SC voter ID law shot down

Politics & Elections
241

I don’t agree. When people feel votes are treated with such carelessness as to not even require the showing of an ID before they are cast, when they see that an ID is required to buy liquor and rent videos, they devalue the vote in their minds. They say things like, “Why should I vote? It won’t make a difference.”

In contrast, no one is “preventing” individuals from voting. In a tiny minrity of cases, some individuals are being asked to take a few extra setps to secure a free photo ID. Taking that action will cause them to value, even more, their right to vote.

242

Because people are easily fooled by nice-sounding platitudes about a problem that doesn’t exist?

I have an idea. Why don’t you come up with a better system that prevents alleged voter fraud that doesn’t disproportionately affect the poor and minorities? Because if you were really honest about stamping out all this voter fraud happening right under our noses, then you’d agree that the possibility of preventing legitimate votes is just as insidious, and you’d correct for that as well. In this topic, you’ve heard from actual people that getting an ID would be a burden to them. Come up with something that they’d agree on too, instead of plunging ahead with what you think is the best system

243

Sigh. Look, here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, I am required to show photo ID to buy booze. Though there is no likelihood that anyone looking at me would think I was less than 21. And when I lost my ID, it stayed lost for quite a while, because I didn’t care. And I support the effort, in my mind, alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there, kids should be protected from it because it can kill them. And frequently does.

Not a problem, an inconvenience at most because: I can still vote. I have never not voted, so I’m registered. And I can stand as witness for someone without ID, I can vouch for them at the polling place, and they vote.

See the difference? An ID law for booze or cigarettes is inconsequential, who cares. A law that infringes on the right to vote is a different kettle of piranha. And a law that infringes on a particular groups right to vote, with the effect of disabling the voting of a particular political persuasion, is a kettle of week-old stinking rotten fish.

Do you think that’s an innocent accident? An “ooopsy-daisy”? Nobody told them? As the Joker said to the Thief, let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. And if it is an innocent accident, where is the effort to correct it, where is the outreach to connect voters who don’t have ID?

Whether or not Europeans are concerned with voter fraud is of little consequence, but since it appears to be the only point you have, I can understand your zealous insistence on it. I don’t care what they do in Belgium, or why.

There is no voter fraud worthy of notice, here in America. People have been misled to believe that it is, there is, as noted above, a very well funded organization (ALEC) devoted to shrieking that lie at the top of their well-paid lungs. It ain’t so, but it doesn’t matter until someone applies a solution to a non-existent problem. And even that wouldn’t matter so much if the solution were not so transparently partisan.

Now, if the idea of sanctioning people who are likely to disagree with you is appealing to you, why not just nut up and say it? Why chase your tail all around the thread? Why try to drag us to Europe to speculate about their motives?

244

Well, I guess a lot depends on your definition of a “tiny minority”.

“He” being Attorney General Eric Holder, who we may reasonably expect to have a passable familiarity with the law.

(You’ve a great grasp of spin control, Counselor. Tiny minority, a few extra steps. As slippery as a catfish in a barrel of motor oil.)

245

That’s the number of people that don’t have ID. What tony fraction of them will have so much difficulty in getting the free photo ID that it rises to any kind of burden?

246

Virtually impossible, because nearly EVERYTHING IN LIFE disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. Merely taking the time to vote is easier for the well-off than it is for the poor.

That’s the way life is.

247

Well, you’re the guy making the point. You don’t know? If its all of them, does that change your mind? Half of them? Ten percent? At what point does a partisan effort to prevent the voting of people who disagree with you become perfectly kosher? its your point, give us the number!

Oh, and this:

“Feelings”, Counselor? Seriously? This is all you got? How in the hell do you know how they “feel”? For a hard-nosed realist, you can sure slip deftly into baseless speculation if it suits your purpose.

Perhaps you will sing it for us? “Feelings! Whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings…”

248

The “vast majority” in my opinion. Se how easy it is to make meaningless declarations about “facts”?

249

Some of us are determined to do something about that. Its taking a lot longer than it should, and we could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do.

250

If you refuse to notice it, or set up conditions when it is impossible to know whether it’s there or not, that doesn’t mean it’s not “worthy of notice”.

251

Um… you guys gonna tackle water being wet, next?

252

It could be that I refuse to admit the danger of being gored by a unicorn. More likely, there are no unicorns,

253

Well, you know how us silly idealists are. Too bad we’re not realists, like you, we would just give up. Which would be your preference, yes?

Shall we get back to the question at hand, here, or have you any further disparaging remarks to make?

254

(with thanks to Bricker for bringing the full quote to the thread)

Originally Posted by Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 F. 3d 949 (7th Circuit 2007)
But the absence of prosecutions is explained by the endemic underenforcement of minor criminal laws (minor as they appear to the public and prosecutors, at all events) and by the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator. He enters the polling place, gives a name that is not his own, votes, and leaves. If later it is discovered that the name he gave is that of a dead person, no one at the polling place will remember the face of the person who gave that name, and if someone did remember it, what would he do with the information? The impersonator and the person impersonated (if living) might show up at the polls at the same time and a confrontation might ensue that might lead to a citizen arrest or a call to the police who would arrive before the impersonator had fled, and arrest him. A more likely sequence would be for the impersonated person to have voted already when the impersonator arrived and tried to vote in his name. But in either case an arrest would be most unlikely (and likewise if the impersonation were discovered or suspected by comparing signatures, when that is done), as the resulting commotion would disrupt the voting. And anyway the impersonated voter is likely to be dead or in another district or precinct or to be acting in cahoots with the impersonator, rather than to be a neighbor (precincts are small, sometimes a single apartment house). One response, which has a parallel to littering, another crime the perpetrators of which are almost impossible to catch, would be to impose a very severe criminal penalty for voting fraud. Another, however, is to take preventive action, as Indiana has done by requiring a photo ID.

255

Terr - no doubt you’ll be active in North Dakota since North Dakota doesn’t require a picture ID nor does it require voter registration, it should be the highest risk State in the Nation. Since you’re so worried about this issue when can we expect you manning the Fargo ramparts?

http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/voter-qualifi.html

256

If North Dakotans decide that it’s ok to have it that way, I have no problem with that. If they decide to institute a strict ID check, I have no problem with that either. It’s a state-level thing.

257

Its not that I disagree with that sentiment, its the fact that you so cavalierly dismiss it as unworthy of concern. Let me rephrase it another way then: what plans would you have implemented to minimize, as much as possible, the disproportionate effects of such voter fraud legislation on the poor? You’re basically saying that to stem the tide of voter fraud, we have to accept a bad plan or a worse plan. You’ll forgive me if I find skepticism in the sincerity of the push to have such legislation codified into law without the proper controls or research done to minimize what you have already admitted as a bad side effect. After all, conservatives can push for more studies and more research done on the effect of removing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from the military or legalizing marijuana, but they can’t be assed to do more studies on how to prevent the poor from being disenfranchised?

258

A fascinating conjecture by learned gentlepersons wearing robes. Usually, when people like that offer conjectures, they back it up with some evidence. On this case, they seem more intent on rationalizing the lack of such evidence.

They may well be right, so far as they venture into speculation. Most likely, even if a poll worker were to catch a miscreant red handed, they would shoo them away. However learned they may be, this is nothing more than conjecture on their part, and, to be frank, stinks of the kind of rationalization employed when the desired conclusion is to be reached by whatever means necessary.

If they have rock-solid evidence, why not provide it?

And it does not touch upon the crucial question, the crux of the biscuit, which is the transparently partisan impact of this legislation.

You seem to be of the opinion that if you can show any possibility, however remote, of voter impersonation, however trivial, you carry the day. Any remedy, no matter how corrupt and partisan, is acceptable to solve the grave crisis. If that notion offers you comfort, it would be churlish to snatch it away.

259

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether you’re being totally facetious, or whether you’re trying to make a clever point by oblique analogy, or whether you’re actually serious. So let’s begin with, “cite?” and take it from there.

260

Well, how about if, after you vote, one of the poll workers gives you a hug? Sort of counteract the despair caused by rampant voter fraud.