A serious question…and by no means a setup for a gotcha or anything…
What are the penalties for voter ‘in person’ fraud and voter registration fraud, either falsifying or destroying registration documents. Seems to me they should be on the ‘severe’ to ‘draconian’ side.
And is there any uniformity to the laws, state to state? Or an overriding federal law?
Stop lying. No, you have fucking not said that.
That is a problem best addressed at registration time, then. Not at the polling place. Which is where you pretend the “problem” to be, and where your “solutions” and all their obvious “side effects” would occur.
Why is it not possible for you to acknowledge that “the primary issue” for you is the number of people who are validly registered to vote who are inclined to vote against your party? Do you really not realize how loud the laughter is? Or why the court decisions repeatedly are against you? You’re wrong both legally and morally on this, and too psychopathically stubborn to realize it.
I am adventurous, you are easy, she is a slut. I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool.
In Virginia, if you agree to mail or deliver a signed voter registration application to the voter registrar and then intentionally interfere with the applicant’s effort to register by destroying the application or by failing to mail it, you’re guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, for which the maximum penalty is a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
If you intentionally solicit multiple registrations from a single person or intentionally falsify a registration application, it’s a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
A person who intentionally votes more than once is guilty of a Class 6 felony, up to five years in prison.
A non-citizen who falsely claims to be a citizen in order to vote, or a felon who falsely denies his felonious status in order to vote, is committing a Class 5 felony.
I don’t know any other states, or the federal criminal liability.
False nonequivalence. 
He’s a liar and a psychopath and an underminer of democracy. And he knows all of those things, and is *proud *of them.
I"m ‘harping’ on it because the opposition has given your party an opportunity that could be used to push through a National ID. Yet, you’d rather whinge about, or block it (and the momentum that could have been utilized) it than use it to make lasting changes.
I can live with ‘partial credit’. Certainly, if the choice is that or wade through this thread again.
And your understanding seems to arise from a middle class person experiencing ‘white guilt’ for things that only happen to a few, extrapolating that to the many.
It appears that you haven’t read the posts I have previously made with the evidence that most people only work multiple jobs for relatively short periods of time and that it those who do only comprise a small portion of the population (~5% of the population of your country). Yet it keeps getting trotted out as a major obstacle to voting, when in reality, it is no more than an inconvenience.
I don’t ask the building cleaner on how to run IT systems. If my bosses lose complete control of their minds and wish me to do so, I’m not going to cry if some of their ‘opinions’ are missed.
You shouldn’t be surprised when I say that their opinion won’t be missed much, either?
A thoughtful and intelligent person is very unlikely to allow their circumstances to stop them from voting if they want to. A moron will have many excuses.
Numerous times I’ve made the argument between an excuse and a legitimate obstacle. For the government to be deliberately obtuse in their instructions on how to meet the requirements, is a legitimate obstacle. Having to travel long distances may or may not be an obstacle depending on circumstances. Saying you can’t take a day off to stand in line at the DMV is most likely an excuse. More time available to comply moves the dividing line towards the ‘excuse’ side.
Given that the Republicans are often accused of only seeing black and white on any issue, it is really telling that you can’t see these shades of gray.
None of this is a test for competence. Although, by default, it shows up in practice as being so. And if the instructions are clear and there is enough time to comply, I have no guilt over those people not having their opinion heard, nor am I adverse to let my opinion be known that we haven’t lost out as a result.
Awesome editorial: WRT “voter fraud,” the GOP has become The Wolf Who Cried Wolf.
Translation: Look! Another liberal agrees with me! And quotes the Brennan Center!
IOW, “But … but … ACORN! Winning!”
All liberals are Cretans, and all Cretans are liars. Republicans, on the other hand, are cretins, and never know if they are lying or not. Nor do they much care.
This. It is a fake concern over a phoney problem that does not exist. It is bullshit It is fabricated bullshit. So far. NO one has been able to answer a very simple question - why is it such a hug crisis NOW, of all times?
The real answer, is because it is poltical bullshit, meant to exclude “certain types of people”.
Were you asleep in 2006 when Indiana passed their ID law?
It’s not a big crisis NOW. It became a big crisis after 2000 and 2006 when we saw two very very close elections, decided by less than 600 and 150 votes respectively.
Need an update. Have you bailed out on the whole “voter confidence” schtick as your “valid neutral justification”? Maybe not wise to switch to the potential impact of voter fraud on ultra-close elections. Kinda highlights the weakness, you see, offering hard facts for the closeness of the election, compared to the utter speculation of voter fraud.
See, on the one hand, you got numbers. In the other hand, you have…not numbers. Smoke maybe, or a molded ball of unicorn droppings.
Must be an awful feeling, gradually realizing that he’s utterly wrong factually, legally, logically, morally, and obnoxiously, too, and that all the people here he despises have known it all along.
Well, maybe not morally; he doesn’t grasp the concept, but the rest? Yeah.
Is destruction of voter registration forms a crime under federal or Virginia law only when motivated by partisan considerations?
NO, I have absolutely not bailed on voter confidence being a valid neutral justification. Why? What part of my post remotely contradicts that justification?
Thinking about the potential impact of voter fraud on ultra-close elections – as evidenced by the hard reality of ultra-close elections actually happening, as opposed to a theoretical possibilty – is what gave rise to the current crisis of voter confidence.
No.
But there’s no reason to require the Attorney General to investigate that crime, either. It can be prosecuted by the local Commonwealth Attorney.
The reason to involve the AG is if the crime were part of a larger, partisan-driven conspiracy.
Well, what about the effect of discouraging or hampering Democrat leaning voters? If these laws discourage two percent of potential Dem votes, and Romney wins by one percent, will you be down here gloating about the “will of the people”?
This Husted fellow, actively trying to discourage early voting in Ohio. You have some strictly non-partisan justification for this? Early voting is more vulnerable to the CASA-ACORN conspiracy? As you surely must know by now, minority voters are much more inclined to early voting. Their votes are being actively discouraged by the very person who’s job it is to protect their voting rights. You disagree?
So, you expect them to say “Well, sure, the Republicans did everything they could to hamper and discourage me from voting. But thank Heaven I don’t have to worry about voter fraud!”? What effect do you think this will have on their “voter confidence”? Is their “voter confidence” less important?
You are already on record as stipulating that some Republican effort for this crapola is focused on suppressing Dem voters. Suppose it works? How will we ever know what the results would have been if everyone inclined to vote and entitled to vote had voted? How is that functionally different from trying steal an election by way of “voter fraud”?
Is one form of stealing (Republican, legal, real) kosher, but the other (Democrat, illegal, functionally non-existent) is a threat to the Republic?
I have already answered these questions, but am happy to do so again.
The mere fact that an act discourages Democratic voters is not enough for me to condemn it. For example, if I said, “Those who intend to vote Democratic in 2012 are unmitigated poopy heads!” and you were to later prove that my statement discouraged some democratic voters, I would not be chagrined.
You already know that this is my answer, because you have tried to mock the underpinning reasoning–not mine, but a line from the Supreme Court’s excellent decision in Crawford: as long as there is a valid, neutral justification for the acts taken, I accept them, even if there is some incidental negative effect.
Voters have the right to adopt measures that strengthen the integrity of he voting process. You want to call it illegal, but the Supreme Court disagrees.
You also want to lump in early voting, but I don’t. I’m not defending the early voting changes. I am defending the Voter ID laws. I am also perfectly willing to acknowledge that a whirlwind adoption in any state may indeed cross the line of disadvantaging one group too much. I’m fine with saying that a state needs to roll out such a plan over one or two years. But ultimately, it’s fine to require photo ID before voting.
Yes, folks, he’s sticking with “neutral” and “incidental”, and apparently with a straight face too. :rolleyes:
Absolutely no one else is fooled by that threadbare lie. It’s pretty damn sad that he still thinks anyone here should be.
Odd how all the lower court rulings lately have been in the opposite direction, isn’t it? Are all those judges all just not quite smart enough to get it?