# 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:** 528
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10541 "2017-05-03T01:00:19Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Yet somehow prosecutors manage to convict all these other criminals without them showing photo ID when they commit their crimes. This is a inapposite comparison. What other crimes are analogous in your view? For example, I know you’re not talking about prosecutors convicting on aggravated assault charges, right? That’s because in a aggravated assault case, the crime is immediately apparent to the victim and the police are summoned right away. The victim’s recollection of his attacker is fresh. The attacker, even if he fled the immediate scene, may well have left behind physical evidence tying him to the assault. You’re not talking about uttering a check that bounces, because the criminal typically does show his identification. You’re not talking about trespass at night upon a cemetery, or injuries to trees, fences or herbage on grounds of a public square, right? Or tampering with or unlawful use of cable television service? All those are crimes that don’t involve ID, that prosecutors can and do prosecute successfully, but differ in material ways from voting illegally. Do you understand why, or would it be helpful for me to explain further? If not, can I ask why you offered up the observation, when you knew that the majority of crimes didn’t properly analogize to this one? Was it to try to score some sort of bogus rhetorical point? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10542 "2017-05-03T01:04:09Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > “And these three polling volunteers say you did. And these two observers say you did. And this scrawl right here is your signature. And we pulled the prints from the paper and these prints circled here are your fingerprints.” > > “We the jury find the defendant guilty.” > > Funny that all they’d really need to do is have people put a thumbprint on the roll to prove their identity later. You could even use indelible ink to prevent double-voting. But that would be too easy. Perhaps your state differs, but mine doesn’t collect signatures. Nor would there be a paper that could reliably yield fingerprints. You’re right that the testimony of an observer could be legally sufficient. But it’s not practically sufficient, especially when the poll watcher has seen hundreds of voters. Do you understand why this is so? ---
**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:** [May 3, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10543 "2017-05-03T01:06:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > These pages are littered with sensible suggestions for making voter ID free, convenient and reliable. There is a very good reason why Republicans won’t do that. > > They don’t want to. ooh snap ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10544 "2017-05-03T01:06:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Once one case gets precedent like that, I don’t know that the ID for prosecution thing will continue to work, but it’s a good pipe dream for now. I’m not sure I understand your idea of “precedent” here. Because one judge or jury disbelieved one poll worker, all poll workers’ testimony would become legally or practically insufficient? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10545 "2017-05-03T02:42:23Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Funny that all they’d really need to do is have people put a thumbprint on the roll to prove their identity later. You could even use indelible ink to prevent double-voting. But that would be too easy. It really isn’t that easy in practice. I’ve been a poll worker, and there is already a whole carload of materials needed at each polling place. This would add multiple stamp pads (and replace them each election, because the ink would dry out before the next time), special paper rolls to put the thumbprints on, and a bunch of supplies for people to clean their thumb afterwards. And probably more spoiled ballots, because at least a few voters would get inkmarks on the ballot that would confuse the scanner. (Plus if it was an identifiable thumbprint, then under Minnesota law that ballot is invalid and must be rejected.) This would be another station added to the already 6 stations that voters have to go thru now (and all 6 need poll workers to staff them). And every one adds to the time required, the space needed, and could lead to longer lines at the polling place. And longer lines discourage voters – every year we have reports from polling places where there were lines of cars driving up. seeing the line, and driving off again. This additional time/longer lines would be the major problem. And it has disparate impact – blue-collar workers, shift workers, parents with young children, all have tighter schedules and longer time waiting in line affects them more. And they generally tend to vote more Democratic. But the main objection is that this added requirement is for a nearly non-existent problem. The number of invalid voters is so tiny; the addition time & longer lines of this would probably exclude many more voters. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10546 "2017-05-03T05:44:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As cited in this thread, a Republican proposed the use of fingerprints and the left-leanign privacy advocates’ group opposed the plan. Which Republican? This thread is too long to search through and googling shows me two possibilities. One is in New Mexico and one from Oklahoma. I can’t find much in the way of details. In particular, I can’t find out how opposition from a single group managed to derail this proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10547 "2017-05-03T11:11:37Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Which Republican? This thread is too long to search through and googling shows me two possibilities. One is in New Mexico and one from Oklahoma. I can’t find much in the way of details. In particular, I can’t find out how opposition from a single group managed to derail this proposal. If memory serves, the various times we’ve discussed fingerprint proposals both of those examples have been used, most recently New Mexico. I don’t say that the privacy group was solely responsible for derailing, but their opposition was certainly front and center – and there wasn’t writing about lockstep support from the Democrats, either. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10548 "2017-05-04T11:09:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t say that the privacy group was solely responsible for derailing, but their opposition was certainly front and center – and there wasn’t writing about lockstep support from the Democrats, either. Democrats in lockstep? Are we talking about the same party? They can’t even get everybody to agree on a name – I’m looking at you, Minnesota and North Dakota. “I do not belong to any organized political party – I am a Democrat.” --Will Rogers ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10549 "2017-05-04T13:37:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure I understand your idea of “precedent” here. Because one judge or jury disbelieved one poll worker, all poll workers’ testimony would become legally or practically insufficient? If one judge or jury disbelieves one poll worker, then that becomes a potential defense for anyone else accused of fraudulent voting. I am not a lawyer, and my involvement with criminal law has been tangential at best, but it does seem to me that if that defense worked once, then it would be a defense that would be attempted again, and the more often it works, the more often it will be attempted, and the more often it will work. > [@Bricker](#): > > If memory serves, the various times we’ve discussed fingerprint proposals both of those examples have been used, most recently New Mexico. > > I don’t say that the privacy group was solely responsible for derailing, but their opposition was certainly front and center – and there wasn’t writing about lockstep support from the Democrats, either. The new mexico example was far more involved, and actually involved collecting the biometric ID’s of all the registered voters. That’s not invasive enough to make me uncomfortable, personally, but I can see how it would make more people much more uncomfortable than the fingerprint only being used as an alternative, in lieu of photo ID. Not only is it a greater invasion of privacy, but it also would come at a much higher price tag, two wammys against it that have nothing to do with democratic ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10550 "2017-05-16T05:52:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I love, by the way, that for four years I have defended the existence of Voter ID laws by, inter alia, repeatedly citing a favorable Supreme Court decision, a full and final decision on the merits. And the opposition here has brayed and champed about the difference between “moral” and “legal,” and inveighed against the reliance on mere Supreme Court precedent. > > Now comes a preliminary injunction, in advance of a trial, issued by the lowest court in the federal system of general jurisdiction, and suddenly it is as if Moses handed down the injunction from Sinai. Time for someone to eat some fucking crow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10551 "2017-05-16T12:34:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If one judge or jury disbelieves one poll worker, then that becomes a potential defense for anyone else accused of fraudulent voting. > > I am not a lawyer, and my involvement with criminal law has been tangential at best, but it does seem to me that if that defense worked once, then it would be a defense that would be attempted again, and the more often it works, the more often it will be attempted, and the more often it will work. The dice have no memory. By that I mean that there is no precedent set. A defense lawyer can defend Andrzej Narutowicz against the charge that he, a non-citizen, voted illegally by questioning the recollections or the proper procedure from the poll workers. The finder of fact (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) is responsible for weighing the testimony and deciding if the witnesses are credible. Next week, another finder of fact (another jury, or judge) will consider similar charges against Gabriel Duda, with different witnesses. Whether the finder of fact believes or disbelieves those witnesses will be independent of the Narutowicz trial. You appear to think that if the Narutowicz trial uses that defense, then others will too. . . but no. That’s not how it works. Regardless of the success of the tactic at the Narutowicz trial, I guarantee you that Duda’s lawyer will use it, because casting doubt on the recollection of prosecution witnesses is a basic defense. EVERY lawyer will use it, unless there’s some crazy theory of the case that allows those witnesses to be unmistaken but your guy still not guilty. So, no, the defense working, or not, in an earlier trial will have little bearing on its use, or effectiveness, in later trials. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10552 "2017-05-16T13:26:20Z")
Insignificant ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10553 "2017-05-16T13:38:47Z")
> [@eulalia](#): > > I don’t know what they were thinking, but I’d prefer that no one carry concealed. I think if you’re going to carry a gun I want to know about it so I can stay far away from you. And why might that be, may I ask? There are a couple of things that you know about CHL holders immediately: 1. They aren’t criminals. They have gone through pretty extensive background checks to get the license. 2. They know how to use the weapon and more importantly, when to use the weapon. 3. They care enough about their safety and the safety of others to have jumped through all the hoops required to get the license in the first place. Seems to me those would be the kind of people one would want to associate with, not avoid. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10554 "2017-05-16T13:42:34Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump despite all obvious indications of his unsuitability. I can’t say which ones are slow and which ones were willfully ignorant. And even more voted for Hillary, a known felon and liar, which speaks volumes for the slowness and willful ignorance on their part. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10555 "2017-05-16T14:05:45Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > And why might that be, may I ask? There are a couple of things that you know about CHL holders immediately: > > 1. They aren’t criminals. They have gone through pretty extensive background checks to get the license. > > 2. They know how to use the weapon and more importantly, when to use the weapon. > > 3. They care enough about their safety and the safety of others to have jumped through all the hoops required to get the license in the first place. Holy crap! A post I agree with you on. > [@Clothahump](#): > > And even more voted for Hillary, a known felon and liar, which speaks volumes for the slowness and willful ignorance on their part. [/QUOTE] Well, it was nice while it lasted. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10556 "2017-05-16T15:28:33Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > And even more voted for Hillary, a known felon and liar, which speaks volumes for the slowness and willful ignorance on their part. A Trump voter upset at lies? Speaking of lies, Hillary isn’t a felon, you utter moron. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10557 "2017-05-16T16:08:45Z")
I’m curious why Gorsuch didn’t vote on the recent North Carolina voter ID case. It was a 4-4 tie. (He was the one who didn’t vote, right?) Is he not allowed to vote on cases that were being heard before he got confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10558 "2017-05-16T16:12:13Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m curious why Gorsuch didn’t vote on the recent North Carolina voter ID case. It was a 4-4 tie. (He was the one who didn’t vote, right?) Is he not allowed to vote on cases that were being heard before he got confirmed? The 4-4 tie was back in August. They refused to hear it this time. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10559 "2017-05-16T16:13:01Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > The 4-4 tie was back in August. They refused to hear it this time. Whoops. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10560 "2017-05-16T16:37:56Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Seems to me those would be the kind of people one would want to associate with, not avoid. If they’re anything like you, I want to stay as far away as possible. It seems pretty clear that chronic stupidity is rampantly contagious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=527) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=529)