Well, been a few hours now, looks like poor ol’ Bricker is still confused and dazed by my flowery rhetorical flushes (snicker). Darn shame, too, had that devastating response right at his fingertips, but got tangled in my web, bwah ha ha ha! Behold my mighty power, mortals, and fear me!
Either that, or he was bluffing. Leaning towards that, actually.
See? That’s a direct question.
Answer: no.
Again: I don’t know what I’m supposed to rebut, so I can’t.
And why, if 95% of the posters understand what you’re saying, has the only other response to you been another request to clarify your thoughts?
Far as I can tell (and I’m not 100% certain either), he wants you to lay out a scenario where significant voter fraud could occur wrt illegal aliens voting. He thinks it can’t happen because it would require too big a conspiracy to keep under wraps. Too many possible leaks. He admits you could rig up a small effort, but why do that when the downside (arrest and jail) so far outweighs the upside (the election has to so close that a dozen or so votes can swing it).
However, I don’t see why it needs to be a conscious conspiracy. Word gets around that it’s pretty easy to vote, and the worst that happens is you get a challenge, and you just walk away. No conspiracy involved.
Yes, that’s what I thought he meant.
But when I sought to confirm it:
He said I was incorrect:
So I’m going to say that apparently isn’t it.
But if it is, yes, my response is the one I’ve already made, above. I have personally heard a CASA volunteer telling people that they didn’t need papers to vote. So you don’t need an organized effort, just a grass-roots sort of understanding in the community.
Not part of the equation. it has to be a compelling interest, not a “real threat.”
Define compelling interest. I don’t think that it would be anything less than something that is real and that threatens the integrity of the vote.
Really, I think your argument will boil down to govenment’s compelling interest, in your view, is being unable to tell whether a vote is fraudulent or not.
I mean, once you get rid of the rhetoric and inflammatory stuff, like bigotry, evil mexicans and stuff that we could do without in analyzing the issues.
Whose definition? The Supreme Court’s?
Maybe Bricker has something handy. I just had some workers show up and am going to mostly be busy for the next few hours directing them. I may this evening, if Bricker doesn’t.
Otherwise, personally, I’m good with ordinary dictionary definitions. Look em up- and propose something if you want it defined.
But nevertheless, you’re not going to get any sane person to say that honest elections aren’t a compelling interest.
They’re a compelling interest only if it can be shown that there’s a substantial chance that they currently are dishonest in a way that has a high chance of affecting the outcome and that can only be remedied by a constitutional violation.
We’re talking constitutional rights here. It’s not a low bar.
Bricker has now shot down the empirical evidence of three citations that voter confidence is unaffected by Voter ID laws.
Bricker has yet to present evidence that voter confidence is affected by Voter ID laws. He just says the three citations from Harvard, Columbia and Loyola Law Reviews are unpersuasive.
Also, Bricker, I already said that I see that there are two states that enacted Voter ID laws with Democrats in the majority. How does this change anything, other than I have to edit my statement that it is always Republicans to most always Republicans?
Shit, the conspiracy is the easy part, its the logistics that are impossible.
Lets say your goal is a modest one, a thousand bogus votes. Even in the most lax of states, like the People’s Republic of Minnesota, thats a thousand sets of some sort of documentation. Then you have to assign bogus identities, and provide the right person with the right set. And brief said conspirator as to who he is pretending to be.
Are you planning to run these bogus voters all in the same district? OK, then, you need a thousand sets of documentation in the same district! Are they going to the polls on their own, or are you supplying transportation? And here’s a kicker: what guarantee do you have that they won’t vote Democrat? They pull the curtain, they pull the lever, who knows but that you haven’t given the wrong team an extra thousand votes? What, they love, love love Republicans?
And if everything works perfectly, you still only get a thousand votes! Why would anybody do such a thing? Because nobody is paying any attention, maybe? No suspicious Republicans about, poring over the data looking for the conspiracy that they are sure exists, but simply cannot find?
Give me a plausible scenario for even a thousand bogus votes. How would you do it? How would you organize it, who would you recruit? Going to hang around Home Depot? “Hi, there, are you by any chance an illegal alien? You are!? Excellent, I have a wonderful opportunity for you…”
Illegals tend to be transient, yes? How are you going to keep in touch while the plot sickens? Of course, if you have all the material stuff figured out, maybe you can recruit them the day before? But you still have to brief them, because sure as shootin’, they’ve not done this before.
Do they speak passable English? Are you going to brief them on how to behave if challenged? Shrug and walk away? If that happens ten times at a polling place, suspicions will not be aroused? There are no Republicans at polling places?
You guys are smart, give me a plausible scenario for this conspiracy. Or admit there isn’t one,
You have? Ohmigod, Bricker has an anecdote! I surrender!
To go back to the original question asked by the OP:
It’s interesting that so many states, nearly all of which are Republican controlled, suddenly, this election cycle, see a need to address a supposed threat to the voting process that none of them saw a need to address before.
It’s interesting that ALEC, a corporate lobbying group, is a supporter of such laws and has even supplied a model bill to many of the states.
It’s interesting that, as I noted before, the boogieman of illegal immigrants is repeatedly raised by the right in this discussion, “coincidentally” mirroring the right’s time honored practice of stirring up public xenophobia in order to advance their agenda.
About 4 years ago I lost my wallet, after having just moved back with my family from out of state. Had to start from scratch. To satisfy the Republican championed RealID act’s requirements so I could establish a new ID I ended making 3 trips to the Secretary of State, which is 20 miles away, pay $15 for new birth certificate copy. Also I had to go to the Social Security office, which is over 25 miles away, and does not have a route by public transit from here.
Given my very limited finances at the time, it was a significant hardship. It would have been an unassailable hardship without access to a vehicle to get the Social Security office.
For some people in bad situations, it is a lot to ask for.
Should an American, who can’t meet the RealID act’s requirements have their voting rights stripped? Is that a fair election to you?
This is the key, right here. People in bad situations. People who are disproportionately poor. People who are disproportionately minorities. People who are disproportionately Democratic voters.
Upon reflection, what the fuck? Is this your big crusher, a “community grass roots” conspiracy?
Well, is it true? They don’t need papers to vote? Because if that isn’t true, then your whole theory dies aborning, doesn’t it? And this “community”? Is it a community of illegal aliens? Gosh, sure a good thing the local Republicans didn’t hear about this, huh? They’d be screaming their heads off! I’m guessing there are at least some Republicans in the “community”. Unless its a community exclusively of illegal aliens.
But, outside of this anecdote, have you any further evidence to back up your theory of a “grass roots sort of understanding in the community”?
This is it? This is what you got?
He also dismisses the possibility that studies from MIT, Columbia and Harvard Law Schools and a whole chapter of a book by a Loyolla Law Professor are accurate when it comes to Voter Confidence and offers no data to support his claim. At least he has an anectdote in this case…
I’m sorry, but your rhetoric is too flowery and complex for me to grasp.