This scene is at a polling place.
(Best said with a harsh German accent): “Your papers, please.”
“Unh…I only have a pipe, man!”
Was your statement that SSN were not free? No, you commented that the voter ID was not free which was and continues to be inaccurate and false. If you’d like to rephrase your statement to make it actually match reality go ahead, I won’t judge.
Here, let me refresh your memory:
From Wisconsin:
See that right there at the top of the quote? It says “FREE”. Would you like to retract or amend your statement in Post #46 - because you were wrong and that statement was false.
For certain low values of “free”, as has already been established.
It didn’t cost us anything to get cards for our daughters. We needed to show their birth certificates, but those came with the children. It might have cost to replace them if we had lost them. But even if it did cost, that wouldn’t be a cost to vote because you need to have a social security card whether you plan on voting or not.
In this case, the judge relied on the statistics given in sworn expert testimony by Professor Matthew Bareto, Professor Leyland Beatty, and MV Hood III, amongst others.
IANAL, but isn’t that what trial courts DO? The district court is the finder of facts. Unfortunately for Judge Adelman, he was overruled as a matter of law by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Appeals Court pointed out, at the time of the trial, Wisconsin’s id requirements were no more burdensome than in Indiana, whose voter id law had already been upheld by the Supremes.
Furthermore, in the time between the trial and the appeal, Wisconsin made voting even easier, due to an order by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the subsequent rule changes by the Wisconsin election officials. So now it’s easier to get the required voter id in Wisconsin than it is in Indiana. And if voter ID is constitutional in IN, then it’s not unconstitutional in WI.
(I’m sure a real lawyer will happily correct any errors I have made in the above.)
Parents can also apply for a SSN right on the birth certificate application, at the hospital.
Well, I agree that ending same day registration, which was the proximate cause of the illegal votes, makes more sense than imposing voter ID. If the registration process is tight, then you don’t need ID at the polls.
SAme day registration is BS anyway, because it does not make voting easier. Registration is registration, whether done the same day or beforehand. Requiring it beforehand puts no special imposition on voters.
Perhaps I am confused on this point, but further research seems to indicate that the judge used those statistics to support his finding of discrimination, and not to belittle the significance of those numbers.
Yep. Had a baby a few months ago. I just filled out aform in the hospital, and few weeks later they mailed us his Social Security card. Easy. No cost.
You’re saying the Social Security Administration wastelling the truth when they said it was free? Bull fucking shit - you had to eat food so you would be alive when you filled out the form! And you had to drive to the hospital to have the baby and pay for gas! And someone needed to pay for that pen that you used, and the paper that the form was printed on. And the road that the post office used to drive the mail to your house!
Might as well be a poll tax, amiright?
Right, and he was overruled by the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh also declined to rehear the case en banc, and the Supreme Court didn’t grant cert. The case is finished.
Your wording made it appear (at least to me) that such differences were regarded as trivial and unimportant to the district judge, which is not the case.
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. It was not intentional.
Well, then, it never happened.
But do I further misunderstand you in my belief that you consider these statistical differences to be a trivial matter? Since “Pretty much everyone” has what they need? And the racial and economic disparities reflected are not important enough to merit attention?
If 94% of one group has the necessary documentation, and 95% of another group has the docs, I do think that the difference is trivial. Those in the 94% group can take the extra step to get the free voter id and join the 95% or even the 97%.
Not only is the ID free, Wisconsin goes further. If an applicant doesn’t have a necessary underlying document, such as a birth certificate, and cannot afford to get it, the State itself will get one on the applicant’s behalf, at the State’s expense.
smapti:
Quiz time.
Who gets to decide what the words “poll tax” mean when discussing the Constitution?
[A] You
** The Supreme Court
I thought it was the Dems who were all about using the courts to get their way? You know, “activist judges”, and all that? Oh, those dastardly liberals, using the courts to get what they want!
It boggles the mind that people intelligent enough to operate a computer can actually fall for this paper thin charade.
Prior to implementing the laws none of these state governments even attempted to discern the scope of the fraud problem, nor estimate the impact of the law on the problem.
Who implements a wide sweeping law affecting citizens’ right to vote without having the most trivial understanding of the problem it’s meant to solve?
It is. Correct.
So what? The problem is concedely minor in terms of numbers. But the risk that an ultra-close election result might be swayed is not a matter of the “scope” of the problem. It’s a risk that weighs the confidence of the electorate against the cure of requiring photo ID in a society that already accepts the photo ID requirement for most every other official function, from banking to driving to getting medical care.
It’s you that misstates the problem it’s supposed to solve: the risk of loss of voter confidence if a Florida/2000 event were to recur – an election decided by 500 votes when it was possible that 600 non-citizens voted. 600 out of millions is a tiny number, but the proper comparison is the number of illegal votes to the margin of victory.