Pennsylvania Upholds Voter ID Law

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

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?

Voting is almost uniquely collective. You need ID to buy alcohol or drive a car because the effects of someone doing either without the correct identification can be drastic to both you and others. One single case of voter fraud, or hell, even a thousand cases of voter fraud spread around the country, has no effect. Hell, a million cases of voter fraud in one district could, potentially, have a net 0 effect if the votes nullified each other correctly. And there is yet to be any evidence that voter fraud is a partisan game (mostly because, well, the sample size is way too tiny). Oh, and most fraudulent votes amount to nothing anyways, because there are safeguards in place to correct such errors. Not to say it shouldn’t be stopped, but the ID requirement is, well, unnecessary.

It’s possible that those who resist an ID requirement are trying to game the system. It’s also possible that those who resist the request for notarized absentee ballots are trying to game the system, and it’s also possible that Diebold essentially gave the 2004 election to George W. Bush. Neither case is likely (at all), but if you want to play Silly Baseless Hypotheticals (the new game from Milton Bradley!), I’m not interested.

Notarization is actually a burden, and a poll tax.

It’s just what is necessary to ensure that the votes are not faked en masse! /rightwinger

No, seriously. If you want to demand voter ID to ensure that the 5-6 cases of voter fraud each election are prevented, then I think it is entirely fair to demand notarization for absentee ballots. It’d probably discourage less people from voting. Like, what percentage of votes are handed in via absentee ballots? Less than 10%, I’m guessing. And after all, it’s not like people can’t get their letters notarized. Those who are too lazy to do so… Well, I guess they’re too lazy to vote. /Uzi impression

And dead people find a way to vote:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dead-voted-in-governor-s-race-1163612.php

8 cases, most of which were clerical errors or people sending in on behalf of their recently deceased spouses. Excuse me for not seeing the fire.

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.

Cite?

@Bricker

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.

Well, I’m sure Larry The Cable Guy doesn’t appreciate being called lowbrow.

@doorhinge

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.

As others have already pointed out, that’s the ingenious part about these laws: you can’t really find anyone who is truly disenfranchised, so you can say “See? Everyone can still vote” and be technically right. It’s still dishonest as fuck and misses the point, but it’s technically correct.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

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.

So… Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to show you the multitude of studies that prove that “voter confidence” is a made-up issue before you stop using that point?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15170550&postcount=272

Seriously, dude, stop lying.

[Cheesesteak]

@Bricker

The law is intended to protect voter confidence.

… from an imaginary problem. An issue created out of whole cloth by people who are in favor of this law. The proponents of the law did not do the most basic, most trivial of research, they did not bother to even examine the scale of this problem.

The real question is… why?

Don’t these people want to know how many fraudulent votes get cast? Are they really incurious, intellectually empty people? Didn’t any of the “yes” votes care that there wasn’t the slightest evidence of this fraud happening, on anything but the most minimal scale?

Or… is it the fact that the proponents do not actually care about voter fraud? Their real interest is in disenfranchising groups they feel are not likely to vote for them. Sure, they pay lipservice to the idea of voter confidence, but only to establish support for the law.

A study of in-person voter fraud might show that it is vanishingly rare, and thus eliminate their ability to pass the law.

If these folks REALLY cared about voter fraud, what have they said about securing absentee ballots?

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

So… Just out of curiosity, how many times do we have to show you the multitude of studies that prove that “voter confidence” is a made-up issue before you stop using that point?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15170550&postcount=272

Seriously, dude, stop lying.

I rebutted that study. More specifically, I showed where, by their own definition, they did not address voter confidence correctly.

Did you read those posts of mine?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

I rebutted that study. More specifically, I showed where, by their own definition, they did not address voter confidence correctly.

Did you read those posts of mine?

Must’ve missed them, my apologies. I also missed the posts where you demonstrated that voter confidence, you know, is actually an issue. Because right now we’re basically going on your word here.

[Bricker]

@Cheesesteak

… from an imaginary problem. An issue created out of whole cloth by people who are in favor of this law. The proponents of the law did not do the most basic, most trivial of research, they did not bother to even examine the scale of this problem.

How do you know?

Don’t these people want to know how many fraudulent votes get cast? Are they really incurious, intellectually empty people? Didn’t any of the “yes” votes care that there wasn’t the slightest evidence of this fraud happening, on anything but the most minimal scale?

It’s the most minimal scale that’s potentially the problem.

If an election is decided by 100,000 votes, it’s obvious that voter fraud could not be an issue. If 250 votes were cast illegally, that means the actual margin of victory was 119,750. Who cares? The right candidate won.

In that circumstance, voter fraud is a non-issue.

But if an election is decided by 137 votes, then 250 illegal votes becomes a huge issue.

It is that potential that creates the problem of voter confidence.

[Marley23]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Seriously, dude, stop lying.

You cannot call another poster a liar in this forum. This is three warnings for you in less than 24 hours, so I am suspending your account for a short time. The next time, the suspension will be longer or may be permanent.

[Jack_Batty]

Isn’t it enough to know that **Bricker **doesn’t agree with a study to know that it’s bullshit? How about getting on board, huh?

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Must’ve missed them, my apologies. I also missed the posts where you demonstrated that voter confidence, you know, is actually an issue. Because right now we’re basically going on your word here.

Finally, the State contends that it has an interest in protecting public confidence “in the integrity and legitimacy of representative government.” Brief for State Respondents, No. 07-25, p. 53. While that interest is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process. As the Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.” Supra, at 1618.

Quoting Crawford.

[Bricker]

@Jack_Batty

Isn’t it enough to know that **Bricker **doesn’t agree with a study to know that it’s bullshit? How about getting on board, huh?

That doesn’t really address my arguments in rebutting the study, does it?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Quoting Crawford.

Of course verifying the voter’s identity can be established many ways. There is no reason it has to be a picture ID, right?

[adaher]

Here’s an article about the Minnesota cases:

Capitol View®

In Hennepin County, 23 people have been convicted of voter fraud and eight cases are pending. In Ramsey County, 36 convictions have resulted from the 2008 elections as of last spring, including cases involving ineligible voters who registered, but who did not end up voting.

PoliGraph also requested voter fraud conviction data for every county in the state. The data, collected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, shows that 144 people have been convicted of voter fraud since 2009.
Now those are just convictions. In order to get a conviction, the state has to first, actually care, and second, prove their case. All it takes to get out of a conviction is to credibly say you didn’t know you were ineligible. The actual problem would be quite a bit bigger than the proven intentional ineligibles voting.

To me, voter ID doesn’t really solve much. Registration fraud is where the issue is. And absentee ballot fraud.

[Jack_Batty]

@Bricker

That doesn’t really address my arguments in rebutting the study, does it?

Ok, I’ll address it. I believe the study and not your rebuttal. Happy?

[Cheesesteak]

@Bricker

How do you know?

Please don’t ask me to prove a negative. I’m not the one proposing the law. The people proposing the law have a responsibility to identify the problem they are trying to solve with it, not me.

But if an election is decided by 137 votes, then 250 illegal votes becomes a huge issue.

Sure. Are there 250 illegal on-site votes per PA election, or is the real number more like 12? Are these illegal votes actually people who are not allowed to vote, or people voting multiple times, or are they people voting in the wrong district, or people not currently registered, but legally allowed to vote? Would these illegal votes have been prevented by the Voter ID law? How many absentee votes are fraudulent?

These are trivial questions that any competent person would ask when presented with a “fix” for a problem. I don’t have an answer for any of them, neither do you, and that should bother you.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

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 first sentence contradicts the second, unless you think voter-ID supporters are irrational.

@Bricker

The law imposes only “a limited burden on voters’ rights.” The “precise interests” advanced by the state are therefore sufficient to defeat the challenge.

Yes, that is a fair summary of the conservative position, which again, I don’t think is necessarily a matter of partisanship. And it may even be the correct argument under federal equal protection law, in part because there is no constitutional right to vote. But, as you know, states provide a different set of rights than the federal government, and this is fundamentally a question of state law.

And, as my first post in the thread should suggest, this isn’t even as especially good problem for the courts to resolve. The crux is a question of policy. A question of balancing.

[davidm]

@Bricker

But if an election is decided by 137 votes, then 250 illegal votes becomes a huge issue.

It is that potential that creates the problem of voter confidence.

And if an election is decided by 137 votes then 250 people who were unable to obtain the needed ID becomes a huge issue.

So you’re trading the problem of theoretical fraudulent votes swinging an election for the non-theoretical problem that some people who should be able to vote won’t have the proper ID. All in the name of voter confidence.

[suranyi]

@Bricker

How do you know?

It’s the most minimal scale that’s potentially the problem.

If an election is decided by 100,000 votes, it’s obvious that voter fraud could not be an issue. If 250 votes were cast illegally, that means the actual margin of victory was 119,750. Who cares? The right candidate won.

In that circumstance, voter fraud is a non-issue.

But if an election is decided by 137 votes, then 250 illegal votes becomes a huge issue.

It is that potential that creates the problem of voter confidence.

Voter confidence can be eroded both if people think illegal votes might be cast, and also if people think that legitimate voters were turned away at the polls unfairly.

This law addresses one problem at the cost of the other. In the above example, the election could just as easily have turned because 250 people were mistakenly prevented from voting.

[elucidator]

Well, now, Bricker has a point, voter confidence is a totally huge issue. Why, in every coffee shop, beauty parlor, watering hole, any gathering of Americans, that’s pretty much all they talk about! I can’t tell you the number of times I’m chatting with strangers, and the subject of voter confidence leaps to the fore. Well, I can estimate it, of course, like the way I do estimates in my hobby as a unicorn spotter. To date, including today, that number is, approximately, zero. Not to put too fine a point on it.

Now, if you go to the places where you find the real Americans, like Red State. Breitbart, Fox News, NewsMax the conversation is even more intense. Of course, these are people who know, have the facts at their fingertips, about how the Democrats are exploiting illegal aliens, felons, and scofflaws to overwhelm the silent majority of conservative voters. Otherwise, they wouldn’t win anything, would they, what with America being basically a center right country.

No way an atheist Muslim communityist agitator gets elected President without massive voter fraud!

[Bricker]

@Cheesesteak

Please don’t ask me to prove a negative. I’m not the one proposing the law. The people proposing the law have a responsibility to identify the problem they are trying to solve with it, not me.

That might be so, if we were talking about a proposed law.

We’re actually discussing a law that has already passed. If you want to repeal it, then it is up to you to shoulder the burden of proof.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

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.

You mean, like some guy claims to be an eyewitness to someone promoting voter fraud by illegal aliens, but tells stories in two different ways, with substantial details at variance? That sort of “demeanor”?