should simply do the right thing in the first place. Leave Voter ID to its own fate. If you want to improve the electoral system don’t go backwards.

Trojan Horse: How CA Democrats Might Use Voter ID To Turn Back the Clock was originally published by Independent Voter News and is republished with permission.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less