It was your fantasy. You can explain it any way you wish.
Sure. Dr. Barreto was the witness who testifed about that figure and how it was achieved:
(emphasis added)
The bolded portion refers to the basic problem. The figure was arrived at by comparing databases. If the driver’s license databse has Robert Anton Smithson, 1645 Wedge Circle, Loch Haven PA; and the voter database has registered a Robert A Smithson, 1645 Wedge Circle, Loch Haven PA, that’s not a match. According to the method used, Robert A Smithson doesn’t have a valid state ID and won’t be able to vote.
Such is the brilliance of liberals.
You are either deliberately evading my point, or you are “challenged”. Pretty sure its not the second of the two. With the passage of time, the problems are washed away, just as I said. You want to put an eight year “grace period” into these laws, to allow plenty of time for compliance? OK, good to go.
Could be, sorta kinda. Some non-zero number of your fellow reactionaries sincerely believe that the Dems are marshaling huge numbers of illegal voters to the polls. They believe this myth with a certainty that surpasseth all understanding. So, yeah, if they genuinely believed this load of horseshit, their motives might be seen as valid, an effort to remove an injustice.
I have no idea how many Republicans are so impaired. You hang out in their clubhouse, what do you think? Of your fellow Pubbies, how many do you think sincerely believe this?
Why doesn’t the “washing” that occurred in Indiana work to the benefit of the Pennsylvania law?
“Demeanor?” I don’t know the case law regarding “demeanor”, maybe you’ll help out with that…
It seemed suspiciously specific to me too, so I poked around and found this press release form the PA Secretary of State.
The report covers the database comparison I mentioned early on in this thread; it simply tried to match names on the voter registration rolls in PA with the ID database. A total of 758,939 voters couldn’t be matched, and in the breakdown later you can find Philadelphia has 186,830 of these.
The SoS is erring on the side of caution and sending letters to all 758,939 voters found in the comparison, but the figure is clearly a gross over-estimate:
[ul]
[li]22% of the mismatches are “inactive” voters, meaning they hadn’t voted since 2007; since that’s about the term for a driver’s license in PA, these people haven’t voted and probably let their license expire. [/li][li]Other mismatches may have been caused by name variation “Jonathan Smith” vs. “John Smith”, or a newlywed woman with married vs. maiden name discrepancies. [/li][li]And just because someone isn’t in the ID database doesn’t mean they don’t have valid ID–passports and other federal ID, as well as county/municipal ID’s are OK for voting under the law. [/li][li]The law allows a voter to use an expired driver’s license/state ID if it is less than a year past expiration, and any military ID–regardless of expiration date–is valid.[/li][/ul]
Now, as a Democrat I’m all for ginning up this controversy in order to turn out the base. Sure it’s unfair, but I’m glad to see my side fight fire with fire for a change instead of whining about how unfair the Republicans are. Still, from an objective reading, I don’t think voter ID laws are going to have that much of an effect on the election itself, and at the very least the disenfranchisement figures being thrown around are outlandish.
How many people have to not vote as a consequence of having a harder time doing so in order to justify a law aimed at a similarly difficult-to-establish number of in-person fraudsters?
That’s really the crux of it. And part of the divide is political, rather than partisan. By which I mean, a lot of people’s view of individual responsibility says to never harm the person making maximal positive effort (our theoretical Dudley Do-right whose vote is cancelled by in-person voter fraud) in favor of protecting people who could just try harder to avoid the harm (our theoretical granny who has a tough time obtaining proper ID).
My personal moral compass says that protecting one Dudley Do-right isn’t worth harming ten mostly good but not perfect grannies, which seems like a conservative ratio based on what we know about in-person vote fraud.
Where did I say that the Indiana law was fine? I said it was confusing which of itself should make it unacceptable. I also said there is an allowance for a provisional ballot, unlike Pennsylvania, though the ease of use is again a question. Where did i say it was OK? The fact that it was not passed to harass a particular person is hardly a recommendation. The motive of the Pennsylvania legislature will become relevant if/when the actual discrimination is combined with the discriminatory intent of the legislature. Right now it is merely reprehensible.
How many people are “actually” being prevented from voting by requiring an ID? Not - How many people “might” be prevented from voting based on unproven numbers. The large numbers being tossed about aren’t based on “actual” numbers of disenfranchized voters. The anti-voter ID groups can’t produce “actual” numbers and can’t seem to produce an actual “disenfranchized because of an ID requirement” person for the court.
Claims are just that, claims. If you want to change peoples minds or win court cases, you need to provide vetted, undisputed proof.
I think you’re missing two points here. First, both sides’ numbers are flawed estimates. Second, the harm from this kind of law isn’t solely that a small number of people will be outright prevented from voting. It’s that it makes voting harder. On that question, there was no dispute in this court case. That’s why my statement was framed as a comparison between making it harder for grannies to vote in order to protect the integrity of Dudley Do-right’s vote.
if a person lived in a city with mass transit then they would have no need for a drivers license and may never had a place to park a car.
they went to school before photo id existed for them.
library cards and other membership cards have text only.
state id cards require going to drivers license locations and take hours and require payment of fees with renewals. most of these get issued to young people for the purpose of buying alcoholic beverages.
The word refers to the process of making a credibility determination – when a jury sees someone testify, they judge both the witness’ words and his demeanor. Someone who is lying, or exaggerating, or telling a story he knows it false but comports with his political views, has a demeanor that suggests lying. That’s how juries, and judges, make findings of fact.
Why rely on flawed estimates at all? Either there are disenfranchised voters or there aren’t. There’s no point in guessing because people will see that as a guess and doubt the numbers along with the rest of the message as well.
If they can’t produce actual people who are actually “disenfranchised by reason of ID” voters, they have no factual basis for their claims.
Isn’t Dudley Do-Right a registered Democrat in Chicago? Vote Early - Vote Often and bring your dead grandparents to the polls with you. 
There are people who don’t have ID, this is a fact. The point of this law isn’t to make it impossible (although it is certainly all but impossible in some number of cases), the point is to make it more difficult.
You’re gonna have a hard time finding people who cannot get ID. But the goal is to make it harder, and to incentivize people to not vote by adding difficulty.
If I moved your fridge to your attic, you can still eat. But you are less likely to eat over all. And if I make it so you have to take a day off work and wait five hours at the DMV, you are less likely to get an ID.
There aren’t any significant amount of fraudulent votes. So this law is a band-aid soaked in pigshit. It doesn’t do what it’s supposed to and it just makes the wound worse.
They probably got that number from this Inquirer article.
That 50,000 figure is people who haven’t voted within the last four years. A lot of voters only turn out for presidential elections, so many of those 50,000 may want to vote this year.
Even if we accept that those 50,000 won’t be voting, that means that the actual figure is closer to 136,000, which is still way to many to process in the time remaining.
They speculate about former students and others who no longer live in the city. There may be some like that in the 186,000 (or 136,000) figure, but how big a proportion would it be? How much of an overlap is there between the two groups “students and other former residents” and “those without a driver’s license”? I’m sure there’s some, but would it really be a large percentage?
Did I miss the set of numbers provided by the pro-ID group? By that, I mean the number of fraudulent votes they expect to prevent. I’d like to see that estimate.
The law is intended to protect voter confidence. The pro-Voter ID side contends that the law is valid even if no fraudulent votes are cast.
The law imposes only “a limited burden on voters’ rights.” The “precise interests” advanced by the state are therefore sufficient to defeat the challenge.
Hey, wouldn’t it be hilarious if Bricker lost his wallet right before election day?
Hey, we’re talking about a Real American™ here. Bricker’s not poor.
Don’t even joke about Real Americans™ not being able to vote. It’s only not a big deal when they’re lazy and poor.