[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You need to move to a more civilized place, that's awful.

I've considered it. Colorado looks nice all the sudden.

But I hope this clarifies my position a bit. From what I'm used to, getting an ID is a ****ing nightmare.

When it's time for me to renew, I book out hours.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe it's suppressive. You do and you keep pressing that.

It's the basis of thread, Shaddim. Further, it's already been admitted two, at least twice by my count.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

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?

You confuse me sometimes. You seem to advocate an almost conspiratorial stance regarding A&E's Duck Dynasty interview, yet when a coordinated effort by red states to enact voter ID shows up, you shrug it off as coincidence.

I don't feel like doing another list, but there's a significant amount of states that don't require ID.

[The Final Dakar]

While I was gone... Judge strikes down Pennsylvania voter ID law - CNN.com

A Pennsylvania judge Friday struck down a law requiring voters in the state to show photo identification at the polls, saying the requirement imposed "unreasonable burden" on voters and represented "a legislative disconnect from reality."
State Judge Bernard McGinley's ruling comes nearly two years after civil and voters' rights groups challenged the law, which Gov. Tom Corbett signed in March 2012, that never went into effect because of the court case.
"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," McGinley said in his ruling.

But the judge wrote that there was "no evidence of the existence of in-person voter fraud in the state or that in-person voter fraud was likely to occur in the upcoming election."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The latest from Pennsylvania which started this entire thread ...

Whoops, OAW beat me to it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another activist Democrat Judge legislating from the bench.

I can't tell, is this a joke or a serious rebuttal?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is zero evidence that Voter ID requirements burden the right to vote.

To which the judge countered there was no evidence of in-person fraud.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't matter. You still have to provide some basic personal information to cash a check.

Sure it matters, or else you wouldn't have moved the goal posts to the action that required ID.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're okay with having to provide some basic personal information at the polls, we may have some common ground.

If you're under the impression I'm for some type of voting free-for-all, you haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The point was there's no good reason to leave an election process open to fraud.

No it wasn't. Your point was life takes ID (to paraphrase VISA)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really? Have you lived in the US without an ID? I'm not sure the OP was the stupidest statement of this thread. While I'm sure there are more, here's a short list of those things that require ID in the US;

If you've managed to effectively avoid all of the above, I can't possibly imagine what stake or interest you have in the election process other than someone promised to drive you to the polling place and buy you lunch for filling out the ballot a particular way.

While I don't claim it's easy, I did demonstrate that when you remove things that require money and common purchases that are infrequently policed, the list is a whole lot smaller.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A much smaller place and some time ago. You have an ID nearby right now, precisely because they are "common sense".

I have a driver's license because I live in a rural-to-semi-rural are and driving is optional. Oh, and I'm registered to vote because of the Motor Voter Bill from the Clinton years which I skimmed recently and saw it was passed among part lines.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm astounded that you're actually interested in the information. What's in it for me?

Continued debate. Actually, I'm not sure I'm still interested in it now.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

In order to forge the registry, you'd have to forge the signature. Does this sound easy to you?

• I'd have to know the person is registered
• Know where their polling place is
• Dig through their trash or some other method for finding their signature
• Practice it enough to be able to replicate it reasonably

This seems easy to you?


---

I don't recall if this was asked earlier in the thread, but I suppose the point is: How much fraud is tolerable to help preserve the rights of voters? What is the greater tragedy, the legitimate vote lost to disenfranchisement or the illegitimate vote that is counted?

[The Final Dakar]

Given that there are disbelievers that the GOP want to limit turn-out, I looked up the National Voter Registration Act or 1993 that enacted the motor voter bill that enabled my registration when I renewed my license at 20. Out of curiosity, I decided to look up the vote linked and I was semi-surprised that the vote went pretty strongly around party lines:

House Vote
DEMOCRATIC Y 237 N 14
REPUBLICAN Y 21 N 146

Senate Vote
62 Yeah: 57 D, 5 Rs
37 Nay: 37 Rs

Does anyone know what the opposition to this bill was?

[subego]

Quick Goog doesn't list objections, but I note the law also let you register at welfare offices and by mail.

[subego]

Oh yeah, with the exception of the states which at the time, didn't require registration to vote.

[subego]

I should also add, the law federally mandated a bunch of offices the states needed to create to take care of this system. If I were a complaining conservative, I'd focus on that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quick Goog doesn't list objections, but I note the law also let you register at welfare offices and by mail.

In my googling, I read a complaint that thanks to law, people will be able to sign up through the ACA process. Hoo boy.

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh yeah, with the exception of the states which at the time, didn't require registration to vote.

That's one of the Dakotas, isn't it?

Originally Posted by subego 

I should also add, the law federally mandated a bunch of offices the states needed to create to take care of this system. If I were a complaining conservative, I'd focus on that.

Fair enough.

[subego]

You know, it was a combo of states without registration or registration the day of the election.

The list is (was):

Idaho
Minnesota
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Wyoming

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, it was a combo of states without registration or registration the day of the election.

The list is (was):

Idaho
Minnesota
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Wyoming

They all seem to be up north.

[subego]

And states I'd rate high on the "independent spirt" meter.

[The Final Dakar]

Aside from New Hampshire, I have no idea.

[subego]

Minnesota, definitely.

In the northwest, I assume independent because there isn't a goddamn thing for miles and miles.


Wisconsin is a weird one. Things get higgedly-piggedly there because Madison is both the capital and a university town.

[subego]

As an aside, heard the mayor of St. Paul on A Prairie Home Companion this weekend. Not only was the guy a frickin' riot, he did a musical number.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

It's not obnoxious at all. When I make repeated points about voter impersonation fraud and how photo ID only addresses that and you respond with comments about voter registration fraud ... it gives the impression that you are either A) trying to change the subject, or B) muddying the waters by using the terms interchangeably as if they were equivalent. Thus, a clarification in no uncertain terms is in order. And we'll revisit this tactic of yours in a bit.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

Again, voter impersonation fraud does not require "bogus names". All it requires is that someone casts a ballot in the name of another person. For instance, my father and I have the same name. People also routinely say I'm the "spitting image" of him. Suppose on Election Day 2012 he decided he didn't want to stand in the ridiculously long lines and asked me to cast a vote for Obama in his place. I could have EASILY gone to his polling place with an expired drivers license of his from several years ago and done just that. No one would have batted an eye. It most definitely would have been illegal. And a Photo ID requirement would have done nothing to stop it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

Sure there is. There's an effective check against this that already exists (at least in my state) ... and one which does not required Photo ID. In order to vote we have to sign the voter roll. And the signature must match the one on file made during the voter registration process in order to even receive a ballot. Not only does this prevent more than one vote from being cast in a given person's name, it also is a non-burdensome mechanism for making a reasonable determination that the person casting the vote is the person that registered to vote. I suppose we could go all out and require on the spot DNA testing to prevent someone from casting a vote in the name of a dead person ... but that seems a bit like overkill. Because I contend that a more effective means for defrauding an election would be to just stuff the ballot box and get it over with as opposed to recruiting legions of people (all of whom could snitch at any moment) ... teaching them how to forge a dead person's signature ... and then sending them in to cast a fraudulent ballot on an individual basis.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

[Ronald Reagan voice] There you go again! [/Ronald Reagan voice]

I said earlier we'd revisit this tactic of yours. I said nothing whatsoever about rural voters! In fact, I specifically spoke about the ridiculously long lines in urban areas (typically Dem strongholds) vs. suburban areas (more often than not GOP strongholds). Especially in key swing states where the GOP (e.g. Ohio, Florida, etc.) decided to significantly curtail early voting. In any event, surely you know by now that I don't make assertions I can't substantiate.

Several recent polls and studies suggest that long waiting times in some places depressed turnout in 2012 and that lines were longest in cities, where Democrats outnumber Republicans. In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken shortly after Election Day, 18 percent of Democrats said they waited at least a half-hour to vote, compared with 11 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites. Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, according to Charles Stewart III, the political science professor who conducted the analysis.

A separate analysis, by an Ohio State University professor and The Orlando Sentinel, concluded that more than 200,000 voters in Florida “gave up in frustration” without voting.

“When I got there, the line was around the building,” said Jonathan Piccolo, 33, who said he had waited nearly eight hours to cast a ballot in Miami-Dade County the Monday before Election Day.

“It’s one of the most sacred rights you have,” Mr. Piccolo added. “They should make it as painless as possible.”

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a major challenge to the Voting Rights Act this month — with a decision potentially giving states more freedom to tighten voting requirements — election issues seem likely to become even more of a flash point.

Republicans in several states across the country have passed or promoted measures they say are meant to reduce voter fraud, like stricter identification requirements. Some have also cited costs; Florida, for instance, had eight days of early voting in November, down from 14, after the Republican-led Legislature changed the law.

By highlighting long waits and cumbersome voter registration as issues, Democrats hope they have found a counterattack. Democrats have already tried to block the Republican efforts, noting that nonpartisan analyses have generally found voter fraud to be extremely rare.

Waiting Times at Ballot Boxes Draw Scrutiny | NYTimes.com

Dem voters reported a long wait nearly 2 to 1 in comparison to GOP voters. Black and Hispanic voters waited twice as long on average to vote than white voters. So is that really surprising when the GOP controlled state legislature in Florida for instance decided to slash early voting nearly in half?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

When will you stop doubting me my friend? The "coordination" comes from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ... an organization comprised of politically conservative state legislators and business representatives ... which "provides a forum for state legislators and private sector members to collaborate on model bills—draft legislation that members can customize and introduce for debate in their own state legislatures".

A growing number of conservative Republican state legislators worked fervently during the past two years to enact laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states. Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges.

A News21 analysis found that more than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C., tax-exempt organization.

ALEC has nearly 2,000 state legislator members who pay $100 in dues every two years. Most of ALEC’s money comes from nonprofits and corporations — from AT&T to Bank of America to Chevron to eBay — which pay thousands of dollars in dues each year.

“I very rarely see a single issue taken up by as many states in such a short period of time as with voter ID,” said Jennie Bowser, senior election policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan organization that compiles information about state laws. “It’s been a pretty remarkable spread.”

A strict photo ID law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, requires voters to show photo ID or cast a provisional ballot, which is not counted unless the voter returns with an ID to the elections office within a few days. Less-strict laws allow voters without ID to sign an affidavit or have a poll worker vouch for their identity — no provisional ballot necessary.

The flurry of bills introduced the last two years followed the 2010 midterm election when Republicans took control of state legislatures in Alabama, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The same shift occurred in the 2004 election in Indiana and Georgia before those states became the first to pass strict voter ID laws.

ALEC members drafted a voter ID bill in 2009, a year when the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization had $5.3 million in undisclosed corporate and nonprofit contributions, according to Internal Revenue Service documents.

Flurry of Voter ID laws tied to conservative group ALEC - Investigations

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

I'm positive. He is just someone who got caught up in the moment while speaking to a like-minded audience and forgot that in this day and age anyone with a smartphone can make public that which was intended to be private. Much like Romney and his infamous 47% comments.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

Again, in order to register to vote in most states all that's required is to fill out the application and then sign the sworn affidavit that one is a 18+ years old, a US citizen, and a resident of the state. Which is my point. There is no documentation requirement to register. Now if one is willing to risk 5 years in jail and a $10K fine there's nothing to stop an illegal immigrant from doing just that. And when he shows up to vote with his Driver's License (which does NOT require citizenship in most states) ... a Photo ID requirement will do NOTHING to prevent him from casting a fraudulent vote. The only thing it will do is burden ELIGIBLE voters. Funny how conservatives get the logic of this argument when it comes gun rights but "this point falls on its face" when it comes to voting rights.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

Let's keep it real here. By far the largest group of potential illegal voters are among the illegal immigrant population. Most of whom are trying to stay under the radar and not attract the attention of government authorities. So do you really think it is more likely that "hundreds of thousands" of such people will individually do this as registrants ... as opposed to a small group of registrars doing this in coordination? Do you really think "hundreds of thousands" of registrants will individually register as a dead person ... as opposed to a small group of registrars doing this in coordination? Again, as individuals one can only impact a single vote ... which is a highly inefficient means of defrauding an election. Whereas an election official can impact many votes. And as I said earlier ... if one really wants to go there just do it expeditiously and stuff the ballot box with votes in the name of these dead people. A tactic which Photo ID for eligible voters won't impact in the slightest!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

And on this point I'm glad we agree my friend!

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've considered it. Colorado looks nice all the sudden.

But I hope this clarifies my position a bit. From what I'm used to, getting an ID is a ****ing nightmare.

When it's time for me to renew, I book out hours.

I simply hate the angle of "this state sucks so much that people can't get an ID". Parts of this country are incredibly f***ed up and need to be paved over (not serious).

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's the basis of thread, Shaddim. Further, it's already been admitted two, at least twice by my count.

I didn't admit it, because as I said, it's already required for a large part of living, anyway. For the poor to get services, they're required to have one, to buy any adult materials/activities (beer, cigs, clubs), you're required to have one. To get a job, you're required to have one. To cash a check or open a bank account, yep, you're required to have one. I'm still trying to figure out who goes through life in the USA without needing a photo ID.

You confuse me sometimes. You seem to advocate an almost conspiratorial stance regarding A&E's Duck Dynasty interview, yet when a coordinated effort by red states to enact voter ID shows up, you shrug it off as coincidence.

I don't feel like doing another list, but there's a significant amount of states that don't require ID.

That's fine, if some states don't want to, that's their business and their right. I'm not sure what Duck Dynasty's PR dept has to do with anything, but as I said before, when "blue states" enacted these laws, where was the outrage then?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not obnoxious at all. When I make repeated points about voter impersonation fraud and how photo ID only addresses that and you respond with comments about voter registration fraud ... it gives the impression that you are either A) trying to change the subject, or B) muddying the waters by using the terms interchangeably as if they were equivalent. Thus, a clarification in no uncertain terms is in order. And we'll revisit this tactic of yours in a bit.

Wait... please don't assume it's a tactic. Okay, carry on...

Again, voter impersonation fraud does not require "bogus names". All it requires is that someone casts a ballot in the name of another person. For instance, my father and I have the same name. People also routinely say I'm the "spitting image" of him. Suppose on Election Day 2012 he decided he didn't want to stand in the ridiculously long lines and asked me to cast a vote for Obama in his place. I could have EASILY gone to his polling place with an expired drivers license of his from several years ago and done just that. No one would have batted an eye. It most definitely would have been illegal. And a Photo ID requirement would have done nothing to stop it.

I wouldn't even sweat that. It's when OAW III shows up...

Sure there is. There's an effective check against this that already exists (at least in my state) ... and one which does not required Photo ID. In order to vote we have to sign the voter roll. And the signature must match the one on file made during the voter registration process in order to even receive a ballot. Not only does this prevent more than one vote from being cast in a given person's name, it also is a non-burdensome mechanism for making a reasonable determination that the person casting the vote is the person that registered to vote.

You have to re-register annually? I haven't registered in 15 years and my signature is different enough at this point that I'm certain if it's being checked against anything (which it's not), it's problematic. Though I've not had a problem casting a vote. It seems to me a picture is much easier to analyze quickly and effectively than a signature.

I suppose we could go all out and require on the spot DNA testing to prevent someone from casting a vote in the name of a dead person ... but that seems a bit like overkill. Because I contend that a more effective means for defrauding an election would be to just stuff the ballot box and get it over with as opposed to recruiting legions of people (all of whom could snitch at any moment) ... teaching them how to forge a dead person's signature ... and then sending them in to cast a fraudulent ballot on an individual basis.

A simple count of ballots vs signatures on the roster at the polls would catch this type of "stuffing". You might know classic "stuffing" uses the names of dead people, also classic registration fraud. What purpose could registration fraud ever hope to serve other than making the names available for stuffing?

I said earlier we'd revisit this tactic of yours. I said nothing whatsoever about rural voters! In fact, I specifically spoke about the ridiculously long lines in urban areas (typically Dem strongholds) vs. suburban areas (more often than not GOP strongholds). Especially in key swing states where the GOP (e.g. Ohio, Florida, etc.) decided to significantly curtail early voting. In any event, surely you know by now that I don't make assertions I can't substantiate.

It's not a tactic, it's addressing your knack for making all correlations causal. These are merely the differences between existing in an area stuffed with people and an area not stuffed with people. My point about the rural voter with regard to ID was to indicate that measures taken to disenfranchise one, in theory would also disenfranchise the other. None of this takes into account the rural voter (Republican) also with great difficulties in getting to the City offices, but let me ask you this-- it shouldn't just be congestion at the polling places in urban communities right? I mean, you'd likely have congestion and longer wait times at the movie theatre, the grocery store, the gas station...

Waiting Times at Ballot Boxes Draw Scrutiny | NYTimes.com

I don't know if you meant to do this, but your citation includes the District of Columbia; a Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and an excellent example of correlative, not causal.

Dem voters reported a long wait nearly 2 to 1 in comparison to GOP voters. Black and Hispanic voters waited twice as long on average to vote than white voters. So is that really surprising when the GOP controlled state legislature in Florida for instance decided to slash early voting nearly in half?

But what about DC? You see, OAW; this is a byproduct of city-living. There's more congestion and wait times for virtually everything one wants to do. There's an old adage that liberals don't make big cities, big cities make liberals. You will find most on the left within the urban confines of the city, it only follows that they'd report greater trouble at the polls as they'd likely report greater wait times at the movie theatre, the gas station, and the grocery store... if such a thing were newsworthy of course.

When will you stop doubting me my friend? The "coordination" comes from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ... an organization comprised of politically conservative state legislators and business representatives ... which "provides a forum for state legislators and private sector members to collaborate on model bills—draft legislation that members can customize and introduce for debate in their own state legislatures".

Because of the prism I spoke of earlier. You have a tendency to conclude that all things (R) are nefarious, all things (D) are necessary. Yes, ALEC exists and they bring information to one another not unlike the Progressive States Network, ALICE (American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange), or the NCEL (National Caucus of Environmental Legislators), and these are places to exchange ideals or meaningful legislation. The actions of ALEC are no more coordinated or nefarious than any of the numerous Green Caucuses or other Progressive organizations of legislators across the country. The real and recent successes being used to demonize ALEC have come from Republican victories in State races -- what I've said from nearly the beginning of this thread, also cited by you.

I'm positive. He is just someone who got caught up in the moment while speaking to a like-minded audience and forgot that in this day and age anyone with a smartphone can make public that which was intended to be private. Much like Romney and his infamous 47% comments.

But he does not represent the overwhelming majority of the country, across all political spectrums, races, and income levels that also support Voter ID requirements.

Again, in order to register to vote in most states all that's required is to fill out the application and then sign the sworn affidavit that one is a 18+ years old, a US citizen, and a resident of the state. Which is my point. There is no documentation requirement to register. Now if one is willing to risk 5 years in jail and a $10K fine there's nothing to stop an illegal immigrant from doing just that. And when he shows up to vote with his Driver's License (which does NOT require citizenship in most states) ... a Photo ID requirement will do NOTHING to prevent him from casting a fraudulent vote. The only thing it will do is burden ELIGIBLE voters. Funny how conservatives get the logic of this argument when it comes gun rights but "this point falls on its face" when it comes to voting rights.

The only way it will burden ELIGIBLE voters using your example above is if it's easier for an illegal immigrant to attain the necessary ID than it is a legitimate Democrat voter and that my friend is a problem Republicans cannot solve. I do not believe that is the case and while we cannot secure an election 100%, I'd be more comfortable with a more secure process.

Let's keep it real here. By far the largest group of potential illegal voters are among the illegal immigrant population. Most of whom are trying to stay under the radar and not attract the attention of government authorities. So do you really think it is more likely that "hundreds of thousands" of such people will individually do this as registrants ... as opposed to a small group of registrars doing this in coordination? Do you really think "hundreds of thousands" of registrants will individually register as a dead person ... as opposed to a small group of registrars doing this in coordination? Again, as individuals one can only impact a single vote ... which is a highly inefficient means of defrauding an election. Whereas an election official can impact many votes. And as I said earlier ... if one really wants to go there just do it expeditiously and stuff the ballot box with votes in the name of these dead people. A tactic which Photo ID for eligible voters won't impact in the slightest!

OAW

If the number of ballots do not match the number of signatures, you'd have an obvious problem out of the gate. Now, if what you're saying is that election officers are the ones in cahoots with these bulk-registering registrars, I'd be interested in further security against their defrauding the system as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sure it matters, or else you wouldn't have moved the goal posts to the action that required ID.

No, you see that's why I closed the statement from the very beginning with mention of my acceptance of "working with the voter to establish their identity". i.e. it encompassed the whole of your argument.

No it wasn't. Your point was life takes ID (to paraphrase VISA)

My point was that life takes ID for a reason; a reason that if sufficient for the sanctity and security of commerce should most definitely apply to the sanctity and security of an election.

While I don't claim it's easy, I did demonstrate that when you remove things that require money and common purchases that are infrequently policed, the list is a whole lot smaller.

No, what you did was establish that perhaps a small portion of each scenario in my list may not require ID to remain argumentative while disingenuously missing the crux of my point.

I have a driver's license because I live in a rural-to-semi-rural are and driving is optional. Oh, and I'm registered to vote because of the Motor Voter Bill from the Clinton years which I skimmed recently and saw it was passed among part lines.

You have a driver's license because you use it several times per week to exist having nothing to do with driving or the DMV laws.

Continued debate. Actually, I'm not sure I'm still interested in it now.

Right. You weren't interested, then either.

In order to forge the registry, you'd have to forge the signature. Does this sound easy to you?

• I'd have to know the person is registered
• Know where their polling place is
• Dig through their trash or some other method for finding their signature
• Practice it enough to be able to replicate it reasonably

How many hand-writing analysts are working the polls these days?

This seems easy to you?

Yes, it seems way too easy. It's much easier to verify and discern a picture than it is to analyze a signature. This is why the cash registers at fast-food restaurants have pictures of small, medium, and large fries as opposed to words, letters, and numbers.

I don't recall if this was asked earlier in the thread, but I suppose the point is: How much fraud is tolerable to help preserve the rights of voters? What is the greater tragedy, the legitimate vote lost to disenfranchisement or the illegitimate vote that is counted?

IMO, the point is; are there reasonable means of securing the election process? And the overwhelming consensus response is that there is in Voter ID requirements. After all, IDs are so prevalent in most other aspects of existence that it seems almost obvious as the most reasonable means available.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wouldn't even sweat that. It's when OAW III shows up... 😉

Ha!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have to re-register annually? I haven't registered in 15 years and my signature is different enough at this point that I'm certain if it's being checked against anything (which it's not), it's problematic. Though I've not had a problem casting a vote. It seems to me a picture is much easier to analyze quickly and effectively than a signature.

We don't need to register annually. Just if you move to a new voting precinct. I've been in the same area for about the same length of time and my signature has essentially been the same chicken scratch throughout. Granted I have a drivers license as well but the election judges always check the signature as well when I vote.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A simple count of ballots vs signatures on the roster at the polls would catch this type of "stuffing". You might know classic "stuffing" uses the names of dead people, also classic registration fraud. What purpose could registration fraud ever hope to serve other than making the names available for stuffing?

I guess I'm not getting the point you are trying to make here? If the names of dead people are added to the voter registration rolls ... or intentionally not purged periodically as they should be ... then any attempt to "stuff the ballot box" would know how many are available. I agree, it would be quite foolish to do more and call attention to the fraud. My point though is that this type of "classic registration fraud" is almost invariably carried out by political machines in cahoots with election officials. NOT by Joe Sixpack, Jane Doe, and John Q. Public.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not a tactic, it's addressing your knack for making all correlations causal. These are merely the differences between existing in an area stuffed with people and an area not stuffed with people. My point about the rural voter with regard to ID was to indicate that measures taken to disenfranchise one, in theory would also disenfranchise the other. None of this takes into account the rural voter (Republican) also with great difficulties in getting to the City offices, but let me ask you this-- it shouldn't just be congestion at the polling places in urban communities right? I mean, you'd likely have congestion and longer wait times at the movie theatre, the grocery store, the gas station...

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know if you meant to do this, but your citation includes the District of Columbia; a Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and an excellent example of correlative, not causal.

I saw that. It still doesn't negate my point though.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But what about DC? You see, OAW; this is a byproduct of city-living. There's more congestion and wait times for virtually everything one wants to do. There's an old adage that liberals don't make big cities, big cities make liberals. You will find most on the left within the urban confines of the city, it only follows that they'd report greater trouble at the polls as they'd likely report greater wait times at the movie theatre, the gas station, and the grocery store... if such a thing were newsworthy of course.

You make a fair point about city-living. But the question still remains ... given the natural congestion in urban areas why on earth would GOP elected officials then insist upon slashing early voting hours when that will obviously disproportionately impact those areas? Why reduce the number of voting machines in urban precincts? It seems to me pretty obvious that they are taking what you accurately point out as "natural congestion" and exacerbating it for political gain.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because of the prism I spoke of earlier. You have a tendency to conclude that all things (R) are nefarious, all things (D) are necessary. Yes, ALEC exists and they bring information to one another not unlike the Progressive States Network, ALICE (American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange), or the NCEL (National Caucus of Environmental Legislators), and these are places to exchange ideals or meaningful legislation. The actions of ALEC are no more coordinated or nefarious than any of the numerous Green Caucuses or other Progressive organizations of legislators across the country. The real and recent successes being used to demonize ALEC have come from Republican victories in State races -- what I've said from nearly the beginning of this thread, also cited by you.

My point here was to respond to your contention that the flurry of Photo ID legislation that has occurred in recent years was not coordinated. As if it was some sort of "organic" development that happened by coincidence. I'm just showing how it was in fact a coordinated effort. I'm not saying ALEC is somehow "nefarious" while left-leaning organizations are not. I was only addressing whether the Photo ID legislative efforts were coordinated or not. And the facts are clear. They are.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't admit it, because as I said, it's already required for a large part of living, anyway.

I didn't say you admitted it, I said the people in charge have admitted it. Which carries more weight.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm still trying to figure out who goes through life in the USA without needing a photo ID.

It'd be a worthwhile article or story. That way we could no better if what we're talking about is a significant chunk of folks, or such a small sliver that this has been futile.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not sure what Duck Dynasty's PR dept has to do with anything

You're sharper than this.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

but as I said before, when "blue states" enacted these laws, where was the outrage then?

Well did they coordinate to do it over a short time? Were the results and aims of it nefarious? That may explain why.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

lulz – obscure GOP leader. If you favor states having more power than the feds, then I would think the State Legislator's Majority Party Leader would be one of the most important and powerful people in the state, not some random schlub as you paint him.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you sure this isn't a RHINO for the Democratic party of Pennsylvania?

Is this a real premise, because it sounds like grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, he's got to be the dumbest individual on the planet and certainly no threat to Democrats or eligible voters.

He's dangerous because he's already in power. And he already accomplished his goal. If it weren't for the judicial oversight you seem averse to, he'd have succeeded spectacularly.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My point was that life takes ID for a reason; a reason that if sufficient for the sanctity and security of commerce should most definitely apply to the sanctity and security of an election.

...and my point was that commerce will make exceptions because of laziness or expediency, making reality a lot easier to navigate than you posit.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, what you did was establish that perhaps a small portion of each scenario in my list may not require ID to remain argumentative while disingenuously missing the crux of my point.

I'll just button this up with saying we disagree on what constitutes a "small portion."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have a driver's license because you use it several times per week to exist having nothing to do with driving or the DMV laws.

What is this? I haven't had to use my driver's license in months, maybe years. You're flat-out wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right. You weren't interested, then either.

That's a baseless accusation without proof, ie., show me the posts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How many hand-writing analysts are working the polls these days?

More exaggeration. It doesn't require a hand-writing analyst to compare signatures. Clerks and cashiers do it everyday for credit cards transactions.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, it seems way too easy.

Ok, let me repeat this for clarity. You think finding someone who is registered, knowing they won't vote, finding where they have to vote, and finding a copy of their signature to forge is easy?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, the point is; are there reasonable means of securing the election process?

This is political speak. No one would object to "reasonable" measures, but when we examine those measures their reasonableness becomes the point of contention very quickly. That's why we're here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And the overwhelming consensus response is that there is in Voter ID requirements.

And that consensus is based on the mistaken assumption on widespread voter fraud.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After all, IDs are so prevalent in most other aspects of existence that it seems almost obvious as the most reasonable means available.

This is getting Orwellian. If IDs were so prevalent, there would be no outcry.

[BadKosh]

" If IDs were so prevalent, there would be no outcry."

FAKE outcry.

[subego]

1) I'm not faking it.

2) Anyone remember the days when the government going "show us your papers" used to be considered a bad thing?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

2) Anyone remember the days when the government going "show us your papers" used to be considered a bad thing?

This doesn't count if the person in question is latino.

[subego]

Re: Ballot Stuffing

My signature has changed since I registered. I could fix it, but I'm lazy. I also have a DL, so I can trump it with that. However, without even checking I can tell you it's less effort to change that than getting (for example) a DL renewal.

I've been an election judge before, and we had more ballots than signed affidavits. The BoE told is to put the ballots in a bag, randomly draw out the number of overages (three in our case), and not to run them through the counting machine. However, we were instructed to put those three in an envelope, mark the envelope "overage", and put it in the lockbox.

This was old skool though (1992 primary), our current system has ballots counted as they're cast, and an election judge with the sole job of babysitting the machine.

Ballots are about the size of a broadsheet too, as opposed that hanging chad shit.


It was hard not to put "OMG" before "chad"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

My signature has changed since I registered. I could fix it, but I'm lazy.

So do you fake your old signature when you go to vote, or do you use your new one and they don't care/check?

[subego]

I use my current signature.

I also bring the "Verification of Registration" card the BoE sends out with each cycle, which matches the DL name and address.

How much hassle I get varies. I've certainly gotten checked. It's been awhile though because it's always the same weirdos doing judge duty, and they recognize me by now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and my point was that commerce will make exceptions because of laziness or expediency, making reality a lot easier to navigate than you posit.

I maintain that laziness and expediency should have little to do with elections. They are not excuses to leave the process open to fraud IMO.

I'll just button this up with saying we disagree on what constitutes a "small portion."

We also disagree on what is or is not reasonable.

What is this? I haven't had to use my driver's license in months, maybe years. You're flat-out wrong.

I'm content knowing that this would now cross your mind each time you do use it and that you'll find I'm more right than wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's a baseless accusation without proof, ie., show me the posts.

I don't have to show you the posts, Dakar. The information we were discussing is not only readily available online, but on the prior page of our discussion in this very thread. I don't have to prove that a brother who died of starvation with a lunchbox full of food unopened beside him wasn't interested in eating.

More exaggeration. It doesn't require a hand-writing analyst to compare signatures. Clerks and cashiers do it everyday for credit cards transactions.

We're probably somewhere in the middle here with both of us exaggerating as no one is coming over to my side of the counter to verify a match on the card I swiped for myself and the PIN I entered.

Ok, let me repeat this for clarity. You think finding someone who is registered, knowing they won't vote, finding where they have to vote, and finding a copy of their signature to forge is easy?

Finding someone who is registered is readily available. Someone on the registry who is dead will not be voting. Their registry includes their address and polling place so none of the aforementioned are difficult. No one at my poll is checking signatures and if they had, they'd find a mismatch. Subego has already admitted as much; that his signature has changed and yet he's not been challenged on this.

This is political speak. No one would object to "reasonable" measures, but when we examine those measures their reasonableness becomes the point of contention very quickly. That's why we're here.

What has been examined? When you put the question to people directly, they acknowledge the concern of vote suppression and still prefer Voter ID requirements, including those in the alleged disenfranchised blocs. Many things are in contention, that doesn't necessarily mean there is an unreasonable proposition among them.

And that consensus is based on the mistaken assumption on widespread voter fraud.

I disagree. I think people merely see it as a reasonable stop-gap against fraud.

This is getting Orwellian. If IDs were so prevalent, there would be no outcry.

Abortion is prevalent and yet, surprise, there's outcry against it. Speaking of Orwellian.

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” ~ George Orwell

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I use my current signature.

I also bring the "Verification of Registration" card the BoE sends out with each cycle, which matches the DL name and address.

Do they check your Registration Card or do they allow you to just pass on through?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say you admitted it, I said the people in charge have admitted it. Which carries more weight.

I'm on an election commission for my county, so at least in this little borough of Obamaland I can do things. Last cycle I proposed a ban on coffee machines at the polling areas (which passed, narrowly), because they only encouraged people to loiter and talk politics at the polls, which we all agreed was a big no-no. Fist fights sometimes broke out and we were tired of the local jail being full on election nights.

It'd be a worthwhile article or story. That way we could no better if what we're talking about is a significant chunk of folks, or such a small sliver that this has been futile.

Apart from Unabomber clones, I've not been able to determine who wouldn't/couldn't get an ID.

You're sharper than this.

So are you.

Well did they coordinate to do it over a short time? Were the results and aims of it nefarious? That may explain why.

During the same length of time in the 80s, yeah.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

During the same length of time in the 80s, yeah.

You're not gonna get off that easy. I posted a list of states and dates to back-up my claims and I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

[The Final Dakar]

subego? Shaddim?

I'll respond once I hear from subego, ebuddy

[subego]

Sorry, missed that.

Isn't the answer right below where you cut my quote off, or are you asking something different.

[The Final Dakar]

It's a little vague. Do they check your registration card? Only sometimes? Only if they check your signature?

[subego]

The thing is, I make a bad control because I'm impatient. I try and read the judge so I can give them what they want without asking.

If they compare the two signatures and go "whoa", I hand them the DL.

If they're less suprised, I'll usually give the reg. card, which is already in my hand because I never remember which precinct I live in, and we have multiple precincts inside one polling place.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The thing is, I make a bad control because I'm impatient.

Well, anecdotal is anecdotal. It's not like there's real data lying around (That I know of).

Originally Posted by subego 

If they compare the two signatures and go "whoa", I hand them the DL.

If they're less suprised, I'll usually give the reg. card, which is already in my hand because I never remember which precinct I live in, and we have multiple precincts inside one polling place.

But can you skip through without handing them your reg card?

[subego]

If I'm not a known entity? No.

The general feeling I get is comparing the signatures is their one job, so they take it seriously. Likewise, it's dull work, so the chance to change the routine and hassle someone is "appreciated".

I'm self-employed though, so I can get to the polls when it's quiet. Back from when I was a judge, there was a general unspoken consensus you need to go as fast as possible during the morning rush so people don't end up late at work. There was one time we didn't get the key for the ballot box. After a string of pissed off people lined up, we just broke into the shit with a hammer.

[subego]

Big exception is when I'd come in with an election judge sticker on my shirt (I worked different polls than my own). No hassle whatsoever.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I maintain that laziness and expediency should have little to do with elections. They are not excuses to leave the process open to fraud IMO.

It's not whether the process is open to fraud, it's whether that fraud is both effortless and common. I haven't seen either demonstrated.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm content knowing that this would now cross your mind each time you do use it and that you'll find I'm more right than wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree.

This is a cop-out answer. You said I use it several times a week, so explain yourself. Playing the "I'm just trying to get you to think about things" is a troll's answer.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't have to show you the posts, Dakar. The information we were discussing is not only readily available online, but on the prior page of our discussion in this very thread.

Prior page of discussion is actually pointing me somewhere so I thought I'd meet you half-way and look.

Well, actually Page 11 was just previous discussion we were already having, so I gave you the benefit that you meant page previous to when this discussion started, but there's no links there from you either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't have to prove that a brother who died of starvation with a lunchbox full of food unopened beside him wasn't interested in eating.

In that absurd situation, I think all I'd want is an obituary.

I'm likely repeating myself, but if you make a claim, you provide the proof. You know what you posted, I don't. Making me dig around a 12 page thread is at best indifferent at worst a calculated maneuver to avoid closer examination. I've already eaten my dogfood and linked to previous posts in this thread so Shaddim could see what had already been said.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one at my poll is checking signatures and if they had, they'd find a mismatch.

There's your problem! Hint: It's not the laws.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Subego has already admitted as much; that his signature has changed and yet he's not been challenged on this.

In the follow ups you'll see he clarifies on this.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What has been examined?

The impacts of voter ID laws, including access, cost and the amount of people who would be effected.

When you put the question to people directly, they acknowledge the concern of vote suppression and still prefer Voter ID requirements, including those in the alleged disenfranchised blocs. Many things are in contention, that doesn't necessarily mean there is an unreasonable proposition among them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Abortion is prevalent and yet, surprise, there's outcry against it. Speaking of Orwellian.

I think we just jumped the shark. Now voter ID is being compared to abortion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

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 

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*

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

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.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

as I said before, when "blue states" enacted these laws, where was the outrage then?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

During the same length of time in the 80s, yeah.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're not gonna get off that easy. I posted a list of states and dates to back-up my claims and I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

You know, its pretty frustrating to have a discussion where I go to the effort of demonstrating my claim and then have you counter it with the "both sides do it" (which is a philosophically lazy defense) and on top of that you don't even have the courtesy to provide evidence of the claim. Quite honestly, this lack of reciprocation sucks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not whether the process is open to fraud, it's whether that fraud is both effortless and common. I haven't seen either demonstrated.

I disagree. It's about whether or not the process is open to fraud. People don't need evidence that it's effortless or even common, they feel the integrity of an election is important enough that an ID requirement is reasonable. You've not demonstrated why it's cost-prohibitive or unreasonable to require ID.

This is a cop-out answer. You said I use it several times a week, so explain yourself. Playing the "I'm just trying to get you to think about things" is a troll's answer.

I'm not going to invoke FOI on your comings and goings. You obviously believe I'm bloating its necessity, I claim you're marginalizing its necessity and this hasn't changed in the 17-day gap since we spoke last. Anything else?

Prior page of discussion is actually pointing me somewhere so I thought I'd meet you half-way and look.

Well, actually Page 11 was just previous discussion we were already having, so I gave you the benefit that you meant page previous to when this discussion started, but there's no links there from you either.

I'm likely repeating myself, but if you make a claim, you provide the proof. You know what you posted, I don't. Making me dig around a 12 page thread is at best indifferent at worst a calculated maneuver to avoid closer examination. I've already eaten my dogfood and linked to previous posts in this thread so Shaddim could see what had already been said.

I've already made the claim and backed it up. No one is making you dig around for anything you're not interested in. If you were interested in statistics around voter registration fraud, you'd have found them not only from me, but online. You'll get nothing out of it if I'm spoon-feeding it to you. Trust me. Besides, your interest was admittedly waning at least 17 days ago, why would I go through the trouble of repeating information you're not interested in? So you can watch people eat dog food?

In that absurd situation, I think all I'd want is an obituary.

... and maybe a voter registration card.

There's your problem! Hint: It's not the laws.

They don't have a signature of mine to compare it with. They don't have my registration filed on site and they're not matching anything that I can tell because it's not in the law that they should.

In the follow ups you'll see he clarifies on this.

If I'm guilty of tampering with evidence regarding besson, you're guilty of leading the witness regarding subego. As you might have guessed, I was satisfied with his responses much earlier on.

Originally Posted by subego

• Response #1: My signature has changed since I registered. I could fix it, but I'm lazy. I also have a DL, so I can trump it with that.
• Response #2: I use my current signature. I also bring the "Verification of Registration" card the BoE sends out with each cycle, which matches the DL name and address.
• Response #3: The thing is, I make a bad control because I'm impatient. I try and read the judge so I can give them what they want without asking. If they compare the two signatures and go "whoa", I hand them the DL.

Which follow-up should I use; the several that affirm for me the usefulness of his Driver's license in the process, the fact that he's a bad control, or something else you eventually found useful?

The impacts of voter ID laws, including access, cost and the amount of people who would be effected.

You've not established any negative impact of voter ID laws. You were following my conversation with P earlier so maybe you saw my exchange with OAW, but the allegedly disenfranchised blocs in States requiring ID showed above average turn-out to which he suggested it was back-lash against the measure. Okay. The States that require IDs also provide them for free, and again -- no one has demonstrated the number of people who have been affected that the election process should remain open to fraud.

I think we just jumped the shark. Now voter ID is being compared to abortion.

The shark was jumped when you suggested voter ID laws were Orwellian. I cited the abortion debate - "pro-choice", as a more apt example of Orwellian for perspective. You have to give absurd to get it from me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You know, its pretty frustrating to have a discussion where I go to the effort of demonstrating my claim and then have you counter it with the "both sides do it" (which is a philosophically lazy defense) and on top of that you don't even have the courtesy to provide evidence of the claim. Quite honestly, this lack of reciprocation sucks.

Hell, I don't come into this thread that often, and don't yell at me for it, I've seen you go a couple weeks between posts in threads before. I concede, however. The sources list the states but not the dates when the ID laws were passed, for many of them. All I have is radio hearsay from a less than neutral source, to put it mildly.

ID still doesn't bother me however, from what I can tell such laws actually harm wealthier Americans more than they would the lower and middle class. Because, due to gov't programs, and the need for it to gain employment, they're probably more likely to have it on them. I can't remember the last time I was asked for my driver's license, I think it may have been at a gun show a couple years ago.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The shark was jumped when you suggested voter ID laws were Orwellian. I cited the abortion debate - "pro-choice", as a more apt example of Orwellian for perspective. You have to give absurd to get it from me.

What's worse is requiring 3-4 types of ID to hire someone, just to fulfill DHS requirements.

[OAW]

And the voter suppression efforts continue ....

Ohio lawmakers passed two restrictive Republican voting bills Wednesday night, raising the prospect that casting a ballot this fall could be much more difficult, especially for minority voters.

With Ohio remaining the key presidential swing state, the changes could also affect the 2016 election.

The state Democratic Party said immediately that it would sue in federal court to block the laws.

“In 2014, I never imagined that I would be in a statehouse trying to fight for the rights to vote,” said state Rep. Alicia Reece, a Democrat, on the floor.

On party lines, the House voted 59-37 to approve a GOP bill that would cut six days from the state’s early voting period. More importantly, it would end the so-called “Golden Week,” when Ohioans can register and vote on the same day. Same-day registration is among the most effective ways for bringing new voters into the process, election experts say.

The House also voted by 60-38 to approve a bill that would effectively end the state’s successful program of mailing absentee ballots to all registered voters. Under the bill, the secretary of state would need approval from lawmakers to mail absentee ballots, and individual counties could not do so at all. Nearly 1.3 million Ohioans voted absentee in 2012. The bill also would make it easier to reject absentee ballots for missing information.

The Senate quickly approved minor changes to both bills and sent them to the desk of Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, who is expected to sign them.

Republicans say it’s useful to create a clear interval between the registration and voting periods to cut down on the chance for fraud, even though GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted has admitted fraud is extremely rare. And they say that different counties shouldn’t have different standards for mailing absentee ballots.

During the House debate, Rep. Kathleen Clyde, a Democrat, read the names of Ohioans who she said were prevented from voting because of minor errors on their absentee ballots.

“Explicitly or implicitly, this bill disenfranchises those among us who have historically been most disenfranchised,” said Rep. Dan Ramos, a Democrat, about the absentee ballot bill.

Late last year, Republicans passed a bill that reduces the number of voting machines that counties must have on hand for elections, and that makes it easier to remove voters from the rolls.

Taken together, all three bills could lead to much longer lines at the polls on Election Day. In 2004, Ohio was the poster-child for Election Day problems, with an estimated 175,000-plus people leaving before casting a ballot.

Ohio passes restrictive voting bills, Dems vow to sue | MSNBC

Please note that this has NOTHING to do with photo ID. But it is just the latest example of coordinated GOP efforts around the country to make it more difficult for those demographics that don't traditionally vote for Republicans to cast their vote. Given the ridiculously long lines in urban centers ... why on earth would you reduce the number of voting machines that will be available? There's no reasonable justification for that. It is blatantly obvious that the intent is to suppress the vote in Democratic strongholds. And it's shameful. Let the twisted and contorted "defense" of these actions by our good friends on the right begin.*

OAW

* Or the deafening silence which speaks volumes even more.

[subego]

I question a system which allows you to do this, rather than take aim at the people doing it by the rules.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I question a system which allows you to do this, rather than take aim at the people doing it by the rules.

There is that. Have something so fundamental to a democracy as voting rules or redistricting controlled by whichever political party happens to be in power is a bad idea in general.

OAW

[OAW]

Yes. It's getting this blatant.

New Rule Prohibits Voters In Miami-Dade County From Using The Restroom, No Matter How Long The Line | ThinkProgress

OAW

[andi*pandi]

Well, that makes sense, can't make the restrooms wheelchair accessible? Lock them for all. But then, I can't imagine why voting could ever take 6 HOURS in the first place.