Story from NY Daily News article here.
The article goes on to state that an estimated 750,000 residents of PA do not have the necessary IDs to vote. 10% of the state population.
Will this be upheld on appeal? How much does it hurt the Obama campaign if it stands?
It will be upheld on appeal, because it’s consistent with the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Crawford v. Marion County.
It won’t hurt Obama much… a few dozen votes lost from illegal aliens and would-be duplicate voters.
How do you get from 750,000 residents to a few dozen votes lost?
Nate Silver analyzed the potential effect of voter ID laws for his 538 blog. In particular, he questioned the 750,000 figure, noting that this included database matching problems–such as a married woman registered in her married name who carries an old ID with her maiden name–and only compared voter rolls with ID’s issues by the Department of Transportation (i.e. it ignores folks with other types of picture ID, like a passport). Based on the experience of other states, the actual percentage likely affected by this law is closer to 2-3%. His final analysis (which he himself said was rather crude) showed the potential vote suppresion could reduce Obama’s chances of winning the state by 1.2%. Given that–according to his model again–he expected Obama to have an 84% chance of winning PA, he considered the impact to be fairly minor and one that could be mitigated almost entirely by using it as a rallying point with the Democratic base.
While I agree with his by-the-numbers analysis, to me the problem with the law is that it opens the electoral process to charges that it’s a rigged game. I notice, for example, that there is no real effort on the part of the state government to educate voters about this new polling requirement; per the article, it’s all being left to the AFL-CIO and “several other allied groups”.
That’s astoundingly ingenuous and assumes that every single eligible voter without an ID learns of these new rules and acquires an ID.
By your own comment, you demonstrate the utter futility of these laws, if you feel that incommoding 750,000 voters is worth avoiding “a few dozen” illegal votes.
I would think that the folks who originated this law would have checked the demographics, but I was wondering why it is assumed that most of the folks without a picture ID would be democrats. The first thing everyone wants to do when they turn sixteen is get a drivers license. I have known very few adults in my life that didn’t have a drivers license. Three, in fact. And as far as the elderly go, don’t they skew republican? I would think that this law would affect both parties about equally. Am I wrong?
Yeah, I basically agree with Nate Silver’s analysis; at this point, Obama just isn’t in any danger of losing Pennsylvania. Frankly, these kinds of tactics are more problematic in a state like Ohio, which has a history of having fucked up its elections in the past and is now championing its reduced early voting capabilities.
My biggest problems with voter ID laws are that (1) they’re allowed to exist at all, and (2) their supporters won’t even call them out for being the suppression tactics that they are. For fuck sake, the leader of the GOP state legislators in Pennsyvlania (now infamously) flat out said that the laws were designed to allow Romney to win that state, yet proponents of the law - even in the face of that blatant fucking truth - still cling to the idea that these laws are somehow necessary to prevent voter fraud.
At least be honest about what you’re doing guys.
I don’t agree with the 750,000 figure. And learning of new laws and obeying them is every citizen’s responsibility. And ensuring voter confidence in the results of the election is worth “incommoding” voters.
The other 749,988 will dutifully truck it down to the DMV and then vote for Romney, obviously.
And of course, the only reason there is for anyone not to have confidence is dishonest rumor being put about by people who believe that primarily voters of the other party will be “incommoded.”
Hey, in their defense, they swore in open court that there was absolutely no evidence of vote fraud and no reason to even suspect there would be any in November. They only lie and try to scare people when they’re not under oath. :rolleyes:
This is the fun part. We have a presumed “few dozen” false votes being prevented by this law. Of course, I have yet to see a single study that reviewed voting log books to discover the extent of on-site voter fraud, so we don’t even know if it’s that many.
On the other hand, we have documented cases of people dropping off hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots, and not a single peep from any Voter ID proponent on how this erodes confidence in our voting system.
No, we don’t have to stop fraud that actually happens, that has been proven to happen, we need to stop fraud that nobody can be bothered to dig up a single case of. By stopping this theoretical fraud, we will prevent actual citizens with actual voting rights from getting their chance to vote.
This is a foolish statement, and you know it is based on your follow-up below.
No it isn’t.
Also, there is no lack of voter confidence, other than that incited and promulgated by the Republican party.
Cite for “a few dozen”? :dubious:
Nota bene that the Commonwealth itself stipulated that they don’t know of any. ANY.
My biggest joy with these laws is that they’re allowed to exist at all.
Are we taking a survey?
No, he didn’t. He said that it would allow Romney to win. I don’t agree that that’s true, but there’s a difference between “this change will mean that I win,” and “this change is designed to allow me to win.”
Doesn’t it bother you that at the hearing, before the judge, where it was most critical to actually identify people who would be disenfranchised by the law, not one witness passed the test? In other words, even though supposedly 750,000 people would be unable to cast their vote, not one witness could be found who could demonstrate that?
The only thing they’d have to do to disqualify a witness would be to prove that ID’s exist. That’s not the friggin’ point, and you know it.
Oh, come on! How many people in this country do not have a picture ID? If you don’t have a driver’s license you get a state issued ID card. You do not need to even be in the country legally to get an ID card.
The elderly? How did you make it to 80 or 90 years old and not have valid ID?
All the arguments about the difficulty imposed on some voters who might have to travel and pay to get a valid ID all fall away if your state just moves to the simple, easy, cheap, vote-by-mail system, where no one has to leave their home, show ID, take time off work, etc.
All of these voter fraud, ID, and related issues are just silly if you move to vote by mail. Before my state, Oregon, went to vote by mail, my county clerk encouraged people to register as absentee voters and get their ballot in the mail. This simple step saved the county a shit load of money. I was VBM for years before the entire state adopted it. Now it is the only way to cast an Oregon vote.
The whole showing up at the local school/polling place is a pratice of community voting experience whose time has passed. Maintaining polling places and voting hours eliminates more working class voters than voter ID ever will. And it costs a lot of money.
Too busy on voting day, can’t find someone to watch the kids, can’t leave work during voting hours, work nights or odd shifts, forgot which day to vote, don’t have transportation to get there, ill and can’t make it, too far to travel and too long to stand in line? Just forget it, I’m not voting in this election.
The is the entrenched method of subtle voter suppression that goes on all over the country, and most people seem just fine with it.
How about we mail you the ballot and give you 2 or 3 weeks to study the issues and make an informed decision? Oh, hell no, we can’t have that shit!
Um, that’s a Bricker quote and I kind of resent being attached to it.
From the article cited above:
"Among the plaintiffs who tried to block the law is a 93-year-old woman who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1960 but would now be unable to vote.
Read more: Judge upholds Pennsylvania voter ID requirement
"