Disenfranchizing the Electorate

[Ikohn4ever]

US top court rules states can demand voter ID

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that all states can demand photo identification papers from voters in a decision which could roil the US presidential race six months before the elections.


In a country which has no national identity card, the judges voted by six votes to three to uphold an appeals court decision backing an Indiana law, which demands voters provide proper ID such as a passport or driving license.
The decision, which ruled requiring photo identification did not violate Americans' constitutional rights, could lead to many being turned away at the polling booth, critics say.
"The evidence in the record is not sufficient to support a facial attack on the validity of the entire statute," the court said in the split decision written by judge John Paul Stevens.
But he did not rule out that the court could re-examine the case if it turns out that someone is barred from voting in a case which is likely to become a hot political potato.


In Indiana, some 43,000 out of the 4.7 million residents of voting age, primarily elderly people, have neither a passport nor a driving license. Those living in poorer districts or minorities also often fall into the category.
Such voters are traditionally Democratic Party supporters, so the decision is likely to spur a huge debate, just months from the November elections.
"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters," Stevens wrote.
"Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record-keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.


"While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear."
Traditionally electoral officers have checked identities by verifying that the voter's signature corresponds to the one given when they registered to vote.
But as part of a modernization drive put in place after the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections, more than half of the states have brought in laws ordering voters to show ID at voting stations, even if just a library card.
The Indiana law, adopted in 2005, is one of the country's strictest. But critics say it is too restrictive as no one has ever been prosecuted in the state for trying to vote in someone else's place.


Conservative judge Antonin Scalia said the law was "eminently reasonable" as the "burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe."
But in a dissenting opinion, judge David Souter said Indiana's law was unconstitutional as it "threatens to impose non-trivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state's citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting."
The case had been brought by the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, which argued that the risk of fraud came more from inflated voters lists and irregularities via postal votes, two issues not addressed by the law.
"This decision is a body blow to what America stands for -- equal access to the polls," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
"The Indiana law purports to solve a problem that does not exist and it could very well disenfranchise many, many citizens."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080428/pl_afp/usjusticevoteidentification;_ylt=AlP_3jJM3uyeacJKE NLxNSOyFz4D


What really annoys me is there is no concern about these computer voting machines with no printouts that can screw with hundreds of votes, but they are worried about petty voter fraud that is statistically insignificant. Anything that makes it harder for a person to vote should be struck down. Whether it be White Male Landowners or Poll Taxes, people felt that these laws were fair at one point too.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Photo ID is so hard to come by.

[Ikohn4ever]

Photo ID is so hard to come by.


there many reasons why it would be difficult to get a photo ID, but none would even be sufficient for you. Though I ask you, is individual voter fraud that big a problem and if so some evidence. There is a reason this is a solely republican sponsored issue, that effects the democratic base, so lets make it harder for them to vote. Thats why this is an issue instead of having print outs of the recorded votes on the machines that are unreliable at best.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

there many reasons why it would be difficult to get a photo ID, but none would even be sufficient for you.

Please let me know how. I'm sure it'll be magnificent.

...

I do concur with "What really annoys me is there is no concern about these computer voting machines with no printouts that can screw with hundreds of votes ..."

More should be done about electronic voting machines.

[peteloaf]

is individual voter fraud that big a problem

As much as I disagree with the requiring of ID, in Indiana (at least the North West Part) voter fraud is that big an issue. There were over 30 people arrested in relation to a 2003 democratic primary for one city alone. NWI is notorious for dirty politics.

[elprincipe]

Voter fraud is a problem in many areas of the country. I see no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote, in fact I like the idea. As long as people without ID are able to cast provisional ballots, I don't see why there should be any complaints, either.

[CocheseUGA]

Voter fraud is a problem in many areas of the country. I see no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote, in fact I like the idea. As long as people without ID are able to cast provisional ballots, I don't see why there should be any complaints, either.

Agreed, all around.

And I'm not Republican.

[Ikohn4ever]

Voter fraud is a problem in many areas of the country. I see no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote, in fact I like the idea. As long as people without ID are able to cast provisional ballots, I don't see why there should be any complaints, either.


the only way i would see myself okay with it, is if they allowed people on site of voting to get an id made there ala the dmv. This would def not be for everyone, but some people don't have the time or resources to go during the day, then i wouldn't have a problem with it.

[bigdaddy]

I can't believe this happened, even with Bush's assholes there.

It cost money to get a photo ID, thus it takes money to vote, and thus is is illegal. I don't give a shit what the court ruled, it's just fucking bullshit.

[BigT]

OMG we are now actually requiring that you prove your identity before you vote? The horror, the horror!

At least this hasn't passed in California yet. If it did, then what would all the illegal aliens do? Would they not be able to vote anymore?

[mykevermin]

Oh, they've revealed this year's "keep out the poor negro vote" model, have they?

A little clumsier than the 2004 disenfranchisement model, I have to say.

[thrustbucket]

This is the worst news for democrats yet....

[mykevermin]

This is the worst news for democrats yet....

:lol: It's particularly funny when people say something like this at the *same time* that they argue that this won't cause any group-level disenfranchisement and allow the voting process to be more fair and open.

[thrustbucket]

:lol: It's particularly funny when people say something like this at the *same time* that they argue that this won't cause any group-level disenfranchisement and allow the voting process to be more fair and open.

I know. It was sarcastic.

[BigT]

Disenfranchisement? Come on people, these aren't reincarnations of literacy tests.

Providing ID at the voting location is not unreasonable. Right now, I can just go there, say I'm "person X," scribble a signature and be allowed to vote... how do you think all the illegals vote in LA?

[thrustbucket]

Providing ID at the voting location is not unreasonable. Right now, I can just go there, say I'm "person X," scribble a signature and be allowed to vote... how do you think all the illegals vote in LA?

Certain people need all the illegals in L.A. to vote. That's why it's "unfair".

[mykevermin]

Show me the proof of widespread voting patterns of noncitizens voting and that it biases in one direction.

I've had my fill of allusions to it. Show me what you got.

I may never be able to convince some of y'all how downright idiotic some of your viewpoints are - but if I can at the very least get you to (1) source your claims and (2) think critically about making claims based on whether or not you can source them, then I'll be a happy lad indeed.

[thrustbucket]

Hehe, ok you got me. I'm mostly being a sarcastic ass. Just playing devils advocate on the common hyperbole of Democrats dependent on illegal immigrant votes.

However, without ID cards or other ways of tracking, how do you suppose such evidence illegal immigrant voting being widespread or not exists?

I think, perhaps, that's ultimately what this issue is about. Nobody really knows. It's a wild card. And not a small one.

[mykevermin]

There is demonstrable proof, however, that felon disenfranchiement cost Gore the 2000 election (i.e., the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to hand Bush the victory if felons had been able to vote after release. It wouldn't have been close).

Just so you know, it goes both ways, and at least I have proof on my side. I'll get the citation in the morning.

[GuilewasNK]

Providing ID at the voting location is not unreasonable. Right now, I can just go there, say I'm "person X," scribble a signature and be allowed to vote... how do you think all the illegals vote in LA?


I agree. It isn't unreasonable at all.

[Don Chubo]

Voter cited by opponents of Indiana's ID law registered in two states:

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.prt

The first person listed in the ILWV’s Supreme Court brief was dual registered in Indiana and Florida. Oops. :lol:

[CocheseUGA]

It cost money to get a photo ID, thus it takes money to vote, and thus is is illegal. I don't give a shit what the court ruled, it's just fucking bullshit.

No, it doesn't. In states where this is already passed, they made photo IDs free.

Show me the proof of widespread voting patterns of noncitizens voting and that it biases in one direction.

I've had my fill of allusions to it. Show me what you got.

I may never be able to convince some of y'all how downright idiotic some of your viewpoints are - but if I can at the very least get you to (1) source your claims and (2) think critically about making claims based on whether or not you can source them, then I'll be a happy lad indeed.

I'll show you evidence once you show me proof that obtaining or having an ID is a burden on a citizen.

[BigT]

There is demonstrable proof, however, that felon disenfranchiement cost Gore the 2000 election (i.e., the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to hand Bush the victory if felons had been able to vote after release. It wouldn't have been close).

Just so you know, it goes both ways, and at least I have proof on my side. I'll get the citation in the morning.

The original debate was whether an ID should be requested at the time of voting.

-One side said that this would be a rather benign requirement that would help reduce the potential for voter fraud. I made the glib comments that illegal noncitizens could vote under our current system with relative impunity. I haven't been able to find a scholarly source on the incidence of illegal alien voting; has anyone studied that? But, here in the OC, we did have a publicized investigation during a close congressional race b/w Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez that did find evidence of voting irregularities involving illegals, but was unable to conclude whether this would have affected the outcome: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5DD133FF935A25751C0A9619582 60

-You and others implied that this is an udue burden that would lead to disenfanchisement. No evidence was provided for this assertion. Instead, you shifted to the issue of felons being disenfranchised. These are not exactly parallel issues. Felons are disenfranchised not solely because of overt discrimination, but rather through some action of their own. Specifically, I believe that inmates should not have the right to vote. They have placed themselves in a state of war against society and it does not make sense that they should be part of society's decision making process while incarcerated. The issue of ex-felon disenfranchisement after they are released from prison is more nebulous. Personally, I would institute a waiting period proportional to their original sentence before they would be allowed to vote. Nevertheless, I agree that permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons is not a reasonable solution. I read over a review of this topic: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3088970 which does make projections that imply that the 2000 presidential election and several senate elections throughout the 90s would have gone democratic if felons were given the right to vote. The 2000 assertion is mainly based on what occured in Florida. I think they probably overestimated their prediction of felon turnout, by using matched nonfelons as the basis. But still, with the small margin in Florida, I do agree that if all felons were allowed to vote, Gore likely would have won.

[Don Chubo]

Yeah - throwing in that felon disenfanchisement bullshit was in fact, bullshit.

[mykevermin]

The original debate was whether an ID should be requested at the time of voting.

-One side said that this would be a rather benign requirement that would help reduce the potential for voter fraud. I made the glib comments that illegal noncitizens could vote under our current system with relative impunity. I haven't been able to find a scholarly source on the incidence of illegal alien voting; has anyone studied that? But, here in the OC, we did have a publicized investigation during a close congressional race b/w Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez that did find evidence of voting irregularities involving illegals, but was unable to conclude whether this would have affected the outcome: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5DD133FF935A25751C0A9619582 60

-You and others implied that this is an udue burden that would lead to disenfanchisement. No evidence was provided for this assertion. Instead, you shifted to the issue of felons being disenfranchised. These are not exactly parallel issues. Felons are disenfranchised not solely because of overt discrimination, but rather through some action of their own. Specifically, I believe that inmates should not have the right to vote. They have placed themselves in a state of war against society and it does not make sense that they should be part of society's decision making process while incarcerated. The issue of ex-felon disenfranchisement after they are released from prison is more nebulous. Personally, I would institute a waiting period proportional to their original sentence before they would be allowed to vote. Nevertheless, I agree that permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons is not a reasonable solution. I read over a review of this topic: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3088970 which does make projections that imply that the 2000 presidential election and several senate elections throughout the 90s would have gone democratic if felons were given the right to vote. The 2000 assertion is mainly based on what occured in Florida. I think they probably overestimated their prediction of felon turnout, by using matched nonfelons as the basis. But still, with the small margin in Florida, I do agree that if all felons were allowed to vote, Gore likely would have won.

"place themselves at war with society?" Please. We're talking about criminals - and lest we turn this into a discussion on what it means to be a criminal, it's absurdly simplistic to think of criminality as an "us" versus "them" issue.

If they place themselves at war with society, why not lock up every criminal for the remainder of their life? Why not extradite or deport all of them? "You commited a crime, you're no longer wanted here. Goodbye."

If you consider the differential impact the drug war has had on blacks (again, a primarily democratic voting block), as well as the nature of "victimless crimes" as drug use and possession are (not sales, not related violence, but merely the act of having or using), then it's no longer this silly dichotomous "us versus them" mentality.

The reality is that (1) criminality is not black and white, (2) not all criminals are created equal (take, for instance, those 18 year olds who have sex with their 17-year old partners in a non-consent state, who are incarcerated and have to register as sex offenders for life), (3) not all crimes are treated equally (the differential - and some would say racial - impact of crack cocaine sentences versus powder cocaine sentences that was just overturned, but had been in effect for over two decades in out courts and prisons), and (4) to some degree, all of us are 'criminal,' from the dude who steals cable to the person who goes 85 on the highway, to the person who downloaded the new "Pearl Jam" record when it leaked. If you want to play the "all criminals are at war with society" game, then it's simply silly to assume that the only deserving criminals of this label are the ones who are incarcerated, isn't it? Why not include the cats who downloaded GTAIV before release to pirate on their 360?

It's a parallel issue because it's another form of preventing people from voting.

As for the burden of proof, I would place it on you, seeing as how the policies are being changed to support the presentation of photo IDs. Seeing as how it is changing from one form to another in which I consider disenfranchisement possible, then I would think that the people proposing and passing this very policy would have something to support the time (and thus taxpayer cost) to show why this bill is important, and not simply an empty gesture. Right? Right.

EDIT: Uggen and Manza's AJS article, that's the one. Uggen has another article on the historical passing of felon disenfranchisement laws, and how it follows a pattern clearly led by state-to-state increases in the black felon population (i.e., states with higher proportions of black felons passed disenfranchisement laws the earliest, and other states followed suit as their proportion of black felons increased). But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. ;)

That's also a reminder I need to get a copy of Uggen's (and Manza as coauthor, too, I think) book "Locked Out," on this very subject.

[bmulligan]

I find it amusing that 8 years ago paper balloting was disenfranchising people because their hanging chads weren't being counted. The answer, of course, was to buy electronic voting machines which are now deemed untrustworthy and fraudulent.

I'm not sure how a picture ID should be required to vote. It does seem to amount to a poll tax. There's no legal requirement to getting a state issued ID, is there? Are we required to register our persons with the state and be identified by number?


I have a similar question about an address requirement. If you don't have one, how do get to vote? Aren't we still requiring people to own property for the privilege of voting by requiring a place of residence in order to be registered? And what is all this registered nonsense, anyway. Shouldn't we just get to walk into any polling place throughout our State and fill out a ballot?

[thrustbucket]

I have a similar question about an address requirement. If you don't have one, how do get to vote? Aren't we still requiring people to own property for the privilege of voting by requiring a place of residence in order to be registered? And what is all this registered nonsense, anyway. Shouldn't we just get to walk into any polling place throughout our State and fill out a ballot?

I've often wondered these same things. It seems we have listened to so many complaints of disenfranchisement that we've overly-convoluted the whole voting process.

The only item really worth being super strict about, for voting, is to make sure people don't vote more than once.

[BigT]

"place themselves at war with society?" Please. We're talking about criminals - and lest we turn this into a discussion on what it means to be a criminal, it's absurdly simplistic to think of criminality as an "us" versus "them" issue.

If they place themselves at war with society, why not lock up every criminal for the remainder of their life? Why not extradite or deport all of them? "You commited a crime, you're no longer wanted here. Goodbye."

The "state of war" is an allusion to Locke and refers simply to the conflict caused by an aggressor who attempts to deprive a victim of his life, freedom, or property. The idea goes that people form a society in order to avoid a perpetual state of war from which a state of nature may degenerate. Thus, the responsibility to protect people's life, freedom, and property is delegated to a centralized government. It follows from this that the government imposes certain sanctions against those who enter into a state of war.

I have already proposed on this board that repeat violent offenders should be sent to Alaskan Gulags for the rest of their lives. Alternatively, I'd accept sending in Frank Castle to eradicate our crime problem (btw, this being a videogame forum, people should check out the 2005 Punisher game by THQ with the Uncensor patch v3.4 found on gamecopyworld; it's a bit dated, but has tons of gruesome interrogation sequences that make Manhunt seem tame).

But, to get back on point, you are correct that all crimes are not equal. Obviously, drug possession for personal use or an individual copyright infringement should not be treated the same as a murder.


If you consider the differential impact the drug war has had on blacks (again, a primarily democratic voting block), as well as the nature of "victimless crimes" as drug use and possession are (not sales, not related violence, but merely the act of having or using), then it's no longer this silly dichotomous "us versus them" mentality.

I agree that our War on Drugs has been a failure. I personally believe that drugs like Marijuana should be treated in a similar fashion to how alcohol and tobacco are treated. But the reality is that drug use may lead to dangerous actions. E.g., Drinking or getting high and then driving can get people killed. Stuff like PCP can make one into a delusional and violent madman who feels little pain. From society's standpoint, it's probably a good thing that certain drugs are regulated
and/or illegal.



The reality is that (1) criminality is not black and white, (2) not all criminals are created equal (take, for instance, those 18 year olds who have sex with their 17-year old partners in a non-consent state, who are incarcerated and have to register as sex offenders for life), (3) not all crimes are treated equally (the differential - and some would say racial - impact of crack cocaine sentences versus powder cocaine sentences that was just overturned, but had been in effect for over two decades in out courts and prisons), and (4) to some degree, all of us are 'criminal,' from the dude who steals cable to the person who goes 85 on the highway, to the person who downloaded the new "Pearl Jam" record when it leaked. If you want to play the "all criminals are at war with society" game, then it's simply silly to assume that the only deserving criminals of this label are the ones who are incarcerated, isn't it? Why not include the cats who downloaded GTAIV before release to pirate on their 360?

I agree with points 1 and 2. As far as 3 is concerned, crime generally occurs in the bad parts of town, where blacks and latinos happen to live.
In 4, you are listing petty crimes. I guess some dipshits in government might classify them as felonies, but really...




It's a parallel issue because it's another form of preventing people from voting.

One is a theoretical argument that people may be disenfranchised because they would need to provide an ID. Felons are disenfranchised because it is part of their punishment.


As for the burden of proof, I would place it on you, seeing as how the policies are being changed to support the presentation of photo IDs. Seeing as how it is changing from one form to another in which I consider disenfranchisement possible, then I would think that the people proposing and passing this very policy would have something to support the time (and thus taxpayer cost) to show why this bill is important, and not simply an empty gesture. Right? Right.

I agree to a certain degree. Predicting the future is not a strong point of most people. The best we can do is to make sure there are provisions that would allow all people to obtain an ID for a reasonable fee. The burden of proof does however lie in showing that there is a reasonable need to help secure the integrity of our voting system (I'm not gonna quit my day job to try to study/prove that ;) ).

[GuilewasNK]

http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php

$13 or $10, with proper documentation.

I still don't see why this is that hard for even most disenfranchised to do. If it is, then politicians are dropping the ball by bitching about the law instead trying to set up something to help the disenfranchised get their ID within the law. It's all about helping people after all, right?

[Don Chubo]

http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php

$13 or $10, with proper documentation.

I still don't see why this is that hard for even most disenfranchised to do. If it is, then politicians are dropping the ball by bitching about the law instead trying to set up something to help the disenfranchised get their ID within the law. It's all about helping people after all, right?

And before anyone starts bitching about $10 or $13 maybe being too much money for poor folk, a free card can be obtained.

[CocheseUGA]

And before anyone starts bitching about $10 or $13 maybe being too much money for poor folk, a free card can be obtained.

And explicitly to avoid such bitching, Georgia made their voter ID cards absolutely free, no burden of proof necessary.

[mykevermin]

And explicitly to avoid such bitching, Georgia made their voter ID cards absolutely free, no burden of proof necessary.

Well, that certainly solves the problem of illegal voting. :rofl:

The "state of war" is an allusion to Locke and refers simply to the conflict caused by an aggressor who attempts to deprive a victim of his life, freedom, or property. The idea goes that people form a society in order to avoid a perpetual state of war from which a state of nature may degenerate. Thus, the responsibility to protect people's life, freedom, and property is delegated to a centralized government. It follows from this that the government imposes certain sanctions against those who enter into a state of war.

I'm aware of the logic behind laws.

I agree with points 1 and 2. As far as 3 is concerned, crime generally occurs in the bad parts of town, where blacks and latinos happen to live.
In 4, you are listing petty crimes. I guess some dipshits in government might classify them as felonies, but really...

Now you're parsing definitions of criminality, sweetums. Are you allowed to deem, say, Take-2's personal property (an .iso of GTAIV) as less valuable, and therefore less criminal, then someone entering my house and taking the copy sitting in my living room? Why one and not the other?

One is a theoretical argument that people may be disenfranchised because they would need to provide an ID. Felons are disenfranchised because it is part of their punishment.

Punishment? I thought the idea of the criminal justice system was found in its name: justice. What justice is served when citizens are denied rights? What is the purpose of such punishment? Do you think it would deter someone from committing a crime? It may be punishment for its own sake (and it could be if you ignore the history behind the passing of disenfranchisement laws), but at that point we're going outside the boundaries regarding how a government should treat its citizens (even the lawbreaking ones), aren't we?

[CocheseUGA]

Well, that certainly solves the problem of illegal voting. :rofl:




Perhaps less time making smartass comments, and more time reading the provided links? The burden of proof I was talking about was the one of financial distress, not legal status.

[bmulligan]

Perhaps less time making smartass comments, and more time reading the provided links? The burden of proof I was talking about was the one of financial distress, not legal status.

But I think Myke's point was that denying felons their right to vote seems contrary to the principle of citizenship. Once an offender has 'paid' for their crime with a jail sentence, what is the justification he be punished for the rest of his life by being denied the vote? What if the law he broke is repealed? What if the law broken was unjust?

If being a criminal strips you of an integral component of citizenship, it gives the Ruling Class a huge incentive to make sure their are as many criminals as possible.

[CocheseUGA]

No. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with that.

But weighing in, I say if you commit a certain class of felonies (murder, rape, kidnapping) then you should forfeit it forever.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, sorry there Cocheese, I quoted the wrong post.

But what about manslaughter, felonious assault, or embezzlement ?

[CocheseUGA]

I haven't familiarized myself with the Class A, B, etc definitions in quite awhile, but there's always a place to draw a line, and always a place where people aren't going to be happy about it.

[level1online]

In case some you guys aren't familiar with disenfranchisement of Black voters from 2000-2004, there's a film out there called American Blackout.

here's some info:
American Blackout (2006) Disenfranchisement of Black US Voters (1h29m)

Chronicles the recurring patterns of disenfranchisement witnessed from 2000 to 2004 while following the story of Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who not only took an active role in investigating these election debacles but also found herself in the middle of one after publicly questioning the Bush Administration about the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Some call Cynthia McKinney a civil rights leader among the ranks of Shirley Chisholm and Malcolm X. Others call her a conspiracy theorist and a 'looney.' American Blackout gains unprecedented access to one of the most controversial and dangerous politicians in America and examines the contemporary tactics used to control our democratic process and silence political dissent.

The film features interviews with: US Congressional Representatives, John Lewis, Cynthia McKinney, John Conyers, Bernie Sanders, and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones; former US Civil Rights Commissioner & Dean of UC Berkeley's School of Law, Christopher Edley; BBC journalist Greg Palast; and, Van Jones, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center.

More info: http://www.americanblackout.com/

[MrBadExample]

Will photo ID help prevent this kind of Republican fraud? (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/08/did_ann_coulter_admit_to_commiting_voter_and_tax_f raud_on_hannity_colmes.php)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Will photo ID help prevent this kind of Republican fraud? (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/08/did_ann_coulter_admit_to_commiting_voter_and_tax_f raud_on_hannity_colmes.php)

If you're famous, you're allowed to vote more than once. It is in the Constitution ... near the back.

[Don Chubo]

I have yet to see a good argument against requiring a photo ID.

[mykevermin]

I have yet to see a good argument against requiring a photo ID.

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/04/30.php#19039

[thrustbucket]

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/04/30.php#19039

Huh? Ummm......

Yeah I guess I'd do her...

[Don Chubo]

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/04/30.php#19039

I still have yet to see a good argument against requiring a photo ID.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Huh? Ummm......

Yeah I guess I'd do her...

Robbing the grave there, thrust.

And the link fell a little flat.

[pittpizza]

I would definitely fuck her. I think it'd be fun to knock the dust off her rafters; old hens would rather put out than be put out to the pastures. (-BHG)

[mykevermin]

I still have yet to see a good argument against requiring a photo ID.

Try clicking the link, then.

;)

[Don Chubo]

Weaksauce.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Try clicking the link, then.

;)

Am I supposed to listen to the segments?

[pittpizza]

Yeah what is up with that link? All I saw were abunch of smokin' hot pictures of some mature lady. Isn't that chick on NPR?

Excuse me, I have to go have a personal.

[mykevermin]

Wait - so you're telling me that when you click on the link, you don't get taken to the page from yesterday's discussion - that it doesn't say "10:00AM - VOTER FRAUD" at the top, with a "LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE" next to it?

[Don Chubo]

Oh, it's there. It's just weak.

[thrustbucket]

I listened to it, but how could I pay attention with all those hot pics to look at of her. I have no idea what she said.

[mykevermin]

Oh, it's there. It's just weak.

Well, as long as you're going to deliver stunning and thorough discrediting of the discourse like that, I guess I have no place to be.

But, of course, I know you didn't listen to the show. Someone like you would be joining in the circle jerk going on here; only you'd be jerking off to John Fund's talking points nonsense instead of photos of Diane Rehm, like pitt and thrust.

(on a side note, I've listened to her show for years, and the first time I saw her, I was not only stunned to realize that she wasn't 173 years old, but that we was an attractive lady indeed, as some of you have done a less-than-classy job of pointing out).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

(music) lowered expectations (music)

[Don Chubo]

But, of course, I know you didn't listen to the show.

You bitch about people presuming things, and then you do the same. Hate to break the bad news to you hypocrite, but you're dead wrong. I listened to the entire 50 or so minutes. John represented the conservative side, Wendy the lib, and I thought Doug to be relatively moderate, maybe a tiny bit lib-leaning. Having Todd Rokita on gave perspective from a prime mover for the law.

Diane did a good job moderating the discussion, but she said something about halfway in that made it sound like she agreed that such a law was a "barrier". I'd go back and listen again, but since the show failed to present a good argument against a photo ID (which is what I asked for in the first place), I don't see the point.

One thing that John said was that he wasn't going to "play competing studies". That's not verbatim, but close enough. One study said that 10-13% of voters were adversely affected, another study said 1.2%. That's the thing about studies - you have to know who paid for them, who sponsored them, and what their agenda is. Of course, I'm sure you know that as you are constantly citing studies to throw prison matters and race matters into discussions.

[mykevermin]

Well, why in the tits couldn't you have said THAT in the first place, instead of "weaksauce" or somesuch nondescript nonsense?

And as far as studies are concerned, you're right to a point, I suppose. It's quite easy to discredit stuff like that on the surface (e.g., the sorts of anti-global warming research paid for by foundations which are shelter groups for Exxon-Mobil) - but beyond that, if you're a sound methodologist, any study can be debunked based on its scientific merits. There's little need to say "oh, it's funded by so-and-so" when it's more logical to say "well, here's where it's flawed methodologically:"

[elprincipe]

Why does it not shock me to see level1online defending a crazy idiot anti-Semite like Cynthia McKinney?

[pittpizza]

(on a side note, I've listened to her show for years, and the first time I saw her, I was not only stunned to realize that she wasn't 173 years old, but that we was an attractive lady indeed, as some of you have done a less-than-classy job of pointing out).

Well excuse me if I make a post about how I'd make that grandma's bones knock up against each other when I have no strong opinion about the underlying topic.

And what, pray tell, is "less-than-classy" about saying that I'd bone her, and that I'd knock the cobwebs off it, and that older chicks love to put out to some young buck.

"Heres to you, Mrs. Re-eh-ehm. Jesus loves you more than you could know. Oh O O. We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files. We'd like to help you learn to help yourself..."

[Don Chubo]

This is a bullshit topic anyway. The Indiana photo ID law is not "Disenfranchizing the Electorate". There is no removal of the right to vote for anyone.

Now if you want to talk voter fraud, then talk about ACORN (pleaded guilty to the biggest case of election fraud in Washington state history, tied to voter fraud in 15 states), or the nonprofit Women's Voices Vote that has been caught in shenanigans in NC. Here's a link to that:

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

Oh - and they've drawn rebukes from election officials and voter complaints in 11 states.

[mykevermin]

This is a bullshit topic anyway. The Indiana photo ID law is not "Disenfranchizing the Electorate". There is no removal of the right to vote for anyone.

Well, then, I support a poll tax. After all, nobody's right has been removed.

[Don Chubo]

So there is still no convincing argument against Indiana's Photo ID law.

[mykevermin]

A poll tax and thumbscrews.

[willardhaven]

Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't "illegal" immigrants vote? They do live here (whether you like it or not).

[thrustbucket]

Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't "illegal" immigrants vote? They do live here (whether you like it or not).

Voting is a right by citizens. In almost every country in the world. You can live in Mexico for 40 years, but you still won't get to vote until you become a Mexican citizen.

Anyone that really wants to vote can become a naturalized citizen. Same here, and pretty much everywhere else.

The reasons for this should be obvious. On a very fundamental level if all you had to do is "live there", if one country wants to usurp another countries government, all they would have to do is send enough of their own people to that country for election time (this actually has happened in my wife's native country).

The idea is, ensuring that voters are at least citizens is suppose to help ensure that the people voting have a vested interest in making the country better. Part of the process of becoming a naturalized citizen is swearing allegiance to that country. If you let just anyone happening to be "visiting" your country vote, the chances are higher that they will vote for what they perceive is their native countrie's best interest.

[GuilewasNK]

Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't illegal immigrants vote? They do live here (whether you like it or not).

You're kidding right?

[willardhaven]

Half and half, I'm just interested in hearing more detailed responses than "illegal immigrants bad".

Sometimes I think that "illegal" immigrants are the red herring of the current economic situation.

But yeah, I realize that there must be rules in place to prevent the aforementioned "voting assassins". I was just making conversation.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You're kidding right?

I hope so.

Then again, I'd like to vote on the leaders of China, Russia, Cuba or any other country.

[niceguyshawne]

So there is still no convincing argument against Indiana's Photo ID law.

How about that in a cost cutting move by the GOP administration, many local DMV branches were either closed or significantly reduced hours. While those with reduced hours do extend the Monday before and election Tuesday, many smaller cities no longer have a DMV locally and would need to travel to obtain an ID card.

[Don Chubo]

How many local DMV branches were closed and when?

Having a photo ID law may not be the most convenient thing for some people, but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.

[niceguyshawne]

How many local DMV branches were closed and when?

Having a photo ID law may not be the most convenient thing for some people, but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.

It happened when the Republican administration came into power about 4 years ago. The branch in my hometown was closed and there were several closed around the state. I am sorry that I am not really interested in taking time to "prove" this to you or get you the actual numbers to back my point up but I really don't give a fuck to take the time to do so.

It really isn't a matter of convenience as much as ability to go to the nearest DMV branch. Even though these are offered as "free," someone who doesn't drive would still have to find a ride to the branch. With fuel prices rising, this prospect is becoming more and more difficult when this involves a trip to the next town over.

I would be more apt to support something like this if the identification required did not expire after 4 years. Unfortunately that is not the case in Indiana.

[pittpizza]

but inconvenience is not a strong point for opposition of said law.

Actually it is. Voting should be extremely convenient, approachable, and easy for any citizen to access.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling. Frankly I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

Still, don't say that incovnenience is not a strong point for the opposition because it is.

[Ikohn4ever]

i think this summarizes things nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQQC95YA0OE


or we could just have congress make rules for federal elections, which is in there power, that would be fair and balanced.

[Don Chubo]

Interesting site. Who sponsors it?

[willardhaven]

Don't photo IDs cost money in most places?

[Don Chubo]

See posts #29 & 30 in this thread.

[willardhaven]

Oh sorry about that.

[Ikohn4ever]

It begins:

With no photo IDs, nuns denied ballots in Indiana primary

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Ind., were barred from casting regular ballots in Tuesday's Indiana Democratic primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said several of the retired nuns had been voting all of their lives but were told they lacked the required photo IDs.
Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation law, which the high court upheld by a 6-3 vote, requires every voter to produce a state-issued photo ID card.
Borkowski said that two of the nuns with whom he spoke ``were very frustrated'' and so upset that they refused to exercise their rights to cast provisional ballots. He said one of the nuns told him that many other elderly nuns living on four floors of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross decided not to vote upon learning that their sisters had been turned away at the poll in their building.
Lauren McCallick, an 18-year-old freshman at St. Mary's College, also in South Bend, said she was forced to cast a provisional ballot because she could produce only a California driver's license and a college identification card.
``The nuns and this young woman are the face of the Supreme Court case,'' said Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee's Campaign for Fair Elections.
A spokeswoman for Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, who oversees the law, declined immediate comment.

[Don Chubo]

...so upset that they refused to exercise their rights to cast provisional ballots.

It begins, all right. Get pissed off that election personnel are upholding the law, so just don't vote. That'll show 'em.

[Ikohn4ever]

It begins, all right. Get pissed off that election personnel are upholding the law, so just don't vote. That'll show 'em.


that law was just deemed constitutional so there really was not enough time for people to get it.

[Don Chubo]

That's not addressing the point that they could have cast provisional ballots but chose not to.

[CocheseUGA]

That's not addressing the point that they could have cast provisional ballots but chose not to.

Yeah, it's hard to cast blame on the system when you choose not to participate when you've been 'discouraged.'

I also like the little snippet about the college student without clarification if she was even eligible to vote in Indiana.

[GuilewasNK]

Don't photo IDs cost money in most places?


No one lives a life of 100% handouts. Everyone at some point needs to pay for something and it's up to that person to decide what is more important, a picture ID or a bottle of Jack. I say that facetiously, but you get the idea.

[Mike23]

The only way that I see this not amounting to a poll tax is to make voter ID free. I know the cost right now isn't significant, but it still means someone theoretically has to pay for the ability to vote. Put a limit on free ID cards (say 2/year) to avoid fraud, but do make them free.

Just not at the expense of deficits in budgets.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I get so sick of this photo ID = poll tax crap.

If you're that strapped for cash, walk up to a parked cop car with a cop inside of it and start rocking it back and forth.

When the cop orders you to stop, say these three magic words: "Arrest me, pig."

The cop will be more than happy to give you a very legally binding photo ID with no upfront costs.

[mykevermin]

I'm still waiting for the evidence that was necessary to pass this law in the first place - that in the absence of necessary photo ID, massive voter fraud is taking place.

Seeing as how the law changed from X to Y, it would stand that the people who support Y have built a case around it. Yet, the arguments I see here amount to little more than "show me why we shouldn't have it." As I said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is on those people who sought to change the law, not those who want it to remain as it is (well, was).

[Don Chubo]

that law was just deemed constitutional so there really was not enough time for people to get it.

No. The law has been on the books for some time. This is not a new thing.

From the Indiana Secretary of State's website:

The photo ID law has been tested and successfully passed the scrutiny of the courts in the past. First, by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker in 2006 and then upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding Indiana's Photo ID law in 2007.

[CocheseUGA]

I'm still waiting for the evidence that was necessary to pass this law in the first place - that in the absence of necessary photo ID, massive voter fraud is taking place.

Seeing as how the law changed from X to Y, it would stand that the people who support Y have built a case around it. Yet, the arguments I see here amount to little more than "show me why we shouldn't have it." As I said earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is on those people who sought to change the law, not those who want it to remain as it is (well, was).

Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?

[Don Chubo]

Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?

I don't think you're supposed to notice that?

[mykevermin]

Isn't your arguement the exact same, but in reverse?

Let me put it this way: suppose there is a political activist group who thinks that we should all drive on the left side of the street, United Kingdom-style. Who is more responsible for making an argument to support their claim: those who want to change the status quo, or the status quo itself?

[CocheseUGA]

Let me put it this way: suppose there is a political activist group who thinks that we should all drive on the left side of the street, United Kingdom-style. Who is more responsible for making an argument to support their claim: those who want to change the status quo, or the status quo itself?

Does a plurality or majority of the driving public support such a measure?

[mykevermin]

Irrelevant when a state-level bureaucracy is voting on it.

[CocheseUGA]

Irrelevant when a state-level bureaucracy is voting on it.

Don't pull that when you give an example that could only be done by federal-level bureaucracy.

[Ikohn4ever]

No. The law has been on the books for some time. This is not a new thing.

From the Indiana Secretary of State's website:

The photo ID law has been tested and successfully passed the scrutiny of the courts in the past. First, by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker in 2006 and then upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding Indiana's Photo ID law in 2007.

yes, but when it was still being appealed, if you lose a case involving money, you don't pay right away, you wait till after you final appeal is either denied or ruled on. There def should have been some leeway on this first election

[mykevermin]

Don't pull that when you give an example that could only be done by federal-level bureaucracy.

Nonsense. The state could do it on their own, but at the risk of sacrificing federal funds for highways and whatnot.

All that aside, you're nitpicking silly-ass points and ignoring the point I'm trying to make that you overlooked in the first place about burden of proof.

[Don Chubo]

yes, but when it was still being appealed, if you lose a case involving money, you don't pay right away, you wait till after you final appeal is either denied or ruled on. There def should have been some leeway on this first election

Your analogy doesn't apply, and the law was passed in 2005. 2-3 years is ample time to get your shit together so you can vote. And as far as "first election" goes? No. I had to show my ID for the last midterm election.

[GuilewasNK]

Let me ask this, and I'm not asking in a smartass way because I really don't know the answer...

Don't all these "disenfranchised" people need photo ID for social programs like food stamps, welfare, and etc. anyway?

[CocheseUGA]

Nonsense. The state could do it on their own, but at the risk of sacrificing federal funds for highways and whatnot.

All that aside, you're nitpicking silly-ass points and ignoring the point I'm trying to make that you overlooked in the first place about burden of proof.

Right. Let's see how the whole 'left-lane driving' bit works at the state borders.

You're ignoring points and providing ridiculous 'what-if' scenarios about things that aren't even remotely comparable. And by different levels of government, no less.

At least compare constitutional rights to constitutional rights.

[CocheseUGA]

Don't all these "disenfranchised" people need photo ID for social programs like food stamps, welfare, and etc. anyway?


But, according to people like myke, we're not allowed to ask that question until we prove why we need the law.

[elprincipe]

Why do we need proof that there is massive fraud before taking prudent measures to prevent said fraud from occurring? I don't buy into that line of reasoning, and I'm sure you don't apply it to other areas, myke.