LAS VEGAS, Nev. (FOX5) – Right now, Nevada voters can cast their ballots without any identification. A yes vote on Question 7 could change that.

Question 7 not only seeks to add an ID requirement to all elections, but also aims to add that stipulation to the state constitution.

It asks:

The opinions are mixed.

“Questions have been raised, people need to have faith in our election process,” said David Gibbs, the president of the Repair the Vote political action committee.

“They’ve lost faith in the integrity of the process, the security of the process. And so this is a method of helping to restore some of that faith.”

The PAC, and Governor Joe Lombardo, support the proposition.

Gibbs tells FOX5 people in 35 states already have to present IDs to cast a vote. His group believes Nevada should be one of them.

“Here in Nevada, none to that exists. You can walk in and say ‘Hi I’m Dave Gibbs,’ and they say okay sign this thing, and you sign it and they go, yeah that looks like your signature, here’s a ballot. And…some people have concerns about that.”

Gibbs says the solution’s simple – just make everyone present an ID.

“It was designed to be pretty flexible, all it has to be is an ID with your picture and your name. It doesn’t need your address, and there’s a whole list of IDs, government-issued IDs, passports, military IDs, driver’s licenses…” he explained.

“Actually, the ballot language does have a pretty long list of identification that they’re going to accept, which I do think is good about the initiative, but that’s probably the only thing that’s good unfortunately.” he added.

Kerry Durmick is Nevada Executive Director for “All Voting is Local.”

The group opposes Question 7 for a few reasons. One reason is the cost.

“Most voters nationwide, it can cost them upwards of a hundred dollars to obtain an ID, so that’s child care cost, transportation cost, the actual cost of getting the DMV, so what we see other states do to avoid the modern-day poll tax basically, is spend millions of dollars on free IDs,” says Durmick.

Gibbs dismisses that argument.

“So if it’s too much bother for you to go to DMV to get an ID so you can vote… I have a concern with that. You should want to do that.”

He pointed out that you don’t need an ID to vote by mail.

“In Nevada, you can vote without leaving the house now. It comes in the mail, you fill it out, and you put it back in the mail, or in some cases, you can get someone to come to your house and turn it in for you.”

Durmick says, it’s not that simple. “This ballot measure will completely reform our vote-by-mail system, in what we think is a bad way.”

A yes vote on Question 7 would require mail-in voters to include their driver’s license number, or the last four digits of their social security number to have their ballot deemed valid.

Durmick says that poses a problem when you consider the brief “cure” window.

“If your signature doesn’t match the signature that the election office has on file, or if you forget to sign your ballot, you have to fix your ballot post-election day, and you basically have five days to do it, we think this will really explode that process if this is to go into effect.”

Durmick questions whether IDs are even necessary to protect election integrity.

“We just think this is solving a problem that doesn’t exist basically and it’s also going to cost millions of dollars to implement it.” Durmick said.

Gibbs says that argument actually proves his point.

“They said out of three billion votes that were cast, there were only 31 known instances of someone voting for someone else, and I said that’s great, because in 36 states it’s already required, so this must be working.”

Besides, he says, Question 7 asks for nothing that unusual.

“You can’t cash a check with out an ID, you can’t buy a bottle of booze without an ID, you can’t even buy cigarettes without an ID, much less get a job, open a checking account, all of the things you can think about that you need an ID to do.”

Question 7 does seek an amendment to the Nevada constitution. If it passes in November, voters will still have to approve it again in 20-26 for it to go into effect.

Shares:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *