For example, I know you’re not talking about prosecutors convicting on aggravated assault charges, right? That’s because in a aggravated assault case, the crime is immediately apparent to the victim and the police are summoned right away. The victim’s recollection of his attacker is fresh. The attacker, even if he fled the immediate scene, may well have left behind physical evidence tying him to the assault.
You’re not talking about uttering a check that bounces, because the criminal typically does show his identification.
You’re not talking about trespass at night upon a cemetery, or injuries to trees, fences or herbage on grounds of a public square, right? Or tampering with or unlawful use of cable television service? All those are crimes that don’t involve ID, that prosecutors can and do prosecute successfully, but differ in material ways from voting illegally. Do you understand why, or would it be helpful for me to explain further?
If not, can I ask why you offered up the observation, when you knew that the majority of crimes didn’t properly analogize to this one?
Was it to try to score some sort of bogus rhetorical point?
Perhaps your state differs, but mine doesn’t collect signatures. Nor would there be a paper that could reliably yield fingerprints.
You’re right that the testimony of an observer could be legally sufficient. But it’s not practically sufficient, especially when the poll watcher has seen hundreds of voters. Do you understand why this is so?
I’m not sure I understand your idea of “precedent” here. Because one judge or jury disbelieved one poll worker, all poll workers’ testimony would become legally or practically insufficient?
I’ve been a poll worker, and there is already a whole carload of materials needed at each polling place. This would add multiple stamp pads (and replace them each election, because the ink would dry out before the next time), special paper rolls to put the thumbprints on, and a bunch of supplies for people to clean their thumb afterwards. And probably more spoiled ballots, because at least a few voters would get inkmarks on the ballot that would confuse the scanner. (Plus if it was an identifiable thumbprint, then under Minnesota law that ballot is invalid and must be rejected.)
This would be another station added to the already 6 stations that voters have to go thru now (and all 6 need poll workers to staff them). And every one adds to the time required, the space needed, and could lead to longer lines at the polling place. And longer lines discourage voters – every year we have reports from polling places where there were lines of cars driving up. seeing the line, and driving off again.
This additional time/longer lines would be the major problem.
And it has disparate impact – blue-collar workers, shift workers, parents with young children, all have tighter schedules and longer time waiting in line affects them more. And they generally tend to vote more Democratic.
But the main objection is that this added requirement is for a nearly non-existent problem. The number of invalid voters is so tiny; the addition time & longer lines of this would probably exclude many more voters.
Which Republican? This thread is too long to search through and googling shows me two possibilities. One is in New Mexico and one from Oklahoma. I can’t find much in the way of details. In particular, I can’t find out how opposition from a single group managed to derail this proposal.
If memory serves, the various times we’ve discussed fingerprint proposals both of those examples have been used, most recently New Mexico.
I don’t say that the privacy group was solely responsible for derailing, but their opposition was certainly front and center – and there wasn’t writing about lockstep support from the Democrats, either.
Democrats in lockstep? Are we talking about the same party? They can’t even get everybody to agree on a name – I’m looking at you, Minnesota and North Dakota.
“I do not belong to any organized political party – I am a Democrat.” --Will Rogers
If one judge or jury disbelieves one poll worker, then that becomes a potential defense for anyone else accused of fraudulent voting.
I am not a lawyer, and my involvement with criminal law has been tangential at best, but it does seem to me that if that defense worked once, then it would be a defense that would be attempted again, and the more often it works, the more often it will be attempted, and the more often it will work.
The new mexico example was far more involved, and actually involved collecting the biometric ID’s of all the registered voters. That’s not invasive enough to make me uncomfortable, personally, but I can see how it would make more people much more uncomfortable than the fingerprint only being used as an alternative, in lieu of photo ID. Not only is it a greater invasion of privacy, but it also would come at a much higher price tag, two wammys against it that have nothing to do with democratic ideology.
By that I mean that there is no precedent set. A defense lawyer can defend Andrzej Narutowicz against the charge that he, a non-citizen, voted illegally by questioning the recollections or the proper procedure from the poll workers. The finder of fact (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) is responsible for weighing the testimony and deciding if the witnesses are credible.
Next week, another finder of fact (another jury, or judge) will consider similar charges against Gabriel Duda, with different witnesses. Whether the finder of fact believes or disbelieves those witnesses will be independent of the Narutowicz trial.
You appear to think that if the Narutowicz trial uses that defense, then others will too. . . but no. That’s not how it works. Regardless of the success of the tactic at the Narutowicz trial, I guarantee you that Duda’s lawyer will use it, because casting doubt on the recollection of prosecution witnesses is a basic defense. EVERY lawyer will use it, unless there’s some crazy theory of the case that allows those witnesses to be unmistaken but your guy still not guilty. So, no, the defense working, or not, in an earlier trial will have little bearing on its use, or effectiveness, in later trials.
I’m curious why Gorsuch didn’t vote on the recent North Carolina voter ID case. It was a 4-4 tie. (He was the one who didn’t vote, right?) Is he not allowed to vote on cases that were being heard before he got confirmed?