“Do you support, or oppose, legislation that requires a photo ID in order to vote?”
“Support.”
“How about if 30% of the locations to get such ID have recently closed, or requirements are not communicated properly, or it takes appeal to a local TV station or a congressman to actually be able to obtain the needed ID? Would you support it then?”
“Um…”
That sounds like a push poll to me.
Can you be more specific? “Little or no voter fraud discovered.”
Does that mean zero? How much was discovered?
And how much wasn’t discovered?
Or do you take the position that unless a case resulted in a criminal conviction, it wasn’t voter fraud for the purposes of our discussion here? Do we need to establish each case of voter fraud beyond a reasonable doubt before we can craft laws to mitigate it?
I’m still waiting for you to post actual facts.
Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, you’re probably a lawyer…
Just as you yourself pointed out, there are ways the whole voter id thingy could be designed and accomplished with nothing but positive, albeit minor, effects on the voters.
But that’s not what they did, is it, buckaroo?
Oh, Elucidator said “little or no”. Sorry about that, I misread. Still, I think my cite is useful because some people seem to be under the impression that in person voter fraud doesn’t happen at all. 38 in an average sized state translates to 1500 cases nationwide unless Minnesota is particularly prone to voter fraud. Incidentally, that’s not much less than the number of tax fraud cases the IRS successfully prosecutes. Yet no one who opposes voter ID is calling for ending audits to solve the “non-existent” problem of tax fraud.
No, they didn’t.
So what?
I still support voter ID because it’s still a good idea.
Given the fact that absentee ballots are far more prone to fraud than in person voting, would you support their elimination, Bricker? The vast majority of people can manage to make it to the polls just fine, and given that everyone knows when the polls are going to be open years in advance they should be able to fit their schedule around it or else they really aren’t that committed to voting. There would be a reduction in turn out, somewhat slanted in the direction of Republicans but it would surely be worth it to make sure that the process is secure.
I suspect that the percent of fraudulent absentee votes relative to the total number of absentee votes is in the same ball park as the number of fraudulent votes that would be prevented by having a voter ID relative to the number of voters who will be unable to vote as a result of such laws.
“So what?” After 93 pages, “so what?”? “Some” Republicans deliberately set about rigging the game, and you want to know why that bugs me?
You’re shitting me, right?
You’re not real interested in being taken at all seriously, are you, kid?
No. I get it: you don’t like it when Republicans game the political system to get political advantage. (Your outrage when Democrats do it is less… intense… of course).
But my “so what” refers to what that has to do with the fact that Voter ID laws are a good idea – in general, an admission you’ve made. Yes, they’ve come at the same time as other attempts which aren’t supportable. I agree that unless there’s a compelling case made, we shouldn’t be restricting voting hours or purging voter rolls based on ethnicity of names therein. But must the baby be thrown out with the bathwater? Can’t we keep the Voter ID laws and still oppose other junk?
So, no link to a poll? Would you like to rethink the relevance of any polls you may have seen to the specific objections that people are bringing into this thread and drop the “broad support for voter ID” justification?
No, I would not. Because this argument can be used to undercut any claim of public support for any position.
Does the public support Obamacare? Yes.
“But do you support PCIP Appeals for Eligibility and Reinstatement being held to a May 30, 2014 deadline?”
I guess the public doesn’t have broad support for Obamacare after all?
I asked about that and was told by the county employee that due to the fact that there was no record of my existence, they could not do that. From what I can tell I should have been allowed to vote provisionally, but if they don’t let you do it…what am I going to do, spend a few tens of thousands to sue them?
You can’t imagine why it was chilling? Because I was a native-born American who had never before had someone demand to prove she was a citizen, while dropping vague threats that if I didn’t I could be having the sheriff coming to my door?
It suddenly made me feel like a non-person, and then I started to worry about how much paperwork, personal expense, time, and frustration it was going to take for me to prove I was a citizen.
I can’t imagine where in my original post you read that I felt that voting without the proper qualifications shouldn’t be a crime. It’s more that when I could put myself in the place of someone who may not have 100% correct and full ID and through a bureaucratic fumble was denied the right to vote, it made me re-think my unwavering support of voter ID laws.
Forget Voter ID. Even without Voter ID, if your name doesn’t appear as a registered voter in the precinct roster, they won’t let you vote.
How does your experience relate to the presence – or absence – of a Voter ID law?
And the answer is yes: the law requires that they offer you a provisional ballot.
Not always. Here in the People’ Republic of Minnesota, you can show up with a utility bill or some other thing addressed to you at a given address within the relevant precinct. If a registered voter from the same precinct is willing to attest, under penalty of perjury, that she knows you and knows that you live at that address, you may register and vote that very day.
Told you they were weird.
Fact 1: My name DID APPEAR on the roster - by new name.
Fact 2: Someone or a computer check tried to match my new name which was in the database and then asked “hey, where did this person come from? We have no record of them.” There was apparently further confusion in that my gender marker was changed at the same time.
Fact 3: The election commission sent me a letter claiming I had to prove my citizenship with that new name.
Fact 4: While I could prove such by showing them my original birth certificate and my court order of my new name, it was not going to be corrected in time to vote because the election commission was “very busy” checking the citizenship status of people.
Fact 5: When I phoned them to ask how I could still vote, I was told that I could not cast a provisional ballot.
Fact 6: I didn’t vote.
You seem to be trying very hard to show how I made some critical mistake and that this is all my fault, but it wasn’t. When I changed my name I specifically changed my voter registration information. The problem was a technical or bureaucratic glitch - either some human being missed the part about it being a mere name and gender marker change, or a computer did, but whatever the case someone or something thought I was a brand new voter on the rolls who was unverified. And because I had sent off my drivers license for a new one in my new name, and my passport still had my old name, I had no photo ID other than the temporary thermal printer paper one they provide at the DMV - which I was told was not allowable as an “official” proof of citizenship.
The point is due to a voter ID law, I was denied the right to vote. Before the law I could have just told my name and address, they would have looked it up and found me, and then I would have voted.
I suppose if I was a lawyer or would have hired one I could have marched down to the polling station and quoted chapter and verse of this law or that and threatened all sorts of lawsuits towards the nonagenarians who typically run our polling stations, but I don’t have that ability. How many hours and how many dollars should I spend to be allowed to vote? Not very many. Now you can claim I’m a lazy person who didn’t exhaust all possible avenues of clearing up a situation which I wasn’t informed was a situation until the day before the polls opened, or whatever.
My mistake.
Although the utility bill is not necessary, so far as I can follow from the Minnesota law. The only thing that’s needed is a registered voter swearing under penalty of perjury that he knows you and your address.
Given that with the appropriate question asked I believe a majority of your interlocutors would answer that they would support voter ID I submit that a plurality or even a majority of people answering a such a question does nothing to answer whether they support the measures recently put in place or those currently proposed.
No, I don’t agree that the questions you proposed are “appropriate” in a public poll, and, if used, would constitute a push poll.
There’s a downside, of course, everywhere you go, people are fretting and worrying about voter confidence. They hide it well, though, its almost as if they don’t give a shit.