You seem to imagine that I have some need to convince you of something. I ask you to “believe,” only one thing: that the law in question was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. If you believe that, then any additional burden of convincing belongs to you, not me. And you can toss that “reprehensible,” shit. You believe it’s reprehensible but the string majority of your fellow citizens don’t. I think what’s reprehensible is your desire to subvert the will of a majority of your fellow citizens.
Who the hell cares if he’s a felon or a non-citizen? The point is: voting records show he voted; he denies it, and he can’t be convicted because there’s no proof that he voted. If Florida had been using Voter ID, there would be sufficient evidence to convict him.
But that’s not important. My defense of these laws is: the states passed 'em and the Supreme Court upheld the concept. Bloviate away; it doesn’t erase the laws but perhaps the extra wind will help some green energy wind farm eke out a few more watts.
In Texas, the single biggest obstacle is probably distance. DMV (né DPS) offices appear to be pretty thin on the ground in some places, especially West Texas. As in hundreds of miles between offices.
AFAIK, no state requires proof of citizenship to obtain an ID. Only identity and, perhaps, residency.
In fact, it’s not strictly possible for persons born in the U.S. to “prove” citizenship except with a passport or Certificate of Citizenship. If you have a U.S. birth certificate, you’re assumed to be a citizen, but a birth certificate isn’t proof.
(Not that that’s relevant to the topic at hand since nobody is being asked to prove citizenship. Even registering to vote in Texas just involves filling out a postcard and mailing it in.)
Curiously, one could well argue that the law is biased in favor of immigrants. Those born in the U.S. typically have to present a birth certificate, SS card, and one other supporting document to obtain a Texas ID, while an I-94 (or, presumably, a naturalization/citizenship certificate or passport) is sufficient by itself.
Or so it seems. Fortunately, I only had to show them my uncertified handwritten birth certificate and swear an oath.
Just a note to those worried about “felons” voting. In Texas, once a felon has completed his sentence (incarceration, probation and/or parole), he regains the vote. That’s the law.
In which a flagrant example of voter fraud is mentioned. Involving absentee ballots–which are not covered by the new law. Is the perception that they are mostly used by oldish white folks?
Good point. But a felon on parole or probation cannot vote, so you may safely assume that if someone expresses a concern about felons voting in Texas, the concern refers to a person convicted of a felony and currently under sentence of parole or probation.
I have no idea. But laws allowing radar guns to be used in traffic enforcement are a good idea even if there are situations in which radar guns are useless. And the Voter ID law is a good idea even if it fails to reach every situation in which illegal voting can occur. The correct response is not to trash the useful law, but propose a new law to cover the missing territory.
What section of the Voter ID law governs winnowing out the felons who have not completed their sentences? Can’t felons (out on parole or on probation) get picture ID’s? Are they stamped “Felon”? I don’t think so. I’ll repeat: Absentee voting is not covered by the new law, either. I’m sure you’d prefer it did–but that’s not the legislation that’s being fought.
Here’s another flaming liberal discussing the extent of actual voter fraud that might be prevented by the embattled new law:
Why, you, apparently. You offered him as an example of the huge numbers of felons voting illegally – or possibly, someday, somewhere voting illegally. Which you used to support your suggestion that a demographic loosely defined as “illegal voters” skews Democratic. Which you imply forms the basis for opposition to these laws. Since your exemplification isn’t actually a felon at all, and since felons regain voting rights upon completion of sentence in Texas, and since picture IDs do nothing to prevent voting by felons who the Voting Registrar has failed to remove from the voting rolls, your attempt to support these laws with genuine facts collapses like a house of cards.
All you are left with is to repeat Nyahh, nyahh, we got them passed, the Supremes said it squeaks by, so go suck eggs – err, wind, I think you said. Once again demonstrating that your defense of these laws, couched in legalisms but supportive of a scurrilous partisan intent, is not your shining hour. Face it, these laws, Texas’ especially, are indefensible on factual grounds and incomprehensible except as purely partisan election-rigging. They provide no benefit of ensuring fair elections (beyond a background noise level of irreducible error), and (seemingly deliberately) avoid any regulation of a voting system that is clearly open for abuse, that of absentee voting.
But it seems to me that something must happen in your brain when you read an argument that undercuts your position. Your eyes glaze over, perhaps, and you quickly push it from your mind?
Does this text seem familiar?
Now, of course it’s bee pointed out that Mr. Cue is an illegal voter by virtue of not being a citizen. But the same analysis applies: non-citizens also can obtain photo IDs.
The argument is that without photo ID, there is no reasonable way of proving that the illegal voter actually voted. Insisting on photo ID builds an evidentiary record that would allow the prosecution to convict the illegal voter if he did vote – which would dissuade the illegal voter from voting.
Read that carefully, please: * Insisting on photo ID builds an evidentiary record that would allow the prosecution to convict the illegal voter if he did vote – which would dissuade the illegal voter from voting.* THAT is the argument for Voter ID. Try to remember it, and you won’t have to ask about ID’s stamped “felon,” or even IDs stamped “non-citizen.”
My argument is not that huge numbers of felons vote illegally, and I clearly, precisely, and explicitly said as much above. Your argument being utterly full of nonsense requires that you miscast mine in order to feebly try for victory, since you obviously cannot prevail against the actual argument. And so you try to do just that – attributing to me the claim that “huge numbers of felons [are] voting illegally.” I said no such thing. I said that small numbers of illegal voters vote, and that in the vast majority of cases, this phenomenon is irrelevant in the sense it cannot change an election’s outcome. But in ultra-rare cases, I said, such as Washington State in 2006, Florida in 2000, Indiana’s 8th Congressional in 1984, ultra-thin margins exist, and it’s in those cases that public confidence demands surety in each and every vote.
Why do you continue to repeat the canard that photo IDs do nothing to stop voting by felons? A felon who illegally votes in a photo ID state has produced enough evidence of his crime to be prosecuted; this is what discourages him.
I disagree – and so does a strong majority of your fellow voters. Undoubtedly they see your side’s arguments are vapid falsehoods, strawman efforts such as you’ve offered up here. They likely reason that if you are unable to address the actual arguments offered by proponents of the law, and must resort to strawman targets instead, it means there are no decent arguments you could offer.
Of course. Thanks for proving my point. The non-citizen simply denies illegally voting. The investigation is thus “unsubstantiated.” No proof, since the voting process didn’t require ID.
With ID, that picture will change. Non-citizens won’t risk casting their illegal votes, knowing that now they can be prosecuted.
Well, number one would be getting a job. I’ve lost track of the number of I-9 forms I’ve had to fill out over the last fortylebben years. It’s to the point where I scanned my birth certificate and my DL into a PDF document that I print and take with me when I know I’ll be doing the paperwork.
So, you just know that all these illegals & felons have been voting. Even though there’s no proof. If the new law prevents citizens who are not felons (who haven’t paid their dues to society)–hey, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
And once again Bricker, you’ve managed to derail a perfectly good thread discussing a particular state’s latest excesses in voter suppression by making it an argument about you and your own justifications for these laws. When we point out how silly these justifications actually are, and how much they resemble a Mobius strip of tail-swallowing circular reasoning, you hand-wave “Strawman!” then proffer your final defense:
Or to paraphrase, Nyahh, nyahh, we won! Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter why, just so my side gets a partisan advantage. Nyahh, nyahh!
But you haven’t won. I predict it will be a temporary victory. Either these laws will be shown to have a discriminatory effect, in which case they will be struck down by the remaining provisions of the VRA, or the very people these laws are intended to squeeze will become so outraged that they register in record numbers, go out of their way to obtain the needed IDs, then vote to turn the laws’ proponents out of office and overturn the laws.
Of course . All those “hundreds” of illegal voters leave absolutely zero trace of themselves, no eye witnesses, no finger prints, no handwriting/signature samples, not a single thing that would allow for prosecution of a single miscreant, ever. Of course.
But you know what *will *make them stop! It will be the fear of prosecution, which will become a magical slam-dunk because all these “hundreds” of illegal voters will have to present equally illegal voter IDs. Or legal ones, maybe I missed that part. But anyway, yes indeedie, fear of discovery will dissuade all those dirty [del]minorities[/del] [del]immigrants[/del] unrestored felons! Why, just look at the total lack of recidivism we see in all other prosecuted crimes! This proves that fear of discovery will surely prevent this crime too!
And gosh, think of it! Fear of discovery, fear of being caught out, fear of being punished as a societal control! Why, it’s almost Biblical! Heck, not almost, it IS Biblical! No wonder the political right wing feels so comfortable with it.
It’s not that I know. It’s that the clear possibility exists, and in a rare close election, that possibility alone is sufficient to undermine voter confidence in the result.
And yes: in a representative democracy, the majority gets to decide who gets to vote. Under 18? You can’t vote, and that’s eggs into an omelette too, I suppose? Unwilling to get a free photo ID? Then you can’t vote. Omelette.
Once again, you prove yourself absolutely incapable of responding to actual arguments, but particularly deft at creating a set of weak arguments which you then knock down. Only you, not I, have said a thing about minorities or immigrants. My focus is on legal, as opposed to illegal, voters.
And happily, that’s also the focus the law has. So your pathetic attempts to recast it are absolutely unavailing.
You seem unable to distinguish between statements or positions of others and those you have – oh so very carefully – made for yourself. Once again I’ll remind you that it isn’t really all about you. Although making it such is indeed a distraction.
What evidence is recorded that could be used for prosecution*? We already have to provide a signature, how does a displayed ID provide evidence above and beyond a signature cross checked with the signature on record?
Will the prosecutor even have the name of the poll worker who reviewed the ID, and what weight would that worker’s testimony be given potentially months after the election? What good is checking ID if you don’t have a reliable witness to say that they checked the ID, and it was the defendant presenting it?
*Note that the texas voter ID website mentions nothing about ANY information from the ID being recorded. It is compared, and if the worker determines that it is a match, the voter may vote. They are not even required to compare addresses.
Oh, so you feel you can make up arguments and attribute them to others, and then defeat them, and I’m ruining your game by placing in front of you other more cogent arguments?
Yeah, I’m awfully sorry about that.
Or, you know…not.
Sure, I’ll agree that perhaps somewhere, someone is evilly rubbing his hands together and advancing evil plans for evil motives in order to promote the cause of evil.
What of it? As the Supreme Court has aptly observed:
I think it’s hilarious that you’re so discomfited by how careful my argument is, as though you believe that, in fairness to your skills, I should have offered a sloppier argument in its stead.
. All those “hundreds” of illegal voters leave absolutely zero trace of themselves, no eye witnesses, no finger prints, no handwriting/signature samples, not a single thing that would allow for prosecution of a single miscreant, ever. Of course.