SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But yeah, IDs. How about we finger print sign our ballots. That's freely accessible to everyone.

So, you want a national register of fingerprints too? And would you be fingerprinting your actual ballot paper so anyone who cared to could check exactly how you voted?

I think I'm one of the very few NRA cardholders in the country that wouldn't have a problem if I could do everything by my fingerprint. I'm already in the system from being a teacher and banker, so if I had the opportunity to no longer carry a wallet i wouldn't be opposed to it.

 whembly wrote:

I can't wily-nily walk into a Gun Store and purchase a gun w/o an ID....right?

In just about ALL WALK OF LIFE, in any social economic spectrum, everyone has some sort of ID. How is that impinging on one's right to vote?

Rosanell Eaton outsmarted literacy tests and defied cross-burnings to vote in the Jim Crow South. But she may have met her match in North Carolina’s restrictive new voting measure, a lawsuit claims.
Growing up in the 1920s and ’30s in Louisburg, N.C., Eaton went to a segregated school, and drank from “colored” water fountains. As soon as she was old enough, Eaton went to the county courthouse, on a wagon pulled by a mule, to register to vote—where, as part of a literacy test designed to weed out blacks, she was forced by registrars to recite the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Eaton had been the valedictorian of her class, and she recited the passage successfully. She went on to vote reliably and to help other local blacks register—an activity for which she received crosses burned on her front lawn, and a bullet just below her bedroom window.
But now, in her tenth decade of life—and nearly a half century after the Voting Rights Act appeared to settle the question for good—Eaton’s right to vote may be in jeopardy. After the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the landmark civil-rights law earlier this summer, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature pushed through what many experts have called the nation’s most restrictive voting measure, which was signed Monday by Gov. Pat McCrory, also a Republican.
“Here I am at 92 years old doing the same battling,” Eaton told a crowd Tuesday morning at a rally to protest the law.
Starting in 2016, the law will require not just that voters present a valid photo ID, but also that it exactly match the name on their voter registration card—an even stricter requirement than some past photo ID laws. Eaton has a valid driver’s license, Penda Hair, a lawyer with the Advancement Project, a civil-rights group, told MSNBC. But the name on the license doesn’t exactly match that on her registration card. Fixing the problem will likely be a bureaucratic nightmare that would test even a much younger person, and will cost significant time as well as money. In addition, the new law significantly cuts early voting, which Eaton frequently used. And it ends the state’s popular system of same-day registration, as well as a program encouraging high-school students to pre-register.

Eaton’s plight was detailed in a lawsuit filed Monday afternoon by the NAACP and the Advancement Project, challenging the law, which, it says, “imposes unjustified and discriminatory electoral burdens on large segments of the state’s population and will cause the denial, dilution, and abridgment of African-Americans’ fundamental right to vote.”
A similar but separate lawsuit was filed Monday by the ACLU, joined by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice on behalf of the North Carolina League of Women Voters.
Opponents of the law have been quick to draw parallels with past efforts to disenfranchise blacks. “Governor Pat McCrory and the North Carolina Legislature are on the wrong side of history,” Rev. William Barber II, the president of the state’s NAACP chapter, said in a statement issued Tuesday morning. “This Anti-Voting Rights Bill tramples on the blood of our martyrs,” and “desecrates the graves of freedom fighters.”

Barber, who has led the local ongoing “Moral Monday” protests, compared the philosophy behind the law to the extreme states-rights doctrine advanced by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. “We will fight this race-based, immoral and regressive bill with everything we have and believe we will be victorious,” he added.
In an op-ed piece published Monday in the Raleigh News and Observer, McCrory justified the law as necessary to combat voter fraud—despite an apparent acknowledgment that such fraud is all but non-existent. “Even if the instances of misidentified people casting votes are low, that shouldn’t prevent us from putting this non-burdensome safeguard in place,” McCrory wrote.
According to the state’s own numbers, 316,000 North Carolinians—disproportionately blacks, Hispanics, and the poor—lack the I.D. required under the law.

The NAACP’s lawsuit argues that because it disproportionately affects racial minorities, the voting law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 bars racial discrimination in voting nationwide, and was left untouched by the Supreme Court’s ruling—though, as MSNBC reported last month, there have been recent hints that it too could be a ripe target for conservative foes of voting protections. The suit also challenges the law under the 14th and 15thAmendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required most southern states, including much of North Carolina, to “pre-clear” any voting changes with the U.S. Justice Department, in order to ensure they don’t have the effect of hurting minorities. North Carolina is the first state to enact a restrictive voting law since the court’s ruling. But other states, including Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia, have pushed ahead with similar laws in response to the decision.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, but you don't have a protected right to have easy access to alcohol* enshrined in the constitution. As voting is the cornerstone of our democracy - in fact, the very foundation upon which all of our other rights lie - any impingement or barriers to exercising it should be carefully constructed to have the least possible impact.

But we do to have a protected right concerning firearms, and look at the ID and background checks that we need for that

And I think that's a perfect example of a restraint on a right that required it be balanced out by a clear state interest in doing so.

There is a clear government interest in preventing felons, the mentally disturbed, those with open restraining orders, and suchlike from being able to exercise that right freely. It's unambiguous. The state interest is compelling.

Since in-person voter fraud of the type this is purportedly to address is nearly nonexistent, the state interest in being able to impede that right is substantially diminished.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
However, unlike the activities you have highlighted, there is very little evidence to suggest people are voting when they should not be, or in ways that break the law. Everything else you listed is a much greater target for fraud, and or requires you to prove you are allowed to do it (such as being old enough, be able to drive, have the appropriate finances etc...).

Also, your post broke my phone

 Forar wrote:
*facepalm*

 whembly wrote:
There's plenty of evidence... and that's only those that we identified/caught.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's plenty of evidence... and that's only those that we identified/caught.

So, where exactly is this evidence?

When providing it please remember the difference between voter fraud in general and the very specific kind of voter fraud that stricter ID requirements would have any chance of stopping. And please stick to credible sources, not tinfoil hat speculation about "PRECINCT #340895 HAD 9999999999999.9999999999% FOR OBAMACARE IT MUST BE FRAUD".

“The most amazing part about this voter fraud case involving the highest office in the United States is the fact that such a few number of people, because of laziness, arrogance or both did not do their job and thus could have affected the outcome of the election," noted St. Joseph County Republican Party Chairwoman Dr. Deborah Fleming.“

“FEMA official charged in voter fraud case. Federal Emergency Management Agency official has been arrested in connection with a voter fraud case in St. Johns County, Florida. Michel Pawlowski, 68, was named in a complaint last fall alleging voter fraud. He lives in Maryland. His daughter ran for St. Augustine Beach city commission and won.”

“Top staffer for Florida Democratic Rep. Garcia resigns amid voting fraud probe. The congressman said he thinks the plot was a “well-intentioned attempt to maximize voter turnout” and that the system is “prone to fraud.”

“Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people, including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote. Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.”

"Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well...Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election."

"A North Vernon man who worked on a former Jeffersonville mayor’s re-election campaign in 2011 has agreed to plea guilty to three counts of vote fraud in Jennings County Circuit Court on charges related to a campaign there."

"According to a Dec. 20 statement from the US attorney’s office , Smith allegedly submitted fraudulent requests for absentee ballots, then cast those ballots on behalf of voters without their knowledge. Prosecutors say Smith also knowingly delivered absentee ballots to ineligible voters, knowing that their votes in his favor would be fraudulent. Smith was charged with two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. He faces up to two years in prison, and prosecutors will recommend a 6-month sentence, according to his plea agreement, which also requires that he vacate his seat in the Legislature and prohibits him from seeking another elected office for the next five years."

"District 4 Election Commissioner Carl Payne reported an incident in which "a father cast an absentee ballot, the son voted in person and then the son changes clothes and returned to vote as his father. We learned of this from a written statement from the poll manager." Among other cases reported by Payne (who was defeated Nov. 6 by Sissie Ferguson): A voter came to cast a ballot, gave a name that was on the poll book, signed the receipt book and was allowed to vote. Another person using the same name came to vote later that day, "and was informed he'd already voted. The second person provided proof of identity," Payne reported. Also, a voter cast a ballot in person at the proper precinct — and then prepared a provisional ballot, including a sworn affidavit, at another precinct."

 whembly wrote:
The purpose is to show that they exist.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The purpose is to show that they exist.

They don't exist as a significant problem. All of those links you point to show, literally, 14 cases of voter fraud, along with 2 much more nebulous links claiming "more then dozens, perhaps hundreds" of absentee ballots. Lets presume 200 each, for a total of 414 ballots.

There were 129 million votes cast in 2012. This is a problem that does not effectively exist, and for that nearly unmeasurable percentage it does happen in, we already have ample criminal remedies available, as evinced by your links.

To put it differently, do you think more than 414 legal voters would not vote if these laws were put in places?

 Frazzled wrote:
Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.

Don't be silly. Of course significance is required; or else we'd be lobbying to dramatically increase the size of every single police department in the country to make sure no jaywalker does unticketed.

We don't disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters to catch what is likely less that .001% of votes that are fraudulent.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.

Don't be silly. Of course significance is required; or else we'd be lobbying to dramatically increase the size of every single police department in the country to make sure no jaywalker does unticketed.

We don't disenfranchise large numbers of eligible voters to catch what is likely less that .001% of votes that are fraudulent.

I'd be willing to enforce voter ID requirements if and when it became a measurable problem. In 2013, it's not, not by my reckoning, and we don't squander resources, increase government bureaucracy, and limit freedoms of honest Americans for no measurable gain.

 Frazzled wrote:
Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Significance is not required. The fact that voters are disenfranchised is the issue.

Apply this sentiment to gun control arguments ... and idiocy results! You can fathom that in one example but not the other. And you wonder why I don't buy your "I'm not partisan" act.

 Manchu wrote:
Can you back that up with a quote from Eric Holder or something?

DOJ Invokes Voting Rights Act in Suit v. N.C. over Voting Law Changes
Today, the DOJ will sue North Carolina under sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act in an attempt to invalidate substantial portions of North Carolina's reforms to its voting laws. The North Carolina law requires photo IDs to vote (student IDs are not sufficient), limits early voting, ends same-day registration and voting, and prohibits counting provisional ballots when a voter appears at the wrong polling place. The DOJ contends that the effect of the changes is to dilute minority voting and thus is a violation of section 2 of the VRA. But the DOJ also asserts that the NC law is intentionally discriminatory and thus warrants imposition of section 5 preclearance under section 3 of the VRA. This is the second such DOJ suit; earlier this year the DOJ sued Texas on similar theories.

The section 2 claim hinges on whether the empirical evidence is sufficiently strong to prove that the effect of the change materially impedes minority voter participation. The evidence is contestable. Democracy North Carolina, an advocacy group, claims that 23% of NC registered voters are African-American, but in 2012 were 29% of early voters, 30% of voters appearing at the wrong polling place, 34% of registered voters without qualified photo IDs, and 41% of those using same-day refistration and voting. But these statistics do not prove that the proportion of early voters who are African-American will decline, nor do they establish that African-American voters will continue to represent a disproportionate share of voters who come to the wrong polling place. The share of minorities who used same-day registration and voting may be ephemeral, as once registation and voting is accomplished, the voter stays on the rolls and need not resort to same-day registration again. Such will be the arguments over whether section 2 has been violated.

Section 3 poses a much tougher challenge for the DOJ. The NC law is race-neutral and, though I do not know, I would be surprised if racist motivations were openly voiced in the NC legislature. In order to be constitutionally valid, section 3 must be congruent with an identified violation of the 15th Amendment and proportional to the scope of that violation. While section 3 is congruent with the 15th Amendment's ban of racial discrimination in voting, it is quite likely disproportionate. Absent proof of the kind of systematic, sub rosa discrimination that convinced the Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach to uphold pre-clearance, a section 2 suit is adequate to address the alleged constitutional injury. At least that will be the argument in each of the NC and Texas suits, and it may well succeed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its also the standard you have been arguing FYI

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its also the standard you have been arguing FYI

Noooooope. I'm really glad you said that because it could clear up a lot.

I am not saying that hypothetical disenfranchisement is enough. I am saying there is no credible evidence to suggest a problem that Voter ID laws would address and, in the absence of a problem, all we get from this "solution" is a risk. Pretty simple.

 whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters

"As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can't be located. A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3½ years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation."

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters

Let me rephrase what I just posted (and you even quoted!) as it answers your question. I'll use italics, since you seem to like that: I don't need to prove a burden. Before we enact a law to stop fraud we need credible evidence of a fraud problem. It doesn't exist. You can't build that case anecdotally, as you have been trying to do and as the GOP has been trying to do.

It is the essence of political conservativism to not do a thing with government that does not need to be done. Whether the possible harm is incidental or intentional, actually results or remains hypoethetical, etc, does not matter.

Also -- your tactic of posting the same question over and over while ignoring that people have answered you multiple times and in some cases even in multiple threads is getting irritating.

 whembly wrote:
You prove to me that Voter ID disenfranchise voters