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.

 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.

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

 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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

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.

 cincydooley wrote:
Because minorities can't afford IDs or don't have the time to go get them?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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:
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.

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."

Here are the facts:

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:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
ote]
...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.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
**snip**

 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.

Manchu wrote:
I added a picture above to make it easier for you to see the obvious.

 Grey Templar wrote:
We aren't seeing any evidence of disproportionate racial and socio-economic impact. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

 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.

Manchu wrote:
Yes, poll taxes are actually what empowers the marginalized! Good thing we got rid of that patronizing Voter Rights Act, too.

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.

Manchu wrote:

 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.

Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
All you've done is

Don't pretend this is the first time we've talked about this. Or the second. Or the third.

 VermGho5t wrote:
CA ID card costs - http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/fees/idCard_fees.htm

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

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.

 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".

 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?

 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.

 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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which one? The one from the Voter Integrity Project North Carolina--which receives a hefty donation from Art Pope?

 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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you cannot see why that is an issue, then I think we're done here

 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.

 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...

 Breotan wrote:
- In most states you need an ID in order to get any sort of job. Has something to do with taxes and such.

 Frazzled wrote:
How do you...Bingo!

 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.

 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.

 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.

 Eilif wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:
California Democrats do it, but its wrong because Texas does it. ok.

 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"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And to pay taxes properly, you have to be a citizen. But yes I agree

 whembly wrote:
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:
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