Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 04, 2014

MSNBC: Willie Mims, 93, showed up to vote at his polling place in Escambia County Tuesday morning for Alabama's primary elections. Mims, who is African-American, no longer drives, doesn't have a license, and has no other form of ID. As a result, he was turned away without voting. Mims wasn't even offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot, as the law requires in that situation. How many Alabamans lack ID isn't known -- in part because the state made no effort to find out before the ID law. But nationwide, most studies put the figure at around 11%, and as high as 25% for African-Americans.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

snoofy

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

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

The Daily Kos article has a map showing the overlap between how black an area is and how many hours per week the ID-issuing offices are open. www.dailykos.com

In the areas that are more heavily black, the ID issuing offices have much shorter hours. dot dot dot

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 01:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I LOVE comments that start off with "the daily kos".....aha aha ha ha ha ha ha..

OOOH it's not a joke...

#2 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-04 02:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yep, voter disenfranchisement is not a joke.
Glad we cleared that up.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

In the areas that are more heavily black, the ID issuing offices have much shorter hours. dot dot dot

#1 | Posted by snoof

In other areas more people are at work all day....

#4 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-04 02:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Even though voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, another American loses their right to vote. In this case a man who's been an American for longer than nearly everyone else. Nice job respecting our elders. They didn't live and fight for this.

Of course, it's all about seniors, African-Americans, harder to get ID and shorter voting hours. This wasn't just predicted to happen. It was guaranteed.

#5 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-06-04 02:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

In other areas more people are at work all day....
#4 | Posted by Greatamerican

Yes, at the ID issuing offices...
Oh, I get it. You were being racist. Carry on.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 03:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 8

Oh, I get it. You were being racist. Carry on.

Posted by snoofy

So - 'spose you can cite unemployment rates by race? Some do work to support the slackers...right?

#7 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-04 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

In other areas more people are at work all day....

#4 | Posted by Greatamerican

Another 'who me!?!?!' racist.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-04 03:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Even though voter fraud is virtually nonexistent...

True, equally true is that available studies show voter ID has a virtually nonexistent suppressive effect.

That Mr. Mims was denied his vote, according to the article, is a tragedy. ID laws should consider inherent problems with obtaining ID. Mr. Mims should probably be exempt. That said, Ms. Applewhite obtained her ID not long after her suit against PA concluded.

Perhaps advocates should focus on helping those that want it obtain ID.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 04:18 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

If we help the poor people get ID, then our plans to steal elections are good for nothing.

- The GOP.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-04 07:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mr. Mims should probably be exempt.

9 | Posted by et_al at

You think? The man was 93 years of age. But the nation was imperiled by letting him vote.

The Republican Party, when it finally dies out in twenty years, will be buried under a stone marker saying "Scum".

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-04 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 6

Perhaps advocates should focus on helping those that want it obtain ID.
#9 | Posted by et_al

Did you see the map, where the ID issuing offices in the black areas are only open a few hours a week?

That's a systemic problem that "advocates" can't fix.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"True, equally true is that available studies show voter ID has a virtually nonexistent suppressive effect."

I'd like to know more about these particular studies. Were they commissioned by Roger Ailes? Frank Luntz? Karl Rove? The remains of Lee Atwater?

If Republican Voter ID laws didn't give Republicans such an electoral advantage, they wouldn't be overwhelmingly favored by Republicans.

#13 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-04 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

And who the --- is going to show up at the polling place impersonating a 93 year old in order to fraudulently cast a vote?

#14 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-04 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If Republican Voter ID laws didn't give Republicans such an electoral advantage, they wouldn't be overwhelmingly favored by Republicans.
#13 | Posted by DCTexan

No doubt. Et_Al's contribution to this part of the discussion is that partisan laws aren't illegal; laws with the purpose of only benefiting one party aren't illegal.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#8 Another 'who me!?!?!' racist.

Nope. Another PROUD racist.

#16 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-06-04 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

And who the --- is going to show up at the polling place impersonating a 93 year old in order to fraudulently cast a vote?

A democrat.

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-04 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

Anyway,

In todays society, I just don't buy that someone has no ID.

1. It's too easy to get one
2. You need one for routine everyday things.

This old guy should have had someone who knew the situation take him to get an ID. If it was important enough for him to go vote, it's important enough for him to go to a state or local office and get an ID. Whether he drives or not.

And if he still doesn't or didn't have an ID, one would have to speculate it's to continue to antagonize because it would seem he doesn't want an ID.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's little if anything the vast majority of 93 year-olds need a photo ID to do. The number of people who've committed in-person voter fraud in the US in the last 20 years is on par with the number of Americans who've died from rabies in that same time span.

Procuring a photo ID might be easy for you. Consider yourself fortunate. That's not the case for all Americans. This man has been denied his constitutional rights over a partisan power grab.

#19 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-04 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is easy to get an ID if you don't drive, the poor gentleman probably didn't know how. The law should have been implemented over a period of time and when a person without an ID showed up to vote, they could give them a pamphlet on how and where to obtain an ID and then proceed to let them vote anyway until such period (maybe a couple years) has passed then make it an absolute requirement.

Never mind, too much common sense involved with that idea to expect politicians to come up with it.

#20 | Posted by path at 2014-06-04 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The law in this case is doing exactly what it was intended to do: keep black people from voting. Statistics on who has ID and how those people vote come from the reality based universe and so will be ignored by some people. But you can bet the people who wrote this law know them by heart.

#21 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-06-04 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Voter without ID turned away.

Good.

System working as intended (once at least).

#22 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-04 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd like to know more about these particular studies.

www.vote.caltech.edu

papers.ssrn.com

papers.ssrn.com

Snoofy will be along soon to give his canned critique, we've gone around about this several times. What he won't be able to do is provide any study that shows suppressive effect. He will only be able to find studies that show certain groups don't have ID. I extend the same invitation to you, as I did him, to provide studies that show ID has a suppressive effect. I am genuinely interested if you can.

I'm also glad to see Snoofy finally acknowledges that enacting law for solely partisan reasons does not make that law unconstitutional. If it did we would have to scrap redistricting.

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

And what's the emergency that HONESTLY is being "fixed" by this legislation?

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2014-06-04 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

What he won't be able to do is provide any study that shows suppressive effect.
#23 | Posted by et_al

That's because of the way you've chosen to define suppression.
We've gone round and round on that too.
Question: Would the events in this story meet your threshold for suppression?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Republican Party, when it finally dies out in twenty years, will be buried under a stone marker saying "Scum".
#11 | POSTED BY ZED

To be replaced by the Muslim National Party, you'll get a kick out of their laws.

#26 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-04 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

System working as intended (once at least).
#22 | Posted by USAF242

The intent being _______?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have been asked for my ID every time I've ever voted in the hometown I grew up in. I hand my ID to former teachers, babysitters, my Mama's childhood friends & it's OK. Why? Because it isn't too much to ask. Anyone can go to the DMV & get an ID w/ the proper documentation. If you don't care enough to bother, you SHOULDN'T get to vote!! Further, if he weren't black, this wouldn't even be a story. I have seen people get turned away, white people, for the same reasons. Did HE know about the provisional ballot enough to ask about it? I'm thinking no so lack of preparedness falls @ the feet of the unprepared.

#28 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV at 2014-06-04 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems strange to me that voter ID is important but solves no real problem while anonymity of political donors is important for the safety and liberty.
I'd argue that donors influence politics at a much higher level than voters do.
The law did work in this particular case as intended because voting was suppressed and Mr. Mims was not offered a provisional ballot as the law requires.
States which want to write and/or enforce voter ID laws should offer free state IDs and set up easy to access ID fairs to provide them.
Provided one neither flies nor drives an ID is rarely if ever asked for and many older people do not have any ID much less a picture ID.

#29 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-06-04 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#28 - change your name.

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2014-06-04 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#29 | POSTED BY KINGCUKE

Writes this knowing full well the lefts policy of boycotting and protesting political speech they don't agree with.

#31 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-04 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

For all the whining and complaining on this thread the bottom line is the system didn't work for Willie Mims, not because he didn't have ID but because his polling place may have taken it on themselves to deny him a Provisional Ballot. Judges of Election are supposed to be trained on this and if the voter is on the voting list for that polling place they must use a Provisional Ballot and/or contact the district headquarters for information. It will be interesting to see if additional information comes out on this like Willie Mims refusing Provisional Ballot? I have had it happen to me several times.

#32 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-04 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30.. so you think it's unrealistic to ask someone to present ID @ a voting booth... I suppose it's just racist to ask a car full of fruit pickers on the border if they're here legally too??? I personally have no problem w/ never having to show ID for anything but make it across the board. If a Mexican illegal can have access to everything here w/o an ID, why should ANY of us have to have one for ANYTHING? That said, you can't have it both ways which is exactly what everyone wants... Further, no one anywhere can say the black man is disenfranchised in this America & that's REALLY all this is about: the man's BLACKNESS.... That's just "oh poor me" BS from those w/ an agenda...... more of the same...

#33 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV at 2014-06-04 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

To be replaced by the Muslim National Party, you'll get a kick out of their laws.

#26 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-

I love that. Either prevent the 93 year old man, whom everyone knew for decades, from voting, or face Sharia law.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-04 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's because of the way you've chosen to define suppression.

Researchers typically provide a definition, or at least the parameters, otherwise they know not what they are looking at or for. But you know that yet continue to refer to "my" definition.

Would the events in this story meet your threshold for suppression?

I don't know. The article and video don't provide enough information. I find it a little odd that an advocacy group, whose motto is "Engage. Educate. Elect." drove the gentleman to the polls but did not inform him about the necessity for ID and in its absence the provisional ballot option. Of course, the poll worker should have offered a ballot but that begs the question whether that failure is systemic or just one poorly trained or absent minded poll worker.

This story sounds curiously like one in Mississippi but presented in a more balanced manner.

Bottom line, no system (or law) is perfect the question is whether it is intentionally imperfect. With voter ID, I posit it is not.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Attn: Republicans when you try to stop people from voting, it makes many folks even more determined too vote, and many folks who might have voted for the GOP are so insulted by your un-American voter suppression games they might just switch sides. The righties assault on voting rights, will hurt them in the end

#36 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-04 07:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would the events in this story meet your threshold for suppression?

I don't know. The article and video don't provide enough information.

What information do you need to make the determination?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

What information do you need to make the determination?

Why he does not have an ID. Reasons beyond the talking points, "old," "minority" or "poor."

As a side issue, why this advocacy group, whose motto is "Engage. Educate. Elect.," just so happened to drive a gentleman without ID to the polls and apparently didn't "Educate." him. Or "Engage." him to get what is required. How did MSNBC get the video? Publicity for the advocacy group? Oddly, the video wasn't on their site about an hour or so ago. What was left on the cutting room floor?

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What information do you need to make the determination?

Why he does not have an ID.

You need to know why he doesn't have ID to determine if suppression has occurred?

Okay then.
What are the reason(s) for him not having ID that would indicate suppression has occurred?
(Bonus points: What are the reasons(s) for him not having ID that would indicate suppression has not occurred?)

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"With voter ID, I posit it is not."

CAn you actually post that with a straight face?

"Further, no one anywhere can say the black man is disenfranchised in this America & that's REALLY all this is about: the man's BLACKNESS.... That's just "oh poor me" BS from those w/ an agenda...... more of the same..."

That 93 year old man was disenfranchized a long time ago through Jim Crow which he actually thought he lived long enough to believe it was really over. He learned otherwise when he was turned away. To insult the dignity of a 93 year old man seems just plain hateful but then that is how the South got its reputation in the first place.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"CAn you actually post that with a straight face?" - Danni

No he did it with studies...... see above...

#41 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-04 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you see the map, where the ID issuing offices in the black areas are only open a few hours a week?

That's a systemic problem that "advocates" can't fix.

#12 | Posted by snoofy

I guess no one is allowed to go more than 15 blocks to get an ID. Maybe thoes black areas arn't safe to be in.

#42 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-04 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

@empoweralabama Did y'all run Willie Mims down to registrar's office for an ID? Was that option available in Escambia? -- Tim Lockette (@TLockette_Star) June 3, 2014


@TLockette_Star Volunteers tried but he didn't want to go. He was pretty tired. Plus he didn't know if he had other ID handy. :( -- Empower Alabama (@empoweralabama) June 3, 2014

#43 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-04 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I guess no one is allowed to go more than 15 blocks to get an ID. Maybe thoes black areas arn't safe to be in."

Check in with us when you are 93 and let us know how difficult it seems to go get a new ID.

To Mr. Mims, 1955 seems like yesterday and today.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay then.

You asked a question and I answered. Unless you have something to refute my response or otherwise advance the conversation, I'm not inclined to play "twenty questions" with you. I've been down that road with you and it leads nowhere.

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

CAn you actually post that with a straight face?

Yes. Any other ignorant questions?

Now, go educate yourself. Three studies are linked above. Pay particular attention to what Ansolabehere, a DOJ expert witness in the
Shelby
case, has to say about comparison of voter ID to Jim Crow laws. Hint, it's the epitome of stupid. You make the cut.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

The dude is 93 and you're making fun of him for not working? Are you serious?

#47 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love all the hyperbolic statements from the right. Making rash illogical and over exaggerated claims because you hide from your denials that you're hateful racist and you don't want minorities to vote. If you knew who you are you would be ashamed of yourself so you hide it under exaggerations.

It's pretty sad and a very immoral way of living to facade yourself in hyperbole.

#48 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you have something to refute my response or otherwise advance the conversation

The conversation would be advanced if you explained how the circumstances of his not having ID do or do not result in suppression.

It seems like it should be a simple enough thing for you to explain.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"no longer drives, doesn't have a license"

Did he have a license before? Of course he did. If he can get to the polls and vote he can get to the DMV and get an ID.

How does he cash a check?

Again I will ask the question are minorities too stupid to get an I.D?

#50 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-06-04 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

How does he cash a check?

Seriously? You still do that?

#51 | Posted by YAV at 2014-06-04 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's all a red herring and has nothing to do with voting. It's unconstitutional to require ID's to vote.

www.uwsp.edu

"no longer drives, doesn't have a license"
Did he have a license before? Of course he did. If he can get to the polls and vote he can get to the DMV and get an ID.
How does he cash a check?
Again I will ask the question are minorities too stupid to get an I.D?

#52 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's unconstitutional to require ID's to vote.

www.huffingtonpost.com

#53 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's unconstitutional to require ID's to vote.

www.post-gazette.com

#54 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's unconstitutional to require ID's to vote.

www.freerepublic.com

#55 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you people get it yet? Stop with the stupid exaggerations that make no ------- sense.

#56 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-06-04 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's unconstitutional to require ID's to vote.

Your ignorant spam notwithstanding. www.supremecourt.gov

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-04 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

The conversation would be advanced if you explained how the circumstances of his not having ID do or do not result in suppression.
It seems like it should be a simple enough thing for you to explain.

#49 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Do we have any kind of statistical measurement as to the percentage of voting age adults who lack ID?

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do we have any kind of statistical measurement as to the percentage of voting age adults who lack ID?

#58 | Posted by JeffJ

How many Alabamans lack ID isn't known -- in part because the state made no effort to find out before the ID law. But nationwide, most studies put the figure at around 11%, and as high as 25% for African-Americans.

These statistics are from the article.

#59 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-04 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

If your wonder is strong enough, you might read the linked Brennan Center report here www.brennancenter.org

And then consult the footnotes, which cite another Brennan Center report summarized here www.brennancenter.org

Your call.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks, Snoof-dog.

I'll check out the links right away.

Thank you for the info.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 11:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. Those numbers are really high. I find the numbers difficult to believe (not saying their wrong, just that I am skeptical) and part of what drives my skepticism 11%-25% is a HUGE range, which makes me wonder the statistical methodology utilized to arrive at these numbers.

#60 | Posted by [...] JeffJ

Well, the 11% statistic comes from this book. They do not give a link for the 25% figure, though that is presumably from the same source. 11% seems to be total population while 25% only seems to be African Americans.

#63 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-04 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow.

A very brief perusal told me what I need to know. The numbers are far higher than I realized. I still find that remarkable, but your source (I only clicked the first link) seemed to be scholarly and serious.

I think we can all agree that we should work toward measures the protect the integrity of our democratic process. But given the numbers cited, a voter ID requirement would create suppression in not insignificant numbers. It's not even racial. I don't care about that and I think Democrats cloud the issue by fixating on race - The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

I simply cannot support voter ID laws based upon the numbers I just saw. Would these laws reduce fraud? Certainly. Would they also result in voter suppression? Certainly. I don't support the trade-off.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even the low number, 11% is WAY too high for me, Mario.

Thankfully, you seem to have taken my alteration of your screen name in the manner I intended - just clowning.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seriously, I thought the number would be a fraction of 1%.

Granted, certain mitigating factors may be driving the number to look higher/worse than it really is, but even a reduction by 1/2 still has the number at greater than 5%. That is a LOT of people.

Also, I just re-read your initial citation - 11% for all people and 25% for blacks. I read it as 11-25% for blacks.

The racial component certainly makes more sense to me now.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

El Snoot,

You seemed to have those links at your fingertips.

Here's my unsolicited advice to all opponents of voter ID:

Stick with the facts. Quit labeling proponents of voter ID as racists. Believe it or not, expecting an individual to have a photo ID in order to vote is reasonable on its face. An ID can be demanded in order to purchase a can of beer or a pack of smokes.

We are talking about a LOT of people (I know I am repeating myself). I think some proponents of an ID requirement would change their mind (I just did) if they were privy to these numbers - not just those without ID, but some of the challenges that many would face attempting to acquire an ID.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I feel the discussion should be more about should we be doing more to make sure citizens have proper I.D. to vote and less about should an I.D. be required to vote, I feel like if state-issued I.D.'s were more prevalent in society these kind of things would be non-issues.

#68 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-05 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well JeffJ. Today was your turn to impress me.

Hopefully the other side of this coin -- that voter ID laws are only being advanced in states where the GOP controls the legislature and the governor's office -- doesn't seem like a mere coincidence but rather a deliberate attempt to keep certain people from the polls.

And then... you've got right-wingers like USAF242 saying "good." Buttressed by Et_Al refusing to look beyond the legality of this form of discrimination to see the purpose.

America has a long and ugly history of suppressing voting. We are merely living out the latest chapter.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I feel like if state-issued I.D.'s were more prevalent in society these kind of things would be non-issues.
#68 | Posted by mariosanchez

A national ID card would fix it too, but for some reason that terrifies some people.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 12:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

opefully the other side of this coin -- that voter ID laws are only being advanced in states where the GOP controls the legislature and the governor's office -- doesn't seem like a mere coincidence but rather a deliberate attempt to keep certain people from the polls.

I am many things, but I am not naive. It certainly occurred to me that at least part of the motivation for pushing this was to gain an electoral advantage.

And then... you've got right-wingers like USAF242 saying "good." Buttressed by Et_Al refusing to look beyond the legality of this form of discrimination to see the purpose.

I've read Et Al's comments on this issue. I construed them to be not advocating nor opposing voter ID laws - just that they are not unconstitutional or illegal.

A national ID card would fix it too

On this you'll have to elaborate. Again, I don't necessarily disagree - I just don't have an opinion at all as I really haven't come across advocacy for a national ID card.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

A national ID card would fix it too, but for some reason that terrifies some people.

#70 | Posted by snoofy

I feel like this is more appropriate for the state level since the state already handles ID cards, but it would indeed help. I don't understand why this would terrify anyone unless you were doing something illegal, I can't see giving any more information than when you applied for a drivers license or when you file taxes (though I suppose some people are probably afraid of the IRS too).

#72 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-05 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Personally, if you are too stupid to get an I.D. then you are too stupid to vote.

Democrats on here are being intentionally dense when it comes to I.D.'s. They know that I.D.'s will mean the death of them cheating in elections and that's why they oppose I.D.'s.

#73 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-06-05 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well JeffJ. Today was your turn to impress me.

Thank you.

Sometimes I really am trying to be objective. Sometimes I really am hoping to be hit with information that I haven't seen and/or a perspective that I haven't considered.

I am genuinely appreciative that you chose to address my question. You (and [...]Sanchez) provided information that I've never seen before.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

A national ID card would fix it too

On this you'll have to elaborate. Again, I don't necessarily disagree - I just don't have an opinion at all as I really haven't come across advocacy for a national ID card.

#71 | Posted by [...]JeffJ

If the U.S. government gave every citizen an ID, then no one would have an issue acquiring an ID to vote.

#75 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-05 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Personally, if you are too stupid to get an I.D. then you are too stupid to vote.
Democrats on here are being intentionally dense when it comes to I.D.'s. They know that I.D.'s will mean the death of them cheating in elections and that's why they oppose I.D.'s.

#73 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX

Check the links provided in #61.

I have no doubt that Democrats believe that a lack of ID and the potential for fraud is beneficial to them. The other side of the coin is that the Republicans believe that requiring ID, whilst it may cut down on fraudulent ballots a bit, ALSO results in voter suppression in demographics that are statistically supportive of Democrats.

You are an utter hack if you believe that Democrats have a monopoly on voter fraud. It's happened since this country was founded and will always happen. It's not tied to either party - both get away with whatever they can.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've read Et Al's comments on this issue. I construed them to be not advocating nor opposing voter ID laws - just that they are not unconstitutional or illegal.

Read what he finds "a little odd" in #35 and his "side note" in #38 you'll see what side his bread is buttered on. And if you go back a year his hostility to Section V pre-clearance (which the Supreme Court overturned 5-4, www.nytimes.com ) was palpable.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 12:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the U.S. government gave every citizen an ID, then no one would have an issue acquiring an ID to vote.

#75 | POSTED BY MARIO[...]SANCHEZ

Ok. That makes sense. I think it results in certain logistical issues when it comes to voting (every state has its own procedures), but then just about any proposal is going to come with certain hurdles to leap.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I feel like this is more appropriate for the state level since the state already handles ID cards, but it would indeed help. I don't understand why this would terrify anyone unless you were doing something illegal, I can't see giving any more information than when you applied for a drivers license or when you file taxes (though I suppose some people are probably afraid of the IRS too).

#72 | POSTED BY MARIO[...]SANCHEZ

So, if I am reading you correctly, it's not the notion of requiring an ID itself that is the problem. It's the burden that some have to bear in order to obtain said ID that is the problem.

That's where I fall on this and I think the Snoof is there as well given the mention of a national ID.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ok. That makes sense. I think it results in certain logistical issues when it comes to voting (every state has its own procedures), but then just about any proposal is going to come with certain hurdles to leap.

#78 | Posted by [...]JeffJ

I think very few laws/regulations come without their own logistical issues.

#80 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-05 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

They know that I.D.'s will mean the death of them cheating in elections and that's why they oppose I.D.'s.
#73 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX

For those who can't see through this, the problem is that you haven't assembled a body of evidence substantiating the claim of in-person photo-ID-preventable voter fraud -- by Democrats, by Republicans, by anyone.

Meanwhile, there's ample evidence that large numbers of otherwise eligible voters don't meet photo ID requirements.

"Utter hack" about sums you up.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

For those who can't see through this, the problem is that you haven't assembled a body of evidence substantiating the claim of in-person photo-ID-preventable voter fraud -- by Democrats, by Republicans, by anyone.
Meanwhile, there's ample evidence that large numbers of otherwise eligible voters don't meet photo ID requirements.
- El Snoof

Whatever frame of mind you are in when penning this comment please try to remember it.

In 2 sentences you succinctly and effectively summed up the principled (IMO) opposition to a voter ID requirement.

That was very well stated.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile, there's ample evidence that large numbers of otherwise eligible voters don't meet photo ID requirements.

There are also a large number of INELIGBLE voters who don't meet photo ID requirements - 20 million of them. Anyone can register to vote, how do I know they are who they say they are?

As far as willie mims goes, booh-hoo, whatever, we all have laws to follow, and this one makes sense. Just because voter fraud is not common committed, does not mean it does not happen. One vote can change everything.

#83 | Posted by danv at 2014-06-05 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't care enough to bother, you SHOULDN'T get to vote!!

Obviously you don't believe in the constitution.

#84 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-06-05 07:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"One vote can change everything."

Yeah, Mr. Mims one vote might have been that one vote. Jim Crow wins again.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

1 person was not able to vote, the poll workers are to blame for this because he was supposed to be given a provisional ballot.

1 Person, and it was do to an error by the poll workers.

On the other hand, without voter ID, you have those same poll workers voting multiple times.

If Democrats were not using the lack of voter ID to cheat, they would not be opposed to voter ID laws.

#86 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sometimes I really am trying to be objective. Sometimes I really am hoping to be hit with information that I haven't seen and/or a perspective that I haven't considered.

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 personal 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.

Do you really think that the constituency who uses absentee ballots the most - who happen to be older, more affluent, more educated, whiter voters - has nothing to do with the fact that not a single voter ID proponent has EVER recommended that this method be banned or made to conform with in-person voting requirements?

Therein lies it'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.

POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-05-03 09:48 AM | www.drudge.com


Congratulations Jeff. Welcome to a new understanding.

#87 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-06-05 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If Democrats were not using the lack of voter ID to cheat, they would not be opposed to voter ID laws."

So, Mr. Mims was going to the poll to cheat not vote. What a lie. We all know why Republicans want voter ID laws and it has nothing to do with voter fraud as the Pennsylvania SC has agreed. The one thing that voter ID laws has accomplished is to remove any semblance of ethics among Republicans.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice deflectin Danni, combined with projection. Nice indeed.

Mr. Mimms wasn't doing anything wrong, but there are many many Democrats who vote both in person and via absentee ballot. There are also many Democrats that vote where they live as well as where they vacation. There are many democrats that vote for their children and other relatives who do not vote.

If we find examples of voter froud, then Democrats will change the subject.

#89 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Mr. Mimms wasn't doing anything wrong, but there are many many Democrats who vote both in person and via absentee ballot"

Study after study have been done and no significant amount of voter fraud is ever found and thus, like I said, the SC of Pennsylvania threw out their voter ID law for that very reason.
Just because Republicans pretend to believe there is a legitimate purpose to voter ID laws doesn't mean I have to believe them, ID laws are voter suppression in disguise, nothing more, nothing less.

#90 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There are many democrats that vote for their children and other relatives who do not vote."

When you don't have proof just make stuff up.

#91 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

If we find examples of voter froud, then Democrats will change the subject.

#89 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05

If, Piff.

NOT finding examples of voter fraud sure hasn't made you Yahoos change the subject one bit.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-05 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

You guys didn't want Mr. Mims to vote. Mr. Mims knows that, and so do most of the rest of us.

The poor soul wasn't even given a Provisional ballot by you Yahoos. Your law is not so complicated that election officials would have somehow forgotten that.

You wanted to chase Mr. Mims away, and away he went. You won. Hope you can get to sleep at night.

#93 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-05 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just a few examples, just the tip of the iceburg.

www.bizpacreview.com

dailycaller.com

www.wxow.com

www.politifact.com

www.jsonline.com

www.tennessean.com

#94 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#94 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05

MARTY, there is no iceberg. The iceberg is in your head. Its made you into an anti-democratic freakazoid.

#95 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-05 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Click on Marty's www.politifact link but try not to laugh....I couldn't do it.....I laughed.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-05 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Mims, who is African-American, no longer drives, doesn't have a license, and has no other form of ID. As a result, he was turned away without voting. Mims wasn't even offered the chance to cast a provisional ballot, as the law requires in that situation."

To Republicans, this reads like a letter to Penthouse.

#97 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-05 10:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

$O MANY PEOPLE BOYCOTT THE VOTE BECAU$E THE $Y$TEM I$ A $CAM

#99 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-05 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

LET NON-CITIZENS VOTE ~ THEY'LL HELP OUTLAW GUNS

#100 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-05 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am genuinely appreciative that you chose to address my question. You (and ------------) provided information that I've never seen before.
#74 | Posted by JeffJ

Welcome to an evidence based examination of voter ID. When I first saw those numbers a few years ago, I too was impressed and initially opposed voters ID. Digging deeper into the evidence and law changed my mind.

Now check out the three studies linked at 23. The actual effect is much less impressive. The Indiana studies show that the number of votes prevented by ID is less than one half of one percent. An almost identical equivalent of the instances of in person voter fraud.

If it can be shown that statistically significant votes are prevented by ID I'll switch again. So far, I have not seen such evidence.

#101 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Now check out the three studies linked at 23. The actual effect is much less impressive. The Indiana studies show that the number of votes prevented by ID is less than one half of one percent. An almost identical equivalent of the instances of in person voter fraud.

Excellent information.

It doesn't change my opinion on voter ID laws though.

I am still opposed not because the fraud vs. suppression is a wash, but because it's such a polarizing issue. The amount of fraud it prevents is extremely low, statistically. So, in my view, it's just not a political battle that's worth fighting IMO.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-05 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The amount of fraud it prevents is extremely low, statistically.

I'm not trying to persuade. Now, for the law side. Check out the SC opinion in Crawford linked at 57. That opinion addresses every argument against voter ID that is repeated in every discussion of this issue. The arguments were rejected. On voter fraud, it only takes one case, or even the perception of voter fraud, for voter ID to survive a rational basis review.

Another popular one is "the Republicans want to..." Yet, partisan motivations, without more, for enacting the law are insufficient to overcome a legislature choosing to address voter fraud. Snoofy adds a race element to the partisan motivation. Of course, if that could be proven then the law could be invalidated under the VRA. The problem is no one attempts to prove it but opponents continue to throw it out there hoping it sticks.

As an aside, someone mentioned a national ID. It's on its way. www.ncsl.org

#103 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Indiana studies show that the number of votes prevented by ID is less than one half of one percent.

Is that the same as votes being suppressed?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

amount of fraud it prevents is extremely low, statistically.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ

How can you possibly say that?
Can you not imagine that a lot is actually going on now, and the people are not being caught?

Dems opposing it when they could instead volunteer to take anyone disenfranchised to get an ID speaks of corruption to me.

#105 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Study after study have been done and no significant amount of voter fraud is ever found and thus, like I said, the SC of Pennsylvania threw out their voter ID law for that very reason.

No, it did not. The court returned the issue to the trial court because of implementation issues. Here is the only opinion the PA SC has written in that case. moritzlaw.osu.edu

Just because Republicans pretend to believe there is a legitimate purpose to voter ID laws doesn't mean I have to believe them, ID laws are voter suppression in disguise, nothing more, nothing less.

If true, you should have no problem presenting the evidence. I look forward to your doing so.

#106 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Disenfranshisement is when someone does not vote because they feel the system is rigged, and there are cheats that are not being caught.

I think the Dems are cheating on a massive scale, but are doing it well enough to not be caught.

The fact that they vehimently oppose any type of verification of who is voting confirms my suspition.

I see no reason to vote since the system is rigged.

I am disenfranchised.

#107 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

If it can be shown that statistically significant votes are prevented by ID I'll switch again. So far, I have not seen such evidence

I posit that because of how you've chosen to define "prevented" (or, sometimes, "suppressed") you ignore most evidence where previously eligible voters do not vote after photo ID requirements are imposed.

For example, a formerly eligible and participating voter who lacks photo ID and who doesn't get the photo ID or try to vote after the imposition of the voter ID requirement never meets your threshold for a vote "prevented" (or "suppressed.") While it's certainly possible this voter had a "change of heart" and simply decided to no longer vote independently of the photo ID requirement, it's also possible their knowledge of the photo ID requirement and their knowledge of their lack of photo ID is why they didn't try to vote.

As I recall from previous discussions of this rather important nuance, a person must attempt to vote and be turned away by a poll worker before a discussion of whether a vote was "prevented" can take place. This is problematic because a group of thugs at the polling place intimidating voters would also not meet the threshold of votes "prevented." Or "suppressed," if you prefer.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is that the same as votes being suppressed?

Apparently not.

The complaints in the consolidated cases allege that the new law substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; that it is neither a necessary nor appropriate method of avoiding election fraud; and that it will arbitrarily disfranchise qualified voters who do not possess the required identification and will place an unjustified burden on those who cannot readily obtain such identification.
www.supremecourt.gov

#109 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll say it again.

Disenfranshisement is when someone does not vote because they feel the system is rigged, and there are cheats that are not being caught.

I think the Dems are cheating on a massive scale, but are doing it well enough to not be caught.

The fact that they vehimently oppose any type of verification of who is voting confirms my suspition.

I see no reason to vote since the system is rigged.

I am disenfranchised.

#110 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-05 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

...you ignore most evidence...

What evidence?

#111 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would you read the rest of the post if it said "you ignore most situations?"

Okay then.

I posit that because of how you've chosen to define "prevented" (or, sometimes, "suppressed") you ignore most situations where previously eligible voters do not vote after photo ID requirements are imposed.

For example, a formerly eligible and participating voter who lacks photo ID and who doesn't get the photo ID or try to vote after the imposition of the voter ID requirement never meets your threshold for a vote "prevented" (or "suppressed.") While it's certainly possible this voter had a "change of heart" and simply decided to no longer vote independently of the photo ID requirement, it's also possible their knowledge of the photo ID requirement and their knowledge of their lack of photo ID is why they didn't try to vote.

As I recall from previous discussions of this rather important nuance, a person must attempt to vote and be turned away by a poll worker before a discussion of whether a vote was "prevented" can take place. This is problematic because a group of thugs at the polling place intimidating voters would also not meet the threshold of votes "prevented." Or "suppressed," if you prefer.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

If your point is that I ignore anecdotal recitations of "evidence" or "situations" then yes, that is true.

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

...that is mostly true.

#114 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The far more revealing thing here is the clear agenda and deliberate ignorance of the law in question. i.e. this was not a case of mistaken identity, but one of open ballot rigging on the part of the office in question. If they were going to turn people away, then they damn well knew that he was supposed to be given a provisional ballot; they simply told him to f off; he should file charges in federal court for tampering.

#115 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Shawn comes late to the game, full of emotional speculation and woefully short of facts.

Of course, the poll worker should have offered a ballot but that begs the question whether that failure is systemic or just one poorly trained or absent minded poll worker.

This story sounds curiously like one in Mississippi but presented in a more balanced manner.

Bottom line, no system (or law) is perfect the question is whether it is intentionally imperfect. With voter ID, I posit it is not.

www.drudge.com

#116 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we find examples of voter froud, then Democrats will change the subject.

Since Democrats have not changed the subject, I guess it means that you have not found examples of voter fraud?

#117 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-06-05 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is in response to the studies ET AL posted at #23

The Cal Tech study you posted addressed the concern that people would be denied access to vote, and it concluded by and large that people would not be excluded due to Voter ID requirements. By its own finding, however, 0.1% of voters across the four regions of the country were denied the right to vote as a result of lack of sufficient identification.

Since more than 100,000,000 Americans vote in Presidential elections, a 0.1% exclusion on this rule alone would amount to over 100,000 people denied a vote. That may not seem like much to some people, but when one considers that as of 2012, only 10 people have been prosecuted for committing in-person voter fraud since 2000.

blogs.wsj.com

That amounts to fewer than four people per Presidential election since 2000 that have committed the crime that Voter ID laws are said by their supporters to prevent.

The study also concluded that 0.0% of Americans over 70 were excluded because of insufficient ID, but as we've seen from this article in Alabama as well as the case in Indiana in which octogenarian nuns in South Bend, IN we're denied the vote in 2008, this study could use some work.

#118 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-05 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Of course, the poll worker should have offered a ballot but that begs the question whether that failure is systemic or just one poorly trained or absent minded poll worker.

----------

bs. There is no question. It was deliberate, for if the ballot worker was poorly trained, then that was also intentional. The babe in the woods argument doesn't fly.

#119 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If your point is that I ignore anecdotal recitations of "evidence" or "situations" then yes, that is true.
#113 | Posted by et_al

The point is that you've defined "suppression" in such a way as to overlook most instances of suppression.

Earlier you couldn't even say what constitutes suppression and what doesn't. Yet somehow you're certain it is happening to less than one half of one percent of voters. How can that be?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The point is that you've defined...

As usual, you think you have a point based on what you think rather than what I write. Regarding the studies, I have simply referred you to the researchers.

Earlier you couldn't even say...

Again, what you think instead of what I write. I gave you parameters that are broader than what the Indiana studies looked at. Nevertheless, neither you nor anyone else can offer any study that looks at the effect of voter ID. The three linked above, and two cited in the Indiana studies, are the only ones that even make an attempt as far I know. Educate me if you know otherwise.

#121 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the Dems are cheating on a massive scale, but are doing it well enough to not be caught.

#110 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-

I think that the fairies come out at night and steal one sock from each of your pairs.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

#122 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-05 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

It was deliberate, for if the ballot worker was poorly trained, then that was also intentional

More emotional speculation even fewer facts.

The babe in the woods argument doesn't fly.

I agree. So, stop doing it.

#123 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Since more than 100,000,000 Americans vote in Presidential elections, a 0.1% exclusion on this rule alone would amount to over 100,000 people denied a vote.

I'm unsure where you got those numbers. From the Cal Tech study:

Simply put, almost no one was excluded from voting. Only 23 people in the entire 36,500 person sample said that they were not allowed to vote because of voter identification requirements. That figure translates into approximately one-tenth of one percent of voters. www.vote.caltech.edu

#124 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now you are obfuscating. It is you who are claiming that it was an accident. I said that it was not. There is no ambiguity what so ever.

#125 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is you who are claiming that it was an accident.

Nothing like a logical fallacy argument, can you say straw man?

I repeated my claim at 116. Deal with that rather your hallucinations.

#126 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I gave you parameters that are broader than what the Indiana studies looked at.
I must have missed that. Can you specify where they are? Are they buried somewhere in #23, or elsewhere?

"Only 23 people in the entire 36,500 person sample said that they were not allowed to vote because of voter identification requirements."

Can you not see that this metric does not capture people who don't bother trying to vote because their knowledge of voter identification requirements is such that they know they'll not be allowed to vote?

It's like saying "We closed the store on Monday and since very few people banged on the door, we figure very few people wanted to shop on Monday." It ignores the people who saw the "closed" sign and didn't bother banging on the door. It ignores the people who were planning to shop but turned back after being told by another that "they're closed."

Yesterday I was trying to go to a restaurant. But where the restaurant was... from the car it appeared it was just an empty storefront now. I didn't bother parking and banging on the door just in case they were still open. By the standard you've invoked, that was not a lost sale.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the law, get over it!

#128 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-05 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you not see that this metric does not capture people who don't bother trying to vote because their knowledge of voter identification requirements is such that they know they'll not be allowed to vote?

I recognize that as a possibility. That possibility is not evidence, it's speculation.

#129 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I repeated my claim at 116. Deal with that rather your hallucinations.

------------

You are obfuscating.

Stop wasting my time.

#130 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#130

I see, your problem is word comprehension. Repeating a clear articulation of my claim is not obfuscating. Telling you to deal with that rather than your straw man hallucinations is not obfuscating.

Stop wasting my time.

As if I have control over your time. Don't want your time wasted then don't respond.

#131 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I recognize that as a possibility. That possibility is not evidence, it's speculation.
#129 | Posted by et_al

It doesn't become evidence when harnessed to, say, the Brennan study of who meets the voter ID requirements?

Can it ever become evidence?

This is what I mean when I say you've defined suppression in a way that's oblivious to most instances suppression. Do you recognize that as a possibility too?

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can it ever become evidence?

Sure, care to do the empirical studies? As far as I know, the best available are cited above and they do not support your conclusion.

...I say you've defined suppression...

You continue to refer to "my" definition although I've not offered one. I've referred you to the researchers and to the SC expressing the parameters of what they explored in searching for suppression or disenfranchisement which they did not find.

You seem to want an all encompassing definition, I'm not aware of one are you?

#133 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

From a different Caltech/MIT report, www.vote.caltech.edu

Since these voter identification laws have many
critics, it is necessary to acknowledge the four most
common arguments against them. First, there simply
is not a strong record demonstrating the prevalence
of voter impersonation fraud or voting by ineligible
individuals -- the types of fraud that strong voter-
identification requirements might mitigate.
19
Second,
because these identification requirements are
imposed at the polling sites, pollworkers must use
their discretion in determining whether a photo
matches the voter, which could lead to unequal
application of these laws. Third, despite the best
efforts of states to provide photo identification to
those without it, many potential voters, especially
minority voters, still do not possess the correct
government-issued identification.
20
Fourth, these
identification requirements are not imposed on those
who vote by mail, which is one of the fastest-growing
forms of convenience voting throughout the nation.
For these reasons and many others, voter identification
laws have been controversial. They have spawned
a number of recent lawsuits, and they are fueling a
growing polarization regarding election administration.
While we believe strongly that elections should
be as secure as reasonably possible, we also believe
that the burden for preventing voter fraud should
be placed mainly on the state, not voters. Therefore,
we should seek ways to make voting more secure
without making it more difficult for a voter to
cast a ballot.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-05 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

The vote by mail people have an address. These invisible people have no address. They can't be renters, renters have to present an ID, they can't own their own home, no record in the courthouse. They have no investments,receive no government assistance.
This man arrived at the poll not knowing he would need an ID, He didn't know he could receive a provisional ballot. Did he even know who he was voting for or was someone coaching him?

#135 | Posted by jdmeth at 2014-06-05 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

First, there simply is not a strong record demonstrating the prevalence of voter impersonation fraud or voting by ineligible individuals -- the types of fraud that strong voter-identification requirements might mitigate.

True, as I've stated many times. But according to Crawford prevalence is not a prerequisite to validity.

Second, because these identification requirements are imposed at the polling sites, pollworkers must use their discretion in determining whether a photo matches the voter, which could lead to unequal application of these laws.

True, but that is an argument for better training not invalidating voter ID. Note the study advocates a better system not invalidation.

Third, despite the best efforts of states to provide photo identification to those without it, many potential voters, especially minority voters, still do not possess the correct government-issued identification.

True, that's why I have advocated accommodations.

Fourth, these identification requirements are not imposed on those who vote by mail...

True, that's why I have advocated such a requirement for mail ballots but I'm having a problem envisioning implementation.

Thanks for the article. I don't find it helpful in assessing the constitutionality of voter ID but nevertheless informative. Note, they don't advocate abolishing voter ID.

#136 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see, your problem is word comprehension. Repeating a clear articulation of my claim is not obfuscating. Telling you to deal with that rather than your straw man hallucinations is not obfuscating.

-----

No, you are obfuscating, and I'm through with your infantile attempts to dodge the point.

#137 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The far more revealing thing here is the clear agenda and deliberate ignorance of the law in question. i.e. this was not a case of mistaken identity, but one of open ballot rigging on the part of the office in question. If they were going to turn people away, then they damn well knew that he was supposed to be given a provisional ballot; they simply told him to f off; he should file charges in federal court for tampering.

That is all there is to it. The rest of this thread is obfuscation.
All of it.

#138 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-05 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Somebody buy this Shawn crank a thesaurus.

#139 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-05 11:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought you said I was wasting your time.

Guess not.

Laying waste to your perfidy?

#140 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-05 11:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Oh I wasn't talking to you, and I'm still not. I was and am addressing the rest.

#141 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-06 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy is correct. You don't need a smoking gun to evidence voter suppression. Exit polling combined with basic statistically sampling will tell you far more about what the masses actually think, and they overwhelmingly hate both parties.

And this case is clear. It is acute voter suppression. There is no ambiguity. None.

#142 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-06 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Exit polling combined with basic statistically sampling will tell you far more about what the masses actually think, and they overwhelmingly hate both parties.

That's nice, care to address the topic?

And this case is clear...

You ignored what, linked above, to come to that conclusion? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question. It's unfair to expect an answer from a simpleton. Nevertheless, why not address your perfidy? Inadequate?

#143 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-06 02:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one has addressed the voter suppression evident in the lack of voter ID. When people feel the system is rigged, and their vote does not count, then their vote is pointless.

I think this is far worse than a lone individual who was turned away in error.

What percentage of people vote in this country?
What percentage of those who do not vote feel that the system is rigged?
How many of those would vote knowing that only legally registered voters are allowed to vote?

Hmmm?

#144 | Posted by Marty at 2014-06-06 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

This voter law changes the GOP have been clamoring to implement which is more than just about ID; It's also about closing polling stations, limiting early voting and making registration harder. Essentially a full press to counter the shifting political demographics of the country. The GOP doesn't see a path to 270 so they are trying to create one by throwing up obstacles to voting and disenfranchising voters. Sore losers the whole lot of them. They love to claim the constitution but hate democracy. You can't win fair and square just change the rules of the game to favor you.

#145 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-06-06 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

What percentage of those who do not vote feel that the system is rigged?

You think photo ID is going to change that?
You'd expect to see an increase in turnout for statewide races in states that have photo ID, yeah?

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-06 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The political process is rigged in favor of the fascisti.

Ids are a red herring designed to get the idiot sheeple to fight amongst each other. There is no need for them.

#147 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-06 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no need for them.

34 state legislatures disagree. www.ncsl.org

77% of the population agrees. www.pewresearch.org

#148 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-06 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

You'd expect to see an increase in turnout for statewide races in states that have photo ID, yeah?

Depends on who you ask.

Researchers have also reached wildly different conclusions about the impact of ID laws on voter turnout, ranging from a negative effect to a positive effect to no clear effect at all. www.ncsl.org

#149 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-06 09:31 PM | 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