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

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Has the question been studied? I can’t seem to find anything by googling right now, but there ought to be stats available regarding who was turned away from the polls in Pennsyvania in November 2012, who got a provisional ballot, and whose provisional ballots were counted or discarded. (Of course, that would not tell the whole story; some others, eligible or not, might have been “turned away” in the sense that they were too discouraged to show up, or e-day came and they could not find their ID and saw no point in going to the polls without it.)

Started new thread in Elections.

[Robot_Arm]

@Bricker

Well, that’s because Gleason and I are different people. I have no idea why he believes that the voter ID laws decreased fraudulent voting to that degree.

And I have no idea why I should be responsible for his opinion, correct or in error.

You’re not responsible for his opinion. But if he’s at all correct that voter ID laws did alter voter turnout, then I think it’s fair to wonder about the trade-off; how many people who would have voted, but didn’t, do we accept in exchange for the rather nebulous goal of increasing confidence. Also, a statement like this from a state GOP chair suggests that the people in power to enact the law have motives far more partisan than yours, and opposing such efforts seems to be far more of a confidence builder than allowing them to proceed.

[elucidator]

They are offering to fix the problem of voter confidence, a problem they mostly created and exploited themselves. Its like being offered a chance to buy some antibiotics from someone who gave you the clap in the first place.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

What else could it be? (In his mind, that is).

Voter suppression?

Seriously, the closing of the gap probably had mroe to do with the economy (which hit Florida pretty hard) than anything else.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

On the bright side, Governor Babyeater can’t hold up the constitutional amendments requiring non-gerrymandered district apportionment now (which he had previously done by refusing to submit them to the DOJ for preclearance.)

[elucidator]

And now North Carolina, kicking out all the jams and getting down!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/23/2340941/nc-voter-suppression/

…The Senate will consider substituted language for HB 589 on Tuesday afternoon. Among the dozens of changes, these are the most onerous for North Carolina voters:

Implementing a strict voter ID requirement that bars citizens who don’t have a proper photo ID from casting a ballot.

Eliminating same-day voter registration, which allowed residents to register at the polls.

Cutting early voting by a full week.

Increasing the influence of money in elections by raising the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 and increasing the limit every two years.

Making it easier for voter suppression groups like True The Vote to challenge any voter who they think may be ineligible by requiring that challengers simply be registered in the same county, rather than precinct, of those they challenge.

Vastly increasing the number of “poll observers” and increasing what they’re permitted to do. In 2012, ThinkProgress caught the Romney campaign training such poll observers using highly misleading information.

Only permitting citizens to vote in their specific precinct, rather than casting a ballot in any nearby ward or election district. This can lead to widespread confusion, particularly in urban areas where many precincts can often be housed in the same building.

Barring young adults from pre-registering as 16- and 17-year-olds, which is permitted by current law, and repealing a state directive that high schools conduct voter registration drives in order to boost turnout among young voters.

Prohibiting paid voter registration drives, which tend to register poor and minority citizens.
Dismantling three state public financing programs, including the landmark program that funded judicial elections.

Weakening disclosure requirements for outside spending groups.

Preventing counties from extending polling hours in the event of long lines or other extraordinary circumstances and making it more difficult for them to accommodate elderly or disabled voters with satellite polling sites at nursing homes, for instance.

Each of these changes, on their own, would be a significant step away from increasing voting rights. Taken together, this is the voter suppression magnum opus…

Voter confidence among North Carolinian’s will soar!

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

On the bright side, Governor Babyeater can’t hold up the constitutional amendments requiring non-gerrymandered district apportionment now (which he had previously done by refusing to submit them to the DOJ for preclearance.)

Good, but, I forget – do the amendments require/permit redistricting at any time between now and 2020 Census?

[septimus]

@elucidator

And now North Carolina, kicking out all the jams and getting down!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/23/2340941/nc-voter-suppression/

Voter confidence among North Carolinian’s will soar!

A great day for America! This is a direct consequence of our noble Supreme Court overturning parts of the non-democratic unconstitutional Voting Rights Act, arguing that the unequal voting opportunities of blacks are a thing of the past largely due to … (wait for it!) … the Voting Rights Act.

Clarence Thomas, no stranger to the unfair advantages blacks get in our anti-white society, filed a concurring opinion because he thought the Court didn’t go far enough: section 5 should have struck down along with section 4b.

North Carolinans are proud to restore natural rules for voting, as God intended. We can only hope other states will follow.

God Bless America!

[BigAppleBucky]

@elucidator

And now North Carolina, kicking out all the jams and getting down!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/23/2340941/nc-voter-suppression/
Each of these changes, on their own, would be a significant step away from increasing voting rights. Taken together, this is the voter suppression magnum opus…

Another link.
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/07/23/worse-than-imagined-voter-suppression-bill-emerges/#more-50868

Anyone who says with a straight face this is anything but vote suppression is a God damned liar.

[elucidator]

If they can do it with a straight face, they are darned good at it.

[BrainGlutton]

From The Voting Wars, by Richard Hasen:

If I wanted to steal an election using voter impersonation fraud, I’d have to recruit a bunch of people to vote at the polling place using fake names. But they might not follow my directions. They might go into the polling place and not vote, they might vote under their own names, or they might vote for someone other than the candidate I paid them to vote for. This is the problem with any elections crime scheme based on voters using a secret ballot in a polling place.

But impersonation fraud represents an even greater hurdle. There are two ways to impersonate. One way would be to have people claim to be somebody else listed on the rolls. This is obviously problematic: If I send you in and direct you to claim to be Thor Hearne, who I know is registered to vote in that precinct, but Thor has already showed up to vote, you would be immediately subject to arrest.

You might be arrested even if Thor has not yet voted. In many precincts, poll workers are local individuals. One of them could well know him. “You’re not Thor” could also land you in jail. Moreover, many places do a signature match. Your signature would not match Thor’s.

The other way of doing impersonation fraud would be for me to get you to fill out a registration card with a false name and address. The voter registration card would be turned into election officials, who will check the name and address against existing records. These forms have to be turned in weeks before the election. I’d then need to recruit people to go to the polling place on Election Day and falsely claim to be a person on the list. And federal law already provides that first-time voters must supply a driver’s license or Social Security number if they register first to vote by mail – or provide identification to election officials when they vote for the first time.

Either gambit requires assembling enough coconspirators to affect the outcome of the election. Could I do it, even in a very small election, without getting caught? We don’t have a single recent example of anyone even attempting it. Why try such a risky scheme when absentee ballots are so much safer and more reliable? [N.B.: Hasen is not talking about fraudulent absentee ballots but bought absentee ballots; as he notes elsewhere in the book, absentee voting is the one area where vote-buying still happens sometimes, because, unlike voting a secret ballot on e-day, it leaves a paper trail which the buyer can check if he has the right inside connections, or simply check in person by watching the voter fill out the ballot.]

The chance that impersonation fraud can effect a presidential, statewide, or even large city or county election is miniscule. Missouri had about four million registered voters in the 2000s. The idea that impersonation fraud could be done on a large-enough scale to affect the outcome of any major race, without detection by government officials, is ludicrous.

[Bricker]

Reposted:

@Bricker

The quote you offer talks about voter impersonation fraud, but you talk about voter fraud.

What about the case in which Sven Amuldsen votes, correctly identifying himself as Sven Amuldsen, but casts an illegal ballot because he’s not a citizen, or a felon without restoration of his voting rights, or has already voted elsewhere? That’s not impersonation, in the sense your quoted author means, but it’s nonetheless a fraudulent vote.

[Buck_Godot]

And how will requiring voter ID help with this non-impersonation voter fraud?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Reposted:

Addressed.

[elucidator]

Proves that it is possible! And if its possible, it must be addressed in no uncertain terms! And if, by some unfortunate circumstance, those methods prove to be advantageous to one particular political party, that’s just a sacrifice the Dems should be willing to make, because freedom!

[BigAppleBucky]

Now that the Voting Rights Act has been gutted by the Supremes, Florida has once again swung into action to purge their voting rolls of Democrats. Last time they started with 182,000 names and through research and complaints from legitimate voters came up with a list of 198.

You can bet Democrats and voters with Hispanic names will once again be the huge majority of those needing to prove their right to vote for at least the second time.

The Miami Herald had an editorial on the subject on Thursday:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/08/3551272/another-voter-purge.html
As the editorial states, the real voting problems in Florida involve long lines at the polls, not aliens voting.

[Bricker]

I agree with this portion of the editorial: “Everyone taken off the rolls provisionally should be notified and have a chance to contest the findings — well before election day.”

If the state of Florida has reason to believe a non-citizen is registered (are you listening, Ramon Cue?) then the state of Florida should give that voter plenty of time – at least sixty days, in my view, to contest the action, and even then should be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and settle the issue afterwards.

[Robot_Arm]

Voter Suppression Alleged in Florida Panhandle Election

 SOPCHOPPY | A small Florida Panhandle town best known for its  annual Worm Grunting Festival is at the center of an investigation into  charges the white city clerk suppressed the black vote in an election  where the black mayor lost by a single vote and a black city  commissioner was also ousted. 

                                           Both losing candidates  and three black voters have filed complaints, now being investigated by  the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, that City Clerk Jackie Lawhon  made it more difficult for blacks to cast ballots by questioning their  residency.

I find this sort of thing more troubling than the credible in-person voter fraud cases I’ve heard of, and my confidence in the electoral process would increase if it could be eliminated.

[BrainGlutton]

@Robot_Arm

Voter Suppression Alleged in Florida Panhandle Election

SOPCHOPPY | A small Florida Panhandle town best known for its annual Worm Grunting Festival . . .

If worms grunt, they grunt very softly.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@BigAppleBucky

As the editorial states, the real voting problems in Florida involve long lines at the polls, not aliens voting.

If the illegals weren’t voting then the lines wouldn’t be so long. Problem solved.