The Undocumented Iowa Republican Caucuses – No Voter ID required

Republican Party of Iowa:    “We are not checking for verification, we cannot require it . . . we cannot turn anyone away”  Disregarding the 2014 Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) state platform* which calls for voter identification during elections, the official word from the RPI to caucus operatives is to NOT check identification of participants. The “undocumented”  i.e., those without any corroborating identification as to who they  are and their current address, will be able to vote on all matters.  Summary of the issue (commentary follows):

• Current RPI directive:  “here is the official ruling on the matter:  . . .  We are not checking for verification, we cannot require it. We, as volunteers are not agents of the Iowa Secretary of State’s  office and we cannot turn anyone away; unless they are at the wrong location, . . .”
  

• This is not a misunderstanding by one, however large, border county.  That the no checking of ID’s diktat applies to everyone is substantiated by the response from the state party apparat to a letter objecting to the matter. No distinction between procedures, new registrations vs Republican check-in was made by RPI in order to enhance the integrity of the vote.

• The 2014 Republican Party of Iowa Platform at 4.7 states: “We believe that only citizens bearing proper photo ID should be allowed to vote, and that proof of citizenship should be required for absentee voting.”

• Voter ID was called for in previous precinct caucuses and to verify new registrants at least in 2012 and 2014.

• The reasons given for requiring voter-ID for the most part is an irrelevant stretch of the Iowa Code (Chapter 43). We could find nothing in the Iowa Code that says ID cannot be checked for entrance to the caucus proper for a non-binding Republican Party affair.
  

• The function of registering new voters, address changes and change of party registrations  (a small category) and that of next checking in  Republicans already on a list and newly minted are two different issues.

• Candidate campaigns and super PACs have presumed voter ID would be checked for all participants and have advised accordingly.

• Most if not all candidates support voter ID – if they do not for the Iowa process that should be made known now
  

• Several previous caucus presidential preference poll results have been within two or three percentage points. The 2012 presidential preference poll was formally decided by 34 votes.

• The integrity of the Iowa process is made suspect by laxness in doing what is possible to ensure the integrity of the process. 

• Explanations offered have been irrelevant or embarrassing.

• A notification should go out immediately to county leadership that voter ID is allowed and called for by the platform.

• Presentation of ID speeds up check-in, makes it more reliable, provides less spelling and location mismatches,  and lends confidence to the proceedings.
  

• Background information including links regarding concerns raised herein are available by viewing the contents of the item located on the black page bar above titled Caucus ID.
  

  ---

Confidence in the integrity of the vote helps enhance the Iowa caucuses

Iowa receives an incredible amount of publicity and a huge infusion of dollars as a result of its first in the nation precinct caucuses, in particular because of the attendant presidential preference poll, a non-binding adjunct.  The polls influence on the presidential selection process is special and significant. That so many candidates spend so much time and resources here is definitive evidence.  It is a great privilege to have it and the integrity of the caucuses and the poll must be guarded jealously to rate any continuing credence in them.

Accordingly, the nation should have confidence that the announced outcome of the preference poll that receives so much attention reflects Iowa (Republican) voters and is  not avoidably subject to error, honest or otherwise, or subject to manipulation by organized or individual zealotry or otherwise innocent but ignorant enthusiasm.

Further, Republican principles reflected in the party platform, call for the integrity of the vote. That the outcome of the preference poll can be very close between candidates enhances the need to count only true votes.

In the case of the Iowa Republican caucuses no one has received a majority in a contested race. More who attended supported someone else as first choice then the so called winner ever achieved. Indeed individual vote margins are often closely bound. There have only been ten caucuses entailing the celebrated presidential preference poll and three of those were uncontested on the Republican side and four of the other seven were won by two or three percent. In two of the so-called presidential caucuses the “winner” achieved support from barely 25% of those voting. In one of those, 2012, that 25% was of the less than 20% of Republicans who attended the caucuses ( 121,502 0f 614,913 R’s registered at the time showed up to participate in the caucuses in the sharply contested 2012 election).

It is a fight for every vote in the caucuses emotionally but also a fight with a significant dollar cost.  Using the 2012 turnout and a rough estimate of 2016 spending of $40 million on the Republican side the average cost per vote will be over $300.  That the results are hard-fought, often tight, and expensive is clear and because of that there is not a participant that does not want to be called the winner even if by a few votes.

In 2012, the most recent caucus with a presidential poll the true winner Rick Santorum won by only 34 votes over Mitt Romney. However Romney was initially declared the winner because of screw-ups and an undisciplined reporting process. The “earned media” upon the initial declaration is far and away more extensive than the reports of a correction. Santorum supporters would maintain that their candidate never got the free media push he earned.

Given the attention it receives the nation has a right to expect integrity and controls in the Iowa process.The RPI has supposedly now disciplined the reporting process but incredibly has now made it policy to reduce the ability to secure the voting process.

Links to articles documenting or supportive of assertions made above are found by accessing the item on the page bar above “Caucus ID“.

No good reason not to check ID

The admonition not to check ID at any stage for any purpose first came to our attention in this communique to volunteer precinct operatives responsible for administering their precinct activities. See Documents 4 located by accessing page bar item Caucus ID. The operative part of that document regarding voter ID is as follows:

3. Regarding the verification of voter eligibility at the check in process, I know there has been different information going around about checking for ID’s, utility bills, etc. I checked with the Republican Party of Iowa and here is the official ruling on the matter: (note this is different from what has been done in the past) —We are not checking for verification, we cannot require it. We, as volunteers are not agents of the Iowa Secretary of State’s office and we cannot turn anyone away; unless they are at the wrong location, then by all means help them determine their correct precinct and caucus location.
–This is not an election, same-day VR laws DO NOT apply, and our volunteers are not paid nor trained elections officials.
–For those who have to complete a new voter registration form, please make sure the form is filled out completely, and that the Republican Party box is checked.
–Make the sure the voter fraud sign is posted close to the table which includes voter registration forms.
–Then you must accept them and turn them into the county auditor, who will handle on her end.

The directive above (bold emphasis ours) not to check ID was not controverted by communications from the RPI in response to our initial foray on this. The opportunity was present to agree or offer that counties could check ID if they wanted to for separable functions that evening. No one responded that we were misinterpreting the idea that there could be no checking of ID for verification of anything or even as an aid in checking people in. See Documents 5 and 6 located by accessing page bar item. So apparently that is the rule – no checking of ID.

The quote above invokes the idea of agents of the Secretary of State having sole prerogative to check ID for any caucus purpose and since they are not running the show at the caucus no one can check or verify identity or addresses. Again this was not controverted by communication with RPI.

Our communication to RPI did not argue with the idea of agents of the Secretary of State are responsible for validating new voter registrations or change of registrations.  It was unnecessary to do so in order to still allow for voter integrity for party purposes and facilitate check-in at the caucuses.

The directive is unaltered as far as RPI is  concerned there is to be no checking of ID, period.

A phone conversation with an RPI operative invoked that the Iowa Code was at work in this, suggesting party operatives are barred from checking ID for any purpose at the caucuses. At no time was a distinction regarding procedures admitted to by these operatives.  The responses were of the nature  ~~  our hands are tied ~~  the RPI  State Central Committee never said to check ID (meaning  caucus organizers therefore can’t) ~~ we could maybe bring it up at their next meeting ~~ that sort of thing.

Of course a meeting is not necessary, because unless we are wrong about the directive — only correction, clarification and honoring of the platform and assuring integrity in the caucus process is in order.

By the way, we asked an RPI operative for the citation in the Iowa Code that bars the checking of identification at caucuses for any purpose by other than agents of the Secretary of State. It never came from RPI but in the meantime we advised the operative that we looked up in  Chapter 43 of the Iowa Code, which deals with the caucuses, conventions, primaries and voter registration matters and we could find nothing that bars the checking of ID by caucus operatives.  See direct links and relevant excerpts from the Iowa Code Chapter 43 located by accessing the page bar item providing access to documentation regarding this article.   Any inference in the Code as regards processing a new or changed registration seems wholly separable from other caucus purposes.

Besides the basic subversion by the RPI of the spirit of the state party platform as regards voter integrity by its general rule not to check ID  there is an  internal inconsistency in the directive above.  The  directive requires not turning anyone away but after a semicolon refers to “unless they are the wrong location, then by all means help them determine their correct precinct and caucus location. ”  How one independently determines the person is in the wrong location is unknown.

If someone shows up they probably think they are in the right place even if they are in error.  They could still be on the precinct’s available list of registered Republicans although in actuality they recently relocated and proceed merrily along. Why bother to tell anyone?

If they are there to newly register they could put down all truthful information on a registration form, perhaps belong somewhere else but by the lights of the directive it is non-reviewable by the “untrained” “unpaid” non-agent volunteer.  If they want to vote there they can.  It is a built-in absurdity to the RPI directive — the presumption that party officials  cannot verify the propriety of the voter for at least auxiliary party purposes or even as an aid to the conduct of the meeting.

Caucus functions are separable,

The precinct caucuses are typically set up with tables or areas set up for new registrants and a table or area to check in people who are “on the list” of registered Republicans for that precinct. As we essentially communicated to members of the RPI, there is no need to argue about who registers to vote at the registration table, so be it,  let them put down whatever even if they are actually from Timbuktu and come in literally naked with no ID, they get to register. Caucus operatives are to only gather and forward, not review from that point forward.  How that is not an agent of the Secretary of State is not disclosed but a minor interpretive point in any event.  Somehow they are now registered to participate in party affairs . . . and vote without even a provisional distinction.

But a distinction is real and practicable.  For new or changed registrants, the process is two-fold — register and then proceed to check-in for the panoply of party affairs that night. Why on G#d ‘s green earth can a person not be required to show proof of who they are and where they live at least for other party functions that night especially including a not-required-to-be-secret  NON-BINDING candidate preference POLL that night?

The same basic argument  for verification procedure at check-in for already registered Republicans i.e., those “on the list” apply. No law prevents it, or right reason. The allegation that a precinct caucus organizer must be an agent of the Secretary of State as regards voter registration processing does not apply.

Photo voter  ID helps check in and adds to the integrity of the vote

We have sat and registered people before and in the din and distraction of compressed time it is often easier to have an ID plopped down on the table where the name and address is matched to the Republican list and a glance to determine as much as a state issued ID typically resembles the person can take place.  No struggling to hear or recite names and addresses or spell haltingly.  Less chit-chat.

Those are the honest people advantages to voter ID along with helping to insure the proper voting jurisdiction for other internal reasons. But what about efforts at subterfuge, precincts in border counties, the unbalanced really strident super PACs saying this or that candidate threatens an industry, or what have you, or even just “we’re all friends here” laxity?

By the strictures of the RPI directive “We are not checking for verification, we cannot require it” —  consider that about 20% of registered Republicans will caucus  Monday which means four in five will not.  It is a good bet that visiting friends and family or scalawags could easily take Joe or Jan’s place, perhaps at their request, especially knowing the announced laxity.  Campaigns strident super PACSs could subtly encourage it by advertising “no ID required”, not that that SORT of thing ever happens in Iowa (see Exhibit 7 as above). Other gambits are possible.

Under the RPI directive all a person needs to do, because it is uncheckable by the strictures,  is put down a phony name and address at the registration table, signature illegible,  and proceed to cast a poll vote. Such a person would probably be inclined to leave after depositing their vote.

“But that would be a felony says the sign.”  Uh huh, and how would it be found out and how zealous would be the prosecution or investigation on something of a non-binding nature, never to be exercised on a binding vote with the same information, and never to be found out anyway once the auditor’s office gets it because of untraceable information?

Suggestion that RPI has NOT called for checking ID in the past is false

The letter from the RPI Executive Director responding to our initial foray regarding the matter of voter ID having been checked in the past said that “I checked and the last 3 cycles have not required that anyway.”   In 2014 they apparently did but first about 2012.

The document link on our page bar shows caucus organizing materials from 2012 and 2014 as distributed by Scott County Republicans and or RPI. The item Doc 1 from 2012  tells Republicans that “For check in you will need a picture ID, preferably, an Iowa drivers license.”  That document is stamped Republican Party of Scott County so it might be maintained that it was an isolated county and in no way influenced by the RPI just something off the reservation.

The RPI ED did say he had “no doubt some county parties may have required ID” (Doc 6) We give some slack to the ED given the short length of his tenure but our view is that it would not have been done without the acceptability of doing so. Indeed RPI ED’s response said that “the caucuses come from the state central committee. I know this subject has been debated in the past, with no resolution in favor of an ID requirement. I know the Organization Committee did not bring such a resolution forward this year.”    So it was permitted and practiced by virtue of not being forbidden.  Why is checking ID being forbidden for all caucus purposes now?

As regards the 2014 caucuses (see Doc 3)  we display a Scott County marked document which repeats the 2012 language (thankfully by then the heading “Caucus Cheat Sheet” had been removed. Our observation as above applies to county activities that year as well but we have also included the 2014 Caucus Guide for Temporary Chairs produced by the Republican Party of Iowa which was marked as such  (see Doc 2).  Page 2 and 3 of the Doc 2 excerpts includes references to “verifying addresses” and as regards same day registration “proof of identity.”  The later refers to same day voter registration where perhaps organizers were allowed to act as agents of Secretary Matt Schultz as opposed to Paul Pate.

Politically correct reasons suggested for why checking ID is forbidden

In conversation with an RPI operative who responded by phone to my concerns expressed by memo of last week (Doc 5),  polite offers were made to sit face to face and talk about the situation.  I declined because if there was to be any exculpatory information I wanted it in writing in order to be in a position to transmit it to others for clarification. Our phone conversation continued anyway long enough for the operative to offer for my consideration that maybe the decision makers (again, at no time suggesting that I misinterpreted that checking ID was forbidden as a matter of policy) were trying to be inclusive. I was astounded. That was stated in what I interpreted as broad intentions. And now I am pretty sure that the RPI has no intention of pursuing reasonable and popular measures to insure the integrity of the vote because of their ridiculous submission to liberal ideas of  “political correctness” that have little sway with the general public.

A scenario was also offered by the RPI operative which he warned might be a little strained, but in order to enlighten me, nevertheless continued to make. The imagined scenario was Chuck Grassley showing up to caucus without ID and having to be turned away.

The response I offered  (more came to mind but by then I was satisfied to end the conversation) was to the effect ~~ I know Chuck Grassley to be a man of integrity who plays by the rules and upon that situation he would say,  you know, that is right and take his seat and observe or go home and get his ID.  The real world ID process would allow for witnessing anyway.

News flash: checking ID is the popular thing to do – recent polling

Poll 8 in 10 back voter ID  (Washington Examiner)

Rasmussen found that 58 percent of Democrats believe a photo ID must be shown before voting.— 92 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party support photo ID rules.

From Politifact

A Rasmussen Reports poll published June 3, 2015, showed 76 percent of respondents believe voters should be required to show a form of photo identification before being allowed to vote. Even 58 percent of respondents who identified as Democrats supported voter ID laws. The poll included 952 likely voters and had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Now given that 92% of Republicans support voter ID (the remaining 8% being insentient and unable to attend the caucuses) who will be offended rather than pleased about integrity measures?   That 78% of unaffiliated voters and 58% of Democrats support voter ID,  how many of those groups who do not support voter ID will likely attend the Republican caucuses and be offended?

Why do we not have photo voter ID in the Iowa Republican caucuses?  It must be Democrats.

Candidate operations are expecting voter ID

Various candidate campaigns and super PACs have presumed voter ID would be checked for all participants and have advised accordingly. Most if not all candidates support voter ID – if they do not for the Iowa process that should be made known now.

That the RPI is not requiring voter ID and indeed disallowing it is appalling.

R Mall for veritaspac.com