# 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:** 9
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/161 "2011-12-27T20:32:25Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> “No need to assume. There isn’t one. The best efforts of the party whose interests would be served by another round of voter suppression have\*\* failed to produce even one instance anywhere\*\*.” - ElvisL1ves, upthread.
And you haven’t shown us voter suppression, you’ve shown possible instances of voter fraud, which is an entirely different thing.
A dead person’s vote isn’t suppressed because someone else voted in their place.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/162 "2011-12-27T20:39:57Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> And you haven’t shown us voter suppression, you’ve shown possible instances of voter fraud, which is an entirely different thing.
That’s what ElvisL1ves was referring to. He said there was not one instance of voter fraud that could be fixed by ID check. Read his post again.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/163 "2011-12-27T20:47:20Z")
> **[Judge: Let's air details of fraud :
Local News : Memphis Commercial Appeal](http://web.archive.org/web/20081201092314/http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_5548537,00.html)**
>
> A judge said Monday he thinks the public is owed a more detailed explanation about an alleged plot by three poll workers to throw a 2005 election to Ophelia Ford, now a state senator.
The workers admitted to voting fraud charges against them, yet never said what motivated them to fake at least three votes, two of them cast in the names of dead people.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/164 "2011-12-27T20:49:20Z")
> **[African-American former Congressman supports voter ID, concerned about fraud](https://redstate.com/soren_dayton/2011/10/20/african-american-former-congressman-supports-voter-id-concerned-about-fraud-n40844)**
>
>
>
> Image via Wikipedia
>
> So the left would have you believe that the voter fraud debate is really about racist Republicans trying to prevent African-Americans and other minorities from voting. The...
" I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.
```
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt."
```
---
### Author:  [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/165 "2011-12-27T20:50:39Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> That’s what ElvisL1ves was referring to. He said there was not one instance of voter fraud that could be fixed by ID check. …
Or, ya know, we _could_ just compare the voter registration rolls with the Social Security death index and solve the “problem” of dead folks voting the easy way.
I know, that’s just crazy, a photo ID is so much more secure. I mean it’s not like there’s anyone out there with a phony driver’s license. :dubious:
CMC fnord!
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/166 "2011-12-27T20:54:09Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> That’s what ElvisL1ves was referring to. He said there was not one instance of voter fraud that could be fixed by ID check. Read his post again.
And yet the sentence you quoted was about voter suppression.
I see where you’ve made numerous posts against voter ID laws. I mean, you use different words than that, but your meaning is quite clear.
:rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/167 "2011-12-27T21:00:41Z")
(Missed the edit window because of a phone call.)
ETA: You seem to be under the impression that you can overwhelm us with the sheer volume of blog entries and anecdotes you post. Since I’ve already shown at least one of your “sources” to be unreliable (and that’s a charitable description), you might want to rethink your strategy.
You have yet to show that this is a problem any more pernicious or persistent than the problem of Nobelium that I described earlier in the thread. As has been the case for all the years that I’ve ever seen this idea being pushed, you are trying to solve a problem that simply does not need solving. It’s as though you are proposing Elephant Patrols or mandatory vaccinations for unicorns.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/168 "2011-12-27T21:35:41Z")
> [@](#):
>
> …In 2008, even NPR had a report about the problems in Alabama…
Even NPR, the broadcast wing of the Comintern? Even they? I reel in horror! Proof positive that hundreds…maybe several hundreds!..of instances of voter fraud have been tracked by the sharp eyed sleuths at _RedState_ and Fox. What, _Free Republic_ is on vacation?
But, point taken. Whoever said there were no such instances were wrong, there were several! The problem then advances from non-existent to minuscule. Maybe house to house searches are in order, in the scruffier neighborhoods? Hey, we could round up all the guns, too! What’s that you say? Your “cold, dead hands”? Well, if you insist…
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 27, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/169 "2011-12-27T21:49:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> And yet the sentence you quoted was about voter suppression.
No it wasn’t. Read it again.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/170 "2011-12-28T01:25:28Z")
I see now why I didn’t grasp the logic, I wasn’t drunk. I told a drunk friend about it, and he explained it to me. See, there is a problem with voter fraud. A small problem, an insignificant problem, but a problem nonetheless. And this isn’t really the best solution, because there really isn’t a “best” solution to an insignificant problem, how would you measure? Relative to what?
So the Republican solution to the problem is just as valid a solution as any other. The fact that it is a nasty and underhanded way to score political points by fucking over the electorate is not relevant to its value as a solution! Considered just as a solution, it is as workable as anything else. Judging it as a dastardly trick removes it to another set of considerations, issues like justice and fairness, which are not really a direct part of the problem/solution paradigm.
So, as a solution to a problem that barely exists, its perfectly workable, since you will most likely never know any difference. The other stuff is extraneous, unless you want to drag justice and fairness into it. You can’t get insights like that without good Irish whiskey. Maybe the SC legislature is totally full of shitfaced systems analysts. Would explain a lot.
Yeah, yeah, I’ll give you back your laptop when I drive you home, you’re drunker than my dog. Give me your shoes, you’re too drunk to walk.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/171 "2011-12-28T15:27:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#):
>
> I’ll put forth the point that I think is necessary in any voter fraud discussion:
>
> A vote improperly denied is worse than a vote improperly cast.
>
> Either one has the same chance of swinging an election unfairly, and that’s a terrible thing. But I’m unaware of any US election in the Information age, from local sewer district manager to president, that can be shown to have been swung unfairly by either improperly denied or improperly cast elections. (Although there is a case to be made for the improper denial of votes in 2000 affecting the presidential election–but we can set that aside for the moment, since if it’s true, it only strengthens my claim).
>
> The improper casting of a ballot has no other ill effect.
>
> The improper denial of a ballot has a very specific effect: the individual whose vote was denied suffers the indignity and rejection of civil society at the moment of the denial of the ballot. That’s a big freakin’ deal to a lot of people.
>
> Given our current circumstances, i.e., a society in which more people appear to have their ballots improperly suppressed than appear to cast improper ballots, we’re putting attention in the wrong places. Instead of looking for ways to prevent people from casting improper ballots, we need to be looking for ways to prevent people from voter suppression.
I absolutely disagree that the improper casting of a ballot has no other ill effect.
The Supreme Court opinion upholding Indiana’s voter ID law quotes the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Report, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections § 2.5 (Sept.2005), a report generated by a commission hardly chaired by biased conservatives: former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
> [@](#):
>
> The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.
When a voting system has no safeguards to ensure only qualified persons cast votes, it undermines confidence in the valdiity and integrity of the outcome.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/172 "2011-12-28T15:33:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> When a voting system has no safeguards to ensure only qualified persons cast votes, it undermines confidence in the valdiity and integrity of the outcome.
Does denying the vote to people without ID, who are otherwise qualified to vote, not also undermine confidence in the validity and integrity of the outcome?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/173 "2011-12-28T16:11:34Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Does denying the vote to people without ID, who are otherwise qualified to vote, not also undermine confidence in the validity and integrity of the outcome?
Not in the same way.
What you call “denying,” is not really denying. The state is giving photo IDs, at no cost, to those people wishing to vote. Because this option is availoable, and becvause the barriers to getting the ID are slight, those people that don’t vote because they don’t have an ID fall more into the category of choosing not to vote, which does not undermine confidence – since in our system we do not make voting mandatory.
Now, you may complain that the barriers to getting the free photo ID are greater than slight, but the fact of the matter is: the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and they are the ones who get to decide these things.
So as a matter of law, when a state offers free photo IDs and requires a phot ID to vote, they are within constitutionally permissible bounds.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/174 "2011-12-28T16:36:28Z")
**Counselor** , we are quite aware that injustice can be perfectly legal. But thank you for once again, tirelessly, pointing that out to us.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/175 "2011-12-28T16:41:54Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> I am also with Terr in that if you don’t have an ID in this modern world, or you can’t be bothered to take a trip to the DMV to get a free one, you have no business voting. And attempting to allow such people to vote is such obvious pandering by Democrats to people on the public dole to go out and vote for more Democrats to keep the public dole coming to them.
>
> Not hard working people who are trying to get by. Those people would need to present ID at their jobs. These are people who do nothing but suckle at the government teat and want more. It is shameful that the Democrats have sunk to the level that they can’t win by getting votes of semi-responsible people in society. No, they need to drag a homeless guy on a crack binge out of his cardboard box and wheel him to the voting booth.
Perhaps we should make getting federal aid (or better yet, poverty in general) a disqualifying factor in voting. Perhaps we can elminate federal, state and municipal emplyees while we’re at it. We don’t want these bloodsuckers to influence the outcome of elections when they might be trading their votes for fat government paychecks.
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> Apparently no one that is anti-voter ID law has ever walked into their polling place to find that they have already voted.
>
> I have.
>
> So explain to me how it is not a violation of MY contitutional rights when I am not allowed to vote after someone else used my name to vote?
Do you think there would be more people denied the vote on election day because of what you are talking about or because of the ID requirement?
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Yes.
So you don’t think the standard under section 5 of the VRA is ultimately different than the standards under section 2?
I don’t know the details of the South Carolina law, but lets assume it has all the bells and whistles that the Indiana law had. In the Indiana case, the Supreme Court upheld the law in a plurality opinion despite admitting that “the record contains no evidence that the fraud [a voer ID requirement] addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana” because it has occurred in other parts of the country and because other types of voter fraud has occurred in Indiana. The Court showed deference to the state in this case despite evidence that the law was intended to reduce voting among the poor (who were disproportionately black and Democrat) because the law was facially neutral and addressed purportedly legitimate state concerns so they ignored the fact that the underlying motivation was intended to reduce voting among the poor. The opinion seems to assume that the burden of getting identification is light while at the same time acknowledging that it will reduce voter participation among poor voters. But the court gets to a favorable ruling because on the alw because they ultimately defer to the states discretion in this case where the burden seems reasonable to them.
I’m not sure that the case would have gone the same way if Indiana was one of the Jim Crow states. Doesn’t section 5 provide more discretion to the Justice department than section 2? Don’t you cast a more jaundiced eye at these laws coming from states that practiced a century of segregation?
Under section 5 the special states must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color and in some cases language. The burden of proof is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose. If the supreme court finds the same probable intent of the law in South carolina that they found in Indiana, shouldn’t they find that in the case of one of the special states.
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Wrong. Look at the post again.
How about you try restating what you meant now that I have taken a couple of cracks at trying to decipher what you were trying to say. Because it seems pretty clear to me (and in similar cases, the Supreme Court) that voter suppression is what motivates these types of laws.
> [@Terr](#):
>
> …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.
No, I don’t I just have to show you that they are ELIGIBLE voters.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/176 "2011-12-28T16:48:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Not in the same way.
>
> What you call “denying,” is not really denying. The state is giving photo IDs, at no cost, to those people wishing to vote. Because this option is availoable, and becvause the barriers to getting the ID are slight, those people that don’t vote because they don’t have an ID fall more into the category of choosing not to vote, which does not undermine confidence – since in our system we do not make voting mandatory.
>
> Now, you may complain that the barriers to getting the free photo ID are greater than slight, but the fact of the matter is: the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and they are the ones who get to decide these things.
>
> So as a matter of law, when a state offers free photo IDs and requires a phot ID to vote, they are within constitutionally permissible bounds.
Appeal to authority fallacy. The same authority that in Breedlove v. Suttles okayed poll taxes even though they disenfranchised the poor.
Also, swearing to god, are you going to claim with uncrossed fingers, that you personaly feel the burden of transportation to get a Social Securety card (just one of the requirements for an ID) from a Social Securety office is slight (keep in mind anyone who doesn’t have ID by legal definiton doesn’t drive and Social Security offices can be 40 or more miles away with no connecting affordable public transportation)?
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/177 "2011-12-28T17:56:17Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> No, I don’t I just have to show you that they are ELIGIBLE voters.
Then in order to prove electoral fraud I just have to show you that there are dead voters on the rolls.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/178 "2011-12-28T18:02:32Z")
(omitted)
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/179 "2011-12-28T18:11:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> So as a matter of law, when a state offers free photo IDs and requires a phot ID to vote, they are within constitutionally permissible bounds.
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#):
>
> Appeal to authority fallacy.
No. As [Nizkor’s excellent page](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) points out:
> [@](#):
>
> This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
The Supreme Court of the United States is in fact not only a legitimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution, but the _ultimate_ authority thereon.
> [@](#):
>
> Also, swearing to god, are you going to claim with uncrossed fingers, that you personaly feel the burden of transportation to get a Social Securety card (just one of the requirements for an ID) from a Social Securety office is slight (keep in mind anyone who doesn’t have ID by legal definiton doesn’t drive and Social Security offices can be 40 or more miles away with no connecting affordable public transportation)?
Talking about my personal feelings in this forum is a waste of time.
I’m talking about what the law is. I have no interest in discussing what the law should be, as I’m happy with what the law actually is. You’re more then welcome to claim that this is some nebulous miscarriage of justice. But as it relates to the voter ID laws and their constitutional infirmity, or lack thereof, the issue is settled. That’s all I care about. You may whine and bleat 'til the cows come home about how it should be different. Go right ahead.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 28, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/180 "2011-12-28T18:26:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> So you don’t think the standard under section 5 of the VRA is ultimately different than the standards under section 2?
No.
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know the details of the South Carolina law, but lets assume it has all the bells and whistles that the Indiana law had. In the Indiana case, the Supreme Court upheld the law in a plurality opinion despite admitting that “the record contains no evidence that the fraud [a voer ID requirement] addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana” because it has occurred in other parts of the country and because other types of voter fraud has occurred in Indiana. The Court showed deference to the state in this case despite evidence that the law was intended to reduce voting among the poor (who were disproportionately black and Democrat) because the law was facially neutral and addressed purportedly legitimate state concerns so they ignored the fact that the underlying motivation was intended to reduce voting among the poor. The opinion seems to assume that the burden of getting identification is light while at the same time acknowledging that it will reduce voter participation among poor voters. But the court gets to a favorable ruling because on the alw because they ultimately defer to the states discretion in this case where the burden seems reasonable to them.
>
> I’m not sure that the case would have gone the same way if Indiana was one of the Jim Crow states. Doesn’t section 5 provide more discretion to the Justice department than section 2? Don’t you cast a more jaundiced eye at these laws coming from states that practiced a century of segregation?
In the sense that the law grants the Justice Department the power to nullify changes in voting procedure in former Jim Crow states, yes, of course the Justice Department has more discretion. But while other changes might earn my jaundiced eye this one, fuinctionally identical to the Indiana one approved in _Crawford_, does not.
But perhaps I’m wrong. Sure seems like someone here, or multiple someones here, would want to take up and win the bet I offered.
This pattern repeats itself almost endlessly on this board. Bold (or dire) predictions accompany the discussion of some proposed change. But no one wnats to actually be accountable, either by wager or subsequent retraction, for their predictions. I remember a debate about Virginia’s same-sex marriage amendment in which several folks claimed that, if passed, the Virginia amendment would legalize domestic abuse among unmarried couples, because of the way it defined marriage. And of course, after the fact, when no such instances of legalized abuse came to light, did the principal proponents appear to shamefacedly acknowledge their foolish predictions? No, they did not.
So it will be here. Everyone is willing to flap their jaws now about nonsense. No one is willing to do anything that might make them accountable for their predictions.
This is meaningless jabber.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=10)