Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voter ID Laws in American States

February 15, 2016 11:37 PM - Season 3, Episode 1

Last Week Tonight S03E01 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies at age 79. Chipotle restaurants face federal investigations over food safety. (LWT produced a small commercial for them.) Main story: Voting (YouTube 14m), and the increased obstacles put in place to make it harder for US citizens to vote in elections. And Now: Newscasters Using Entirely The Wrong Tone. New Zealand's Prime Minister Steven Joyce is smacked in the head by a thrown phallus and is thereafter nicknamed by the New Zealand Herald "Dildo Baggins." Joyce tweeted to send it the GIF to John Oliver to get it over with -- and so they put the image on a flag, and gave the flag to Peter Jackson to wave. And then things got weird.... Yes that's right: Last Week Tonight is back!

"Chipotle: What are ya gonna do, go to Taco Bell?"

"New Zealand: Australia's Chia Pet"

posted by JHarris (26 comments total)

Erm, Steven Joyce isn't the PM here (but he'd be a lot better than the current one) and he does have net savvy and a sense of humour. Not quite sure what he does, but some call him The Fixer.
posted by arzakh at 3:23 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm just going to say this, pressing absent voters buttons was hilarious.
posted by lmfsilva at 8:54 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

Hilariously sad. I feel like that segment should be broadcast in schools. Or at least shared widely on the nightly news.
posted by cashman at 9:01 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

Someone noted that when the Voter ID law got struck down in Pennsylvania, Republicans responded by doubling the price of IDs.
posted by cashman at 11:47 AM on February 16, 2016

When listening to this, I am, like I think most, somewhat blown away by the flagrant use of voter-ID laws to disenfranchise individuals, but admit my first inclination is that we need to make the IDs easier to procure - - produce them, for everybody, at a lower (or preferably, for the initial issuance, no) cost (yes, that means government subsidy), and make them ubiquitous.


... then again, I'll also admit that the biggest change I want to see at a polling place are poll tests (no, not those used to blatantly disenfranchise blacks in the South or the like).

Basically, I figure that if you can't place many/most of the candidates' views on widely debated issues within a margin of error on a spectrum (e.g. "does Candidate Trump support the full opening of US borders to refugees from the Middle East?" "Yes----------indifferent----------no") and come close... I'll admit I don't really have a lot of faith that you're making an informed decision.

... yes, pragmatically, implementation would be difficult. ... but I figure that the goal should be to have an participatory electorate that makes as informed a decision as is possible with publicly available information.
posted by Seeba at 1:44 PM on February 16, 2016

I feel like that segment should be broadcast in schools.

Someone should do a montage on assholes talking about voter fraud while they press other people's buttons, all over soothing music, and play that as ads when more vote-restricting laws are enacted.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:45 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm just going to say this, pressing absent voters buttons was hilarious.

How is that possibly legal?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:16 AM on February 17, 2016

I was wondering the same myself.
"Perhaps Americans could consider 'pairing'", I thought, towards the start of the segment.

By the end... I was all "democracy!".

I was, however, not a fan of the #dildoshaming.
As hilarious as it was.
The man was smacked in the face with a flying dildo. Give him some dignity.
posted by Mezentian at 1:30 AM on February 17, 2016

I'm just going to say this, pressing absent voters buttons was hilarious.

How is that possibly legal?

I bet it's one of those things that's not illegal, so it's kind of legal. Legislatures routinely exempt themselves from various laws.
posted by Etrigan at 7:01 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]

The man was smacked in the face with a flying dildo. Give him some dignity.

He literally asked for Oliver to make fun of him. Literally literally.
posted by Etrigan at 7:01 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]

How is that possibly legal?

I wish Oliver had gone more into that, because I was wondering too. I'm not a lawyer, but I think part of the answer is that there may be no state laws explicitly prohibiting it; it's generally up to the legislatures of the states to determine how to handle roll calls, voting, etc etc.

In some states (for example, voting for someone else or someone absent is prohibited by the legislature's rules, not by law.

For example, in Pennsylvania, Rule 64:

Every member shall be present within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless excused by the House or unavoidably prevented, and shall vote for or against each question put, unless he or she has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the determination of the question or unless excused.

No member shall be permitted to vote and have his or her vote recorded on the roll unless present in the Hall of the House during the roll call vote.

But for that vote, in Texas, [PDF] Rule 5 Sec 45 explicitly notes,

A member must be on the floor of the house or in an adjacent room or hallway on the same level as the house floor, in order to vote.

(Emphasis mine).

So on first glance, it's not clear that that absence from the floor is, legally, absence. But surely voting for someone else who's present is a problem? Well, Section 5 Rule 47:

Voting for Another Member — Any member found guilty by the house of knowingly voting for another member on the voting machine without that other member’s permission shall be subject to discipline deemed appropriate by the house.

Per the rules of the legislature, it's totally okay to step out in the the hall and ask one or several people to vote for your while you're still legally present. It further notes that if that person votes for you in error or contrary to your intent, it's only a problem if it's not corrected before the final record for that session is finished. There's room post-vote to correct a mistake (or to call someone out on fraud).

In Texas, then (and again: not a lawyer), the legislature has decided that it's expedient to let people physically press your voting buttons, but only if given permission, and only if you stay fairly close by the floor (ie, not physically absent from the building).

Which, bringing it back to Oliver, I wish he'd gone into a bit more detail on what we're actually seeing in that footage -- is it a bunch of friends who would all be voting in a bloc anyway all casting votes that they're pre-arranged? Because that seems to be allowed by the legislature.

Whether that's, you know, a good way to run a legislature is a slightly different question.
posted by cjelli at 7:02 AM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]

there may be no state laws explicitly prohibiting it

This is how we end up with a dog as a member of congress.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 7:22 AM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is how we end up with a dog as a member of congress.

Technically, Section 2 Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

A dog would have to make it to twenty-five human years. Wikipedia's List of Oldest Dogs notes only five canines who've made it to that august age, of which only one ('Butch') was an inhabitant of the United Sttes. He'd still fail the citizenship test, even before we get into the 'person'-hood question, but the age restriction is surprisingly effective by itself at disqualifying potential congressdogs.
posted by cjelli at 7:28 AM on February 17, 2016 [4 favorites]

Technically, Section 2 Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

A dog would have to make it to twenty-five human years.

Ah, but the clause specifically says that no person shall be a Representative without fulfilling those conditions. It doesn't state any conditions for a dog to be a Representative, nor does Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

posted by Etrigan at 8:07 AM on February 17, 2016 [6 favorites]

If we've learned anything at all from John Oliver, it's that dogs can serve on the Supreme Court. So why not Congress? Let's end dog persecution.
posted by triggerfinger at 2:16 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]

there may be no state laws explicitly prohibiting it

This is how we end up with a dog as a member of congress.

Judging by the number of horse's asses in congress, there's already precedent for animal representatives.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:07 PM on February 17, 2016

(Are people actually taking the dog question seriously? I thought it was obvious that this was -- spoilers! -- a reference to all those movies where some animal plays for a sports team, because, after a referee flips through a rulebook, he shrugs and says "There's no rule against it!")
posted by JHarris at 6:48 PM on February 17, 2016 [1 favorite]

In Texas, then (and again: not a lawyer), the legislature has decided that it's expedient to let people physically press your voting buttons, but only if given permission, and only if you stay fairly close by the floor (ie, not physically absent from the building).


I feel like if there was permission granted or some kind of understanding then the lawmaker lady would have said that when she was grilled in it. I'm surprised she didn't just say that anyways. It would be my first line of defense.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:56 PM on February 17, 2016

I feel like if there was permission granted or some kind of understanding then the lawmaker lady would have said that when she was grilled in it. I'm surprised she didn't just say that anyways. It would be my first line of defense.

But surely if permission had not been granted, the lawmakers whose votes were usurped would mount some kind of objection, given the video evidence. It seems like it's not actually vote stealing, but customs within various legislatures about how votes can be handled if people have to be away from their desks. Like pairing in the Australian Federal Parliament.
posted by misfish at 8:20 PM on February 17, 2016

But surely if permission had not been granted, the lawmakers whose votes were usurped would mount some kind of objection, given the video evidence.

Here is an example of ghost voting where no permission was given. Although that seems like it was a democrat voting for an absent democrat (in violation of the rules).

I found one example of one side stealing another side's vote from 2005 - Carol Migden - but it seems to be mostly by arrangement with member's of one's own party.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 9:07 PM on February 17, 2016 [2 favorites]

Texas and ghost voting:

2011:

ghost-voting, is widespread in the House — the chamber’s rules even state that members can ask colleagues to vote for them. Most lawmakers asked about it were unapologetic, saying it is a necessary courtesy and convenience...“I don’t know how we’d operate if we didn’t do it,” said Rep. Allan Ritter, R-Nederland. The chamber is their office, and members must discuss other business, use the restroom and meet constituents outside, he said, so they generally leave voting instructions with desk neighbors, he said...

Rep. Charlie Geren, who heads the House Administration Committee, said the House’s voting system doesn’t lack integrity. “I’ve never had anybody except reporters bring it up,” he said. Geren, R-Fort Worth, added that the chamber is big and he doesn’t want members hurting themselves running to get to the voting machines on their desks.

2009:

In a “verification” of [a] close vote, roll is called and members individually attest to their votes. If members are there for the first voting, but absent during the “verification” process, their votes are erased...The House wouldn’t have to go through this verification process were it not for the “fiercely guarded practice” and prominent use of “ghost voting.” Members hold to the fact that they are so busy on the House floor they should be able to let a neighbor push their desktop voting buttons when time comes to register a “yea” or a “nay” for the voting record.

A report by Christy Hoppe of The Dallas Morning News’ Austin Bureau shows that the ghost voting practice makes the House look chaotic at times. Hoppe detailed how a number of votes registered on one contentious matter last week were cast in the names of people who were not in the building or even in town. When it came time to vote in the House last week on a hotly contested proposal about penalties in domestic abuse cases, one member was in San Antonio at a funeral. One was in a doctor’s office. Two others were at the airport.

The House rules state that “a member must be on the floor of the House or in an adjacent room or hallway on the same level as the House floor, in order to vote,” however none were anywhere near the Capitol when they cast their votes...Lawmakers changed the House rules this year to expressly call upon each member to give permission to another for a vote to be cast. But the rules still state that a member must be in proximity to the House for that to happen.

2005:

Ghost voting in the Texas House — when legislators cast electronic machine ballots for absent members — is not uncommon, even though it's definitely against the rules. But rarely does the practice get the attention it did when the ghost votes of two absent members nearly derailed a major tax bill this week. Ghost votes cast Wednesday on behalf of state Reps. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, and Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, were decisive in killing House Bill 3, the statewide property tax cut bill.

But when a verification was held, House clerks discovered the two were not even in Austin, providing a one-vote victory for the bill. In a verification, a verbal roll call is taken to determine if each House member who voted is present...One of the more notorious instances of ghost voting in the House was in 1991 when Rep. Larry Evans, D-Houston, was repeatedly recorded as voting on amendments to a congressional redistricting bill. Evans, however, had died in his apartment several hours before the voting began.

Wow.
posted by cjelli at 9:18 PM on February 17, 2016 [3 favorites]

(Are people actually taking the dog question seriously? I thought it was obvious that this was -- spoilers! -- a reference to all those movies where some animal plays for a sports team, because, after a referee flips through a rulebook, he shrugs and says "There's no rule against it!")

Air Bud: Barker of the House
posted by Etrigan at 6:35 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

Air Bud 2: Electoral College Boogalo
posted by cjelli at 7:43 AM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think the point of Last Week Tonight's footage of ghost voting is that, in state legislatures, despite whatever the speaker says and any nods to Robert's Rules of Order, voting procedures are remarkably casual despite the stakes involved and that voting is their job, yet these same people who cheerfully vote on behalf of their fellows and don't think anything of it claim that strict security is needed at public polls, in order to push voter ID laws that suppress part of the vote that is against their interests.

Yes, it's 2016, and voter suppression is yet alive and well in the United States. That should be the headline on the news across the country.
posted by JHarris at 4:09 PM on February 19, 2016 [3 favorites]

I was really hoping that these chumps would just give up on vote suppression laws after Colorado elected Cory Gardner to the Senate with the most accessible voting process (mail-in ballots delivered to every registered voter!) of any state. Like, you don't even seem to need it to get your horrible reactionary candidates in! Quit trying to cheat!

But no, vote suppression is still a thing, and Cory Gardner is still a Senator. Dagnabbit.
posted by asperity at 7:13 PM on February 23, 2016

My viewing experience of this episode was enriched by what happened when they put up a two second video shot of a dozen or so mice running about during the Chipotle segment. I was watching the episode in bed with my laptop before me and my cat asleep (or so I thought) on the extra pillows beside me. As it happened, Trilby wasn't actually asleep, and when he saw those mice he hurled himself at my laptop screen. Quick as he was, the mice had disappeared before he got there, and then Trilby spent three or four minutes looking all around and behind the laptop, trying to figure out where the mice had gone.

I love John Oliver, but I'm pretty sure Trilby would describe him as a manipulative bastard.
posted by orange swan at 10:14 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]