SC voter ID law shot down

[elucidator]

From the New York Times:

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud (Published 2007)

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year…

Is this the desperate crisis that so urgently requires action?

There is a small measure of sunshine for your paranoid fantasy.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show…

The dash of cold water follows quickly

…Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud…

You probably want to stop reading now, it gets worse.

…In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting…

Outside of this, a Google search reveals little, other than tighty righty blogs that hint darkly at Democrat conspiracies, but if proof were dynamite, they wouldn’t have enough to blow their nose.

There is no voter fraud crisis worthy of action. Period. Full stop. What there is is a concerted and organized effort (see ALEC, as referenced above) by Republican dominated legislatures to impose a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist, a solution that negatively affects voters unlikely to vote Republican.

As outlined above, it would be easy enough to craft a “solution” that has no such negative impact, or minimizes it appropriately. Yet no such effort is being made in SC.

Back a few pages, Terr tells us that he expects this effort will lower the number of fraudulent Democratic registrations. How many, Terr? Just a rough, ball park guess will suffice. Ten thousand? A thousand? A hundred? One? And while you’re about it, perhaps you might offer some substantiation, some evidence? I am not a Democrat, but if I were, I would find your insinuation scurrilous and insulting. Not to mention unsubstantiated.

After all, such an effort must have more effect on fraudulent voters than upon legitimate voters, don’t you think? Or don’t you? Mr Holder, relying on statistics from South Carolina itself, says thousands. Have you any evidence to offer that he is wrong, or lying? All of this to counter a problem that is statistically as likely as being struck by lightning while you turn in your winning Powerball lottery ticket.

You have no case, you have no evidence, you have only dark insinuations and fantasies, and on that basis, you would afflict the voting rights of thousands of innocent citizens. The men who concocted this nasty little scheme ought to be ashamed of themselves. And so should you.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Terr

Set up the voting booths at military bases overseas.

I’m glad you have a solution for combatting the greatest source of voter fraud. I’m sure this is why you and people like you are eagerly placing absentee balloting reform at the very top of the priority list.

Oh wait, nobody’s doing a damned thing to combat absentee voter fraud. The so-called “reform laws” don’t even address it. Why do you suppose that is, I wonder?

[elucidator]

@JoelUpchurch

Slate has an interesting article on this issue.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/the_obama_administration_s_risky_voter_id_move_threatens_the_voting_rights_act.html

The thrust of the article is that the Supreme Court may end tossing out Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional. There were procedural issues that would force the Supreme Court to rule on this, instead of dodging it.

…Why did the Obama DoJ deny preclearance, knowing it could well set up this massive confrontation and potentially lead to the downfall of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? There are both principled and political reasons. First of all, it was the right thing to do. As the DoJ letter explains, South Carolina presented no evidence that its law was necessary to prevent voter fraud, and the evidence was uncontested that minority voters were less likely to have ID…

(From the cited article, emphasis mine.)

Did they have such evidence, and the dog ate it? Or is Slate lying? And Holder.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Back a few pages, Terr tells us that he expects this effort will lower the number of fraudulent Democratic registrations. How many, Terr? Just a rough, ball park guess will suffice. Ten thousand? A thousand? A hundred? One? And while you’re about it, perhaps you might offer some substantiation, some evidence? I am not a Democrat, but if I were, I would find your insinuation scurrilous and insulting. Not to mention unsubstantiated.

As many as there are dead voters on the rolls, for example. And have you read through the cites I gave - a dozen or so?

[Terr]

@Cosmic Relief

I’m glad you have a solution for combatting the greatest source of voter fraud. I’m sure this is why you and people like you are eagerly placing absentee balloting reform at the very top of the priority list.

I am all for stopping absentee voting completely. Are you?

[elucidator]

OK, now we’re getting somewhere! Now, all you have to do is provide evidence that these are the result of some dark conspiracy, rather than simple bookkeeping errors! You have such, or is this, as I suspect, all you got?

But let me remind of you of my previous question, as you are one eager to be sure that your questions are answered as you demand: how many fraudulent Democrat voters do you expect to be stymied? Just a ball park figure, if you have such. Ten thousand? A thousand? A hundred? One? Mr Holder has numbers, numbers provided by the state of South Carolina itself. What have you got? Dead voters in Oakland? Seriously? You’re not kidding?

Or you could rebut the substance of the NY Times article, cited above. Is it dat ol’ debbil, liberal media?

[Terr]

@elucidator

OK, now we’re getting somewhere! Now, all you have to do is provide evidence that these are the result of some dark conspiracy, rather than simple bookkeeping errors! You have such, or is this, as I suspect, all you got?

Now, all you have to do is show the actual individuals who are registered voters, have no ID, intended to vote but couldn’t.

But let me remind of you of my previous question, as you are one eager to be sure that your questions are answered as you demand: how many fraudulent Democrat voters do you expect to be stymied?

Don’t know. Don’t care. Showing that you’re a US citizen when you exercise a right that only applies to US citizens is only logical. Note the “US citizen” thing. Not Democrat. Not Republican.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Terr

I am all for stopping absentee voting completely.

Then you must be terribly distraught that none of the voter-fraud “solutions” even make an attempt to address this rather novel idea of yours.

Are you?

No, because stopping absentee voting is the most bizarre idea I ever heard of. It’s bad enough that you would solve this hugely overblown “problem” by throwing obstacles up to the minorities and poor, but to disenfranchise the military - the very people who put their lives on the line for freedom - this is just too bizarre for words.

And before you say “solve it by puting polling places overseas”, remember that you believe that polling regulations are a responsibility of the states, which means every state has to put a polling place in every base and every ship in every country where there is a military presence. Or should they just get their buddy to watch their footlocker while they fly home to punch a ballot? Does that sound like a workable idea to you?

[elucidator]

Don’t know. Don’t care…

But you’re the one who said it! Post 303.

…I expect the laws to decrease voter fraud, primarily on Democrat side.

Surely you wouldn’t toss out such a rancid insinuation without some proof? You most likely have it right at your fingertips. Otherwise, you allow the conclusion that you made it up, that you haven’t any such evidence at all.

[Terr]

@Cosmic Relief

Then you must be terribly distraught that none of the voter-fraud “solutions” even make an attempt to address this rather novel idea of yours.

I am not terribly distraught about anything much. This OP was about the Voter ID - so that is what we are discussing. Make a thread about some state doing away with absentee voting, and I will discuss that.

No, because stopping absentee voting is the most bizarre idea I ever heard of.

Really? There are lots of democratic countries out there that have no such concept.

It’s bad enough that you would solve this hugely overblown “problem” by throwing obstacles up to the minorities and poor, but to disenfranchise the military - the very people who put their lives on the line for freedom - this is just too bizarre for words.

And before you say “solve it by puting polling places overseas”, remember that you believe that polling regulations are a responsibility of the states, which means every state has to put a polling place in every base and every ship in every country where there is a military presence.

No they don’t. The states can decide to delegate that to the military.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Surely you wouldn’t toss out such a rancid insinuation without some proof?

Which part of “I expect” did you misunderstand?

You most likely have it right at your fingertips.

See numerous cites I gave above and you ignored.

[elucidator]

Didn’t “ignore”. I, and several others, pointed out that dead people on voting rolls does not, simply on its own, prove voter fraud.

“Ignore” takes place when you refuse to address a citation that makes a hash of your case. Like the way you don’t address the NY Times cite, above.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

Every time I see a thread about voter ID in the US I’m always baffled by how so many people in the richest, most powerful nation in the history of humanity are defeated by the simple proposition of providing its voters with ID.

Here in Peru, were voting is compulsory, the National ID (which is also voter ID) costs about 10 bucks (but it’s free for poor people), you can fill the form on the internet (web-challenged people can either do it by hand or pay 2 bucks for a guy in an internet place to do it). ID places are open like any other gov’t office. In my (coming out of being) poor country can do it, why can’t Americans?

I understand the political and electoral aspects of the discussion, but free voter ID shouyld not be a problem.

[elucidator]

I’m ashamed to admit it, Aji, but its almost certainly because we are fat, lazy and comfortable.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Didn’t “ignore”. I, and several others, pointed out that dead people on voting rolls does not, simply on its own, prove voter fraud.

The cites I gave documented hundreds of “dead people on voting rolls” actually voting. Did you read them?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Terr

I am not terribly distraught about anything much. This OP was about the Voter ID - so that is what we are discussing. Make a thread about some state doing away with absentee voting, and I will discuss that.

I’m not going to make a thread about that. I’ll just make a comment about the general hypocrisy of people who claim to be terribly worried about voter fraud but do nothing about absentee voting, and that the proposed laws reveal exactly that hypocrisy in action. If it doesn’t apply to you, hey, then I’ll just bust on you for carrying ideological consistency to an absurd conclusion (eliminating absentee voting).

Really? There are lots of democratic countries out there that have no such concept.

And if they all go jump off a cliff, then we should do it. No thanks.

No they don’t. The states can decide to delegate that to the military.

Oh that’s just brilliant. So now in addition to fighting wars and conducting peacekeeping missions and administrating the personal records of millions of servicepeople, now you want to burden them with administrating 50 different sets of voting regulations in the middle of a war zone. And this ridiculous exercise to prevent… exactly how many fraudulent votes are we talking about again?

[elucidator]

The cites I gave showed documented hundreds of “dead people on voting rolls” actually voting. Did you read them?

Hundreds? Seriously, hundreds? What a shattering number, it a nation of a paltry three hundred and sixty million!

But, just as you said, this is business as usual, no? Redistricting is notoriously prone to partisan shenanigans, and you shrug that off.

So, that’s your answer, then? You expect “hundreds” of Democrat voter frauds to be stymied?

Let me ask you directly: is it your belief that this effort by SC Republicans is wholly innocent of partisan intent? That his law will most likely impact Democrat voters is purely accidental, and reflects no partisan intent?

And if you do, does your investment portfolio reflect any of the wonderful opportunities available in Nigeria?

[Terr]

@Cosmic Relief

Oh that’s just brilliant. So now in addition to fighting wars and conducting peacekeeping missions and administrating the personal records of millions of servicepeople, now you want to burden them with administrating 50 different sets of voting regulations in the middle of a war zone. And this ridiculous exercise to prevent… exactly how many fraudulent votes are we talking about again?

Absentee voter fraud? Probably hundreds of thousands.

[Terr]

@elucidator

Hundreds? Seriously, hundreds? What a shattering number, it a nation of a paltry three hundred and sixty million!

Enough to decide a presidential election, just recently.

But, just as you said, this is business as usual, no? Redistricting is notoriously prone to partisan shenanigans, and you shrug that off.

I didn’t shrug it off. I asked you if you shrug it off. You did (or refused to answer).

Let me ask you directly: is it your belief that this effort by SC Republicans is wholly innocent of partisan intent?

I answered that exact question upthread.

That his law will most likely impact Democrat voters is purely accidental, and reflects no partisan intent?

I don’t really see it impacting (as in preventing from voting) almost any voters. At least you could not point me to even one such, even though these laws have been around for almost a decade.

[elucidator]

@Cosmic Relief

… exactly how many fraudulent votes are we talking about again?

Hundreds! My God, man! Hundreds of them! Amassed together, it is conceivable that they could overturn the election for your local county board of Parks and Recreation!