I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

The BBQ Pit
2721

You said

This seems to me to be a claim that many people in this thread find the cost of voter ID measures to be the most significant, or at least a very significant, objection. Your cite says

Four objections (difficulty imposed on voters, cost, non-existent problem, encouraging apathy), of which cost is but one. Significant? Perhaps. Very significant? I’m not feeling it. Most significant? I’m sure Budget Player Cadet can contradict me if he wishes, but I just don’t see cost as being his primary objection.
That’s one partial. How about the “many”?

Again with the strawman. It has not been argued that the voter ID measures pose a differential difficulty to ethnic (or, better, cultural) groups. It is asserted that Democratic leaning voters are statistically more likely to be among the groups having the greatest difficulty meeting the requirements. Thus Democratic leaning voters will be asymmetrically impacted, although some voters of all stripes will feel some impact. The net effect is that, while some strongly Republican groups (e.g., older voters) may see some disenfranchisement, far larger numbers of predominantly Democratic strongholds (e.g., minorities, students) will be disenfranchised.

If you scroll way up to the top of the page, you will find the topic of this thread. You should read it. Pro tip: It isn’t about a National ID. (If you actually read the thread, you would have seen that I support a national ID, but that is tangential.) And my reference to the original “user fees” noted that they had been withdrawn or modified so that cost of the ID itself (although not all other costs) would not be a barrier. It was the Constitution, not you, who “let the poor have them for free”. Your belated and apparently grudging acquiescence is though gratefully and humbly acknowledged.

You have offered us your own judgment of what constitutes a valid reason versus an excuse, yes, ad nauseam. You may have noticed that a substantial number of posters disagree with your judgment. You may also have seen that several courts have decided that what might not be a significant barrier in the long term is in fact enough of a problem in the short term as to effectively disenfranchise legitimately registered voters. They apparently agree with us that a phased in program in which voters are given a realistic opportunity to comply is preferable, indeed even legally required, to prevent disenfranchisement of voters. So it isn’t an “excuse” after all.

2722

“The temporary decadence of the English language is due, like so much else, to our anachronistic class system. “Educated” English has grown anaemic because for long past it has not been reinvigorated from below. The people likeliest to use simple concrete language, and to think of metaphors that really call up a visual image, are those who are in contact with physical reality. A useful word like bottleneck, for instance, would be most likely to occur to someone used to dealing with conveyor belts: or again, the expressive military phrase to winkle out implies acquaintance both with winkles and with machine-gun nests. And the vitality of English depends on a steady supply of images of this kind. It follows that language, at any rate the English language, suffers when the educated classes lose touch with the manual workers. As things are at present, nearly every Englishman, whatever his origins, feels the working-class manner of speech, and even working-class idioms, to be inferior. Cockney, the most widespread dialect, is the most despised of all. Any word or usage that is supposedly cockney is looked on as vulgar, even when, as is sometimes the case, it is merely an archaism. An example is ain’t, which is now abandoned in favour of the much weaker form aren’t. But ain’t was good enough English eighty years ago, and Queen Victoria would have said ain’t.”

– George Orwell, The English People (1942)

2723

It’s always nivce to real Orwell, but I don’t see the relevance of this passage. I wasn’t saying that “ain’t” wasn’t allowable. I was saying that Twain preferred not to use it himself.
I nthink this is enough of a hijack. Sorry about that.

2724

No, I have only heard the one from pennsylvania admit that political motives were behind the voter ID law.

Once again, in light of the how much more fraud exists in absentee ballots than in in person voting, why so much concern and political capital spent in voter ID laws and nothing on absentee ballots?

Are you denying that these laws are being passed with voter suppression in mind?

bricker isn’t trying to fix the wrong perception, he is pandering to the wrong perception and suppressing mostly Democratic voters while he’s at it.

Yeah but we’re not talking about a difference of 10 :: 1 or even 1000 :: 1. We are talking about a handful of cases of in person voter fraud (and even the examples repsented here were not examples of voter fraud that would be caught by voter ID laws) versus millions of voters nationwide that have to do something more than show up at the polls to vote.

Most of the rest of the world have national ID cards or use voter ink.

A very good Republican propoganda machine.

I think the best way to fix it is through the courts. Where there is a popular idea that infringes on the rights of a group, the courts have been the traditional guardian of those rights. It is (or should be) especially so when the right in question is the right to vote.

2725

Well, it looks like we’ve found another real case of shenanigans:

2726

Ah, my mistake. He doesn’t like voter ID for many reasons. And as the cost of a national ID program would be similar or higher, then can we safely assume that the arguments against one would apply to the other?

Yes, to clarify then, there is a subset of the population that is less capable of accomplishing or following simple tasks than the majority. Most of these people vote for the Democrats. Gotchya.
Additionally, it is very important that we get their opinion on how best to run the country because, given their ability to run their own lives, we can’t lose out on such wisdom.

And I’ve said instead of whinging about a voter ID, leverage the requirement to implement a national ID system, which I also support and the democrats have in the past. A national ID isn’t a ‘poll tax’ (but then having a specific ID to prove who you are really isn’t either, but you got to have something to whinge about).

A rather dangerous card to play as the majority of the population agrees with having an ID to vote with. Now you use the same argument that your ‘majority’ is more correct than the greater majority. As I’ve said previously, having been dirt poor myself, it did not hamper my ability to interact with the government unduly when required. It just required more planning on my part.

I want you to focus on the word ‘planning’ in that last sentence. My circumstances may have been completely different than someone else’s. Lack of planning, and most people are capable of planning simple tasks, means that accomplishing the task is just an excuse.

Where did you get the idea I disagreed? If you change the requirements overnight, then it would be almost impossible to meet them. If the people who implement the changes are incompetent or deliberately obtuse, then it will be difficult to meet them. If the requirements are known 6 months ahead of time, then we are moving towards an excuse not to comply vs an actual disenfranchisement. That Pennsylvania(?) site was just confusing, so unless they change it, it could stop people from getting their ID. If it wasn’t confusing (a simple change really), then we’re back into it just being an excuse to not comply.
I just believe people are more competent than the majority in this thread seem to think they are, so my timelines will naturally be shorter than yours. But then I also believe that if they are not so competent, then their opinion won’t be missed.

2727

I am curious about the response of any Virginians (or others) about the fact that the Republican-controlled Board of Elections will not prosecute the fine Republican fellow who was arrested for discarding completed voter registrations. I suspect that this may impact voter confidence.

Bricker, as a Virginia resident (as i was back in the day), any comment?

2728

My read is that the guy is a doofus. Fuhgeddaboutit.

2729

International observers to monitor U.S. elections for voter suppression.

44 observers? That ain’t even one per state, guys. Do you realize how big this country is?

At any rate, the RW is pissed! :smiley:

2730

Your paragraphs 1 and 4 return to the national ID issue, which is still a hijack. This thread is about the Republican voter ID initiative, its motivation, and its consequences. Mentioning national ID as a potential solution makes some sense, and I think you’ve seen that many ‘liberal’ posters favor it, in concept anyway. But constantly harping on it does nothing further to advance the actual topic under discussion. Oh, and have you now given up on supporting, rather than just repeatedly asserting, the “many” objections to cost?

The rest of your argument goes to the, shall I say, ‘worthiness’ of voters – or lack thereof. In this post and previous posts you impute some generalized lack of intelligence or lack of competence to virtually all people who may be unable to speedily meet the newly imposed paperwork criteria and offer your own personal anecdote as evidence that “planning” is the only relevant factor. Folks who cannot meet the criteria must have failed to plan properly, clearly demonstrating their unworthiness. You even (in other posts) belittle by exaggeration the hurdles posed by multiple jobs, multiple kids, lack of a car, etc. because these are only obstacles to people that indulge in bad planning. To say that this demonstrates nothing except your misunderstanding of the ramifications of poverty is a massive understatement.

Further, please note that this country has no test of intelligence or general competence as a prerequisite for voting. Even the much more limited literacy tests of days past have been found to be illegal. You reveal your own feelings, apparently without shame, stating “if they are not so competent, then their opinion won’t be missed”. Your elitist attitude isn’t likely to be agreed with by most American liberals, or most Americans of any stripe who hold dear the Constitution. Frankly, I find statements like this

to be abhorrent, shallow, and blind to the multiple uncontrollable circumstances that can reduce even a thoughtful and intelligent person to a bottom rung on the socioeconomic ladder.

I can though see how an unstated, perhaps even a subconscious, version of this belief could underlie some conservative support for the “Voter ID NOW” hysteria, with its xenophobic references to illegals and felons. It fits perfectly with the Just-World philosophy that seems to be the basis of your own argument. But using it to justify or rationalize a new ‘general competence’ requirement for voting remains unacceptable.

2731

You are being far too kind.

2732

Lengthy profile on Hans von Spakovsky in the New Yorker: The Voter-Fraud Myth

I’m still reading it but this stuck out already:

So from 5400 down to 0.

Another glaring example:

2733

Posting again because Hans Van Spakovsky is the biggest POS ever to walk the planet:

2734

According to the WTVR link, the reason they have have not referred this to the AG is that Virginia voter registration forms do not identify a party for the voter. That’s true: in Virginia, we don’t register to vote by party and no form indicates party affiliation.

So as I understand it, the Registrar, Brandi Lilly, is saying that they don’t believe they have evidence of a partisan-motivated crime.

I don’t know of any facts that contradict this claim, but I’d be willing to hear them.

Now, the examiner.com site says:

That’s not quite what the WTVR report says, though:

The video expands on this, mentioning that the Rockingham Sheriff also did not see any probable cause to believe the issue was politically-based.

There is nothing in Virginia law that prevents the sheriff from accusing Colin Small of a crime, and the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Rockingham from then prosecuting that crime. There is no requirement that the state Attorney General investigate this crime before it is prosecuted, contrary to the suggestion made by the examiner.com story.

So – my comment is that the WTVR link accurately lays out the facts, but that the examiner.com article claims to draw information from WTVR’s article, but adds additional, false, claims to the mix.

As I understand it, Colin Small is, in fact, not free from legal consequences at present, and that state has absolutely zero to do with the AG’s office.

2735

I still think this is too small a variety of potato to matter, but this says much less than it pretends. So party affiliation isn’t recorded on the forms? OK, great, settles that. But how does that ensure that the guy doing the registering work is innocent of any such knowledge?

Anyone with an IQ above warm cottage cheese who spends five minutes talking with a prospective voter is likely to suss out their political leanings. So if he doesn’t turn in the forms that come from people he thinks lean left, what friggin’ difference does it make that the form does not record it?

2736

Interesting piece in Salon.

2737

Fascinating. Another source quotes the Brennan Center.

You know what this reminds me of?

Some idiot group – Human Rights Watch, I think – authored an article that claimed a criminal conviction for urinating in public was grounds to force someone to register as a sex offender.

GFactor and I co-authored a SDSAB piece that addressed this claim. We found dozens, if not hundreds, of citations on the wen to support the claim… except that they all seemed to trace back to that single HRW claim, and our independent review of the claim found it to be essentially false. But everyone with an axe to grind about sex offender registries had credulously repeated the claim, giving it an air of authority.

And here comes BrainGlutton, genius extraordinaire, saying how interesting that yet another article agrees with him… and shockingly, that article ALSO relies on the Brennan Center conclusions.

2738

That’s a reasonable point.

Of course, there is nothing preventing local law enforcement from charging him, if they please. And are you really saying that you believe the correct course of action is to rely on the discretion of Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli to take over the investigation?

2739

:confused: Very high-credibility source, the Brennan Center. What is your point?

BTW, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which the piece quotes, is a completely different (and much older) organization.

2740

The phrase appears to come from this PDF letter from the Lawyers’ Committee.

All of those objections are correct as to a person who impersonates another specific person.

But as I have repeatedly said in this thread, that is not the primary issue. The primary issue is a non-citizen, or other unqualified voter, casting a ballot. This is “impersonation” only in the sense that the non-citizen impersonates a generic citizen, not a specific person.

So this objection has been answered.