I have no problem with voter ID laws in theory, but in practice they are problematic. The ideal solution would be to have these laws go into effect after a long period, where people could learn about it, and learn how to get a FREE ID card (if the card isn’t free, this is unconstitutional IMHO), and have time to get ready for the law. Trying to implement these laws so that they go into effect for the 2012 election is not a practical solution to ANY problem, and I’m not convinced that there is a real problem anyway. But erring on the side of caution and assuming that there is an issue with fraudulent voting, the voter ID laws need time to go into effect so that no one is disenfranchised unfairly.
I’ve never had to to present an ID (photo or otherwise) to vote. Not in Texas (where I simply showed up at my neighborhood polling place and gave my name, which was on the list, and was presented with my ballot) or in Oregon (where we vote by mail and my ballot is sent to me as a matter of course, being a registered voter).
The fact is, the only real issues re’ voter/election fraud in this country are the issues of the hack-a-bility/potential for built-in fraud with the no-paper-trail voting machines and laws like this one which aim to discourage voter turnout among the poor, minorities, and other likely Democratic voters.
Historically, low voter turnout has benefitted Republican candidates (e.g. Obama won with the highest voter turnout since 1910).
There is no other reason for these sorts of restrictions.
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. Cite. So then you have to assume they really do think they’ll obtain a partisan advantage in undermining democracy. There is every reason to think so, although of course empirical data is still lacking (and may that remain the case).
John, you really do need to *read *the posts you’re replying to before you reply to them. You might actually find yourself addressing, or maybe even grasping, the point occasionally. 'Kay, sport? :rolleyes:
That’s not even the most important amendment in that sense - it just makes it so the ID that is issued by the DMV for non-drivers is now free. But that still involves quite a bit of the inconvenience of having to go to the DMV for the transaction.
More to the point however is this:
This means they will be requiring the State Elections Commission to create at some point an actual Voter-ID Card to be issued upon registration, which the statute says will meet the requirement. Which they should have thought of years ago and everywhere. The crux of this will be how easy will it be to get (around here, there’s one registration office in each election precinct - 110 for an area and population slighly less than Connecticut - and it’s open at convenient hours year 'round. How is it in SC, I do not know…)
Most European countries require a photo ID, and not just for voting. I didn’t think the idea of American Exceptionalism was very popular around here, but that seems to be the only reason to think we couldn’t implement something like that in this country, too.
Ultimately, it’s going to be decided by the SCOTUS. I’m pretty confident they will say it’s OK. I certainly wouldn’t bet against that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286557/yes-virginia-there-really-voter-fraud-hans-von-spakovsky
…two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary.
…one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.”
…former Alabama congressman Artur Davis said recently when he admitted that he was wrong to oppose voter-ID requirements. Davis says the “most aggressive” voter suppression “is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt” of Alabama, which is an area of very poor black communities. …Small wonder one of its local officials was recently sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud in Tunica County, Mississippi.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/10/two-more-felony-vote-fraud-convictions-in-milwaukee/
I bet I can find quite a few more.
Voter ID cards would not have prevented this.
from the linked story (bolding mine):
So another story that doesn’t support voter ID cards. I mean, the guy who runs the organization that sought to find voter fraud says so right there.
This is another story about convicted felons voting, and the story notes that at least one of the 2 men had registered to vote in November, right before the election. Presumably, these would have been prevented “by using the normal registration and verification processes”, as above.
I’ll count this as another instance that does not support the notion of voter ID cards.
from the linked story:
Not a lot of information, but it’s about being indicted, not convicted, so no story here. If these people are convicted, I’ll agree that they broke the law. And since it involves absentee ballots, it’s another instance that does not support voter ID cards.
This story is about 1 man convicted of filing 10 absentee ballots illegally. So another instance where voter ID cards would not have been any help in preventing the fraud.
No wonder you didn’t actually post quotes from the stories; they all undermine the point you were trying to make.
Well if you do, be sure to post the parts of the stories that actually support the notion that voter IDs would have prevented the alleged fraud. I’d have said “fraud” with the qualifier there, but to me there’s an important distinction between things that actually happened and things that are said to have happened (such as in the story from Georgia you linked to).
ETA: Since the vast majority of abuse seems to involve absentee ballots, why aren’t people trying to do away with that, instead of trying to implement a solution that won’t solve the problem they are so upset about?
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.
This is what my post was in response to:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
[QUOTE=drewtwo99]
. assuming that there is an issue with fraudulent voting
[/QUOTE]
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
[/QUOTE]
So - yes, in response to ElvisL1ves, there IS, in fact, an issue with fraudulent voting.
As for what you wrote - you can see that people ARE trying to vote fraudulently. Thus it is reasonable to assume that such fraud is perpetrated in various ways, not just by fraudulent absentee voting. In places where there is no requirement for showing picture IDs at the time of voting, how do you expect evidence of fraudulent voting that would be prevented by such IDs to show up? There is evidence that there are mismatched signatures in the voting rolls in elections - would that be evidence that would convince you? Here’s one example:
Sorry, this guy is not a credible source, IMO.
Perhaps you could find something coherent and not from a biased hack on a crusade? Like, say, a study by some non-partisan group or something?
In any case, my conclusion that your initial offering of five news items/op-ed pieces/blog entries does not support the notion that voter IDs would be an effective way to prevent vote fraud still stands.
It proves that voter fraud exists.
So does Nobelium, but it isn’t anything I worry about. Ya know why? Because it exists in such tiny, tiny amounts and so sporadically that it isn’t going to ever actually affect anything adversely.
Now, just a second there, Snow-Bo. Maybe he’s on to something, or on something, or something. Suppose we adopt that standard of proof, hereabouts! All I need to do to prove that Bat Boy not only exists, but is a registered Democrat is offer a blog post that states it as fact. Think what a vibrant, exciting political conversation might result if we were all so open-minded as Terr!
If I say that Dick Cheney rises at night to feed on the blood of the living, all I need do to prove it is find a blog post that says so!
I propose that we adopt a new Board meme, like “burning your dog” or “High, Opal?”. When offering such irrefutable proof, we should all respond “Well, that Terrs it!” I do not suggest that we refer to such persons as “Terrists”. That would be going too far! Throwing out Bubba with the bath-water, so to speak.
By the way, did you know that Michelle Bachman was a lesbian Satanist? I can prove it!
Sorry but I disagree. While the specifics of the 3/5th congressional apportioning deals with representation, at the core, it is just as disenfranchising as some discriminatory voting regulation targeting minorities. The powers who came up with both rules saw a problem, that minorities were getting equal representation, and created the rule to prevent that from happening. Even though in one case, it was racist whites who complained their slaves didn’t get them more votes in Congress and in the other case, it was racist whites who complained blacks were voting in too many numbers, the end result of it was to essentially preserve voting rights fully only for richer white people. You can call it whatever you want, but it is disenfranchising and dehumanizing.
Just because blacks were sent to sit at the back of the bus in one era and slaves in other, doesn’t mean that those who rose up against it wasn’t fighting for essentially the same thing. It goes against the basic underpinnings of our democracy of one person = one vote; in one era its 3/5 of a person, and in another it might mean 3/5 of the votes, you are still taking away someone’s voting rights.
I said it to OMGABC hoping he’d get the idea that at no time does it make good policy to prevent people from counting, whether its in the census or voting, because that kind of shit cannot be tolerated. Would the comment have gone unmoderated if I simply said his opinion doesn’t count and that I’m ignoring it? Calling it 3/5th of an opinion was absolutely on topic
So, is it your contention that if slaves had been counted as whole persons, they would have gotten the vote earlier? That would be odd, since it would have given slave states more Representatives, and more electoral votes in presidential elections. Lincoln probably never would have become president, but rather some pro-slavery president presiding in conjunction a pro-slavery House of Representatives.
Not to mention the fact that women, who were counted as whole persons, didn’t get the vote until about 50 years after black men did.
In short, your thesis does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.
How far do we take this? Should the state have to provide transportation to the polling place for people who can’t get there? After all, if I have to burn my own gasoline or pay bus fare to vote, isn’t that akin to a poll tax?
No. You can walk; there is no need to burn gasoline or pay a bus fare unless you make the choice to use those forms of transportation.
My polling place is 4 miles away. Doesn’t the extra food that I would have to eat to replenish the calories I burn by walking 8 miles amount to a poll tax?
Unknown, but it would have been less racist
Irrelevant, but since you’re wildly speculating, I’ll do so as well: Making slaves count as full persons would get the racist whites to see them as humans sooner, making the discrimination not as severe and last not as long. They won’t need the specific section of the 14th Amendment to deal with that. People will realize earlier that it is wildly inconsistent and prejudiced to used these slaves as warm bodies to fill up the census but still not allow them to vote
You’re basically saying “Things worked out! Lets not change history or else it could have been worse. Blacks needed to suffer through slavery cause otherwise, how else could they make white people feel so bad about enslaving them that they’d give them all these extra rights and stuff?”
Also pointless. When women got the vote, there also wasn’t a hundred years of voter suppression efforts made to deny them that right. The 3/5th law was created specifically to target blacks and so it applies perfectly to parallels about racial minority voter suppression laws in the modern day. What you and OMGABC fail to realize is that other minorities having different paths to voting equality does not invalidate the specific instances of voter inequality among another group
No, but keep trying to come up with ridiculous situations that are analogous to the state requiring you to have something in order to exercise your right to vote. You won’t be able to, any more than OMGABC was able to equate cigarettes and booze with the right to vote.