And voter ID opens the door even wider for voter suppression.
I've said it before and will probably say it again you've got a solution in search of a problem.
But....but......we don't need voter ID laws.........
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
And voter ID opens the door even wider for voter suppression.
I've said it before and will probably say it again you've got a solution in search of a problem.
Shiny things. That's what you are offering up. First of all, we already have a lot of laws designed to detect and punish voter fraud. A voter ID law is not proven to be necessary by the "article", you linked. It's a propaganda piece by a pro ID group, by the way. I know you don't want to mention that. It doesn't provide any causality between outdated voter registration rolls and a propensity to find voter fraud.
Voter suppression is the best hope in the near term for Republicans, but it will be a net negative long term. A Latino college student in Texas or North Carolina who is disenfranchised, and pushed away from the polls is much more likely to turn Democrat, even if there are social issues they don't agree with. At least the Democrats aren't trying to keep them from voting because their student ID isn't considered valid, or their middle name is spelled differently on the ID versus their birth certificate. Yet, the white student who shows a gun permit as his ID is allowed to vote.
If you want to convince someone of something, link it or argue from a position of fact, related to the point. Link incidences of bad record keeping to voter fraud. Link empirical evidence that only new ID laws will work, versus what is already necessary. Heck, just link something that shows intentional voter fraud exists to any meaningful level in this country.
Uh.....yes, to support my position, I quoted an organization that supports my position. This happens pretty regularly in the real world.
Your wild rantings about voter suppression, though, are something else entirely.
Tell you what.......define "meaningful level" and let's see if there's any point in continuing.
One of those counties listed is Fremont county in Iowa, according to the statistics from Iowa and Fremont county the original article is incorrect
I didn't find the numbers in the original article, but I checked and found that you are correct. Fremont County had 6,044 registered voters in 2012 and a popularion of 7,100. However, according to Fremont County, 21.8% of its residents are under age 18. That means the county has 5,552 eligible voters and 6,044 registered voters. I think it's reasonable to believe that's what the article is talking about.
Last edited:
Your own words, "Yes, it's probably a voter registration problem."
So once more - a solution in search of a problem...
Have a good evening.
So, is it a privilege to get a job in the U.S? no one has the right to be able to obtain work? Two forms of most IDs to get a job.
To me, that's the same argument. If you are a citizen you have the right to vote and the right to seek employment. At one you have to prove you have that right, at the other you don't.
And don't spin the argument. People don't have a right to get any job they want, they have the right to seek employment, that doesn't mean the employer has to hire someone.
For the record, I don't think voter fraud is the problem some make it out to be, but I'm in the camp of why wouldn't both sides want this
I stopped at Hy-Vee on my way home from dinner to get a piece of carrot cake. Honest to God I looked at the woman working the cash register and thought of LC, and his bag of responses I'd come home to read. She was pushing 50 and had multiple names scrawled on her neck. I thought to myself this is one tired, baggy, filled with poorly informed opinions with a lifetime of bad decisions behind her person looking me in the eye. I wonder what answers to questions never asked and evasions LC's scribbled away at since I left the internet?
You know, the thread isn't really all that complicated if you pay attention. Have a nice day.
Actually, that response is as insightful and relevant to the thread as your previous ones.
I would accept this compromise. Voter ID's in exchange for a constitutional right to a job. The real problem with this issue if the people who want this aren't willing to deal with the people who don't care. Make me care, this would do it.
And if Fremont County isn't notified when one of their voters registers in another state, they have no grounds to remove that person from the Fremont County roll. If that person registers in another county in Iowa, they are automatically removed from the original county.
In the case of college towns, students don't notify the county auditor when they graduate/leave. They also move pretty much every year while they're in school, and most of the time fail to re-register at their most recent address.
The only ways an auditor can remove a person from the roll are: (1) a signed notice from the voter indicating they have moved out of the jurisdiction; (2) a notice from an elections commissioner in another state; (3) a published obituary (in a newspaper, not just a funeral home's website) or death notice from the Dept. of Public Health; (4) notification of a felony conviction; or (5) send out a residential confirmation notice and wait 4 years after it comes back undeliverable.
That's how you get registration numbers that, on the surface, appear way out of whack. It also artificially drives the listed voter turnout percentage down.
Yeah, we're discussing two separate issues here, and there's some confusion -- in some cases, intentional, IMHO, but that's another matter. There's the question of accurate voter registration rolls, and the question of voter identification.
The first one is by far the most serious, and the most widespread. It also is by far the most difficult to fix. Voter ID isn't a huge problem -- although the potential is big -- but it's simple to fix.
Overall, the problem is that anything which makes it easier for eligible voters to cast a ballot also makes it easier for unqualified people to vote illegally. It's a balance thing, and people disagree on where the balance point should be.
Everyone legal citizen has the right to get a job. Maybe not their dream job and you can't force employers to hire someone they don't need, but after the age of 16, there aren't a lot of restrictions as to a person getting work.
But your rights are being infringed upon as those cheating are tilting the election results.
I'll just have to learn to live with myself knowing I can't simplify it enough for you.
This is the point that so many of Joel's ilk do not grasp. In terms of denying my voice at the ballot box, there is absolutely no difference between preventing me from voting, on the one hand, and allowing an ineligible person to cancel my vote with his, on the other. None.
Not to be argumentative, but although this may be the case for you -- and I think it is, as you seem a reasonable sort -- it is definitely NOT just mincing words to a lot of people on the Left. They truly believe everyone is owed a job, and not just a job, but a job that pays enough to support a family.
When you can admit that the voter ID requirement...which will prevent nearly zero fraud...is a ploy to disenfranchise voters while leaving in place the avenues to real fraud like absentee ballots that favor the "No Voter Fraud" party, you will have demonstrated an understanding of what's going on.
That in-person voter fraud is nearly non-existent isn't even open to discussion. That an ID requirement wouldn't stop someone who was determined to commit in-person voter fraud isn't open to discussion. So why aren't the No Fraud folks going after the real documented actual fraud that does occur? If you were really all that concerned about your vote being canceled, you would be screaming bloody murder about absentee ballots. But you never do. Makes one wonder.
I still haven't seen a reasonable argument against requiring voter's to show that they are legally allowed to vote. So far I've seen that they have the right to vote. Why wouldn't you be on board with someone proving that they have the right to vote? The right to vote in this country is reserved for it's citizens. It isn't granted to non-citizens.
Then there was that lovely bar graph showing the percentages of minorities, lower income (<35k) and young adults who aren't able to get an ID. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me they can't afford a couple bucks to get an ID? Child please! Ain't nobody got time for this nonsense. There's homeless citizens on the streets that can show you an ID.
I can even get on board with free IDs for everyone. But for some reason, I don't believe that's what those who are arguing against Voter ID want. Getting an ID is pretty cheap right now, and they still argue against it. The truth is that there is no rational argument against proving you are eligible to vote in this country.
Then there was that lovely bar graph showing the percentages of minorities, lower income (<35k) and young adults who aren't able to get an ID. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me they can't afford a couple bucks to get an ID? Child please! Ain't nobody got time for this nonsense. There's homeless citizens on the streets that can show you an ID.
I can even get on board with free IDs for everyone. But for some reason, I don't believe that's what those who are arguing against Voter ID want. Getting an ID is pretty cheap right now, and they still argue against it. The truth is that there is no rational argument against proving you are eligible to vote in this country.
In-person voter fraud may not be open to discussion in your universe, but in the one the rest of us occupy, it most certainly exists. There has never been a serious study of it, at least to my knowledge. Anecdotally, I don't think anybody with any knowledge denies it happens. The term "graveyard vote" didn't just leap out of some right-winger's fantasy. Or maybe you're saying that someone who goes to the voting place, identifies himself as a dead person, and votes, is not committing in-person fraud.
As to why the anti-fraud people haven't done more......for recent information on that subject, consult the Obama administration, which refuses to enforce federal law calling for periodic review and cleansing of voter registration rolls.
Like every other attempt to block illegal voting, those who try to do it are called racists and accused of trying to deprive legitimate voters of their franchise.
The fact is that there is absolutely no legitimate reason to oppose requiring a voter to prove his/her identity.
It was THE top priority of the bush DoJ for five years. They uncovered not ONE SINGLE CASE of voter fraud that an ID would have prevented. The bush admin fired EIGHT of their own prosecutors - an unprecedented action - because they got tired of spending time and resources chasing ghosts.
When Texas' voter ID law was thrown out, Texas claimed 50 voter fraud convictions over the preceding ten years. That was untrue. The actual number of convictions was 28. Over ten years. In Texas. In ALL elections. And TWO of those 26 were classified as voter impersonation though we don't know if they were in-person voter fraud or absentee ballot fraud. Two convictions. In Texas. In all elections. Over ten years. And Abbott was focusing on the issue.
What "serious study" could be more convincing? Next you'll tell us that this lack of evidence is evidence that it's occurring.
You want ID's? No problem. They are 100% free and easily obtained. As opposed to Wisconsin where they required ID's, then proceeded to shut down 10 DMV offices in predominantly Dem areas and where a top aide in the state transportation department told staffers in the motor vehicle department, which is responsible for issuing the free IDs, to "refrain from offering" them to customers who do not specifically ask for them.
Last edited:
Ok, so if there is no difference between a fraudulent ballot being cast and a voter being denied the vote, ethically we would be required to go with the option that disenfranchises fewer voters. There is no question that more are disenfranchised by voter ID. There are stories everywhere.
You mean other than the fact that there are hundreds of thousands...likely millions...of Americans who lack the requisite ID and many of them can't afford the qualifying documents or have difficulty getting off work and/or getting transportation to the offices that provide those ID's. But you're more than willing to void their right to vote to enforce a requirement that will prevent nearly ZERO voter fraud.
The contention that ID's will have ANY measurable effect on voter fraud is the biggest fraud of all.
We've had this discussion before, and the Texas argument has been debunked. Perhaps you forgot.
A serious study would be the only kind of study that could show in-person ID fraud was occurring, and I don't know of any that have been done. The only way it would be conclusive is to contact every voter on the list and confirm he/she did in fact vote.
I have said numerous times that my support for a photo ID requirement is subject to the same condition imposed by the SCOTUS when it approved the Indiana (and by implication the Georgia) voter ID law. The condition is that an ID must be easy to obtain and free. That was not the case in states where the laws have run afoul of the courts.
There is one other aspect of this discussion that hasn't been given the attention it deserves: A safety net exists in the one case but not in the other. If I am prevented from voting because I lack proper ID, I simply cast a provisional ballot, which is added to the regular ballots as soon as I prove I'm who I said I was. I'm not disenfranchised. Any inconvenience is my own fault. In contrast, if I cast a ballot under the name of somebody who has assumed room temperature but is still on the voter rolls, absolutely nothing can be done. Even if I confess my crime before leaving the voting place, my bogus vote gets counted, because there's no way to identify which of the ballots in the box is mine.
No, there is not a single story of a voter being improperly denied an opportunity to vote because of an ID requirement in states that have court-approved laws addressing the subject. At least there wasn't the last time I did some research on the matter.
That was one of the problems the Indiana opponents had when they went to court. They couldn't come up with any examples of people who had been hurt.
And you're making an incorrect assumption, anyway. It's entirely possible that more people are disenfranchised when their vote is cancelled by an illegal one than when they aren't allowed to vote.
I was offering some advice, in the form of a polite request. I'm not the one deflecting, and I'm certainly not the one questioning motives.
Maybe we should start looking into this in all states and counties...
Georgia County Admits To Illegally Disenfranchising Voters
by Alice Ollstein Aug 26, 2015 8:00am
Fulton County, Georgia admitted to illegally disenfranchising and misleading voters in the 2008 and 2012 elections in a settlement this month. For more than two dozen violations of state law — including improperly rejecting eligible ballots and sending voters to the wrong precincts — the county will pay a fine of $180,000. To make sure the problems do not continue in the future, the county has promised to spend an additional $200,000 on new training software for their poll workers.
Voting rights advocates who focus on the region, including Julie Houk with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, praised the Secretary of State for investigating the violations but questioned whether the punishment fits the crime.
“What’s going to happen to that money?” she asked ThinkProgress. “How is the state going to use it? Is it wise to make the county pay a very large civil penalty in light of the economic crunch many of these counties are in? I wonder why a settlement couldn’t have been reached to set aside the money for remedial training to make sure the issues don’t happen again.”
The county, which includes Atlanta, has a heavily African American voting population and leans progressive, voting overwhelmingly for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. As detailed in the new settlement, county elections officials misinformed the precincts of who was coming to vote and when, failed to provide absentee ballots to voters who requested them, and failed to put voters who registered on time on the rolls, among other violations. The head of Fulton County’s elections office was fired last year, which she credits to her refusal to cover up the improper purging of voters in 2012.
“We’re happy that the [settlement] is over and we’re able to move forward,” Erica Pines with the Fulton County Democratic Party told ThinkProgress. “We want our voters, many of whom are minorities who’ve experienced a history of disenfranchisement, to remain confident in our elections system and not fear there’s going to be some type of issue when they go to the polls.”
Yet the problems facing voters of color in Georgia are not confined to Fulton County. When neighboring DeKalb County, another stronghold of African American Democrats, opened an early voting location in a popular mall, Georgia State Senator Fran Millar (R) publicly lamented that “this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches.” He later added, “I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters.”
Last year, during a tight race for an open Senate seat, more than 40,000 newly registered voters — most of them young, low-income, and black — vanished from the rolls. When voting rights groups sued the state and several counties to force them to process the registrations, the Secretary of State instead accused the groups of committing voter fraud — a move the NAACP and other civil rights groups saw as an attempt to scare them away from future voter registration drives.
A subsequent investigation found just 25 confirmed forgeries out of more than 85,000 forms—a fraud rate of about 3/100ths of 1 percent.
At the same time, the state has enacted policies that disproportionately burden voters of color. In 2006, Georgia enacted one of the country’s earliest and strictest voter ID laws. In 2012, the Secretary of State purged thousands of voters from the rolls a few months before the presidential election, and this year the state’s Director of Elections resigned after her office mistakenly canceled the registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters.
“There’s no question there were significant problems in Fulton County, but they’re being singled out,” said Houk. “The Secretary of State seems to have an inconsistent way of handling these issues.”
Over the past few years, the state has also cut the number of days of early voting from 45 to 21. Lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted earlier this year to further slash the available days to 12.
“Our state legislature is so far to the right that they’re introducing legislation every year to reduce early voting, which hurts in particular the minority community,” said Pines. “We always encourage early voting because if there’s a glitch or problem, we can take care of it prior to Election Day.”
Investigations by the Lawyers Committee and other groups say those glitches and problems are likely to continue. Georgia is one of a small handful of states to have a “exact match” system in which even a minor difference between the information on someone’s voter registration form and their DMV or Social Security records can result in their form being thrown out.
“People were rejected because there was a hyphen in their last name on their form, but not in the state records,” said Houk. “They were rejected for applying using their common name, like Tom versus Thomas. This happened to quite a few people in 2014.”
The state is also implementing a controversial policy that requires voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register for state elections. A similar proposal in Kansas that would give voters 90 days to prove their citizenship is being challenged by lawmakers and civil rights groups. The Georgia law gives voters only 30 days.
“It’s an unnecessary deadline that prejudices people who may not have access to the proof they need,” Houk said.
Georgia County Admits To Illegally Disenfranchising Voters
by Alice Ollstein Aug 26, 2015 8:00am
Fulton County, Georgia admitted to illegally disenfranchising and misleading voters in the 2008 and 2012 elections in a settlement this month. For more than two dozen violations of state law — including improperly rejecting eligible ballots and sending voters to the wrong precincts — the county will pay a fine of $180,000. To make sure the problems do not continue in the future, the county has promised to spend an additional $200,000 on new training software for their poll workers.
Voting rights advocates who focus on the region, including Julie Houk with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, praised the Secretary of State for investigating the violations but questioned whether the punishment fits the crime.
“What’s going to happen to that money?” she asked ThinkProgress. “How is the state going to use it? Is it wise to make the county pay a very large civil penalty in light of the economic crunch many of these counties are in? I wonder why a settlement couldn’t have been reached to set aside the money for remedial training to make sure the issues don’t happen again.”
The county, which includes Atlanta, has a heavily African American voting population and leans progressive, voting overwhelmingly for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. As detailed in the new settlement, county elections officials misinformed the precincts of who was coming to vote and when, failed to provide absentee ballots to voters who requested them, and failed to put voters who registered on time on the rolls, among other violations. The head of Fulton County’s elections office was fired last year, which she credits to her refusal to cover up the improper purging of voters in 2012.
“We’re happy that the [settlement] is over and we’re able to move forward,” Erica Pines with the Fulton County Democratic Party told ThinkProgress. “We want our voters, many of whom are minorities who’ve experienced a history of disenfranchisement, to remain confident in our elections system and not fear there’s going to be some type of issue when they go to the polls.”
Yet the problems facing voters of color in Georgia are not confined to Fulton County. When neighboring DeKalb County, another stronghold of African American Democrats, opened an early voting location in a popular mall, Georgia State Senator Fran Millar (R) publicly lamented that “this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches.” He later added, “I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters.”
Last year, during a tight race for an open Senate seat, more than 40,000 newly registered voters — most of them young, low-income, and black — vanished from the rolls. When voting rights groups sued the state and several counties to force them to process the registrations, the Secretary of State instead accused the groups of committing voter fraud — a move the NAACP and other civil rights groups saw as an attempt to scare them away from future voter registration drives.
A subsequent investigation found just 25 confirmed forgeries out of more than 85,000 forms—a fraud rate of about 3/100ths of 1 percent.
At the same time, the state has enacted policies that disproportionately burden voters of color. In 2006, Georgia enacted one of the country’s earliest and strictest voter ID laws. In 2012, the Secretary of State purged thousands of voters from the rolls a few months before the presidential election, and this year the state’s Director of Elections resigned after her office mistakenly canceled the registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters.
“There’s no question there were significant problems in Fulton County, but they’re being singled out,” said Houk. “The Secretary of State seems to have an inconsistent way of handling these issues.”
Over the past few years, the state has also cut the number of days of early voting from 45 to 21. Lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted earlier this year to further slash the available days to 12.
“Our state legislature is so far to the right that they’re introducing legislation every year to reduce early voting, which hurts in particular the minority community,” said Pines. “We always encourage early voting because if there’s a glitch or problem, we can take care of it prior to Election Day.”
Investigations by the Lawyers Committee and other groups say those glitches and problems are likely to continue. Georgia is one of a small handful of states to have a “exact match” system in which even a minor difference between the information on someone’s voter registration form and their DMV or Social Security records can result in their form being thrown out.
“People were rejected because there was a hyphen in their last name on their form, but not in the state records,” said Houk. “They were rejected for applying using their common name, like Tom versus Thomas. This happened to quite a few people in 2014.”
The state is also implementing a controversial policy that requires voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register for state elections. A similar proposal in Kansas that would give voters 90 days to prove their citizenship is being challenged by lawmakers and civil rights groups. The Georgia law gives voters only 30 days.
“It’s an unnecessary deadline that prejudices people who may not have access to the proof they need,” Houk said.
