# SC voter ID law shot down
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [December 23, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222 "2011-12-23T22:42:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/101 "2011-12-27T03:32:20Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Aside from the fact that these laws have not been tested in an election, it appears you believe laws should be passed not because they are warranted, but because citizens fail to prove a negative. An odd position for a libertarian.
As a libertarian, I think if the voting laws require a one-person one-vote rule, steps need to be taken to make sure that the one person listed is actually making the one vote.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/102 "2011-12-27T03:34:43Z")
As a libertarian, you should be more concerned that citizens are not being prevented from voting by an unjustified law.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/103 "2011-12-27T04:08:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> As a libertarian, you should be more concerned that citizens are not being prevented from voting by an unjustified law.
I don’t see proving that you’re eligible to vote “unjustified”.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/104 "2011-12-27T04:11:46Z")
It is unjustified if there is no widespread abuse by fraudulent voters.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/105 "2011-12-27T04:16:24Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> As a libertarian, I think if the voting laws require a one-person one-vote rule, steps need to be taken to make sure that the one person listed is actually making the one vote.
There are steps that are already taken to ensure that. I have no idea why you think that there aren’t any.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/106 "2011-12-27T04:25:18Z")
As a libertarian, you should be less disingenuous.
> [@Terr](#):
>
> > [@elucidator](#):
> >
> > Can I ask you a question, Terr? Do you believe, scout’s honor, cross your heart, do you believe that this effort on the part of Republicans is solely motivated by the terrible scandal of voter fraud? And has nothing whatever to do with lowering the number of probable Democrat votes?
>
> \*\*Of course I don’t. \*\*Do you believe, cross your heart, do you believe that if Democrats thought that the these supposedly “ID-less” people would generally vote for Republicans, they would still be this adamant against the voter ID laws? Be honest now.
>
> (_emphasis added)_
You can play semantic games and say that you hinged your opinion on the word “solely,” but that would be as transparent as justifying naughty playground activities on what the first graders did during their recess.
There are dark elements manoeuvring to disenfranchise swathes of the opposition. They play lip service to spectral imaginings of voter fraud and twist logic and reasoning to avoid starkly stating their motivations. That “of course” you don’t believe that these nasty efforts are motivated by voter fraud—and that you justify it because some other people did something wrong that had the same effect—suggests a duplicity and disdain for democracy.
That those the Republicans would disenfranchise—for belonging to a different political party—are among the poorest and least-represented citizens makes the effort that much more loathsome.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/107 "2011-12-27T05:01:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> There are steps that are already taken to ensure that. I have no idea why you think that there aren’t any.
Not adequate.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/108 "2011-12-27T05:02:39Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Not adequate.
How did you arrive at this conclusion, if we have no idea how many fraudulent votes are being cast?
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/109 "2011-12-27T05:07:36Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#):
>
> You can play semantic games and say that you hinged your opinion on the word “solely,”
It is not a “semantic game”. There can be several reasons.
> [@](#):
>
> There are dark elements manoeuvring to disenfranchise swathes of the opposition.
Ooooh. Scaaaary. They require an ID that you can go and get for free. If someone cannot get off his ass and do that ONCE I question his willingness and desire to vote.
Oh by the way I can tell you “there are dark elements manoeuvring (sic) to commit wide spread voting fraud” because there is no ID check requirement. Carries about the same panache. And is just as true (or not true).
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/110 "2011-12-27T05:12:44Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> How did you arrive at this conclusion, if we have no idea how many fraudulent votes are being cast?
The same way you arrived at the conclusion that this will disenfranchise a lot of people when you have no idea how many people have no ID, are registered to vote and intend to vote.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/111 "2011-12-27T05:29:15Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Oh by the way I can tell you “there are dark elements manoeuvring (sic) to commit wide spread voting fraud” because there is no ID check requirement. Carries about the same panache. And is just as true (or not true).
You’ve already made it clear that the boogeyman of voter fraud is an excuse to subvert democracy. That the dissemblance is in the guise of protecting democracy makes it all the more pitiful.
---
### Author:  [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/112 "2011-12-27T05:59:35Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> There is fairly widespread voter fraud with absentee ballots, felons voting, etc..
1. Absentee ballots
- boter picture ID does nothing to address the absentee ballot fraud
- main issue was not being sent out in a timely manner (just a coincidence that overseas and military voters tend to make up the majority of absentee ballots), but given the wonders of the internets this should no longer be any kind of significant issue
- you haven’t shown that there is widespread absentee voter fraud. Heck, many if not most localities don’t even count absentee ballots unless the results are very close. This may be changing given that States like Oregon are moving toward increasing the absentee voting.
Net net, the requirement for voting ID has jack squat to do with solving for absentee voter fraud, even if this is any kind of serious widespread issue, which has not been shown to exist.
1. Felony voters
- This is a States Rights issue, with different Sates setting different rules. [Wikipedia’s overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States):
[WIKI QUOTE] Prisoner voting rights is a state issue, so the laws are different from state to state. Some states allow only individuals on probation and ex-felons to vote. Others allow individuals on parole, probation and ex-felons to vote. As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life, even after the person has served the sentence, while only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow incarcerated individuals to vote.[28]
According to the Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction (“felony disenfranchisement”).[29] The number of people disenfranchised amounts to approximately 2.42% of the otherwise-eligible voting population.[citation needed] This is in sharp contrast to European nations, like Norway, which allow ex-felons to vote after serving sentences and in some cases[30] allow prisoners to vote. Prisoners have been allowed to vote in Canada since 2002.[31] [/WIKI QUOTE]
It only takes 5 minutes of internet searching to discover that not allowing convicted felons to vote historically was used to disenfranchise blacks.
The [9th Circuit Court of Appeals](http://www.congress.org/news/2010/02/09/should_exfelons_vote?all=1)recently ruled that Washington State’s disenfranchisement of incarcerated felons was, in fact, racially discriminatory, though the case is being appealed and might be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Net-net, care to cite felony voter fraud that is impacting elections?
1. As a self identified Libertarian (or is it libertarian), how would you like to see felony voter rules be laid out? The present mishmash state rules where places like Vermont allow felons to vote from jail or Kentucky that makes it a lifetime ban, or something inbetween.
2. In a similar vein, what would you do with North Dakota? You don’t have to register to vote in North Dakota. You going to force North Dakotans to register at the point of a gun or what?
\*\*Terr \*\*- I can’t help but notice a trend.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/113 "2011-12-27T06:04:55Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > There is fairly widespread voter fraud with absentee ballots, felons voting, etc..
>
> 1. Absentee ballots…
If you bothered to read the next sentence after the one you quoted, you would have understood my point and wouldn’t have had to post this lengthy irrelevancy.
---
### Author:  [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/114 "2011-12-27T06:31:28Z")
Irrelevant? Your sentence: “There is fairly widespread voter fraud with absentee ballots, felons voting, etc. Why wouldn’t there be widespread voter fraud using other methods? It is very difficult to prove it, once it happens.”
Your first sentence is not proven. And my points stand including the one about voter ID not doing jack shit to fix the purported issue.
Your second sentence is “prove God doesn’t exist”
Howsabout you answer my questions instead of dodging and weaving? Take it as an opportunity to educate an independant regarding libertarians and their actions. Thanks in advance
---
### Author:  [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/115 "2011-12-27T06:56:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> Your claim is that providing a free ID for a voter is still too much of a hassle because they have to find their way to the DMV to get the ID.
>
> I think it is very relevant to ask how, if these people can’t make it one time to the DMV, how in the hell do they get to the polling places each election day?
>
> If the first is an unconstitutional infringement on their right to vote, then surely the state has to hand deliver the ballot to their homes or else it would put an equal burden on them.
In California, anyone may elect to register as a mail-in voter. Even if you are not a mail-in voter, a complete sample ballot with information on your polling place is delivered to you. (And in Oregon and Washington, it’s a vote-by-mail system. Not sure about other states.) Obviously you can’t mail order an ID card. I get the impression that the states with voter ID laws don’t have unrestricted vote-by-mail registration. And yet, allowing people to vote by mail would eliminate the argument that the ID is an undue burden.
Also, there are typically far more polling places than DMVs.
Also, polling places are typically open until 7pm, while DMVs are not.
Also, have you been to the DMV lately? It’s not as though you simply have to get there, fill out a quick form, and be on your merry way. Getting an ID card takes a significant amount of time and is quite an inconvenience. Voting typically doesn’t take as long (and if it does, that’s a big problem).
Also, DMVs are underfunded and may not be able to efficiently handle the increased load. And while I don’t have a cite for this, I suspect that none of these voter ID laws include significant DMV funding increases.
Also, there is nothing stopping them from slashing DMV funding, shutting down DMV offices, reducing hours, instituting furloughs, etc. and doing it in a way that disproportionately affects areas that tend to vote for their opponents. This is particularly true if one party controls the legislature and the governorship, but also true in states where the governor has the line-item veto at his or her disposal.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/116 "2011-12-27T07:08:54Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Not adequate.
> [@Terr](#):
>
> There is fairly widespread voter fraud with absentee ballots, felons voting, etc. Why wouldn’t there be widespread voter fraud using other methods? It is very difficult to prove it, once it happens.
Your own cites from further up thread ([the ones I debunked in post #47](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14602674&postcount=47)) indicate otherwise, as all of those meager instances of impropriety were discovered AFTER voting had taken place.
Your arguments carry no weight when your own cites refute the point you are arguing in favor of, yet you persist in this tactic.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/117 "2011-12-27T07:30:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The law is constituional under _Crawford_.
>
> The Justice Department can do this to South Carolina, but not to, say Minnesota – or Indiana.
>
> The state can challenge this in federal court, they intend to, and I’ll take anyone’s bet here, up to, say, $500 total, that the Justice Department’s decision will be reversed.
>
> Any takers?
You still feel this way?
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Of course I don’t. Do you believe, cross your heart, do you believe that if Democrats thought that the these supposedly “ID-less” people would generally vote for Republicans, they would still be this adamant against the voter ID laws? Be honest now.
So if you believe that this is an attempt at voter suppression then why are you defending it?
> [@China\_Guy](#):
>
> Howsabout not putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
>
> Just to clarify. Is it your position that widespread voter fraud exists? Cites would be nice. That said fraud caused the wrong people to be “elected”? Again, cites would be nice. And that voter ID would solve this particular fraud? And that requiring voter ID is not targeted at a particular class of people? That there would be no unintended consequences for requiring voter ID. And that this is solely about preventing voter fraud?
>
> Is the above your position as I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
No his position seems to be that voter fraud exists, and mostly on the Democratic side otherwise Democrats wouldn’t be objecting to the voter ID rule so vehemently.
> [@Terr](#):
>
> The same way you arrived at the conclusion that this will disenfranchise a lot of people when you have no idea how many people have no ID, are registered to vote and intend to vote.
I thought we had at least some idea of how many people didn’t have IDs.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/118 "2011-12-27T07:32:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> Your own cites from further up thread ([the ones I debunked in post #47](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14602674&postcount=47)) indicate otherwise, as all of those meager instances of impropriety were discovered AFTER voting had taken place.
Those that were discovered, yes. But how many were undiscovered? All you have to do is vote in place of someone who doesn’t show up to vote and since there is no ID check there is no way to stop you or to know that it happened.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/119 "2011-12-27T07:38:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> So if you believe that this is an attempt at voter suppression then why are you defending it?
That’s not the question I was answering, so that is not the correct characterization of my answer.
> [@](#):
>
> I thought we had at least some idea of how many people didn’t have IDs.
Very vaguely, and out of those you have to find out which ones are registered voters and out of those which ones intended to vote. And out of those you finally have to find out which ones would refuse to get the ID in order to vote. In the end you will probably find a couple. Especially considering that in most states, the easy way to register to vote is by using your picture ID, otherwise you have to jump through hoops.
But since you really have no idea how many such people there are, all these claims of “disenfranchising wide swaths of population” using ID check are baseless.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/120 "2011-12-27T07:43:07Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#):
>
> Irrelevant? Your sentence: “There is fairly widespread voter fraud with absentee ballots, felons voting, etc. Why wouldn’t there be widespread voter fraud using other methods? It is very difficult to prove it, once it happens.”
>
> Your first sentence is not proven. And my points stand including the one about voter ID not doing jack shit to fix the purported issue.
>
> Your second sentence is “prove God doesn’t exist”
>
> Howsabout you answer my questions instead of dodging and weaving? Take it as an opportunity to educate an independant regarding libertarians and their actions. Thanks in advance
If you would restate them without trying to “debunk” strawmen that I didn’t claim (like “voter ID not doing jack shit to fix the absentee ballot fraud”), I would.
In general, you were asking, for some reason, whether I would be pro-state-rights in this matter. The answer is I obviously would be. So if North Dakota wants to allow anyone off the street to vote, have at it. But if South Carolina wants to require ID check, they should be able to do it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=7)