RALEIGH — Gov. Pat McCrory Monday signed into law a bill requiring voters to produce a photo ID when they go to the polls, a measure that was hailed by Republicans as a means for heightening ballot security but which was criticized by Democrats as a thinly disguised effort at voter suppression.
The measure signed by McCrory also reduces the early voting period by a week, ends early voting on Sunday, ends same-day voter registration, and does away with pre-registration of 16 and 17-year olds.
“North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot,” McCrory said in a statement. “I am proud to sign this legislation into law. Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote.”
North Carolina becomes one of 34 states with some form of voter ID law.
But critics said North Carolina has one of the most severe law – not accepting college IDs for example or out-of-state licenses.
Civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the constitutionality of North Carolina’s law in court.
Among other things, they argue it unconstitutionally sets up two classes of voters – those who vote in person who must show a photo ID and those who vote by mail who do not have to show a photo ID.
The bill was passed along partisan lines by the Republican majority in the legislature, over strong opposition of Democrats.
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) on Monday signed into law one of the nation’s most wide-ranging Voter ID laws.
The move is likely to touch off a major court battle over voting rights, and the Justice Department is weighing a challenge to the new law, which is the first to pass since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.
(Rob Taylor/AP Photo/The Daily Reflector)
(Rob Taylor/AP Photo/The Daily Reflector)
The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration.
Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority vote and the youth vote, along with reducing Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud.
Republicans say that the efforts are necessary to combat such fraud and that shortening the window for early voting will save the state money. They also note that, while the North Carolina law makes many changes to how the state conducts its elections, most of its major proposals — specifically, Voter ID and ending same-day registration — bring it in line with many other states. More than three-fifths of states currently have some kind of Voter ID law, and even more have no same-day registration. Not all states allow in-person early voting.
“While some will try to make this seem to be controversial, the simple reality is that requiring voters to provide a photo ID when they vote is a common-sense idea,” McCrory said in a statement. “This new law brings our state in line with a healthy majority of other states throughout the country. This common-sense safeguard is commonplace.”
A spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association said McCrory’s “cynical” move will come back to haunt him.
“When he ran for governor, Pat McCrory pretended to be a moderate pragmatist,” the spokesman, Danny Kanner, said. “Today, he proved that he’s just another cynical, ultra-conservative ideologue intent on disenfranchising voters who might not be inclined to vote Republican.”
While there is significant resistance to Voter ID laws on the left, polls generally show the American people support them by large margins. Recent North Carolina polls and a Washington Post poll last year showed nearly three-quarters support requiring voters to show photo ID.
The Post poll also showed, though, that Americans are split when it comes to whether it’s more important to fight voter suppression or to combat voter fraud. And while Voter ID polls popularly, the bill covers much more than that.
Several similar efforts have passed in recent years in other states with Republican-controlled state legislatures and GOP governors, but North Carolina’s has drawn a particularly high degree of backlash from the left, given how far-reaching and all-inclusive the new law is.
The Justice Department has suggested it will fight the new law, which comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. States like North Carolina are no longer required to obtain preclearance from the Justice Department for such changes after the Court struck down the formula used for determining which states and jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression require preclearance.
The Justice Department is also looking to challenge a new Voter ID law in Texas and has also fought against a new Voter ID law in Florida.
The other big change in the law — a reduction in the number of early-voting days — could diminish Democrats’ historical advantage in early voting, which accounted for more than half of ballots cast in North Carolina last year.
But Republicans note that the law still requires the same number of hours of early voting — just over a smaller period of time. County election officials can either extend hours on a given day or provide more early voting locations.
Other provisions in the new North Carolina law would prohibit paid voter registration drives, end straight-ticket voting (in which a voter can vote for all candidates of one party by voting just once — another area in which Democrats benefit) and loosening restrictions on poll watchers who can challenge a voter’s eligibility.
The state legislature gave the law final approval in late July.
The changes come as the state has fallen under Republican control for the first time in more than a century. North Carolina’s state legislature went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction after the 2010 election. McCrory then won in 2012, becoming the state’s first Republican governor since the early 1990s.
McCrory also recently signed an extensive new abortion restrictions law – another move that has earned him significant opposition from the political left.
The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
djones520 wrote: The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
Pre-registration. There's an interesting concept. I kind of like that. At 16 you pre-register when you go for your license. At 18 they send the usual mail out-confirming your registration.
I would like to see what provisions are made for free IDs and availability to get such before I pass judgement. Not understanding the beatdown on early voting though.
Here's a question you internetz sleuths could check. Is there any non-expense reason a state could not legally open up voting for a week, like early voting but at all locations?
The ID part seems sensible enough, but why the rest? What's wrong with letting people vote early? I guess it's because I'm not from the US, but I don't see the issue this is supposedly aimed at addressing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The ID part seems sensible enough, but why the rest? What's wrong with letting people vote early? I guess it's because I'm not from the US, but I don't see the issue this is supposedly aimed at addressing.
Early voting is predominantly Democrat voters, as it is commonly used by college students due to the fact that November 7th is also the start of the 'crunch time' for term projects and other heavily weighted grades.
djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.
Frazzled wrote:I would like to see what provisions are made for free IDs and availability to get such before I pass judgement. Not understanding the beatdown on early voting though.
It's pretty simple: early voters are usually college kids and people whose jobs do not grant them the flexibility to vote on voting day. These two groups traditionally do not vote GOP.
djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.
Citation please.
Mail-in voters are predominantly armed forces or the elderly, and here in NC they vote GOP.
djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The ID part seems sensible enough, but why the rest? What's wrong with letting people vote early? I guess it's because I'm not from the US, but I don't see the issue this is supposedly aimed at addressing.
GREENSBORO, N.C. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice today filed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's voter suppression law signed hours ago by Gov. Pat McCrory. The suit specifically targets provisions of the law that eliminate a week of early voting, end same-day registration, and prohibit "out-of-precinct" voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting these provisions, arguing that they would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
"This law is a disaster. Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens and turn Election Day into mess, shoving more and more voters into even longer lines," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Florida similarly eliminated a week of early voting before the 2012 election, and we all know how that turned out – voters standing in line for hours, some having to wait until after the president's acceptance speech to finally vote, and hundreds of thousands giving up in frustration. Those burdens fell disproportionately on African-American voters in Florida, and the same thing will happen in North Carolina. We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of several North Carolinians who will face substantial hardship under the law, and on behalf of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, North Carolina Common Cause, and Unifour Onestop Collaborative, whose efforts to promote voter participation in future elections will be severely hampered if the measure takes effect.
North Carolinians use early voting in vast numbers. During the 2012 election, 2.5 million ballots were cast during the early voting period, representing more than half the total electorate. More than 70 percent of African-American voters utilized early voting during the 2008 and 2012 general elections.
Early voting provides flexibility in finding time to vote and significantly eases the burden of arranging transportation to a voting site. This is particularly critical for low-income voters, who are more likely to have hourly-wage jobs that don’t afford them the time to get to the polls on Election Day or during common work hours. Work, combined with child-care responsibilities, places great demands on voters living in poverty. Poverty in North Carolina is higher among African Americans, meaning a reduction in early voting opportunities will disproportionately impact voters of color.
"Today's lawsuit is about ensuring that all voters are able to participate in the political process," said Allison Riggs, staff attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. "Taken together, the new restrictions in this law will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, depriving many of our most vulnerable citizens from being able to easily exercise a constitutional right. Additionally, the Voting Rights Act prohibits the state from implementing voting changes that will make it harder for Black voters to cast a ballot – and that’s exactly what this law does."
Eliminating same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting also imposes hardship and silences the people’s voice. In recent elections, North Carolinians could register, or update their registration information and vote, in one trip to an early voting site. In 2012, approximately 250,000 people did so. The new law eliminates this opportunity to register, effectively disenfranchising tens of thousands.
As for out-of precinct voting, for over a decade voters who accidentally cast a ballot in the wrong precinct could still expect to have their votes counted for races such as governor and president. If this law takes effect, those votes would be void.
"This law is a blatant attempt to make it harder for and dissuade many North Carolinians from registering and casting a ballot. As we have seen in other states, drastic cuts to early voting hours will result in longer lines and have a disproportionate impact on our state's most marginalized citizens, especially the low-income, elderly, and disabled who rely on early voting," said Chris Brook, legal director for the ACLU of North Carolina.
The case, League of Women Voters of North Carolina et al. v. North Carolina, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
djones520 wrote:The mail in voter thing does add an interesting kink to it, so why not make it so that mail in voters have to included a photo copied version of their ID?
Because mail-ins are predominantly GOP voters.
Citation please.
Mail-in voters are predominantly armed forces or the elderly, and here in NC they vote GOP.
Military mail in votes comprise about roughly 200,000 votes. 32 million early votes occured last election. Most states that reported by political persuasion showed that Dems were the bigger number of voters. Only 3 reported Republicans with more votes then Dems, as opposed to 9 states that were the other way around.
Military mail in votes comprise about roughly 200,000 votes. 32 million early votes occured last election. Most states that reported by political persuasion showed that Dems were the bigger number of voters. Only 3 reported Republicans with more votes then Dems, as opposed to 9 states that were the other way around.
BTW, NC was 47% votes registered Dems to 31% registered Republicans.
I'm aware of the numbers.
And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.
Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.
And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.
Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.
o.O
Um... I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Regardless, can you still provisionally submit a vote?
Military mail in votes comprise about roughly 200,000 votes. 32 million early votes occured last election. Most states that reported by political persuasion showed that Dems were the bigger number of voters. Only 3 reported Republicans with more votes then Dems, as opposed to 9 states that were the other way around.
BTW, NC was 47% votes registered Dems to 31% registered Republicans.
I'm aware of the numbers.
And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.
Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.
North Caroline 18-29 voters 13%
Virginia 18-25 voters 12.7%
California had about 13% on the 18-29 voters as well.
And if you were to break down the Democrats, it would be predominantly younger voters who utilized "same day voter registration" or the currently funded "voter registration drives" that occur in high school for anyone who is going to be 18 by the time voting comes around.
Both of those avenues are being closed down as part of this bill.
o.O
Um... I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
You may not agree with it, but that is the fact of the matter.
Well, as I just showed, the voting block that makes up the numbers your talking about, are not the predominant. They don't even make up 1/5th of the early voters, so it isn't really the "fact of the matter".
whembly wrote: So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?
It's a solution to a problem that, from everything I've read, does not exist. For example; Texas found only 4 instances of voter impersonation fraud (the type that ID might prevent) in the last decade. That's an awful lot of money spent and hoop jumping added to prevent something that is orders of magnitude below the margin of error.
Nationwide? 26 convictions for voter impersonation out of 197,000,000 votes.
it becomes a defacto poll tax, which I believe is illegal.
It disenfranchises the poor, whom are statistically less likely to have said ID and/or have difficulty obtaining valid ID. And are also statistically more likely to vote D.
It's Mid 2013. The next big "voting period" where this law STARTS is the November 2016.
Easy solution. Get one of the required IDs... you got time.
You'd have a case if they tried to pull this gak in the next couple of months... but, you got over THREE years to dot the "i's" and cross your "t's" to be ready.
Interestingly, this poll shows that 72% of North Carolinians favors "the idea of requiring voters to show photo identification before being allowed to vote."
It's in the news now because the USSC recently ruled on pertinent legislation. At least one state was so excited they started the wheels in motion a mere 2 hours after the decision was passed down. Make no mistake, somewhere, someone will try this far closer to an election specifically because it's not easy to do.
Also, doesn't ignore the fact that it is an expense that will disenfranchise some, because they cannot get the time off work, or they are living on such a tight budget that a day off and $20-50-whatever is more than they can afford. Thus, poll tax.
Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.
Forar wrote: It's in the news now because the USSC recently ruled on pertinent legislation. At least one state was so excited they started the wheels in motion a mere 2 hours after the decision was passed down. Make no mistake, somewhere, someone will try this far closer to an election specifically because it's not easy to do.
At least it wasn't like when PA did it mere months before the election.
Also, doesn't ignore the fact that it is an expense that will disenfranchise some, because they cannot get the time off work, or they are living on such a tight budget that a day off and $20-50-whatever is more than they can afford. Thus, poll tax.
In most states, you can provisionally send a vote in.
Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.
It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases. This is Cincinnati all by itself...
Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.
It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases.
This is Cincinnati all by itself...
Sometimes I wonder if you read your own news articles.
Then I realize that you do not.
Whembly's Article wrote:The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings.
According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.
"There's absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud," said Richardson.
According to BOE records, her name appeared on an absentee ballot list prior to Election Day. The board's report states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging "absentee voter" next to the names of those who appeared on the list. Upon investigation it was found that none of the voters who appeared on the list were flagged, which included Richardson. The staff could not locate that supplemental list when asked.
I will not deny that it is fishy that a woman who has worked as a volunteer at a voting station would double-vote, and mail in an absentee ballot filled out for her granddaughter as well--but that is still potentially just innocent misunderstandings.
Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.
It's only when they're caught that you'd see 'em... you can google-fu that... but it's waaay more than 26 cases. This is Cincinnati all by itself...
Sometimes I wonder if you read your own news articles.
Then I realize that you do not.
Huh... you crabby today?
I'm just countering against the idea that "for all intents and purpose, does not exist" idea.
Whembly's Article wrote:The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings.
According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.
"There's absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud," said Richardson.
According to BOE records, her name appeared on an absentee ballot list prior to Election Day. The board's report states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging "absentee voter" next to the names of those who appeared on the list. Upon investigation it was found that none of the voters who appeared on the list were flagged, which included Richardson. The staff could not locate that supplemental list when asked.
I will not deny that it is fishy that a woman who has worked as a volunteer at a voting station would double-vote, and mail in an absentee ballot filled out for her granddaughter as well--but that is still potentially just innocent misunderstandings.
"Fraudulent registration" more often than not is actually the voter rolls not being properly updated, with the names of the deceased not being removed.
Forar wrote: Even ignoring the cost, sometimes it's difficult to obtain one (limited hours, limited offices, etc).
Sometimes when certain individuals are feeling less than subtle, you'll find reduced offices and hours in very distinct locales.
Reading between the lines isn't generally all that difficult in those cases.
So are you actually suggesting that getting a free photo ID between now and the next set of large elections (2016) is an unreasonable burden as people simply won't have the time needed? That there are people who will not have a single day off for almost two and a half years?
Seeing as you need photo ID to drive, buy a drink, show that you qualify for certain State benefits, apply for credit, and/or apply for a job (you have to fill out a W1 form now) I don't accept the premise that a significant amount of voters will be disenfranchised.
To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:
Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Example: driver's licence.
Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.
Example: health card and hydro bill.
Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.
whembly wrote: So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?
That's always been my question - especially when so many States will also issue them for little to no cost.
Because people are lazy.
Blows my mind. People in Afghanistan face down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and every other whack nut you can find in that part of the world to vote. The 2010 elections were crazy with how many planes we had in the air providing as much protection as we could. They also do a form of voter ID there, with the ink on the finger.
Yet people here in the US bitch about having to spend 45 minutes at the DMV to do it. *rolls eyes*
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So are you actually suggesting that getting a free photo ID between now and the next set of large elections (2016) is an unreasonable burden as people simply won't have the time needed? That there are people who will not have a single day off for almost two and a half years?
During the days and/or hours that the offices providing ID are open? Maybe not. Doesn't matter. It's still an extra burden placed on the voting public to deal with a non-issue. It is literally making a mountain out of a mole hill.
To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:
Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Example: driver's licence.
Option 2
Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.
Example: health card and hydro bill.
Option 3
Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.
Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.
Why look, option 2 and 3 are nothing like "required Photo ID", as noted in the original post.
Forar wrote: Even ignoring the cost, sometimes it's difficult to obtain one (limited hours, limited offices, etc).
Sometimes when certain individuals are feeling less than subtle, you'll find reduced offices and hours in very distinct locales.
Reading between the lines isn't generally all that difficult in those cases.
So are you actually suggesting that getting a free photo ID between now and the next set of large elections (2016) is an unreasonable burden as people simply won't have the time needed? That there are people who will not have a single day off for almost two and a half years?
No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".
For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.
Seeing as you need photo ID to drive, buy a drink, show that you qualify for certain State benefits, apply for credit, and/or apply for a job (you have to fill out a W1 form now) I don't accept the premise that a significant amount of voters will be disenfranchised.
I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.
Forar wrote: During the days and/or hours that the offices providing ID are open? Maybe not. Doesn't matter. It's still an extra burden placed on the voting public to deal with a non-issue. It is literally making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quick example from the BMV that is local to me (they issue free ID)
I managed to get to the BMV to get my license and take my test while I was working one job and my wife (who had to drive me there) was working two jobs. Again, photo ID is required for many other activities rather than just voting, I don't here complaints that it is "an extra burden" for applying for a job or buying alcohol.
Forar wrote: Why look, option 2 and 3 are nothing like "required Photo ID", as noted in the original post.
Fancy that.
Why look, it is someone sticking his head in the sand and ignoring that his own country has voter ID laws while complaining about the law in North Carolina because it doesn't suit his own argument.
Fancy that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".
For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.
That is quite impressive, given that he made no reference to it whatsoever. You might note that my comments concern the ID requirement, not the early voting portion.
Kanluwen wrote: I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.
Do you not see where the issue might be here?
You mean you couldn't vote in another State because you aren't a resident in that State and not eligible to vote to begin with? So the issue is preventing the ineligible from voting?
The only issue with early voting, and I can see to get rid of it, is that it affects future voting via exit polls.
When a lot of "group a" goes and votes early, and some exit polls are released saying "group a" is looking to win this in a landslide, it can and does keep some of "group b" "group c" etc, from going to vote. Because eh whats the point if the election is already won for someone else.
This is mainly a problem with how exit polls are reported more than the exit polls themselves, but the government can not force the media to do it differently due to the constitutional rights.
Voter ID yes.
I would even back a law that only allowed land owners to vote on issues regarding property taxes.
Kanluwen wrote: No, what he is suggesting is that it will impact the next set of large elections as evidenced by the numbers of individuals who utilized early voting. The bill however also did away with a lot more than simply "requiring photo ID".
For example, they removed the currently mandatory high school voter registration drives before any election(whether presidential or local). What happened in regards to this in case you are unaware, is that every year towards the middle of October the school was required to give every student who had turned 18 or would be turning 18 before the elections the paperwork to fill out for voter registration.
That is quite impressive, given that he made no reference to it whatsoever. You might note that my comments concern the ID requirement, not the early voting portion.
And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".
Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.
BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.
Kanluwen wrote: I can buy booze and cigarettes with my college issued ID or an out of state driver's license, but cannot vote.
Do you not see where the issue might be here?
You mean you couldn't vote in another State because you aren't a resident in that State and not eligible to vote to begin with? So the issue is preventing the ineligible from voting?
Christ you are as obnoxious as Whembly.
I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.
Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?
At which point your college ID would probably no longer be valid anyways (just a supposition).
You are right. I will not be affected by it in 3 years.
However anyone else who finds themselves in the same position as myself will find themselves in that position.
Given that online courses fill up the day registration does, I would posit that it might be quite a few people.
djones520 wrote: And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.
Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.
djones520 wrote: And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.
This is also how I feel about people who can not be bothered to register themselves to vote. It is a relatively easy process and does not take much time at all, the forms tend to be available at the DMV, county elections office, post office, etc etc etc.
Up until 2010 NC has been a solid blue state at the state level. Not because we're especially liberal, but because the democrats have dominated local/state politics and built a huge incumbent's advantage.
In 2010 the republican party used high turnout for the national elections to win the NC legislature, but the governor was still a democrat and vetoed the worst of their agenda.
In 2012 we got a republican governor (the incumbent decided not to run after two years of hell from the legislature) and since then the republicans have been busy running down the list of every republican fantasy law. New abortion restrictions, cuts to unemployment benefits/education/etc, and redistricting and new election rules designed to protect the current republican majority against the inevitable backlash. This bill is part of that protection, every one of those changes targets a group that, in NC, tends to vote for democrats.
This bill is especially controversial because the governor accidentally admitted, after promising to sign it, that he hadn't even read the bill. Our governor is little more than a rubber stamp for the republican party platform.
Yes, people right now have three years. But new people will be becoming eligible to vote, people will forget or not hear about the new requirements, etc. Which is exactly what the republicans are hoping for, they want to make it as difficult as possible to vote if you're one of the groups that tends to vote democrat. Remember, elections are already fairly close to 50/50, even small changes in turnout can swing states/districts.
And, as has been said, the new ID requirements are only part of it. That alone could be explained by something other than malicious intent, but the whole package is a blatant attempt to keep themselves in power by preventing democrats from voting.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: The only issue with early voting, and I can see to get rid of it, is that it affects future voting via exit polls.
When a lot of "group a" goes and votes early, and some exit polls are released saying "group a" is looking to win this in a landslide, it can and does keep some of "group b" "group c" etc, from going to vote. Because eh whats the point if the election is already won for someone else.
This is mainly a problem with how exit polls are reported more than the exit polls themselves, but the government can not force the media to do it differently due to the constitutional rights.
Voter ID yes.
Yeah... I'd agree that's a problem.. but, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I doubt this causes any "discouragment" activity on day of voting.
I would even back a law that only allowed land owners to vote on issues regarding property taxes.
Now that I would be against. Not everyone owns property... but, everyone in some fashion is impacted by property tax (even if you don't actually directly own property).
Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:
#1 According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.
#2 There were 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote. In those voting divisions, the combined vote total was 19,605 for Barack Obama and 0 for Mitt Romney.
#3 The overall voter turnout rate in Philadelphia was only about 60 percent. But in the areas of Philadelphia where Republican poll watchers were illegally removed, the voter turnout rate was over 90% and Obama received over 99% of the vote. Officials in Philadelphia have already ruled out an investigation.
#4 According to WND, one poll watcher in Pennsylvania actually claims that he witnessed voting machine software repeatedly switch votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama…
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
He said the changes appeared to have been made by a software program.
Ashcroft said the format for computer programming has a default status, and in this case it appeared to be designating a vote for Obama each time it went to default.
#5 Somehow Mitt Romney won 55 out of the 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania and still managed to lose the entire state by a wide margin because of the absurd vote totals that Obama ran up in the urban areas.
#6 Barack Obama received more than 98 percent of the vote in 10 out of the 50 wards in the city of Chicago.
#7 Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.
#8 There were more than 50 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Mitt Romney received 2 votes or less.
#9 There were more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where Barack Obama received more than 99 times the votes that Mitt Romney did.
#10 Barack Obama also received more than 99% of the vote in a number of very important precincts down in Broward County, Florida.
#11 Wood County, Ohio (which Obama won) has a voting age population of 98,213, but somehow 106,258 voters were registered to vote on election day.
#12 Ten counties in the swing state of Colorado have a voter registration rate of more than 100%.
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
#14 In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.
#16 In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.
#17 According to U.S. Representative Allen West, there were numerous “voting irregularities” in St. Lucie County, Florida on election day…
“The thing that spurred our curiosity in our race was the fact that at 1 o’clock in the morning on Election Night, all of a sudden there was a 4,000-vote swing that took me from being ahead to put the lead into my opponent’s hands.”
The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???
Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?
This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.
Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.
One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!
She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.
We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.
#19 Prior to election day, an Obama for America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.
#21 According to townhall.com, there was a systematic effort by the Obama campaign to suppress the military vote because they knew that most military votes would go against Obama…
Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
#22 According to the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, it appears that thousands of military votes from this election will never be counted at all.
djones520 wrote: And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.
Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.
You can get a drivers liscence at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.
djones520 wrote: And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.
Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.
You can get a drivers license at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.
I am quite aware of this.
But what you are not grasping is that AS OF RIGHT NOW, voter preregistration of 16 and 17 year olds(which was done primarily when they received their licenses) is gone.
So if you get your ID now, that's fine and dandy. You will still have to register to vote.
If your birthday is within 25 days of the election, you will NOT be voting. It takes 3 weeks here in NC to get everything filed out.
You also will not be able to register and vote the day of the elections--again, something commonly done by 18 year olds.
whembly wrote: Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:
Sigh. Back to quoting tinfoil hat sources I see...
For example:
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
Why consider the obvious explanation that requiring photo ID is typically a conservative issue, so states that require photo ID probably have conservative majorities that implemented it, when you can put on the tinfoil hat and assume that all the other states are rigging the election?
And I suppose we'll also ignore any cases where republican candidates won 99% of the vote in a particular precinct, or people complained about things that favored republicans. After all, it's easier to establish a trend of "bias" if you only look at one side.
djones520 wrote: And if they can't find a single day in the next 3 years to get a photo ID that is acceptable, then they really don't care about voting anyways.
Again, that precludes that the individual is not turning 18 within 25 days of the election.
You can get a drivers license at age 16. A US passport at age 16. A state photo id (free) at any age. All three of the above, including other forms of ID are acceptable.
I am quite aware of this.
But what you are not grasping is that AS OF RIGHT NOW, voter preregistration of 16 and 17 year olds(which was done primarily when they received their licenses) is gone. So if you get your ID now, that's fine and dandy. You will still have to register to vote.
If your birthday is within 25 days of the election, you will NOT be voting. It takes 3 weeks here in NC to get everything filed out. You also will not be able to register and vote the day of the elections--again, something commonly done by 18 year olds.
whembly wrote: Now... countering the meme that there are no (or miniscule) voting problems... here's a few link that makes you go hmmmmmm:
Sigh. Back to quoting tinfoil hat sources I see...
For example:
#13 Barack Obama did not win in a single state that absolutely requires a photo I.D. in order to vote.
Why consider the obvious explanation that requiring photo ID is typically a conservative issue, so states that require photo ID probably have conservative majorities that implemented it, when you can put on the tinfoil hat and assume that all the other states are rigging the election?
And I suppose we'll also ignore any cases where republican candidates won 99% of the vote in a particular precinct, or people complained about things that favored republicans. After all, it's easier to establish a trend of "bias" if you only look at one side.
Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?
whembly wrote: So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?
That's always been my question - especially when so many States will also issue them for little to no cost.
Because people are lazy.
Blows my mind. People in Afghanistan face down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and every other whack nut you can find in that part of the world to vote. The 2010 elections were crazy with how many planes we had in the air providing as much protection as we could. They also do a form of voter ID there, with the ink on the finger.
Yet people here in the US bitch about having to spend 45 minutes at the DMV to do it. *rolls eyes*
Hey in our defense the DMV really is the second ring of Hell.
Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
whembly wrote: Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?
Because the requirement is blatantly targeted at groups that tend to vote for a certain party. This has nothing to do with increasing the security of elections, that's just an excuse to "justify" changing the rules so that the incumbents stay in power. Again, look at the context of the rule, not just the words.
whembly wrote: Again... what's so bad about forcing more rigorous voting requirement with respect to having a valid sort of ID? Especially when most of us need those same IDs in order to fething FUNCTION in our society?
Because the requirement is blatantly targeted at groups that tend to vote for a certain party. This has nothing to do with increasing the security of elections, that's just an excuse to "justify" changing the rules so that the incumbents stay in power. Again, look at the context of the rule, not just the words.
THen vote them out and change it.
States has always managed the what/how folks can vote.
To me, this is no different than the incumbents going through redistricting plans.
Also, don't get your painties bunched up... there are several Voter ID cases going to the SC that (I believe) will be ruled on next session. If I was a betting man... I'd bet they'd rule that these Voter ID acts be unconstitutional.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama) I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%) Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama) See above
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama) Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats) God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney) And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
State photo ID might be free and remain free, but it requires going to the DMV to have it done...and I am going to be absolutely blunt about this:
Public transportation here in NC is practically nonexistent. There is a bus system but it might as well not exist outside of downtown Raleigh, Durham, or Cary.
djones, you're ignoring the trend as a whole. Notice how the bill targets those demographics who vote against republicans, but not those who vote for them. Its not a coincidence that republican legislators are writing laws to 'help' republicans vote.
Of course, democrats do it too. Its just smart politics.
Jihadin wrote: Out of curious Kan....do you have a driver license?
I do not.
I live at home and take online courses. I have no car, nor do I have a burning need for one as I generally can get a ride to and from anywhere I need to go with a friend who lives in my neighborhood.
When I first started college I was living on campus, and had no need for driving--nor the ability to really do so either as freshmen could not have vehicles on campus.
Long story short; I've never really had the need for a license and have been able to utilize my college ID for most everything that individuals here on Dakka say are "requirements for having a driver's license or state ID".
djones520 wrote: Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?
The point is that there's a double standard here. Special accommodations are granted to a group that leans republican, while groups that lean democrat are told to just deal with it and get their IDs. The inconsistency shows that it's not really about security (otherwise everyone would need to show an ID, old or not), it's about making it harder for the "wrong" people to vote.
Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.
Taken in isolation, sure. Make early voting more efficient so you get the same turnout with lower costs. But as part of a pattern this is pretty clearly an attempt to have fewer democrats voting.
See above
Except this is blatantly an obstacle, not cost savings. If it's really about cost savings they could cut the early voting period but have sundays available during that more limited period. The only reason to remove sunday voting is because it is used by groups that overwhelmingly vote democrat.
Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.
It's not just the cost of the ID, they're hoping that poor people (who vote democrat) are less likely to be able to get time off work, arrange bus schedules to get to the government office and back, etc, and just give up. Will it stop everyone? Of course not. But will it stop some people? Sure, and it all adds up.
God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.
But look at it the other way: what exactly is the problem with allowing straight-ticket voting? How is anyone being harmed by it? The answer of course is that more democrats than republicans use it, and the republicans hope that removing it will swing some of the "less important" races in their favor.
And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?
Maybe they should be required to come home to vote? Or maybe there should be more ID requirements to ensure that the ballots haven't been tampered with, mailed in by someone else, etc? Maybe you should have to get your ballot notarized and sent in through a special system where ballots are only collected on one day at each military base just like normal voting hours?
And yes, those are ridiculous requirements. The point here is that nobody is talking about improving "security" with military voting because military voting already favors republicans.
Kanluwen wrote: State photo ID might be free and remain free, but it requires going to the DMV to have it done...and I am going to be absolutely blunt about this:
Public transportation here in NC is practically nonexistent. There is a bus system but it might as well not exist outside of downtown Raleigh, Durham, or Cary.
I never understood this argument. Unless you’re living in New Mexico or the Permian Basin, in which case you are already in Hell, how can you physically go vote if you can’t physically get an ID?
Jihadin wrote: Out of curious Kan....do you have a driver license?
I do not.
I live at home and take online courses. I have no car, nor do I have a burning need for one as I generally can get a ride to and from anywhere I need to go with a friend who lives in my neighborhood.
When I first started college I was living on campus, and had no need for driving--nor the ability to really do so either as freshmen could not have vehicles on campus.
Long story short; I've never really had the need for a license and have been able to utilize my college ID for most everything that individuals here on Dakka say are "requirements for having a driver's license or state ID".
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.
Kanluwen wrote: And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".
Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.
BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.
I only said I was in favour of voter ID. And voter drives don't already take place?
I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.
Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?
Throwing mud just because we disagree with you? Throwing up barriers to a discussion doesn't help (and ironically, you are complaining about alleged barriers to voting)
Stop talking about "RIGHT NOW". That is a strawman and you know it. I, and many others here, are talking about a more than reasonable time to implement this law to prevent as much voter disenfranchisement as possible.
Kan, I thought you had a state ID, but the UPS guy wouldn't accept it, or did you mean that your college ID wasn't accepted?
I do have 1 question though that I must not have seen answered. Is Provisional Voting still okay in your state? If not, then this is a major problem. If it's still a thing, then those 18 yr olds that "leveled up" within 25 days prior to the election would still be able to vote provisionally.
Also unless your college ID had a date of birth on it, Idk how it could be used to buy booze and cigarettes. Like this is the college ID from my uni: It has my name, my picture, and my student ID number, which could be used to obtain my date of birth, but other than that it has no way of letting on that I'm old enough to buy booze or smokes.
Does NC have a free state ID thing? I see on the interwebz that state IDs are 10 bucks. Ohio they're 8.50, and DMVs are fething everywhere (there are at least 5 within 15 minutes of drive time, at least 2 of them are on main bus routes).
There is a lot of shadiness with this bill, but the voter ID law just doesn't seem to be a big deal, but like I said in our PM, it's probably because I already live in a state where some form of identification is required.
Forar wrote: It's in the news now because the USSC recently ruled on pertinent legislation. At least one state was so excited they started the wheels in motion a mere 2 hours after the decision was passed down. Make no mistake, somewhere, someone will try this far closer to an election specifically because it's not easy to do.
Also, doesn't ignore the fact that it is an expense that will disenfranchise some, because they cannot get the time off work, or they are living on such a tight budget that a day off and $20-50-whatever is more than they can afford. Thus, poll tax.
Also also, doesn't change the fact that it's a solution to a problem that for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Show me the rampant voter impersonation fraud and I'll cheerfully back you on it. 26 cases out of 197,000,000 (ABC says that's roughly 0.00000013% of votes cast in a 4 year period) means that whatever costs associated with the program are effectively wasted resources.
They already did in Pennsylvania... I think it was. Just befor ethe last election the GOP controlled state legislature rammed something through, and the Governor was on record as stating that this should help Romney get elected.
I wish I could remember the guys name so I could link it.
1) there was never any proof that in-person voter fraud was a problem.
2) nobody that supported the bill has been able to answer how it would fix voter fraud
3) every "fix" targets groups that swing democrat while expired IDs and non-ID voting options that swing republican are allowed.
1) there was never any proof that in-person voter fraud was a problem.
2) nobody that supported the bill has been able to answer how it would fix voter fraud
3) every "fix" targets groups that swing democrat while expired IDs and non-ID voting options that swing republican are allowed.
1. Examples have been shown. You're just ignoring them.
2. It will fix the potential issue of disenfranchisement of voters but helping eliminate double voting or fraudulent voters from doing so. It should be part of a package of laws and processes to address new technology and concerns.
3. No, thats supposition. None have been shown, unless you assume Democratic voters are dumb or too lazy to get an ID. If you've seen some right wingers at Walmart or congress, stupidity is not bound by either party.
So you have posted sources backing up your claims, because I have.
How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.
If you don't wanna see that these fixes don't do anything and that they are targeted at one party, then be my guest.
d-usa wrote: So you have posted sources backing up your claims, because I have.
How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.
If you don't wanna see that these fixes don't do anything and that they are targeted at one party, then be my guest.
You know, early voting and Sunday voting and a lot of these things are pretty recent things. There used to be one day to vote and you went to the designated polling place for your county.
You seem to think that opening up non-election day polling or using Sunday voting to pander to specific segments of the population which benefitted the Democratic party was good, but taking away that advantage is now bad.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Seems the guys who wrote the constitution, looking at a population that traveled mostly by foot, thought they could do with voters all voting on one particular day.
How does eliminating early voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
***You have no proof of your statement and the argument is utter bs. Put some effort into likfe, join the 20th century and get an ID. If you can’t be arsed to get an ID you can’t tell me you’re going to vote.
How does getting rid of Sunday voting fix voter fraud? It doesn't, but they got rid of it and it was mostly used by democrats.
***you have no proof of your statement, but I am not defending this section.
How does getting rid of pre-registration prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but young voters are voting democrat.
***supposition on your part. I like the concept though and am not defending this section.
How does not allowing student IDs or out-of-state licenses stop voter fraud? It doesn't, but college students vote democrat.
***This one is simple. They aren’t state issued IDs. Really?
How does allowing expired IDs prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but old people vote republican.
***Because it was a state issued ID. I agree with you though. They should be current.
How does allowing mail-in-voting without any ID at all prevent voter fraud? It doesn't, but those voters are republican.
***You have no proof of your statement.
Frazzled, you say I have no proof of my statements?
I can honestly say that you are a bold-faced liar now, because I posted my proof earlier when I broke down the percentages of what group of voters utilized every form of voting.
I posted the statistics from the North Carolina Elections that showed that showed that 66% of absentee ballots were Republican. I posted the source that showed that early voting was 47% D and 31% R.
If you want to lie and say I don't have proof when I already shared my sources, including the election office from that state, then there is really no point in talking to you.
It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".
d-usa wrote: Frazzled, you say I have no proof of my statements?
I can honestly say that you are a bold-faced liar now, because I posted my proof earlier when I broke down the percentages of what group of voters utilized every form of voting.
I posted the statistics from the North Carolina Elections that showed that showed that 66% of absentee ballots were Republican. I posted the source that showed that early voting was 47% D and 31% R.
If you want to lie and say I don't have proof when I already shared my sources, including the election office from that state, then there is really no point in talking to you.
It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".
I guess there's no point talking to me then. You should save yourself the trouble and stop posting.
And leave your wiener-dog driven nonsense stand alone?
I will still post, I just know that you will ignore facts and pretend they don't exist. But that's nothing new.
I posted the sources. If you want to pretend they are not real and that the NC election office made them up then go ahead. It says more about you than I could.
d-usa wrote: It's already pretty telling that the defense of this by others has gone from "It prevents fraud" to "it's cheaper" to "they were able to walk to a village in the 1800s so deal with it".
Well, it hilariously stumbled right out of the gate, and it has been rather downhill ever since.
My understanding of this is that the above organisation involved Paul Weyrich of
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
fame. Which.. well... would or does cast some aspersions upon the motivations of those involved does it not ?
You're making suppositions then posting general websites. I'm not going to wade through all that to get to your data. Sorry.
My issue is only addressing the voter ID thing. I am not versed in the other items and, as noted am not defending them. I just don't care.
The voter ID thing boils down to: getting IDs requires me to go somewhere-OH NOES! A law that is tailored to provide a free option is not a significant enough burden to be an issue.
d-usa wrote: Some are to busy having their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalalalalalalalallalalala"?
Yeah... that's true.
So, lets go back to square one, shall we?
According to the US Constitution:
(Article I, Section 4) The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
Therefore, the legislative body makes the laws. There are no Constitutional requirements for any early voting, same day registration, or out of precinct voting, except for what is described above...
Therefore, the NC law is within those made by Congress. Right?
Now, if you want to get into the CONTEXT of this... sure, I can see why some folks are upset. But, this is the same ol' gambit EVERY politician does in their political sphere... 'tis why we get really wonkey districting throughout the US (gerrymandering).
So... I'm going to use a popular phrase used against me during Obama's election...
Election has consequences.
What's funny is that the following states has this: Illinois – “Any time a voter uses Early Voting, the voter must present a government-issued photo ID.” An ID with your name and address is required. The IDs are not required to feature a photograph of the elector.[12] “If you register by mail, you must vote in person the first time, either at the polling place, in-person absentee or early voting, unless you submit with your mail-in registration form your driver license number or state ID number, the last four digits of your social security number, or one of the forms of ID listed below.”[13]
Delaware – Valid voter ID includes a photo ID, utility bill, paycheck or any other government document with your name and address on it.
Hawaii – In order to vote, electors must present valid photo ID with a signature. Additionally, voters will be asked to sign a poll book to record that they voted at the polling place. Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.
California – SB1016 (effective January 1, 2006) requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or state identification number. If they do not have either, they may use the last four digits of their social security card. If they also do not have a social security card number, the state will assign a unique number which may be used for voting purposes.
These states don't have problems electing their politicians (mostly, Democrats).
As to NC... I realize it's a big change, but ya'll have 2 years to get the required ID. That's not a burden imo.
You're right. I should be allowed to carry wherever I want and not be hampered by laws put in place by Yankees to hold down "those people." Aren't we past that already?
Kanluwen wrote: And you might note that my comments are about this law, which is not simply "Present an ID".
Now, an individual who actually has a driver's license (16 and 17 year olds) but is unable to vote will not be able to vote as the "Voter Preregistration" is being repealed.
Right now in NC if you get a driver's license, you are put into the voter rolls when you turn 18 without you having to go through the process of registering to vote.
If you do not get a driver's license(which is possible as licenses are commonly tied to grades here in NC), there would be voter registration drives done every year before the timeframe for elections to get anyone who recently turned 18 or would be turning 18 by the time for elections to get registered--without those individuals having to miss classes.
BOTH OF THOSE AVENUES ARE BEING REPEALED AS PART OF THIS LAW.
I only said I was in favour of voter ID. And voter drives don't already take place?
It just so happens that voter drives are being repealed as part of this law.
I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.
Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?
Throwing mud just because we disagree with you? Throwing up barriers to a discussion doesn't help (and ironically, you are complaining about alleged barriers to voting)
Stop talking about "RIGHT NOW". That is a strawman and you know it. I, and many others here, are talking about a more than reasonable time to implement this law to prevent as much voter disenfranchisement as possible.
There is nothing whatsoever that is a strawman in regards to my statement.
The fact that you are trying to decry my statements as "slinging mud" just shows how little of this bill you actually understand.
Alfndrate wrote:Kan, I thought you had a state ID, but the UPS guy wouldn't accept it, or did you mean that your college ID wasn't accepted?
Yeah, however that was one of the few times my college ID has not been accepted at the UPS store.
Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.
How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.
Frazzled wrote: gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.
How many times do I have to repeat this statement: I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.
If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).
•A valid driver's license •A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable) •A valid passport •A valid U.S. Military ID
Frazzled wrote:
gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.
How many times do I have to repeat this statement:
I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.
If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).
•A valid driver's license
•A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable)
•A valid passport
•A valid U.S. Military ID
It is a nonissue for me as I do not drink heavily nor purchase alcohol, but on several occasions that has been the case when I was carded at clubs.
Your school ID does not affirm that you are a resident of the country, much less the state you are in. Plus, it can be easily faked and the octogenarian looking it over is not going to be up to speed like your basic bartender.
Frazzled wrote: gak on a shingle, man up already, get your friend to take you to the DMV and get an ID. Put some effort into life. Plus then you'll be able to legally drink. What a concept.
How many times do I have to repeat this statement: I can already buy alcohol legally using a college issued ID.
If you are in North Carolina, you may well be wrong. You may be getting away with it, BUT you are not supposed to be sold alcohol without one of the following (and your college ID isn't listed).
•A valid driver's license •A valid North Carolina State ID card (no other State ID cards are acceptable) •A valid passport •A valid U.S. Military ID
It is a nonissue for me as I do not drink heavily nor purchase alcohol, but on several occasions that has been the case when I was carded at clubs.
Let me point out the bolded part. You're talking about a business that tends to mostly serve younger age groups and in many areas couldn't care less about the liquor laws where they are. Hell, most of the ones I've been in never card and aren't above inviting in everyone off the street, regardless of how very obviously under age they are(we're talking teenagers being let in) and the laws stating that they should card at the door, not just when you purchase.
Hell, if there are cops around, as long as you're flashing something that could possibly be an ID from several feet of way, they'll let you in. Them taking your college ID was lip service to the law. I'd bet your ID never left your hand at those instances.
Frazzled wrote: Your school ID does not affirm that you are a resident of the country, much less the state you are in. Plus, it can be easily faked and the octogenarian looking it over is not going to be up to speed like your basic bartender.
Yeah... I was very confused that you could use your School ID to vote in the past.
Not all students are eligible to vote, as some students could be from out-of-state or non-native students on visas...
The only function of a picture ID is to verify that the picture matches the name on the ID.
So if the register at the polling place says "d-usa" and I hand them my drivers license all they care about is that the picture on the ID matches my face and that the name on the ID matches the name on the register. Excluding some picture IDs and not others really only serves the function to exclude certain demographics.
Out-of-state student are able to vote in the state they go to school in, so that's a non argument. And non-native student are still unable to vote unless they somehow were able to forge their voter registration to begin with. Of course this ignored the fact that out-of-state or non-native students can still get North Carolina DLs, so saying "no student IDs" really does nothing to prevent these demographics from cheating if they wanted to.
Which brings us back to the point that this bill does nothing of what it actually says it does.
Out-of-state student are able to vote in the state they go to school in, so that's a non argument. Of course this ignored the fact that out-of-state or non-native students can still get North Carolina DLs, so saying "no student IDs" really does nothing to prevent these demographics from cheating if they wanted to.
May want to check the above, according to the NC DOT web site, you would be wrong. If you get a NC DL you are changing your state of residence to NC. Not every state allows 'out of state' students to claim residency (hence out of state tuition rates).
Out-of-state student are able to vote in the state they go to school in, so that's a non argument. Of course this ignored the fact that out-of-state or non-native students can still get North Carolina DLs, so saying "no student IDs" really does nothing to prevent these demographics from cheating if they wanted to.
May want to check the above, according to the NC DOT web site, you would be wrong. If you get a NC DL you are changing your state of residence to NC. Not every state allows 'out of state' students to claim residency (hence out of state tuition rates).
"residency" for tuition is different than "residency" for a drivers license.
To get a NC DL I need:
Proof of Identity: Two forms required, and I can use my out-of-state license and a proof of registration from a NC College or University.
Proof or Residency: Any document issued by this State or county, city, or the federal government; Utility bill or cable bill; Housing lease or contract, mortgage statement, property or income tax statement; School records; or even a letter from a homeless shelter.
So I can leave Oklahoma and go to NCSU, take my OK license and proof of registration from NCSU, take my enrollment form to the DMV and get a NC DL.
Residency for Tuition Purposes is governed by a separate law.
All this discussion of whether or not it's fair to expect people to have a state ID is missing three important things:
1) There isn't any (credible) evidence of meaningful amounts of voting fraud that the new ID requirement would prevent. So, at best, this is a solution in need of a problem.
2) There's a blatant double standard in how the new rules are applied. A group that leans republican (older people) is allowed to use expired IDs even though it makes fraud a lot easier. While I understand that older people have a hard time getting out to do things like renew their driver's license it is unreasonable to make a special exception while telling groups that don't lean republican that they just have to deal with any similar difficulty in meeting the ID requirements.
3) Context is important. If the ID requirement was happening in isolation it might not be so obviously bad, but it isn't. The new ID requirement is just one of a series of changes, most of them having absolutely nothing to do with stopping voting fraud. Eliminating sunday voting or straight-ticket voting does not make elections more secure, it's just a blatant effort to protect Art Pope's investment in the state legislature. So when taken in that context the new ID requirement is obviously nothing more than another attempt to make it harder for democrat-leaning groups to vote.
Stated another way, the new provisions are an attempt to take away advantages the Dems had built for themselves.
Why are you okay with the Dems having things like Sunday voting that you say give them an advantage over the Rethuglicans, but not okay with the Rs going back and taking it away when they have the chance?
Said another way, why should EITHER side have it easier for their voters?
Sunday voting doesn't really take votes away from Republicans unless election day is purposely set on Sunday, and far as I know no one goes out of their way to designate Sunday as election day.
There is a difference between having more options that can be utilized by everybody. And taking away options that we know for a fact were utilized by more by certain demographics.
There is also the difference of lying about why you do it.
If they are really concerned about voter fraud they would get rid of absentee ballots and voting by mail.
CptJake wrote: Stated another way, the new provisions are an attempt to take away advantages the Dems had built for themselves.
Why are you okay with the Dems having things like Sunday voting that you say give them an advantage over the Rethuglicans, but not okay with the Rs going back and taking it away when they have the chance?
Said another way, why should EITHER side have it easier for their voters?
The only reason that early voting on Sundays would be considered "favorable to Democrats" is that it was commonly utilized by black churches.
As a person who has only ever gotten to vote by mail.. Thank you Oregon. /sarcasm.
Let me tell you, it is rife with fraud or at the very least the opportunity to commit fraud.
Now somewhere in the Oregon State voting laws it mentions something about showing ID when you register, or something or other. But honestly, you can just pick up a registration card anywhere, fill it out and send it in, and viola, you are registered.
Now why does no one look into this? Election law is policed at the county level, but they are generally too busy talking about development, raising property taxes to give more money to schools, banning plastic bags from grocery stores, voting themselves raises, and whatever else turns their fancy.
Plus if they looked into it, it would give proof there was election fraud, and they would look bad, and more people would favour the laws that county elections officers tend to disagree with.
They are also the people you report to when you see something amiss, like when the postal worker who delivered more than 20 ballots to a 2 bedroom house made a call.
Response from county elections "nope we have down that more than 20 people are registered to vote at that address. it's fine."
I would love to get rid of vote by mail. It is very silly and it costs you money to send it back in, in the form of a stamp, or you have to drop it off at an official site, meaning you are walking/driving etc to get there anyways. Which in my experience is what most people do, as the traffic is absurd.
They might as well just make it poll voting again, if everyone is going to turn out to a single location to vote as it is.
Seems to be a community gathering of sorts, another way to say hello to your neighbors, and I am sorry for not getting to experience it.
CptJake wrote: Why are you okay with the Dems having things like Sunday voting that you say give them an advantage over the Rethuglicans, but not okay with the Rs going back and taking it away when they have the chance?
Because the things that favor democrats involve more people voting, while the things that favor republicans involve fewer people voting. I'm in favor of sunday voting, early voting, easy mail voting for military members, etc. If the republicans can't handle high turnout because less than 50% of the population likes their ideology then too bad for them. You don't get to try to make voting more difficult just because it's harder to win the election if you don't.
Said another way, why should EITHER side have it easier for their voters?
Because voting should be as easy as possible as long as you're legally allowed to do so, no matter what party you favor.
I am in favour of a mandatory day off for voting, like a national holiday. Then there is no work related excuse for not being able to vote on voting day.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: I am in favour of a mandatory day off for voting, like a national holiday. Then there is no work related excuse for not being able to vote on voting day.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: I am in favour of a mandatory day off for voting, like a national holiday. Then there is no work related excuse for not being able to vote on voting day.
Unless, as is the case with US national holidays, your employer requires you to work or you are obligated to do so by financial necessity.
CptJake wrote: Stated another way, the new provisions are an attempt to take away advantages the Dems had built for themselves.
Why are you okay with the Dems having things like Sunday voting that you say give them an advantage over the Rethuglicans, but not okay with the Rs going back and taking it away when they have the chance?
Said another way, why should EITHER side have it easier for their voters?
Being able to vote early may be convenient for Democrat voters but it doesn't make voting harder for Republican voters.
Kanluwen wrote: It just so happens that voter drives are being repealed as part of this law.
Amazing, right?
So is your inability to read what does not suit you. So in case you missed it - I only said I was in favour of voter ID. The rest does not concern me as I am making no comment in relation to it
I have lived in North Carolina all of my 26 years of life.
If there were an election held RIGHT NOW, I would not be able to vote as I have a college issued ID as my 'primary form of identification'.
I can present it to the bank and get access to my money.
I can use it, currently, to apply for a job.
I can also use it to buy alcohol and cigarettes or get into strip clubs or bars.
Yet I would not be able to vote.
Do you not see why this is an issue?
Throwing mud just because we disagree with you? Throwing up barriers to a discussion doesn't help (and ironically, you are complaining about alleged barriers to voting)
Stop talking about "RIGHT NOW". That is a strawman and you know it. I, and many others here, are talking about a more than reasonable time to implement this law to prevent as much voter disenfranchisement as possible.
There is nothing whatsoever that is a strawman in regards to my statement.
The fact that you are trying to decry my statements as "slinging mud" just shows how little of this bill you actually understand.
Calling someone "obnoxious" isn't slinging mud? It is perfectly polite turn of phrase? But of course you then stoop to the popular questioning someone's intellect. Also not slinging mud I suppose?
I showed you exactly what was the strawman part of your statement. Ignoring it and sticking your fingers in your ears does not render it void. You keep trying to make an issue out of it asking about what would happen if "there were an election held RIGHT NOW". There isn't an election being held right now. There is more than ample time for people to get photo IDs that conform with the legislation. You are trying to make an issue out of a complete non-issue.
All of you are missing the important thing -- which cousin of a state assemblyman owns the company that will get the contract for the ID card services, and can you buy shares?
Kilkrazy wrote: All of you are missing the important thing -- which cousin of a state assemblyman owns the company that will get the contract for the ID card services, and can you buy shares?
That's true in just about EVERY state...
Whereas the Governor appoints "friends" to run the DMV offices (easy money makers).
Hundreds of Hamilton County poll workers will be retrained – and 163 “retired” – as a result of voting problems in the 2012 election.
That includes 94 workers at 16 precincts that will be completely restaffed because of a high number of errors.
The others failed to vote themselves and/or performed poorly on Election Day.
Those 163 poll workers represent about 5.6 percent of poll workers – the most ever who aren’t being asked back.
The move comes as board of elections officials continue to work to find the 2,905 poll workers needed to staff the county’s 545 polling locations.
The Enquirer obtained the list of problem poll workers and found that 94of them who worked at 16 polling locations won’t be asked back because they allowed 15 or more votes to be cast at the wrong precinct or in the wrong location.
Records show that, overall, 1,931 votes were cast at the wrong precinct or in the wrong location.
The polling location at the Corryville library branch had the most of any precinct with 43.
It’s impossible to know how many of those were the result of poll worker error, but the board of elections said it was unacceptable. The 16 precincts accounted for 414 of the 1,931 problem provisional votes.
An Enquirer review showed all but one of the 16 polling locations that are being re-staffed have a Democratic precinct judge, the presiding authority at a polling site.
But those 94 workers are an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans because polling locations are set up with a balance from each party.
An Enquirer analysis of 2010 U.S. Census data found that, of the 23 census tracts the troubled precincts include, 13 are predominantly black and 10 are predominantly white.
Poll worker's prison sentence put spotlight on Hamilton Co.
The Enquirer also found:
• Six workers at the Madisonville Recreation Center aren’t being asked back because they scored poorly on 11 of the 26 areas assessed.
The precinct judge there, Melowese Richardson, was convicted of voter fraud last month and sentenced to five years in prison. The assessment said there were “multiple fights in the precinct with workers and voters,” one worker refused to work “due to his hurt hand” and poll workers called board headquarters six times with issues.
• 29 won’t be asked back because an assessment of their work showed they don’t vote. The county’s four board of elections members said voting should be a prerequisite to processing other people’s votes.
• 34 won’t be asked back after complaints and notes from Election Day that all poll workers keep showed they weren’t performing up to standards. Some were using outdated procedures, ignoring recent directives.
The assessment, done based on a 2010 order from the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office, has been ongoing for months.
But the five-year prison sentence for longtime Hamilton County poll worker Richardson for illegally voting has thrust the training and oversight of poll workers into the spotlight.
“When you see all of these mistakes continuing to be made in particular precincts, we have to look very hard at how we can correct that so it doesn’t happen in the future,” said Hamilton County Board of Elections Chairman Tim Burke, who is also the county’s Democratic Party chairman. “We do extensive training. In spite of that, it’s clear from the review there are a significant number of poll workers who need to be replaced.”
'I'm hurt,' says poll worker of 35 years who was let go
Two of the poll workers not being asked back told The Enquirer they were shocked and felt unfairly targeted.
“I’m hurt,” said Eileen Willis.
Willis, 74, of Madisonville, has been a poll worker for more than 35 years. . She loved seeing neighbors and looked forward to election days. But the last two elections, she said, the board of elections moved her and she ended up working at the same polling location as Richardson.
“They knew there were problems,” Willis said. None of them, she said, was the result of her work.
“To work there all this time and for them to let me go mainly because of Melowese’s behavior isn’t fair,” Willis said.
Board of elections staff pointed out the assessment showed the problem extended beyond Richardson, and that the polling location had problems as a team.
Margaret Benning, who was retired for not voting, said that allegation isn’t true. The 75-year-old Reading woman said she worked at a Reading polling location and on a break she walked across the gym to vote at her precinct.
She said she called the board of elections to complain about being retired, but it did her no good. They told her she didn’t sign the signature book, but she insists she did.
“I think they are trying to get younger people, but good luck. Most of them are working full time and can’t take off to work at the polls,” Benning said.
Hamilton County trains poll workers every year, despite a state mandate that requires it only every other year.
Burke added there is no suggestion that any of the problems were done deliberately to disenfranchise voters.
“But the fact of the matter is if a poll worker sends a voter to the wrong precinct – even though it’s done innocently – that may cost that voter the right to have their vote counted,” he said.
Republican board of elections member Chip Gerhardt agreed with Burke.
“Our front-line people are the poll workers,” Gerhardt said. “It is incumbent on us as an organization to ensure that they are handling the election in the most appropriate manner possible.”
While the glitches affected a tiny fraction of the nearly 422,000 votes cast in the November election, Hamilton County’s voting problems are magnified because of Ohio – and the county’s – significance in national elections.
“There are more and more responsibilities and Ohio is under greater and greater scrutiny in terms of making sure we run a good, clean, fair election,” said Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.
“Arguably the most important people in doing that are our poll workers. ... We need more than a warm body there.”
'We can't afford to have substandard poll workers'
To help counties find qualified poll workers, Husted’s office now allows high school students to work the polls and last year the office gave out $700,000 in poll worker training grants aimed at improving poll worker quality.
“We can’t afford to have substandard poll workers,” Husted said. “The integrity of our elections is too important.”
In the assessment, Hamilton County looked at 26 criteria from minor things like whether supplies were picked up and the polls opened and closed on time to more serious matters like provisional votes and ballot accounting.
The board has adopted rules that call for a mandatory pass/fail test at the end of each training class, with one opportunity to retake the test after a failing grade.
Cuyahoga County has been testing poll workers since 2007.
“This is very helpful because we know immediately if they are prepared to work on election day and have retained the knowledge required to successfully perform their duties,” said Mike West, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections media and voter education specialist.
Cuyahoga County did a poll worker assessment of its 7,160 poll workers after the 2012 presidential election.
The 131 poll workers with marginal scores were told they had to go through training again if they wanted to return, West said.
Mary Siegel, co-leader of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project and a Hamilton County poll worker, said the elections board is obligated to replace poll workers who are incapable of doing their jobs, no matter the reason.
“The integrity of the election is only as good as the poll workers that enforce the rules,” Siegel said.
“Incapable poll workers put an unreasonable burden on the other poll workers and allow errors and fraud to occur.” ■
Kanluwen wrote: That's great, but it has nothing to do with North Carolina passing these voting laws.
Just countering the arguments that there were no evidence of voting problems.
Except that is not in North Carolina, which just passed these laws.
Do you see the reason why I bring that up? You are doing nothing but trying to prove "Look! Voting irregularities in Ohio make these laws okay in NC!".
Again, lemme ask you... why is it such a burden now that you have 3 years before these rules are in effect?
Because despite what I like to think, I am not the sole resident of NC. There will still be people affected by this when the primaries come up, and when the 2016 election itself happens.
And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.
Fine, you want to talk about NC?
They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:
(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.
So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.
Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.
whembly wrote: And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.
Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.
Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.
So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.
Fine, you want to talk about NC?
They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:
(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.
So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.
There is a requirement to provide ID to purchase Sudaphed because there of people cooking meth.
It's that simple. Even a cursory search into the reason why such a law came to pass would have revealed that.
Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.
They TRIED to pass it before the 2012 elections, but the Republicans did not control a majority.
Frazzled wrote: So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.
Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).
Your note on expired licenses, I thought they could be used, as was argued as being some evil Republican conspiracy.
whembly wrote: And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.
Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.
Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.
So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.
Then consider the evidence in GEORGIA when their Voter ID was passed six years ago. TL;DR: Hispanic and minority had an increased rate of voting participation since the enactment of Voter ID laws.
I think NC will be just fine...
Fine, you want to talk about NC?
They why isn't there an uproar about needing to provide an ID to purchase Sudaphed? According to NC's laws:
(c) A pseudoephedrine product may be sold at retail without a prescription only to a person at least 18 years of age. The retailer shall require every retail purchaser of a pseudoephedrine product to furnish a valid, unexpired, government-issued photo identification and to provide, in print or orally, a current valid personal residential address.
So, if you wanted to buy Sudaphed... 'cuz, when my allergies kicks in, I'm fething miserable, I'd need to get my gak together and have a valid government issue ID.
There is a requirement to provide ID to purchase Sudaphed because there of people cooking meth.
It's that simple. Even a cursory search into the reason why such a law came to pass would have revealed that.
I know that... I working in healthcare. I'm just pointing out that requiring IDs to purchase sudafed isn't a burden...
Just admit it Kan, you're afraid that these new rules may disenfranchise some voters. When all it is that it's simply new regulations to identify yourself prior to voting. You'd have a case... I'd be right there with you... had they done this right BEFORE a major election (like they did in PA). But, the NC voters have over TWO YEARS to get what they need in order to vote.
They TRIED to pass it before the 2012 elections, but the Republicans did not control a majority.
If course they tried... that was one of their platform when they ran for election. I have to find the article, but if I remember correctly, it still wouldn't have been effect during the '12 Presidential Election. (PA was the one that caused all that stink).
Frazzled wrote: So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.
Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).
I'm nit picking here... Sudafed is the brand name of pseudoephedrine. But, the gist of it is right.
Frazzled wrote: So you're ok with having to have ID for aspirin, but not doing something that can impact 300mm people. Awesome.
Sudafed is not aspirin. It is cough syrup. The only kind of Sudafed as well which requires photo ID is that with pseudoepherine(which is an ingredient for cooking meth).
Your note on expired licenses, I thought they could be used, as was argued as being some evil Republican conspiracy.
Only if you are older than 70 years of age.
You're right, glorified cough medicine. You're ok with ID for glorified cough medicine but not to vote. excellent.
Here's an alternative: 1) Just make it the law that all residents of NC have to have an NC issued picture ID once they turn 18; or 2) A recognized picture ID from the state, federales, or public institution of higher learning. If public institution, you have to have a social security card or two other forms of ID?
I'd be ok with either. Who has an issue? EDIT: Seriously who has an issue with #2? It would require no burden to travel to get an ID, or pay for an ID, vitiating the poll tax argument. Its effectively the same requirement as cashing a check. I think even Manchu would be onside with that. I'm a genius!
This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!
whembly wrote: And people will have time to get their ducks in a row to be able to vote.
Except for y'know, the people who might have a license/ID expire at an inconvenient time, students who might not be able to get out of school to register to vote before an election, etc.
Because as I mentioned several times--the high schools did a very good job at ensuring that students were registered to vote and were registered properly. That avenue is now gone, as is preregistering to vote when you are 16 or 17 and have received your license.
So please. Keep on pretending that "you will have time to get your ducks in a row to be able to vote" while ignoring that many of the avenues which were used to register voters are being repealed.
Imagine giving people two years to get a photo ID that typically takes less than a week to arrive. How unreasonable.....
d-usa wrote: This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!
There are over 50,000 gun laws currently. I would love if the same standards for voting were applied to gun laws.
d-usa wrote: And if the same standards were applied to gun laws that are applied to Sufaphed?
Sudafed is not a right. However, I'd take that over San Francisco's current regulation.
2) A recognized picture ID from the state, federales, or public institution of higher learning. If public institution, you have to have a social security card or two other forms of ID?
Again, anyone have a problem with this? It addresses the concern of those about fraudulent voters, yet poses no hindrance to voters in voting.
whembly wrote: Just countering the arguments that there were no evidence of voting problems.
But you aren't countering it at all. You're just using the traditional tinfoil hat approach of taking minor events completely out of context. Just look at your own article:
But those 94 workers are an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans because polling locations are set up with a balance from each party.
...
Burke added there is no suggestion that any of the problems were done deliberately to disenfranchise voters.
So we see that:
1) This has nothing to do with voter ID. The employees were fired for poor job performance, there is no suggestion here that tougher ID requirements would have done anything to prevent it. For example, the 29 who were fired for not voting (something that is incredibly unfair, but that's a different issue) weren't going to vote just because they're required to show their driver's license when they do it. Arguing for tougher ID requirements based on them makes about as much sense as arguing for tougher ID requirements because your favorite football team lost their game on election week last year.
2) This is a non-partisan issue. Even if we assume that the article is wrong and the problems actually did involve deliberately attempting to rig the election the problem employees come from both parties, so presumably the net effect would be negligible.
3) This has nothing to do with voter ID. Again, even assuming a deliberate attempt to rig the election what exactly is requiring an ID going to do if the people running the poll are the ones who are cheating? If they're allowing people to vote when they shouldn't be able to then all the poll worker has to do is ignore the ID requirement and let them vote. If they're changing votes then it doesn't matter what ID you have or don't have, who you vote for, etc, your precinct is going to the "correct" candidate.
d-usa wrote: This just in: Frazzled supports the signing of a log book and maintaining a government inventory of every bullet you purchase! If its good enough for Sufaphed then it's good enough for guns and bullets!
There are over 50,000 gun laws currently. I would love if the same standards for voting were applied to gun laws.
Never going to happen - as it stands
Attitude to guns: lets be more like other developed countries, photo ID to purchase even ammunition
Voting: lets not be like other developed countries, no ID whatsoever
whembly wrote: Just countering the arguments that there were no evidence of voting problems.
But you aren't countering it at all. You're just using the traditional tinfoil hat approach of taking minor events completely out of context. Just look at your own article:
But those 94 workers are an equal mix of Democrats and Republicans because polling locations are set up with a balance from each party. ... Burke added there is no suggestion that any of the problems were done deliberately to disenfranchise voters.
So we see that:
1) This has nothing to do with voter ID. The employees were fired for poor job performance, there is no suggestion here that tougher ID requirements would have done anything to prevent it. For example, the 29 who were fired for not voting (something that is incredibly unfair, but that's a different issue) weren't going to vote just because they're required to show their driver's license when they do it. Arguing for tougher ID requirements based on them makes about as much sense as arguing for tougher ID requirements because your favorite football team lost their game on election week last year.
2) This is a non-partisan issue. Even if we assume that the article is wrong and the problems actually did involve deliberately attempting to rig the election the problem employees come from both parties, so presumably the net effect would be negligible.
3) This has nothing to do with voter ID. Again, even assuming a deliberate attempt to rig the election what exactly is requiring an ID going to do if the people running the poll are the ones who are cheating? If they're allowing people to vote when they shouldn't be able to then all the poll worker has to do is ignore the ID requirement and let them vote. If they're changing votes then it doesn't matter what ID you have or don't have, who you vote for, etc, your precinct is going to the "correct" candidate.
Two things...
Sure, those two separate things, but I was countering the claim that there were no evidence of voting problems.
Secondly... consider the evidence in GEORGIA when their Voter ID was passed six years ago... NC will be fine.
I don't know about the voter irregularities noted (as noted I'm lazy and didn't actually read them). We've had instances here (Texas) of illegal aliens voting. It would help with that.
Frazzled wrote: I don't know about the voter irregularities noted (as noted I'm lazy and didn't actually read them). We've had instances here (Texas) of illegal aliens voting. It would help with that.
No Pic ID is required, but they will take it. I don't think I needed my voter card either. They check your name on a county wide registry. If there is an issue you use a provisional ballot (I did last time as most of my stuff goes to the Austin house with adifferent address). They check it off at that point and I think (think only mind you) they check it off the system. if not they should and that takes care of another issue - multiple voting.
So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
d-usa wrote: So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.
d-usa wrote: So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.
But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!
d-usa wrote: So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.
A drivers license is not a proof of citizenship.
I can be an illegal alien with a drivers license.
I can be a legal resident with a drivers license but without the rignt to vote.
Voter ID laws do nothing to change that.
If my name is in the register, and I have any of the state issued IDs that sre freely and legally available to people who are not allowed to vote, then I can cast my ballot because my face matches the picture and the picture matches the name on the register.
So again, voter ID laws would have done nothing to stop anybody from voting that is on the register even if the person is not allowed to vote to begin with.
d-usa wrote: So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.
But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!
d-usa wrote: So if they are on the list, then having an in-person voter ID requirement would do absolutely nothing. Since their picture on their ID would match their face, and the name would match the name on the list.
State issued voter ID would only be given to those who can prove their lawful status within the US. No lawful status, no vote.
But what if the people looking to commit voter fraud... OWNED THE ISSUING AGENCY!
d-usa wrote: A drivers license is not a proof of citizenship.
I can be an illegal alien with a drivers license.
I can be a legal resident with a drivers license but without the rignt to vote.
Voter ID laws do nothing to change that.
If my name is in the register, and I have any of the state issued IDs that sre freely and legally available to people who are not allowed to vote, then I can cast my ballot because my face matches the picture and the picture matches the name on the register.
So again, voter ID laws would have done nothing to stop anybody from voting that is on the register even if the person is not allowed to vote to begin with.
In Indiana you do have to prove your residency and status to obtain your license or obtain free photo ID from the BMV. Maybe Texas (and other States) would consider doing something similar.
If that's true, your state's DL requirements are fethed up and need to be revised.
Even in Louisiana, you require multiple items of proof of citizenship(either native or naturalized) legal immigration with intent to obtain citizenship, or legal green visa(for certain visiting students) to obtain a DL.
Hell, they almost wouldn't let me get my DL switched back because I didn't have a copy of my Birth Certificate until I showed them that YES, a Military ID is a Primary form of ID in Louisiana.
Right... it should be left up to the state. You do know that IL, HI and CA requires you to show photo ID... eh?
Of course the stupidity of not letting illegal aliens get a drivers license is a whole other thread.
Why would it be stupid? In fact, most states require you to file SSN and proof of residency. So, if you're an illegal allien, you couldn't possible get a DL.
It doesn't change the fact that having a drivers licenseID doesn't show that you are allowed to vote in the first place.
If the DL, ,or any other "government approved" licenses makes the person go through the initial proof of citizenship... why not? You'd need to be 18 yo, and live in your state in order to vote. The only thing that the licenseID wouldn't do effectively is determine if you're a convicted felon.
And Whembly's and Frazzled's scenarios would still have occurred with Voter ID laws in place.
Right... it should be left up to the state. You do know that IL, HI and CA requires you to show photo ID... eh?
And some states let illegal aliens get a DL
Of course the stupidity of not letting illegal aliens get a drivers license is a whole other thread.
Why would it be stupid? In fact, most states require you to file SSN and proof of residency. So, if you're an illegal allien, you couldn't possible get a DL.
Like I said, it's a whole separate discussion, and really has nothing to do with this topic.
It doesn't change the fact that having a drivers licenseID doesn't show that you are allowed to vote in the first place.
If the DL, ,or any other "government approved" licenses makes the person go through the initial proof of citizenship... why not? You'd need to be 18 yo, and live in your state in order to vote. The only thing that the licenseID wouldn't do effectively is determine if you're a convicted felon.
Or that you are in fact a citizen, since Permanent Residents don't get to vote.
Or that you are showing up in the district you are supposed to vote in.
And Whembly's and Frazzled's scenarios would still have occurred with Voter ID laws in place.
No impact? Riiiight.
Here is Frazzled's scenario:
1) Illegal alliens are voting.
2) He says Voter IDs would stop that.
3) I asked him if the illegal aliens actually have their names on the register.
4) He said that he thinks their actual real names are on the register.
5) Voter ID would make sure that Mr. John Illegal that is standing here is in fact named Mr. John Illegal and that his voter ID matches the name Mr. John Illegal on the register.
6) Voter ID would verify that his name is in the register, which it is, and would not stop somebody that shouldn't be on the register in the first place from voting.
As for your scenario, you have not given any evidence that anything in that article wouldn't have happened if Voter ID laws would have been in place. Verifying that the person in front of you is the person whose name is on the register with a photo ID would not prevent the issues raised by you or Frazzled.
That's what people are talking about when they say "supporters of the bill have not been able to show how it would prevent these issues".
1) Illegal alliens are voting.
2) He says Voter IDs would stop that.
3) I asked him if the illegal aliens actually have their names on the register.
4) He said that he thinks their actual real names are on the register.
5) Voter ID would make sure that Mr. John Illegal that is standing here is in fact named Mr. John Illegal and that his voter ID matches the name Mr. John Illegal on the register.
6) Voter ID would verify that his name is in the register, which it is, and would not stop somebody that shouldn't be on the register in the first place from voting.
You are forgetting a step (at least, that's how MO / IL works):
VOTER REGISTRATION QUALIFICATIONS
Age: Must be 18 years old on Election Day
Citizenship: Must be a United States citizen
Residency:Must be a Missouri resident and must be registered to vote in the jurisdiction of the person's domicile prior to the election
Mental Competency: Must not be adjudged incapacitated by any court of law.
Felony Convictions: Can not vote while confined under a sentence of imprisonment, while on probation or parole after the conviction of a felony, after conviction of a felony or misdemeanor connected with voting or the right of suffrage
ID Requirements: To initially register, voters could use their driver's license number or last four digits of their social security number. These things do not have to be provided if they are not assigned to the voter.
See the yellow text... the idea here is they validate the voting qualification before they come to the poll. Then, when you come to the polls, you provide one of the acceptable IDs, which is compared to the registration rolls.
The problem is the fear of ballot stuffing if the invalid registration isn't purged. You want RAW data... then take a look at the spoiler below... this is NOT unique to Missouri... here's the conclusion:
Conclusions
Without safeguards in place an “inactive voter” list could be a tool for voter fraud, yet such lists are available as open records under Missouri Sunshine Law.
Missouri’s requirement to present an ID to vote is a good check and balance on the bloat in the voter lists.
Even with voter ID, bloated lists offer greater potential for voter fraud if committed by election officials since a name can be “borrowed” from the inactive list to cast a fraudulent vote.
Missouri voter lists in a number of counties invite additional scrutiny every year because of their poor maintenance in recent years.
Spoiler:
Missouri: Comparison of Registered Voter Counts to Census Voting Age Population
A comparison of US Census voting age population data in Missouri to voter registration data shows a number of Missouri counties have bloated voter registration lists.
Charts by county for the years 2000 to 2012 show how counties are maintaining their voter lists.
Voter fraud potential is higher in the Missouri counties that have poorly maintained lists, such as Reynolds County that has more voters than census population, or St. Louis County and other counties with 95+% voter registration when compared to census population.
This is not a new problem in Missouri. Reynolds County has had more voters than census voting age population for more than a decade.
About 10.7% of Missouri’s 4.1 million voters are “inactive” usually with unknown mailing addresses. The 436,000 “inactive” voters are another measure of voter bloat of the state list.
There is higher voter fraud potential in areas of unmanaged voter lists and areas of high voter list bloat measured by inactive voters.
Overview
Yearly US Census population estimates for Missouri counties were extracted for the years 2000 to 2011.
Active and inactive voter registration totals were extracted from the Missouri Secretary of State’s web site for November general elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
Additional active and inactive voter registration counts by county were obtained directly from files of Missouri voters obtained at 12 different times from 2004 to 2012.
The census and voter registration data were plotted for easy visual comparison of any particular year or trends over time.
Results: County Charts
View the PDF with a chart for each Missouri County comparing US Census Voting Age Population to Registered Voter Counts
[116 pages: 114 counties, City of St. Louis, state total]
General comments about all charts:
The black line represents the total county population from the Census 2000 and the Census 2010 enumeration and census estimates for other years.
The blue line represents the census voting age population counts or estimates, those 18 years or older.
The voter registration points in red represent total registration values (Active + Inactive) from either the Secretary of State’s online reports or from voter files.
The points in green represent only the Active voters. The difference between Active and Total registration, the Inactive voters, is a measure of voter bloat.
Reynolds County: Over a decade of problems
From roughly 2000 until 2008 Reynolds County had more voters than it did population of all ages.
Since 2010 Reynolds County has total registration above 100% of voting age residents. By the numbers nearly all people of voting age in Reynolds County are “active” voters.
Comments:
Reynolds County shows more voters than the US Census says are of voting age in that county and has had that problem for a decade. Reynolds County has NEVER reported fewer people to vote than the census voting age population.
From 2000 to 2004 and briefly in 2009 Butler County had more voters than census voting age population.
From 2000 till 2009 Carter County had more voters than census voting age population.
During much of 2010 Clark County had more voters than census voting age population.
From 2000 to 2005 Dade County had 100% or more of voting age population registered to vote.
From 2000 to 2009 Gentry County had about 100% of voting age population registered to vote.
Holt County had a problem with more registered voters than census voting age from 2000 to 2008.
From 2004 to 2008 Ozark County had 100+% of voting age population registered to vote.
For over a decade until a recent 2012 voter file, Putnam County had 100+% of voting age population registered to vote.
From 2000 to 2006 Schuyler County had more voters than census voting age population.
Shelby County has flirted with about 100% registration of voting age population from 2004 till 2010. Even in 2012 the registration is about 97%.
All of the counties listed above in this comments section received a grade of “F” from Sunshine Review for transparency when the Missouri state average is a “B”.
Even if US Census estimates had been a bit higher for population, Worth County has had 100+% registration of voting age population from 2000 through 2009. Sunshine Review gives Worth County an A+ for transparency now.
About 90% of Missouri’s voting age population is registered to vote.
None of which have anything to do with requiring a person to show an ID at the poll. Making sure that your face matches the picture and the name on the ID matches the name on the register is all that is accomplished by Voter ID laws. It doesn't address what you posted.
So to say "we need voter ID in NC" you present cases from Ohio that wouldn't have been prevented with voter IDs, and when pushed on actually explaining on how the Ohio cases would have been prevented with NC style Voter ID laws you present a different case from a different state..
Reading your posts is like trying to follow a Glenn Beck Whiteboard demonstration.
How about you finish explaining how your Ohio case would have been stopped by Voter ID (which you have not done) before jumping to the next case in the next state.
We will just ignore the political ties of Watchdoglabs.org
d-usa wrote: None of which have anything to do with requiring a person to show an ID at the poll. Making sure that your face matches the picture and the name on the ID matches the name on the register is all that is accomplished by Voter ID laws. It doesn't address what you posted.
Yes it does... because the VOTER REGISTRATION step is done under threat of perjury!
We had nurmerous cases where a person showed up to vote, only to be told he already voted... and his name on the roll matches to his DL. What that does is raises a red flag on the registration "step".
So to say "we need voter ID in NC" you present cases from Ohio that wouldn't have been prevented with voter IDs, and when pushed on actually explaining on how the Ohio cases would have been prevented with NC style Voter ID laws you present a different case from a different state..
Then keep up with me brah Again, I was providing cases where election issues exists.
Reading your posts is like trying to follow a Glenn Beck Whiteboard demonstration.
Eww... that's horrifying... worthy tale of woe man...
d-usa wrote:
Reading your posts is like trying to follow a Glenn Beck Whiteboard demonstration.
Where do you think he got his argument from?
Alright... step in the ring bro. That's a low blow:
And I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a DL to vote will inhibit any felons who were not convicted of multiple DUIs from voting.
With states using Voting Registration, usually there's a review to determine eligibility. If found invalid, it's struck off the rolls... then, when some felon tries to vote, his/her name isn't on the roll.
Requiring voter ID does not fix voter registration. If somebody gets their name on the register against the law, then the ID will do absolutely nothing except verify that the name is on a legitimate register of voters. If you want to fix voter registration, then fix voter registration. Voter ID laws for casting your ballot don't do any of that.
And if a persons name is on the list when it shouldn't be, it will be on the list wether he walks up to grandma with an ID or without one.
And if a persons name was stricked from the list, then it won't be on the list wether he walks up to grandma with an ID or without one.
I am waiting with baited breath for a case from state #3 that wouldn't be solved by requiring an ID when you cast your vote.
Maybe we can remove the deceased from the register at the same time. Maybe...we can give them current ID cards....
Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much. But they do agree that voter registration lists across the country are a mess.
A new report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote. And 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate.
There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.
Election officials say one problem is that Americans move around a lot. And when they do, they seldom alert the local election office that they've left.
Ben Skupien, a registered voter who now lives in Northern Virginia, is pretty typical. He has moved repeatedly over the years and says he's probably registered to vote in about a half-dozen states.
"The assumption, I would think, is that they would do the courtesy of letting the other states know that if you're registered with a new state, [the old registration] would no longer apply," said Skupien.
In fact, states seldom share such information. The Pew study found that almost 3 million people are registered to vote in more than one state.
Voters also die, which leads to another problem, says Linda Lamone, who runs Maryland's elections.
"If a John Smith lives in Maryland and goes to another state, say on vacation, and dies," Lamone said, "the law of the state where John Smith dies dictates whether or not the Maryland vital statistics people can share that information with me."
And even when they do — or if a person dies in-state — there's often a delay before election officials are alerted. It's also not always clear that the individual on the death certificate is the same one who's registered to vote. Election officials still have to do a lot more digging to avoid accidentally taking someone off the rolls who is very much alive.
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says it's amazing how many times his state has come across names on the voter rolls that appear to be the same person, but turn out not to be.
"We've even had cases, in very small counties, people [with the] same name and same birth dates," added Reed.
He said that has led to inaccurate reports that "dead" people are voting. He admits there have been a few cases in his state where widows or widowers have cast ballots for former spouses, but he said such fraud is very rare.
Still, election officials say it's important that the public have confidence in the system.
So Washington and seven other states — Oregon, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Utah and Nevada — are joining a pilot program to share more voter information and other databases, to try to make their lists more accurate.
David Becker, director of election initiatives at Pew, which organized the project, said he hopes to have the program implemented in time for November's general election.
"What this system will do is it will take in data from the states who choose to participate, specifically motor vehicles data and voter registration data, and it will be matched, along with some data that many states use already, like national change of address data from the Postal Service," said Becker.
The data will be matched with other government databases as well, such as death records from the Social Security Administration.
Becker thinks that should help states weed out duplicates and mistakes more quickly and accurately. He said the program will also allow states to identify some of the more than 50 million Americans who are eligible to vote but aren't registered.
Election officials can then contact them and encourage them to sign up.
It all sounds great to Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a research group in Washington, D.C. But she and other privacy advocates say they'll be watching closely to make sure all this new data-sharing actually leads to more accurate voter rolls.
"We do know that there are a lot of people who want to believe that that in fact will be the case, but we want to see the numbers," said Coney.
Coney recalled another data-matching program in Florida where legitimate voters were confused with convicted felons and mistakenly removed from the rolls.
Becker said no one's name will be deleted automatically. Officials are required by law to try to contact the voter first.
d-usa wrote: Do you have to be a non-felon citizen to get residency in Indiana?
Not that I am aware, however I do not see how this relates to illegal immigrants being prevented from voting when they are ineligible.
Because a DL would do nothing to show that they are eligible or ineligble to vote, and in a number of states it wouldn't even prove citizenship.
So "get a drivers license to show that you are eligible to vote" does nothing to prevent any of the problems that have been cited as examples in this thread.
d-usa wrote: Because a DL would do nothing to show that they are eligible or ineligble to vote, and in a number of states it wouldn't even prove citizenship.
So "get a drivers license to show that you are eligible to vote" does nothing to prevent any of the problems that have been cited as examples in this thread.
Felonies are a matter of public record. Illegal immigrants are not, unless convicted of a crime, deported, etc.
Having a system similar to Indiana's that requires you to show proof of residency and lawful status would go quite a ways to help counter voter fraud.
d-usa wrote: And how does "need an ID to cast your vote" fix this?
If there is a problem with voter registration, fix it at the voter registration level.
You don't say "well, X is a problem. So lets make laws for Y".
Except no one is saying "well, X is a problem. So lets make laws for Y". It is all part of the same process. If there is a problem with voter registration then it should absolutely be fixed, but there should be further protection for the integrity of the voting process by requesting ID.
If you don't see how having to prove your residency in a State prevents voter fraud, and prevents ineligible aliens from voting I'm really not sure how else to explain it to you.
d-usa wrote: And how does "need an ID to cast your vote" fix this?
If there is a problem with voter registration, fix it at the voter registration level.
You don't say "well, X is a problem. So lets make laws for Y".
Except no one is saying "well, X is a problem. So lets make laws for Y". It is all part of the same process. If there is a problem with voter registration then it should absolutely be fixed, but there should be further protection for the integrity of the voting process by requesting ID.
If you don't see how having to prove your residency in a State prevents voter fraud, and prevents ineligible aliens from voting I'm really not sure how else to explain it to you.
If you don't see how presenting an ID that matches the name already on the register does nothing to prevent somebody from voting that is already on the register when they shouldn't be, then I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you.
d-usa wrote: Requiring voter ID does not fix voter registration.
Never said it did. Thats a strawman. It should be part of a series of measures to preserve the right of suffrage for eligible citizens, and protect the rule of one man one vote.
your obfiscating, whats wrong with my idea #2. If there is minimal fraud then this measure is perfect as no effort is required. Everyone is happy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there a big problem with illegal immigrants illegally voting?
Who knows? There are lots of allegations and one party is making sure to make it easy to do so.
Who knows? There are lots of allegations and one party is making sure to make it easy to do so.
Bingo
Illegal immigrants can vote since no one has to show proof of citizenship so sayeth SCOTUS due in part of it being a burden to the individual to provide additional documents beyond what is required by Federal Law I do believe
d-usa wrote: Requiring voter ID does not fix voter registration.
Never said it did. Thats a strawman. It should be part of a series of measures to preserve the right of suffrage for eligible citizens, and protect the rule of one man one vote.
your obfiscating, whats wrong with my idea #2. If there is minimal fraud then this measure is perfect as no effort is required. Everyone is happy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there a big problem with illegal immigrants illegally voting?
Who knows? There are lots of allegations and one party is making sure to make it easy to do so.
I take it then that you are in favour of spending a lot of money on a new mandatory government bureaucracy which isn't designed to solve a problem that may not exist anyway, without research to find out the reality about cause and effect in the situation.
d-usa wrote: If you don't see how presenting an ID that matches the name already on the register does nothing to prevent somebody from voting that is already on the register when they shouldn't be, then I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you.
For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I take it then that you are in favour of spending a lot of money on a new mandatory government bureaucracy which isn't designed to solve a problem that may not exist anyway, without research to find out the reality about cause and effect in the situation.
Seeing as the illegal immigration problem is so vast that we don't have accurate numbers of those in the country unlawfully it has a knock on effect for accuracy concerning their other activities. Had the border been effectively policed, and ICE were fit for purpose then this would not be an issue.
If I may share a personal story about how easy it may or may not be to get an ID--not a voter ID, but a state driver's license which in this case would be almost a requisite to vote in North Carolina.
Chicago, where I was living at the time, is a relatively liberal and progressive-ish city (though it has its share of socioeconomic strife and) but Illinois has a relatively conservative state legislature. The state has, over the past decade, enacted a number of very stringent anti-immigrant legislation designed to isolate and identify potential illegal immigrants. Parts of these measures have involved making it much more difficult to apply for an Illinois Driver's License.
I needed to renew my driver's license--I'm from Minnesota. So I went down to the IL DMV with my old Driver's license, my birth certificate, my SS card, and a handful of my mail.
Firstly, the DMV's hours were crazy--basically no hourly employee could ever fit a trip into their schedule if they worked full-time--and the projected wait was around 2 hours.
But I didn't even get that far.
I was told that since I was from out of the state I would also need a passport (which I don't have) and that I would need to provide a current rent statement or utility bill in my name. I did not have a passport at the time (I still don't actually, never been anywhere but Canada and that was in the good old days) and I was not the named bill payer, my roommate was. A copy of the lease was insufficient, so were past utility statements where I was named. My roommate also could not vouch for me.
Aside from me pointing out that the only requirements to get a passport were to have a SS card and Birth Certificate, the man assessing my worthiness to wait in line for service at the DMV--yes that's how it works in Chicago--didn't want to hear anything I had to say and sent me on my way.
I ended up driving back to MN and renewing my license there, which took 5 minutes and was handed to me same day. But that's a moot point.
My point (which may have been lost in this sprawling anecdote) is that I had lived in Chicago for over two years at this point but could not sufficiently prove to the state that I was a resident. I'm sure North Carolina either already has similar barriers in place to receiving a state ID for the first time for non-natives (mostly students or young adults) or is planning on doing so. Without being able to get a State ID, you will not be able to get a voter ID. This is most likely the intention here.
Also, I didn't read all the posts here, so excuse me if I'm repeating this, but I did see some members here discussing the impact of scaling back early voting, and who would be hit hardest. According to recent data, 70 percent of black voters voted early in the last November election compared to 52 percent of white voters. Scaling back early voting would absolutely disproportionately affect black voters.
d-usa wrote: If you don't see how presenting an ID that matches the name already on the register does nothing to prevent somebody from voting that is already on the register when they shouldn't be, then I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you.
For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I take it then that you are in favour of spending a lot of money on a new mandatory government bureaucracy which isn't designed to solve a problem that may not exist anyway, without research to find out the reality about cause and effect in the situation.
Seeing as the illegal immigration problem is so vast that we don't have accurate numbers of those in the country unlawfully it has a knock on effect for accuracy concerning their other activities. Had the border been effectively policed, and ICE were fit for purpose then this would not be an issue.
You mean you don't have any figures relating to voter fraud by illegal immigrants, so the whole thing is a boondoggle shot in the dark.
Kilkrazy wrote: You mean you don't have any figures relating to voter fraud by illegal immigrants, so the whole thing is a boondoggle shot in the dark.
I don't recall claiming that I had figures concerning the impact of illegal immigrants voting. What I did point out was the difficulty with obtaining accurate figures given the fact that there are an unknown number of illegal immigrants.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
I would counter all this hypothetical "an illegal immigrant could vote" talk without any actual proof of it being a problem and the whole "it's so easy to get an ID" mantra by posting my previously shared story of how difficult it was to get my passport to prove my legal status here.
But countering an imaginary point with an actual experience would just be anecdotal evidence and be dismissed.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
But if they are on the registry illegally and show ID, then they can vote.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?
Not at all.
It's just coincidence that the majority of every group negatively affected by the laws passed in NC voted Democrat in 2012.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?
Not at all.
It's just coincidence that the majority of every group negatively affected by the laws passed in NC voted Democrat in 2012.
whembly wrote:Define negatively impacted please... and how.
I believe this will be sufficient? If it isn't though, the ease with which these groups can vote had been negatively impacted meaning that the impact of the changes is that, were "easy of access to voting" quantifiable to a single number, that number would have shifted negatively.
d-usa wrote:Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration. Not allowing Student IDs. (60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week (Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches) (93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work) -Not providing free IDs. (60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
d-usa wrote: I would counter all this hypothetical "an illegal immigrant could vote" talk without any actual proof of it being a problem and the whole "it's so easy to get an ID" mantra by posting my previously shared story of how difficult it was to get my passport to prove my legal status here.
But countering an imaginary point with an actual experience would just be anecdotal evidence and be dismissed.
I've had nothing but pleasant times getting all my documentation. So I guess you could counter with your story about how you have had unpleasant times getting your documentation. Not sure how the discussion was improved though.
d-usa wrote: If you don't see how presenting an ID that matches the name already on the register does nothing to prevent somebody from voting that is already on the register when they shouldn't be, then I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you.
For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.
Peregrine wrote: Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?
whembly wrote:Define negatively impacted please... and how.
I believe this will be sufficient?
Oops... sorry D... didn't see that.
If it isn't though, the ease with which these groups can vote had been negatively impacted meaning that the impact of the changes is that, were "easy of access to voting" quantifiable to a single number, that number would have shifted negatively.
Impacted yes...
Negatively? Let's look shall we?
d-usa wrote:Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.
-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote (56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
That's unfair? o.O Why do you hate old people then?
-Making it hard for young people to vote: Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
How is that making it harder? o.O
-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats -Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
I thought this was a cost cutting measure... still, went from what 2 weeks to 1 week? Yeah... geez... that's REAL hardship eh?
-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans -Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
That seems weird... why do early Sunday voting day? (in a way, I don't have a problem with it). And pegging that blacks only seem to use this doesn't make sense.
-Making it harder for poor people to vote -Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
Still don't see a "burden" here... the rules change. People will adapt.
Poor folks needing welfare/government assitance need valid state IDs to apply... so, they already have it.
-Eliminated Straight Party Voting (55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
I actually agree with this. If you're taking you vote seriously, then pull the level for EACH candidate.
-Left absentee voting intact. (66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
Why do you hate the military?
For those who can't make it to the polls? Guess what... you now can use ABSENTEE ballots!
But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.
I'll repeat this again... Election.Has.Consequences. You just watch... when the (D) get back control in NC, they'll start make these sorts of changes in the other direction.
I'm not saying that I hate old people or the military.
But it is a part of the whole picture that "we have to save money and make elections more secure, ID's are important" was used to cut avenues used by Democratic voters while Republican blocks can continue to vote with expired IDs and no IDs.
All the small parts could easily be a coincidence, but put them all together and things become clearer.
whembly wrote: So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?
Yes, that is exactly it. Seriously, context matters, and if you're at all familiar with NC politics you know exactly what this is. Art Pope finally succeeded in buying a majority in the state legislature and now he's changing the rules (through the rubber stamp* of his "elected" officials) to protect that majority. This is a blatant attempt to change the outcome of future elections, and all that nonsense about election "fraud" is just a flimsy excuse to keep the courts from immediately throwing it out.
*I'm not kidding about this. Our governor declared his intent to sign the bill, and then had an awkward moment in an interview where he had to admit that he hadn't even read it.
whembly wrote: That's unfair? o.O Why do you hate old people then?
It's not about hating old people. The point here is that old people are allowed to continue using expired IDs, something that is an obvious security problem, while republicans simultaneously complain about how essential photo ID is to stopping fraud. And I'm sure it's complete coincidence that the people getting this exception, as a group, lean republican...
I thought this was a cost cutting measure... still, went from what 2 weeks to 1 week? Yeah... geez... that's REAL hardship eh?
It's a "cost cutting measure" because that's the justification used. The real reason is that early voters in NC lean democrat. And yes, it's a real hardship because cutting it to one week removes a lot of the flexibility people had in getting time off to vote.
That seems weird... why do early Sunday voting day? (in a way, I don't have a problem with it). And pegging that blacks only seem to use this doesn't make sense.
You do sunday voting because sunday is a convenient day for many people to vote. And no, it isn't a black-only thing, but it's being removed because black-majority churches organized voting trips and obviously that's a group that overwhelmingly votes democrat. Removing that easy opportunity to vote lowers turnout and therefore D votes.
I actually agree with this. If you're taking you vote seriously, then pull the level for EACH candidate.
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Making voting more tedious makes no sense at all. If I'm going to vote D in every race because I hate the republican party how is it helping anything to make me fill in bubbles for every race individually instead of just one straight-party vote? The answer is that it doesn't help anything, it's just yet another rule change aimed at making things a bit more difficult for groups that lean democrat.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Except that's making the pretty big assumption that an illegal immigrant is capable of getting themselves on the voter registry but not capable of getting a photo ID (or a convincing fake ID). If you have some evidence that this is happening at any meaningful frequency then I'd love to see it.
Wonder how this would go if NC came out with clearing up the registry instead of providing an ID to vote. I'm sure we all agree...we really need to clean up the voting registry
Two stones in one throw....stop the SSN/VA/whatever financial support checks coming in on the decease that's not reported due to low life family members.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how this would go if NC came out with clearing up the registry instead of providing an ID to vote. I'm sure we all agree...we really need to clean up the voting registry
Kanluwen wrote: Not one damn problem with cleaning up the registry personally.
Same here. There should be a good process in place for it, but it's a great start at cleaning up the election process.
Kanluwen wrote: But if they are on the registry illegally and show ID, then they can vote.
In case you missed this while you were cherry picking;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
d-usa wrote: Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.
You mean that if I maintain what I have been saying (and what the legislation appears to be proposing), that there is more than adequate time (2+ years) for eligible voters to get a valid ID?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.
It does follow logically. Could you please explain what it is that you are having difficulty understanding in the portion that you underlined.
I was unaware that I was using anything interchangably, I was using residency because that is the Indiana requirement - not citizenship. Without the ability to prove your lawful status within a country how do you prove your residency in line with the requirements in Indiana (the State that I have been using as an example) for obtaining government issued ID?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.
Except that's making the pretty big assumption that an illegal immigrant is capable of getting themselves on the voter registry but not capable of getting a photo ID (or a convincing fake ID). If you have some evidence that this is happening at any meaningful frequency then I'd love to see it.
I have already run through what happens in Indiana if someone with lawful status attempts to get an ID through the BMV, and it is also noted above. If you're concerned about someone breaking the law, after already being in the country unlawfully, then that person should suffer the consequences of their actions.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?
Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.
It does follow logically. Could you please explain what it is that you are having difficulty understanding in the portion that you underlined.
I was unaware that I was using anything interchangably, I was using residency because that is the Indiana requirement - not citizenship. Without the ability to prove your lawful status within a country how do you prove your residency in line with the requirements in Indiana (the State that I have been using as an example) for obtaining government issued ID?
Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless
Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.
Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.
azazel the cat wrote: Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless
Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.
Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.
Indiana BMV wrote:A SecureID is required for anyone applying for a new Indiana driver’s license, permit, or identification card. Applicants must bring documents to the license branch to prove their name and date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency. A SecureID meets federal government requirements for driver’s licenses, identification cards and permits.
Persons who are not United States citizens (legal temporary or permanent residents) are required to have a SecureID and must present full documentation to apply for a new or renew their existing driver’s license, permit, or identification card. This includes providing documents which prove name, date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency.
azazel the cat wrote: Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless
Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.
Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.
Indiana BMV wrote:A SecureID is required for anyone applying for a new Indiana driver’s license, permit, or identification card. Applicants must bring documents to the license branch to prove their name and date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency. A SecureID meets federal government requirements for driver’s licenses, identification cards and permits.
Persons who are not United States citizens (legal temporary or permanent residents) are required to have a SecureID and must present full documentation to apply for a new or renew their existing driver’s license, permit, or identification card. This includes providing documents which prove name, date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency.
So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?
Peregrine wrote: So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?
So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?
Peregrine wrote: So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?
So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?
If this bill was just "requiring a valid ID to vote", there would not be the huge discussion and controversy surrounding the bill now would there?
Peregrine wrote: So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?
So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?
If this bill was just "requiring a valid ID to vote", there would not be the huge discussion and controversy surrounding the bill now would there?
Glad you feel that way about voter ID.
As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.
How about you stop playing this "let's examine the issue" garbage and admit that this is a nonsense bill enacted by a Republican legislature aimed at disenfranchising those who do not vote for them?
d-usa wrote: Isn't the most important thing "how it feels" anyway?
At least that used to be the source of protest against a lot of thigs involving stuff done by democrats.
"It just FEELS wrong!"
heh... touche.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: How about you stop playing this "let's examine the issue" garbage and admit that this is a nonsense bill enacted by a Republican legislature aimed at disenfranchising those who do not vote for them?
Well how 'bout you show credible evidence that this'll will disenfranchise the voters? Or, you know... give it a shot to see what the impact will be in '14.
This SAME criticism was espoused in Georgia when they did practically the same thing, see my previous posts earlier. What was found was that MORE voters from those "at risk" demographic voted than ever before.
Are saying NC and GA are THAT different?
Okay, okay... the Tarheals ain't nuthing like the Bulldogs.
The fact that you chose not to read or feel that it is not true does not make it any less true.
And for that matter, what happens in one state which did not enact the same set of rules within their bill is not relevant to the conversation because the bills are not the same.
The fact that you chose not to read or feel that it is not true does not make it any less true.
And for that matter, what happens in one state which did not enact the same set of rules within their bill is not relevant to the conversation because the bills are not the same.
Right... well then, keep up with the Republican bashing.
whembly wrote: As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.
Or we could just look at NC politics where anyone who actually lives here knows perfectly well what's going on.
whembly wrote: As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.
Or we could just look at NC politics where anyone who actually lives here knows perfectly well what's going on.
Alrighty then...
This will be decided in court. *shrug* Good luck. (<--- mean that sincerely)
For those who actually want to read the bill, here you go.
SL2013-381
Here is a particular part that I find emblematic of the mindset behind this bill:
"§ 163‑87. Challenges allowed on day of primary or election.
On the day of a primary or election, at the time a registered voter offers to vote, any other registered voter of the precinct may exercise the right of challenge, and when he the voter does so may enter the voting enclosure to make the challenge, but he the voter shall retire therefrom as soon as the challenge is heard.
On the day of a primary or election, any other registered voter of the precinct may challenge a person for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) One or more of the reasons listed in G.S. 163‑85(c).
(2) That the person has already voted in that primary or election.
(3) Repealed by Session Laws 2009‑541, s. 16.1(b), effective August 28, 2009.
(4) If the challenge is made with respect to voting in a partisan primary, that the person is a registered voter of another political party.
(5) Except as provided in G.S. 163‑166.13(d) and G.S. 163‑166.14, the voter does not present photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13.
The chief judge, judge, or assistant appointed under G.S. 163‑41 or 163‑42 may enter challenges under this section against voters in the precinct for which appointed regardless of the place of residence of the chief judge, judge, or assistant.
If a person is challenged under this subsection, and the challenge is sustained under G.S. 163‑85(c)(3), the voter may still transfer his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) if eligible under that section, and the registration shall not be cancelled under G.S. 163‑90.2(a) if the transfer is made. A person who has transferred his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) may be challenged at the precinct to which the registration is being transferred."
Here is a particular part that I find emblematic of the mindset behind this bill:
"§ 163‑87. Challenges allowed on day of primary or election.
On the day of a primary or election, at the time a registered voter offers to vote, any other registered voter of the precinct may exercise the right of challenge, and when he the voter does so may enter the voting enclosure to make the challenge, but he the voter shall retire therefrom as soon as the challenge is heard.
On the day of a primary or election, any other registered voter of the precinct may challenge a person for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) One or more of the reasons listed in G.S. 163‑85(c).
(2) That the person has already voted in that primary or election.
(3) Repealed by Session Laws 2009‑541, s. 16.1(b), effective August 28, 2009.
(4) If the challenge is made with respect to voting in a partisan primary, that the person is a registered voter of another political party.
(5) Except as provided in G.S. 163‑166.13(d) and G.S. 163‑166.14, the voter does not present photo identification in accordance with G.S. 163‑166.13.
The chief judge, judge, or assistant appointed under G.S. 163‑41 or 163‑42 may enter challenges under this section against voters in the precinct for which appointed regardless of the place of residence of the chief judge, judge, or assistant.
If a person is challenged under this subsection, and the challenge is sustained under G.S. 163‑85(c)(3), the voter may still transfer his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) if eligible under that section, and the registration shall not be cancelled under G.S. 163‑90.2(a) if the transfer is made. A person who has transferred his that voter's registration under G.S. 163‑82.15(e) may be challenged at the precinct to which the registration is being transferred."
So, reading through the bill, this was the section regarding preregistration.
PART 12. ELIMINATION OF PREREGISTRATION
SECTION 12.1.(a) G.S. 163‑82.1(d) is repealed.
SECTION 12.1.(b) G.S. 163‑82.3(a)(5) is repealed.
SECTION 12.1.(c) G.S. 163‑82.4(d) reads as rewritten:
"(d) Citizenship and Age Questions. – Voter registration application forms shall include all of the following:
(1) The following question and statement:
a. "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is or is not a citizen of the United States.
b. "If you checked 'no' in response to this question, do not submit this form."
(2) The following questions question and statement:
a. "Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant will be 18 years of age or older on election day.
b. "Are you at least 16 years of age and understand that you must be 18 years of age on or before election day to vote?" and boxes for the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is at least 16 years of age and understands that the applicant must be at least 18 years of age or older by election day to vote.
c. "If you checked 'no' in response to both of these questions, this question, do not submit this form."
Part B of 2 has been lined through, meaning it is no longer valid. Part A though is, which means that a person who is turning 18 on the day of the election can still register to vote. What they have eliminated is the ability for people to register to vote for an election that may be 2 elections down the road. So, I don't see the issue here.
Peregrine wrote: So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?
So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?
Because an measure is not onerous is not a positive reason to bring it in. You need to show that it is efficient and effective in correcting a problem. There is no credible evidence that requiring people to wear a top hat when voting is onerous -- does that make it a good thing to do?
Actually, though, there is a lot of credible evidence that requiring a valid ID is onerous. There are numerous examples of types of ID are not available, or not acceptable, for instance everyone doesn't have a driving licence, or a passport; they cost money to acquire and are non-essential items. University registration cards would not be acceptable, and so on.
The right wing answer to this is to set up an expensive state bureaucracy to validate and issue photo IDs to everyone. The UK photo ID card that was trialled cost about $60 per head.
e-verify which is a federal phone call, and free takes about 1-2 minutes to verify someones social security number, and a social security number and card are free as long as you have your birth certificate are entitled to one. The cost for basic state photo ID, non drivers license, is around what $15? and good for 4 - 10 years depending on your state.
And you need ID for most basic things in our society.
So the DMV could use e-verify like so many employers do, and the ID could be used for voting.
Does not seem too harsh a setup. Certainly not the $60 per that is the UKID.
whembly wrote: So, what's wrong with requiring IDs again?
Nothing, if it came with a program to ensure that everyone who presently lacked sufficient ID would be provided with such.
But it doesn't, and instead what we're looking at is a bill that is going to prevent some people from voting, while solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I mean, anyone who can't understand the actual, real reason this bill is being passed - to reduce the Democratic turnout - is just kidding themselves.
Your first article states - "The board started with 80 suspicious cases and now is down to 19. Officials say the majority of the cases turned out to be simple misunderstandings." I don't think that's exactly the evidence you were hoping for.
Your second article is about as weak. The first, a stunt from notorious conservative troll and all around fethwit James O'Keefe attempting voter fraud only works if we stop looking at what actually happens in the world, and only consider how the world works inside the brain of James O'Keefe's. Sure, if the world operated according to the childish notions of O'Keefe there'd be a problem, but it doesn't, and the reality is that anyone with the power to manipulate voting on a relevant scale has much better ways of getting what they want than a ballot box. The rest are anecdotes, most of which amount to a handful of votes, with one actual, real incident that changed an election (Kennedy) that wouldn't have been prevented by voter ID anyway.
Seriously, there is no evidence of voter fraud. There are simply much, much better ways to game the system to help your side win. Such as setting up the electoral rules to make it harder for the other side to vote - ie voter ID laws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm just countering against the idea that "for all intents and purpose, does not exist" idea.
The standard isn't 'does not exist'. You have a country of 300 million, demanding the total eradication of dodgy votes is impossible.
The standard is 'exists on such a low number that it is almost impossible to influence an election', which, given there's a number of cases in the low hundreds each election, is more than met.
At which point, introducing a law that will prevent some voters from taking part, while doing nothing but solve a problem that we know doesn't exist... should be seen for what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: e-verify which is a federal phone call, and free takes about 1-2 minutes to verify someones social security number, and a social security number and card are free as long as you have your birth certificate are entitled to one. The cost for basic state photo ID, non drivers license, is around what $15? and good for 4 - 10 years depending on your state.
And you need ID for most basic things in our society.
So the DMV could use e-verify like so many employers do, and the ID could be used for voting.
Does not seem too harsh a setup. Certainly not the $60 per that is the UKID.
Here's the big white elephant in this argument that neither side wants to admit - a significant number of poor people are pretty damn lazy, and fairly disorganised.
The left won't admit that because that's kind of the exact opposite of how the left likes to see things, and the right won't admit it because it means admitting that no matter how easy you make ID, a not insignificant number of people will not make that new standard.
And sure, you can say 'well if they're too lazy to bother doing that then they shouldn't get to vote' but that's not how it works. To be able to vote you need to be over 18 and have a heartbeat, no more, whether you're an organised, informed person who knows they have to have idea or not isn't a decent restriction. Anything that restricts that is going against the system you're supposed to believe in. And there might be situations where restrictions are necessary - if voter fraud was common then ID laws would be a necessary restriction.
Except, of course, there's pretty much bugger all voter fraud, and so all we're looking at is something that will stop some number of people voting who should be legally entitled to vote.
