What is the fuss about?

As conscientious citizens, we should thoroughly digest the issues and understand that our highest duty, as it relates to deciding the course of this state and, by extension, this country, is to give full respect and accountability to the voting process. Why should we not protect our voting privileges as vigorously and as zealously as we would any other constitutionally protected right?

What is inherently wrong with giving town clerks more time to check names, addresses and eligibility requirements of voters in this state? Why is it a hardship to register ahead of the “day of” when, in most cases, the time frame allotted to do so is two years or more?

There is no common-sense rebuttal to these questions. Aside from unusual circumstances, I would go so far as to say that if a person cannot get off the couch and make an effort to register before voting day, he is, perhaps unwittingly but nonetheless, showing disrespect to the foundational privilege afforded us in America.

In my opinion, same-day registration is a ripe opportunity for fraud.

Human nature being what it is , we must endeavor to block occasions for misconduct by providing checks and balances to ensure a properly functioning and just election.

Identity theft, mail fraud and scams of every kind run rampant in this country. Removal of same-day registration protects the integrity of everyone’s vote.

Patricia Zebley, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



Jason Theriault's picture


My problem is when you make it harder to vote, there should be a damn good reason for it. And this is not a good reason at all.

First of all, there is no fraud. They have been looking at this for MONTHS and couldn’t find one case where someone voted illegally.

Second of all, it wouldn’t help, even if fraud was rampant. The reason is that your not required to inform a city clerk that you have moved out of a jurisdiction, so you can be legally registered to vote in more than one location. It only becomes fraud if you vote in more than one place. So a 2 day waiting period wont solve ANYTHING. You wont know there is fraud until after the vote.

Third – Look at the 2000 presidential elections. There is plenty of time after the fact to make sure the votes are valid. That is the time to do the investigations, not before.

So stop hiding behind the cloak of civic duty. If you want to disenfranchise voters, just come out and say it instead of pretending your protecting the results.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps Patricia has some

Perhaps Patricia has some valid points here.

How will having up to two days make it harder to vote? How is this disenfranchising voter?

If you cannot manage your time sufficiently enough to registers in time for the election, perhaps … well… I’ll reserve my comment for it is not pleasant.

Opponents of the 2 day period write with implication that everyone has to register to vote year after year. Once you register, it stands until you change residence.

I would assert that if one cannot function coherently enough to register 2 days prior to an election, I have little confidence they can function coherently enough to get to the polls on time anywhy.
Voting it a write with well-known responsibilities – in this case, get registered.

Garry Robitaille's picture

Great Balanced non partisin

Great Balanced non partisin editorial Nice job Patricia.

Mark Wrenn's picture

common sense rebuttal

"Why should we not protect our voting privileges as vigorously and as zealously as we would any other constitutionally protected right?" Exactly. Why do some want to discourage voting by eliminating convenient registration? And make up your mind. Is it "voting privileges" or a "protected right"?

Jim Cyr's picture

Common Sense??

Get off your lazy _ _ _ and do your civic duty and stay on board with all current events. Discourage voting ???? What a crock of _ _ _ _ !!!!

RONALD RIML's picture

Discourage voting??

What a crock of...Truth!!!

 's picture

Well here's a news flash for

Well here's a news flash for you, Ms Zebley, town clerks do NOT check names and addresses, either two days before and election or two years before, unless there is some change in voting districts where people are informed and the letter are returned. It may not be a hardship for you to have your limo driver take you to the town clerk to allow you to register in between your hair appointment and tea at the club, but some people have very busy and hectic lives. And because the radical right wing refuses to give towns and cities monies to operate efficiently, many are rarely if ever open when people can go and register. Since there has not been any real example of voter fraud, despite what Mr. Webster says, and since many of the people who are for restricting voting right actually availed themselves of the procedure, why do you really want to disenfranchise voters. Come on, give us your real reason, be honest for a change.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Go find your proof.


Put Mr. Webster’s shoe on your foot. It is now time to prove your assertions of disenfranchisement. Go find it!

Mark Gravel

 's picture

Nice try, Mark, but it won't

Nice try, Mark, but it won't work. Look at all the people who registered and voted on election day last year, they would have been disenfranchised if this onerous law was in place. How many will be disenfranchised next year if this law is upheld, don't know the exact number, but it would be in the THOUSANDS. That's the closest I can get to proof until someone is disenfranchised because of this law.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Your claim is not transitive.

Your claim is not transitive. It is not a valid premise to assume these individuals will not conform to the new law. You are falsely claiming that people will not change their behavior to comply with the new law. That argument does not stand.

That said, I guarantee an unspecified number of people will forget to register and claim disenfranchisement to push the issue for at least the first year.

I still stand by my comment that it is up to the opponents to prove disenfranchisement.

 's picture

It is not possible to prove

It is not possible to prove something that hasn't happend yet.

MARK GRAVE's picture

My point exactly; therefore,

My point exactly; therefore, you cannot claim people will be disenfranchised if it has not happened yet. To do so is just mere speculation.

Therefore, you should refrain from asserting people will be disenfranchised.

It is more appropriate for you to assert the “I believe” people will be disenfranchised, but then again this is merely your opinion not predicated on any facts.


 's picture

people WILL be

people WILL be disenfranchised, if they're not allowed to register to vote. Gloss it over anyway you want to, but the entire intent of this law is to stop the 'wrong type' of person voting. Perhaps that is justification enough for you, but I live in a democracy and believe that EVERYONE is entitled to vote, whether they agree with me or not. But it is obvious you're not willing to understand that, so good day to you.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Dan, I respect your opinion,

I respect your opinion, but we need subject them to the same scrutiny you afforded Mr. Webster.

Let’s examine you last message piecewise:

1. “people WILL be disenfranchised, if they're not allowed to register to vote.” While this statement is true grammatically, you are inferring that this statement applies to the new law. People have 365 days, less 2 to register to vote. The law does not prohibit people from registering, so your statement is not valid.

2. “I live in a democracy and believe that EVERYONE is entitled to vote”. Again we come full circle. You cannot provide any facts that the new law inhibits one’s right to vote. You said that yourself: “It is not possible to prove something that hasn't happen[e]d yet.”

Your feelings on this topic are self-evident, but let’s keep a level head when making such claims about our freedoms. I would be the first to sand shoulder to shoulder with you if what you claim is true, but it is not true, so I’ll continue to shine the light on such claims of false disenfranchisement.

Remember the fable about the boy who cried wolf for people could simply ignore a circumstance of true disenfranchisement if you cry it falsely to often.

Good day to you too Sir.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...