And the problem here is that last submission of yours. A study is certainly needed if one proposes that such a law is necessary, otherwise how do we know if the law is effective(or even needed at all)? What you’ve got in Texas right now is an elephant charm. It may prevent elephants from tiptoeing through the state’s tulips…but it would have been nice to have seen if the elephants ever existed in the first place.
Sorry. Wrong forum!
What percentage of laws passed by Texas – or any state – were preceded by a study?
A law can rest on simple reasoning. This one does.
And compare that to the number of people “inconvenienced out” of voting.
We might then be able to decide whether the disease or the cure (sorry for swapping metaphors, but I came up blank with the elephant thing :D) is more in service of fair elections and representative democracy.
We already have a method in place for determining the desirability of a law.
It appears you wish to override that method in the event you don’t like it’s outcome.
How exactly is he proposing to “override” anything? Has he started a putsch?
And there’s the other problem-difference between the private reasoning of those who proposed, supported and passed this, and the public reasoning they gave. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through if the reason is as weak as the one they gave the public, but certainly worth time, expense and effort if their private goal was to discourage those who might vote for the opposing party.
A study shouldn’t be done to support one side or another–but to find out what has actually happened. Whether you like the results or not. I checked a few sites with Sourcewatch–this one appears to be neither right nor left wing.
As noted previously, absentee ballots are the source of most verified voter fraud. They are not affected by the Texas law.
The rather grim article (which I haven’t had time to fully digest) linked earlier stated that voter laws meant to favor one party might by OK with the Supremes–as long as racial profiling is not proven. (Of course, it was written by Liberals–so it must be wrong!) From this article:
Of course, Mr Turzai was wrong. So the laws might not matter that much, after all.
The PA law was enjoined in court. Turzai might not have been wrong if that hadn’t happened.
Are we going to have to wait as long for the Republican proposal to combat absentee-ballot fraud as we’ve had to wait for what they’re going to repeal-and-replace Obamacare with? Or are we ever going to at least hear the rationalization for not addressing the biggest, and only identifiable, real problem first?
Are you serious? Really? Sure, make me Emperor of the Universe and I’ll take pains to “override” everything I see as stupid partisan quackery.
Or are you referring to your oft-repeated thing about the legislatures, the courts, and the screaming rabble again? Need I remind you (also again) that my minority status, even if a minority of one, still allows me to complain, to agitate, to try and convince, and ultimately hope to overturn such laws as I find disagreeable.
Why do you insist that I be required to accept the status quo as if it meant I was somehow wrong about the law’s genesis, its intent, and its probable effects – here on a discussion board? And why do you struggle so against any suggestion that the law might not actually have any measurable positive effect toward actually reducing in-person voter impersonation fraud? Or the suggestion that such an effect, if present, is probably dwarfed by its negative effects on legitimate voters? Or my conclusion that if this is the case, the law actually is a disservice to our representative democracy, and hence to all of us in this society.
A guy hops into your boat with a large drill. When you ask him what the drill is for, he answers “To whack any flying fish that pass by before they hop into the bait can.” Now, while a large drill could possibly be used for that reason, you can’t recall ever finding a flying fish in your bait can.
You want to make voting harder for hundreds of thousands of American Citizens based on fixing a tiny problem that might be an issue in a rare razor thin election that is witness to a veritable mountain of other fraudulent votes that you make zero effort to prevent.
By Jove, I think you’ve got it!
Or at least be indifferent to the hundreds of thousands…
OK. So, specifically, what course or courses of action are you urging your readers to favor?
'Cause it ain’t so.
And if one got in there, it would be no big deal.
But if the US Presidential election came down to twelve votes in Pennsylvania, suddenly each side would be looking for any excuse they could to swing things their way and the presence of thirteen illegal voters would be disastrous. More so, I mean, than a fish in a bait can.
Okay, the presence of thirteen illegal votes could be disastrous. Why, then, is the absence of thirteen legitimate votes that were blocked by voter ID not similarly disastrous?
Seems to me this should have been the critical element, and it’s never been demonstrated. Of course, I admit to the naive hope that legislators peform some kind of cost/benefit analysis, with “cost” not limited to political enemies and “benefit” not limited to political friends.
I propose that anyone who can demonstrate that their effort to cast a vote was blocked through governmental error or incompetence be absolved from paying taxes the following year.
Because those votes aren’t blocked.
Voter ID simply requires voters to have ID, and it provides that the requisite ID be offered at no charge. That’s not a block. That’s a requirement. It may be that some people are so stymied by this requirement that they choose not to vote. But it may also be that some people are so upset at the prospect of standing in line an hour to vote that they choose not to do so, and guess what? That’s not blocking either.
Good luck! If your proposal is passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, you won’t hear me hinting that it’s somehow illegitimate.