Supreme Court upholds Indiana Voter ID law

Great Debates
61

Are the Democrats in such bad shape that if they cant get the illegal vote counted, they’ll lose?

I kid, I kid, but seriously, I think all of the people saying that voter impersonation hasn’t been a big problem up until now are missing the point. I can accept that there hasn’t been widespread abuse before. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a hole that needs to be closed before it is abused. The time to plug a security breach is when you identify it BEFORE it’s exploited, not after.

How about this one: If you had it in your power to switch the voting method in Florida from Butterfly ballots to something else, circa 1999, would you? After all, by your argument, there would be no reason to, they had always worked fine, leave them be! We know now that those ballots may have caused the presidency of the United States to have gone to George Bush rather than Al Gore. But there was nothing wrong with them before. NOW do you see why “But, but, but…that form of voter fraud hasn’t been widespread before now!” is a moot point? If there is a weakness in the system that can, without any undue burden being placed on the citizenry, be fixed, then it is right and proper to fix the weakness.

One final point: The last time I voted, I walked up to the table and the man asked me “What’s your name?”, I told him. “What’s your address?” I told him. “Here’s your card, go to machine #12 and vote”. And that was IT. Would you be comfortable with that level of security on your bank account? Hell, on your SDMB account? Isn’t voting just a little more important?

62

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Are the Democrats in such bad shape that if they cant get the illegal vote counted, they’ll lose?

I kid, I kid, but seriously, I think all of the people saying that voter impersonation hasn’t been a big problem up until now are missing the point. I can accept that there hasn’t been widespread abuse before. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a hole that needs to be closed before it is abused. The time to plug a security breach is when you identify it BEFORE it’s exploited, not after.
[/quote]

I think you have a fair point on the general philosophy of fixing problems before they get serious. But the reason people are asking for concrete evidence is that this policy has certain downsides that need to be outweighed by actual results, not just peace of mind.

Recall that butterfly ballots failed the very first time they were used. We’ve been voting in-person for more than two hundred years, and the Supreme Court had to go back to 1868 to find an example of significant abuse.

If I hack your bank account or your SDMB account, I directly damage you and, what’s more, I get something out of it. If I fraudulently vote, fuck-all happens unless the election is decided by a single vote. We have enough people staying home even when they’re not threatened with jail time. The incentives are just totally different from hacking an account. All of the risk, none of the reward.

Fraudulent votes are only harmful if they affect the election. Whatever you think of the evidence of in-person fraud, I don’t think anyone thinks it rises to the level of affecting election outcomes. So I think the principle should be the same as the principle in our criminal system. We’d rather have ten fraudulent votes than disenfranchise a single voter. The fraudulent votes will never tip the scale of the election and the individual harm of disenfranchisement is greater than the harm of an insignificant number of fraudulent votes.

63

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
So I think the principle should be the same as the principle in our criminal system. We’d rather have ten fraudulent votes than disenfranchise a single voter. The fraudulent votes will never tip the scale of the election and the individual harm of disenfranchisement is greater than the harm of an insignificant number of fraudulent votes.
[/QUOTE]

Nor will a single disenfranchised voter tip the scales of an election.

I don’t agree with your calculus. Votes are fungible. I’d rather prevent ten fraudulent voters at the cost of losing one valid voter, because all votes weigh the same.

64

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Nor will a single disenfranchised voter tip the scales of an election.

I don’t agree with your calculus. Votes are fungible. I’d rather prevent ten fraudulent voters at the cost of losing one valid voter, because all votes weigh the same.
[/QUOTE]

But there is a harm to the individual. Enfranchisement is empowering, disenfranchisement is disempowering. You no longer get to exercise your civic responsibility and make your voice heard.

I agree that it doesn’t affect the election either way. But I do think taking away someone’s vote is harming him/her.

65

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]

If I hack your bank account or your SDMB account, I directly damage you and, what’s more, I get something out of it. If I fraudulently vote, fuck-all happens unless the election is decided by a single vote. We have enough people staying home even when they’re not threatened with jail time. The incentives are just totally different from hacking an account. All of the risk, none of the reward.

Fraudulent votes are only harmful if they affect the election. Whatever you think of the evidence of in-person fraud, I don’t think anyone thinks it rises to the level of affecting election outcomes. So I think the principle should be the same as the principle in our criminal system. We’d rather have ten fraudulent votes than disenfranchise a single voter. The fraudulent votes will never tip the scale of the election and the individual harm of disenfranchisement is greater than the harm of an insignificant number of fraudulent votes.
[/QUOTE]

The 2000 election in Florida was decided by just over 500 votes. Now, I admit that that was an unprecedentedly close margin (I looked it up several years ago, IIRC, the closest vote margin in Florida between WWII and the 2000 election was 48,000), and that nobody could know before hand that the margin would be that close, but getting 500 people to impersonate legitimate voters does not seem to me like it would be that hard a task, and in that instance at least, it would have swung the results.

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But the reason people are asking for concrete evidence is that this policy has certain downsides
[/quote]

What downsides are there? I see a lot of people hand-wringing and saying “Oh, this will make it impossible for the elderly/immigrants/minorities/stupid/whatever to vote! These people vote Democrat, it’s a plot to disenfranchise Democratic voters!”, but I have seen precious little…make that no evidence that this is the case. Do you have any? Concrete evidence, I mean, since that is the standard that you are espousing.

66

Intent is everything. Under the guise of preventing fraud there are a lot of legitimate voters being disenfranchised. Since evidence of wide spread voter fraud does not exist ,why do the Repubs push for more ability to restrict voters. Do we assume wealthier people do not get involved in voter fraud. Then explain Ann Colter. But when the Florida voter rolls were trimmed it was in Democratic and poor neighborhoods. Is it just because poor are criminals or because they mostly vote Democratic. They hired an organization with strong republican ties to purge voters. Diebold is a republican slanted company. having to pay for IDs will be more of a hardship for poor (democrat) people. So excuse my skepticism. It is about winning elections for the Repubs.

67

I don’t understand why they don’t make these IDs free for everyone and reduce some of the requirements to get them. It would deflate a good amount of opposition if they made them free and easy to obtain. Instead they want you to present 2-3 forms of ID (that aren’t always available to certain segments of the population) and pay a fee. Why?

68

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
The 2000 election in Florida was decided by just over 500 votes. Now, I admit that that was an unprecedentedly close margin (I looked it up several years ago, IIRC, the closest vote margin in Florida between WWII and the 2000 election was 48,000), and that nobody could know before hand that the margin would be that close, but getting 500 people to impersonate legitimate voters does not seem to me like it would be that hard a task, and in that instance at least, it would have swung the results.
[/quote]

Then why has it never happened? We have no evidence that such a fraud has ever been committed even on the scale of 500 votes (in modern times). My answer is that it doesn’t happen because the risks already outweigh the rewards.

No one doubts that this law will make it harder for some people to vote. That alone is enough to outweigh peace of mind, in my book. The dispute is over whether it will actually prevent some people from voting. I can’t offer you concrete evidence, because the law hasn’t gone into effect yet. Give me a couple of election cycles, and I’ll come back to you. But if you’re interested in educated speculation, read the Brennan Center’s Amicus brief.

69

[QUOTE=spazattak]
I don’t understand why they don’t make these IDs free for everyone and reduce some of the requirements to get them. It would deflate a good amount of opposition if they made them free and easy to obtain. Instead they want you to present 2-3 forms of ID (that aren’t always available to certain segments of the population) and pay a fee. Why?
[/QUOTE]

They are going to have to make them free if they require them for voting, otherwise it’s a backhanded way of instituting a poll tax, which is illegal.

I know this is a waste of time, but cite?

70

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That knowledge is as solid as the rest of your conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
Then it would be quite solid since, in the past, direct questions to you have gone unanswered. Since you have now responded, I’ll certainly not be able to offer that conclusion again and apologize for bringing it up. Other than that, I have made no conclusions but simply asked two questions, based on the text in the link that I presume we both read.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I would like to know how often someone is offered a provisional ballot because they are standing at the wrong table in the right room. That is, the link would have you believe that a pervasive problem is: multiple precincts vote in the same place, at different tables; voter stands at Table A, and is told his name does not appear and therefore he can only cast a provisional ballot rather than being told to step over to Table B. I contend that if such an event has happened, it’s a vanishingly tiny percentage of provisional ballots cast. It’s so insignificant that it cannot drive a policy discussion about how to handle voting.
Now, if it’s truly a more serious problem than I’m picturing, I would like to see some evidence of that.
[/QUOTE]
Some may say that People for the American Way, as advocates, may be biased toward African-American and other minorities, the poor, elderly and frail, but I’m willing to give them some leeway. They are dedicated to studying and suggesting solutions for these types of problems and have staff far more qualified for that than you or I to analyze and make suggestions about the causes and solutions.

I certainly am unqualified to provide hard evidence but, however vanishingly small the number effected, if even one voter has made a good faith effort to vote and is not fully informed or is misdirected, or, as you did not mention in the quote above, does not have proper ID with him, but is not told he can retrieve it and return, and instead is headed a provisional ballot as if that is the only next step, that’s large enough of a number and problem for me.

Further, the stated fact in the link is that over a million provisional ballots were not counted in 2004. Even only half of them were truly ineligible to vote, 500,000 disenfranchised voters who have made a good faith effort to vote is not a vanishingly small number. If there is no follow-up (effort to verify eligibility and count that vote), that’s a significant problem. The text links specifically states that the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which provides for provisional ballots until eligibility can be determined, does not require that those ballots be counted.

The link also details that in Ohio, in 2004, the Republican Secretary of State arbitrarily decided to throw out provisional ballots cast due to being in the wrong precinct, with no attempt to verify eligibility at all. We know what role Ohio played in that years election outcome. It’s a “placebo” indeed if those who cast a such a ballot think they’ve been given the chance to vote but really haven’t and states are given such wide latitude, as Ohio was, to arbitrarily determine which ones to throw out.

While I stand by my opinion stated many times here that the thousands of primary voters in Florida and Michigan should not have delegate representation, I am quite concerned that even one good faith voter should be disenfranchised because the standard is not giving clear information and direction, and there are few codified rules and laws for eligibility follow-up for provisional ballots.

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
One final point: The last time I voted, I walked up to the table and the man asked me “What’s your name?”, I told him. “What’s your address?” I told him. “Here’s your card, go to machine #12 and vote”. And that was IT. Would you be comfortable with that level of security on your bank account? Hell, on your SDMB account? Isn’t voting just a little more important?
[/QUOTE]
Are you not asked to sign the book they have there (I don know what it’s called) with all of the alphabetized names of registered voters in your polling district? Giving name and address and signing the book (which has a facsimile of your signature from previous years, etc.), thus gives the poll worker verifiable information about you.

71

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
They are going to have to make them free if they require them for voting, otherwise it’s a backhanded way of instituting a poll tax, which is illegal.

[/QUOTE]

Not according to the Supreme Court. Indiana’s is only free if you can demonstrate financial need. Everyone else has to pay for the right to vote.

72

And even then, IIRC, there is no support for people that have to obtain birth certificates, etc.

73

[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Then it would be quite solid since, in the past, direct questions to you have gone unanswered.
[/quote]

If you can point to any anywhere, I’ll be happy to remedy them. I think it’s a small number as a function of the total threads in which I participate, but I certainly acknowledge it may have happened. (One exception would be questions from the single poster who is on my ignore list, for obvious reasons). Feel free to PM me if you don’t want to hijack this thread.

But not for me. And obviously not for the Supreme Court, who gets to decide these things. But since this discussion does center around us convincing each other the problem is, or isn’t, significant, we’ve identified the point at which we should agree to disagree. You say proving one instance is sufficient to enact public policy to avoid the problem, and I say for this problem, it’s not. This is not objective truth or provable; it’s opinion.

74

[QUOTE=spazattak]
Not according to the Supreme Court. Indiana’s is only free if you can demonstrate financial need. Everyone else has to pay for the right to vote.
[/QUOTE]

Not true.

From High court upholds Indiana's voter ID law - CNN.com

75

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not true.
From High court upholds Indiana's voter ID law - CNN.com
[/QUOTE]

But, again, the state only provides that ID if you can prove your residence and identity. That’s fine for people that have a birth certificate or have served in the military, but many people would have to spend money obtaining the pre-requisites to the “free” ID.

76

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not true.

From High court upholds Indiana's voter ID law - CNN.com
[/QUOTE]

OK not entirely true. It costs $13 to renew… per Whack-a-mole’s cite. That just seems like an odd way to go about things. Thanks for that, I couldn’t find anything about how much the first one cost on the IN-BMV site.

77

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But, again, the state only provides that ID if you can prove your residence and identity. That’s fine for people that have a birth certificate or have served in the military, but many people would have to spend money obtaining the pre-requisites to the “free” ID.
[/QUOTE]

Why would it cost money to prove your residence? Every time I’ve had to prove my residence I used a bill, electrical, cable etc, and it was accepted and those bills came free in the mail.

78

[QUOTE=Tahssa]
Why would it cost money to prove your residence? Every time I’ve had to prove my residence I used a bill, electrical, cable etc, and it was accepted and those bills came free in the mail.
[/QUOTE]

It isn’t the residence part, its the identity part. That requires birth certificate, passport, or military ID.

79

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Then why has it never happened? We have no evidence that such a fraud has ever been committed even on the scale of 500 votes (in modern times). My answer is that it doesn’t happen because the risks already outweigh the rewards.
[/quote]

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Since most elections are not as close as the 2000 Florida election, investigations into voter fraud are probably rudimentary. (Assumption on my part, I realise.)

I don’t think most elections in high pop districts are gone over with a fine tooth comb for accuracy because:

  1. The margin of error (or fraud) is usually less than the margin of victory.
  2. Manpower and fuding requirements for such a task are steep.

I think that the public faith in the integrity of the voting system is extremely important, in my book.

If there is a voter who needs assistance getting the ID’s (due to the overwhelming financial burden), I have no problem with some tax dollars being set aside to provide the ID (and/or transport to the polling place) to that voter for free.

80

[QUOTE=mlees]
Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
[/quote]

Fair, as far as it goes. But, legally speaking, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” should not be sufficient to support a government interest in outweighing marginal disenfranchisement. If that were the case, we could justify almost any harebrained government interest.

I agree that public faith in the integrity of the system is important, but that seems to be a double-edged sword on this particular question since people will lose faith if the system isn’t as representative any more.

If you compensate for transport, time spent, and identification fees, then I’m fine with it. The concern, I believe, is that most people who don’t already have IDs don’t have cars. And for some part of this population, hopping on public transport isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do. That’s why we have so many polling stations. If you could get this done at the polling station that would also change the picture quite a bit.