That’s what I’m finding. A lot of the commentary going around as far as statistics go cite a Brennan Center study but it looks like you have to buy it to read it. At the same time, Brennan Center is actually an interested party so their conclusions deserve to be consumed with a grain (or several) of salt.
So, are you suggesting some form of due diligence has been performed here, by the legislators involved with this? See any evidence that such was done?
Hidden online. Hard to find, its at http://www.brennancenter.org. Sneaky buggers.
So you’re just not sufficiently motivated to go get the document you need? Too bad, guess you don’t get to participate in the thread. 
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, bro. And that’s just one study, in addition to basic common sense that many of the deterred are not going to file suit about it.
As to the pro-ID-law argument which you are attempting to claim is equivalent, there are data about that, too. The rate of actual voter fraud is near zero, and those that would have been prevented by this law are less than that. The historical parallels cannot be easily dismissed, however, and do shed light on the political process here.
The claim **Pricker **makes about the problem being the *perception *of a problem is similarly unsupported, but the evidence for that perception having been manufactured by the faction that would benefit from it is not.
Its the Loathe That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There is a non-zero number, though who knows what it might be?..of Republicans who sincerely believe that voter fraud in wholesale lots is the reason why the elections don’t reflect the widely understood Truth, that Americans are solidly in agreement with the Republican Party. So their concerns can be addressed without actually acknowledging them openly.
The voter confidence of the people impacted by this will not be enhanced, it will be diminished by the sad and hopeless knowledge that their votes are not as equal as that of a well-to-do Republican. This is not news, certainly not for anyone who has voted in an affluent suburb and an inner city precinct. Its simply another affirmation of that truth, not a sudden revelation.
If this is about voter confidence, its about the voter confidence of white Republicans, and the specter that lurks under their beds.
No.
Indiana law requires specific picture ID. This is the law that the Supreme Court upheld.
IC § 3-11-8-25.1: “[A] voter who desires to vote an official ballot at an election shall provide proof of identification.”
iC § 3-5-2-40.5:
Well? Where did you get the idea that these current laws are the first to require photos?
I assumed if we had two and a half election cycles worth of data, we’d be poring over it looking for trends. This law has been on the books for 10 years?
I’m stuck with a thought. How many of the Republican legislators who acted upon this were fully cognizant of its implications? Or, for that matter, even gave a rat’s patoot? Perhaps they weren’t plotting evilly, perhaps they were only following orders.
Of the Republicans who wholly accept the myth of massive voter fraud favoring Democrats, I can see how this would appear entirely justified, if somewhat sordid. In their eyes, they are merely reclaiming by underhanded means that which was taken from them by underhanded means. These are people who are fully aware of the devilish cunning of the left, and probably a good deal of devilish cunning that never actually happened.
As for that proportion who are not actually stupid, they might have been aware of some liberal pinheads complaining about what they were about, but dismissed it out of hand. They may even have seen plausible evidence, and dismissed that as well. Hence, so far as they know and have bothered themselves to find out, our complaints here are empty, or nearly so. Shirley, some Dem leaning voters will be hampered, but that is a sacrifice that it behooves them to make, they should simply suck it up and walk it off.
ALEC. If you don’t know who and what they are, you should stop reading this and go look it up. The too brief version is that they are like ACORN, but evil and with a gazillion times more money.
I’m late to this 41 page thread. Aside from any vote fraud that might be prevented by an ID requirement, has the potential for multiple voting by people with two or more residences been addressed?
I recall reading back in November or December 2000 about a number of people who admitted to voting for George W Bush both in Florida and their original home states in the 2000 election.
(Just checked for a cite. Actually there were many more.)
I know my youngest kid’s registration here in NY hasn’t timed out yet even though she’s been voting in her new home state for a couple of years. She still has her NYS drivers license (Her new state never collected it) so I don’t see how a voter ID procedure could keep her from voting twice. No - she would never do it and hasn’t in the past.
Perhaps states need to communicate better with each other when move-ins register to vote. They’re supposed to, but as the Slate piece Of course, this would generally tend to prevent more well off people from voting twice and such people tend to be more Republican so, I suppose there’s no interest in stopping that type of fraud.
I can find the Brennan Center site it’s the full report that’s innaccessible. I was looking for data that would support YOUR argument you snarky douchebag.
I’ve already read all other studies that show little-to-no impact or positive impact on voter turnout - even among minorities.
See above. Dipshit. a Little smug eh, Bro.
If you’ve read the studies as you indicate you have, you already know that a number no impact and one, in particular shows a positive correlation to voter turnout. I was, again, looking for the data to SUPPORT your position. So where are the people that have been disenfrachised for ten years? Just one.
Sorry for failing to appreciate the intellectual rigor of your repartee, Bro, but then again self-proclaimed geniuses are rarely fully appreciated.
Bro.
If you got nothin’ but pouty snark, that’s nobody else’s fault.
Bring 'em. Got plenty of room for cites. Hamsters are solar powered, they don’t get tired.
Might want to be careful its not this one…
(Lefty site, tighty righty advised to proceed with shields up.)
Author of right wing voter fraud study on probation for Jack Abramoff connected fakery
It’s not unidirectional and is worth curing, which is why I’m not opposed to some method to distinguish legitimate voters form illegitimate ones, so long as such a method doesn’t reduce confidence by going too far the other way and reduce confidence by disenfranchising legitimate voters.
We also need to define exactly how bad the problem you suggest is. How many illegal votes are cast by people falsifying their identity at the ballot box? If it’s true that it isn’t very many, an educational campaign could help increase voter confidence by convincing the people who believe that their votes are negated by illegal voters that their fears are unfounded.
Again, as far as I know, most actual voter fraud involves either absentee ballots or ballot tampering, which voter ID wouldn’t cure.
That’s not a good remedy, though, because if the person is unable or unwilling to meet the standard on election day itself that requiring voter ID requires, then is it reasonable to assume that they’ll make the extra effort that verification requires? “Well, I don’t have any way to prove my identity, but I’ll go to the voting booth, cast a provisional ballot, and then, within ten days, get such identification and go to another location to prove my identity”. And as a rule, those people without those sort of identity documents are going to be the least willing or able to take those extra steps.
Florida in 2000 didn’t have provisional ballots.
How would one go about putting extra qualifications and/or restrictions on voting without doing any harm to voters rights? The same way porcupines make love, which is slowly and carefully. So, why not slowly and carefully? Even if we stipulate that there is no evidence that these laws will do harm, what evidence have we they will do any good? And, absent that, what is the big freaking emergency with getting this done right away? Before the next election, which simply by itself has to raise suspicious questions.
So, we are left with two possibilities to explain the urgency. Either the people who did this really and truly believe that the Voter Fraud Monster is throwing his vast power behind the Dem Party, or they really and truly believe that this effort will trim back legitimate Dem voting to their benefit. About the only possibilities that explain the urgency relative to election day.
Otherwise, we could just take our time, do outreach programs, League of Women Voters registration drives to reach out to the unregistered, make the effort to see that anyone qualified can get voter registration id easily, conveniently, and relatively quickly. Why the hell not, unless you have some objection to expanding voter rolls? Make them more desirable, perhaps, make them valid ID for students to enter bars and such. Make them valid id to present to police, if such is required. All kinds good stuff could be done.
Doesn’t seem like our tighty righty brethren are too keen on this approach. Seem to feel an urgent need to get this done immediately right now and yesterday. Unless you truly believe it likely that the next election is going to be swayed by mythical action, or truly believe that it will have a negative effect on Dem voting, what possible motivation is there?
Well, I’m quite glad we have people like you around to tell us when we are all wrong. Should we just put you in charge and be done with it and put this messy ‘democracy’ concept back in the bin of history where it belongs?
In any case, here’s what likely will happen. The vote will happen and some people will be prevented from casting their votes (or at least will give that as the reason they didn’t vote). If it is a large number of people an uproar will occur. A couple of things may happen:
- The requirement will be scrapped (or superficially modified)
- The Democrats will finally get their act together and manage to push through a national ID program that will benefit everyone.
- Or there will be 4 years of recriminations and partisan political bickering that will result in no changes and much traffic on the SD.
1 depends on which party is in power in the jurisdiction at the time.
2 Hahahaha. It would presume that Democrats actually cared about the people rather than their votes and were capable of organizing an orgy in a brothel. If it happens it will likely be because some Republican does it realizing that it would be a great way to tell citizens from non-citizens.
3 If I was a betting man, this is where I’d put my money.
Maybe it’s just an old faculty perk that should have expired, but I have full access to the Brennan Center site. Honestly I don’t know why you don’t just buy the report. If you care about the issue and wish to discuss it, it hardly seems like an undue burden.
I guess if you cannot afford it you could just go to the library. It can’t be that you are too lazy, they are–like–everywhere. You do have a library card, do you not? Even the stupidest person that can sign his name can get a library card.
I find it inconceivable that an adult could operate in society without a library card.
Here ya go:
http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/vtp_wp57.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925611
http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf
http://www.vote.caltech.edu/content/poll-finds-support-voter-id
And, if you can expect anyone to accept a cite from Daily Kos, you should be able make it through the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275069/not-race-card-hans-von-spakovsky?pg=1
And, there has still not been anyone that will testify that they have been disenfranchised by any of the existing laws.
I work seven jobs and have nine kids and I take care of my 86 year old parents and I live 710 miles from the nearest place to get a library card and 740 miles from the library itself and I lost my birth certificate and the bus doesn’t run by here anymore and I don’t have 7 cents to my name and just because I can’t sign my name doesn’t mean you can disenlibraryize me.
Or do you mean that if I really want something maybe I should make some sort of effort to acquire it, even if it means going a little bit out of my way? That’s pretty unreasonable.
If you make something harder you will incentivize some people to not do it.
If you create a requirement and then cut funding for the agency responsible to overcome the requirement, you may just make it impossible.
That makes sense, right? You do know that the world is more complicated that your “get off your ass” view, right?
I’m not sure what agency or what funding cuts to which you refer. Excuse my sarcastic hyperbole, but I thought it ironic that the “get off your ass” argument was being employed in this instance.
Agreed. But will it make any difference as most people who wish to vote will make the effort?
Doubly agreed. A law that makes additional requirements needs to have sufficient supporting infrastructure in place so that people can meet those requirements. What constitutes sufficient should be where the debate focuses. There is a middle ground between having to travel 100’s of miles to a location that is only open on random days and the government having social workers deliver an ID to your door.
Again, in Alberta, I could go to almost any strip mall to a private registry and get any government ID I needed assuming I had the necessary paperwork and could apply for those supporting documents there as well. All were available outside of regular business hours. I don’t know the cost model, but it has to be cheaper than having to support a DMV like capability and having surely union types manning the wickets. Why can’t your governments duplicate that model?
It can be. But I’m back to wondering that if a person can’t be bothered to get off their ass, why their opinion should matter?