Not true. I do care. I simply have a moral system that does not regard these laws as immoral, a view shared by the majority of voters. Are the 70 percent of voters who support these laws also amoral?
How do you get to simply define your side as the moral one? And how do you seek to insulate your attack as some factual matter?
Or, in the alternative, the trial judge saw a lying witness.
Because they are assumptions. If they’re trying to “prove” that there are disenfranchised voters because of a new law then they should be able to produce actual disenfranchised voters for the court.
Why yes, yes they are. In the same way that the majority of slave owners were amoral back in the day, and the majority who thought whites shouldn’t marry blacks were amoral back in the day. My only solace is that history will look back on you and yours with contempt for shitting on democracy, and me and mine with pride for having stood up for it.
Are you claiming that several thousand Democrat voters have actually disappeared (prevented from voting)? What are their names? Where do they live? Why didn’t they appear in court? Why can’t they be found? Do they actually exist?
Where is the evidence that Pennsylvania voters have any lack of confidence in the outcome of their elections? Additionally, where is the evidence that their confidence level will be increased because of the passage of this law?
How prescient of the Pennsylvania lawmakers to anticipate this arrest by passing a law that would not prevent her from voting by absentee ballot and even though they were unaware of her alleged violations.
Voter ID may in fact be acceptable to Democrats in Pennsylvania as well. It is the law in question that is unacceptable. In Rhode Island the law requiring a picture ID does not go into effect until 2014, giving ample time for interested parties to prepare a challenge to its implementation and more importantly to obviate the likelihood that the law will be seen to be partisan. Right now a birth certificate or social security card is ok. Pennsylvania starts in 2012. Also and most importantly in Rhode Island a provisional ballot will be permitted in which signatures will be compared between the declaration made by the voter and the voter registration, and where the signatures match the vote will be counted. No such allowance is made in Pennsylvania. The most important reason though is that it is much more difficult to get elected in Rhode Island as a Republican, so Democrat encompasses a very broad spectrum of political thought. Imputing passage of the law in Rhode Island as an endorsement of the disenfranchisement that will be taking place in Pennsylvania is not accurate.
The Delaware law does not in any way resemble the law in Pennsylvania. Acceptable forms of ID are any government document with the voter’s name and address, a picture ID, a utility bill or a paycheck. If a voter has none of the stated forms he can sign an affidavit stating that s/he is the person listed on the election district record. I think the average Pennsylvania Democrat can live with these requirements also. Your implication that Democrats endorse the draconian measures taken in Pennsylvania is flat out wrong and cannot be proven.
Agreed, this is far worse than I ever imagined. Of course, since it’s impossible to have a driver’s licence that doesn’t reflect your current address (I think they self destruct when you move these days) the Voter ID law will prevent these heinous criminal ventures.
Thankfully, nobody is doing anything to mess with absentee ballots. Those little bastards are totally secure*. It’s not like someone could gather up dozens or hundreds of fraudulent ballots and mail them. Nope, totally impossible, nothing to worry about at all.
In fact, all the elderly folks with ID issues should just vote absentee. That way, they** will be able to vote easily, and without the slightest difficulty.
*By “secure”, I mean “more often used by Republican voters”
** By “they”, I mean “their abusive son-in-law” since he will simply take the ballot from their desk and vote the way he wants.
You make several good points, but I must disagree with your questioning how can the elderly not have picture IDs. Many of them have stopped driving. Many of them never did. A great many people in large metropolitan areas never get drivers licenses. Further, the PA law requires that the ID not be expired. You’re a senior who just stopped driving and your license expired? Sucks to be you, no ballot!
Just to reiterate the point made by Budget Player Cadet above:
Here’s a link to the pit thread.
This was posted on FB. I’m throwing it out for discussion.
This analysis is only for Philly but I’d think that this problem exists statewide. I live in PA. Over the years I’ve been to our local PennDOT photo center (not in Philly) a number of times to renew my drivers license. It’s always been packed with other people renewing their licenses (I’ve had to sit and wait an hour or more) and I understand that’s it’s even worse more recently due to cutbacks. Add to this the extra traffic from people seeking Voter ID and you have a big problem. So the assertion that they can’t handle the extra traffic from all the people who will need voter ID seems valid to me.
Also, it strikes me that people who hold 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet may not be able to spend half a day, even a Saturday, waiting in a Photo center, so this could disproportionately affect populations that are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Thoughts?
Yes of course. But that’s not especially relevant to my point. Because of the unreliability of lie-detecting, ordinarily a judge does not make credibility findings unless a determinative fact requires such a finding. Here, not all of the comments on credibility were necessary in that way.
This isn’t a heinous indictment. Judges of all kinds do this when they feel strongly about the case and want to avoid reversal. But in a case where one should be very concerned about the effect of one’s own bias, it is a little bit of dirty pool.
Why is voting unique that it’s the only thing you wouldn’t want to require ID for? Could it be that those who resist an ID requirement are trying to game the system?
Notarization is actually a burden, and a poll tax. And dead people find a way to vote:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php
And tax fraud is rare: Only 2200 convictions per year.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=107484,00.html
And that’s with them looking very hard. In Minnesota alone, over 100 people were convicted of vote fraud in the aftermath of the 2008 election. And a right-wing group had to browbeat the authorities into investigating, because they didn’t want to, but according to state law, had to look into all tips. Other states just don’t bother. But if we assume other states would have similar conviction rates if they actually tried to root this stuff out, we’re looking at 4-6 thousand convictions per year, easily more than we get for tax fraud.
So let’s make a deal, no ID requirement in exchange for ending IRS audits. Why should citizens be burdened with having to prove their income and assets to do their patriotic duty? Why should we spend so much effort going after a non-existent problem?
I’m not just being flippant here. I do think liberals have a good point on this ID thing. But since they don’t believe we should lift ID requirements for anything else, it does smack of politics instead of a genuine concern for people’s welfare. If liberals would be in favor of lifting ID requirements for other things, since they do say it is an onerous burden, then their concerns would seem more sincere.
Well, I simply don’t agree, and don’t appreciate being called amoral or characterized as shitting on democracy in a thread in the Elections Forum.
adaher: What other ID requirements do you suggest can be lifted? Driver’s licenses, passports, what? What are you suggesting we should support in the name of ideological consistency?
It “smacks of politics”, you say? Doesn’t it smack of concern for strengthening democracy by expanding participation in it, as well? And doesn’t the Republican concern with limiting the franchise smack of undermining democracy, not to mention restoring Jim Crow?
You claim that voter ID laws are “common sense”. Perhaps you could be the first to tell us, out here in the reality-based community, (A) the significant real extent of the alleged problem, and (B) how these laws would affect it in any way.
No sugar in her porridge, eh?
For once in my life I get to say that I think my state (MO) has the exact right balance here. To vote you either need: photo ID, voter registration card (mailed to the address you are registered at the week before the election), or a piece of mail sent by the government, a bank, or a utility with your name and address on it.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/voterid/
This eliminates any attempts at election-changing in-person fraud while discouraging almost nobody. I think Democrats would do better to push for these types of statutes and then get the GOP to explain why they are insufficient to address the (perceived) problem.
I wouldn’t refer to it as ideological consistency. Once we’ve established that ID requirements are onerous, then that has implications, does it not? That’s not ideological consistency, it’s basic logic.
They are common sense because Americans are used to having to whip out ID to do virtually anything. If that wasn’t the case, then Americans would be more likely to not regard ID laws as common sense.
As for where I think ID requirements should be lifted, that’s easy. Traveling by plane or train, renting a motel room, getting a job. Of course, if the companies involved want to require ID themselves, they can, but if they don’t care I don’t see where the compelling government interest is.
The GOP would love strict voter ID laws, but courts strike those down. So it seems to me the GOP has already accepted looser standards, as long as SOMETHING is required other than just saying you are someone on the list. An airline wouldn’t accept that as valid, why should precinct workers?