Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 02, 2014

TPM: Fans of the right to vote got two great pieces of news this week. In Wisconsin, a federal judge has blocked a voter ID law that Gov. Scott Walker signed into law in 2011. A few states away in Pennsylvania, meanwhile, the Commonwealth Court issued a new ruling against that state's voter ID law, confirming an earlier decision that prevented the bill from taking effect. In both cases, judges based their ruling on one basic fact: laws like these prevent a huge number of people from voting, without solving any real problem.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Judge Lynn Adelson, who overturned the Wisconsin law, said that the law could block some 300,000 people, disproportionately black and Latino, from voting, and that the state's claimed interest in the law didn't come close to justifying that kind of burden: "the defendants," Adelson wrote, "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Writing in January, Pennsylvania's Judge Bernard McGinty pointed to real, demonstrable burdens from the voter ID law, yet noted that the state "wholly failed to show any evidence of in-person voter fraud."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

With respect to the PA case, the state stipulated in court nearly two years ago, that there "have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states."

Voter suppression? You betcha.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-05-01 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Stupid people need all the help they can get to be able to cast their vote. Apparently stupid people overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

#2 | Posted by jdmeth at 2014-05-01 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#2 | POSTED BY JDMETH

Clearly you have never been to West Virginia, Tennessee, or Arkansas. The top three worst educated states. Btw, they're also the 3 states with the lowest median income.

www.foxbusiness.com

You'd figure with those numbers, they'd be blue states, but they are not.

#3 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-05-01 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It seems to me that the lack of voter identification has called into question the integrity of our electoral process for a sizable part of the electorate. Isn't that enough reason to require voter ID?

We already know that the administration isn't interested in enforcing some of our immigration laws. It's not unreasonable to wonder if it's suppressing internal knowledge of voter fraud (either actively, or by failing to investigate).

Furthermore, we know that in some places dead people have voted. To the extent voter identification would prevent that, we already have a sufficient reason to enact it.

The courts may have a reasonable point that some legitimate voters would be disenfranchised by a poorly implemented voter identification system. However, why cannot the remedy be that voter identification systems are implemented in a way to minimize legitimate disenfranchisement? For example, having voter identification registration drives?

Because I haven't seen those points addressed, I still suspect that advocates of illegal immigration fight voter identification because they want illegals to vote. And why wouldn't I? Advocates of illegal immigration have already shown contempt for some democratically enacted laws; why not others?

#4 | Posted by DoofusOfDeath at 2014-05-02 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid people need all the help they can get to be able to cast their vote.

What kind of "help" do these "stupid" people need so that they can cast their vote? They were doing just fine prior to voter id.

If they need help, it is help to stop small minded politicians from taking away their right to vote. Is that the type of help to which you were referring?

Also, what makes people that can potentially lose their voting rights because of voter id "stupid"?

#5 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-05-02 09:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It seems to me that the lack of voter identification has called into question the integrity of our electoral process for a sizable part of the electorate. Isn't that enough reason to require voter ID?"

Exactly opposite of what the court said. It has not been found to be a real problem or even a tiny little problem.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-02 09:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me that the lack of voter identification has called into question the integrity of our electoral process for a sizable part of the electorate. Isn't that enough reason to require voter ID?

You have to provide proof of identity when you register to vote.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, the problem was discovered years ago. Too many damned n------ vote.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-02 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me that the lack of voter identification has called into question the integrity of our electoral process for a sizable part of the electorate. Isn't that enough reason to require voter ID?

You have to provide proof of identity when you register to vote.

The has been a red herring for far too long. 726 is correct: You provide ID and verification when you register and (at least where I live) provide your signature as well. When you show up to vote, you can verbally provide your address, date of birth, and then sign the register where another copy of your signature is right there for the workers to compare.

To commit in-person voter fraud you need to not only know the legal name, address and date of birth of the person being impersonated, you also have to reproduce their signature in front of a witness who'll compare it to the copy they already have. And perhaps most importantly, you have to have foreknowledge that the person has even registered to vote in the first place.

In my opinion, these historically placed safeguards alone are more than enough to confirm the integrity of these voting procedures without the need for mandated ID at the polling place. If an observer has issues with any voter's veracity, they could then ask them to post a provisional ballot and have the person's ID verified by another method but not firstly without some probable cause for doing so.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-02 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Where are all of the prosecutions of illegal immigrants voting?

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-05-02 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me that the lack of voter identification has called into question the integrity of our electoral process for a sizable part of the electorate. Isn't that enough reason to require voter ID?
#4 | POSTED BY DOOFUSOFDEATH

Your entire post is idiotic and smacks of mere xenophobia.

Furthermore, that's akin to saying a man who stubs his toe should cut off his foot. Hell, it's more akin to a man who MAY stub his toe should cut off his foot.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-05-02 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Vote early and vote often.

Google this if you don't think voter fraud occurs:

Poll worker who voted for Obama multiple times convicted of voting fraud

Guess what? Because the fraud favors Obama not many Democrats will think it's a problem.

Oh the poll worker convicted of fraud....

That was only eight months ago. For some reason, she has already been released. At an event that was all about voting law, Ohio Democrats invited a person guilty of multiple counts of voter fraud to speak – to "welcome her back" and applaud her. They invited her up to the stage, like some sort of hero.

Google this as well:

Over 40,000 People Are Registered to Vote in Both Virginia and Maryland

Then look at this:

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.

But notice it's mostly Democrats that are involved in voter fraud and notice also who is strongly opposed to anything that validates a person's eligibility to vote.

#12 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-02 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Seems to me that you libs wor worried about voter fraud down in FL in about 2000. You have real short memories.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Voter suppression? You betcha.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Gotta hav a picture ID to cash your welfare check bub. You betcha.

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Guess what? Because the fraud favors Obama not many Democrats will think it's a problem.

It's not a problem because it is insignificant.

"Since 2000, only 10 cases of in-person voter fraud have been proven nationally."

www.politifact.com

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

What kind of "help" do these "stupid" people need so that they can cast their vote? They were doing just fine prior to voter id.

#5 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

Many can't count and the vote 10 times.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

How did the judge know how many black and hispanic voters lack I.D. versus white voters? Did he or she take a survey? Of course not.

I say its time we start using finger prints to make sure no one votes twice. As an added bonus we can cross reference those fingerprints against outstanding warrants, unpaid taxes, and whether you are a citizen.

Of course I am sure some democrat judge will say that blacks and latinos have less thumbs than white folks and therefore.

P.S. fingerprints would cut down on the number of dead voting!

#17 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-05-02 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

having to present an id isnt even close to a literacy test. all the crying cause someone may not get to cast their vote for pres like american idol... cant we just text it in? How mismanaged of a human being does one have to be for a GOV ISSUED i.d. to be too difficult to get? I feel as if just one case of voter fraud is more than enough o justify it. Why cant it be digitized to the point of instantly taking a name off the list? or can we take a page from the way some 3rd worlders do with a thumb print? Thumb prints get scanned immediately and using recognition software, in seconds can be confirmed if that thumbprint shows up elsewhere and that it belongs to the person claiming to be x. Idk, the whole argument of voter id prevents votes sounds like bull-s. But the minorities!!!! is always the rallying cry... Youre saying that any group of given people are so busy with their productive lives that they cant get an id? how do they live such wondrous and productive lives with out it in the first place?
For the record, i do think there should be a basic mental competency test, or some kind of background check required to vote. Its more dangerous than giving the average person a gun.

#18 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-05-02 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

DAMN MCMLCMXX!!! Took my idea as i was typing...

#19 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-05-02 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

California: 49,000
Florida: 30,000
Texas: 28,500
Michigan: 25,000
Illinois: 24,000
#12 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-

Number of proven cases of voter fraud in the last 4 years: less than a dozen...OOPS!... except for the Virginia election worker, a REPUBLICAN, who threw away dozens of registration ballots.

#20 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-05-02 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm... I look at posts like #20 and i feel like excusing 'less than a dozen....oops!' (

#21 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-05-02 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm... I look at posts like #20 and i feel like excusing 'less than a dozen....oops!'

#22 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-05-02 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

alright so wtf drudge forum? im only allowed to post a sentence?

#23 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-05-02 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have to provide proof of identity when you register to vote.
#7 | Posted by 726

Citation needed.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-02 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right wing logic is so illogical.

Should we invade iraq JUST IN CASE saddam might someday help terrorists, even though it will be expensive and people will die?
YUP!

Should we require voter ID JUST IN CASE a couple people might try to commit vote fraud, even though it will prevent a lot of people from voting?
YUP!

Should we protect the planet JUST IN CASE we're on the path to ruining it?
NO! AL GORE! CLIMATEGATE! SOLYNDRA!

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-05-02 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

There is a case, that is not being investigated. The reason? It's a red state and the corrupt voter tally sheet votes GOP.

In alabama, it was discovered that 3 counties had more registered gop voters than residents. I will find the link and post it later.

#26 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-05-02 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In alabama, it was discovered that 3 counties had more registered gop voters than residents."
#26 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-05-02 02:10 PM | Reply

Nothing surprising about that, as no one is removing the deceased names from the registers. I'm sure the Democrat registers are the same way. Only difference is, the Dem deceased are still voting.

#27 | Posted by hawk at 2014-05-02 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

from near the top...

"Stupid people need all the help they can get to be able to cast their vote. Apparently stupid people overwhelmingly vote Democrat."

#2 | Posted by jdmeth

That's okay j.d. [...], because as we all know,
corrupt people overwhelmingly vote Tea Bagger and Republican...

regards...

#28 | Posted by earthmuse at 2014-05-02 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only difference is, the Dem deceased are still voting.

#27 | POSTED BY HAWK

Except "deceased Dems" vote by absentee ballot, not in person. Voter ID won't fix that, will it?

#29 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-02 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Exactly opposite of what the court said. It has not been found to be a real problem or even a tiny little problem.

#6 | Posted by danni

Tell me dan, how do you get 114% voter turn-out in some place in PA and not one single vote for the republican. It realy should make even you wonder.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-02 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In alabama, it was discovered that 3 counties had more registered gop voters than residents."
#26 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-05-02 02:10 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-02 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In alabama, it was discovered that 3 counties had more registered gop voters than residents."
#26 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-05-02 02:10 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Can one of y'all provide a credible link to this story? I don't think it's true. I googled it and I can find lots of stories about some Alabama counties that have more registered voters than residents, but not more GOP voters than residents.

I think it's a big, fat proggie lie.

#32 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-02 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you are too stupid to get a state id to vote, you shouldn't get state or federal benefits.

It's simple. We have to know who you are. Why a democrat would have a problem with this is beyond me.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-02 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why a democrat would have a problem with this is beyond me.

Boaz, you answered your own question indirectly. People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat. Dems don't want to lose those votes.

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-02 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Since 2000, only 10 cases of in-person voter fraud have been proven nationally."

www.politifact.com

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag

Dude. that's the BEAUTY of the Electronic "voting" Machine! All you need to do is diddle with the programing. No more messy "Boots on the Ground" as it where.....

#35 | Posted by GotTruth at 2014-05-03 01:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeez, SAMES1. Gish Gallop much?

None of the dozen or so talking points you dropped into this thread would be affected by Republican Voter ID laws. There are laws already in place that pertain to each item you listed.

Republican Voter ID laws are concerned only with in-person voter misrepresentation at the ballot box, i.e. you voting as someone who isn't you at a polling place. Doing so is already a felony in most states before the introduction of Republicans' recent efforts. That felony has occurred over the last decade about as frequently as the number of playoff games the Dallas Cowboys have won in that same time.

Indiana managed to disenfranchise a handful of octogenarian nuns from South Bend in 2008, though, thanks to their Voter ID law. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

#36 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-03 03:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat.
#34 | Posted by goatman

Well at least one person is honest about the reason the GOP is passing voter ID laws: To disenfranchise likely Democratic voters.

I wish more right-wingers would be so honest.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 03:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

I wish more right-wingers would be so honest.

Just as I wish you were, snoofy. I understand your sentiment

#38 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-03 03:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gotta hav a picture ID to cash your welfare check bub.
#14 | Posted by Sniper

Here's hopiong your luck takes a turn for the better.

#39 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-05-03 09:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why was there no uproar about this from 1789 until 2009?

#40 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

The GOP's big push on this seems to have been fueled by at least three major factors: the Supreme Court's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision in 2008 and the eleciton of Barack Obama to the presidency that year, plus the Koch and Exxon template-law factory known as ALEC.

#41 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2014-05-03 09:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gotta hav a picture ID to cash your welfare check bub. You betcha.

#14 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Most states don't send checks any more. The funds are loaded onto debit cards and accessed with a PIN. No ID is required to spend the funds. The problem is not that people don't have any ID. The problem is that the Republicans are changing the rules about what ID is acceptable. Many of the affected people do have ID that previously was acceptable.

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm cross-posting this here because it's equally relevant in this thread as it is in the other one:

What is the point in registering voters when the individual doesn't have to prove at the poll he is indeed the registered voter?

#15 | POSTED BY LEL200

Then ALL absentee voting by mail must be outlawed since there is NO requirement for providing personally checked and verified identification when it's used. To my mind, this is unequal treatment under the law when mail-in voters do not have the same requirements as in-person voters, nor do they deal with the inconvenience and the waste-of-time that voting at crowded polls entails.

Separate and unequal. That's racism, nee classism: different standards for me but nor for thee. Race isn't the issue, the class of people affected is. For a large group of people, presenting ID is a daily occurrence as they travel through life. But obviously, there is another class of people who don't as a rule have state-approved ID - with little statistical evidence of them desiring to break the law - being forced to go outside their lifestyle for the sake of complying to a law many in the larger group don't have to.

Do you really think that the constituency who uses absentee ballots the most - which happens to be older, more affluent, more educated, whiter GOP voters - isn't connected to the fact that not a single voter ID proponent has EVER recommended that the "integrity" of mail-in voting requirements should be altered to conform with in-person voting laws?

Therein lies (racism's) elegance. One group of people are advantaged and another group of people are disadvantaged and it's not just by accident. It's by design.

PS: I understand that many proponents of Voter ID truly believe their efforts are based on honor and integrity, but once given these facts and the evidence of their negative impact upon those with little power or influence to fight these laws, the true impact of the laws should no longer be denied.
www.drudge.com

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-03 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"wholly failed to show any evidence of in-person voter fraud."

Where is the evidence to show that blacks and latinos would be harmed? Who are these people without ID's anyway? What do they do? I've never met anyone that didn't have an ID of some type.

#44 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-03 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've never met anyone that didn't have an ID of some type.

#44 | POSTED BY SAMES1

The problem is not that people have no ID, it's that the laws being enacted require specific photo ID that many people (e.g., people who live in the inner city and don't have cars or Driver's Licenses, rural poor where there is no nearby DMV office, etc.) do not have. Some states are not even accepting US Military ID! Some don't accept IDs issued by state universities. So an ID of "some type" is not the issue.

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where is the evidence to show that blacks and latinos would be harmed?

It's not about blacks and latinos or any ethnic group. Its about any American citizen that doesn't have the specified ID needed to vote in his or her state, and how this fact actively impacts their ability to exercise their constitutional rights.

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-03 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's not about blacks and latinos or any ethnic group. Its about any American citizen that doesn't have the specified ID needed to vote in his or her state, and how this fact actively impacts their ability to exercise their constitutional rights.

#46 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

That's fine. If opponents of voter ID expressed their concern in that fashion I think it would gain more traction. Claiming that voter ID is racist always seemed not only wrong, but insulting.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-03 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Claiming that voter ID is racist always seemed not only wrong, but insulting.

...America has never discriminated on the basis of race (which does not exist) but on the basis of racism (which most certainly does). - TaNeishi Coates

Most of our "racial" issues aren't racial at all. They are classist: Those who have the power - making simple things unequal for those who don't - hoping to keep their prejudicial motivations obscured expect, or make sure that race can be used to cover their real intentions. And those who object to such actions have not been intelligent enough to throw-off the jargon (and infection) that race brings into any discussion. Especially when everyone knows the majority of these problems affect people of every race and color, just perhaps not in the proportions it does specific races and ethnic groups versus others.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-03 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not about blacks and latinos or any ethnic group." Not according to the wacko liberal judge.

#49 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-03 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't think this is motivated by race (because blacks vote 90+% democrat), you're not thinking at all. Even if it is not about race qua race, it's about suppressing the vote of the opposition (hardly a "high ground" position).

#50 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If you don't think this is motivated by race (because blacks vote 90+% democrat), you're not thinking at all. Even if it is not about race qua race, it's about suppressing the vote of the opposition (hardly a "high ground" position).

#51 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

sorry about the double post.

#52 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-03 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not about blacks and latinos or any ethnic group." Not according to the wacko liberal judge.

Under the US Constitution, are the people the judge spoke about "citizens" first under the law, or was she describing how the law should ONLY protect these specific group's interests?

Describing groups of people by the terms society uses does not mitigate the fact that the judge's only role is to define the laws for EVERYONE, not just one group.

You're not very bright, are you?

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-03 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

[I]t's about suppressing the vote of the opposition (hardly a "high ground" position).

Admittedly it's not a high ground position yet neither is it a constitutional issue. Legislating for partisan reasons is not unconstitutional (if it were redistricting would be eliminated). The issue, disparate impact of voter ID, affects all classes, mostly poor, but the issue is analyzed on the basis of race because the constitution protects against racial discrimination not class discrimination.

The analysis break down, for me, in the aggregate numbers (x thousands of this and that race don't have certain ID) because it begs the question, of those x thousands, how many would vote if they had the ID. I've not seen data that addresses the question.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't think this is motivated by race (because blacks vote 90+% democrat), you're not thinking at all. Even if it is not about race qua race, it's about suppressing the vote of the opposition (hardly a "high ground" position).

#51 | Posted by WhoDaMan

How does it suppress vote? Explain that to me who.

#55 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

If opponents of voter ID expressed their concern in that fashion I think it would gain more traction. Claiming that voter ID is racist always seemed not only wrong, but insulting.
#47 | Posted by JeffJ

What a crybaby.

Be honest about what you're up to. If Goatman can do it, you ought to be able to find a way.

Of course, he didn't exactly say voter ID is to disenfranchise blacks. He said "People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat."

Is connecting those dots is too much for you to handle? Maybe you can't see them through your tears.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The analysis break down, for me, in the aggregate numbers (x thousands of this and that race don't have certain ID) because it begs the question, of those x thousands, how many would vote if they had the ID.
#54 | Posted by et_al

Are you willing to consider the use of statistical methods?
Or does your data definition specify a Census style exact counting?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

people who live in the inner city and don't have cars or Driver's Licenses, rural poor where there is no nearby DMV office, etc.) do not have.

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Are you telling me they can get to the voting booth but can't get to the DMV? They can afford a 'smart phone' but can't afford a DL or a free state ID? That's rich.

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57

Cherry picking facilitates your being obtuse and stupid, as usual.

#59 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't think this is motivated by race (because blacks vote 90+% democrat), you're not thinking at all. Even if it is not about race qua race, it's about suppressing the vote of the opposition (hardly a "high ground" position).

#50 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

The problem is, in states that recently enacted voter ID, minority participation in the election increased.

What a crybaby.
Be honest about what you're up to. If Goatman can do it, you ought to be able to find a way.
Of course, he didn't exactly say voter ID is to disenfranchise blacks. He said "People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat."
Is connecting those dots is too much for you to handle? Maybe you can't see them through your tears.

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I was actually complimenting Tony's presentation of the issue.

No tears here.

Seriously, dude. You seem like a reasonably smart person, but you are nowhere nearly smart enough to strut around here with your degree of arrogance and condescension, particularly when Et Al slaps you around out of habit.

Go buy a cup of humility, you badly need it.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-03 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You have to provide proof of identity when you register to vote.

#7 | Posted by 726

But not when you vote.

They need to go thru the voter list and get rid of all the dead people for starters. I could vote for my mother, father, uncles, etc. They are all dead and all I have to do is use their name when I vote.

#61 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cherry picking facilitates your being obtuse and stupid, as usual.
#59 | Posted by et_al

What's "obtuse" about asking for a data definition?

You asked for evidence that people who would be disenfranchied by their lack of voter ID would have bothered to vote in the first place in the absence of voter ID requirements.

Now, is that a fair restatement of what you're asking, or am I again being "obtuse" for seeking clarity?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go buy a cup of humility, you badly need it.
#60 | Posted by JeffJ

It's not covered by my food stamps. I had to get Red Bull instead.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could vote for my mother, father, uncles, etc. They are all dead and all I have to do is use their name when I vote.
#61 | Posted by Sniper

You think you could vote as your dead mother?
What are you going to do, dress up in drag?
I hadn't realizes you are Norman Bates in real life.

And then to vote as your father, you're going to whip off that disguise and walk right back into the polling place? I guess your polling place is staffed by blind people.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

The analysis break down, for me, in the aggregate numbers (x thousands of this and that race don't have certain ID) because it begs the question, of those x thousands, how many would vote if they had the ID.
#54 | Posted by et_al

Would be willing to accept voter registrations as a measure of "would vote if they had ID?"

I don't see how you'll get a more specific answer unless you are prepared to do the following:
1. Identify registered voters
2. Identify registered voters who don't have photo ID
3. Ask those registered voters if they are planning to vote in the next election
4. If "no" to 3 determine if the imposition of voter ID requirement is among the reasons why
5. Trust they are not lying

Seems like what you need to be convinced is going to be so costly and time-consuming that it simply won't be done.

But let's say it could be done. How about if we found one person who would be affected? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? There must be some point at which you accept or reject the evidence. What is that point?

When you ask for data-driven answers, you need to be able to specify what level of data is convincing. Otherwise you're not really interested in the answers. You're simply spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Surely you know what a SLAPP is; your question operates along those lines, until you can specify more details.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

[Y]you need to be able to specify what level of data is convincing.

No, those challenging legislation bear the burden of providing convincing evidence.

Here is one of the plaintiff's experts in one of the WI cases. While acknowledging that socio economic class has a profound affect on electoral participation he does not attempt to account for that fact in concluding voter ID has a disparate impact on racial minorities in general. He has me absolutely convinced that Milwaukee is racist to an extreme but that says nothing about how voter ID suppresses the minority vote. Again, the evidence begs the question stated above, no matter how data is defined (typically the job of the researcher) or what level of data might be convincing.

He

#66 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

He

#67 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, those challenging legislation bear the burden of providing convincing evidence.

The question remains: what is convincing?

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

He has me absolutely convinced that Milwaukee is racist to an extreme but that says nothing about how voter ID suppresses the minority vote

If this isn't leading to "poor people don't vote anyways, so requiring them to present an ID they don't have won't change anything" then tell me where it is leading.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#68

The evidenciary standard is preponderance. The trier of fact was convinced, we'll see if it holds up on appeal. I'm not convinced because I only have access to some of the evidence or summaries provided by the advocates. You have the same access but your past behavior instructs that you won't invest the time to review it, instead you will snipe at what I write.

#69

Reread #66 as often as necessary.

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The evidenciary standard is preponderance.

That doesn't tell me if statistical analysis meets the threshold, or if anything short of something like the five-step program I outlined in #65 must fail to convince.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, the evidence begs the question stated above, no matter how data is defined (typically the job of the researcher) or what level of data might be convincing.

Well if you can't articulate what level of data might be convincing, there's little point in attempting to convince.

Now it turns out you need a preponderance of the evidence. I don't know what that standard means in terms of application here. If I find three registered voters that don't meet the ID requirement, two of whom say they want to vote, is that enough? Two-thirds makes a preponderance, but I don't think that's what preponderance means here.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

All you whiners can come up with is "there hasn't been a case of voter fraud... yada yada" Let's assume for a second you didn't read any of the evidence of voter fraud... fine.... ( stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalaalallalalalalalla )

What is the harm in requiring ID then? It won't hurt a thing.

Who doesn't have id? Who?

#73 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-03 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who doesn't have id? Who?
#73 | Posted by sames1

"People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat." -- Al Sharpton

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Who doesn't have id? Who"

www.brennancenter.org

This paragraph from the executive summary puts a fine point on it:

Federal courts have previously declared that states with restrictive voter ID laws must make the necessary paperwork available for free. Problem solved? Hardly. This report conclusively demonstrates that this promise of free voter ID is a mirage. In the real world, poor voters find shuttered offices, long drives without cars, and with spotty or no bus service, and sometimes prohibitive costs. For these Americans, the promise of our democracy is tangibly distant. It can be measured in miles.

#75 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-05-03 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting that Nelson Mandela's South Africa fait seems that poor dems in the USA are incompetents compared to those his nation -- ACTUALLY I do believe they are as the dems have repeatedly told us so.

#76 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-03 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stupid poor dems are incapable of even obtaining a free IDs; at least this explains why they vote dem...

#77 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-03 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess your polling place is staffed by blind people.

#64 | Posted by snoofy

And you guess the same people are there all day long.

#78 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The question remains: what is convincing?

#68 | Posted by snoofy

How about more people voting than people that have regestered?

#79 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People who are too stupid to obtain a state ID are more likely to be democrat." -- Al Sharpton

#74 | Posted by snoofy

Sounds like they would be too stupid to make an informed decision.

#80 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-03 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like they would be too stupid to make an informed decision.
#80 | POSTED BY SNIPER

You probably didn't intend that to be hilarious, but coming from you, it is.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about more people voting than people that have regestered?

And how could this happen Sniper? Isn't it because of two distinct factors: 1. Fraud perpetrated inside the physical election/voting process and 2. Fraud perpetrated through the use of mail-in forms of voting where no ID requirements exist as you demand for in-person voting.

Why is that? Might it be that those most likely to use mail-in forms of voting happen to be older, more affluent, whiter, predominantly GOP voters? Color my surprised.

Until you advocates demand that the same laws regarding ID requirements be applied to all forms of voting (something called "equality under the law"), all you're doing is trying to enshrine a specific form of discrimination into law, making access to the ballot different for some than it is for others. And before you might say "Okay,", remember that would mean the very people you worry about can always submit their ballots by mail without ever showing the legally mandated ID required for in-person voting. To me that looks like a loophole you need to close unless you mean to discriminate - which in this case would be illegal since we're talking about constitutionally proscribe individual rights - and we all know the GOP would never want that, right?

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-05-03 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

voter ID is in preparation for millions of illegals voting when they receive amnesty and when the percentage of people on the 'gimme gimme gimme' list total over 50 % because we all know just what little integrity liberal leaders have in this area.

#83 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-03 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did afkabl2 just say voter ID to disenfranchise voters?
A second right-winger who openly states the true purpose.
If a third one of you comes out and admits it I just might faint!

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-03 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

THAT"S what you got out of my post ?

please read again...

illegals can NOT VOTE...or they're not supposed to as of this moment.....

it's to prevent CRIMINALS from voting...criminals who are NOT CITIZENS and the id will prove that...it's NOTHING to do with keeping other groups from voting...if that were the case we would just put men outside polling booths with CLUBS daring those people to vote the 'wrong way"....( oooh sorry..that's for black panthers only )......

and the 'gimme gimme gimme' list will definitely total over 50 % if we allow the lying democrats and the coward gop to adopt amnesty which is precisely what both of those groups are going to attempt to do.

#85 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-03 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If a criminal get get his name on the voter rolls when it's not supposed to be there, he probably already has a fake ID. In fact they probably used the fake ID to get their fake name on the voting rolls in the first place.

I guess for your plan to work poll workers will have to be trained to spot fake IDs and not give ballots to people with IDs they think are fake.

That is part of your "voter ID" plan, right? Otherwise, what's the point? It's not merely enough to present ID, it has to be verified, right?

I have a hunch that criminals who establish fake identities don't try to vote with them. That would invite the scrutiny of the Secretary of State who is in charge of maintaining the voter rolls. Why would they want that?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 12:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I repeat it's time to use fingerprints to make sure no one votes twice. How about it dems or is that some form of racism?

#87 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-05-04 02:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The evidenciary standard is preponderance."
That doesn't tell me...

You fail to comprehend universal definitions?

Well if you can't articulate...

I'll let others decide my ability to articulate my position.

My problem lies in trying to communicate with a self described nomologist that is ignorant of basic concepts (see your questions above) involved in the study of the science of law and the making of law. Despite that ignorance you are awfully opinionated and dismissive on the subject. Although you are not alone in that regard, you standout as an ignorant, arrogant, condescending ass.

#88 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-04 02:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can you address the example I gave in #72? Would that satisfy the preponderance threshold? Two out of three...

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 03:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

You fail to comprehend universal definitions?

I know what a preponderance is.
My question was about how that threshold would be applied.
In other words, what sorts of evidence would be capable of convincing (or not convincing) in the first place.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-04 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort