Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas.
(CNN) -- For weeks leading up to the 2013 off-year elections, prominent Texas Democrats directly blamed the state's new voter ID law for problems in registration.
First, Judge Sandra Watts said she had a problem because the name on her driver's license and the name on her voter registration card did not match. It turns out she had left her maiden name on her voter registration. It also turns out that it is the individual's responsibility to ensure that his or her voter information is up to date. Watts was able to vote.
Then, state Sen. Wendy Davis, the presumed Democratic nominee for Texas governor, said she had a problem, too. Like Watts, the name on her driver's license did not match the name on her registration card. She signed an affidavit, which the polling place provided, and was able to vote.
Then, nearer Election Day, former Speaker of the House Jim Wright said that he, too, had a problem voting. He said the Texas Department of Public Safety would not give him a voter ID card. But Wright, who is 90, tried to use an expired driver's license, which for most voters serves as their photo ID. How is this the fault of the state or anyone who supports voter ID? Wright got his card by going home and finding his birth certificate, and was able to vote.
We know of these stories because all three prominent Democrats took those voting problems straight to the media.
What we do not know from these three stories is how the voter ID law actually affected turnout.
Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable
election.
The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992.
According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments.
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.
So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections. But that's statewide. How about in areas the anti-voter ID side predicted should see "suppression"?
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.
Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.
Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.
So in its first real-world test, Texas' voter ID law -- which 66% of Texans support, according to a 2012 University of Texas poll -- had no impact on suppressing the vote. It even can be argued that voter ID helped increase turnout. Turnout was up, and in fact, the 2013 constitutional amendment election saw the highest constitutional amendment election turnout in Texas in about eight years.
Opponents of voter ID must come up with a new line to attack it. The old dog that it suppresses the vote just won't hunt.
So fears about incorrect information preventing voting unfounded
Concerns about minorities being disenfranchised unfounded
Voter turn out actually increased, including among minorities
But, But ,But The disenfranchised. While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different. Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, But ,But The disenfranchised. While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.
It's hard to when the laws keep getting overturned in other states because of the fears that Texas seems to have disproved.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, But ,But The disenfranchised. While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.
I'm surprised that Cali charges for ID. I believe that North Carolina and Indiana (possibly Texas too) provide voter ID free of charge, and rightly so.
If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge. However, if you already have any of the following forms of ID, you are not eligible for an EIC:
Texas driver license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas personal identification card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas concealed handgun license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. passport book or card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Military identification with photo—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Citizenship Certificate or Certificate of Naturalization with photo
hotsauceman1 wrote: But, But ,But The disenfranchised. While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.
I'm surprised that Cali charges for ID. I believe that North Carolina and Indiana (possibly Texas too) provide voter ID free of charge, and rightly so.
There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.
But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.
Kanluwen wrote: There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.
But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.
Its not like I live in Indiana, and actually have experience dealing with the Indiana BMV (as recently as last week)
Are you trying to say that the law providing for free ID is not being followed and people are being charged for them? Or is it your usual track of claiming that no one has time off before elections, and that people who lost their original documents have to pay to replace those before a free ID can be obtained?
Kanluwen wrote: There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.
But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.
Its not like I live in Indiana, and actually have experience dealing with the Indiana BMV (as recently as last week)
Are you trying to say that the law providing for free ID is not being followed and people are being charged for them? Or is it your usual track of claiming that no one has time off before elections, and that people who lost their original documents have to pay to replace those before a free ID can be obtained?
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Since you seem so dismissive of that as a "claim" though, I'll just tell you to keep imagining that the voter ID laws were totally put into place to prevent voter fraud and not as a member of the Republican party here in NC put it "to block people who vote Democrat".
One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.
Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.
Anyway, two points about the higher turn out. Firstly, it's a single off-year poll on certain issues, numbers would fluctuate highly depending on the issues being voted on. Secondly, one of the biggest motivations for voting is feeling like you're having your rights violated, which is why Florida had large turnouts of Democrats even when Republicans went out of their way to suppress the vote there in 2012. It does not change the fact that the laws are designed to suppress the vote of certain segments of the community in order to help one party, nor that they are highly unnecessary.
Maddermax wrote: One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.
Where are you getting this info? But, then again... so what?
Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.
Source please...
Anyway, two points about the higher turn out. Firstly, it's a single off-year poll on certain issues, numbers would fluctuate highly depending on the issues being voted on. Secondly, one of the biggest motivations for voting is feeling like you're having your rights violated, which is why Florida had large turnouts of Democrats even when Republicans went out of their way to suppress the vote there in 2012. It does not change the fact that the laws are designed to suppress the vote of certain segments of the community in order to help one party, nor that they are highly unnecessary.
Maddermax wrote: One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.
Where are you getting this info? But, then again... so what?
Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.
Source please...
Anyway, two points about the higher turn out. Firstly, it's a single off-year poll on certain issues, numbers would fluctuate highly depending on the issues being voted on. Secondly, one of the biggest motivations for voting is feeling like you're having your rights violated, which is why Florida had large turnouts of Democrats even when Republicans went out of their way to suppress the vote there in 2012. It does not change the fact that the laws are designed to suppress the vote of certain segments of the community in order to help one party, nor that they are highly unnecessary.
Democrats have worried that some voters will be entirely unable to vote. The latest big name to join that chorus is former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright, who said this weekend he was denied a state ID card. Wright, 90, said an expired driver's license and a university faculty ID card were not enough to get a state ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
By Monday, Wright said the problem was resolved but expressed concern about the "nuisance." He also questioned the conservative presumption that voters are trying to defraud the system.
"It's unfortunate ... that we look for ways to disqualify people," Wright said.
Democratic activists also accused state officials of politicizing enforcement of the voter ID law after a rural county Democratic Party chairwoman filed a grievance with Steen's office. Nelda Couch Calhoun said she was asked to sign an affidavit because her maiden name wasn't on the voter rolls.
Her formal complaint drew a written response from Keith Ingram, the state's elections director, who pointed out that Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis was responsible for an amendment that included the affidavit provision.
Davis, who is running for governor, has defended the unanimously passed amendment as a voter safeguard. Ingram wrote that his office regretted "any inconvenience that this portion of the law has caused voters."
Matt Angle, a Davis adviser and director of the pro-Democratic group the Lone Star Project, called the tone of the letter "overtly political and partisan" for a state official.
Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for Steen's office, said the language was "is in no way a political statement but meant simply as an acknowledgement of the voter's feelings."
On the last part, I really don't see how you can miss my points without being deliberately obtuse. Election levels fluctuate depending on what's being voted on, but this law will have a larger effect in on-year elections, which involve a much broader base of voters:
But the numbers likely won't be significant in this election, which draws mostly ardent voters with correct ID, DeBeauvoir said. So far, about one-fifth of Travis County's early voters had to initial an affidavit because the name on their ID was slightly off and only about 30 needed to file provisional ballots, she said.
But the numbers could spike during gubernatorial elections next year. "If people say, 'See there's no problem,' I would say: 'Not yet,'" DeBeauvoir said.
Here in VA, Democrats ran ads encouraging people to vote for the very purpose of confronting Voter ID laws (the losing GOP candidate supported them). Similar campaigns in GA saw large turnouts of black voters in the immediate aftermath of a Voter ID law. That's one way to skew results. In any case, the problems with voter suppression -- like any form of institutionalized racism -- are toxic over time. Also, the article does not note a single instance of in-person voter fraud that was prevented by the law.
Voter ID laws are the Tea Party's version useless, intrusive Big Government.
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
Manchu wrote: Here in VA, Democrats ran ads encouraging people to vote for the very purpose of confronting Voter ID laws (the losing GOP candidate supported them). Similar campaigns in GA saw large turnouts of black voters in the immediate aftermath of a Voter ID law. That's one way to skew results. In any case, the problems with voter suppression -- like any form of institutionalized racism -- are toxic over time. Also, the article does not note a single instance of in-person voter fraud that was prevented by the law.
Were there similar efforts made in Texas?
So ID for voting is institutionally racist? What about ID to own a gun, to buy alcohol, to get welfare, to get credit, to get a job?
Was it racist to have the Iraqis and Afghans use purple ink to ID who voted?
Are Ireland, Northern Ireland, Canada, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta all countries that have "institutionalized racism" by asking for ID to vote?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Because minorities can't afford IDs or don't have the time to go get them?
You mean those free IDs? Those free IDs that cannot be obtained from BMV branches open 5 days a week and extended opening for voter registration?
Maddermax wrote: One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.
Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.
Max, that right there is flat out false. When Davis submitted the amendment, it passed the committee unanimously. 30 yay's, 0 nays.
Senator Davis offered the following amendment to the bill:
Floor Amendment No. 41
Amend SB 14 in SECTION 7 of the bill, in amended Section 63.001(c), Election
Code (page 4, line 6), by adding after the period "If in determining whether a voter s’
name is on the list of registered voters the election officer determines that the voter s’
name on the documentation is substantially similar but does not match exactly the
name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting as otherwise required by this
section if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of
registered voters."
The amendment to SB 14 was read and was adopted by the following
vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0. Absent-excused:iiUresti.
If they didn't want it, then why did everyone vote for it?
*As an aside, digging up that information was a down right pain in the ass.
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.
And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.
And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.
So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?
Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.
And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.
So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?
Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either
He's lived there for 26 years, and he's Kanluwen. He doesn't need to provide proof.
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.
And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.
So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?
Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either
He's lived there for 26 years, and he's Kanluwen. He doesn't need to provide proof.
Kanluwen wrote: Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen
The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.
The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.
And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.
So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?
Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either
Well duh. The gas to drive there isn't free, obviously.
whembly wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how/why Voter ID is racist again...
Because context matters. The people who write these laws know perfectly well who they're targeting, this isn't just some abstract theory about how to run a fair election.
It was horrible, just horrible. I was forced to show some ID, just like last time. I gave them the option of TDL, CHl, or passport. ; ) Oh Noes Da Horror!!!!
cincydooley wrote: Wow. That's really interesting. Anyone know the costs for the IDs in Texas?
If i remember, Frazz said it was free in texas
IIRC when the law was put in place there is the option for a free ID for lower income persons. This may have been around for some time.
Of more terrible import, GC is now taking her online courses. Soon her and I will be bebopping along the roads. To quote GKar to his (failed) attempted assassin "first you will know fear. Then you will know pain. Then you will know death. Have a good day."
Kanluwen wrote: There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.
But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.
Its not like I live in Indiana, and actually have experience dealing with the Indiana BMV (as recently as last week)
Are you trying to say that the law providing for free ID is not being followed and people are being charged for them? Or is it your usual track of claiming that no one has time off before elections, and that people who lost their original documents have to pay to replace those before a free ID can be obtained?
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.
Since you seem so dismissive of that as a "claim" though, I'll just tell you to keep imagining that the voter ID laws were totally put into place to prevent voter fraud and not as a member of the Republican party here in NC put it "to block people who vote Democrat".
Every DMV location in Texas (called DPS here) open to the public does however. I once did a license renewal in a trailer, with two old ladies working and three customers in the budding metropolis of Waller County (population 12 I think, not including cattle of course). They even offered me coffee and a donut.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.
Thats what you call... a lie. I had to sign an affadavit for the last election. It took me about 8 seconds, five of which to find the English version.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "On the 20% figure, sorry, that was one fifth of voters in Travis Country.. It would still have been pretty horrific if not for the Davis amendment."
Travis County is the Texas quarantine facility for Californians. No wonder Californians can't get their act together. They are too busy ruining the wierdness that was Austin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Now remind me again how/why Voter ID is racist again?
Because Democrats assume minorities can't get their act together to get an ID.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Because minorities can't afford IDs or don't have the time to go get them?
Kanluwen wrote: If we're talking about proof, I'd like to see actual numbers of convictable voter fraud.
If you want to prove this is something which so direly needed to be protected from fraud, then it should not be hard to do.
And no citations of Fox News. Actual evidence.
So I provided you with a link in the OP from that hard right source CNN showing that voter ID laws did not disenfranchise people, and you come out crying about Fox News Absolutely classic Taking part in the electoral process is one of the most sacred duties that a citizen can do in the United States. It is the cornerstone of our political system, and reflects the will of the people. There should not be more scrutiny involved in buying a beer than taking part in activity that helps shape the political landscape and direction that the country takes
Sept. 5, 2013. Between 2008 and 2012, 475 cases of voter fraud in North Carolina were referred for prosecution, according to a new NC Board of Elections report obtained by the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina (after repeated requests), which undermines claims that voter fraud in North Carolina is insignificant.
“This looks like an interim report, but it shows some disturbing numbers,” said Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project-NC. “Because reports of voter fraud often don’t get referred for prosecution until the year after an election, the extent of potential fraud in the 2012 election still remains to be seen. The large increase in fraud referrals in 2012 over 2008 suggests that substantial fraud occurred in last year’s election, but the full numbers have not yet been reported. In any event, these numbers totally crush the lie that there is no voter fraud in North Carolina”
“Opponents of North Carolina’s new election law often point to the low prosecution rates to support their denials of voter fraud in North Carolina,” said DeLancy. “This report raises a more disturbing question: Why are District Attorneys in North Carolina so negligent in prosecuting election fraud?”
DEL RIO, Texas - In a courtroom here, Dora Gonzalez confessed.
She had intentionally hampered the voting process by mishandling more than 100 absentee ballots in the March 2 Democratic primary in Val Verde County. By 29 votes, her employer, County Commissioner Jesus Ortiz, had won the primary, effectively handing him re-election in this Democratic county. Challenger Gus Flores alleged voter fraud and sued.
A judge ruled in August that Gonzalez' activity on Ortiz' behalf was illegal and ordered a new primary. Under close scrutiny, the election was won by Flores with a 306-vote margin.
In many ways, the case is typical of voter fraud in South Texas: Many violators are not charged -- Gonzalez wasn't either --- because prosecutors complain the cases are hard to prove. When they are prosecuted, the penalties are so small they don't deter the crime. So, with payment as "get out the vote" workers for candidates, the vote harvesters continue to hijack absentee ballots by sending applications on behalf of voters, arriving on their doorstep as the ballots arrive and coaching their votes.
"It's almost like it's OK because it's always been done," said Rudy Montalvo, election administrator in Starr County, which hugs the Mexican border just northwest of McAllen. He's done battle with his own Dora Gonzalezes, to little avail.
"We've had four people indicted, and all of them got a plea bargain. And that's probation, usually," he said. "In the end, the hammer's not hard enough."
Gonzalez testified that she worked the March primary for a number of local candidates, as well as Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, Texas state Sen. Carlos Uresti and gubernatorial candidate Bill White. Since politiqueras' activity is marshaled through local party players, it is unlikely that anyone on White or Uresti's level would ever know of their work.
Gonzalez told the court that Ortiz had given her a stack of applications for mail-in ballots for potential voters and 100 stamps.
Many of those voters said in depositions that Gonzalez took their completed ballots. Most said that Gonzalez did not attempt to influence their votes, but others did. "She filled them out so I could sign, and then she took the envelope," one voter said.
And Gonzalez' reason for assisting these candidates and voters?
"Because I'm interested in my community, and I'm interested in having good people help the community," Gonzalez replied, according to an account in the Del Rio News Herald.
LITTLE ATTENTION FROM AUSTIN
Florence Shapiro
SHAPIRO
Shortly after Texas Watchdog began its series of stories on voter fraud in March, state Sen. Florence Shapiro said in an interview, “I will be filing legislation to deal with this.”
Now, with bills being pre-filed and the session’s January start just weeks away, Shapiro is vague as to just what can be done.
“We’ve talked a lot about it through another senator who wanted to do something about it,” Shapiro said, although she couldn’t recall the other senator’s name. “And other people in the senate are looking at filing some of these bills.”
But she declined to be specific or even support what she vowed to do earlier this year. It’s been the way of voter fraud in Texas, particularly in South Texas.
“In Austin, anyone from San Antonio and above thinks that this is the Wild West, so why pay attention,” said state Rep. Aaron Peña, whose District 40 takes in a large swath of the region. “They look back over 300 years of history, and they see that now they’re still doing the same thing with voting in South Texas.”
Steve Wolens
WOLENS
Voter fraud has been over the years inadvertently abetted by malaise or disinterest at the state lawmaker level. In some cases like Gonzalez', politiqueras have been linked to prominent state officeholders and candidates.
The most recent statewide effort to address mail-in ballot fraud, a 2003 bill by former Democratic state Rep. Steve Wolens, enhanced penalties for certain activities regarding mail-in ballots.
“The first thing that happened when I put the bill out there is that people came out saying it would disenfranchise voters, like the elderly and the disabled,” Wolens said. “And my response was, ‘Poppycock. This is aimed at the illegal harvesting of voters by paid opportunists who were themselves disenfranchising the elderly and the disabled.'”
In 2005, Robert Talton, a staunch conservative Republican state representative from Pasadena, moved to one-up Wolens. His House bill would have barred anyone from assisting more than one voter in an election, with some provisional caveats for close family. The bill died in committee.
ELECTIONS CHIEFS FRUSTRATED
But the practice of vote harvesting has never relented. State law regarding the mail-in ballot is fairly simple: If a person is mailing in a ballot, as Gonzalez did, that person must sign the ballot.
"A person other than the voter who deposits the carrier envelope in the mail or with a common or contract carrier must provide the person's signature, printed name, and residence address on the reverse side of the envelope," the law says.
The rule for signing a ballot for someone else - the signer is called a witness - is also explicit:
"The witness must state on the document or paper the name, in printed form, of the person who cannot sign. ... The witness must affix the witness's own signature to the document or paper and state the witness's own name, in printed form, near the signature. The witness must also state the witness's residence address unless the witness is an election officer, in which case the witness must state the witness's official title."
Vote harvesters, who can assist voters legally, are entitled to as many ballots as they need or want, and can even request them at the Secretary of State’s website.
“They get the mail-in ballot, then the fraud comes in,” said Pam Hill, election administrator in San Patricio County. She’s been in office since January 2006, and the practice has grown since that time, she said.
The number of mail-in ballots cast varies wildly, depending on the contest, she said. "It could be 1,500 mail in ballots, or 100."
Hill and other election administrators from South Texas have been meeting informally for the past couple years to talk about voter fraud issues unique to the region. They hope to get support from lawmakers, but so far the group has had little luck. And to make things worse, two elected officials who attended a small conference with the election officials in Kingsville in August, Solomon Ortiz, Jr., and Abel Herrero, lost their re-election bids in November.
“We just aren’t sure what to do now,” said Roy Ruiz, election administrator in Kenedy County.
A legislative election committee report is due out at the start of the year and contains nothing about addressing mail-in ballot fraud, according to the committee's office. It will, though, contain plenty about the need for a voter ID measure that has failed in previous sessions. Several Republican lawmakers prefiled voter ID measures last month.
DA: CASES HARD TO PROSECUTE
In the politiquera world, they are legends: names like Elvira Rios, Gloria Barajas, Cynthia Lopez, Dora Gonzalez and Zaida Bueno. For years, they have been known as the go-to people for South Texas candidates.These mostly female vote harvesters work the apartment complexes, the nursing homes and any other living areas for the elderly and disabled. The compensation varies, from a deal that gives them perhaps $1 per ballot to a wider-ranging proposal that could pay hundreds of dollars for supervising a team of politiqueras.
They are helping, most say, enabling a person to exercise his or her constitutional right to vote. Some like Gonzalez say they are volunteers and make no money, and are only in it for the good of the community. Others are documented as paid in campaign finance reports, sometimes by local district attorneys and judges -- the same officials who are responsible for determining if the vote-harvesting has crossed over into illegal activity.
Rene Guerra, district attorney in Hidalgo County, saw a grand jury hand up 43 counts of voter fraud on a number of individuals -- some who he admits may have helped him win elections -- in a massive 2005 case presented by the Texas Rangers. As the years went by, he dropped all but one of the cases. Nothing there, he said.
In a county that is legendary for its politiquera activity, Guerra said he has never been able to prove voter fraud.
“It’s almost impossible to prove that,” Guerra said. “If I pay you $10 or a hamburger to vote for Obama or Bush, and you go vote, how do you prove it?"
The witnesses to the crime don't help, either.
"As some dementia sets into the elderly block of voters they’re prone to contradict themselves in statements. It will be the killing shot for prosecution," he said.
'A FAIR ELECTION. FINALLY.'
The state Attorney General’s office has proclaimed war on people like those vote harvesters, though the office can only act when its assistance is requested by a local law enforcement agency.
Still, the AG this year successfully wrapped up 10 cases of voter-related issues, including mail-in ballot fraud, and filed nine more cases that have not yet been heard. Bueno, who explained how voter fraud works in a Texas Watchdog story this year, pleaded guilty in June to one count of mishandling mail-in ballots along with two others in Jim Wells County. All those convicted received the same punishment: a year of probation, a 180-day suspended jail sentence, a $200 fine and 40 hours of community work.
Few ever get jail time, even with confessions.
“Nothing happens,” said Lucy Lopez, an alderman in Taft, Texas. “And so people get to the point where, why even say anything about it?”
Gus Flores, the county commissioner who pushed his case in Val Verde County, said the only way for him to disrupt the entrenched voter fraud system was to take it into a courtroom. It cost him tens of thousands of dollars, he said. “But that election was stolen from me, and we had to prove it."
Even the local Democratic party was against him, Flores said, and together with League of United Latin American Citizens tried to prevent the do-over election, saying the date of Sept. 25 did not allow adequate time for voter participation.
Diana Salgado, chair of the local Democratic party, said the judge's verdict enabling a new election "was a poor decision. ... There's much more to this story than was presented." She did not return a follow-up call.
“It never mattered,” Flores said. “They knew the election was wrong, but it’s the way its been done here for many years. And it reaches all the way to the top, the top officials.
“But in the end, we had a fair election. Finally."
Voter fraud occurs in Texas, though convictions and guilty pleas are rare
False
Texas’ attorney general, Greg Abbott, has his facts wrong on the voting process, U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson said in an opinion column published Aug. 8, 2013, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
For example, "Abbott advocates the use of voter ID laws, allegedly to stop voter fraud," the Dallas Democrat wrote. "Studies have shown that voter fraud is non-existent in Texas."
"Non-existent" is pretty strong; we don’t have to look any farther than our own reporting to know that statement isn’t entirely accurate. But how prevalent is voter fraud in Texas?
Johnson spokesman Cameron Trimble told us by phone and email that the column should have said "virtually" non-existent. He sent us web links to research and news stories that described nationwide voter fraud as rare. None of the materials analyzed fraud in Texas specifically, and we found only one mention of a Texas case -- the 2006 conviction of a Pecos woman who filled out and mailed absentee ballots for others.
Trimble’s sources mostly referred to voter fraud -- deception committed by individual voters, such as voting more than once, impersonating a voter or voting despite ineligibility -- rather than overall election fraud, which encompasses actions by others, such as election officials or campaign workers, who break election laws in ways that could include intimidating voters, publishing misinformation about polling places or possessing ballots not their own.
We dipped into that distinction in an April 2012 fact-check that rated as Half True a claim from Abbott that he had secured 50 convictions for election fraud. Abbott’s basis was his office’s records on 2002-12 prosecutions for alleged election code violations.
For this fact-check, we asked Abbott’s office for an updated list. County district attorneys and the Texas secretary of state’s elections division usually refer allegations of election code violations to the attorney general. We also called the secretary’s office and several district attorney offices around the state, but found no specific information about how many violations were reported or prosecuted.
Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean emailed us records showing that from August 2002 through September 2012, the office received 616 allegations of election-code violations and recorded 78 election-code prosecutions.
By our count, 46 of the prosecutions ended with a conviction, guilty plea, no-contest plea or guilty plea as part of deferred adjudication. Of those, 18 cases appeared to involve fraud committed by individual voters: 12 cases with ineligible voters, five cases of voter impersonation and one case of voting more than once.
So, by our reading of the attorney general’s records, 18 instances of voter fraud have been confirmed in Texas since 2002.
In 2012, the News21 investigative project headquartered at Arizona State University’s journalism school compiled a database that showed 104 Texas cases of alleged election fraud among 2,068 nationwide since 2000.
The News21 students, who published their results online Aug. 12, 2012, gathered allegations through public information requests, news accounts and court records. According to the project’s website, they included all cases "that had reached some level of official action: That is, someone was charged, an investigation was opened, a specific accusation was made against a named person."
News21 determined that 37 of the 104 Texas allegations were made against voters. Most of the cases were still pending at the time the students published their project in 2012, but 15 had resulted in a guilty plea or conviction, according to the database.
Our ruling
Johnson said, "Studies have shown that voter fraud is non-existent in Texas."
She did not provide, nor did we find, studies showing such fraud to be non-existent. To the contrary, Abbott’s records show 18 convictions, no-contest pleas or guilty pleas on voter fraud charges from 2002 through 2012. That’s not a lot of fraud, by any means, but it still evidently occurred.
Johnson might have meant to say "virtually non-existent," but the Truth-O-Meter holds individuals accountable for what they actually say. We rate this statement as False.
To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud.
More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide.
There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country.
More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.
Maryland affiliates of True The Vote uncovered cases of people registering and voting after their respective deaths.
This year, True The Vote uncovered more than 348,000 dead people on the rolls in 27 states.
California: 49,000
Florida: 30,000
Texas: 28,500
Michigan: 25,000
Illinois: 24,000
12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.
The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.
Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration.
The Florida New Majority Education Fund, Democratic Party of Florida and the National Council of La Raza are currently under investigation for alleged voter registration fraud.
True The Vote is Chuck Norris approved.
How popular is Voter ID?
74 percent of Americans support, according to The Washington Post.
71 percent of Latinos support it, according to the PEW Research Center.
How did our voting records get so bad?
Various groups threaten local election authorities to not maintain their rolls according to federal law:
http://www.rottenacorn.com/index.html [url]ACORN returned to the national spotlight during the 2008 election when its employees turned in fraudulent voter registration files, including listing the Dallas Cowboys’ starting lineup as voters in Nevada. This blatant attempt at fraud led authorities to raid ACORN’s offices in the state. Not to be outdone, ACORN canvassers in Florida actually attempted to turn in forms registering Mickey Mouse as a voter. And ACORN managed to register a seven-year old girl to vote in Connecticut. The list goes on.
Nation-wide investigations into ACORN’s role in voter fraud have yielded dozens of indictments. Nevada recently charged ACORN with 26 counts of voter registration fraud and 13 counts of illegally compensating canvassers. In Pennsylvania, seven Pittsburgh-area ACORN employees were charged with falsifying voter registration forms. Six of them were accused of doing so to meet an illegal quota system.
Spoiler:
State Year Details
AR 1998 A contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested for falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.
CO 2005 Two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in Denver of perjury for submitting false voter registrations.
2004 An ACORN employee admitted to forging signatures and registering three of her friends to vote 40 times.
CT 2008 The New York Post reported that ACORN submitted a voter registration card for a 7-year-old Bridgeport girl. Another 8,000 cards from the same city will be scrutinized for possible fraud.
FL 2009 In September, 11 ACORN workers were accused of forging voter registration applications in Miami-Dade County during the last election. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the state attorney’s office scoured hundreds of suspicious applications provided by ACORN and found 197 of 260 contained personal ID information that did not match any living person.
2008 Election officials in Brevard County have given prosecutors more than 23 suspect registrations from ACORN. The state's Division of Elections is also investigating complaints in Orange and Broward Counties.
2004 A Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman said ACORN was “singled out” among suspected voter registration groups for a 2004 wage initiative because it was “the common thread” in the agency’s fraud investigations.
IN 2008 Election officials in Indiana have thrown out more than 4,000 ACORN-submitted voter registrations after finding they had identical handwriting and included the names of many deceased Indianans, and even the name of a fast food restaurant.
MI 2008 Clerks in Detroit found a "sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent [voter] applications" from the Michigan branch of ACORN. Those applications have been turned over to the U.S. Attorney's office for investigation.
2004 The Detroit Free Press reported that “overzealous or unscrupulous campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to register nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters.” ACORN-affiliate Project Vote was one of two groups suspected of turning in the documents.
MO 2008 Nearly 400 ACORN-submitted registrations in Kansas City have been rejected due to duplication or fake information.
2007 Four ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City for charges including identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election.
2006 Eight ACORN employees in St. Louis were indicted on federal election fraud charges. Each of the eight faces up to five years in prison for forging signatures and submitting false information.
2003 Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid. At least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally.
MN 2004 During a traffic stop, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee, who had violated a legal requirements that registration cards be submitted to the Secretary of State within 10 days of being filled out and signed.
NC 2008 County elections officials have sent suspicious voter registration applications to the state Board of Elections. Many of the applications had similar or identical names, but with different addresses or dates of birth.
2004 North Carolina officials investigated ACORN for submitting fake voter registration cards.
NM 2008 Prosecutors are investigating more than 1,100 ACORN-submitted voter registration cards after a county clerk found them to be fraudulent. Many of the cards included duplicate names and slightly altered personal information.
2005 Four ACORN employees submitted as many as 3,000 potentially fraudulent signatures on the group’s Albuquerque ballot initiative. A local sheriff added: “It’s safe to say the forgery was widespread.”
2004 An ACORN employee registered a 13-year-old boy to vote. Citing this and other examples, New Mexico State Representative Joe Thompson stated that ACORN was “manufacturing voters” throughout New Mexico.
NV 2009 Nevada authorities indicted ACORN on 26 counts of voter registration fraud and 13 counts of illegally compensating canvassers. ACORN provided a bonus compensation program called “Blackjack” or “21+” for any canvasser who registered more than 20 voters per shift, which is illegal under Nevada law.
2008 Nevada state authorities raided ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters as part of a task force investigation of election fraud. Fraudulent registrations included players from the Dallas Cowboys.
OH 2008 ACORN activists gave Ohio residents cash and cigarettes in exchange for filling out voter registration card, according to the New York Post. Some voters claim to have registered dozens of times, and one man says he signed up on 72 cards.
2007 A man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties.
2004 A grand jury indicted a Columbus ACORN worker for submitting a false signature and false voter registration form. In Franklin County, two ACORN workers submitted what the director of the board of election supervisors called “blatantly false” forms. In Cuyahoga County, ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote submitted registration cards that had the highest rate of errors for any voter registration group.
PA 2009 Seven ACORN workers in the Pittsburgh area were indicted for submitting falsified voter registration forms. Six of the seven were also indicted for registering voters under an illegal quota system.
2008 State election officials have thrown out 57,435 voter registrations, the majority of which were submitted by ACORN. The registrations were thrown out after officials found "clearly fraudulent" signatures, vacant lots listed as addresses, and other signs of fraud.
2008 An ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail.
2004 Reading’s Director of Elections received calls from numerous individuals complaining that ACORN employees deliberately put inaccurate information on their voter registration forms. The Berks County director of elections said voter fraud was “absolutely out of hand,” and added: “Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registration but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations.” The Berks County deputy director of elections added that ACORN was under investigation by the Department of Justice.
TX 2008 In Harris County, nearly 10,000 ACORN-submitted registrations were found to be invalid, including many with clearly fraudulent addresses or other personal information.
2008 ACORN turned in the voter registration form of David Young, who told reporters “The signature is not my signature. It’s not even close.” His social security number and date of birth were also incorrect.
VA 2005 In 2005, the Virginia State Board of Elections admonished Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote. Many of these registrations carried social security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or commercial addresses, or were for convicted felons in violation of state and federal election law.
In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible. Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote, “information appears to have been altered on some applications where information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with § 24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."
WA 2007 Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive.
WI 2008 At least 33,000 ACORN-submitted registrations in Milwaukee have been called into question after it was found that the organizations had been using felons as registration workers, in violation of state election rules. Two people involved in the ongoing Wisconsin voter fraud investigation have been charged with felonies.
2004 The district attorney’s office investigated seven voter registration applications Project Vote employees filed in the names of people who said the group never contacted them. Former Project Vote employee Robert Marquise Blakely told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he had not met with any of the people whose voter registration applications he signed, “an apparent violation of state law,” according to the paper.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Building confidence in U.S. elections is central to our nation’s democracy. At a time when there is growing skepticism with our electoral system, the Commission believes that a bold new approach is essential. The Commission envisions a system that makes Americans proud of themselves as citizens and of democracy in the United States. We should have an electoral system where registering to vote is convenient, voting is efficient and pleasant, voting machines work properly, fraud is deterred, and disputes are handled fairly and expeditiously.
This report represents a comprehensive proposal for modernizing our electoral system. We propose to construct the new edifice for elections on five pillars:
First, we propose a universal voter registration system in which the states, not local jurisdictions, are responsible for the accuracy and quality of the voter lists. Additionally, we propose that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) develop a mechanism to connect all states’ list. These topdown and interoperable registration lists will, if implemented successfully, eliminate the vast majority of complaints currently leveled against the election system. States will retain control over their registration list, but a distributed database can remove interstate duplicates and help states to maintain an up-to-date, fully accurate registration list. This would mean people would need to register only once in their lifetime, and it would be easy to update their registration information when they move. We also propose that all states establish uniform procedures for counting provisional ballots, and many members recommend that the ballots should be counted if the citizen has voted in the correct jurisdiction.
Second, to make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the "REAL ID card" or an equivalent for people without a drivers license. To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.
Third, we propose measures that will increase voting participation by having the states assume greater responsibility to register citizens, make voting more convenient, and offer more information on registration lists and voting. States should allow experimentation with voting centers. We propose ways to facilitate voting by overseas military and civilians and ways to make sure that people with disabilities have full access to voting. In addition, we ask the states to allow for restoration of voting rights for ex-felons (other than individuals convicted of capital crimes or registered sex offenders) when they have fully served their sentence. We also identify several voter and civic education programs that could increase participation and inform voters, for example, by providing information on candidates and the voting process to citizens before the election. States and local jurisdictions should use Web sites, toll-free numbers, and other means to inform citizens about their registration status and the location of their precinct.
To improve ballot integrity, we propose that federal, state, and local prosecutors issue public reports on their investigations of election fraud, and we recommend federal legislation to deter or prosecute systemic efforts to deceive or intimidate voters. States should not discourage legal voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities, but they need to do more to prevent voter registration and absentee ballot fraud.
Fourth, we propose ways to give confidence to voters using electronic voting machines that their votes will be counted accurately. We call for an auditable backup on paper at this time, but we recognize the possibility of alternative technologies to audit those machines in the future. We encourage independent testing of voting systems (to include voting machines and software source code) under EAC supervision.
Finally, we recommend strengthening and restructuring the system by which elections have been administered in our country. We propose that the EAC and state election management bodies be reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis to become more independent and effective. We cannot build confidence in elections if secretaries of state responsible for certifying votes are simultaneously chairing political campaigns, and the EAC cannot undertake the additional responsibilities recommended by this report, including critical research, without gaining additional funds and support. Polling stations should be organized to reduce the chances of long lines; they should maintain "log-books" on Election Day to record complaints; and they need electronic poll-books to help voters find their correct precinct. HAVA should be fully funded and implemented by 2006.
The Commission puts forward 87 specific recommendations. Here are a few of the others:
We propose that the media improve coverage of elections by providing at least five minutes of candidate discourse every night in the month preceding the election.
We ask news organizations to voluntarily refrain from projecting presidential election results until polls close in the 48 contiguous states.
We request that all of the states provide unrestricted access to all legitimate domestic and international election observers, as we insist of other countries, but only one state currently permits; and
We propose changing the presidential primary schedule by creating four regional primaries.
Election reform is neither easy nor inexpensive. Nor can we succeed if we think of providing funds on a one-time basis. We need to view the administration of elections as a continuing challenge, which requires the highest priority of our citizens and our government. . .
5.1 INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF ELECTION FRAUD
While election fraud is difficult to measure, it occurs. The U.S. Department of Justice has launched more than 180 investigations into election fraud since October 2002. These investigations have resulted in charges for multiple voting, providing false information on their felon status, and other offenses against 89 individuals and in convictions of 52 individuals. The convictions related to a variety of election fraud offenses, from vote buying to submitting false voter registration information and voting-related offenses by non-citizens.54
In addition to the federal investigations, state attorneys general and local prosecutors handle cases of election fraud. Other cases are never pursued because of the difficulty in obtaining sufficient evidence for prosecution or because of the low priority given to election fraud cases. One district attorney, for example, explained that he did not pursue allegations of fraudulent voter registration because that is a victimless and nonviolent crime.55
Election fraud usually attracts public attention and comes under investigation only in close elections. Courts may only overturn an election result if there is proof that the number of irregular or fraudulent votes exceeded the margin of victory. When there is a wide margin, the losing candidate rarely presses for an investigation. Fraud in any degree and in any circumstance is subversive to the electoral process. The best way to maintain ballot integrity is to investigate all credible allegations of election fraud and otherwise prevent fraud before it can affect an election.
Investigation and prosecution of election fraud should include those acts committed by individuals, including election officials, poll workers, volunteers, challengers or other nonvoters associated with the administration of elections, and not just fraud by voters.
Frazzled wrote: It was horrible, just horrible. I was forced to show some ID, just like last time. I gave them the option of TDL, CHl, or passport. ; ) Oh Noes Da Horror!!!!
I too had to show my ID when I went and voted, at a polling place I spent 4.5 years in (the .5 was my student teaching), and one of the poll workers taught at my school when I went there. I was greeted, and then even though he knew me, asked for my name and my ID to verify the address on my ID matched my voter registration. I then signed the book to say, "yes I is who I said I is" and then I went and voted.
Sept. 5, 2013. Between 2008 and 2012, 475 cases of voter fraud in North Carolina were referred for prosecution, according to a new NC Board of Elections report obtained by the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina (after repeated requests), which undermines claims that voter fraud in North Carolina is insignificant.
“This looks like an interim report, but it shows some disturbing numbers,” said Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of Voter Integrity Project-NC. “Because reports of voter fraud often don’t get referred for prosecution until the year after an election, the extent of potential fraud in the 2012 election still remains to be seen. The large increase in fraud referrals in 2012 over 2008 suggests that substantial fraud occurred in last year’s election, but the full numbers have not yet been reported. In any event, these numbers totally crush the lie that there is no voter fraud in North Carolina”
“Opponents of North Carolina’s new election law often point to the low prosecution rates to support their denials of voter fraud in North Carolina,” said DeLancy. “This report raises a more disturbing question: Why are District Attorneys in North Carolina so negligent in prosecuting election fraud?”
...Ohhhhhhhhhhh you.
Next time before trying to pull a "GOTCHA!" moment I suggest you actually do some research.
Educate yourself as to why. The "Voter Integrity Project-NC" is an offshoot of "True the Vote" and is run by Jay deLancey.
Also since you still do not seem to grasp what a lot of people are saying:
The fact is not necessarily that it is disenfranchisement. It is the fact that these laws were passed as a solution to a supposed epidemic of voter fraud--which doesn't actually seem to exist.
Easy E wrote: huh. That is intersting. I want to see more ver the course of more elections, but I find the initial results in this one Texas election promising.
Still, I think the core of my problem with the Voter ID laws is they are a solution looking for a problem.
We have an open border here. Its more than a solution looking for a problem. But I agree. It should be part of an overarching series of measures to insure voter infranchisement. This would include ovter guides, a full array over voter locations, multiple day voting, and careful oversight of the absentee and regular voting process to insure no fraud, or inversely, that eligible voters can indeed vote.
Next time before trying to pull a "GOTCHA!" moment I suggest you actually do some research.
Educate yourself as to why. The "Voter Integrity Project-NC" is an offshoot of "True the Vote" and is run by Jay deLancey.
Also since you still do not seem to grasp what a lot of people are saying:
The fact is not necessarily that it is disenfranchisement. It is the fact that these laws were passed as a solution to a supposed epidemic of voter fraud--which doesn't actually seem to exist.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh you
Crying about things being statistically insignificant, yet somehow not even reading your own link
Her name was one of nearly 30,000 across the state that volunteers with the Voter Integrity Project identified two weeks ago as potentially being dead but still registered to vote. The Voter Integrity Project is a North Carolina offshoot of True the Vote, a national movement that purports to combat election fraud by challenging the voter registration of those they believe should not be on voter lists.
"We're not really interested in partisan politics," said Jay DeLancy, a retired Air Force officer and director of Voter Integrity Project. "As an organization, we try to eliminate those kinds of biases in our research."
However, the subject of voter fraud is inextricably linked to the current political conversation. Republicans in many states, including North Carolina, have led efforts to pass laws that would require people to present picture identification when they go to the polls. That effort failed in North Carolina, but DeLancy recently appeared on a Fox News Channel show calling such laws "common sense". Democrats have generally pushed back against such laws, saying they would disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters.
Since DeLancy's group gave those names of potentially dead voters to the State Board of Elections, state and county elections officials have been investigating the list. Some names were already removed through regular list maintenance procedures, officials say. Others required further investigation. In Wake County, letters went to the families of 148 possibly deceased voters.
So far, 42 have sounded off that they're still among the living.
The argument for disenfranchisement was the one that was commonly brought up in each previous thread, along with accusations of racism. Both of which have proven unfounded. Now you're trying to argue the scale of fraud after it has been demonstrated that the numbers are skewed because DAs do not want to prosecute the crime, and that a bi-partisan group also stated that voter fraud is an issue.
Would that be True The Vote that was targeted by the IRS?
Oh, and congratulations. Your second link did nothing but prove that voter fraud convictions are so low because of serious hurdles to overcome, especially when non-citizens are having their illegally cast ballots protected. That and you ignored absolutely everything else that counters your argument.
Next time before trying to pull a "GOTCHA!" moment I suggest you actually do some research.
Educate yourself as to why. The "Voter Integrity Project-NC" is an offshoot of "True the Vote" and is run by Jay deLancey.
Also since you still do not seem to grasp what a lot of people are saying:
The fact is not necessarily that it is disenfranchisement. It is the fact that these laws were passed as a solution to a supposed epidemic of voter fraud--which doesn't actually seem to exist.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh you
Crying about things being statistically insignificant, yet somehow not even reading your own link
Her name was one of nearly 30,000 across the state that volunteers with the Voter Integrity Project identified two weeks ago as potentially being dead but still registered to vote. The Voter Integrity Project is a North Carolina offshoot of True the Vote, a national movement that purports to combat election fraud by challenging the voter registration of those they believe should not be on voter lists.
"We're not really interested in partisan politics," said Jay DeLancy, a retired Air Force officer and director of Voter Integrity Project. "As an organization, we try to eliminate those kinds of biases in our research."
However, the subject of voter fraud is inextricably linked to the current political conversation. Republicans in many states, including North Carolina, have led efforts to pass laws that would require people to present picture identification when they go to the polls. That effort failed in North Carolina, but DeLancy recently appeared on a Fox News Channel show calling such laws "common sense". Democrats have generally pushed back against such laws, saying they would disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters.
Since DeLancy's group gave those names of potentially dead voters to the State Board of Elections, state and county elections officials have been investigating the list. Some names were already removed through regular list maintenance procedures, officials say. Others required further investigation. In Wake County, letters went to the families of 148 possibly deceased voters.
So far, 42 have sounded off that they're still among the living.
The argument for disenfranchisement was the one that was commonly brought up in each previous thread, along with accusations of racism. Both of which have proven unfounded. Now you're trying to argue the scale of fraud after it has been demonstrated that the numbers are skewed because DAs do not want to prosecute the crime, and that a bi-partisan group also stated that voter fraud is an issue.
"True the Vote" and the "Voter Integrity Project" are anything but a "bi-partisan group".
And once again you have missed what is actually important.
But Bartlett adds that neither the state nor any of the county boards have yet discovered someone who voted when they should not have as a result of the Voter Integrity Project's submission. Bartlett says he doesn't rule out the possibility it could happen, but he points out that election officials have access to Social Security numbers, birthdays and drivers license numbers that citizen groups cannot legally get. All of those pieces of information have been used to differentiate between those who are really dead and those who are expected to show up at the polls this November, he said.
"The takeaway so far is that our lists are pretty good," Bartlett said.
Would that be True The Vote that was targeted by the IRS?
Sure, and that's also "True the Vote" that has the tagline "If you see something at the polls that just doesn't seem right, record it." and was --surprise surprise--founded in Texas by a Tea Partier. Voter Integrity Project has the same ties to the Tea Party as well.
Oh, and congratulations. Your second link did nothing but prove that voter fraud convictions are so low because of serious hurdles to overcome, especially when non-citizens are having their illegally cast ballots protected. That and you ignored absolutely everything else that counters your argument.
No, I ignored everything unrelated to North Carolina. There's a difference.
Plus when you link from a source called "rottenacorn.com" about something relating to ACORN, it's kind of hard to take you seriously. It's like you are unable to sort the junk from the legitimate and keep going for the junk.
whembly wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how/why Voter ID is racist again...
Because context matters. The people who write these laws know perfectly well who they're targeting, this isn't just some abstract theory about how to run a fair election.
That's not answer... that's spin.
Why is it racistto have Voter ID laws?
Sure, you'd have a point that such laws is a change pre/post laws. Most folks are generally resistant to change and because of that *could* have some impact. But these are not onerous requirements.
So you ignore everything that does not relate to North Carolina and get upset that people aren't talking about North Carolina specifically..... but you feel the need to inject North Carolina into a discussion about Texas voter ID law
You may have missed the link that I specifically flagged as bi-partisan, not the two that you think I indicated were bi-partisan, so I'll let you go back and actually read my posts again to find it. At least you're honest enough to say that you just reject some posts out of turn just because you'd rather shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message.
Still waiting to hear how these free IDs are not free also
So, in case you missed it;
- no disenfranchisement of Texan voters
- increased turn out from Texan voters
- increased turnout from minorities under the Texan law
- little to no difficulty of providing required documents, including my Democrats who attempted to become martyrs to the cause
- voter fraud of all stripes is under reported, and many DAs refuse to prosecute it, which skews the figures tremendously
Isn’t the main argument against voted ID laws that people from minorities are less likely to be have a form of ID?
To be honest I’m not convinced by this argument, furthermore I think the suggestion that people from poorer backgrounds just won’t bother vote if they are asked to provide an ID is actually rather patronizing.
I had a problem voting in the last election as they had my name backwards on my voter ID and I didn't catch it. My last name is a common first name, and it was reversed.
I showed them my voter registration card and driver's license, they made a call to someone, and I got to vote.
kronk wrote: I had a problem voting in the last election as they had my name backwards on my voter ID and I didn't catch it. My last name is a common first name, and it was reversed.
I showed them my voter registration card and driver's license, they made a call to someone, and I got to vote.
Its almost as if resolving a genuine mistake over a name when attempting to vote is not a difficult task
It was also easy to fix afterwards. I called them up and they said "You must have filled out the paper work incorrectly, but we'll look." Not 2 hours later, the same lady called me as said that they found my original paperwork and the mistake was theirs. I got a new voter registration card about a month later.
I added a picture above to make it easier for you to see the obvious.
Also, notice the bold part:
whembly wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how/why Voter ID is racist again...
Good to see you finally realize you're just asking the same question over and over again despite getting what must at this point be hundreds of posts in reply.
But don't let me get in the way of your rally here. DEY TERK ER VOTES!
I want to honestly see if they can find anyone who was not allowed to vote because of tthe ID problem. I used to be on the side of no ID voting, but this is compelling evidence, not enough to sawy me until we see it in other states to see if Texas is a phenomenon or not
whembly wrote: I don't see it and I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse here.
Sorry, we're waaaaaay past me believing that, at least on this issue.
Okay... you believe that.
I'm having a hard time believing that you believe that the poor, old, minority, or whatever-flavor-of-the-month someone is incapable of having valid IDs at the time of their vote.
whembly wrote: I don't see it and I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse here.
Sorry, we're waaaaaay past me believing that, at least on this issue.
Okay... you believe that.
I'm having a hard time believing that you believe that the poor, old, minority, or whatever-flavor-of-the-month someone is incapable of having valid IDs at the time of their vote.
You do realize how patronizing that is?
Actually, as it was established in the last Voter ID thread, Manchu doesn't want any sort of identification required at the polls.
whembly wrote: I don't see it and I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse here.
Sorry, we're waaaaaay past me believing that, at least on this issue.
Okay... you believe that.
I'm having a hard time believing that you believe that the poor, old, minority, or whatever-flavor-of-the-month someone is incapable of having valid IDs at the time of their vote.
You do realize how patronizing that is?
Actually, as it was established in the last Voter ID thread, Manchu doesn't want any sort of identification required at the polls.
Oh yeah, forgot.
Carry on Manchu. I'm also eagerly waiting for your support to drop ID requirements for Food stamps, medicaid, and the like.
I have two perfectly good arguments against Voter ID laws. I know you don't like the first one, about disproportionate racial and socio-economic impact. But the second one, about useless government interference with individual rights, should be right up your ally.
The fact that you don't go for that one either is, I believe, pretty damn telling.
I have two perfectly good arguments against Voter ID laws. I know you don't like the first one, about disproportionate racial and socio-economic impact. But the second one, about useless government interference with individual rights, should be right up your ally.
The fact that you don't go for that one either is, I believe, pretty damn telling.
Telling what Manchu? What are you really trying to say?
And further more, what about the disproportionate racial and socio-economic impact? How do you figure that?
Considering I have to provide ID and affirm multiple things to use my Second Amendment Rights, this fits right in with Voter ID Law for voting. Try harder Manchu.
Horse gak, both are guaranteed under the Constitution. The Right to Bear Arms is specifically guaranteed. The right to vote is not even in the Bill of Rights.
You know, you're right. The gun comparison can be apropos. Consumers are required to prove who they are when buying a firearm because certain people cannot buy firearms thanks to gun crime. The comparable argument here is that voters must show ID because non-citizens are voting and citizens are committing voter fraud.
EXCEPT that last part isn't true. The real reason for Voter ID laws is 100% transparent. Go on pretending otherwise.
whembly wrote: Damn... you were on a mission to "change minds" and when someone doesn't comply, they're automatically in your "partisan hack" bucket
We had something like 3+ days of discussion where you willfully ignored a conservative critique of voter ID laws. The issue was settled in a manner that was far from automatic.
whembly wrote: Damn... you were on a mission to "change minds" and when someone doesn't comply, they're automatically in your "partisan hack" bucket
We had something like 3+ days of discussion where you willfully ignored a conservative critique of voter ID laws. The issue was settled in a manner that was far from automatic.
Right... first... you accuse me of a "partisan hack"... assuming that I parrot whatever right-winger leader preaches.
Then, you're accusing me of a "willfully ignored a conservative critique" of the Voter ID laws, as if I'm "stepping out of line" of whatever ideological group you think I'm in... (a red conservative one...amirite?)
Make up your damn mind brah.
You see... stereotyping is bad, dontcha know? It's like profiling, or something.
Plus, in the end, I tried to reconcile by saying "let's agree to disagree, and move on", which you rejected.
*shrugs*
I still wanna know from you why Voter ID laws is institutional racism. Or, were you simply being hyperbolic?
Having moved to NC from VA I understand how hard it is to deal with the DMV in NC in the charlotte area. It took me a Total of 20 minutes to get, My NC Class A Commercial Driver's license, My DOT medical card recorded, and to register to vote. It was probably my 2nd best visit to A DMV ever. (the best one is the VA DMV on the border between NC and VA near galax on 77, lady there was so sweet)
Now if you want to Complain about a DMV go to one in Arlington, VA Where I got to wait 8 hours to get my driver's license because the Camera's went down After the 2nd fething person went through(i was 4th) and they didn't have anyone at the facitlity to reset them , and when they finally got them fixed The teller and myself were getting yelled at by some middle eastern guy calling the teller rascist because the teller called me up instead of him.
You know, you're right. The gun comparison can be apropos. Consumers are required to prove who they are when buying a firearm because certain people cannot buy firearms thanks to gun crime. The comparable argument here is that voters must show ID because non-citizens are voting and citizens are committing voter fraud.
EXCEPT that last part isn't true. The real reason for Voter ID laws is 100% transparent. Go on pretending otherwise.
Aren't felons unable to vote as well as purchase a firearm? I guess it goes from state to state, but if you want to use that argument for gun purchases we can apply it to voting
Grey Templar wrote: We aren't seeing any evidence of disproportionate racial and socio-economic impact. If anything, it suggests the opposite.
That's only what the evidence says after all
Co'tor Shas wrote: On the other hand, it is very hard to kill someone with a vote.
Unless you drop a voting booth on them.
Tell that to all those Americans suffering from serious illnesses that have gotten cancellation notices through the mail and are facing this very real possibility
Manchu wrote: Yes, poll taxes are actually what empowers the marginalized! Good thing we got rid of that patronizing Voter Rights Act, too.
Free ID (that needs documents that are also initially provided free) is now a tax?
Manchu wrote: You know, you're right. The gun comparison can be apropos. Consumers are required to prove who they are when buying a firearm because certain people cannot buy firearms thanks to gun crime. The comparable argument here is that voters must show ID because non-citizens are voting and citizens are committing voter fraud.
You know, except for the evidence that has been provided in this thread (and others) that not only does voter fraud exist, but that the numbers are artificially low because DAs (who just so happened to be voted into office) do not believe that it is a high priority crime, and some have the view that it is "victimless"
The fact that you ignore the evidence that stands contrary to your stated position, then have the gall to call others in this thread "a partisan hack" is actually beyond satire. The fact that a moderator is also playing fast and loose with the rules he is meant to be upholding is another matter altogether.
whembly wrote: I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how/why Voter ID is racist again...
Good to see you finally realize you're just asking the same question over and over again despite getting what must at this point be hundreds of posts in reply.
But don't let me get in the way of your rally here. DEY TERK ER VOTES!
Oh... just saw this addendum.
No one has yet responded to that question.
It's always "you need to understand the Context" or some rubbish.
This post shows one set of evidence that Voter ID laws do NOT suppress votes... and you just flat out disregarded it.
The fact that you can't adequately address my question is telling.
The fact that you've flat out ignored that these Voter IDs laws has survived multiple court challeges... is telling.
You can oppose it and state your reasons. That's fine.
I'm going to let you in my grandmother's tactic in arguments.
"You think you're right, I know I'm right... and that's THAT!"
Frazzled wrote: Considering I have to provide ID and affirm multiple things to use my Second Amendment Rights, this fits right in with Voter ID Law for voting. Try harder Manchu.
Don't forget, if you make a purchase of a Class III item for your weapon such as a suppressor, you also have to pay a $200 Stamp Tax to the Fed in order to exercise your Second Amendment right. Never hear liberals rail against that as being too punitive to minorities.
As long as the ID's are provided free then all the poll tax/"minority rights" issues becomes nothing more than strawman arguments. So, Manchu, show me a place in the US where mandatory voter ID has been adopted where the ID is not available free to those who can provide citizenship and residence.
whembly wrote: No one has yet responded to that question.
What a joke. This has gone on for so long now across so many threads. Just because you pretend no one has answered your ridiculous questions in painstaking detail countless times doesn't make it true.
Voter ID suppresses the deceased vote. So not only does it fully constitute voter suppression, it's also blatant racism, because some of the deceased are minorities. So there.
whembly wrote: No one has yet responded to that question.
What a joke. This has gone on for so long now across so many threads. Just because you pretend no one has answered your ridiculous questions in painstaking detail countless times doesn't make it true.
I'm talking about YOU support your assertion that Voter ID laws is INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.
All you've done is accused me of political hackery and not being a Good Little Small Government Conservative.
Showing a god damned ID at a polling place is no fething different than showing an ID for all other day-to-day activities.
So how come I don't hear you complain with the great state of Illinois or California Voter ID laws...eh? Oh... right... context matters eh? Doesn't matter in those blue state huh...
Cadorius wrote: Voter ID suppresses the deceased vote. So not only does it fully constitute voter suppression, it's also blatant racism, because some of the deceased are minorities. So there.
whembly wrote: So how come I don't hear you complain with the great state of Illinois or California Voter ID laws...eh? Oh... right... context matters eh? Doesn't matter in those blue state huh...
Wait what? Serious question, can you find a single post on this forum where someone attacked voter ID laws in a red state but subsequently defended them in a blue state? Or... anywhere else? Not a trap, I don't know the answer to this, but your tangent is so specific it sounds like maybe you do.
Dreadclaw69 seemed to support Bryan Preston's position, so I will preface my half-assed deconstruction with an attribution to him:
Bryan Preston wrote:
{Texas} Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable
election.
That might be correct if considered in isolation from all the other concomitant, political nonsense that is going on within the United States. But, since Mr. Preston did not make any effort to isolate his chosen variable (voter ID law in Texas, pertaining to Texas elections), it is hard to take him seriously.
Bryan Preston wrote:
According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments.
Lazy analysis. Which ones?
Bryan Preston wrote:
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.
No, not necessarily, it is possible for people to overcome hurdles if they feel strongly enough about a given cause. Indeed, the argument often presented is that such hurdles should not exist.
At any rate, I am truly shocked that lots of people in Texas turned out to vote regarding a Texas Constitutional Amendment which exempts war-widows from property taxes until they remarry.
Bryan Preston wrote:
So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections.
They aren't really comparable. An election after Obama's victory is not comparable to one immediately prior to it.
I mean, we can talk about historical trends if you want, but this is much more immediate.
Bryan Preston wrote:
If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.
Well, that was never the claim. The claim was that voter ID laws would suppress certain votes.
I've lived in California all my life, and I could have sworn they were free back when I got one in high school, but times change. The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
whembly wrote: So how come I don't hear you complain with the great state of Illinois or California Voter ID laws...eh? Oh... right... context matters eh? Doesn't matter in those blue state huh...
Wait what? Serious question, can you find a single post on this forum where someone attacked voter ID laws in a red state but subsequently defended them in a blue state? Or... anywhere else? Not a trap, I don't know the answer to this, but your tangent is so specific it sounds like maybe you do.
Of course not... no one would ever do that.
I get that people don't like "change" and that pre/post VoterID laws are different. With Manchu's vehement objection to the VoterID laws that are being implemented, I was wondering why he hasn't directed his attention to those traditional blue states that requires ID at the polls.
I mean, I can't read his mind, but is he (or anyone else) seriously believe that the "Jim Crow-like" mentality still exist in this country? (and thus, still believe in things like "Pre-clearance" laws?)
Having moved to NC from VA I understand how hard it is to deal with the DMV in NC in the charlotte area. It took me a Total of 20 minutes to get, My NC Class A Commercial Driver's license, My DOT medical card recorded, and to register to vote. It was probably my 2nd best visit to A DMV ever. (the best one is the VA DMV on the border between NC and VA near galax on 77, lady there was so sweet)
Now if you want to Complain about a DMV go to one in Arlington, VA Where I got to wait 8 hours to get my driver's license because the Camera's went down After the 2nd fething person went through(i was 4th) and they didn't have anyone at the facitlity to reset them , and when they finally got them fixed The teller and myself were getting yelled at by some middle eastern guy calling the teller rascist because the teller called me up instead of him.
The issue that Kanluwen has with the NC voter ID law is this:
1) He has a college ID that he can use to buy cigs and beer with, but under the new laws cannot use these to vote
2) It might be easy for you to get your ID from the DMV, but Kan does not drive and would have to rely on a relative (I believe his mother in this case) or the gak-tastic public transportation in his city to get to and from the DMV just to get a State ID 3) The NC Voter ID law is designed (his words, but I'm paraphrasing) to prevent out of state voters, college kids, and minorities from easily being able to vote. And these groups in the past have tended to vote for Democrats, something the Red State of North Carolina does not want.
But that is Kan's situation just like yours was a very easy time.
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
Because any responsible adult SHOULD have an id?
Does that mean that all those responsible elderly people SHOULD have an ID? That is, one that has not expired?
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
Because any responsible adult SHOULD have an id?
Does that mean that all those responsible elderly people SHOULD have an ID? That is, one that has not expired?
Who said anything about I it being expired or not? Not me.
And yes, all of those responsible elderly people should have some form of photo ID. Every adult should. For multiple reasons.
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
Because any responsible adult SHOULD have an id?
Does that mean that all those responsible elderly people SHOULD have an ID? That is, one that has not expired?
Who said anything about I it being expired or not? Not me.
And yes, all of those responsible elderly people should have some form of photo ID. Every adult should. For multiple reasons.
But here's the rub that Peregrine and I have been trying to get across in relation to NC's voter ID law.
As used in this section, "photo identification" means any one of the following that contains a photograph of the registered voter. In addition, the photo identification shall have a printed expiration date and shall be unexpired, provided that any voter having attained the age of 70 years at the time of presentation at the voting place shall be permitted to present an expired form of any of the following that was unexpired on the voter's 70th birthday. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the case of identification under subdivisions (4) through (6) of this subsection, if it does not contain a printed expiration date, it shall be acceptable if it has a printed issuance date that is not more than eight years before it is presented for voting
That is the wording of SL2013-381. There is a very specific provision for one section of people to vote with unexpired IDs, but nobody else.
Although isn't the main issue not about expired ID's but not having an ID at all?
The issue, at least with NC's law, is that it was a Republican driven initiative for a problem that they claimed existed which has provisions for people who primarily vote Republican to avoid the restrictions imposed by the law that was passed.
That is the wording of SL2013-381. There is a very specific provision for one section of people to vote with unexpired IDs, but nobody else.
They must think that people under 70 can more reasonably get off their asses and act like responsible adults and get an ID. Sounds crazy to me too.
I'm not saying it is crazy or unreasonable, mind you. I'm simply saying that they put in a provision for unexpired IDs for a group which traditionally votes Republican but at the same time went after methods that Democrats have traditionally gotten votes from(early voting and Sunday voting).
whembly wrote: No one has yet responded to that question.
What a joke. This has gone on for so long now across so many threads. Just because you pretend no one has answered your ridiculous questions in painstaking detail countless times doesn't make it true.
I've lived in California all my life, and I could have sworn they were free back when I got one in high school, but times change. The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
I'm actually very surprised that California charges for ID cards, if you require ID to vote then it should be free (a la Texas and NC)
whembly wrote: So how come I don't hear you complain with the great state of Illinois or California Voter ID laws...eh? Oh... right... context matters eh? Doesn't matter in those blue state huh...
Wait what? Serious question, can you find a single post on this forum where someone attacked voter ID laws in a red state but subsequently defended them in a blue state? Or... anywhere else? Not a trap, I don't know the answer to this, but your tangent is so specific it sounds like maybe you do.
Perhaps the point Whembly is trying to make is not that anyone has argued that voter ID in a Red State = Bad, voter ID in a Blue State = good. I think the issue is more that when the discussion of voter ID surfaces it concentrates solely on the Red States and claims of racism and voter suppression. Any mention of voter ID in Blue States is not mentioned, which may come across as a lie by omission
The issue that Kanluwen has with the NC voter ID law is this:
1) He has a college ID that he can use to buy cigs and beer with, but under the new laws cannot use these to vote
2) It might be easy for you to get your ID from the DMV, but Kan does not drive and would have to rely on a relative (I believe his mother in this case) or the gak-tastic public transportation in his city to get to and from the DMV just to get a State ID 3) The NC Voter ID law is designed (his words, but I'm paraphrasing) to prevent out of state voters, college kids, and minorities from easily being able to vote. And these groups in the past have tended to vote for Democrats, something the Red State of North Carolina does not want.
But that is Kan's situation just like yours was a very easy time.
1) Is not that unusual as it is not a State ID 2) Other Constitutional rights require you to jump through a lot more hoops, and we're told that is a good thing. So what happens if he wants to get a driver's license? He'll still have to go to the DMV
3) I still haven't heard how exactly minorities are being targeted by this legislation. Is there a specific provision? The NC legislation is supposed to be in place for elections in a few years so those requiring IDs have plenty of time to get them, and it is not as if this legislation has been shrouded in secrecy. And are out of State voters even eligible to vote? I thought that you had to at least be a resident, in which case you can still get ID
whembly wrote: So how come I don't hear you complain with the great state of Illinois or California Voter ID laws...eh? Oh... right... context matters eh? Doesn't matter in those blue state huh...
Wait what? Serious question, can you find a single post on this forum where someone attacked voter ID laws in a red state but subsequently defended them in a blue state? Or... anywhere else? Not a trap, I don't know the answer to this, but your tangent is so specific it sounds like maybe you do.
Perhaps the point Whembly is trying to make is not that anyone has argued that voter ID in a Red State = Bad, voter ID in a Blue State = good. I think the issue is more that when the discussion of voter ID surfaces it concentrates solely on the Red States and claims of racism and voter suppression. Any mention of voter ID in Blue States is not mentioned, which may come across as a lie by omission
Maybe you should try actually reading comments rather than assuming people are making such generalities?
Maybe because voter ID laws in California were not passed with several specifically targeted caveats written into the law cutting short things like early voting or removing Sunday voting?
Just a thought. If you were to go and read Texas' voter ID law, Pennsylvania's voter ID law, or North Carolina's voter ID law you might notice that there was a lot more in the legislation than just "You now need to present a photographic ID to vote".
The issue that Kanluwen has with the NC voter ID law is this:
1) He has a college ID that he can use to buy cigs and beer with, but under the new laws cannot use these to vote
2) It might be easy for you to get your ID from the DMV, but Kan does not drive and would have to rely on a relative (I believe his mother in this case) or the gak-tastic public transportation in his city to get to and from the DMV just to get a State ID 3) The NC Voter ID law is designed (his words, but I'm paraphrasing) to prevent out of state voters, college kids, and minorities from easily being able to vote. And these groups in the past have tended to vote for Democrats, something the Red State of North Carolina does not want.
But that is Kan's situation just like yours was a very easy time.
1) Is not that unusual as it is not a State ID
Stage college, with the DMV providing the equipment for the IDs. It's as much a state ID as a driver's license. But of course that clearly is not a state ID, huh?
2) Other Constitutional rights require you to jump through a lot more hoops, and we're told that is a good thing. So what happens if he wants to get a driver's license? He'll still have to go to the DMV
I can go to more DMV locations to get a driver's license than I can to get a nonoperator ID. Nonoperator, state issued IDs are supposedly available at all locations but from experience it requires going to the Cary DMV office which is an hour away. There are also several DMV locations in NC which are specifically for tag and license renewals and are in malls meaning that the office hours are tied to the mall hours.
3) I still haven't heard how exactly minorities are being targeted by this legislation. Is there a specific provision? The NC legislation is supposed to be in place for elections in a few years so those requiring IDs have plenty of time to get them, and it is not as if this legislation has been shrouded in secrecy. And are out of State voters even eligible to vote? I thought that you had to at least be a resident, in which case you can still get ID
SL2013-381 removed Sunday voting and shortened early voting--both of which are primarily utilized by Democrats, with Sunday voting being heavily utilized by African Americans through church groups providing transportation for the members of the church.
cincydooley wrote:Listen. I think election day should be a federal holiday, especially if garbage like Columbus Day and Martin Luther king day are.
I can't get behind not having an id. At all. Every adult showed have one, for multiple reasons.
So do you consider an expired ID to be a valid ID, then?
It's a photo ID, yes? Then yes. Presumably the actual voter registration should take care of any address issues, right? Similarly, I'd also accept student IDs as reasonable photo I'd for voting. I'd probably also accept one of those fancy schmancy credit cards with the owner photo on it, too.
I really don't understand what the difficulty with understanding "photo ID" and then obtaining one is. I wish all liquor stores carded people for booze regardless of age. That would encourage some of these lazy gaks to get an id real quick.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe you should try actually reading comments rather than assuming people are making such generalities?
Maybe because voter ID laws in California were not passed with several specifically targeted caveats written into the law cutting short things like early voting or removing Sunday voting?
Just a thought. If you were to go and read Texas' voter ID law, Pennsylvania's voter ID law, or North Carolina's voter ID law you might notice that there was a lot more in the legislation than just "You now need to present a photographic ID to vote".
I thought that we were only talking about NC I'm still looking for the quotes from people on these forums specifically critiscising California (or another Blue State) for implementing a poll tax for actually charging for ID (which neither Texas, nor NC, charge for), or claiming that California's voter ID is an example of institutional racism.
And speaking of actually reading comments - how are these free IDs not free again? And did you find that link that was from the non-partisan group that you missed earlier?
Kanluwen wrote: Stage college, with the DMV providing the equipment for the IDs. It's as much a state ID as a driver's license. But of course that clearly is not a state ID, huh?
And because the BMV provide the equipment that automatically makes it a function of the State? No. It is a college ID. In the same way that a card from a library (which also receives State funding) is not a State ID
Kanluwen wrote: I can go to more DMV locations to get a driver's license than I can to get a nonoperator ID. Nonoperator, state issued IDs are supposedly available at all locations but from experience it requires going to the Cary DMV office which is an hour away. There are also several DMV locations in NC which are specifically for tag and license renewals and are in malls meaning that the office hours are tied to the mall hours.
That is something that should be remedied to enable better access to free ID.
Kanluwen wrote: SL2013-381 removed Sunday voting and shortened early voting--both of which are primarily utilized by Democrats, with Sunday voting being heavily utilized by African Americans through church groups providing transportation for the members of the church.
So they still have the same access to voting as everyone else?
VermGho5t wrote: The "no time available" excuse for not acquiring an ID card is bs. MAKE the time, by getting of your lazy ass, and go and apply for one.
Why should anyone have to spend extra time to solve a "problem" which doesn't exist?
For the same reason the FDA might ban transfa- Wait a minute!
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe you should try actually reading comments rather than assuming people are making such generalities?
Maybe because voter ID laws in California were not passed with several specifically targeted caveats written into the law cutting short things like early voting or removing Sunday voting?
Just a thought. If you were to go and read Texas' voter ID law, Pennsylvania's voter ID law, or North Carolina's voter ID law you might notice that there was a lot more in the legislation than just "You now need to present a photographic ID to vote".
I thought that we were only talking about NC I'm still looking for the quotes from people on these forums specifically critiscising California (or another Blue State) for implementing a poll tax for actually charging for ID (which neither Texas, nor NC, charge for), or claiming that California's voter ID is an example of institutional racism.
And speaking of actually reading comments - how are these free IDs not free again? And did you find that link that was from the non-partisan group that you missed earlier?
Which one? The one from the Voter Integrity Project North Carolina--which receives a hefty donation from Art Pope?
Kanluwen wrote: Stage college, with the DMV providing the equipment for the IDs. It's as much a state ID as a driver's license. But of course that clearly is not a state ID, huh?
And because the BMV provide the equipment that automatically makes it a function of the State? No. It is a college ID. In the same way that a card from a library (which also receives State funding) is not a State ID
Actually the fact that it is a State funded college and using state provided equipment, same as that being used for the photographic IDs which Republicans are claiming cannot be duplicated which would make it a state ID.
And really if you're trying to say that a library card is the same as a college issued photographic ID, you're being willfully ignorant.
Kanluwen wrote: I can go to more DMV locations to get a driver's license than I can to get a nonoperator ID. Nonoperator, state issued IDs are supposedly available at all locations but from experience it requires going to the Cary DMV office which is an hour away. There are also several DMV locations in NC which are specifically for tag and license renewals and are in malls meaning that the office hours are tied to the mall hours.
That is something that should be remedied to enable better access to free ID.
Right, but where will the funding come from? The DMV has already seen budget cuts this year.
Kanluwen wrote: SL2013-381 removed Sunday voting and shortened early voting--both of which are primarily utilized by Democrats, with Sunday voting being heavily utilized by African Americans through church groups providing transportation for the members of the church.
So they still have the same access to voting as everyone else?
If you cannot see why that is an issue, then I think we're done here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: No. What he's saying is only minorities to to church and then vote afterwards. Right?
That's a poor way of putting it, but kinda?
In some of the more rural counties in NC, you have some primarily African American churches that will organize transportation for the more elderly members of the congregation to ensure that they would get to vote on Sundays before going to church.
I'm with Kronk. My "Give a damn button" is missing. Though I do miss the Flaming Mug in Fayetteville. I also proudly proclaimed I have been to "Rick's Bar" downtown Fayetteville best stripper bar before they shut it down. Total blast at their "Fake an Orgasm" competition Night on Thursday there
And really if you're trying to say that a library card is the same as a college issued photographic ID, you're being willfully ignorant.
Your student ID has your address on it and all that jazz? Man, they've really improved them since I was in school.
In some of the more rural counties in NC, you have some primarily African American churches that will organize transportation for the more elderly members of the congregation to ensure that they would get to vote on Sundays before going to church.
Are these folks unable to submit an absentee ballot?
Then why not mandate that all people over 18 must possess some form of valid identification? I mean, if we're going to legislate morality, then we may as well for the gold.
Then why not mandate that all people over 18 must possess some form of valid identification? I mean, if we're going to legislate morality, then we may as well for the gold.
It has nothing to do with morality. You need an id for how many things in the United States? Further, if you get arrested or injured, etc, it only makes it harder for those trying to arrest/assist you.
I mean, please tell me one good reason an adult shouldn't have an ID; I'm more than willing to listen here.
cincydooley wrote: Similarly, I'd also accept student IDs as reasonable photo I'd for voting. I'd probably also accept one of those fancy schmancy credit cards with the owner photo on it, too.
I really don't understand what the difficulty with understanding "photo ID" and then obtaining one is. I wish all liquor stores carded people for booze regardless of age. That would encourage some of these lazy gaks to get an id real quick.
If you would accept student IDs, and expired IDs, then you probably aren't interested in preventing voter fraud.
It has nothing to do with morality. You need an id for how many things in the United States? Further, if you get arrested or injured, etc, it only makes it harder for those trying to arrest/assist you.
I mean, please tell me one good reason an adult shouldn't have an ID; I'm more than willing to listen here.
Using the words "responsible" and "should" relates the issue of possessing ID to morality. Indeed, your most recent comment implies that people should make it easy for themselves to be arrested or assisted, which is a moral claim.
At any rate, I am not going to give you a good reason that adults should not possess ID, because that would involve allowing you to move the goalposts. All that is being claimed is that there exist significant impediments in obtaining valid identification.
Wrong. They're still photo IDs, are they not? Name matches name. Picture matches person voting. Boom. Easy.
Student IDs are very easy to illicitly produce. For example, all of mine have a picture of me, my student ID number, and a magnetic strip on the back. The only way the state could verify these IDs is by comparing either the ID number, or the data present on the magnetic strip, to a register that they would need to assemble. This would be very expensive, and needless given that voter fraud is not a problem in the US.
Regarding expired IDs: the whole point of setting an expiry date is that the identification becomes invalid; as in "not identifying."
Again, you don't seem all that interested in preventing voter fraud.
Then why not mandate that all people over 18 must possess some form of valid identification? I mean, if we're going to legislate morality, then we may as well for the gold.
Well all males at the age of 18 are required by law to fill out a certain form either online or pencil jam at a federal location. Which I wonder how many in the US over the age 18 have registered eh
Then why not mandate that all people over 18 must possess some form of valid identification? I mean, if we're going to legislate morality, then we may as well for the gold.
Well all males at the age of 18 are required by law to fill out a certain form either online or pencil jam at a federal location. Which I wonder how many in the US over the age 18 have registered eh
You mean the selective service card?
Yup. Have it.
Then you shouldn't have an issue with getting a proper form of ID then eh Mind you females do not need to registered for Selective Service. Yet no one screams discrimination eh
Jihadin wrote: Then you shouldn't have an issue with getting a proper form of ID then eh Mind you females do not need to registered for Selective Service. Yet no one screams discrimination eh
Bear in mind that, as I've explained before, registering to vote and Selective Service was actually done through my high school. At the start of each semester they asked if anyone had recently turned 18 and if they had, they were then asked if they filled out voting registration or Selective Service forms.
If you had not then you got a "get out of class free" card for home room as you were then sent to meet with your guidance counselor to fill out the forms. The school then sent the forms in and you received the Selective Service and voter registration cards in the mail at your home.
SLC2013-381 removed those programs so now students have to register on their own time and cannot register through the schools.
Well all males at the age of 18 are required by law to fill out a certain form either online or pencil jam at a federal location. Which I wonder how many in the US over the age 18 have registered eh
Wrong. They're still photo IDs, are they not? Name matches name. Picture matches person voting. Boom. Easy.
Student IDs are very easy to illicitly produce. For example, all of mine have a picture of me, my student ID number, and a magnetic strip on the back. The only way the state could verify these IDs is by comparing either the ID number, or the data present on the magnetic strip, to a register that they would need to assemble. This would be very expensive, and needless given that voter fraud is not a problem in the US.
Regarding expired IDs: the whole point of setting an expiry date is that the identification becomes invalid; as in "not identifying."
Again, you don't seem all that interested in preventing voter fraud.
cincydooley wrote: Listen. I think election day should be a federal holiday, especially if garbage like Columbus Day and Martin Luther king day are.
I can't get behind not having an id. At all. Every adult showed have one, for multiple reasons.
Its way beyond should at this point. You NEED an ID to do basically anything. The idea that any functioning adult could get by in life without one is laughable. You need one to get a job, buy alcohol, drive a car, to get insurance for that car, use a credit card, etc...
Kanluwen wrote: Which one? The one from the Voter Integrity Project North Carolina--which receives a hefty donation from Art Pope?
I'm almost starting to think that either ;
a) you're being deliberately obtuse
b) you're just a reactionary poster and doesn't actually read what someone else posts
Kanluwen wrote: Actually the fact that it is a State funded college and using state provided equipment, same as that being used for the photographic IDs which Republicans are claiming cannot be duplicated which would make it a state ID.
And really if you're trying to say that a library card is the same as a college issued photographic ID, you're being willfully ignorant.
Both are recipients of state (and federal) money, both provide IDs for member use, neither ID is actually a State ID. So it is actually a very apt comparison. The fact that your college borrows the equipment does not mean that any ID they create is therefore a State ID. Does your college have the express legal right to create and issue State ID card?
Kanluwen wrote: If you cannot see why that is an issue, then I think we're done here
If you equate everyone having the same voting rights and equal access to the polls as disenfranchisement then maybe you need a stronger argument. It is a strange day when having equal access to something is seen as targeting minorities
Kanluwen wrote: In some of the more rural counties in NC, you have some primarily African American churches that will organize transportation for the more elderly members of the congregation to ensure that they would get to vote on Sundays before going to church.
So those voters cannot vote the other 6 days of the week (or use mail in votes) like everyone else is entitled to?
But it is nice to see that after complaining about others comparing the Texas voter ID law to North Carolina you're still trying to bring NC into the debate about the Texas voter ID law
And if you're going to go to those means to defraud the voting system, you'd do it with a state ID as well.
Right, I now see where the "illicit ID" commentary came from.
I was not implying that I have many illicit forms of identification, but that I have multiple student IDs and that they can be reproduced illicitly without difficulty.
I went to a state college. My college ID wasn't accepted for alcohol, smokes, anything. Not sure where the notion that just because a state college issued it it's automatically a state ID came from.
Cadorius wrote: Voter ID suppresses the deceased vote. So not only does it fully constitute voter suppression, it's also blatant racism, because some of the deceased are minorities. So there.
Cadorius wrote: Voter ID suppresses the deceased vote. So not only does it fully constitute voter suppression, it's also blatant racism, because some of the deceased are minorities. So there.
Since people have asked beforehand , here is Keesha Gaskin from the Brennan Center for Justice presenting before the North Carolina House Elections Committee.
And as a bonus so nobody can bitch and moan "You only posted a Democrat viewpoint!", this video contains two very different viewpoints. The Civitas Institute begins their presentation at 8:35 minutes in--with the eversopredictable shots at Keesha for being a lawyer and not having grown up in North Carolina.
Civitas Institute, by the way, is called the "John William Pope Civitas Institute, Incorporated". It is named for the father of Art Pope--who resigned from the Institute in December 2012 to become Pat McCrory's budget director.
Now you want the purely Democrat viewpoint? Here is Bob Hall:
Just so we're still clear here;
* This thread is about Texas, and the fact that the new ID law did not disenfranchise minorities as claimed
* You started to bring NC into the discussion
* People made obvious comparisons
* You stomped your feet and complained that NC was not Texas, so you claimed the comparison was not valid
* You continue to ignore the outcome of the Texas law, and continue to attempt to inject NC into the discussion.
However you want to cut it the Texas Voter ID law did not suppress voters, it did not disenfranchise minorities, but the voter turn out instead increased under it.
I've got some fond memories of San Angelo,
and I've seen some beauty queens in El Paso,
but the best lookin women that I've ever seen,
have all been in Texas and all wearin jeans
Chorus:
I'm a country plowboy, not an urban cowboy,
and I dont ride bulls but I have fought some men,
drive a pickup truck,
trust in God and luck and I live to love Texas women.
I thought I'd seen beauty in faraway places,
till I looked upon those Houston faces,
spent Hollywood nights up in Beverly Hills,
but they werent nothin like one night down in BROWNSVILLE
Repeat Chorus
I'm a pretty fair judge of the opposite sex,
and I aint seen nothin that will touch em' yet,
they may be from Waco or out in Lampassas,
but one thing about it they all come from Texas.
Repeat Chorus
I'm an Oiler fan not a soccer man,
and my arms are red and so is my blood,
and they make it boil with that soft Texas drawl and I love em all,
Texas women.
Not going to lie, I don't see how requiring an id is too hard of a hurdle to overcome. I worked in a factory where our hours were 7-5:30 every day, so no way in hell could I get to the bmv during the week. But I always renewed on time... I'm with cincydooley as well in saying, in this day and age with all the things requiring a license/id to use or purchase, how do you still not have one as an adult? Even my students in college who never intend to drive have a state id from their home state. I guess we just think differently here in ohio.
Also in regards to saying that no Sunday voting is specifically hurting one group of people, what about all the other people who go to church and have church groups to do that sort of thing, surely its not just one group, especially in the south...
Boblogik wrote: Not going to lie, I don't see how requiring an id is too hard of a hurdle to overcome. I worked in a factory where our hours were 7-5:30 every day, so no way in hell could I get to the bmv during the week. But I always renewed on time... I'm with cincydooley as well in saying, in this day and age with all the things requiring a license/id to use or purchase, how do you still not have one as an adult? Even my students in college who never intend to drive have a state id from their home state. I guess we just think differently here in ohio.
Also in regards to saying that no Sunday voting is specifically hurting one group of people, what about all the other people who go to church and have church groups to do that sort of thing, surely its not just one group, especially in the south...
It seems to go like this;
- having to provide ID for State/Federal benefits, etc., is perfectly reasonable to ensure that those eligible receive them, and does not disenfranchise minorities
- having to provide your free ID for the purposes of voting is a deliberate disenfranchisement of minorities
- having to pay not insignificant sums of money to be able to enjoy your Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is perfectly reasonable and acceptable
- having to get a free ID to vote is a poll tax, and an unwarranted interference with your Constitutionally guaranteed right
First, examine who is putting forth these laws. It's all coming from Republican controlled state governments.
So we ask ourselves why.
They say it's to reduce voter fraud, but, there simply is no evidence of mass elections fraud.
So we ask ourselves why really!
?
The answer is tiny percentages. In today's political divided political climate, anything that gives even a tiny percentage of a percentage of an advantage to a certain party is sought.
Explain? Ok, here goes.
Only a very small percentage of people are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to get a ID or an updated ID. Who are these people, they are those who are old and poor, or those who lack transportation (poor?) and those for whom lifes difficulties have made getting ID and/or the necessary documents for getting and ID a low priority (the poor).
The tiny sliver of the population most likely to be unable to get an ID for whatever reason are poor. How do the poor tend to vote? They vote Democrat.
Thus, who benefits from voter ID laws?
Republicans!
It's not about fraud, it's about a party trying to slice just enough folks out of the voting pool to tip the scales in their favor.
First, examine who is putting forth these laws. It's all coming from Republican controlled state governments.
So we ask ourselves why.
They say it's to reduce voter fraud, but, there simply is no evidence of mass elections fraud.
So we ask ourselves why really!
?
The answer is tiny percentages. In today's political divided political climate, anything that gives even a tiny percentage of a percentage of an advantage to a certain party is sought.
Explain? Ok, here goes.
Only a very small percentage of people are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to get a ID or an updated ID. Who are these people, they are those who are old and poor, or those who lack transportation (poor?) and those for whom lifes difficulties have made getting ID and/or the necessary documents for getting and ID a low priority (the poor).
The tiny sliver of the population most likely to be unable to get an ID for whatever reason are poor. How do the poor tend to vote? They vote Democrat.
Thus, who benefits from voter ID laws?
Republicans!
It's not about fraud, it's about a party trying to slice just enough folks out of the voting pool to tip the scales in their favor.
or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...
or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...
Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.
The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.
It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.
Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.
or alternatively, you're sayign the Democratic Party benefits when there are no controls or oversight to insure that only citizens can vote, and only vote once...
Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.
You do know that it's often difficult to purge voter rolls and such...right?
There are numerous documented cases where an outside organization is the driving force to clean up the voter rolls.
The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.
So flashing an ID is big barrier? o.O When 99.9% of the population needs valid ID to even fething function in society?
It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.
wut? Didn't you know profiling is bad?
Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.
Uh... you do know California / Illinois require IDs to vote, eh?
Eilif wrote: Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.
The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.
It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.
Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.
Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries
Eilif wrote: Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.
The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.
It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.
Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.
Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries
I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by
Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas
.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.
The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.
Eilif wrote: I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by
Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas
.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.
I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed
Eilif wrote: The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.
I agree that this should be monitored to see if it is an emerging trend, but the fact of the matter is that after all the naysayers argued that voter suppression would occur, and that minorities would be unduly affected, that was not the case.
Eilif wrote: Except that we still have voter rolls so each person can only vote once. I'm not saying that fraud is impossible, but it's been investigated, and it just doesn't happen much. Purging of the voter rolls means that the only way to have fraud is for folks to vote for other folks and if alot of people started showing up to their polling station and seeing that someone had voted for them we'd hear about it. They don't. and we don't.
The Democracy benefits when there are as few barriers as possible between the individual and his vote. It just so happens that demographics mean that Democrats benefit too.
It's a generalization, but given what we know about voting trends, Republicans have a vested interest in having fewer lower income and minority voters come to the polls.
Voter ID laws = Republicans trying to win elections.
Except that after the Texas law went into effect voter turnout, and minority participation, increased.
But I suppose that voter ID laws in California (where they charge for the ID), Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, and Malta mean that the Republican must be polling wicked numbers in each of those countries
Well Belgium is known as a hotbed of racism. I think Ghandi said it best: "Holy crap! Belgium makes South Africa look like freaking paradise. Lucy get me outta here!"
Eilif wrote: I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by
Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas
.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.
I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed
No one ever really answers that question for me Dread...
Eilif wrote: The fact that voting interest in certain constitutional amendments or outrage against the law could both be reasons for why voting went up, or it could easily be a fluke. Remember, this is a state where the voting turnout was only 5.3 percent 2 years ago. 8 this year percent still represents a tiny sliver of the population. You're still seeing less than 10% of individuals at the polls. Not exactly a banner example of great voter turnout.
I agree that this should be monitored to see if it is an emerging trend, but the fact of the matter is that after all the naysayers argued that voter suppression would occur, and that minorities would be unduly affected, that was not the case.
What gets me is that those who argues against Voter IDs falls into a trap thinking that minorities are incapable of getting new IDs or follow simple instructions.
Eilif wrote: I didn't see anything in your article demonstrating any gain by voting among the poor or a mention of any breakdown in the changes in each political party. Not surprising since it's a blog post by
Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas
.
You posted an editorial by someone who has clearly chosen only the facts that fit his side. Not a serious investigative or statistical analysis by an independent group.
I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed.
It's not my responsibility to debunk an editorial. As someone beginning a discussion of "Consequences of Texas Voter ID Law" you should have sought an Article with both sides of the issue and complete facts rather than an Editorial which is simply one side's view.
Though perhaps it was my fault for replying to an editorial-based discussion if I wasn't willing to put in the research time to take on the editorial itself.
Whembly,
Don't put words in my mouth. I never "fell into the trap" of assuming minority inferiority, and it's insulting to have you say so. I've lived, churched and worked almost exclusively among minorities my entire professional life, long enough to know that it's not a question of innate ability. I merely stated the obvious. That in the USA a higher percentage of minorities fall into the camp of those whose lives are hard enough to make acquiring an ID (or the documentation to acquire one) much more difficult.
When you see the daily lives of the working poor up-close, it doesn't take long to understand how adding ANY additional process/task/requirements to one's responsibilities can simply be too much to take on. When you're struggling to get by, any barrier to voting can be just enough to push voting into something you just don't have time or effort to do.
This makes me sad, as I think of voting as a sacred right and duty, but that's the reality that many folks live with.
As there still isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud, I'm against ANY law that makes exercising the vote more difficult.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I await a full and thorough debunking of his methodology then, rather than a shoddy attempt to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message
Still waiting to hear on how the Republicans benefitted from the voter ID law in the Blue State of California (that charges for the ID too), or those other countries listed.
It's not my responsibility to debunk an editorial. As someone beginning a discussion of "Consequences of Texas Voter ID Law" you should have sought an Article with both sides of the issue and complete facts rather than an Editorial which is simply one side's view.
Though perhaps it was my fault for replying to an editorial-based discussion if I wasn't willing to put in the research time to take on the editorial itself.
Google "Texas ID voter law". The article I posted is the top result. Unless of course you'd rather I posted links to MotherJones, ThinkProgress, Daily Caller, etc. - many of which raised arguments that the piece I linked to addressed. I quoted the article in full, and made disclosure on who the author was. It was your decision to proceed after that point. I found an article with facts that no one, yourself included, has thus far been able to refute. That is in itself very telling.
I'll let the facts of the matter (increased voter turn out, and no disenfranchisement of minorities) speak for themselves until such times as a legitimate counter point is put forward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: California Democrats do it, but its wrong because Texas does it. ok.
And California also charges for it, yet there are no cries of Democrats enacting a poll tax
cincydooley wrote: I think you Should have to be able to pass the US citizenship test to vote.
YES =, oh god yes. I remember this girl was talking about letting illegals vote, because "They have a stake" My response "They will have stakes when they pay taxes"
hotsauceman1 wrote: YES =, oh god yes. I remember this girl was talking about letting illegals vote, because "They have a stake" My response "They will have stakes when they pay taxes"
No, they should have a vote when they are citizens. Not before.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree
I pay my taxes properly and I'm not a citizen. I file every year with my wife. Millions of tourists also pay their sales tax properly everytime they make a purchase. Neither I nor the tourists should get a vote, that is the right of a citizen.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never "fell into the trap" of assuming minority inferiority, and it's insulting to have you say so.
Sorry that you feel that way, but that's how I see it.
I've lived, churched and worked almost exclusively among minorities my entire professional life, long enough to know that it's not a question of innate ability.
Good for you.
I live in St. Louis... I went to school in the fething City of St. Louis whereas over HALF of the student population and most of the teachers are black. My oldest friends are black. So, I know a fething thing or two as well.
I merely stated the obvious.
That's your opinion.
That in the USA a higher percentage of minorities fall into the camp of those whose lives are hard enough to make acquiring an ID (or the documentation to acquire one) much more difficult.
That's horse gak.
Also... why are you discounting the poor non-minority?
Why is it okay for California and Illinois to ask for IDs at the polls?
When you see the daily lives of the working poor up-close, it doesn't take long to understand how adding ANY additional process/task/requirements to one's responsibilities can simply be too much to take on. When you're struggling to get by, any barrier to voting can be just enough to push voting into something you just don't have time or effort to do.
O.o Purely and absolutely poppycock.
This makes me sad, as I think of voting as a sacred right and duty, but that's the reality that many folks live with.
O.o It's also a responsibility. IF they're truly poor. They should ALREADY fething have IDs. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to receive government assistance.
As there still isn't any evidence of widespread voter fraud,
*sigh* whatever dude... there are ample evidences. But, let's face it, flashing your ID at the polls isn't onerous. Be honest here.
I'm against ANY law that makes exercising the vote more difficult.
Fair enough... that is, your opinion afterall. Will you sign the repeal of such laws in states like California or Illinois?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I'll cry it -- I think it's despicable there and everywhere else.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree
Actually, you don't. The US employes a LOT of people brought here on work visas. They pay full Federal and State income taxes as well as any other taxes their "home" country levies. Non-citizens can even live here permanently and work in the US legally after being issued "green cards".
Pretty sure that my taxes are the same as a citizen. My employer doesn't have to make any contribution either, my wife had to sign an affidavit of support before the visa was issued so she is financially responsible for me.
At any interview I always let the interviewer know that there was no additional fees for hiring me
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Pretty sure that my taxes are the same as a citizen. My employer doesn't have to make any contribution either, my wife had to sign an affidavit of support before the visa was issued so she is financially responsible for me.
At any interview I always let the interviewer know that there was no additional fees for hiring me
Yeah... see? Not everyone knows the "ins and outs" of that whole process...
Oh... you need to find a way to tease your wife: "Hey! Don't forget that you're financially responsible for me..."
hotsauceman1 wrote: YES =, oh god yes. I remember this girl was talking about letting illegals vote, because "They have a stake" My response "They will have stakes when they pay taxes"
No, they should have a vote when they are citizens. Not before.
Ok still. The girls whole arguement was Illegals have a stake in the government because they live here. Mine was that they are not a citizen so they should not vote
That in the USA a higher percentage of minorities fall into the camp of those whose lives are hard enough to make acquiring an ID (or the documentation to acquire one) much more difficult.
That's horse gak.
Also... why are you discounting the poor non-minority?
I'm against ANY law that makes exercising the vote more difficult.
Fair enough... that is, your opinion afterall. Will you sign the repeal of such laws in states like California or Illinois?
Not Horsedung actually. It's hard to be poor. Minorities have higher rates or poverty. Nothing horsedung about it.
By the way, I'm not discounting the poor non-minorities affected by voting laws, I was responding to your statement about minorities.
I would sign the reapeal of such laws in California, were I a Cali resident.
Also, check your laws, In Illinois, you don't need an ID to vote if you've already registered, and you only need an ID to register the first time. After that, as long as you haven't moved or changed your name, you don't need to show an ID. The only other times you need an ID is for early voting, or if there is the election judges see a discrepancy and even then you can cast a provisional ballot.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok still. The girls whole arguement was Illegals have a stake in the government because they live here. Mine was that they are not a citizen so they should not vote
I'm not disagreeing that illegal immigrants (and legal ones) should not have a vote. But I just wanted your argument as to why they should not have a vote to be stronger.
cincydooley wrote: I wonder if I'll be able to buy a gun on the cheap on Black Friday without my id? Hmmmmm
Do gun shops have black friday sales? Do they need to with supply still falling behind demand (artifically)?
In addition to ads sent to me from Freedom Arms, Cabellas, Midway, and Beretta, Fulton Arms sent me an ad. Fulton Arms makes REALLY expensive, 3.08 AR10 clones and repro Garands/M1 carbines with new barrels. Satan thou shalt not tempt me with your goodness!
Oh yeah, forgot.
