Topamax bleeding gums

topamax bleeding gums Articles Tagged ‘Voters’ Rights’

Peter Simonson, Executive Director

topamax bleeding gums “Why are some people so aghast at the idea that when we vote we should have to show a photo ID?”

This is the question that Diane Dimond poses in her recent column supporting mandatory photo ID for voting. If Ms. Dimond is sincere in her desire to understand why people would oppose this wrong-headed scheme, she should direct her question to Albuquerque voter Katy Sheridan. Katy is a retired grandmother of two and has been a voter for the past 49 years. It is a responsibility she takes seriously.

“It’s my voice, it’s one of the ways I can make an impact on the direction my country goes,” Katy told the ACLU of New Mexico in a recent video interview.

On October 4, 2011, Katy set out to make her voice heard in the Albuquerque municipal elections. The day was stormy, but Katy—who does not own a car—braved the weather and walked through the wind and the rain to her polling place to cast her vote. There poll workers turned her away because she did not have a government issued photo ID with her.

The truth is that unnecessary and expensive photo ID laws, like the one in Albuquerque, have nothing to do with improving elections. These laws are specifically designed to make it harder for qualified American citizens like Katy Sheridan to vote. We are living through a troubling new era in our nation’s history characterized by renewed efforts to strip American citizens of their right to vote.

Why are we aghast? Because these mandatory photo ID laws are nothing more than a 21^st century poll tax. Poll taxes and “literacy tests” were used in the Jim Crow south to prevent African Americans from exercising their right to vote. We now find these tactics abhorrent and shameful, but let us not forget that many people thought them perfectly reasonable at the time: Why shouldn’t a person have to be literate to vote? Do we really want anyone voting who can’t afford a measly one-dollar fee?  You have to show an photo ID for all sorts of things today, why not voting?

Voting is not a privilege, it is a constitutional right, and no eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. Government issued photo IDs cost money and obtaining copies of birth certificates, passports or other required supporting documents can be expensive as well–sometimes running upwards of hundreds of dollars. This modern day poll tax burdens the citizens who are least able to afford it: people like the elderly who live on a fixed income and rural voters who live many miles from the nearest MVD.

Mandatory photo ID laws are the centerpiece in this new generation of vote suppression efforts, but such laws are only one tactic among many designed to make it harder for Americans to vote. In recent years, we’ve also seen efforts to suppress early voting and block civic groups like the League of Women Voters from registering new voters.

Voter participation and turnout is a key measure of the health of our democracy. American voter turnout is substantially lower than most other established democracies, rarely rising above 50 percent. Shouldn’t we work to reduce unnecessary barriers to voting, not make it harder? Shouldn’t we strive to ensure every eligible citizen has his or her voice heard?

Katy Sheridan is a retired grandmother of two who does not own a car. On October 4, 2011, she walked to the polls in the middle of a rainstorm to vote in Albuquerque city elections. She was turned away and told she could not vote because she was not carrying a valid photo ID.

Albuquerque made goverment-issued photo ID mandatory to vote in 2008. The ACLU of New Mexico mounted a successful challenge to the law that was subsequently overturned on appeal.

Today the national ACLU released a video featuring Ruthell Frank, an 81 year-old woman living in Brokaw, Wisconsin, a tiny hamlet of just over 100 people. Ruthelle has been voting in elections since 1948 and serves on the village board. But since the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature passed a law requiring a photo ID to vote earlier this year, Ruthelle may for the first time in over 60 years be unable to vote. Watch the video to learn why:

Politicians all over the United States are attempting to ram these Voter ID laws through the legislature ostensibly to prevent voter fraud. Of course investigation after investigation shows that there is no widespread voter fraud anywhere in the United States-and that includes New Mexico. Essentially, these vote-suppressing “Voter ID” laws are a solution in search of a problem.

Here in New Mexico we can be sure that legislators will once again attempt to foist the stale and debunked specter of fraud on us in an attempt to pass a Voter ID restriction in the upcoming 2012 legislative session. Secretary of State Dianna Duran’s well-publicized but opaque (and ultimately empty handed) fishing expedition through the voter rolls these past nine months is a clear preamble to the bill’s introduction. So when the session rolls around this coming January, we need to be prepared to ask our legislators why they want to make it harder for New Mexicans to vote?

As we saw in the video, Voter ID bills disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, the homeless, Native Americans and other minority groups who may not have valid photo IDs. Many people, like Ruthelle, may not even have access to or are unable to afford the documents that are needed to obtain a valid photo ID. Obtaining copies of birth certificates, passports or other documents required can be expensive-sometimes hundreds of dollars-and acts as a de facto poll tax on those who are least able to afford it. Voting is not a privilege, it is a constitutional right, and no eligible citizen should have to pay to vote.

Even though there is no evidence that photo IDs would be effective in preventing fraud, Voter ID apologists often use the line, “Even one instance of voter fraud is too many” to justify their crusade to impose roadblocks to the poll booth. But how many cases of voter disenfranchisement are too many? One? Two? Ten? Demographically, thousands of eligible New Mexicans stand to be disenfranchised by Voter ID legislation.

There are already hefty federal criminal penalties to deter people from committing voter fraud-and it works. There has never been a documented case of voter fraud in the state of New Mexico that would have been prevented by photo IDs. This coming January, let’s ask our representatives to focus their energy on coming up with real solutions to the real problems we face-not ginned up issues designed to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate.

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

When I checked the news on last night before I went to bed my jaw dropped.

“Whoa!”

The 2011 voting results were in, and they spelled major victories for civil libertarians across the nation. Here are the highlights:

topamax bleeding gums 1) Mississippi “Personhood” Amendment defeated

On Tuesday Mississippi voters soundly rejected a amendment to the state constitution that would define a fertilized egg as a person with all the rights thereof. This is of course a fantastically absurd, really bad, terrible idea. For many reasons.

By this definition, certain forms of birth control could be considered murder. For instance, the Intrauterine Device (IUD) prevents pregnancy by keeping fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. So under the so-called “personhood” amendment should women with IUDs be charged as serial killers? What about fertility doctors who implant several fertilized eggs and then destroy all but the most viable?

Bottom line: anti-choice extremists have no business forcing their own religious world view on the rest of the population. Women have the right to make private reproductive heathcare choices in consultation with their doctor. That’s why Mississipians voted down this ballot measure by an overwhelming 16 point margin.

topamax bleeding gums 2) Russell Pierce, architect of SB 1070, recalled in Arizona

I’ll preface this with a reminder that the ACLU does not endorse or oppose political candidates. We do, however, weigh in on the policy issues they are responsible for. Russell Pearce, Senate Majority leader in Arizona, is best known as the architect of the unfair, discriminatory “Show me your papers” law passed in Arizona last year. This law would require law enforcement officials in Arizona to investigate the immigration status of anyone they “suspected” of being in the country without the proper documents. Essentially, the law is a mandate for state-sponsored racial profiling.

Yesterday, Arizona voters recalled Senator Pearce, replacing him with another Republican with a more mainstream stance on immigration issues. This recall move was widely seen as a referendum on last year’s unconstitutional immigration law.

Bottom line: state and local law enforcement should not be responsible for enforcing federal immigration law. It hurts our communities, destroys trust in law enforcement and leads to racial profiling of people who look or sound “foreign.” Arizona voters sent a strong message yesterday, repudiating anti-immigrant scapegoating.

topamax bleeding gums 3) Same day voter registration stays in Maine

In a bald-faced move to suppress certain groups of voters, the Maine Legislature passed a law in the last legislative session that eliminated election day voter registration. Their excuse for passing this vote-suppressing law will be familiar to New Mexicans–voter fraud! Rampant, pervasive voter fraud!

In Maine, like New Mexico, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Yesterday, Maine voters saw through the legislature’s political move and overwhelmingly rejected the new law with 59 percent of the vote.

Bottom line: Our leaders shouldn’t play politics with the foundation of our democracy, our elections system.

topamax bleeding gums Bottom line-bottom line?

When civil libertarians organize together and stand up for the Constitution, there is no limit to what we can overcome–and ACLU members played a big role. The ACLU of Mississippi was part of the coalition that helped defeat the “personhood”amendment, the ACLU of Maine actively organized to overturn the voter-suppressing repeal of election day registration, and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit blocking key parts of the “Show me your papers law.”

So keep standing up for liberty with the ACLU. It’s hard work, but days like yesterday remind us what we’re fighting for.

ALBUQUERQUE, NM — Today, in a ruling handed down in the Second Judicial Court, Judge Nash ruled that the City of Albuquerque did not have to correct the city’s mal-apportioned city council districts before the October elections. However, as a consequence of this lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico, the city has agreed to implement the reapportioned districts immediately instead of in 2013 as they had originally planned.

The following statement can be attributed to ACLU-NM Managing Attorney Laura Schauer Ives:

“We are pleased that, as a consequence of the ACLU of New Mexico’s lawsuit, the city will redistrict and implement those changes immediately. Our primary concern was that the citizens who live in districts one and five on Albuquerque’s West Side would be grossly underrepresented until 2013, when the city initially intended to implement the new districts. However, in its closing arguments, the city stated that “as soon as a redistricting plan is approved by the Mayor and is published for five days, it will go into effect.” This means that, although redistricting will not be completed in time for the October election, West Side residents will be equally represented a few months from now as required under the Constitution.”

The ACLU of New Mexico still maintains that redistricting could be completed before the October elections and the plaintiffs are currently considering an appeal to the judge’s ruling.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

July 18, 2011

CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 x.1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

###