There’s two kinds of voting fraud. Letting a person vote who shouldn’t be able to vote is one type of fraud. Denying a person a person who should be allowed to vote is another type of fraud. Either type of fraud can lead to a fraudulent outcome.
So you can have an election where every vote cast was legitimate but still have a fraudulent outcome because some eligible voters weren’t able to vote.
Every single state that has Voter ID laws already provides that such IDs are provided at no cost.
Free car fare to the nearest DMV (open on weekends, of course) included, then? So we won’t be hearing any anecdotes about people having to take a day off work to travel 100+ miles, then, hmmmm?
Glad to hear it.
Bricker, so glad I was able to give you a new tool to hand-wave away objections without actually deconstructing their arguments. Your use of shenanigans will save your interlocutors some effort since you will now be waving the “My Assertion Is Empty of Content” flag proudly yourself. 
I understand that a crime is committed both with fraudulent registration and with any subsequent vote. It’s just that, in this case, it doesn’t make any difference. And it’s nice of you to admit that deterrence is minimal for people who genuinely believe they are eligible to vote and who manage to get through the registration process without their belief being contradicted by the voting registrar. I guess the difference between zero and minimal-but->-zero isn’t really worth pursuing, although my personal knowledge of other people being convicted for shop lifting doesn’t cause me much “careful examination” or introspection every time I wheel my cart out of the grocery store, so I’m still falling on the ‘zero’ side.
As for the deliberate fraudulent registrants, you’ve done nothing to contradict my conclusion that “The numbers are tiny, and the deterrence is a hollow fantasy. Possible? Yes. Significant? Not so much. A distraction from the real intent and effect of “Voter ID”? Seems to be.” I do admit that, just as you say “in other contexts”, conviction of lawbreakers can have a deterrent effect on those who might contemplate breaking the law. But in this particular context, given the unknown ratio of (a) genuine deliberately fraudulent in-person voters to (b) those acting on misunderstanding or via clerical error so not (or only minimally) amenable to deterrence or (c) cases where legitimate votes appear possibly fraudulent due to clerical errors and so not subject to deterrence at all, I remain unpersuaded that any actual deterrence will take place.
If a free ID requires (for instance) a birth certificate to obtain, and that birth certificate costs $20, would you still consider it “at no cost?”
I assume if the actual text of the relevant law contains the phrase “at no cost”, well, then… reality must follow.
I didn’t intend for this to be a rehash of all the old arguments. We’ve done that already. I thought that it would be interesting to discuss this paper.
Could this paper be used in legal arguments against voter ID laws? Assuming that it’s conclusions are correct, does it undermine the argument that such laws are desirable because they prevent fraudulent outcomes?
Yeah, I get that.
But I’m unpersuaded that the ACA is a good idea, and yet it was enacted over my strenuous objections.
So is there at least a chance that your persuasion threshhold is incorrectly calibrated?
Because I am absolutely convinced that there are a (very few) people who vote illegally knowing, secure in the safety of an impotent prosecutor, but who won’t risk it when there’s a cognizable chance of jail. It seems beyond cavil that in a country approaching 400 million people, there’s not one or two such people.
Right?
So, shenanigans on you!
I understand your annoyance, davidm, but the issue is moot to someone who cannot or will not recognize that a denied vote is as bad as a fraudulent vote. As long as supporters of the current crop of ID laws maintain that punishing criminals (even if largely imaginary) is more important than not disenfranchising citizens (assuming they even admit that disenfranchisement occurs), the paper you cite will mean nothing to them.
Well, not really. Voting rights infringements receive rational basis review, for reasons which elude me (and other right thinking people) so it’s more or less impossible to challenge them by presenting evidence of ill effects.
You essentially have to show that they could not possibly do what the legislature intended, rather than that they often don’t.
Bingo. Bricker claims Ramon Cue proves the law is needed, any evidence that it is useless or harmful… irrelevant.
Wait.
Voting is typically described as “free,” and no one objects. But voting requires potential time off work, transport to the polling station, and waiting – sometimes hours – in line. Yet that is never described as being anything other than free.
Why are you entitled to disregard those ‘costs’ of voting but not the ones you don’t like?
Voting is inherently costly in and of itself.
Should the government provide free car rides to save voters the gasoline costs of traveling to the polls?
What about people having to time off work to travel to the polls on Election Day, then, hmmmm?
ID or no ID, they’d have to travel.
Next question: Does the lack of cars disenfranchise voters who need car rides to the polls?
A large part of that dislike is that the laws are in response to an almost entirely nonexistent problem. By Bricker’s logic once something costs something, there’s no problem making it cost more.
If anything, I’d suggest identifying venues where voting takes hours and allocate resources to improve efficiency. If that involves making mass transit free on election day… sure, I can see that, among other ideas, including changing Election Day into Election Weekend etc.
Plus your body is burning calories during the car ride to the polls, during the act of voting, and the ride home. In order to be truly “free” the government should provide a meal for every voter along the way.
This digression is amusing and I admit wanting to indulge it, but to get back on point, would anyone who wants to see fraudulent votes prevented care to weigh in on the denied-vote concept, i.e. is a denied vote:
No. Bricker’s logic merely points out that we are comfortable, as a society, with two general statements. Direct costs (i.e., a poll tax, or a charge for a permissible ID) for voting are not permitted. But attenuated costs (birth certificate to validate one’s nationality or identity; standing in line; driving to a government facility) are not per se forbidden.
No one is being “denied” a vote.
Everyone is being asked to show evidence of their identity before voting. Some people may decide not to go through the work of doing that. Just like some people may decide not to vote if there’s a snowstorm on Election Day. But we would not characterize those people as having been “denied” their vote.