# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 277
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5521 "2014-06-14T22:53:07Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I keep hammering on this point, but… there’s a huge difference between a cynical act taken purely for electoral reasons which supports a policy which you think a lot of voters will support and will get people to vote for you; vs a cynical act taken purely for electoral reasons which you think will change the way elections are held so as to reduce turnout among groups of people who tend not to vote for you. One is a basically the standard MO of all politicians ever, the other is not. Certainly you never hear someone describing some politician’s “dirty tricks” as including “the time he voted for that really popular bill without doing due diligence as to whether it was really well thought out or not”. Where does gerrymandering fit in this milieu? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5522 "2014-06-15T01:07:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Where does gerrymandering fit in this milieu? I’ve made my disdain for Gerrymandering clear on many occasions in this thread. It’s quite similar to voter-suppression-through-voter-ID-laws. Not perfectly analogous, but similar. (Note that I’m talking about cynical maximize-my-party’s-votes gerrymandering, as opposed to well-intentioned-make-sure-the-black-voters-have-a-black-district gerrymandering, which is also a topic worth debating but is pretty clearly a different kettle of fish.) Edited to add: Do you agree, by the way, with the distinction I’m making between trying to suppress votes and just cynically supporting something that is popular? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5523 "2014-06-15T02:25:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Get your state legislature to agree, get your governor to sign, and then you’ll enjoy no longer having to carry the burden of proof. > > How is that going? Part the first: No, despite my tongue in cheek support of unicorn leash laws in response to **elucidator** ’s wrypothetical, I don’t IRL support such laws. You know why? Because unicorn stampedes don’t actually fucking happen, and if unicorns exist (as mutant goats or whatever the fuck) they exist in such insignificant numbers as to pose no threat to the “confidence” of the public in the government’s ability to control unicorn mayhem. Part the second: You appear to wish others to think you’ve made some effective rebuttal concerning burden of proof. You have not. You still need to support your own assertions in an argument, or be derided by your respondents as a big weenie. Thus: you’re a big weenie, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5524 "2014-06-15T03:48:58Z")
I think the burden of proof question is interesting as it applies to this thread. In general, I think the obvious rule is correct… whoever is proposing a change has the burden of proof to support it. On the other hand, this thread is quite reasonably interpreted as not saying “hey, let’s change these voter ID laws” but rather “hey, these voter ID laws that people are proposing, they are a bad idea”, so I don’t know if we get much from that. Furthermore, I don’t think most people’s basic argument in this thread was “these laws are bad, case closed, prove me wrong”. So it’s not like our side has been failing to meet said burden of proof even if we have it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5525 "2014-06-15T13:46:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And when you mentioned indictments it became clear that we were talking about the same thing. I’m not sure how this counts as a rebuttal, if that was the intent. \*\* > [@](#): > > My point was to prove that legislators seldom have a single monolithic motive, and that some legislative votes may be safely assumed to ALWAYS arise from a cynical motive. > > Therefore, I am neither surprised nor unusually disgusted by one instance of such motives coming to light. Personally, I’m not surprised either, although slightly disgusted. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree that such resources are available. Democrats would resist allocating money for such studies because it’s clearly not a problem that actually exists; Republicans would equally resist because it’s obvious the problem exists. Did you proofread this paragraph before submitting it, or it this a claim that political bias prevents rational analysis such that Democrats could not see the problem (whether it exists or not) and Republicans could not help but see the problem (whether it exists or not)? Being neither Democrat nor Republican, I’d just like to know if the problem actually exists. \*\* From the later-noticed post 5520, I see this was NOT the intent, in which case, I don’t know what your intent was. You made a numerical claim, said you would “bet” on it, so how would we prove it right or wrong? And if it cannot possibly be proven right or wrong, how is it different from any unsupported pulled-from-the-ass speculation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5526 "2014-06-15T15:25:15Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’ve made my disdain for Gerrymandering clear on many occasions in this thread. It’s quite similar to voter-suppression-through-voter-ID-laws. Not perfectly analogous, but similar. (Note that I’m talking about cynical maximize-my-party’s-votes gerrymandering, as opposed to well-intentioned-make-sure-the-black-voters-have-a-black-district gerrymandering, which is also a topic worth debating but is pretty clearly a different kettle of fish.) > > Edited to add: Do you agree, by the way, with the distinction I’m making between trying to suppress votes and just cynically supporting something that is popular? I agree there is some distinction to be made, but both are at different points along a continuum of behavior, and both are on the sleazy, as opposed to saintly, side. So while I agree there is some difference, it’s the kind of difference that is often characterized as, “The cleanest cockroach under the sink.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5527 "2014-06-15T15:32:31Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Part the first: No, despite my tongue in cheek support of unicorn leash laws in response to **elucidator** ’s wrypothetical, I don’t IRL support such laws. You know why? Because unicorn stampedes don’t actually fucking happen, and if unicorns exist (as mutant goats or whatever the fuck) they exist in such insignificant numbers as to pose no threat to the “confidence” of the public in the government’s ability to control unicorn mayhem. > > Part the second: You appear to wish others to think you’ve made some effective rebuttal concerning burden of proof. You have not. You still need to support your own assertions in an argument, or be derided by your respondents as a big weenie. > > Thus: you’re a big weenie, **Bricker**. Ok. But the reality is that my active respondents deride me regardless. Still, your numerical dominance is impressive. But: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. See the problem? Congratulations on your win of the SDMB. Here, no one will have to show ID to vote. In real life, however, your whining that legislative and court decisions don’t mean a thing for allocating the burden of proof is curiously ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5528 "2014-06-15T15:34:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Did you proofread this paragraph before submitting it, or it this a claim that political bias prevents rational analysis such that Democrats could not see the problem (whether it exists or not) and Republicans could not help but see the problem (whether it exists or not)?. You made a numerical claim, said you would “bet” on it, so how would we prove it right or wrong? And if it cannot possibly be proven right or wrong, how is it different from any unsupported pulled-from-the-ass speculation? I think this would be one of those situations in which we’d take an extrapolation from samples as the total error rate, rather than demand to substantiate individual instances. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5529 "2014-06-15T16:17:00Z")
Okay, what are your samples and where can I read about them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5530 "2014-06-15T20:54:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay, what are your samples and where can I read about them? [Well…](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt416/html/CRPT-105hrpt416.htm) > [@](#): > > In total, the Task Force found clear and convincing evidence that 748 invalid votes were cast in this election. That’s 748 votes out of 102,484 cast. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5531 "2014-06-15T21:34:48Z")
What fascinates me most is the Counselor’s singular privilege to wear the player’s jersey over the referee’s shirt. “That’s not a cite, that is a question” and poof! gone! Ruled out of bounds, the Counselor need not answer, his case is unaffected. As well, he is privileged to determine whom bears the burden of proof, the rest of us shall sit quietly while he ponders the question and renders his verdict. Since he is such a skilled and just advocate, is it any wonder those decisions favor his position so often? Not a bit of it, that is only as it should be, since he is the smartest man in the room, so already knows his decisions are just and fair. Since he already knows better than any of us here what is proper and correct in the context of argument, he is least likely to have erred! So naturally he wins the greater number of those calls. Anyway, if he goes for the field goal from 85 yards away and it lands in a cheerleader’s lap on the fifty yard line, then it’s eight points. Extra points for “valid neutral justification”. Or just, because. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5532 "2014-06-15T22:15:46Z")
Oh, look, its the Old Great Hulking Slab of Cite Trick! You know, the one where you drop a giant chunk of verbiage onto the intertubes, slice out what tidbit most favors your own position. and blandly offer the opportunity for rebuttal to anybody willing to slog through a swamp of Congressese. But the question was in the plural, yes? “Samples”, rather than “sample”? Perhaps we should get a ruling on whether or not one big ass sample is the same as several. Be that as it may, pretty sure its **Bryan** s turn as designated big ass cite reader. I did it last time, pretty sure about that, though my memory isn’t what is once was… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5533 "2014-06-15T22:34:05Z")
> **[Sanchez Allies Attack Claims on Illegal Votes](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-feb-12-me-18441-story.html)** > > Politics: House Democrats back move to drop challenge but refute GOP analysis of election. > [@](#): > > On the eve of the official dismissal of the investigation into Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s 1996 victory, her fellow Democrats on Wednesday unleashed an attack on the House Oversight Committee’s claim that it found 748 people who voted illegally… > > …Among the complaints: > > - Republicans failed to keep Democrats informed of their work and kept secret various documents involved in the probe. > > - Republicans misinterpreted and misapplied the Federal Contested Elections Act. > > - The analysis presumed “guilt,” taking a broad list of 136,000 names that appeared both on the 46th District voter rolls and in databases of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, then winnowing it down. > > - INS data should not have been relied on to prove or disprove citizenship, since it lacks information on native-born citizens, and because agency officials say their files are not comprehensive. > > - Voters were deemed improper even when the names on the voter rolls did not exactly match those in the INS database, or when signature matches were not found. > > “This number is flawed,” the report says of the 748 improper votes cited by Republicans, “just as the entire process of analysis was problematic from the beginning.” > > The list of suspected illegal voters has not been released because of privacy concerns… A different viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5534 "2014-06-15T22:55:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree there is some distinction to be made, but both are at different points along a continuum of behavior, and both are on the sleazy, as opposed to saintly, side. So while I agree there is some difference, it’s the kind of difference that is often characterized as, “The cleanest cockroach under the sink.” Well, kind of. I mean, drunk driving resulting in a fatality is on a continuum of reckless vehicular behavior that also includes speeding. But we treat people who speed VERY differently from people who drive drunk and kill people. In addition to how different the acts are there’s also the issue of how universal they are. “Everyone else is doing it to” doesn’t make something OK, but it does make it a bit silly to pick out a particular example of that act and get outraged about it. Thus, to the extent that you are saying “sure, this is scuzzy, but everyone does scuzzy things, so why are you getting outraged about this particular example?” I reject your premise. Everyone doesn’t do it. And “everyone does something kind of comparable, so why are you getting outraged about this particular example” is just reductive and silly. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2014, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5535 "2014-06-15T23:07:57Z")
I’m skimming the cite now. So far, I find this interesting: > [@](#): > > The question of how many aliens are registered and voting in the Forty-sixth Congressional District has not been resolved by this Task Force investigation. The investigation of this > contest has confirmed that there is a significant number of aliens who appear within the INS data bases and are on the voter registration rolls of Orange County. This fact leads logically to a serious question and a troubling hypothesis: if there is a significant number of ``documented aliens’', aliens > in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County? The Task Force can make no conclusion > based on the materials before it as to the number of illegal aliens who may be on Orange County registration rolls. The Task Force does not have available to it clear and convincing evidence on the number of undocumented aliens who may be registered voters in Orange County. > > Only clear and convincing evidence can provide the basis to overcome the presumption of the legitimacy of the electoral process. Absent such evidence, the California certification of the election results in the 46th Congressional District must be confirmed by this House. However, the confirmation of this election result by the House is not an unequivocal validation of the voting process in Orange County. > > In conclusion, had the Task Force and Committee not acted to consider the merits of this contest, significant vote fraud and vote irregularities would have gone undetected. However, the number of ballots for which the Task Force and Committee has clear and convincing evidence that they were cast improperly by individuals not eligible to vote in the November 1996 election is substantially less than the 979 vote margin in this election. > > For the foregoing reasons, the Committee concludes that this contest should be dismissed. I’m still reading, but there’s a second part to my question: even if some measurable ratio of fake votes is accepted to exist, what’s the effect on voter confidence? Was there a backlash after the above decision? Loretta Sanchez, the winner of the disputed election in 1996, is still in office with no indication (I’m aware of) of a lack of confidence from the electorate, though the issue is a bit confusing since the district’s number changed from 46 to 47 and back again during Sanchez’s tenure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5536 "2014-06-16T02:21:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What fascinates me most is the Counselor’s singular privilege to wear the player’s jersey over the referee’s shirt. “That’s not a cite, that is a question” and poof! gone! Ruled out of bounds, the Counselor need not answer, his case is unaffected. As well, he is privileged to determine whom bears the burden of proof, the rest of us shall sit quietly while he ponders the question and renders his verdict. > > Since he is such a skilled and just advocate, is it any wonder those decisions favor his position so often? Not a bit of it, that is only as it should be, since he is the smartest man in the room, so already knows his decisions are just and fair. Since he already knows better than any of us here what is proper and correct in the context of argument, he is least likely to have erred! So naturally he wins the greater number of those calls. > > Anyway, if he goes for the field goal from 85 yards away and it lands in a cheerleader’s lap on the fifty yard line, then it’s eight points. Extra points for “valid neutral justification”. Or just, because. Elucidator, you rejected another’s post with the snarky point that it was not cited and represented mere anecdotal evidence: > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, it wasn’t too bad until it foundered on the rocks of your anecdotal evidence. > [@elucidator](#): > > “Anecdotal evidence”, like “military intelligence” and “feminist humor”, is an oxymoron. One does not build a wall with marshmallows mortared with cotton candy. > > Pretty sure you know this stuff. Remember those posts? Subsequent to those posts, you yourself offered up anecdotes in place of cited data. Now you complain that I ask you for a cite? Hint: a cite typically involves a reference to the authority which supports the claim you have made. It does not typically require a question mark as punctuation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5537 "2014-06-16T02:23:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m skimming the cite now. So far, I find this interesting: > > I’m still reading, but there’s a second part to my question: even if some measurable ratio of fake votes is accepted to exist, what’s the effect on voter confidence? Was there a backlash after the above decision? Loretta Sanchez, the winner of the disputed election in 1996, is still in office with no indication (I’m aware of) of a lack of confidence from the electorate, though the issue is a bit confusing since the district’s number changed from 46 to 47 and back again during Sanchez’s tenure. The bet aspect related only to the incidence of bad votes, though, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5538 "2014-06-16T09:38:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The bet aspect related only to the incidence of bad votes, though, right? And had you negotiated terms of the bet at the time in such a way that this report might have satisfied them, you might be two dollars richer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5539 "2014-06-16T11:55:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And had you negotiated terms of the bet at the time in such a way that this report might have satisfied them, you might be two dollars richer. My loss, I suppose. But I was well aware of this report at the time; nothing in it comes close to satisfying the standard you were advancing: indictments and convictions. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5540 "2014-06-16T12:20:27Z")
If I may deflect a bit here, there is the issue of the cost of IDs. Here in Oregon, it costs $44.50 for an “Identification Card”. I think we violate the poll tax provisions of the Constitution if we _require_ this fee to be paid before you can vote. Any thoughts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=276) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=278)