I dunno, we can name presidential assassins individually.
Of course, it reminds me of something Jon Stewart said about Death to Smoochy, a movie he’d been in and which had bombed spectacularly:
“I asked for the box office totals. I got a list of names.”
Actually, he has long since forthrightly sidestepped that point. He only contends that voter confidence is a valid neutral value, not that the value is an overarching concern or even very important, only that it exists.
Well, some fix is necessary, if 100 (or however many) felons are on the voting rolls, but some thousands of others aren’t. We’re looking at an “equal rights” violation. Either change the law, or clean up the registry.
If it isn’t relevant, why the hell are you hammering on it so hard, rather than just backing off and admitting it isn’t relevant.
Voter ID not only wouldn’t have stopped those felons from voting, it also wouldn’t have been helpful in prosecuting them. (They might not have been prosecuted! They can say, correctly, that their names were on the voting list! They received voting material in the mail. The poll officials permitted them to vote. They signed their names, like everyone else. They were relying on information given them by public officials in the exercise of their duties. Many juries would acquit them, blaming the registrar of voters for the screw-up.)
You’ve hitched your wagon to a sea-horse. Cut the reins while there is still time to swim back to the surface.
Well, actually I was curious why felons should be blocked from voting in the first place, but that’s possibly grist for another thread.
Come to think of it, I may as well start such a thread in GD.
For one thing, there is being “on paper”. That is anything wherein the felon is still entangled in legal restrictions. Prison time, parole, probation is the drill. When all of that is complete, you are “off paper”. Some places, you can vote again. But it can be confusing, esp to people who are not all that bright to begin with.
In many places, the probation officers workloads are well past demanding into absurd. If a probationer has done well, no problems or not been caught, he may get a pass from his PO, doesn’t have to report, he can consider himself more or less “off paper”.
But he isn’t, really. Not until his probation is officially over, whether he is required to report or not. If he so much as attempts to register to vote, he may be breaking the law, even if he is under the mistaken impression that he is off paper.
Droll bit of irony there, as there are so many in our, ah, criminal justice system. Its the guy who wants to be normal again, wants to be a citizen, that is most likely to screw up and try to register.
And so it goes.
Well, the thread’s in GD now.
I just got myself trained, certified and sworn in as a vote inspector (poll worker) in Suffolk County, State of New York.
The procedures to ensure honest elections are more extensive than I had imagined. Voter ID fraud might be possible, but certainly not on a wholesale basis. Photo ID of new voters is required. Possible ID frauds would be a vote by a dead citizen and a vote by a properly registered voter who has not yet voted.
The state is rather good at informing the board of elections about deaths and a fraudster voting ahead of a legit voter would have to hope he or she could reasonably match the legit voter’s signature (and age), know that voter’s name and address, hope that the legit voter was personally unknown to the inspectors (which is actually a bit unlikely since the inspectors are locals and have the job over many years) and that he, the fraudster, was early enough to beat the legit voter. All possible, but a heck of a lot of work and chance taking for one lousy vote.
A true fraud, by jiggering the vote count, would require a conspiracy on the part of six people, three from each major party, and a good deal of hoping that an audit of the paper ballots was not performed.
There are dual controls on everything.
All of that covered the process up to the submission of tabulations to the BOE computer. After that, I have no idea, but I’m sure the people designing the system do and we equally careful in their designs and execution.
I suppose after watching the system in operation a few times, I might be able to come up with better fraud scenarios, but right now I can’t.
I think the basic answer to your question is because all of the arguing was about voter ID with respect to voter-impresonation-fraud.
So one paragraph of one post of yours in 100+ pages just didn’t stick in my brain, and the point you are now trying to make (and in particular the distinction between “crimes that voter ID would make nearly impossible” and "crimes that voter ID would in no way interfere with the commission of, but would potentially make easier to prosecute) is a complicated enough one that I basically missed it entirely (as, apparently, did everyone else).
I’m not sure “complicated” is quite the word. “Sophisticated” might be bit better.
“Valid neutral justification” is the crux of the biscuit, it is a discrete entity, binary, it either exists or it doesn’t. And no matter how puny, weak and shriveled it may be, so long as it so much as exists!…that’s all he needs.
And if its just one dumb-ass ex-con over-eager to regain his citizen’s honor and rights, doesn’t matter, “voter confidence” is injured, and “voter confidence” is a “valid neutral justification”, because the Court said so.
Its not always the complicated makes my head hurt, sometimes the simple is worse.
It really wasn’t all about voter ID with respect to voter impersonation, and it wasn’t only a single post. It was my response to the objection that Voter ID did nothing to stop unqualified voters. It was said a lot. Here are some more samples.
Is it possible that you glossed over the many times I said this? Or that you focused on voter impersonation because in your view that was the main argument being used by its proponents outside the SDMB and you imputed that same mindset to me?
May 2014:
November 2013:
November 2012:
July 2012:
You make a pretty irrefutable case. (That you were saying what you claim you were saying, not that what you were saying is RIGHT, of course 
)
Presumably something along those lines. It’s easy to think a thread is about what they think it’s about, if you see what I’m saying.
Thanks.
I think so.
But I try to make an effort to read and understand the arguments I am replying to AND the other posts in the thread. I believed that you did as well, but now I suspect you read primarily the posts between us. Since we never really touched on the prosecution issue in great detail, I suspect you formed the impression you did.
This explains why you were able (unlike the majority of your compatriots) to accurately comprehend and respond to the points I raised, but still remain unaware of this particular point.
How is that, as a notional explanation?
There are 5971 posts in this thread, spanning a couple of years.
I don’t think that anyone would contend that Bricker has never posted anything about ineligible voting by felons.
This fact does not mean that each and every one of his posts is implicitly about felon voters.
Bricker is a lying weasel-fuck.
When did I claim each and every post is implicitly about felon voters?
I’ve spoken of non-citizen voters, and voters who are otherwise legitimate but are registered in two jurisdictions and vote twice.
I’ve spoken of voters who create a false persona to gain two votes, like the guy who registered his dog.
Where is the lie?
Originally, you idiots leapt onto the thought that I was somehow lying by endorsing adaher’s “more than 100” cases. The theory you tried desperately to advance was that I never before advanced any theory except that of voter impersonation.
Then I provided a counter example, and the claim slightly shifts. Maybe I said it once, but it was never consistent.
Now I show a consistent series of posts, and you’re left to sputter about lying weasels without any actual basis.
How so? It seems pretty clear to me that this current flareup of hostility is a rare case in which both sides were pretty blameless.
With the most recent set of links he posted, it’s pretty clear to me that Bricker has, all along, honestly believe that one benefit of voter ID laws is that it makes it potentially easier to prosecute voter fraud of types other than voter-impersonation. And he has clearly attempted to communicate that over the course of this thread. At the same time, most of this thread has been focused on voter impersonation, meaning that was the issue that was in the front of many minds. This led to a miscommunication about Adaher’s cite, which (in the context of an already emotionally charged thread) led to some nasty words being exchanged. But, in this particular case, I don’t think Bricker was lying. (There are other problems with how his argument applies to issues like felons voting, but there’s no reason to think that he did not honestly intend for his arguments to apply to that issue all along.)
Bricker:
None of which makes much difference. You will recall that this pitting is about Republicans using the dignity of law to award themselves an undeserved political advantage, to discourage and dishearten their adversaries. Hardly matters if voter id *could *be a perfectly cromulent means to secure the all-important value of voter confidence if it is perverted to partisan ends.
You’ve already stipulated this, you’ve already accepted, albeit coyly, that “some” Republican legislators were up to no good. Leaving us, of course, with the problem of separating the sheep from the goats. Those Republicans who were not part of this sordid scheme, we can hold them to be blameless, mere innocent lambs frolicking amongst the daffodils? They are not responsible, since all they did was vote for it?
What is “voter confidence” if not one factor in the larger question of voter equality, that all persons are equal in the voting booth? We could fairly say that voter id laws are not sordid and nefarious in those instances where the legislature made efforts for outreach, efforts to ensure that voter id was easily available. Efforts that recognize and respect voter equality and thus ensure that no such skulduggery was afoot.
Setting those aside as gems of civic virtue, we are left with those states where Republican legislators were up to no good, and further emphasized their corruption by laws that can have no other purpose but to award themselves undeserved political power.
They are who we are Pitting here, as emphasized in the OP. Put baldly, you efforts to assure of us of the legitimacy of voter id are not actually relevant to the topic at hand, they are they arguments you would like to have, not the one we were actually having.
I stand ready to applaud and heartily congratulate those Republicans who stood firmly against allowing their party to be corrupted by such underhanded legislation. IIRC, there was one. One. Count 'em, one.
Unless, of course, you know about some others? I suspect that if you had, you would have mentioned it, but you’ve been rather busy, too busy to notice or respond to my several reminders. Let me offer you another opportunity, then, to bring to our attention those many, many Republicans who forthrightly refused to take part in this sordid scheme! That we may all praise them and honor their integrity and commitment to equality before the law!
How about a bet, then? I give you five dollars for every Republican state legislator who firmly refused to cooperate in this sordid scheme, and you give me one for every one that did?
You still don’t get it? All you have to be able to do is to dream up some bullshit “valid neutral justification” and then all is cool.
I have a valid neutral justification to eat Bricker’s testicles.
He’s almost certainly done having progeny. Testosterone supplements are freely available. And most importantly, I’m hungry.
So, do the morally right thing, Bricker. Let me eat your Huevos-Douchebagos.
If a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.
It’s very relevant. You’d like to see Voter ID laws overturned. To do so, you invoke the spectre of underhanded dealing. If Voter ID laws aren’t the issue, quit criticizing them.
I don’t agree there is a sordid scheme in play.
(1) You’re trying to make it sound as if your little principle here is a well-established and agreed upon fact that you’re just reminding us of, as opposed to simply your opinion
(2) Using the phrase “partisan interests” tries to frame this issue so that it’s just one of the nearly limitless number of situations in which politicians pass laws because they think passing those laws will get them reelected, or because passing those laws benefits a group that donated to them, or what have you. However, I firmly believe that laws which MEDDLE WITH ELECTIONS ought to be held to a much higher standard. If a president decides to give a $200 tax refund to every American shortly before congressional midterms, and blathers on about stimulating growth and getting the economy moving, but he also goes out of his way to make sure that that tax refund is linked in everyone’s mind to his party – and if we as dopers suspect that that particular tax refund’s negatives actually outweighed its positives and it was done purely for partisan reasons – well, that’s the kind of shit that goes in Washington all the time, and I might or might not get outraged about it. But that’s not systematically attempting to interfere with people’s franchise.
(3) Even aside from those two concerns, there’s a question of proportionality. There’s a reason that so many different legal areas have various sets of tests and standards… you can’t discriminate unless it meets a “compelling and immediate need”, or whatever the heck the precise wording is. That’s because we’ve set up our system of laws to prevent people from coming up with true-and-relevant-but-trivial justifications for passing laws whose overall impact is unjust. There may be no such test in place for laws-that-make-it-harder-for-demographically-suspicious-sets-of-people-to-vote, but there sure as hell SHOULD be.