# 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:** 417
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8321 "2015-10-07T17:06:12Z")
IIRC, the Dem position on those absentee ballots was legally correct. They had not been correctly processed and, if one were to follow the precise letter of the law, should not have been counted. The Dems caved when confronted with hysterical bloviation about disenfranchising our heroes. Of course, none of this matters because of the liberal hypocrisy displayed by the Massachusetts Massacre totally negates and nullifies any “sordid” actions by the Republican Party. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8322 "2015-10-07T17:53:49Z")
If our soldiers and sailors serving overseas can’t correctly fill out their absentee ballots, why should they have it counted, when some 90 year old struggling with a butterfly ballot doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8323 "2015-10-07T19:07:03Z")
Just how picayune was the argument? The following paragraphs offer insight. > [@](#): > > …The most common reason for the ballots’ invalidation was that they lacked postmarks. Florida law says that for overseas absentee votes, ‘‘only those ballots mailed with an A.P.O. (Army Post Office), F.P.O. (Fleet Post Office) or foreign postmark shall be considered valid.’’ > > But many of the military ballots arrived with no postmark, and officials of the armed services say their post offices frequently neglect to postmark mail. > > In addition, Republican poll watchers pointed to a federal law saying that ballots sent by military personnel overseas ‘‘shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage.’’ > > They argue that without postage, there is no need for a postmark to cancel the stamp, and therefore that the federal law can be interpreted as meaning that no postmark is necessary… > **[COUNTING THE VOTE: THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS; Military Ballots Merit a Review,...](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/20/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-military-ballots-merit-review-lieberman-says.html?pagewanted=all)** > > Sen Joseph I Lieberman says on NBC's Meet the Press that Florida election officials should reconsider rejection of hundreds of military ballots from overseas, even if they might not comply with law; conciliatory remarks come day after campaign of Gov... Now, for my two bits, I think every effort should be made to count a vote legitimately and sincerely offered, and yes, our service members overseas are due a bit of extra consideration. Of course, all of this pales in the light of the Great Massachusetts Massacre! (It used to be just the Massachusetts Massacre, but in light of the weight our esteemed Counselor has placed upon it, it need an upgrade.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8324 "2015-10-07T19:29:42Z")
There was also an issue with military ballots being postmarked \*after \*Election Day. I hope that doesn’t require an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8325 "2015-10-07T19:54:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Posts 8301, 8307, 8249, 8264, the first half of 8295. You did answer 8285, so you get at least one check-mark. > > In the case of 8249, I noted that your reply was non-responsive, not “not factual”. Post 8301: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I imagine that a much greater percentage of votes will be cast by people who don’t particularly care. > > Aren’t such people likely to skip voting, even if registered? > > Or did you have a specific idea in mind for what constitutes “care”, as well as some kind of metric to determine if an individual cares enough? Such people are more likely to skip voting, yes. But the practice of near-universal registration, combined with the use of "walking-around money,’ on Election Day, suggests to me that people who didn’t plan on voting that morning might be induced to impulsively cast a vote. I have no metric to determine if an individual cares enough, but I was reasonably happy with the concept that an individual who cares enough to register and then get out to the poll on Election Day cares enough, without trying to define at what point past that might the line for “not caring enough” lie. 8307: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is making it easier for more people to vote a bad thing, though? If it helps the Democrats, doesn’t that suggest that the Democrats represent the will of the majority? Bricker tried to equate partisan efforts to increase the active electorate with partisan efforts to decrease the active electorate, but I’m unconvinced. > > If, for example, Democratic lawmakers make it _extremely_ easy to get registered and cast a vote and it works against them, i.e. the larger turnout leads to Republican gains, was it still a bad thing to make it easier for citizens to vote? It seems fairly obvious to me that the contrary is true, i.e. if Republicans make it harder for some citizens to vote and even if it _doesn’t_ help them, it was still a bad thing to do. > > Of course, I’m still waiting on Bricker’s clarification of “if voting is _too_ easy… something something something… bad stuff.” I think it may take some time. This appears to be a further request to answer 8301, which was done above. 8249: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic registration? > > Not that your ad hominem isn’t utterly convincing in itself, of course. This question was answered in [my post 8251.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18737671&postcount=8251) You claim it’s non-responsive, but the post clearly and specifically offers a reason an unbiased organization could offer. Post 8264: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Can you quote examples of this love? Before I offer up some possible opinions for debate, I kind of like to know if you’re squaring off against figments of your own imagination, because that would modify my approach significantly. Yes. Post 8244, which links to a story about the Oregon move with evident approval. Post 8246 opines that there is “no downside” to the Oregon proposal. Post 8255 reiterates this position. 8295: > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I think voting is sui generis in this regard. > > How so, since voting is regulated by laws, which themselves are limited by constitutional amendments. In this regard, voting is quite a lot like speech and gun ownership. > > But if we’re still speculating, what negative results do you envision if the voting process becomes much easier, i.e. if voting can be done from home with as much effort as shopping at Amazon? Voting is regulated by laws, yes. “Voting” is also spelled with the English alphabet, another similarity with “free press.” But those similarities are not relevant to my point, any more than your observation that they are regulated by laws is. The area in which voting is sui generis is related to the fact that free press is simply permitted by the government. The government does not, as a consequence of the First Amendment, take an active part in encouraging people to buy printing presses. That’s the reason voting is sui generis. Does that address all your questions? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8326 "2015-10-07T20:02:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [my post 8251.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18737671&postcount=8251) You claim it’s non-responsive, but the post clearly and specifically offers a reason an unbiased organization could offer. That post seems to offer a reason an unbiased organization could offer for voter IDENTIFICATION. I believe the actual question was in reference to voter REGISTRATION, specifically automatic voter registration - “What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic **registration**?” (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8327 "2015-10-07T20:05:57Z")
For the record, I definitely agree that voting is generally sui generis (although I would never use such a fancy term for it 🙂 ). I think any argument that tries to analogize voting to just about any other activity will be invalid. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have no metric to determine if an individual cares enough, but I was reasonably happy with the concept that an individual who cares enough to register and then get out to the poll on Election Day cares enough, without trying to define at what point past that might the line for “not caring enough” lie. Of course, that’s only a reasonable state to be in if the effort required to register and then get out to the poll is equal for all… or at least as close to equal as feasibly possible. Which gets us back to a root disagreement here. I would be very unhappy with a situation in which the average effort required for members of a Democratic-leaning demographic was consciously made 5% higher than the average effort required for everyone else. Bricker seems to think that situation would be OK as long as (a) the average effort is still below some nebulous threshold of sufficient easiness, and (b) there was some legitimate justification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8328 "2015-10-07T20:18:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > IIRC, the Dem position on those absentee ballots was legally correct. They had not been correctly processed and, if one were to follow the precise letter of the law, should not have been counted. Untrue, of course. You are arguing that the precise letter of the law was followed, but I’m willing to bet that you never actually read the law, and instead simply repeated what you read in “Mother Jones.” If instead of Mother Jones, you read the [Florida Division of Elections Rule 1S-2.103](https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=ELECTIONS&ID=1S-2.013) you would have known that the actual rule does not require a postmark, but instead allows either a postmark or the signing and dating of the form to establish its validity: > [@Florida Division of Elections Rule 1S-2.103(7)](#): > > With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days from the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is otherwise proper. Right? Now, despite **Bryan Ekers** intense interest in making sure tghat I answer each and every question he poses and concede each and every factual point he makes, I predict that: 1. You won’t ever acknowledge your factual error on this point, and 2. Bryan won’t care to press you to acknowledge your error, but won’t “see” it and never address its existence in any way. Let’s see how I do at the racetrack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8329 "2015-10-07T20:35:47Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That post seems to offer a reason an unbiased organization could offer for voter IDENTIFICATION. I believe the actual question was in reference to voter REGISTRATION, specifically automatic voter registration - “What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic **registration**?” > > (bolding mine) Very clever! You’re absolutely right. I didn’t read his question carefully. But my objection was not to the Brennan Center’s position on voter registration. Indeed, as I have said, I share their support for this measure. My objection to their comments was detailed in [post 8250](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18737652&postcount=8250): > [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, their facts are wrong? Well, then, good thing you’re here! The real facts are at your fingertips? OK, you may proceed to shock us with the wretched truth… > [@Bricker](#): > > From their article: > > > [@](#): > > > > …national trend toward enacting laws designed to make voter participation more difficult… > > Nope. They are designed to verify voters’ identities. > > > [@](#): > > > > …Brown’s law bucks the movement throughout the country toward voter suppression measures… > > Nope. They are not voter suppression measures. That’s propaganda. So what I should have replied to \*\*Bryan is just what I said here in this post. I inveighed against The Brennan Center for Justice based on their comments about voter identification. I have no quarrel with their comments about voter registration. My response to Bryan was indeed non-responsive to the question, and I was wrong when I denied that it was. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8330 "2015-10-07T21:20:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …You are arguing that the precise letter of the law was followed, but I’m willing to bet that you never actually read the law, and instead simply repeated what you read in “Mother Jones.” > > If instead of Mother Jones… _New York Times_. Link posted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8331 "2015-10-07T21:43:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > _New York Times_. Link posted. 1. Where is the link? 2. Even if the New York Times said as much, the text of the Florida rule remains what I posted, which means that while you may have relied in good faith on the NYT, your position is still factually wrong. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8332 "2015-10-07T22:03:07Z")
I’m reading this latest flurry with interest but since I work late on Wednesdays, it may not be until Thursday evening, eastern time, before I can compose a detailed reply. In brief regarding 8328, though, it is not my responsibility to police the expressed opinions of other posters who may happen to be on the same side of an issue as myself, and it has long been a lame tactic of Bricker’s to suggest otherwise. If Bricker wants to directly ask my opinion of another poster’s comments, I cordially invite him to do so and I will probably indulge him. His passive-aggressive approach, though, I cordially invite him to shove up his ass. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8333 "2015-10-07T23:22:22Z")
Bricker, I’ve only done a bit of preliminary research, but it looks like the rules in 2000 were different or, at least, there was a conflict between the statute and the rules. From what I can discern, only overseas absentee ballots mailed with an APO, PPO, or foreign postmark were considered a ballot. See Section 101.62(7)(c). Florida Statutes. [Section 101.62(7)(c) no longer exists - it appears to have been removed in 2007] Relevant text 101.62(7)(c) “With respect to marked ballots mailed by absent qualified electors overseas, only those ballots mailed with an APO, FPO, or foreign postmark shall be considered valid.” [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC62.HTM&Title=-\>2000-\>Ch0101-\>Section%2062#0101.62](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0101/SEC62.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0101-%3ESection%2062#0101.62) > [@Bricker](#): > > 1. Where is the link? > > 2. Even if the New York Times said as much, the text of the Florida rule remains what I posted, which means that while you may have relied in good faith on the NYT, your position is still factually wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8334 "2015-10-08T00:48:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …1. You won’t ever acknowledge your factual error on this point, and > 2. Bryan won’t care to press you to acknowledge your error, but won’t “see” it and never address its existence in any way. > > Let’s see how I do at the racetrack. Well, not so good. Hoss. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8335 "2015-10-08T01:00:22Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Bricker, > > I’ve only done a bit of preliminary research, but it looks like the rules in 2000 were different or, at least, there was a conflict between the statute and the rules. > > From what I can discern, only overseas absentee ballots mailed with an APO, PPO, or foreign postmark were considered a ballot. See Section 101.62(7)(c). Florida Statutes. Yes, that was the statutory language. But it didn’t control. See _Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris_, 772 So. 2d 1273 (Fl. 2000). See also the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 4 USC § 1973ff et seq and 39 USC § 3406 et seq. The Florida statutory scheme as applied to federal elections was prempted by federal law and the Rule at 1S-2.103(7) was implemented to conform Florida practice to federal mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8336 "2015-10-08T01:01:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, not so good. Hoss. No confession of error from you. Check. No other poster calls you on your bullshit. Check. Seems to me my horse won. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8337 "2015-10-08T01:36:15Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > That post seems to offer a reason an unbiased organization could offer for voter IDENTIFICATION. I believe the actual question was in reference to voter REGISTRATION, specifically automatic voter registration - “What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic **registration**?” > > (bolding mine) Daring to wade into this thread again… It seems to me that a universal automatic voter registration scheme would necessarily rely on other records to determine eligibility (minimum voting age and address to determine appropriate ballot for local elections, at least). After all, \*who \*are we going to automatically put someone on the voter roles? Answer: everyone! How do we know who \*everyone \*is? Answer… uh, we’ve got a list here somewhere… So, a truly neutral organization might choose to question the veracity of the information sources used to determine eligibility and further what happens to anyone whose information is not in those systems. Will such a scheme inherently miss the homeless or institutionalized (e.g. nursing home residents) persons? Persons with no driver’s license or Social Security card? Etc… If, in the estimation of the neutral organization, the details are not sufficiently worked out to ensure that those on the fringes are not excluded then the organization might decide that the proposed universal voter registration scheme is not something they can support. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8338 "2015-10-08T02:09:39Z")
> [@](#): > > No confession of error from you. Check. > > No other poster calls you on your bullshit. Check. > > Seems to me my horse won. Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! I stated my position clearly, I would have preferred that the absentee military ballots not be excluded due to some legalistic technicality. And the whole point of the article was that the situation was ambiguous, both parties had a case. Pretty much all I said. Point of fact, rather non-partisan. Just relating the ambiguous nature of the situation. As far as insulting _Mother Jones_ goes, I don’t read it. (Though I several times bought a subscription for a close male relative, as a Christmas gift. I’m quite the generous fellow…) I admire their investigative work, but that work is always reflected in other sources, so it doesn’t much matter where I hear it. Truth is music, just as good from the trumpet as the trombone. And, of course, I’m not a Democrat, too lefty to honestly say that I am. I usually vote for them, being the best I can get, and believing that choosing is a duty as well as a privilege. But I am not one, though I nurture the hope they may one day merit my approval. Hope springs eternal in the human boob. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8339 "2015-10-08T03:07:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! > > I stated my position clearly, I would have preferred that the absentee military ballots not be excluded due to some legalistic technicality. And the whole point of the article was that the situation was ambiguous, both parties had a case. Pretty much all I said. You said: > [@elucidator](#): > > IIRC, the Dem position on those absentee ballots was legally correct. They had not been correctly processed and, if one were to follow the precise letter of the law, should not have been counted. > [@](#): > > Point of fact, rather non-partisan. Just relating the ambiguous nature of the situation. The only thing faintly ambiguous about your statement was “IIRC.” The Dem position on those absentee ballots was NOT legally correct. You said it WAS legally correct. That is error. ---
**Author:** ![Grsz11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Grsz11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grsz11)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8340 "2015-10-08T03:20:55Z")
Leave it to the GOP to demand ID to vote but not to buy a AK47. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=416) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=418)