[The Final Dakar]

Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law Spurs Debate - NYTimes.com

The remark was made by Mike Turzai, the state’s House majority leader, when he spoke over the weekend to a meeting of the Republican State Committee and ticked off a number of recent conservative achievements by Pennsylvania’s Republican-led legislature.

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” he said, according to a report on PoliticsPA.com, a Web site that covers political news.

This, on the heels of the proposed change to the allocation of electoral votes last year. Typical "If you can't win, change the rules" BS.

[subego]

Show us your papers!

[Snow-i]

A top Pennsylvania Republican’s remark this weekend that the state’s new voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the state has reignited a debate over whether the law is intended to curb fraud, as Republicans say, or to depress Democratic turnout, as Democrats charge.

If curbing fraud helps one candidate over the other, isn't that a really good thing?

What a novel idea of ensuring that only those legally entitled to vote may do so!

but its tough for illegals to get ID!!!!!.
Poor people are too dumb to obtain IDs!
Minorities don't have the capacity to obtain IDs!


If we don't ensure integrity in the voting process, why not just have a surveymonkey.com site set up for elections?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If curbing fraud helps one candidate over the other, isn't that a really good thing?

I think the general idea is that it helps one candidate by also suppressing legitimate voters as a side-effect.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What a novel idea of ensuring that only those legally entitled to vote may do so!

Is there some evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that's been happening in PA?

God knows they're not worried about the fact they use ****ing electronic voting machines.

[OAW]

Well it certainly isn't just Pennsylvania. GOP controlled state legislatures have passed similar legislation in several states since the 2010 election cycle. Ostensibly to protect against "voter fraud" which is practically non-existent by any legitimate measure. When the reality is that it's all about "voter suppression" among key demographics (i.e. the elderly, the poor, college students, minority groups) that are more likely to vote for Democrats. Naturally the proponents of these Voter ID laws deny the patently obvious and even manage to maintain a straight face while doing so. What's interesting here is that this guy felt comfortable enough in a setting of fellow Republicans to actually admit the truth.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think the general idea is that it helps one candidate by also suppressing legitimate voters as a side-effect.

How would an ID system accomplish this?

Is there some evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that's been happening in PA?

Without being able to tell whether or not voters are who they say they are, how could you expect to measure this?

God knows they're not worried about the fact they use ****ing electronic voting machines.

Agreed, which is a separate issue for a separate thread. I'm all for taking steps in the right direction, though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How would an ID system accomplish this?

Without being able to tell whether or not voters are who they say they are, how could you expect to measure this?

Playing dumb or contrarian? This is far from the first time this debate has been had, either in a state or this forum.

Edit: Why would Turzai be so certain that these measures would deliver the state for Romney? Your answers lie there, I imagine.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well it certainly isn't just Pennsylvania. GOP controlled state legislatures have passed similar legislation in several states since the 2010 election cycle. Ostensibly to protect against "voter fraud" which is practically non-existent by any legitimate measure. When the reality is that it's all about "voter suppression" among key demographics (i.e. the elderly, the poor, college students, minority groups) that are more likely to vote for Democrats. Naturally the proponents of these Voter ID laws deny the patently obvious and even manage to maintain a straight face while doing so. What's interesting here is that this guy felt comfortable enough in a setting of fellow Republicans to actually admit the truth.

OAW

And those who stand to gain the most from fraudulent voters manage to maintain a straight face while hoping enough illegals turn up to swing the vote in their favor.

How exactly does an ID system suppress these key demographics? These people are competent enough to decide their future but not competent enough to establish legal citizenship? If there are problems with obtaining IDs, then we need to look at that process very closely and find out what we can do to make it easy for any legal citizen to obtain one quickly and at no cost. I wouldn't even be opposed to setting up ID issuers at some voting stations, and accepting a wide range of legal documents (DL, State ID, passport, etc) as proof of citizenship.

[OAW]

When the impact of these Voter ID laws is explained, the only way to keep supporting them is to play dumb or simply be willfully obtuse.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Playing dumb or contrarian? This is far from the first time this debate has been had, either in a state or this forum.

Edit: Why would Turzai be so certain that these measures would deliver the state for Romney? Your answers lie there, I imagine.

Perhaps because a large, voting presence from illegal immigrants? I know here in MD we have a huge problem with that but the MD legislature is all the same about it. I wonder why? Therein lies the answer indeed.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

When the impact of these Voter ID laws is explained, the only way to keep supporting them is to play dumb or simply be willfully obtuse.

OAW

Right. Can you please provide an argument instead of slinging insults? You're not likely to garner much support without laying out the merit of your arguments. Consider it an exercise for your audience.

Thanks!

[Snow-i]

Dakar, OAW.

Do you consider illegal immigrants voting to be voter fraud?

Yes or no, and please explain your answer.

[subego]

Anecdote time.

All the illegal immigrants I know have fake SSNs, and thus can (and do) get state issued IDs.

They also pay taxes.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Anecdote time.

All the illegal immigrants I know have fake SSNs, and thus can (and do) get state issued IDs.

They also pay taxes.

One step at a time.

[ironknee]

it's those pesky Marylanders sneaking into Pennsylvania!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

One step at a time.

But I'm bored!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Anecdote time.

All the illegal immigrants I know have fake SSNs, and thus can (and do) get state issued IDs.

They also pay taxes.

To clarify my position on this...

I'm not opposed to offering some form of amnesty to those like your acquaintances. But, ONLY AFTER shutting down the border to illegals. Otherwise all you are doing is incentivizing illegal entry into this country.... including but not limited to

Those that act as drug mules in exchange for routes into the US
Those that forge legal documents for those entering (expecting to be included in amnesty)
Those that traffic drugs and arms for their own profit into the US
Those that traffic prostitutes into the US (being able to provide documentation and citizen status because of our leniency)

/tangent

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right. Can you please provide an argument instead of slinging insults? You're not likely to garner much support without laying out the merit of your arguments. Consider it an exercise for your audience.

Thanks!

A photo ID requirement does one thing and one thing only. It ostensibly shows that the person casting a vote is, in fact, the person on the voter roll. One can argue that this would prevent "voter impersonation". That is, Billy couldn't go to the local polling place and cast a vote in Bob's name. But this isn't necessary, because when Bob shows up to vote and the poll workers tell him that he's already voted ... Bob will lodge a complaint. The number of such complaints in the US? Again ... they are practically non-existent because it's a mind-boggingly stupid thing to do in light of how easy it is to get caught for such a negligible benefit. Furthermore, my father and I have the same name. A photo ID would in no way prevent one of us from voting in the name of the other. Moreover, a photo ID in no way addresses the issue of "voter eligibility". If one of our good friends from north of the border managed to successfully register to vote even though they are not a US citizen ... the fact that they can produce a photo ID to show they are the person named on the voter roll doesn't alter the fact that they are casting an illegal vote.

The following pretty much sums it all up ....

Voter Fraud And The Press For Photo Id

The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of “voter fraud” is the call for in-person photo identification requirements. Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.

By throwing all sorts of election anomalies under the “voter fraud” umbrella, however, advocates for such laws artificially inflate the apparent need for these restrictions and undermine the urgency of other reforms.

Moreover, as with all restrictions on voters, photo identification requirements have a predictable detrimental impact on eligible citizens. Such laws are only potentially worthwhile if they clearly prevent more problems than they create. If policymakers distinguished real voter fraud from the more common election irregularities erroneously labeled as voter fraud, it would become apparent that the limited benefits of laws like photo ID requirements are simply not worth the cost.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas, concisely tied all of these strands together in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article concerning a highly controversial battle over photo identification legislation in Texas. Masset connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:

Among Republicans it is an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” Masset said. He doesn’t agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

This remarkably candid observation underscores why it is so critical to get the facts straight on voter fraud. The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without a corresponding actual benefit. Virtuous public policy should stand on more reliable supports.

The Truth About Voter Fraud - Brennan Center for Justice

The elderly man that doesn't have a driver's license because he hasn't driven a car in a decade. A young person in NYC or Chicago who doesn't own a car and relies on public transportation. A college student has a student ID with a picture on it ... yet that's not sufficient "proof" for the GOP but a license to carry a concealed weapon is. The poor person who can ostensibly obtain a photo ID a little to no cost ... but the cost of traveling to and obtaining the required supporting documentation is prohibitively expensive. The elderly woman that can't get a photo ID because she can't produce a marriage certificate that she hasn't seen in 30 years. Older African-Americans born in the south during Jim Crow who simply don't have a birth certificate because the State didn't deem their birth worthy enough to have an official record. The list goes on and on of real people who are legitimate voters that will be negatively impacted by these laws. All to "prevent" a virtually non-existent phenomenon.

OAW

[subego]

@Snow-i

The point I was going for is there are a bunch of people who are the supposed targets of this policy that the policy won't impact.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dakar, OAW.

Do you consider illegal immigrants voting to be voter fraud?

Yes or no, and please explain your answer.

Yes. And a photo ID requirement to cast a vote does absolutely nothing to address this as I stated above. This is a voter registration issue.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A photo ID requirement does one thing and one thing only. It ostensibly shows that the person casting a vote is, in fact, the person on the voter roll.

Bingo!

One can argue that this would prevent "voter impersonation". That is, Billy couldn't go to the local polling place and cast a vote in Bob's name. But this isn't necessary, because when Bob shows up to vote and the poll workers tell him that he's already voted ... Bob will lodge a complaint.

that assumes 100% turnout, and that the voter registration authority would know whether or not Bob has passed on, moved overseas, was abducted by extraterrestrials, etc. My field is data management - it would not be hard to compile a sizable list of those who are still registered to vote but incapable of doing so for whatever reason. Just a basic CRM and access to public records. How would we catch this fraud, anyways?

The number of such complaints in the US? Again ... they are practically non-existent because it's a mind-boggingly stupid thing to do in light of how easy it is to get caught for such a negligible benefit.

On ones own thats right, but organized fraud by a well backed company or candidate - its not hard to imagine with a coordinated effort. Relational Databases can do pretty amazing things in a pretty short amount of development time. I know because thats what I do.

Furthermore, my father and I have the same name. A photo ID would in no way prevent one of us from voting in the name of the other. Moreover, a photo ID in no way addresses the issue of "voter ineligibility". If one of our good friends from north of the border managed to successfully register to vote even though they are not a US citizen ... the fact that they can produce a photo ID to show they are the person named on the voter roll doesn't alter the fact that they are casting an illegal vote.

So you're saying we need tighter controls on voter registration, too? I agree about the "same name" thing but that would be isolated to one-offs, and couldn't really be coordinated in a large fashion.

The Truth About Voter Fraud - Brennan Center for Justice

The elderly man that doesn't have a driver's license because he hasn't driven a car in a decade. A young person in NYC or Chicago who doesn't own a car and relies on public transportation. A college student has a student ID with a picture on it ... yet that's not sufficient "proof" for the GOP but a license to carry a concealed weapon is. The poor person who can ostensibly obtain a photo ID a little to no cost ... but the cost of traveling to and obtaining the required supporting documentation is prohibitively expensive. The elderly woman that can't get a photo ID because she can't produce a marriage certificate that she hasn't seen in 30 years. Older African-Americans born in the south during Jim Crow who simply don't have a birth certificate because the State didn't deem their birth worthy enough to have an official record. The list goes on and on of real people who are legitimate voters that will be negatively impacted by these laws. All to "prevent" a virtually non-existent phenomenon.

OAW

So the issue is really that key demographics have trouble establishing their identity? What can we do to address those problems? How about setting up ID issuing centers at voting polls?

[subego]

The problem isn't at the polls. The problem is during registration.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

So the issue is really that key demographics have trouble establishing their identity? What can we do to address those problems? How about setting up ID issuing centers at voting polls?

The issue is really that key demographics that tend to vote for Democrats are more likely to not have photo ID. So requiring a photo ID from an eligible voter in order to cast a vote will quite predictably suppress the vote in those groups. While doing nothing whatsoever with regard to the issue of voter eligibility. The GOP state legislatures that have coordinated to pass these voter ID laws are by no means stupid. They know exactly what they're doing ... which is to try to place a finger on the scales in order to tip close elections in their favor. Just like the recent efforts in GOP controlled states like Florida to purge the voter rolls several months before a Presidential election in a manner that also disproportionally impacts the same key demographics. Or how the GOP controlled Florida passed a new state law restricting the availability of early voting — including barring it on the Sunday before Election Day, when black churches traditionally follow services with get-out-the-vote efforts. New rules fining voter registration groups each time a volunteer does not turn in a voter registration form within 48 hours ... which effectively eliminates voter registration efforts on the weekend. Which is a good thing for the GOP because new voters tend to vote for Democrats.

So the bottom line here is that conservative politicians and pundits purposely use vague terminology like "voter fraud" in order to conflate the very different issues of "voter impersonation" and "voter ineligibility" in the minds of the Fox News crowd. And they have been quite successful at it given the question you posed to me and Dakar above. I mean how else can you get people to rabidly support a policy that would be stunningly ineffective at fixing a non-existent problem?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The problem isn't at the polls. The problem is during registration.

Ding ding ding ding!

OAW

[subego]

Full Disclosure: I was cribbing from you.

[andi*pandi]

^agreed. I don't think illegals should be able to vote, but I don't think an ID will help. How are they registering? Do they get pulled for jury duty like I do since I registered?

In my town they check my name off a list from the voter registration, after first getting me to list my address, so the name and address must match.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So the bottom line here is that conservative politicians and pundits purposely use vague terminology like "voter fraud" in order to conflate the very different issues of "voter impersonation" and "voter ineligibility" in the minds of the Fox News crowd. And they have been quite successful at it given the question you posed to me and Dakar above. I mean how else can you get people to rabidly support a policy that would be stunningly ineffective at fixing a non-existent problem?

OAW

To be fair, this issue with the policy didn't occur to me until you pointed it out.

Not that it isn't slap-you-in-the-face obvious once you realize it, but I needed to be prodded there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

^agreed. I don't think illegals should be able to vote, but I don't think an ID will help. How are they registering? Do they get pulled for jury duty like I do since I registered?

In my town they check my name off a list from the voter registration, after first getting me to list my address, so the name and address must match.

Here they get you to sign an affidavit, and then check the signature against a copy of your registration form. The Board of Elections also mails you a registration card every year or so.


Funny story: one year when I was an election judge we had three more ballots than affidavits at the end of the day. We called the Board of Elections and they told us to put all the ballots in a hat, pull out three ballots at random, and then don't count those.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be fair, this issue with the policy didn't occur to me until you pointed it out.

Not that it isn't slap-you-in-the-face obvious once you realize it, but I needed to be prodded there.

Now when it comes to the issue of voter ineligibility, most states have a voter registration process that relies upon A) providing a driver's license, a state ID, or a SSN ... and B) a signed affidavit swearing to voter eligibility under the threat of imprisonment and hefty fines for false statements. Now if you provide anything in group A, "proof of citizenship" was already required to obtain them. If you don't, then you need to submit documentation establishing "proof of identity" and "proof of residency". One can argue that documentation showing "proof of citizenship" should be required as well. But the question then becomes do the pros of such a policy outweigh the cons? Specifically, will it disenfranchise more legitimate voters who don't have "proof of citizenship" than it prevents ineligible voters from registering? Especially in light of the fact that if someone is motivated enough to illegally register to vote they are more than likely motivated enough to obtain fake papers. And when there is a constitutional right at stake?

Policy Brief on Proof of Citizenship - Brennan Center for Justice

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The problem isn't at the polls. The problem is during registration.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now when it comes to the issue of voter ineligibility, most states have a voter registration process that relies upon A) providing a driver's license, a state ID, or a SSN ... and B) a signed affidavit swearing to voter eligibility under the threat of imprisonment and hefty fines for false statements. Now if you provide anything in group A, "proof of citizenship" was already required to obtain them. If you don't, then you need to submit documentation establishing "proof of identity" and "proof of residency". One can argue that documentation showing "proof of citizenship" should be required as well. But the question then becomes do the pros of such a policy outweigh the cons? Specifically, will it disenfranchise more legitimate voters who don't have "proof of citizenship" than it prevents ineligible voters from registering? Especially in light of the fact that if someone is motivated enough to illegally register to vote they are more than likely motivated enough to obtain fake papers. And when there is a constitutional right at stake?

Policy Brief on Proof of Citizenship - Brennan Center for Justice

OAW

More talk like this, I believe it coincides exactly with the topic.

I did a quick google search for "PA voter law illegal immigrants" that came up pretty blank. Guess they had some other reason?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dakar, OAW.

Do you consider illegal immigrants voting to be voter fraud?

Yes or no, and please explain your answer.

If we're rehash illegal immigrants and crap, though, please take it to another thread.

I will, however, be kind enough to answer your question: Yes, that seems like obvious fraud. I don't see how it wouldn't be.
(If you have a reply, please start another thread for it)

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If we're rehash illegal immigrants and crap, though, please take it to another thread.

What else is there to talk about? This seems pretty cut and dried.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What else is there to talk about? This seems pretty cut and dried.

Well, you guys were talking about preventative measures.

But honestly, I'm sickened by the bald-faced admission of why this is being enacted. I suppose that's better than thinly veiled lies, but yeesh, politicians. I don't quite understand the politics of the state sometimes.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But honestly, I'm sickened by the bald-faced admission of why this is being enacted. I suppose that's better than thinly veiled lies, but yeesh, politicians. I don't quite understand the politics of the state sometimes.

I think it can be more accurately characterized as "thinly veiled lies" that were undeniably exposed by a "bald-faced admission" that's now being walked back with even more "thinly veiled lies". Like I said earlier ... this guy just got a little too comfortable when speaking about this topic because he was amongst political allies. It's like he thought he was sending a private message to certain Facebook friends but posted it as a public status update by mistake. But you're right. It is sickening. Because people can disagree about politics all day everyday. Whatever. But to undermine the right to vote for political gain is an attack on the very foundations of our democracy.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Do Democrats have methods for suppressing voter turn-out? I'm unfamiliar with their methods for rigging the vote (just ballot-stuffing?), but it feels like Republicans have several methods at their disposal (including robo-calls/flyers to blue areas saying election dates have changed).

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, you guys were talking about preventative measures.

But honestly, I'm sickened by the bald-faced admission of why this is being enacted. I suppose that's better than thinly veiled lies, but yeesh, politicians. I don't quite understand the politics of the state sometimes.

There's a strain of politics which I think can only be described as diabolism. I don't get it either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do Democrats have methods for suppressing voter turn-out? I'm unfamiliar with their methods for rigging the vote (just ballot-stuffing?), but it feels like Republicans have several methods at their disposal (including robo-calls/flyers to blue areas saying election dates have changed).

It is interesting the Republicans tend to ballot suppress and the Democrats tend to ballot stuff.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It is interesting the Republicans tend to ballot suppress and the Democrats tend to ballot stuff.

Mirrors their perspective of the of role government. Coincidence?

[subego]

I think not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think not.

Of course, another interpretation might be that one side reduces the amount of input people have, while the other just makes it up. I'd say the latter is infuriating, but the former sorta shows contempt for the system, which irks me in another way.

[subego]

Excellent point. I find the idea of disenfranchising people to be truly repellent. Similarly to the way I feel about calling for (even metaphorical) violence against democratically elected politicians.

These are both such huge **** yous to democracy.

[subego]

Quite simply, if you have to do this to win, then winning isn't worth it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quite simply, if you have to do this to win, then winning isn't worth it.

See, but that's my issue with the shit they've been trying to pull with PA lately. It's total ends justify the means bullshit. I'd be fine with apportioned electoral votes, but only if all the states bought in, otherwise you're just upsetting the dynamics.

Ballot stuffing is such unbridled arrogance, but the suppression – it's such disdain for their very constituents. Ugh. Maybe it's because the latter can be achieved through legal means that irks me so.

[subego]

The thing is, I can swing with the ends justifying the means, but the end here is supposed to be representation of constituents. That end is incompatible with ballot suppression.

[The Final Dakar]

To me, the end is getting Romney elected in PA, and instead of the means being typical campaign BS, they just cut to rigging the vote.

[OAW]

Attorney General Eric Holder went off script today to say that voter ID laws like one being implemented in Texas are “poll taxes,” equating the requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID in order to cast ballots to the Jim Crow laws of the early 1900s.

“Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them,” Holder said in a speech to the NAACP on Tuesday, referring specifically to a law being implemented in Texas. “We call those poll taxes.”

The Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes were unconstitutional in 1937 and the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964 outlaws poll taxes in federal elections.

Holder’s “poll tax” comment was not in the prepared remarks which were given to the press and came while Holder was decrying the Texas voter ID law that the Justice Department is currently challenging in federal court.

Holder said Texas’ law would be “harmful to minority voters” because while just 8 percent of white Americans do not have a valid ID, 25 percent of African Americans lack the required ID.

“Especially in recent months, Texas has – in many ways – been at the center of our national debate about voting rights issues,” Holder said. “Let me be clear: we will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious right.”

Eric Holder Dubs Texas Voter ID Law a ‘Poll Tax’ - ABCNews.com

OAW

[Chongo]

I find this interesting. You need ID to see Holder saying you don't need ID to vote.
NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP Nation Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That's right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder's DOJ is currently suing Texas for "discriminatory" voter ID laws. From the press release:

All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I find this interesting. You need ID to see Holder saying you don't need ID to vote.
NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

"interesting" is an interesting word. I'd say this is outright bullshit.


-t

[OAW]

Eric Holder is the sitting Attorney General of the United States. There are security protocols in place for media access to such events when high ranking government officials (e.g. Cabinet members, POTUS, etc.) are present. There is no constitutional right for an individual to be granted media credentials at such a function. Voting, on the other hand, is a fundamentally different matter altogether. Now when it comes to the actual topic at hand and not some bogus and irrelevant distraction .....

Disenfranchisement. Studies show that approximately 11 percent of Americans – about
21 million people – lack a current government photo ID, disproportionately racial minorities, senior citizens, young voters, the working poor and people with disabilities – including:

• 25 percent of African American voting age citizens – more than 5.5. million people
• 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 a year
• 18 percent of those age 65 and above – more than 6 million voters
• 20 percent of young voters 18-29

For those without ID, the hurdles to obtaining one can be substantial. IDs cost money and after states’ implementation of the provisions of the REAL ID Act, the underlying documents necessary to obtain an ID are costly and can be difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain.

To get a state-issued ID, voters must present documents showing identity, citizenship and place of residence, including a certified birth certificate. In some instances voters must present a social security card, marriage or divorce records if names have changed, or naturalization papers. A copy of a certified birth certificate can cost up to $45, and 17 states require a photo ID to obtain a copy of the birth certificate. Naturalization papers may cost $200. Not only can the process be burdensome and time consuming, but some may be unable to get underlying documentation at all, such as those informally adopted at birth, those born in rural settings, those born outside the United States, those whose records were destroyed in natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which destroyed birth records of thousands of people.

What's Wrong With This Picture? - Poll Tax 1961, Photo ID 2011? - Advancement Project

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A photo ID requirement does one thing and one thing only. It ostensibly shows that the person casting a vote is, in fact, the person on the voter roll. One can argue that this would prevent "voter impersonation". That is, Billy couldn't go to the local polling place and cast a vote in Bob's name. But this isn't necessary, because when Bob shows up to vote and the poll workers tell him that he's already voted ... Bob will lodge a complaint.

What if Bob is dead? A common practice in vote fraud, one which is historically noted in corrupt cities like Chicago, is for the dead to come out and vote Democrat. It would be pretty hard for Billy to vote for dead Bob if he didn't have Bob's driver's license or SS card.

Also, people would be much less likely to show up somewhere with a fake ID that could be inspected, where there are people who may actually care if they are here illegally and do something about it.

Make ID's easy to get as long as you have the proper documentation, and it hurts no one but those trying to do something illegal. If we can make registration itself so easy, there should be no reason we can't take the extra step to ensure that fraud is not taking place and require some kind of free identification. The excuses not to do so make no sense and are obvious ploys to keep methods for fraud open and available.

[stupendousman]

Holder said Texas’ law would be “harmful to minority voters” because while just 8 percent of white Americans do not have a valid ID, 25 percent of African Americans lack the required ID.

More evidence that the left wants to enslave minorities to keep patronizing them for their votes. What person in their right mind would want to continue a policy that allows such a disproportionate number of minorities to not have the same tools that "white Americans" have, which many employers require just to accept an applicant for a job?

Again, if the ID's are free and you just have to show reasonable documentation, then there's no excuse for this kind of disproportionate lack of ID unless people just really aren't that interested in voting and those in charge want to keep them from accessing the same things that "white Americans" do. I have to show my BIRTH CERTIFICATE now just when I renew my license due to new government regulations. To suggest that I have to do this to remain a productive citizen but someone who wants to vote should be able to just walk in and do it - EVEN ILLEGALLY, without any evidence that they are legally eligible to do so is insulting and pathetic.

The only way I can see this stopping anyone who legally has the right to vote, is for some who have NO INTENTION of voting and have no interest in doing so and have no plans to do so. The Democrats round them up at the last minute with their big VOTE DEMOCRAT buttons on their shirts and their van with a picture of their chosen candidate, offers to take them to the voting place and gives them cigarettes and other niceties in order to secure their vote. They register them at the last minute if they aren't already and the chances of them voting Republican are slim. This has happened in the past with the homeless and mentally challenged - groups probably least likely to provide a valid ID. The Democrats choose to take advantage of the vulnerable for political gain without a care if they have the tools necessary for being productive citizens. I see nothing wrong with stopping this sort of vote bribery.