Ah, sorry. I see what happened there. There still isn’t going to be an answer from him, of course.
The current Pit thread on this topic is highly informative about the motivations behind these laws, for anyone who hasn’t dared go there yet.
Yes. And that plaintiff actually testified by video deposition. And the judge observed that contrary to the petitioners’ claims, she certainly qualified for absentee ballot voting, and even if she did chose to appear in person to vote (she testified by video deposition because she was too infirm to make it to the courthouse, and had to stop in the middle of her video because she had problems) – even if she did appear in person, she would be entitled to cast a provisional ballot.
So – the 93 year old who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT unable to vote.
That’s what happens to these kinds of claims: on closer examination, the truth appears.
What was the point?
Seems to me the point was to establish grounds for an injunction under Pennsylvania law. What do you imagine the point was?
And what happens to the provisional ballot? As you know :dubious: , if the ID is not forthcoming later, then the ballot is thrown out.
Yes, it is.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
See, I can do that all day. You think it isn’t. I think it is. Goo dthing we have a system to resolve such differences in opinion, eh?
An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that if the Voter ID law keeps more legitimate votes from happening than illegal votes, it is a bad law.
Since we know that 750k people are kept from voting, all we’d need to do is see evidence for 750k or more illegal votes. Which we don’t have, since actual voter fraud happens something like once for every 15 million votes.
Bricker’s assertion that voter confidence makes the law worth it is utter nonsense, of course. Keeping nearly a million people from voting to keep perhaps one fraudulent vote damages the integrity of the election much, much more.
We don’t know that 750K people are kept from voting. That is an untrue statement – in fact, it’s a statement that the judge specifically found to be untrue.
Wait, the 750k statement has a high standard of evidence, but we can assume wide-spread voter fraud?
Interesting that. How fortunate for you.
Any number more than zero would be greater than the number of cases Pennsylvania knows to exist, wouldn’t it now, Counselor?
Or at least any number more than “a few dozen”, which is the number you came across, er, somewhere unciteable, presumably the same place as your revealingly-confident assertion that they’d be Obama voters.
Who said we can assume wide-spread voter fraud? Who was it? Who?
Well you took issue with my argument. I assume that you have evidence that there are more illegal votes happening than people who are kept from voting, right?
Or perhaps you find it perfectly fine if say 1000 people were kept from voting for each illegal vote prevented. Is that the case?
Well, someone said “And ensuring voter confidence in the results of the election is worth “incommoding” voters.”"
But you’d have to be pretty innumerate to think that confidence would be affected by a few dozen cheaters. So we’d have to assume wide spread voter fraud if confidence was being affected, would we not?
No, we would not.
Our confidence is also affected by the knowledge that we could see a repeat of Florida in 2000 or Washington State in 2006, where a very small number of illegal voters could swing a result. A few dozen cheaters does affect confidence.
First, no one has been kept from voting. The petitioners had the opportunity to present witnesses that would be prevented from voting and they couldn’t come up with a single one.
Every time you make an assumption, Lobo, your assumption is skewed towards the best possible outcome for your argument. Stop making assumptions. They die when confronted with reality.
It appears from here that the judge took Bricker’s most favored position: that the issue is about disenfranchising voters, preventing them from voting, rather than the more subtle but equally pernicious motive of discouraging disagreeable voters. Simply because the law does not actually forbid voting, that doesn’t make it all kosher and full of crunchy goodness.
Your impartial adherence to truth above partisan concerns is a beacon to us all.
It is a bit tricky, right? Because the person who will be stopped from voting is the person that doesn’t know they need an ID and shows up without one (or the wrong one). And then can’t go back for one because they have to go to work or pick up their kid or take the bus back to the nursing home.
If you show up in court ahead of time to claim you’ll be disenfranchised you are, by definition, not someone who will be disenfranchised. It’s a decent catch, that Catch-22.
The source of the 750K voters is apparently this.
It’s basically a worst case estimate produced by looking for IDs in the DOT database that are not in the voter ID database. Apparently a missing middle initial is enough to trigger a warning letter.
So, the question comes down to “How lenient or stringent are the prefects at the voting stations going to be?” Are there guidelines that have to be followed? Can it be * guaranteed * that voters of both parties will be treated equally when they come to vote?"
So you’re telling me that the ad they put in the newspaper didn’t find anyone without a license? Shocking.
My assumptions are based on the worst case scenario for democracy. I suppose I could assume that zero people don’t have ID and one billion illegal aliens will be kept from voting.
We know that some large amount of people in Penn don’t have IDs. We also know that there are practically zero known cases of in-person voter fraud. My position is that if more people are kept from voting than kept from illegally voting it is a bad law.
So why are my assumptions questionable?
Ah, but if we had that close an election, I’d kind of want to know how many eligible voters had been turned away because they were lacking valid ID. I know if that happened, though, the Supreme Court would have our back.