So this is a serious concern?
And… you contend that because Republicans ignore this concern, it shows their true motivation with regard to Voter ID laws is not voter confidence?
The first question that comes to mind is… in states controlled by Democrats, are these concerns being addressed or ignored?
I don’t want to repeal it, I just want to vent my spleen.
They don’t care about voter fraud, this is their “get out the vote” drive. If they could, they’d shut down voting locations in poor areas across the state, but that would be too obvious, there’s no cover, they would lose the court case. This is their way to stop poor people from voting, and they’ve attached a paper thin veneer to it.
It’s not that the law is invalid, or unconstitutional, it’s that the law is a steaming pile of horseshit.
When it comes to proposed laws, I can pretty well guarantee that the next one that comes up won’t have any studies behind it, and it won’t matter to the people voting for it. Because it’s not about the fraud.
I’m in no position to enforce forum choice, but we have forums to rant - vent spleens - without any expectation that the ranter can adduce facts in support of his position. We also have a forum for less vitriolic sharing of opinions without any expectation that proof or structured argument will underly the offered opinions.
If I announced, without proof or argument, that the reason Democrats disfavor these laws is that they want and need illegal votes to win, I would rightly be criticized. Wy is I appropriate for you to announce, without proof or argument, that Republicans have such a crass motive?
I guess this comes down to a disagreement as to how difficult it is for some people to find the time to sit for hours in a PennDOT photo center. For you and I it may be a slight inconvenience, for people who need to take time off from a second or third job, and find transportation, and find someone to watch the kids, it’s a hurdle that they may decide just isn’t worth it.
Of course, if they have health issues, they can just get an absentee ballot and bypass the ID requirements. So could potential vote fraudsters, but apparently that fact has no effect on voter confidence.
Voter confidence is an insincere bullshit argument on the part of the right, otherwise they’d be vigorously calling for the investigation of high profile cases, since high profile cases, especially ones that aren’t prosecuted or at least investigated, are the most likely to erode public confidence.
Mind you, I’m not accusing **Bricker ** of insincerety. I’m sure that he’s sincere and that he supports a legitimate investigation of the questionable voting activities of, for example, a gentleman named Mitt Romney.
If it’s so onerous, then isn’t that a big problem that affects a lot more than voting? I know it sounds like I’m beating a dead horse here, but wouldn’t the right answer be to make THAT process easier?
Couldn’t we start by getting rid of the post-9/11 requirements? It’s not like the terrorists faked their identity. The requirements are stupid and accomplish nothing except to make it hard for people to participate in American life.
Bricker, the Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai has stated publicly that the Voter ID law will help Romney win the state. This suggests that senior Republicans believe that a significant number of voters, Obama voters in particular, will be affected by the law. He may be incorrect, but it is clearly his belief, and goes to motive.
One can charitably presume that he means there is a significant amount of Voter Impersonation, with those fraudulent votes going largely to Obama.
Yet, according to AP
Not aware of any incidents. Interesting…
So, we have:
You tell me about their motive. You give me a sensible explanation of their motive.
The only explanation that works is that Turzai believes that a type of fraud, of which there are zero known incidents, is actually widespread enough to be expected to affect the presidential election. Personally, I don’t think he’s that stupid.
Given that there have been no terrorism incidents involving fake identity in the US, what is the motivation for making it harder to get ID?
Could it be that both parties hate poor people and want to prevent them from getting bank accounts or jobs?
Of course we should be making it easier, but shouldn’t we at least hold off on these new requirements until that’s been done?
Here’s a study by the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center.
I happen to live near a PennDOT photo center. Until this issue came up, I never realized how inconvenient it is for a lot of Pennsylvanians to obtain and renew driver’s licenses. It’s definitely an issue. To extend those inefficiencies to the voting process, which I would argue is more important even than driving, is unacceptable.
Of course, voter confidence is more important than actually being able to vote, so I guess it’s a sacrifice we’ll have to make.
The thing is, the only way someone doesn’t have ID, no matter how hard it is to get, is someone who relies completely on another for care. You can’t work without ID, can’t open a bank account, can’t travel.
Can’t vote? None of those things you mentioned is guaranteed by the Pennsylvania constitution. Voting is.
Actually: Qualifications of Electors
Section 1.
Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.
http://www.pahouse.com/pa_const.htm
We talk about the right to vote a lot, but there really is no such right. The US, and every state, has regulations declaring who is eligible and who is not. Verification of that eligibility is subject to reasonable regulation.
As a matter of fact, I can think of no actual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights where ID requirements are unacceptable. Heck, we’ve got the same people saying that there’s a right to vote without ID, demanding that people who advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate must identify themselves. And the right to engage in political speech is actually a universal right, unlike voting.
Available here.
Have Republicans pushing for voter ID law met even the minimal standards offered by the report?
The report makes reference to the 2004 New York Times poll on confidence, which showed a plurality of voters lacking confidence in their votes being counted properly. No such poll is referred to in the case of voter fraud. Such a cite is not evidence that voter confidence will be increased by instituting voter ID.
Here’s another quote from the report:
Suddenly they have all sorts of onerous requirements and disfavoured language. Care to establish where Republicans have met the bipartisan requirements of this report?
“Reasonable regulation”. Changing those regulations at the last minute in a way that puts an uneven burden on different segements of the population is not reasonable.
We’ve gotten by fine until now without these requirements. Nobody has shown that this kind of fraud actually occurs in numbers greater than the number of those who will be burdened. In fact, nobody has shown that it occurs at all.
Let’s wait, beef up the system for supplying ID, and make sure that everyone who needs and wants it can get it easily. That, unfortunately will take longer than till November.
Or how about this for a compromise. PA has loosened up on the birth certificate requirement because some people simply don’t have one and are finding it difficult or impossible to obtain one. So now you can get an ID if you can provide a social security card, and two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill, deed, or lease.
So why not simply accept those at the polling place? This wouldn’t lessen security. Anyone who could fake those at the polling place could fake them at the ID center. This would solve the supposed fraud issue, at least as well as requiring the photo ID, and it would remove a large part of the burden.
How would that be unacceptable?
I’m pretty sure that what I’m about to say has been touched on earlier in this thread, but the bottom line is that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law will only prove to be problematic if the state ends up going to Romney and the margin of victory is less than the number of provisional ballots. Seriously, such a scenario would create a giant shit-storm of epic proportions that could rival the fiasco in Florida in the '00 election.
But that just isn’t going to happen. Pennsylvania is simply too blue of a state, and regardless of how this law plays out the state is still safe Obama territory, period. Moreover, for how controversial this law is it’s important to remember that past this presidential election it will become a non-issue going forward; the entire basis for how onerous the voter ID requirement is lies in the fact that it’s being mandated during the 2012 election and not after the election takes place. In the long run, people will just adapt to the law and Pennsylvania will remain a Democratic state.
Keep in mind, all of this is coming from a guy who is deeply concerned about voter suppression efforts that the GOP seems to be undertaking in several battleground states across the country. I was initially very worried about Pennsylvania’s voter ID law ostensibly ceding the state to Romney, but now I’ve just come to accept it as a (presumably) settled, albeit controversial, hurdle that that state’s electorate will now have to face.
Frankly, I think efforts such as voter purges taking place in states like Florida (and as of a few days ago, Iowa) are far more troubling than Pennsylvania’s voter ID law. Ohio’s early voting fiasco is also worrisome, but even in that case I can’t help but think that people will just adapt to the new early voting conditions and still vote for Obama.
I wonder what, if any, the legal implications of this are? It’s not even clear how she got the ID.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/17/pa-voter-id-plaintiff-gets-card-amid-appeal
Yet somehow we put a Republican in the Governor’s mansion and Republicans in charge of the state legislature and they managed to pass this bill. I wish that I could be as sanguine as you.
Not much. She wasn’t the only plaintiff and everyone acknowledged that PennDOT could exercise discretion. Probably not the best PR for plaintiffs though.
Hey man, shit happens. Wisconsin is a pretty damn blue state as well yet Scott Walker and the GOP were somehow elected to be in charge of its state government, and in spite of that it’s still far more likely that it’ll go for Obama in 2012 than his GOP opponent. My own state (CA), which hasn’t gone for a Republican POTUS since 1988 just got through having a GOP governor (ol’ Arnie) who had been elected to two terms in that office.
It’s all in the ebbs and flows of state politics, but there’s still a disconnect between what the public might choose at the state level versus what they’ll decide nationally.
Why do you get to decide what is, and is not, reasonable?
Don’t we have a system to resolve such questions? HOw come suddenly it’s by divine edict of King Davidm I?
Two reasons:
Poll workers are part-time, unpaid volunteers, who don’t have the training or expertise to examine a large number of different format documents and determine their authenticity. DMV clerks are paid professionals who have received such training.
Because that’s not the scheme that was passed into law and upheld by the courts.
Darn good bet that some of them do. Only question is how many. Amongst a group that is known to have a high percentage of people who (apparently sincerely) believe that Obama is a Muslim, why would we imagine that there is some limit to their credulity, when so many believe something that is certifiably batshit?
Either they believe, all evidence notwithstanding, that voter impersonation fraud is real, tangible and effective, or they are simply engaged in an unprincipled grasp for power.
So, take your pick, stupid or cynical. I can forgive stupidity.