Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You mean you don't have any figures relating to voter fraud by illegal immigrants, so the whole thing is a boondoggle shot in the dark.

I don't recall claiming that I had figures concerning the impact of illegal immigrants voting. What I did point out was the difficulty with obtaining accurate figures given the fact that there are an unknown number of illegal immigrants.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?

Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

 Peregrine wrote:
If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow

Now lets look at what kind of scenarios would allow for an illegal immigrant to land on the registry.

I would counter all this hypothetical "an illegal immigrant could vote" talk without any actual proof of it being a problem and the whole "it's so easy to get an ID" mantra by posting my previously shared story of how difficult it was to get my passport to prove my legal status here.

But countering an imaginary point with an actual experience would just be anecdotal evidence and be dismissed.

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

But if they are on the registry illegally and show ID, then they can vote.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?

Not at all.

It's just coincidence that the majority of every group negatively affected by the laws passed in NC voted Democrat in 2012.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?

Not at all.

It's just coincidence that the majority of every group negatively affected by the laws passed in NC voted Democrat in 2012.

Define negatively impacted please... and how.

whembly wrote:Define negatively impacted please... and how.

I believe this will be sufficient? If it isn't though, the ease with which these groups can vote had been negatively impacted meaning that the impact of the changes is that, were "easy of access to voting" quantifiable to a single number, that number would have shifted negatively.

d-usa wrote:Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

Source dump:

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/114645/Web01/en/summary.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

 d-usa wrote:
I would counter all this hypothetical "an illegal immigrant could vote" talk without any actual proof of it being a problem and the whole "it's so easy to get an ID" mantra by posting my previously shared story of how difficult it was to get my passport to prove my legal status here.

But countering an imaginary point with an actual experience would just be anecdotal evidence and be dismissed.

I've had nothing but pleasant times getting all my documentation. So I guess you could counter with your story about how you have had unpleasant times getting your documentation. Not sure how the discussion was improved though.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you don't see how presenting an ID that matches the name already on the register does nothing to prevent somebody from voting that is already on the register when they shouldn't be, then I'm not really sure how else to explain it to you.

For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?

Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.

whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Once again, we're talking about ID on voting day, which means the registry is already made. If an illegal immigrant is on the registry somehow then requiring an ID probably isn't going to stop them from voting since they've obviously found a way to break the system. On the other hand, if the registry is working correctly then the illegal immigrant is not registered to vote at all and whether or not they have an ID is irrelevant. Either way the ID requirement does little or nothing to stop illegal immigrants from voting.

So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?

Yes. That is exactly it, in one sentence.

 Goliath wrote:

whembly wrote:Define negatively impacted please... and how.

I believe this will be sufficient?

Oops... sorry D... didn't see that.

If it isn't though, the ease with which these groups can vote had been negatively impacted meaning that the impact of the changes is that, were "easy of access to voting" quantifiable to a single number, that number would have shifted negatively.

Impacted yes...

Negatively? Let's look shall we?

d-usa wrote:Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).

That's unfair? o.O Why do you hate old people then?

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)

How is that making it harder? o.O

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)

I thought this was a cost cutting measure... still, went from what 2 weeks to 1 week? Yeah... geez... that's REAL hardship eh?

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)

That seems weird... why do early Sunday voting day? (in a way, I don't have a problem with it). And pegging that blacks only seem to use this doesn't make sense.

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)

Still don't see a "burden" here... the rules change. People will adapt.

Poor folks needing welfare/government assitance need valid state IDs to apply... so, they already have it.

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)

I actually agree with this. If you're taking you vote seriously, then pull the level for EACH candidate.

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)

Why do you hate the military?

For those who can't make it to the polls? Guess what... you now can use ABSENTEE ballots!

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

I'll repeat this again... Election.Has.Consequences. You just watch... when the (D) get back control in NC, they'll start make these sorts of changes in the other direction.

I'm not saying that I hate old people or the military.

But it is a part of the whole picture that "we have to save money and make elections more secure, ID's are important" was used to cut avenues used by Democratic voters while Republican blocks can continue to vote with expired IDs and no IDs.

All the small parts could easily be a coincidence, but put them all together and things become clearer.

 whembly wrote:
So it's all an evil plan by the incumbents to suppress voters, eh?

Yes, that is exactly it. Seriously, context matters, and if you're at all familiar with NC politics you know exactly what this is. Art Pope finally succeeded in buying a majority in the state legislature and now he's changing the rules (through the rubber stamp* of his "elected" officials) to protect that majority. This is a blatant attempt to change the outcome of future elections, and all that nonsense about election "fraud" is just a flimsy excuse to keep the courts from immediately throwing it out.


*I'm not kidding about this. Our governor declared his intent to sign the bill, and then had an awkward moment in an interview where he had to admit that he hadn't even read it.

 whembly wrote:
That's unfair? o.O Why do you hate old people then?

It's not about hating old people. The point here is that old people are allowed to continue using expired IDs, something that is an obvious security problem, while republicans simultaneously complain about how essential photo ID is to stopping fraud. And I'm sure it's complete coincidence that the people getting this exception, as a group, lean republican...

I thought this was a cost cutting measure... still, went from what 2 weeks to 1 week? Yeah... geez... that's REAL hardship eh?

It's a "cost cutting measure" because that's the justification used. The real reason is that early voters in NC lean democrat. And yes, it's a real hardship because cutting it to one week removes a lot of the flexibility people had in getting time off to vote.

That seems weird... why do early Sunday voting day? (in a way, I don't have a problem with it). And pegging that blacks only seem to use this doesn't make sense.

You do sunday voting because sunday is a convenient day for many people to vote. And no, it isn't a black-only thing, but it's being removed because black-majority churches organized voting trips and obviously that's a group that overwhelmingly votes democrat. Removing that easy opportunity to vote lowers turnout and therefore D votes.

I actually agree with this. If you're taking you vote seriously, then pull the level for EACH candidate.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Making voting more tedious makes no sense at all. If I'm going to vote D in every race because I hate the republican party how is it helping anything to make me fill in bubbles for every race individually instead of just one straight-party vote? The answer is that it doesn't help anything, it's just yet another rule change aimed at making things a bit more difficult for groups that lean democrat.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Except that's making the pretty big assumption that an illegal immigrant is capable of getting themselves on the voter registry but not capable of getting a photo ID (or a convincing fake ID). If you have some evidence that this is happening at any meaningful frequency then I'd love to see it.

Wonder how this would go if NC came out with clearing up the registry instead of providing an ID to vote. I'm sure we all agree...we really need to clean up the voting registry

Not one damn problem with cleaning up the registry personally.

Two stones in one throw....stop the SSN/VA/whatever financial support checks coming in on the decease that's not reported due to low life family members.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how this would go if NC came out with clearing up the registry instead of providing an ID to vote. I'm sure we all agree...we really need to clean up the voting registry

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not one damn problem with cleaning up the registry personally.

Same here. There should be a good process in place for it, but it's a great start at cleaning up the election process.

 Kanluwen wrote:
But if they are on the registry illegally and show ID, then they can vote.

In case you missed this while you were cherry picking;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID -> not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?

 d-usa wrote:
Only if you assume that not having an ID is evidence that they are not eligible to vote and that only non-eligible voters would be without a valid ID.

You mean that if I maintain what I have been saying (and what the legislation appears to be proposing), that there is more than adequate time (2+ years) for eligible voters to get a valid ID?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?

Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.

It does follow logically. Could you please explain what it is that you are having difficulty understanding in the portion that you underlined.
I was unaware that I was using anything interchangably, I was using residency because that is the Indiana requirement - not citizenship. Without the ability to prove your lawful status within a country how do you prove your residency in line with the requirements in Indiana (the State that I have been using as an example) for obtaining government issued ID?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So if they are on the registry somehow, and are turned away because they do not have the photo ID then the multi-layed protections clearly work.

Except that's making the pretty big assumption that an illegal immigrant is capable of getting themselves on the voter registry but not capable of getting a photo ID (or a convincing fake ID). If you have some evidence that this is happening at any meaningful frequency then I'd love to see it.

I have already run through what happens in Indiana if someone with lawful status attempts to get an ID through the BMV, and it is also noted above. If you're concerned about someone breaking the law, after already being in the country unlawfully, then that person should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:For the sake of clarity because we appear to be at cross purposes;
Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> cannot do so ->no ID ->; not entitled to vote -> illegal immigrant's name will not appear on the registry, or the illegal immigrant will be turned away for not having valid ID (and potentially prosecuted).
Is that clearer?

Not clear to me. THe underlined sequence does not follow logically. Please explain why you are using "Residency" interchangably with "citizenship". You can easily prove residency in order to get ID, because you do not need to be a citizen in order to be a resident. Countless permanent residents are proof of that.

It does follow logically. Could you please explain what it is that you are having difficulty understanding in the portion that you underlined.
I was unaware that I was using anything interchangably, I was using residency because that is the Indiana requirement - not citizenship. Without the ability to prove your lawful status within a country how do you prove your residency in line with the requirements in Indiana (the State that I have been using as an example) for obtaining government issued ID?

Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:

Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless

Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.

Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:

Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless

Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.

Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.

Indiana BMV wrote:A SecureID is required for anyone applying for a new Indiana driver’s license, permit, or identification card. Applicants must bring documents to the license branch to prove their name and date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency. A SecureID meets federal government requirements for driver’s licenses, identification cards and permits.

Persons who are not United States citizens (legal temporary or permanent residents) are required to have a SecureID and must present full documentation to apply for a new or renew their existing driver’s license, permit, or identification card. This includes providing documents which prove name, date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/2356.htm

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Remove your confirmation bias and you'll see that you've made an illogical argument. I'm not trying to put you down with that, it's just the way this is turning out. I'll lay your error out as clear as day for you:

Illegal immigrant goes to get ID -> has to prove residence -> only requirement to prove residence is a mailing address, so a utility bill will suffice -> they definitely CAN do that -> they get the ID -> now they have ID and your ID requirement for voting just became useless

Proving citizenship requires a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization (or whatever you call it in the USA), whereas proving a residency only requires a utility bill or library card, etc. All those avenues to prove residency are open to illegal immigrants. So requiring a photo ID accomplishes nothing unless you are requiring a special photo ID that is only available to confirmed citizens, and not merely to residents.

Thus, your initial statement is not logical in its progression. In order for it to be logical, residency and citizenship must be synonymous. Because they are not, your statement does not follow. Illegal immigrants are capable of obtaining proof of residency, and residency is required for photo ID, therefor illegal immigrants are able to obtain photo ID. If illegal immigrants only need photo ID to vote, then illegal immigrants will only need to prove residency, and not citizenship, in order to vote.

Indiana BMV wrote:A SecureID is required for anyone applying for a new Indiana driver’s license, permit, or identification card. Applicants must bring documents to the license branch to prove their name and date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency. A SecureID meets federal government requirements for driver’s licenses, identification cards and permits.

Persons who are not United States citizens (legal temporary or permanent residents) are required to have a SecureID and must present full documentation to apply for a new or renew their existing driver’s license, permit, or identification card. This includes providing documents which prove name, date of birth, Social Security number, lawful status in the United States, and Indiana residency.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/2356.htm

That's great for Indiana.

I suggest you read what North Carolina has to say on the matter though.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's great for Indiana.

I suggest you read what North Carolina has to say on the matter though.

Completely stupid, but it does say "NO LAWFUL STATUS" so it should be obvious they have no right to vote.

So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?

 Peregrine wrote:
So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?

So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?

So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?

If this bill was just "requiring a valid ID to vote", there would not be the huge discussion and controversy surrounding the bill now would there?

There are legitimate concerns, they have been shown over and over again. It's amazing that the master of obscure references can't find them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, is there actually any credible evidence that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants are voting, or is the entire ID thing based on paranoia that "the illegals are stealing our jobs elections!!!!!!"?

So... is there any actual credible evidence that requiring a valid ID to vote is... onerous?

If this bill was just "requiring a valid ID to vote", there would not be the huge discussion and controversy surrounding the bill now would there?

Glad you feel that way about voter ID.

As to the other stuff, how 'bout we look at the rate of voter participation during the mid-term compared to the other mid-terms (ie, '10 and '06). I'm sure someone will be doing that analysis like they did with GA.