What effect did voter-ID laws have in the 2012 election?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

It was earlier claimed that most people getting caught committing voter fraud are Republicans trying to test the system. However, they usually get caught because they bragged about it. What if instead of this, there was an organized effort by Republicans to steal and election through the use of in person voter fraud?

Wouldn’t it be pretty easy to pull off?

From The Voting Wars, by Richard Hasen:

If I wanted to steal an election using voter impersonation fraud, I’d have to recruit a bunch of people to vote at the polling place using fake names. But they might not follow my directions. They might go into the polling place and not vote, they might vote under their own names, or they might vote for someone other than the candidate I paid them to vote for. This is the problem with any elections crime scheme based on voters using a secret ballot in a polling place.

But impersonation fraud represents an even greater hurdle. There are two ways to impersonate. One way would be to have people claim to be somebody else listed on the rolls. This is obviously problematic: If I send you in and direct you to claim to be Thor Hearne, who I know is registered to vote in that precinct, but Thor has already showed up to vote, you would be immediately subject to arrest.

You might be arrested even if Thor has not yet voted. In many precincts, poll workers are local individuals. One of them could well know him. “You’re not Thor” could also land you in jail. Moreover, many places do a signature match. Your signature would not match Thor’s.

The other way of doing impersonation fraud would be for me to get you to fill out a registration card with a false name and address. The voter registration card would be turned into election officials, who will check the name and address against existing records. These forms have to be turned in weeks before the election. I’d then need to recruit people to go to the polling place on Election Day and falsely claim to be a person on the list. And federal law already provides that first-time voters must supply a driver’s license or Social Security number if they register first to vote by mail – or provide identification to election officials when they vote for the first time.

Either gambit requires assembling enough coconspirators to affect the outcome of the election. Could I do it, even in a very small election, without getting caught? We don’t have a single recent example of anyone even attempting it. Why try such a risky scheme when absentee ballots are so much safer and more reliable? [N.B.: Hasen is not talking about fraudulent absentee ballots but bought absentee ballots; as he notes elsewhere in the book, absentee voting is the one area where vote-buying still happens sometimes, because, unlike voting a secret ballot on e-day, it leaves a paper trail which the buyer can check if he has the right inside connections, or simply check in person by watching the voter fill out the ballot.]

The chance that impersonation fraud can effect a presidential, statewide, or even large city or county election is miniscule. Missouri had about four million registered voters in the 2000s. The idea that impersonation fraud could be done on a large-enough scale to affect the outcome of any major race, without detection by government officials, is ludicrous.

[adaher]

Maybe not in person voter impersonation, but a Miami election was thrown out due to massive absentee ballot fraud. And there have been many more arrests, often of party officials, for forging absentee ballots and submitting them.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Maybe not in person voter impersonation, but a Miami election was thrown out due to massive absentee ballot fraud. And there have been many more arrests, often of party officials, for forging absentee ballots and submitting them.

Not a problem a voter-ID law would do anything to fix. The only way to fix it would be to abolish absentee balloting. And I don’t think you would like that. As Hasen notes elsewhere in the book (in discussing Democratic Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner’s decision in 2008 to discount any absentee ballot where a check-box on the form (not required by Ohio law, but foolishly included on the form by the Republicans running the drive) was left blank – she lost that one in the courts), Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to vote absentee (a fact which apparently, but not certainly, motivated Brunner’s decision). And, of course, military personnel stationed abroad can only vote absentee, and they do tend to lean Pub.

[BrainGlutton]

BTW, the ultimate message of Hasen’s book is that these problems arise because the American election system has two characteristics which are highly unusual for a modern republic:

1. The system is “hyperfederalized.” Every county elections office, locally elected, does things its own way – even state Secretaries of State have only very limited power to standardize the process.

2. The system is partisan. Most SOSs and most county elections supervisors are elected as Dems or Pubs. In most republics, elections are run by nonelected nonpartisan civil servants.

[adaher]

Voter ID is low hanging fruit. Dealing with absentee ballot fraud is a little harder. One thing that Miami did was to require a witness for all absentee ballots. That way they know who to arrest if it’s a fraudulent vote.

[running_coach]

@adaher

Maybe not in person voter impersonation, but a Miami election was thrown out due to massive absentee ballot fraud. And there have been many more arrests, often of party officials, for forging absentee ballots and submitting them.

The election was not thrown out, just the bogus ballot requests.

In the Miami-Dade primary election last August, requests for over 2,500 phantom absentee ballots flooded the Miami Dade voter registration site, a phenomenon which a grand jury has now confirmed came from hackers, reports MSNBC’s Gil Aegerter. Because it had some hallmarks of trickery, the election department’s software was able to halt the scheme before it actually affected the election.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Voter ID is low hanging fruit.

How so? Most demands for it are fundamentally dishonest and suppression-motivated (and, yes, those are the same thing). My thread is my cite.

[adaher]

@runner pat

The election was not thrown out, just the bogus ballot requests.

Wrong election. The 1997 election was thrown out. But it’s good to see that the protections put in place since then are helping.

[running_coach]

@adaher

Wrong election. The 1997 election was thrown out. But it’s good to see that the protections put in place since then are helping.

Which is why you should cite your sources rather than hiding them.

And the method of fraud was very different in 1997 so whatever protections were in place weren’t designed with modern computers in mind(for obvious reasons).

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

From The Voting Wars, by Richard Hasen:

Re-posted for the third time, in response to your posting of the same thing three times in three different threads:

@Bricker

The quote you offer talks about voter impersonation fraud, but you talk about voter fraud.

What about the case in which Sven Amuldsen votes, correctly identifying himself as Sven Amuldsen, but casts an illegal ballot because he’s not a citizen, or a felon without restoration of his voting rights, or has already voted elsewhere? That’s not impersonation, in the sense your quoted author means, but it’s nonetheless a fraudulent vote.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Re-posted for the third time, in response to your posting of the same thing three times in three different threads:

Addressed.

[elucidator]

Gasp! And if an asteroid is hurtling towards the Earth, provoking a nation-wide unicorn stampede during a massive snowstorm on the fourth of July, then a single felonious Norwegian bachelor farmer could throw the entire election!

And *that’s *why we cannot have early voting, registration drives,and extended polling hours! Of course, its all clear now!

The thanks of a grateful nation go out to you, Bricker.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

Glutton, in your experience, employers are breaking the law.

It’s called the I-9 form, and every employee is required to fill one out. Please tell us again which companies are foregoing this legal requirement.

Form I-9 - Wikipedia

Your cite seems to indicate that you can get away with a single peice of ID if the ID can verify your identity and emplyment eligibility. You only need two if the thing that establishes your identity doesn’t also establish employment eligibility, in which case you need something that also establishes your eligibility for employment.

@adaher

My point is that if ID is truly an onerous barrier, then it’s stopping people from making a living, a far more serious problem for the average person than the inability to vote.

Or perhaps they are in college and don’t work yet.
Or perhaps they are retired.
Or perhaps they are disabled or on welfare.

Ther number of people without ID is not humongous relative to the general population, its just humongous when compared to people who perpetrate in person voter fraud.

But it’s not actually an onerous barrier, which is why almost everyone has ID. The only people that don’t have ID don’t need it in their every day lives. But that doesn’t mean they can’t easily get it, and they would get it the very next day if they needed it to cash a check or something.

Its not onerous, but it is designed to suppress marginal voters.

@adaher

Maybe not in person voter impersonation, but a Miami election was thrown out due to massive absentee ballot fraud. And there have been many more arrests, often of party officials, for forging absentee ballots and submitting them.

@adaher

Voter ID is low hanging fruit. Dealing with absentee ballot fraud is a little harder. One thing that Miami did was to require a witness for all absentee ballots. That way they know who to arrest if it’s a fraudulent vote.

There’s not a lot of fruit there and people seem to be going through an awful lot of trouble to get at it. I don’t really believe its out of concern for the integrity of the system.

[adaher]

Close elections leave a lot of bitterness in their wake. A tighter election system would mean less suspicion of bad faith.

In Florida, there are many non-citizens on the voting rolls. Many of whom are recorded as having voted. Again, it’s not in person voting fraud, but it’s something that has to be addressed, and Florida did try to address it, but got guff from the federal government over it. The feds eventually lost the case, so hopefully by 2014 we’ll have all those non-citizens off the rolls.

[Chronos]

Great, so let’s have a tighter election system, then. We’ll start by getting rid of the ID requirements currently being proposed, since those (by design) vastly decrease the tightness of the system.

[adaher]

I don’t see how. That’s like saying that ID requirements decrease the security of our airlines.

[Bricker]

@Chronos

Great, so let’s have a tighter election system, then. We’ll start by getting rid of the ID requirements currently being proposed, since those (by design) vastly decrease the tightness of the system.

Great. How do you propose to convince the more than seventy percent of the electorate who believe the exact opposite of this claim?

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Well, yes. If you have a secret ballot, you cannot ask any voter to look at her ballot the next day and verify that is how she cast it. But there is an inexpensive technology which will print out the ballot from the touchscreen, move it under a pane of glass where the voter can see it and verify it, and then scan it, and deposit it in a sealed box. If there’s any dispute about the vote-count on that machine, the election officials can open that box and do a hand-count. That defeats any attempt to rig the count by hacking or viruses or hidden programming or whatever. The only way to beat this system would be old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, by hand; which, as always, can only happen if the election officials are in on it, and there are ways to watchdog them.

That’s known as a voter-verified paper audit trail, BTW.

[Chronos]

I don’t see how.

The numbers have already been posted many times. If you would like to dispute them, perhaps you’d care to provide some numbers of your own?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Great. How do you propose to convince the more than seventy percent of the electorate who believe the exact opposite of this claim?

Are you referring to this? It’s from North Carolina only, where the legislature’s recent actions have laid bare the true motives of the vote-suppression effort you continue to support so loyally. Some other findings:

70 percent would not turn away a registered voter who doesn’t have one, if the voter signs an affidavit and provides a verifiable ID number such as a date of birth or social security number.
…
a strong majority of voters also oppose voting restrictions that are aimed at a particular party or group, and 74 percent agree with the statement, “Legislators should show evidence of significant problems, such as real voter fraud, before they pass laws that make voting more difficult.”

Only a third of North Carolina voters think passing a photo ID bill should be a high priority.
…
According to the poll, support for a photo ID requirement drops from 75 percent to 59 percent when callers are told it would have a disproportionate impact on African-American voters. It falls to 54 percent when voters hear that it could cause difficulties for seniors who no longer drive and women with a different name on their driver’s license than their voter registration card.

One reason for sustained support: fully 40 percent of all voters (48% of Republicans) agree that “cases of people voting in the name of someone else are commonplace,” despite the lack of hard evidence.

Hmm, why would you leave those things out? Wonder, wonder, wonder …