Letters to the editor may be sent to [email protected]. All opinions stated in letters to the editor and guest columns are those of the author and should not be construed as an endorsement by Lowell’s First Look.
After listening, for several weeks, to both sides of the argument on Proposal 2, and having been an election worker, I have these questions and observations:
Do you think that someone should be required to show ID in order to vote or should it be optional? If you read the proposal carefully, it is clearly making it either/or, meaning that, if passed, forever more will someone be able to vote without presenting an ID, by simply signing that they are who they claim. This vote will then be counted with no requirement for proof, making it nearly impossible to correct. Much of the advertising on this issue is clearly deceptive.
Do we want ballots to be sent to a voter in perpetuity if requested? This again sounds great, but it requires keeping precise tabs on the voter roles. People die and move all the time without the Secretary of State knowing and adjusting the voter roles (this summer we received a voter ID card for our son that moved out of state 7 years ago. Under this new scenario, we would receive a ballot for him). This change would put open ballots into the system that could easily be fraudulently used.
State funded absentee ballot boxes; Ballot boxes are great place to deposit any fraudulent ballots with no oversight. If we have ballot boxes, shouldn’t they be monitored? At least with video surveillance. None of this is in the proposal.
Do we want private interest money being poured into our election process? Probably yes, if that private interest aligns with your interests and the money has strings attached that will attract the right kind of voter. But what if these don’t align? We already see what big money has done to corrupt many politicians, and the commercials that we are bombarded with. Do we really want this type of influence/corruption at the election level also?
I think most of us would agree that we would like any body that wants to, be able to cast a vote. But at what cost? Our elections must be kept secure. This is the primary leverage we have with our elected officials. We can’t afford to have our lever broken or weakened. This applies no matter your political party affiliation. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
I encourage everyone to vote NO on proposal 2.
Thank you
David Hoogenboom.
Lowell Charter Township
Thank you for your letter. I am voting No on prop 2.
Here is the language I copied from the State website.
You will notice that the proposal mentions the continuance of the ID requirement or a signed affidavit to cast a ballot. Everything I have read prior to this letter indicates that Proposal 2 does NOT change that requirement.
Here is the language of Proposal 2. You can then vote Yes or No:
A proposal to amend the state constitution to add provisions regarding elections.
This proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Recognize fundamental right to vote without harassing conduct;
• Require military or overseas ballots be counted if postmarked by election day;
• Provide voter right to verify identity with photo ID or signed statement;
• Provide voter right to single application to vote absentee in all elections;
• Require state-funded absentee-ballot drop boxes, and postage for absentee
applications and ballots;
• Provide that only election officials may conduct post-election audits;
• Require nine days of early in-person voting;
• Allow donations to fund elections, which must be disclosed;
• Require canvass boards certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast.