Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on.

Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on. (Page 11)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 04:27 PM
 
I forget Shaddim, are you in TN or KY?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Do the redistricting fiascos count?
Unequivocally.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, it was hyperbole. Do you deny the majority of restrictive voting laws are coming from GOP controlled legislatures? Do you have examples of Democratic controlled legislatures doing the same?
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Unequivocally
Dakar I've given you examples of this in this very thread. My concern at the time was that you were ignoring the (D) examples of blatant voter suppression while blasting Republicans for the same. Do you recall this example? i would be happy to recap it for you.

And yeah, I deny that the majority of vote-suppression laws are coming from the GOP. It's in plain site even in the state where you reside.Assuming you still live in Rockville.

EDIT:
My position at the time, as it is now, is that this phenomenon has shifted from a (R) vs (D) issue and is now a government vs the people argument. So long as we have the political blinders on we will continue to suffer the ill-effects of a government that has stopped answering to its people. I can't share your outrage until I'm certain that your concerns extend beyond Republicans and Democrats.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I decided to google this and autocomplete gave me "check cashing no id required." Well!
Oh how about this: Cashing Checks & Check Cashing Locations | Speedy Cash

Not needing/wanting an ID to cash checks – its a thing!
A thing of myth. There's absolutely no reason to conclude that you'll get money without ID because as you can see, the alternate means of verifying ID required ID to have including employment information and banking information.



The above page shows the following question; I don't have a photo ID. Can I still get a loan?
If you don't have a driver's license or photo ID, you can visit one of our Speedy Cash locations, and a customer service representative will work with you to verify your identity and get you the cash you need.

I'm nothing if not a reasonable person and of course would be fine with an alternate Voter ID proposal that "works with the voter to verify their identity" at the polls including employment verification, working phone number, and fingerprint to secure their vote. That said; with the interest they're charging for these loans, it may be more humane to drive them to the DMV and then to a bank.

Source. I tried googling the breakdown on states that pull from voter registration vs. whatever and couldn't find shit. PS. A lot of people we're talking about don't deal with the DMV either.
The pool is generally a compilation of DMV records and voter registrations. District courts pull by County, not State. If you'd like to prove me wrong, you can copy paste the FAQ from your own county and if it turns out they use no combination including DMV registration, I'll drop the argument. Otherwise, this is standard fare.

You consider a guy doing oddjobs under the table criminality?
No. I consider $9500/yr a non-living wage. If you're earning less than that, you're more than likely utilizing welfare services that require ID. If you're earning more than this and have completed the proper forms, your ID is on file. If you're earning a living wage under the table, you're defrauding the tax code and are subject to criminal penalty. It's a crime hence; criminality. *Hint: If what you've chopped out of my statement above is evidence of reading comprehension, we may be at an impasse here.

Bwuh? How did I not get anywhere with that?
They were examples that do not generally apply and require negligence of one or all parties involved in the transaction.

Hahaha, Once again, no one mentioned people on the right being critical of the NRA.
The original statement: "many on the right will brook no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever"

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Teeheehee, I'll chalk this up to willful ignorance.

What exactly are you rebutting here? You're comparing gun magazine subscribers to people who think everything should be banned?
No. I'm saying we shouldn't use the fringe arguments of "many on the right or left" when discussing something with one another. It's sort of a classic diversionary tactic. OAW understood this without issue and since he was the intended recipient of that post, I'm okay with that.

Excuse me? Where has it been demonstrated it's rife with fraud? And further, can you demonstrate that the fraud that is being perpetrated actually has an effect on election outcomes?
I already gave an extensive list of the statistics around registration fraud. If you can establish why it would be important for me to post them again, I'll reconsider. Otherwise, there's no other purpose voter registration fraud could hope to serve other than to defraud an election process.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I forget Shaddim, are you in TN or KY?
Technically TN but within a stone's throw of NC.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Re: cold medicine

You just get someone with an ID to buy it for you. I have a friend with no ID. I get Claritin for him.
There are ways around all things, including a legitimate and secure election process. You just need help, that's all.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Dakar I've given you examples of this in this very thread. My concern at the time was that you were ignoring the (D) examples of blatant voter suppression while blasting Republicans for the same. Do you recall this example? i would be happy to recap it for you.
I seem to recall the alluding to Maryland's redistricting shenanigans, which I acknowledged and condemned (with a note about how the voters allowed themselves to get fooled or agreed)

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And yeah, I deny that the majority of vote-suppression laws are coming from the GOP. It's in plain site even in the state where you reside.Assuming you still live in Rockville.
I reside in a Red State.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I can't share your outrage until I'm certain that your concerns extend beyond Republicans and Democrats.
We've already done this dance.


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Technically TN but within a stone's throw of NC.
Well, within the scope of the topic: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...n-undue-burden
he Tennessee Supreme Court upheld a 2011 law requiring photo identification at the polls, ruling that lawmakers had the authority to take steps to guard against fraud.

...

Chief Justice Gary R. Wade wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court and many other state courts have upheld similar voter ID requirements. He also said that, while instances of people impersonating voters at the polls have not been documented in Tennessee, such cases have occurred elsewhere.

If you align yourself with North Carolina, things only get much worse, which was already discussed in this very thread.

Edit: It got better here - http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...8/#post4239968
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are ways around all things, including a legitimate and secure election process. You just need help, that's all.
If the workaround is less effort than getting the ID itself, it doesn't make for a good example of why someone would obviously have an ID anyway.

Much harder to cash a check. I'd stick with that example instead of going down with the "cold medicine" ship.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The issue that Subego is so aptly pointing out is that the working poor punching a clock generally have a much harder time getting to a DMV that keeps banker's hours than a middle class working making a fixed salary. And that also applies to the downright unemployed collecting a welfare check.
BZZT! Welfare itself and the cashing of welfare checks generally require ID. TFD identified an outlet that will run you through a gamut of alternate means of establishing identity (which I know from experience includes a finger-print), but somehow I'm thinking a simple ID would be deemed far less draconian to this audience than these alternate means. If you have a bank account which are standard fare among poor and rich alike, you need ID. If you have an employer, they have your ID on file. The welfare offices are "banker's hours" as well.

You may advocate such restrictions my friend. And the NRA used to may years ago in many instances as well. But today it is readily apparent that the NRA opposes even the most basic restrictions like background checks. See how that proposal that had 90+ public support after the Newtown tragedy went down in flames in the wake of NRA opposition. Surely you aren't arguing that they supported the measure? Do I really have to provide a link to prove what we both already know?

OAW
I call BS. They may oppose "EXTENDED background checks", but that's not "the most basic" of background checks. Yes, I'll reconsider if you have something to substantiate what otherwise appears to be FUD. I'd be willing to bet the NRA supports at least as much ID validation as we "fringe" Republicans who happen to align with a strong majority of Democrats, Republicans, Minorities, and the Elderly are asking of a secured election process.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:15 PM
 
I'm fringe. Walk in. Sign affidavit. Walk out with longarm.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the workaround is less effort than getting the ID itself, it doesn't make for a good example of why someone would obviously have an ID anyway.

Much harder to cash a check. I'd stick with that example instead of going down with the "cold medicine" ship.
I don't consider your quibbling over one of more than 20 examples I've given for the importance and necessity of ID as evidence of the USS-ebuddy in peril.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:19 PM
 
Quibbling implies the cold medicine argument, umm... "holds water".
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:23 PM
 
No. You have the last word. I insist.
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I seem to recall the alluding to Maryland's redistricting shenanigans, which I acknowledged and condemned (with a note about how the voters allowed themselves to get fooled or agreed)
When the wording of the referendum is "Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution." its not hard to see why so many were fooled.

Which is worse? Requiring ID to vote or actively and intentionally misleading the constituency by citing the constitution in an attempt to undermine that very document?



I reside in a Red State.
I white texted the "assuming you still live in Rockville." Apologies if my info on you is out of date, but my white privilege doesn't yet extend me NSA-like capabilities .

We've already done this dance.
Which is why I'm astounded that you still frame the argument as a problem endemic to the GOP alone, even after citing some more egregious examples of voter suppression that are the handywork of the DNC.

Won't even go into how the Democrats tried to remove mayoral powers from a legally elected Republican mayor and shift those powers to an unelected council made up exclusively of Democrats and their supporters. Didn't make it far with that one but they tried nonetheless.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jan 10, 2014 at 07:00 PM. Reason: grammar)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 06:56 PM
 
To Add:

Establishing ID is far too much to ask our voting public, but they should be able to find the proposed new districting guidelines on their own and understand them fully in context before answering a referendum question that makes no reference to the actual changes they are making other then a vague reference to upholding constitutional requirements?

From the Washington Post Op-ed:

"As a lifelong Democrat, I’m disgusted that my party has fallen below the level of the Republican Party in Texas. Any voter interested in free and fair elections should vote no on Question 5. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...b8d_story.html

Question 5 passed by the way.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, within the scope of the topic: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...n-undue-burden
I agree with them, it isn't. TN gives free state IDs to people who can't afford them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm in the South, in a Red state, and those things haven't happened here. Gonna narrow it down further or finally admit it's a quite isolated incident? *tuning out*
Dude seriously. Do you have any familiarity with the changes to voting laws in Texas which is a red state in the south? That got slapped down my the Justice Dept and then moved forward after the Supreme Court gutted portions of the Voting Rights Act? Did you even bother to look at the articles in the links that I provided that show maps and detailed lists of the various red states in the south and other places around the country that are passing these restrictive voting rights laws? Or would you prefer to just "tune out" in the face of documentation and evidence?

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I call BS. They may oppose "EXTENDED background checks", but that's not "the most basic" of background checks. Yes, I'll reconsider if you have something to substantiate what otherwise appears to be FUD. I'd be willing to bet the NRA supports at least as much ID validation as we "fringe" Republicans who happen to align with a strong majority of Democrats, Republicans, Minorities, and the Elderly are asking of a secured election process.
And what is your understanding of "extended" as opposed to "basic"?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 09:47 PM
 
Let me try this another way.

By law, batshit insane, homeless people have a right to vote.

This is your target. The Supreme Court has set it for you.

I'm not saying you have to hit this target, but there's an burden to show it consideration.


I don't feel this burden is being addressed, let alone given it's due schlepping.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Dude seriously. Do you have any familiarity with the changes to voting laws in Texas which is a red state in the south? That got slapped down my the Justice Dept and then moved forward after the Supreme Court gutted portions of the Voting Rights Act? Did you even bother to look at the articles in the links that I provided that show maps and detailed lists of the various red states in the south and other places around the country that are passing these restrictive voting rights laws? Or would you prefer to just "tune out" in the face of documentation and evidence?
So we're down from "Red states", to "the South", to Texas. I tune out because of how much you inflate most subjects you bring up.

"This restaurant has shitty food!"
"I went there and it was okay."
"It's their seafood, it's awful!"
"Really? I've tried most of it and it was pretty good."
"Actually, it was the halibut, it's the worst."
"Oh. Yeah, I thought it was bad too, the breading is terrible... Incidentally, when you were talking about the whole restaurant, you were just talking about the halibut?"
"Well... yes, but it was REALLY bad."
"I see." *makes mental note to never trust said individual's reviews in the future*
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2014, 11:02 PM
 
Again. I said "GOP controlled states". I did not say "ALL GOP controlled states". Texas is just one example in the south to refute your claim that it's not happening there. And if you bothered to look at the links provided you will see that the majority of GOP controlled states (especially those with large minority populations) are pushing such legislation. Remember that quote I posted about 33 states? The evidence speaks for itself. "Tune out" as you please. It's not as if you are one to let little things like facts get in the way of your opinion.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2014, 02:12 AM
 
I didn't say it wasn't happening anywhere in the South, where did I say that? (I can do that too.) Neener, neener.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2014, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And what is your understanding of "extended" as opposed to "basic"?

OAW
The "basic" is the 90-second NICS verification that has been in place for 16 years on the commercial sale of a firearm. What the lobbying-arm of the NRA, NRA-ILA has to say on the matter;

Background

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which became operational in 1998, verifies that a person seeking to buy a firearm from a gun dealer is not prohibited from doing so by federal or state law. The National Rifle Association supported its establishment. Gun control supporters opposed NICS, preferring to require a gun purchaser to wait several days after stating the desire to buy a gun, before receiving it from a firearm dealer.

Today, gun control activists are trying to expand this system to all firearm transfers, under the banner of “universal” background checks. However, no background check system will ever be truly “universal” because criminals will not submit themselves to the system. Therefore, the NRA does not support these proposals and is not working to implement this type of legislation. The NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, private sales bans and registration schemes.
They then go on to explain, with statistics generally missing in their detractors' arguments, why they oppose additional measures that are more interested in hindering the sale of guns than actual crime reduction.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2014, 10:54 AM
 
I think the problem with the arguments from our resident opponents of Voter ID propositions and why they continue to fail in the court of public opinion is that they just don't hold up to scrutiny and are generally, misdirected.

For example, opponents try to make the Voter ID propositions appear;
  • fringe when they're supported by a strong majority of those across the entire political spectrum.
  • racist when a majority of all minority groups including African-Americans and Latinos support Voter ID propositions.
  • obstructive when a majority of the elderly and lower-income groups allegedly victimized by these proposals support them.
  • political while failing to reconcile how a measure that would impact one bloc/party-vote wouldn't likewise affect the other.
  • unrealistic while marginalizing the prevalence, importance, and necessity of ID in nearly all other facets of existence in this day and age.
  • unnecessary while failing to accept or acknowledge any of the wealth of data around registration fraud and the sole purpose of it combined with the usefulness and urgency of ID in nearly all other facets of existence in this day and age.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2014, 05:51 PM
 
Except in my case, I'm doing almost none of that.

The only person I called fringe was myself.
I didn't call anyone racist. The issue is money, not skin color.
I'll cop to thinking it obstructive. I don't buy a bunch of old people have a monopoly on objective meaning of the term.
I've cited over and over again there is political impact, and how it isn't helping my own political position.
With the exception of guns, I do believe none of the other examples where ID is necessary are rights.

How many times to I have to keep mentioning that last one BTW and hear crickets in response? Or worse, more counter examples which are not rights? I honestly think this point is a bit more salient than the collected geezer opinion.

In the same vein, registration is not equal to "at the polls". Consistently switching this as a matter of convenience is flat-out intellectually dishonest. Registration is a subject worthy of discussion, and I'm willing to put effort into it, but for the love of all that's holy, stop making arguments by conflating the two.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 11, 2014 at 06:29 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2014, 07:22 PM
 
When it is all said and done, in person voter impersonation has been proven repeatedly to be virtually non-existent. So photo voter id ... which is the only thing that could address that illusory issue ... is AT BEST a solution in search of a problem. . Which in and of itself calls into question the true motivations behind such legislation. I mean ... let's just all pretend the various GOP officials we have ON VIDEO stating that the goals behind such legislation is to make it easier for Republicans to win don't really exist.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2014, 09:04 PM
 
Addressing registration, what do people think is a good system given the aforementioned homeless person being bound by law to participate in the system.

I'd also like to throw out there the question of whether the bulk of the fraud happens with registrars or registrees? I imagine this to be pretty critical information. My assumption is the former are responsible for the vast majority.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2014, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Except in my case, I'm doing almost none of that.

The only person I called fringe was myself.
My bullet-points weren't solely intended for you, but encompassed, I think, the full gamut of objections. Though I honestly do appreciate your introspect here.

I didn't call anyone racist. The issue is money, not skin color.
First let me make clear that I have a problem with any State instituting a Voter ID Law that does not also provide free IDs to those who need them. Do you have a list of States with Voter ID laws that do not make free IDs available to those who need them? If it's a matter of money and I agree that this is a problem, free IDs should address that problem.

I'll cop to thinking it obstructive. I don't buy a bunch of old people have a monopoly on objective meaning of the term.
If it's only obstructive to those who do not have the money for ID, but the States that have instituted Voter ID laws also make free IDs available to those who need them; who is being obstructed?

I've cited over and over again there is political impact, and how it isn't helping my own political position.
Again, the list was not intended to be a list of subego's intellectual follies on the matter, but an expansive list that may include subego's intellectual follies on the matter.

With the exception of guns, I do believe none of the other examples where ID is necessary are rights.

How many times to I have to keep mentioning that last one BTW and hear crickets in response? Or worse, more counter examples which are not rights? I honestly think this point is a bit more salient than the collected geezer opinion.
Why does the number of rights matter? The challenge was put forth that no other rights are checked in this way and that is simply incorrect. Honestly, don't get frustrated with me that an extremely valid counter-argument existed in the right to own and bear arms. Clearly, there is a precedent for validating rights to ensure reasonable protections from the abuses of others.

Though, I am being told access to quality, affordable healthcare is a right, but you need ID for Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare. Equal Opportunity protections written into law certainly imply a right to work yet Employers require ID on file. Same goes for renting/buying a home or apartment.

In the same vein, registration is not equal to "at the polls". Consistently switching this as a matter of convenience is flat-out intellectually dishonest. Registration is a subject worthy of discussion, and I'm willing to put effort into it, but for the love of all that's holy, stop making arguments by conflating the two.
Did you not bring this up on... like, page 1 of this thread? I don't think you can talk about this issue without including Step 1 of the process. I'm still waiting on someone to give me that other reason for defrauding the registration process. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that the only purpose for defrauding the registration process is to defraud an election.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A thing of myth. There's absolutely no reason to conclude that you'll get money without ID because as you can see, the alternate means of verifying ID required ID to have including employment information and banking information.The above page shows the following question; I don't have a photo ID. Can I still get a loan?
No one mentioned loans. That does not apply to check cashing.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No. I consider $9500/yr a non-living wage. If you're earning less than that, you're more than likely utilizing welfare services that require ID. If you're earning more than this and have completed the proper forms, your ID is on file. If you're earning a living wage under the table, you're defrauding the tax code and are subject to criminal penalty. It's a crime hence; criminality. *Hint: If what you've chopped out of my statement above is evidence of reading comprehension, we may be at an impasse here.
I think using the term "criminality" to describe someone scraping by overstates the situation.

Interesting thought, though – could a couple pull off a situation where the husband works odd-jobs for money and the wife handles social services (i.e., one ID between them)?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They were examples that do not generally apply and require negligence of one or all parties involved in the transaction.
Generally do not apply in what sense? I think we're going to be hard-pressed to prove which one of us is in the more common situation, statistically; Moreover, the point was that the ID is not such a hard and fast requirement as you would imply.

Once again, you're dressing up the situation with terms like 'negligence.' I feel like in another time and place, a non-ID transaction occurring where the person clearly looks over 30 would be considered "common sense".


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I already gave an extensive list of the statistics around registration fraud. If you can establish why it would be important for me to post them again, I'll reconsider. Otherwise, there's no other purpose voter registration fraud could hope to serve other than to defraud an election process.
Then do the adult thing and link me to the post instead of grandstanding on your mastery of the topic.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which is why I'm astounded that you still frame the argument as a problem endemic to the GOP alone, even after citing some more egregious examples of voter suppression that are the handywork of the DNC.
Link, please. 11 pages is a bit much to traverse not knowing what I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Won't even go into how the Democrats tried to remove mayoral powers from a legally elected Republican mayor and shift those powers to an unelected council made up exclusively of Democrats and their supporters. Didn't make it far with that one but they tried nonetheless.
Be my guest. I'd rather not be crucified for opinions I never gave.



Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I agree with them, it isn't. TN gives free state IDs to people who can't afford them.
No shit you agree but that point was your neck of the woods has followed suit on the wave of 'voter suppression'.


---

Question: Is it possible for someone to have a valid ID to get social services, job, bank account, etc. and then just have it expire? How hard is it to renew a expired ID? Its got to be easier than getting one from scratch, right?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 12:59 PM
 
And a reminder, for the record, that I feel a lot less negatively about voter ID laws when the ID is free.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So we're down from "Red states", to "the South", to Texas. I tune out because of how much you inflate most subjects you bring up.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm in the South, in a Red state, and those things haven't happened here. Gonna narrow it down further or finally admit it's a quite isolated incident? *tuning out*
Here's a list of states that have enacted voter ID in the past 10 years:

Alabama (2011)
Arkansas (2014)
Connecticut (2013)
Georgia (2005)
Indiana (2005)
Kansas (2011)
Mississippi (2012)
Missouri (2006 - later blocked and pending)
North Carolina (2013)
North Dakota (2013)
Pennsylvania (2012)
Rhode Island (2014)
South Carolina (2011)
Tennessee (2011)
Texas (2011)
Virginia (2013)
Wisconsin (2011

17 states of which only one or two did it under blue governors. That's nearly 1/3rd of US. I don't think that qualifies as "isolated."

Note: This is not a list of all states that require voter ID at this time – only those who have made the move in recent years. Also, I culled this info from wikipedia, so I await whatever flaw in the data exists to be jubilantly pointed out.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No shit you agree but that point was your neck of the woods has followed suit on the wave of 'voter suppression'.
I don't believe it's suppressive. You do and you keep pressing that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's a list of states that have enacted voter ID in the past 10 years:

Alabama (2011)
Arkansas (2014)
Connecticut (2013)
Georgia (2005)
Indiana (2005)
Kansas (2011)
Mississippi (2012)
Missouri (2006 - later blocked and pending)
North Carolina (2013)
North Dakota (2013)
Pennsylvania (2012)
Rhode Island (2014)
South Carolina (2011)
Tennessee (2011)
Texas (2011)
Virginia (2013)
Wisconsin (2011

17 states of which only one or two did it under blue governors. That's nearly 1/3rd of US. I don't think that qualifies as "isolated."

Note: This is not a list of all states that require voter ID at this time – only those who have made the move in recent years. Also, I culled this info from wikipedia, so I await whatever flaw in the data exists to be jubilantly pointed out.
That's because the Blue states, most of them, already had such laws on the books. You aren't mad about the law, but mostly the timing?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2014, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No one mentioned loans. That does not apply to check cashing.
It doesn't matter. You still have to provide some basic personal information to cash a check. If you're okay with having to provide some basic personal information at the polls, we may have some common ground.

I think using the term "criminality" to describe someone scraping by overstates the situation.
Interesting thought, though – could a couple pull off a situation where the husband works odd-jobs for money and the wife handles social services (i.e., one ID between them)?
I didn't say someone scraping by is criminality. Is this the adult conversation you were looking for?

All of those scenarios are not only possible, they're indisputable. I don't think they're just-cause for leaving an election process open to fraud.

Generally do not apply in what sense? I think we're going to be hard-pressed to prove which one of us is in the more common situation, statistically; Moreover, the point was that the ID is not such a hard and fast requirement as you would imply.
No. The point was there's no good reason to leave an election process open to fraud.

Once again, you're dressing up the situation with terms like 'negligence.' I feel like in another time and place, a non-ID transaction occurring where the person clearly looks over 30 would be considered "common sense".
A much smaller place and some time ago. You have an ID nearby right now, precisely because they are "common sense".

Then do the adult thing and link me to the post instead of grandstanding on your mastery of the topic.
I'm astounded that you're actually interested in the information. What's in it for me?
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2014, 12:51 PM
 
The latest from Pennsylvania which started this entire thread ...

A Pennsylvania judge on Friday struck down the state’s voter ID law, which was signed in early 2012 and is one of the strictest in the nation, ruling that the statute “unreasonably burdens the right to vote.”

“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrote.

Pennsylvania’s law requires all voters to bring to the polls identification issued by the state government or the U.S. government, or another valid credential such as a student ID, in order to cast their vote. If a would-be voter does not have an appropriate ID, he can cast a provisional ballot and the vote will be counted if he brings an adequate ID to the local elections office within six days.
The state’s Republican-led legislature passed the law in spring 2012, saying it would help prevent voter fraud, and GOP Gov. Tom Corbett signed it shortly thereafter. Pennsylvania’s law was part of a flurry of stricter voter ID legislation passed across the country by GOP-led legislatures in recent years.

A coalition of groups, including the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project, filed a challenge to the law that summer, saying it would disproportionately affect groups such as low-income voters, young voters and minorities.
A judge put the law on hold for the 2012 election, but said it could go into effect after the election was over. Voting rights groups in the state challenged the law again in early 2013.

The ruling comes just a day after Congress released its revised, bipartisan version of the Voting Rights Act, the law used to combat discriminatory voting practices that was partially struck down by the Supreme Court last summer.

Corbett’s office said it would issue a statement on the decision later Friday.

The ruling likely will be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but for now, voting rights groups are savoring the victory.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project called the ruling “monumental.”

“Hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania citizens who lack one of the limited forms of acceptable photo ID can now cast their ballots without burdensome obstacles,” she said in a statement.
Pennsylvania judge strikes down voter ID law - Emily Schultheis - POLITICO.com

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
I know you shouldn't make fun of people's names, but "Penda Hair"?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2014, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The latest from Pennsylvania which started this entire thread ...
Another activist Democrat Judge legislating from the bench.

A Pennsylvania judge on Friday struck down the state’s voter ID law, which was signed in early 2012 and is one of the strictest in the nation, ruling that the statute “unreasonably burdens the right to vote.”
There is zero evidence that Voter ID requirements burden the right to vote. It no more burdens the right to vote than it does the right to work, own and bear arms, or get a place to live. It's usage in society is prevalent precisely because it's the most reasonable means of securing any transaction.

“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrote.
Right, because of course the status quo of merely hoping the person signing the registry at the polls is who they say they are has no goal at all and must therefore be acceptable. As long as we don't ID, we can continue to bury our heads in the sand that those hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations are just for fun.

The ruling comes just a day after Congress released its revised, bipartisan version of the Voting Rights Act, the law used to combat discriminatory voting practices that was partially struck down by the Supreme Court last summer...
... which upheld the right to pass Voter ID requirements.

“Hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania citizens who lack one of the limited forms of acceptable photo ID can now cast their ballots without burdensome obstacles,” she said in a statement.

OAW
And of course she has some evidence to back up the fact that they had been suppressed prior? Of course not.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2014, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There is zero evidence that Voter ID requirements burden the right to vote.
And there is zero evidence that in-person voter impersonation is even an issue. Which is the only thing that a photo ID requirement even addresses. So even if what you say is true, to pass this legislation to combat a phenomenon that is virtually non-existent is AT BEST a "solution in search of a problem". Then again, perhaps it's the result of uh ... "other motivations"?

Originally Posted by Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R)
Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.
Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State

And have I mentioned he's not the only GOP official admitting ON RECORD that the motivation behind this coordinated, nationwide effort by GOP controlled states is purely partisan in nature?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 04:10 AM
 
@ebuddy

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond.

One thing I'd like to clarify from my last post is when I said the issue was money, not skin color, I wasn't talking about the cost of the ID itself (which if you have a voter photo ID system, should be free), I'm talking about the cost of the effort to get it, when you have state agencies often keeping inconvenient hours for people who work. It's cliche, but 100% true: time equals money.


Let's discuss registration, since it's important.

Do you have any thoughts on what I posted above?

What do you think is a good system which attempts to accommodate (in all probability, mentally disturbed) homeless people? Adding in what I said in a different post, that's the target the Supreme Court has set. You don't necessarily have to hit that target, I fully admit it's a difficult one, but I don't feel "they are obligated to get photo IDs" is even trying to hit that target*

Do you have any comment on my shot in the dark the bulk of registration fraud comes from registrars as opposed to registrants?



*Part of what is getting my undies in a bundle is it's hard for me to interpret the lack of attempt as anything other than an attitude of "**** these people, they don't deserve to vote". I'm not saying that's what it is, just it reads that way. If I'm reading it wrong, I beg you (no snark) for clarification.

To put it another way, if the only reasonable way to do it really is a photo ID system, that's going to **** the rights over of the people at the bottom of society. Full stop.

Don't they at least deserve an apology for that?

Not only is one not forthcoming, it feels like the argument for the simplicity of getting a photo ID (which I fully admit is simple for most) is being taken to the extent that the few for whom it's not simple are somehow at fault.

To me, the fault is not accommodating those people. Maybe it's a fault which needs to be, but pinning it back on the people getting screwed is... unseemly.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 18, 2014 at 04:41 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 06:48 AM
 
It's a free card, they can go down on their day off and get it, or go before or after work. If they can't be bothered to do that, then I can't be bothered to care if they vote or not, frankly. No apologies.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 07:08 AM
 
There are a significant number of people for whom their day off is also one of the days off for whichever state office takes care of ID's. Likewise, those hours are often 9 to 5, which could easily be the hours worked by the person in question. Expect their half-hour lunch to be when the wait is longer than 45 minutes.

It would be different if we weren't talking about a state function. They inherently try to squeak by on the minimum amount of service they can offer to the public.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And there is zero evidence that in-person voter impersonation is even an issue. Which is the only thing that a photo ID requirement even addresses. So even if what you say is true, to pass this legislation to combat a phenomenon that is virtually non-existent is AT BEST a "solution in search of a problem". Then again, perhaps it's the result of uh ... "other motivations"?

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State

And have I mentioned he's not the only GOP official admitting ON RECORD that the motivation behind this coordinated, nationwide effort by GOP controlled states is purely partisan in nature?

OAW
Couple of problems with this analysis IMO;
  • Voter registration fraud is not a figment of Republican imagination, it's real and the examples of it are numerous enough to have raised the eyebrows of nearly 75% of the country; Democrat, Republican, Young, Elderly, and minority alike. If you can show me what other purpose registration fraud could hope to serve, I'm all eyes.
  • This alleged suppression is virtually non-existent. In States where Voter IDs have been required, as found and cited by the SCOTUS, the supposed disenfranchised demographics showed greater turn-out than they did prior. Lest we forget that Romney lost Pennsylvania. Voter ID does not suppress votes, it protects votes and legitimizes the election process.
  • If the intent of Voter ID is to manipulate elections, they've failed. The examples of Castle Doctrine and abortion facility regulations I suspect were popular on a bipartisan basis. I don't understand how this Pennsylvania House Member makes the connection between Voter ID and two measures the overwhelming majority of the country would support regardless, but the fact remains -- actual evidence of suppression is virtually non-existent.
  • Again, I think it's dubious to frame the intention of all based on the ignorant musings of a few. Suppression may be how Tarzai (R) sees it, but that's not how the majority of proponents across all demographics and party affiliations see it.
  • While a majority of those across all party affiliations and demographics support Voter ID requirements, Republicans show a stronger majority support for the protections. It only follows that you'd have a "flurry" of Voter ID laws in recent years as one of the few victories Republicans have enjoyed in recent years has been throughout State Houses and local elections. This does not equate to a "coordinated attack from other motivations". This is how elections work.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@ebuddy

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond.

One thing I'd like to clarify from my last post is when I said the issue was money, not skin color, I wasn't talking about the cost of the ID itself (which if you have a voter photo ID system, should be free), I'm talking about the cost of the effort to get it, when you have state agencies often keeping inconvenient hours for people who work. It's cliche, but 100% true: time equals money.
I agree with you on this, but fair and valid elections require the diligence of all involved from the registrar through the registrants to the voters and election officers at the polls. If the sanctity of earning a living, having a home -- rental or otherwise, and general commerce are worthy of ID protections, so are elections. The good news is I'm not aware of a single State with Voter ID requirements that do not also make the ID available for free to those who need them.

What do you think is a good system which attempts to accommodate (in all probability, mentally disturbed) homeless people? Adding in what I said in a different post, that's the target the Supreme Court has set. You don't necessarily have to hit that target, I fully admit it's a difficult one, but I don't feel "they are obligated to get photo IDs" is even trying to hit that target*
Making them leave the street corner to go to a polling place during business hours would be as much of a challenge. While some may believe "the homeless person" is the target, truly targeting them would include bringing the ballot to them on the streets which is not the case. You still have to go and poll. I'd also argue the importance of ID for folks in this situation as God forbid should they need medical care and no one knows who they are and/or whether or not they can or should administer certain life-saving procedures such as penicillin. Instead of bussing them up to the polls while en-route telling them how (and in some documented cases -- "who") to vote for a free lunch to garner a win for your guy, it'd be more humane to bus them to the DMV to have ID on file so people have an idea who is on the streets and in need of care be it mental or otherwise.

Do you have any comment on my shot in the dark the bulk of registration fraud comes from registrars as opposed to registrants?
It's quite possible the bulk is coming from registrars, why does it matter? There's still only one point to the exercise, regardless of who is perpetrating it.

*Part of what is getting my undies in a bundle is it's hard for me to interpret the lack of attempt as anything other than an attitude of "**** these people, they don't deserve to vote". I'm not saying that's what it is, just it reads that way. If I'm reading it wrong, I beg you (no snark) for clarification.
And I haven't clarified this? You may be able to say that of some Republicans who've gone on record saying as much, but I don't think you can adequately stretch that over a strong majority of all Americans, many of which are in the alleged, disenfranchised classes.

To put it another way, if the only reasonable way to do it really is a photo ID system, that's going to **** the rights over of the people at the bottom of society. Full stop.

Don't they at least deserve an apology for that?
We should apologize to people who've decided to live off the grid? There is no evidence that an ID system suppresses votes. Otherwise, we live under the rules of natural law in which we are all subject to consequences for our actions or inactions. It would make absolutely no sense for me to apologize for this. I'm not in control of you, but your decision to remain off the grid is not just-cause to leave an election process open to fraud and abuse.

Not only is one not forthcoming, it feels like the argument for the simplicity of getting a photo ID (which I fully admit is simple for most) is being taken to the extent that the few for whom it's not simple are somehow at fault.
I don't find them at fault, but I cannot control them. I can mitigate their plight by making the ID as freely and readily available as a polling place, but I can't force them to participate.

To me, the fault is not accommodating those people. Maybe it's a fault which needs to be, but pinning it back on the people getting screwed is... unseemly.
Short of meeting them where they are, snapping a photo, laminating it, and handing it to them; there isn't a State at present with a Voter ID requirement that does not accommodate that need with cost-free IDs. Effective existence is a process of give and take. i.e. you can lead a horse to water... It's not that it needs to be this way, it just naturally is this way and my apologies won't fix that.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Couple of problems with this analysis IMO;
Here we go ....
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Voter registration fraud is not a figment of Republican imagination, it's real and the examples of it are numerous enough to have raised the eyebrows of nearly 75% of the country; Democrat, Republican, Young, Elderly, and minority alike. If you can show me what other purpose registration fraud could hope to serve, I'm all eyes.
Apparently this point needs to be reiterated. Again, repeat after me 3 times my friend ...

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!

The former is when one who is not eligible to vote ILLEGALLY REGISTERS to vote. The latter is when someone ILLEGALLY CASTS a vote in the name of someone else.

It's the latter phenomenon ... not the former ... that is virtually non -existent. And a photo ID requirement only combats the latter. It does NOTHING to address the former. And THAT is the reason such legislation is "misguided" AT BEST ... or perhaps is the result of "other motivations". You seem to think such motivations automatically don't exist simply because thus far they've been unsuccessful! It is true, they've created a huge backlash in the targeted communities. The increased turnout was partially a show of strength against those seeking to suppress their vote out of demographic desperation. But let's not get it twisted here. When we see urban voters in key swing states braving +10 hours in the cold to cast a ballot ... because the GOP Secretary of State decided to slash early voting hours and the number of voting machines in those areas .... while the lines in suburban areas experienced no such problems ... well let's just say the "other motivations" are clear. Photo ID requirements are but ONE of the tactics the GOP utilized in an attempt to suppress the vote. Unsuccessful though it was. This time.

As for Mr. Turzai. I love how you referred to him as a "Pennsylvania House Member" as if he's just some random dude in the PA legislature. No my friend. This guy is the GOP Majority Leader! You know ... one of the guys that formulates political strategy. So this ...

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Again, I think it's dubious to frame the intention of all based on the ignorant musings of a few.
... rings a tad bit hollow. Additionally, I can just as easily say that it's dubious to NOT recognize the clear intention of coordinated actions ... especially when there's no other logical explanation ... based upon the fact that most involved have sense enough not to admit to it publicly.

And that "no other logical explanation" part brings me back to the photo ID requirement. Imagine a scenario where an illegal immigrant managed to register to vote (we'll come back to that part later). And he also has a valid drivers license. Election Day comes around and he heads to the polling place. He shows his drivers license as required by this new law. The picture on the license matches the face of the man standing before the election judge. The name and address on the drivers license matches that on the voter roll. The illegal immigrant then casts his ballot and keeps it moving. Even though the vote was fraudulent! So what exactly has this Photo ID requirement accomplished other than put an undue burden on some segments of the ELIGIBLE voting population? All it does is provide some sort of nominal verification that the person casting the ballot is in fact the person whose name is of the voter roll. It does NOTHING to ensure that the person is ELIGIBLE to vote in the first place.

Now if one wants to combat voter registration fraud that's fine. I have no issue with that in principle so long as the documentation requirements don't unduly burden the eligible majority in an attempt to block the ineligible few. In my state in order to register to vote you must be 18 by Election Day, a US citizen, and a state resident. You fill out a form which includes a sworn affividavit that the information is accurate under penalty of perjury with a 5 year prison term and a $10k fine (not 100% on that offhand but I know it's a sh*tload of money). So let's say there some who feel very strongly that this process should require proof of eligibility with documentation and not just a sworn affividavit. I'm ok with that provided these concerns are addressed ...

A) Is this really even necessary since as Subego noted, the vast majority of voter registration fraud is committed by a registrar and not a registrant. The reason for this is simple. A registrant faces serious jail time and a huge fine ... but they can only impact one vote. So it's really not worth the risk. Whereas a registrar also faces serious jail time and a huge fine ... but at least they can impact many votes. The point being ... voter registration fraud isn't a "onesy-twosy" proposition. And if you do it like that you are going about it all wrong.

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the state decides to move forward anyway. Then my concerns are ...

B) There should be a grandfathers clause for those above a certain age for birth certificate and marriage license requirements. I've mentioned before that there are many elderly people in the African- American community ... especially those born in the South ... who simply have no such documentation. Not due to any fault of their own. But because during Jim Crow there were many states that didn't see fit to keep such records about minorities. You also have many elderly people of various ethnicities who were born at home in rural areas where such record keeping wasn't a priority.

C) For everybody else, the state should verify birth certificates, naturalization papers, marriage licenses, name changes, etc. at no charge. Otherwise, placing the burden of those costs on a citizen who is eligible to vote is akin to an unconstitutional poll tax. Now I don't mean the state has to provide a copy to the person at no charge. But these days this info is generally computerized so a quick lookup to verify the info should suffice.

D) Of course, while C sounds great in theory there are potential complications. For instance, many intra-state systems don't interface with each other which can make that a challenge even for people whose major life events occurred in one state. But what if one was born in one state, got married in a different state, and is trying to register to vote in another state? That's an even bigger challenge.

So setting aside the concerns outlined in A above (because in a few more generations that will no longer be an issue as they all pass away), what this really boils down to for me is that if the state says a person must now have proof of citizenship in order to vote ... then the burden should be on the state to verify citizenship ... not on the person to prove citizenship. Because the person can only prove citizenship by providing documentation issued and maintained by the state anyway.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 18, 2014 at 02:06 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are a significant number of people for whom their day off is also one of the days off for whichever state office takes care of ID's. Likewise, those hours are often 9 to 5, which could easily be the hours worked by the person in question. Expect their half-hour lunch to be when the wait is longer than 45 minutes.

It would be different if we weren't talking about a state function. They inherently try to squeak by on the minimum amount of service they can offer to the public.
They won't always be closed when the person is off. They won't always be closed before or after the person goes to work (the DMV at our local mall is open from 8am-7pm, Mon-Sat). In the event that they can't make it, they can call (toll-free), and set up an appointment for when they're available. This is all for the benefit of those who need government assistance, because without an ID you can't qualify, so they try hard to make this particular service simple to access. Apparently your state employees really suck, because most of the ones I've met here are very diligent in performing their work.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 04:57 PM
 
I'd feel way different if places here were open for 11 hours on a Saturday. We don't get anywhere near that level of service.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 08:17 PM
 
You sure? You don't have a DMV kiosk in the malls?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2014, 08:44 PM
 
We have six or seven places to cover the entire city of 3MM. If open on Saturdays, it's for 4-5 hours.

Edit: as you may have heard, our state is kinda ****ed up.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 18, 2014 at 08:55 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2014, 12:21 AM
 
You need to move to a more civilized place, that's awful.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2014, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Here we go ....


Apparently this point needs to be reiterated. Again, repeat after me 3 times my friend ...
I'm well aware of the relationship between registration fraud and voter fraud. I'm still waiting on that list of other reasons why you'd defraud a registration. Got any? No? Thought not. Otherwise, the below is just obnoxious and wholly unnecessary.

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!

Voter Registration fraud is NOT Voter Impersonation fraud!
Why defraud a registration?
Why defraud a registration?
Why defraud a registration?

There is no other logical explanation.

The former is when one who is not eligible to vote ILLEGALLY REGISTERS to vote. The latter is when someone ILLEGALLY CASTS a vote in the name of someone else.
The former is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to produce the bogus names for the registry at the polls. There is no other logical explanation for defrauding a registration. Voter ID is a stop-gap measure employed at the polls. Dead people certainly can't produce IDs and if it's easier for them to get one than a legitimate Democratic voter, we have problems that Republicans cannot be held accountable for.

It's the latter phenomenon ... not the former ... that is virtually non -existent.
You keep saying voter impersonation fraud is virtually non-existent, but there are no means of affirming that a fraudulent impersonation at the polls has actually occurred. This is an argument from sheer convenience and worse -- the suppressed vote under systems that do require ID is virtually non-existent.

And a photo ID requirement only combats the latter. It does NOTHING to address the former. And THAT is the reason such legislation is "misguided" AT BEST ... or perhaps is the result of "other motivations". You seem to think such motivations automatically don't exist simply because thus far they've been unsuccessful! It is true, they've created a huge backlash in the targeted communities. The increased turnout was partially a show of strength against those seeking to suppress their vote out of demographic desperation. But let's not get it twisted here. When we see urban voters in key swing states braving +10 hours in the cold to cast a ballot ... because the GOP Secretary of State decided to slash early voting hours and the number of voting machines in those areas .... while the lines in suburban areas experienced no such problems ... well let's just say the "other motivations" are clear. Photo ID requirements are but ONE of the tactics the GOP utilized in an attempt to suppress the vote. Unsuccessful though it was. This time.
You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that the rural voter has an easier go of voting than do urban voters. The measures you claim are intended to disenfranchise urban voters are just as challenging to those in rural communities. The measures you claim are intended to disenfranchise the poor and minorities in fact show no evidence of suppressing their vote. Again, as cited by the SCOTUS while upholding the right to require ID. Those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them citing some ambiguous "back-lash" that only establishes for me exactly how realistic and reasonable the ID requirement obviously is, but that doesn't support your argument.

As for Mr. Turzai. I love how you referred to him as a "Pennsylvania House Member" as if he's just some random dude in the PA legislature. No my friend. This guy is the GOP Majority Leader! You know ... one of the guys that formulates political strategy. So this ...

... rings a tad bit hollow. Additionally, I can just as easily say that it's dubious to NOT recognize the clear intention of coordinated actions ... especially when there's no other logical explanation ... based upon the fact that most involved have sense enough not to admit to it publicly.
If it's coordinated, it's from the pressures of the overwhelming majority of people across all political and income spectrums supporting the need. You have nothing to substantiate that it's coordinated as you have one example from an obscure GOP leader in Pennsylvania who is obviously causing a problem for his party. Are you sure this isn't a RHINO for the Democratic party of Pennsylvania? Otherwise, he's got to be the dumbest individual on the planet and certainly no threat to Democrats or eligible voters.

The Democrat, the poor, the African-American, the Latino, and the elderly all show majority support for Voter ID requirements because they have enough sense to avoid admitting publicly that they want their votes suppressed?

And that "no other logical explanation" part brings me back to the photo ID requirement. Imagine a scenario where an illegal immigrant managed to register to vote (we'll come back to that part later). And he also has a valid drivers license. Election Day comes around and he heads to the polling place. He shows his drivers license as required by this new law. The picture on the license matches the face of the man standing before the election judge. The name and address on the drivers license matches that on the voter roll. The illegal immigrant then casts his ballot and keeps it moving. Even though the vote was fraudulent! So what exactly has this Photo ID requirement accomplished other than put an undue burden on some segments of the ELIGIBLE voting population? All it does is provide some sort of nominal verification that the person casting the ballot is in fact the person whose name is of the voter roll. It does NOTHING to ensure that the person is ELIGIBLE to vote in the first place.
If you can show me how it's easier for an illegal immigrant to attain the necessary Identification than a registered Democrat, I'll reconsider my view. Otherwise, this point fails on its face.

A) Is this really even necessary since as Subego noted, the vast majority of voter registration fraud is committed by a registrar and not a registrant. The reason for this is simple. A registrant faces serious jail time and a huge fine ... but they can only impact one vote. So it's really not worth the risk. Whereas a registrar also faces serious jail time and a huge fine ... but at least they can impact many votes. The point being ... voter registration fraud isn't a "onesy-twosy" proposition. And if you do it like that you are going about it all wrong.
As I mentioned to subego, this is a non-point. It doesn't matter who is defrauding the registration process as the only logical explanation for doing so is to defraud an election. Period. It is indeed a onesy-twosy proposition that leads to hundreds of thousands of bogus registrants. This makes the names available for the fraudulent votes.

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the state decides to move forward anyway. Then my concerns are ...

B) There should be a grandfathers clause for those above a certain age for birth certificate and marriage license requirements. I've mentioned before that there are many elderly people in the African- American community ... especially those born in the South ... who simply have no such documentation. Not due to any fault of their own. But because during Jim Crow there were many states that didn't see fit to keep such records about minorities. You also have many elderly people of various ethnicities who were born at home in rural areas where such record keeping wasn't a priority.
How would you establish their ages, count the grey hairs?

C) For everybody else, the state should verify birth certificates, naturalization papers, marriage licenses, name changes, etc. at no charge. Otherwise, placing the burden of those costs on a citizen who is eligible to vote is akin to an unconstitutional poll tax. Now I don't mean the state has to provide a copy to the person at no charge. But these days this info is generally computerized so a quick lookup to verify the info should suffice.
I don't have a problem with this and would encourage any State requiring ID to make means available for those who do not have IDs to get them. As it stands, there isn't a State requiring ID to vote that does not at least make the ID itself, freely available. With regard to the cost of birth certificates and Social Security cards, I'm not sure the Democrat legislatures are any more forgiving on this front than Republican legislatures, but I would also not be opposed to making these documents more readily available to those who need them. In NYC for example, one can apply for a birth certificate online and the technologies you speak of are becoming a reality.

D) Of course, while C sounds great in theory there are potential complications. For instance, many intra-state systems don't interface with each other which can make that a challenge even for people whose major life events occurred in one state. But what if one was born in one state, got married in a different state, and is trying to register to vote in another state? That's an even bigger challenge.
With all this interstate travel, they should be well-versed in setting themselves up in another State. Otherwise, this is mired in minutia and their problem may be as much in registering to vote and identifying their polling place as the act of voting itself.

So setting aside the concerns outlined in A above (because in a few more generations that will no longer be an issue as they all pass away), what this really boils down to for me is that if the state says a person must now have proof of citizenship in order to vote ... then the burden should be on the state to verify citizenship ... not on the person to prove citizenship. Because the person can only prove citizenship by providing documentation issued and maintained by the state anyway.
OAW
They do not nor will they ever go door-to-door in doing this. They can't care more for you than you. If you're covered by the ACA, you need ID and I have to wonder if the Obama Administration and essentially all Democrat representatives in office today are aware that they've launched a coordinated attack on the minority, the poor, and the elderly. If you're receiving aid or benefits of any kind, you need ID. If you're employed, you have ID. If you're self-employed and not evading taxes, you have ID. Unless you can effectively explain how these are not all coordinated attacks perpetuated by the evil GOP, I'll have to conclude that this prism doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Furthermore, if you've ever sought medical care in any capacity, you have the letters and documentation necessary to get a Birth Certificate and subsequently, an ID.

If you appreciate living off the grid, more power to you, but you'll have to accept the caveat that no one has a clue who you are and none of these are acceptable reasons for leaving an election process open to fraud.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2