Same day registration opens doors to controversy

By Adam Burger

The underlying reality of Proposition 52 is that it is probably a good thing for Democrats. For this reason, Republicans have attempted to portray Prop. 52 as a huge mistake waiting to cripple California's electoral system. The reason behind the partisan deterrence is that the American citizens most likely to be excluded from voting because they did not meet the 15-day voter registration cutoff are minorities.

With a rapidly growing Latino population in California and the inability to court their vote, Republicans stand to gain from decreasing minorities chances of voting. However, to deny one's chances of voting denies one's ability to fully participate as a citizen in our democracy.

Opponents of Prop. 52 want you to believe that it will lead to "massive election fraud." These people complain that a person determined to commit voter fraud needs only two forms of non-photo ID to register and receive a ballot. However, under current California law, photo ID is not required to register to vote and voter fraud is minimal. What's more, Prop. 52 contains provisions to double the penalties against fraudulent voters - decreasing the likelihood that this crime will be committed.

A major tenet of the opposition's argument is that since Prop. 52 is new, there are too many unknowns about whether or not it will be successful. Let's examine Minnesota, a state that has had a comparable law since 1974. In the 14 election cycles since 1974, very little voter fraud has occurred and voter turnout is the highest in the nation. About 20 percent of which can be attributed to voters who registered on voting day.

Vote yes on Prop 52. Increase voter representation. Strengthen our democracy.

By Susan Anderson

Guest Writer

On Nov. 5 voters will be faced with the decision to either vote for or against Proposition 52, something that worries me greatly.

The problem with Prop. 52 may be summed up in the common saying, "appearances can be deceiving." In fact, my own initial reaction was, "Oh, great! Now I won't have to bother sending in for an absentee ballot each election!" However, appeasing my laziness was shot down to second priority after I did some research.

While there is no denying that low voter turnout is a problem, Prop. 52 is not the answer. All that Prop. 52 would do is replace one faulty system with another faulty system. In fact, Prop. 52 will pose a series of serious dangers to the voting system not present at this time.

The danger that worries me the most is voter fraud. In order to register to vote the day of the election, an individual will be required to produce either one government issued photo identification, or two pieces of mail including one's name and address (junk mail is not excluded). While Prop. 52 will raise the penalties for those who commit voter fraud, this rise begs the question, "Of what use are stiffer penalties for robbery if you leave your house with the front door wide open?"

Prop. 52 is being thrown at voters because of the simple fact that the California legislature is fully aware of its shortcomings and would never pass it. Proponents of Prop. 52 are playing off the idea that California voters might vote blindly on this proposition, considering the convenience of it while failing to consider its drawbacks. Don't prove yourself that naïve. Take the extra minute to lock the front door, and vote no on Prop. 52.