ooh snap
I don’t know what they were thinking, but I’d prefer that no one carry concealed. I think if you’re going to carry a gun I want to know about it so I can stay far away from you.
Why? His case was an easy way to refute the claims that non-citizens don’t vote, and simultaneously illustrate the difficulty in prosecuting the case of a non-citizen who votes and then denies doing so.
I have zero objection to tightening of the voter registration process. But that doesn’t erase the fact that non-citizens sometimes vote, and prosecuting them is more difficult after the fact if the voting did not require ID, because the voter can much more easily simply deny the act.
As with the felons out on parole, the report indicates that many of them believed that they were legally allowed to vote. I guess they took that “no taxation without representation” to heart. They’re here legally, they applied to vote, somehow that (huge) detail was missed, they got on the rolls, and they voted.
If they didn’t use subterfuge to get on the on the rolls I don’t see prosecutors going after them. But I could be wrong.
And as you point out, those voters account for less thana 0.001% of all votes cast in the election. Not to mention that again, requiring government-issued picture ID wouldn’t have prevented them from voting.
Belief should be both actual and objectively reasonable.
I struggle to understand someone that never picks up the basic concept that citizens and only citizens vote in federal elections, especially since to register they had to sign a form after affirming that they were citizens. It’s hard to imagine missing all those clues.
Yes, they did: they filled out forms indicating they were citizens.
So what?
If the election had been ultra close these non-citizen votes would be the focus of intense debate. Here, they are not, but that’s why we should remedy the situation before it becomes critical.
But it would allow them to be successfully prosecuted.
You presume he actually did vote, which was never established by the source you kept citing.
And it demonstrates your willful blindness of the overall point of contention - legislators using the excuse of a tiny number of non-citizen voters or potential non-citizen voters to stymie a larger number of citizen voters for the purpose of biasing elections.
I mean, seriously, 200+ pages into this thread and you still maintain the counter-argument is that bad votes never happen?
Yeah, no idea where I got that idea from you.
I can’t say I do, either, because there’s an obvious difference between “bad votes have never happened” and “the specific case of Ramon Cue that you repeatedly cited as evidence in support of your position was not proven to have happened even by your own cite.”
So I don’t think you did get the idea from me; you’re just pretending to because - to use a cliché that has become tragically common in recent years - it fits your chosen narrative.
I’m willing to stipulate that somebody somewhere (probably even in this thread) has said in-person voter fraud has never occurred. Such a person would be making a dubious claim. If you choose to cling to that and presume it is true of all your opponents, and thus your opponents; arguments are based on a faulty premise, I feel confident in calling you disingenuous at least.
Saying in-person voter fraud has virtually never occurred and that is not a problem on the scale claimed by Republicans and Fox News has a sound basis, though.
If they are on parole or probation, then they have not paid their debt to society, not only may they not carry concealed, but they may not carry at all, or even posses. The entire point of the amendment was not to restore gun rights to people after they had paid their debt to society, but to restore their gun rights while they are still on probation. Now, I do not really fear someone voting while on parole or probation, but I do have a concern about someone on parole or probation for a violent crime carrying a gun, as, since they are on parole or probation for committing a violent offense, they are still considered by the justice system to be significantly more likely to re-offend with another violent crime than the general population, if there is anyone that we are allowed to restrict guns from, this should certainly be the demographic.
Now, there are two issues here, one is felons regaining the ability to vote, and the other is whether they should lose their suffrage at all.
The first would be after they have finished all of their criminal rehabilitation, they are off parole and probation, and have been deemed to be not much more likely than the general population to reoffend. At this point, I think all of their rights should be restored, including not just voting rights, but gun ownership rights as well. The cohort you are speaking of in your post are still on parole or probation, so is in a different situation.
Now, as far as them losing their suffrage while in prison, I disagree with the concept. Unless the punishment fits the crime, in that they were involved in voter fraud or treason, they shouldn’t lose their vote at all. They are counted as population in the district, but they do not get to make their voices heard, IMHO, this is very sub-optimal.
Now, as far as gun rights, I don’t really see any reason to strip non-violent offenders of their ability to posses and purchase firearms, even while on parole or probation, though if they are living in a half-way house, the house may have rules about not allowing guns inside.
Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump despite all obvious indications of his unsuitability. I can’t say which ones are slow and which ones were willfully ignorant.
And like I said, maybe they took that they were paying Federal taxes (and had presumably been assigned a taxpayer ID number) to mean that they were entitled to vote: “No taxation without representation” was kind of a big thing in our history. But I’m fine if local prosecutors want to go after them. I just don’t see it as a slam dunk.
And requiring a photo ID would not remedy the situation. Are you slow or willfully ignorant?
How would photo ID help to prosecute these 41? We know who they are.
“You voted illegally!”
“No I didn’t. Anyone could have shown up there and said they were me and voted. It’s not like we have to show an ID to vote”
I was musing on this myself. It would have to be a photo ID that shows citizenship, like a passport, but since roughly half of Americans don’t have passports, there’d have to be some kind of citizenship ID, presumably issued to Americans on or about their 18th birthdays or to anyone how becomes a naturalized citizen.
Make those free and easy to get with an eager civil service given bonuses for how many citizens in their jurisdictions they can serve, and that might not be a bad idea. It just happens to not be the idea the voter-ID proponents are looking to address.
Bricker’s contention is that, had they had to show ID, then it would be easier to prosecute them, as they could simply claim to have not voted, and it would be on the prosecution to prove they did.
With an ID, the proof is in, and it becomes on the defendant to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the ID that the poll worker testifies to seeng was in fact the voter’s ID, and that the ID was held in the hand of the voter at the time.
I don’t know exactly how well that defense will work, but I do know that the poll worker who took my ID last time barely glanced at it, and didn’t even look at me, so if I found myself being accused of illegally voting, then I would use the defense that they are not diligent enough at checking ID’s. Once one case gets precedent like that, I don’t know that the ID for prosecution thing will continue to work, but it’s a good pipe dream for now.
Yes, I know. My scenario shows what happens when an ID is NOT required and someone is accused of “illegally voting”
“And these three polling volunteers say you did. And these two observers say you did. And this scrawl right here is your signature. And we pulled the prints from the paper and these prints circled here are your fingerprints.”
“We the jury find the defendant guilty.”
Funny that all they’d really need to do is have people put a thumbprint on the roll to prove their identity later. You could even use indelible ink to prevent double-voting. But that would be too easy.
Yet somehow prosecutors manage to convict all these other criminals without them showing photo ID when they commit their crimes.
I’m definitely for this.
These pages are littered with sensible suggestions for making voter ID free, convenient and reliable. There is a very good reason why Republicans won’t do that.
They don’t want to.
As cited in this thread, a Republican proposed the use of fingerprints and the left-leanign privacy advocates’ group opposed the plan.