Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 07, 2014

After an extensive investigation we have a new number on just how extensive America's voter fraud problem really is. Hold on to your hats, folks, because that number is: 31. That's not 31 proven incidents in the last 14 years, that's 31 possible incidents -- some or most of them could be the result of clerical errors, like people signing the poll books on the wrong lines. That's what the conservative obsession with voter ID laws seeks to tamp down on.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AMERICANUNITY

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Justin Leavitt, a Loyola University law professor, writes in the Washington Post:

I've been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I've been following reports wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I'm not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I've found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country.

Comments

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

All these GOP initiated Voter ID laws are shameless attempts by the GOP to suppress votes from voters they don't think will vote for them.

There hasn't ever been a lick of evidence to support GOP charges of widespread voter fraud.

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 02:34 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The GOP is all about flag waving, flag pins, and "freedom", right?

Throw that BS in the toilet. When they go out of their way to disenfranchise /qualified voters by changing a system that's worked for over 200 years, they are hardly acting like patriotic Americans.

#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

You must be exhausted, shoveling all that BS! Pro Bono?...;-)

(BHO shovel-ready job)

#3 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-07 03:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Easy lifting. The story was as light as the hot air the GOP dishes out to gullible people.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 03:36 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 8

Sorry to disappoint you, GA. The GOP are the ones dishing out the BS on this topic. There IS no voter fraud problem. They are scared and can't win without acting all un-American and suppressing the vote. Won't work for long. Much of the Republican base who show up every election are white elderly people like you.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 03:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 6

Voter fraud is just a dog whistle remedy to a non-issue. A solution to a real issue like illegal immigration is just too hard for the GOP to fix.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I seriously doubt large scale fraud on the national level. Besides, low information voters are easily swayed. But without a doubt, the fraud at the local level is rampant. Especially with vote buying. In eastern Ky, it's quite common to purchase votes for a 6-pack and a couple of lottery tickets. And believe it or not, it is a heavily democratic region. Eastern Kentucky, where democrats will beat the hell out of each other over votes.

#7 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-08-07 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

There's no point in trying to explain things to people who do not have the mental capacity to process the information.

And Daniel's just full of crap.

.

#8 | Posted by Dave at 2014-08-07 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Funny just in one state there were more convictions then that over the same years. I wonder who that works? Are convictions and guilty pleas not possible instances?

Sure voter fraud is very rare but why bother making crap up like this? If you need to lie to prove your point do you have a point?

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sure voter fraud is very rare but why bother making crap up like this? If you need to lie to prove your point do you have a point?

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I'd bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.

Kevin Drum added that if every one of these instances "turns out to be a genuine case of fraud, that's a fraud rate of 0.00002%." Just so we're clear, Republican policymakers have launched a national campaign, imposing the most severe voting restrictions since the Jim Crow era, all the while characterizing voter fraud as a national scourge that can only be addressed through voter-ID laws.

Except the only genuine fraud here has been the GOP argument.
www.msnbc.com


Funny just in one state there were more convictions then that over the same years. I wonder who that works?

It "works" because you're likely referencing non-in person voter fraud cases, not anything that voter ID laws were supposed to impact. It might help if you had more than a clue about what you're erroneously bloviating about.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-07 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The most American thing you can do is suppress voting.

- GOP

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-07 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If only every voter showed up at the polls carrying a firearm, this wouldn't be a problem...

#12 | Posted by catdog at 2014-08-07 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You only know what you know, not what you don't know.

What do all the other countries in Europe and elsewhere that vote require for eligibility?

The USA apparently doesn't want to defend its borders or to track visa over stays and that is a major problem.

We need to examine how other countries that face this problem handle and protect their right to vote, assuming that they also have massive illegal immigration.

Why does the USA believe that everything must be invented here, and not have analyzed and examined as far as what has worked best in other countries? It a huge flaw in our thinking that we do not use the experience of other countries, because we are not that exceptional.

#13 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-07 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Voter ID is the new poll tax

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-07 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You only know what you know, not what you don't know.

Thanks Webster.

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know what I don't know.

I know I don't know how to fly a plane.

I know I don't know the square root of 2250645 off hand.

I know I don't know what any of you look like.

I know a great many thing I don't know.

#16 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-07 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny just in one state there were more convictions then that over the same years. I wonder who that works?
#9 | Posted by salamandagator

It works by you providing a citation for your claim. Then we don't dismiss your comments as coming from someone so dumb they doesn't understand the difference between voting and registering to vote.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-07 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

a while back, someone found it more beneficial, and perhaps far easier to shape a another person's opinions and limit their choices before hitting the voting booth rather than manipulating and changing the vote afterwards.

#18 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-07 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Joseph Stalin

#19 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-07 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

-- Feb. 12, 2002, Secy Rumsfeld - Department of Defense news briefing

Rumsfeld thought he knew where the WMD's in Iraq were, when he didn't know jack ----.

It's become an American political cultural flaw, thinking we know what we don't know. My concerns are both voters who are not eligible, and hacked electronic voting machines. We are told one thing and the reality is we don't know because of politics.

#20 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-07 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20 | Posted by Robson

I thought that for a while. This is a little conspiracy theorish... But as we got to know Rumsy, Cheney and Bush better - I think at least 2 of them knew there were no WMDs all along. They set up some good 'evidence' and then gave it to Powell to present as even then he was the only one with the credibility to sell it to the world out of that group. Especially since I am of the belief that Powell was kept out of the loop because he actually has some level of personal integrity.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-07 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

rumsfeld forgot the most important permutation of all-- "there are things we know that we do not really know".

we only "know" them, not because they are self-evident truths, but because they are constantly embedded (by our chosen social environment) into our subconciousness as self-evident truths.

and the ones who embed are media outlets, large corporations, and groups of people with agendas who repeat things over and over and over again.

it goes far beyond listening to an ozzy album and then having the urge to commit suicide (or even forming a band with a bloke named "geezer").

if one person asks a serious and pertinent question about another's stance on something, the other person leads them off the track by asking them to first clarify their own positions on a thousand other stances.

-- and that, my friends, is the name of the game.

#22 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-07 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Voter ID is the new poll tax

#14 | Posted by LarryMohr

Bingo.

#23 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Voter ID is the new poll tax"

oh so? i thought "poll tax" was a synonym for certain types of phallic piercings...

shows where my mind is at at the moment....

#24 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-07 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Take note Republicans:
Trying to stop certain people from voting, often makes them even more determined too vote, and they definitely will not vote for the fools who stood in their way.

#25 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-08-07 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

If only every voter showed up at the polls carrying a firearm, this wouldn't be a problem...

#12 | Posted by catdog

Especially if they were blind.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-07 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's been more than 31 dead folks voting in Chicago for years. Who are you democrat buffoons hoping to trick?

#27 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-08-07 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

watchdog.org

I am sure the above link will be spurned by the DR left, but it shows why voter fraud is hard to find even when it occurs, but easy to do.

www.npr.org

FTA: For example, he says, there was evidence that convicted felons voted even though they're not allowed to under state law. But it turns out that the state mailed them their ballots, making it difficult to prove that the felons willfully broke the law.

So, illegal votes, but not prosecutable. Do situations like this show up in the "31"? VERY doubtful.

Poll tax? Utter nonsense. It has been shown time and time again that a photo ID is easily obtainable and in 2014 a necessity.

Democrats - getting the "dead" vote for 50 years.

#28 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-07 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee, how did we get by for 230+ years with the system that served us well?

Several investigations have gathered data from across the country and found instances of proven voter fraud were in the billionths of a percent.

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep, with all the crime in the country, and all the slime in politics, assuming that for some reason voting would be immune to every thing around it is absolutely reasonable.....

Sorta like how gun-free zones prevent criminals from using guns in such zones....

What I WILL believe is that if you squint real hard, and accept only a certain criteria of evidence, you can shrink numbers a lot. I could numbers for unethical activities by banks by using the same method.....

#31 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-07 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Several investigations have gathered data from across the country and found instances of proven voter fraud were in the billionths of a percent.

Your claimed investigations are most likely anecdotal, you don't link them so guesswork remains. The infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID. Nevertheless, frequency of voter fraud is not a constitutional prerequisite to enacting voter ID.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-07 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID.
#32 | Posted by et_al a

Curious if you could give a definition for "vote suppression by voter ID," or an example of it occurring.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-07 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You've got to be kidding me. They have had more voter fraud on one bus in New Orleans than this.

They have been caught locally giving everyone on the bus a name to vote under and who to vote for. They drive from one voting booth to another and give them a different name to vote under at each place. Voter ID has stopped this in NO but its still active in states with no voter ID,

Stop pulling my leg with this corrupt government creating false studies to cover up democrat party bases voter fraud.

Acorn registers all these false nonexistent people and the buses pay people to vote under those names.

Why in some states do more people vote that the census can find in the state?

#34 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-07 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 | Posted by et_al

There is and has been no problem with voting fraud.

Voter ID laws are purely a GOP attempt to suppress the vote of people they don't think will vote for them.

#35 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know several of you will have some fun with this, but just applying common sense to this issue gets me to this conclusion:

The people least inclined to do everything possible to assure that all of our elections are fair and free from corruption would be the people who most benefit from them being so...

But that's just common sense so it might not apply.

#36 | Posted by frugalscott at 2014-08-07 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is and has been no problem with voting fraud.

Which part of "...frequency of voter fraud is not a constitutional prerequisite to enacting voter ID" do you not comprehend?

Your opinion about motivations is just that, an opinion you cannot prove. Even if you could, partisan motivations alone are not a constitutional condemnation of voter ID.

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-07 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#33

It's the one used by the researchers whose work support the statement. Same as the last ten or so times you asked that question.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-07 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

ET AL

Which part of "voter fraud is not and has not ever been a problem' don't you comprehend?

The GOP wouldn't have gone on this anti-American course of action if they didn't think it would benefit them by suppressing the votes of people they don't think will vote for them.

#39 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#39

I comprehend it quite well. You don't seem to comprehend that legislators are not constitutionally limited by the absence of a "problem." Almost 70% of the states have figured that out. What's your problem?

#40 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-07 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which part of "...frequency of voter fraud is not a constitutional prerequisite to enacting voter ID" do you not comprehend?

What part of we're talking about public policy, not the legality of public policy, do you not comprehend?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-07 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the one used by the researchers whose work support the statement.
#38 | Posted by et_al

Should be easy enough for you to cite then...

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-07 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

oops... NOT being so.

#43 | Posted by frugalscott at 2014-08-07 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

What part of we're talking about public policy, not the legality of public policy, do you not comprehend?

The poster to whom I was responding has no desire to discuss policy, nor do you from experience, but only partisanship. From a policy point of view 34 of 50 state have some form of voter ID. Apparently, a large number of legislators and, a fortiori, millions of their constituents support voter ID which is facially constitutional. Personal partisan objections aside.

Should be easy enough for you to cite then...

What, you forgot? I've only done that for you about a dozen times. You have even provided obtuse critique of them, forgot that also? I haven't, you should have bookmarked them the first few times. BTW, I've asked numerous times without a response, got anything other than anecdote and news articles to show voter ID suppresses the vote?

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

10/13
Tennessee's Supreme Court upheld a voter photo identification law on Thursday, deciding unanimously that because the state law included an exception for those voters who are "indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee," it did not impose an undue burden.

So be at ease, AU...

#45 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-08 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I've asked numerous times without a response, got anything other than anecdote and news articles to show voter ID suppresses the vote?
#44 | Posted by et_al

Answering this question depends on the definition of suppression.

Hence, the ask.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Answering this question depends on the definition of suppression.

To my knowledge, there is no universally accepted definition thus I have referred you to researchers, their definitions and their conclusion that none exists that is statistically significant. Cite whatever you think shows voter ID is vote suppression and we'll go from there.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Cite whatever you think shows voter ID is vote suppression and we'll go from there.

I asked you first.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 02:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since you can't provide the definition of "vote suppression by voter ID," perhaps you'd like to give an example?

It was your claim that "infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID."

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 02:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I asked you first.

Childish.

Cite research that voter ID suppresses the vote. Refute the hypothesis I've backed up with research.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 02:53 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If you can't substantiate your claim that "infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID," then why'd you make it?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 03:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please explain how it is determined there are no ineligible votors voting if IDs are not checked? The only reason I can see to be against votor ID is if you are planning to cheat.

#52 | Posted by TexasToast77627 at 2014-08-08 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

I do want voter supression, especially the dead votors.

#53 | Posted by TexasToast77627 at 2014-08-08 08:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please explain how it is determined there are no ineligible votors voting if IDs are not checked? The only reason I can see to be against votor ID is if you are planning to cheat.

In most cases, you have to supply ID when you register to vote. Once your personal voting pattern has been established, your signature is checked against the prior signature by the poll workers.

In order to commit "in person voter fraud" a person would have to know the name of the voter being impersonated, their address, forge their signature and know that the actual voter hasn't voted. And all of this is for ONE VOTE. Do you see how ridiculous this is for anyone to try to coordinate a meaningful number of fraudulent voters significant enough to change the vast majority of elections? And how would such coordination happen?

Voter ID requirements inhibit the rights of millions of legal voters to their constitutional rights even though the courts have deemed them legal. Mailing voters a simple PIN would eliminate any concerns over fraud without the need for additional ID requirements for already registered voters, many who've voted for decades without needing ID at the polls.

#54 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"If you can't substantiate your claim that "infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID," then why'd you make it?"

because there is nothing to prove otherwise?

I accept that there is not enough documented voter fraud that an ID would curb and it wouldn't be worth the expense, time, etc to require it.

But......if we did have the ID requirement....how many votes would it suppress? Enough to sway an election for congress, state rep?

And why would these votes be "suppressed" by requiring an ID? I remember Danforth's example of his mother in law and I agree why that woman may have no reason to have an ID....fair enough and there should be exceptions for folks like that.

But what about others? what is their excuse for not having an ID?

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

But what about others? what is their excuse for not having an ID?

Ebs, this has been addressed for years:

DURING the 2012 presidential election I accompanied some canvassers going door to door in Philadelphia. Their aim was to remind people in this pivotal swing state to vote and to vote Democrat. Again and again, the big concern among the folks opening their doors was the state's new and very strict voter-ID law, which required voters to provide a government-issued picture ID. The law would have made it impossible for hundreds of thousands -- some say 750,000 -- of people to vote, most of them likely to vote Democratic. Not even government-issued welfare cards and military identification cards were acceptable. Plenty of older Philadelphians, many of them black, do not even have a birth certificate. www.economist.com

Here are the groups most likely to be impacted:

The Poor: More than 1 million voters who fall below the poverty line live more than 10 miles away from their nearest identification-issuing office, according to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The cost of birth certificates, often required to obtain identification, and the IDs themselves can be a burden; having to travel, and perhaps miss work, is another hurdle to getting an ID. And according to Census data compiled by the National Women's Law Center, women are more likely to live in poverty than men. The poverty rate among adult women over 18 was 14.6 percent in 2011, compared with 10.9 percent of men.

Seniors: The AARP says as many as one in five seniors lacks a current government-issued photo identification. In 2006, as many as 8 million people over the age of 65 didn't have an identification, and the older they get, the less likely they are to have a driver's license. And women live longer than men: The life expectancy at birth for men in the United States is 76.2 years, while women can expect to live for 81.2 years. The Census Bureau estimated the 65-and-over population at 24.3 million women and just 18.8 million men.

The Married, and the Divorced: About 90 percent of women change their names when they get married, and many change their names back if they get divorced. The rate of women who keep their maiden names may actually be falling, according to Harvard economist Claudia Goldin. A Brennan Center survey found just 48 percent of voting-age women have easy access to their birth certificates, and 66 percent of those women have access to proof of citizenship with their current legal names.

Students: Students who attend out-of-state schools often don't bother to get a driver's license in their new state, while students who stick closer to home still have to either sign up for an absentee ballot or head home to vote in person. The Census Bureau showed women are more likely to be enrolled in college -- there are 10.9 female students in American colleges, compared with 8.8 million men.

All Voters: Women tend to vote more than men, period. Women have made up a larger share of the electorate than men in recent years -- 53 percent to 47 percent in 2012, for example -- across racial and ethnic lines. So, if voter identification laws are going to erect hurdles for a broad range of those casting ballots, women as a whole are going to be impacted more. www.washingtonpost.com


Comments?

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Further...

Why do minorities have fewer IDs?

Because a lot of minorities don't have much use for them. The most common voter ID is a driver's license, and minorities are less likely to drive. A 2007 study found that in California, New Mexico, and Washington, whites were more likely to have driver's licenses than nonwhites. In Orange County, Calif., about 92 percent of white voters had driver's licenses, compared with only 84 percent of Latino voters and 81 percent of "other" voters. A 2005 study of Wisconsin similarly found that while about 80 percent of white residents had licenses, only about half of African-American and Hispanic residents had licenses.

Minorities are less likely to have driver's licenses because they are more likely to be poor and to live in urban areas. If you can't afford a car, or if you don't need one because you take the bus or subway, you are less likely to have a driver's license. Students are less likely to have driver's licenses for the same reasons (plus the fact that they can sometimes rely on student IDs, and may just have not gotten around to getting a driver's license yet). Moreover, minorities may be more likely to have lost their driver's licenses: The Wisconsin study found that an estimated 8 percent of Hispanic adults and 17 percent of African-American adults had no current license but had a recent suspension or revocation. Almost half of suspended driver's licenses were due to failure to pay outstanding fines, which may explain why poor people are less likely to have licenses. www.slate.com

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Comments?

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag

www.cnn.com

FTA:

Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.

#58 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.ajc.com

FTA:

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, four states (including Georgia) have "strict" photo ID requirements. Another seven have photo ID requirements. Here's how black turnout compared to white turnout in those 11 states:

In five (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan and Tennessee) black turnout surpassed white turnout.
In four (Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire and South Dakota) there was no statistical difference between black and white turnout rates.
In two (Hawaii and Idaho) white turnout surpassed black turnout.

#59 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I like the dipping the finger in ink idea.

#60 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-08-08 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's looking like the solution to this and the immigration issue is "biometrics".

#61 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-08-08 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

archive.redstate.com

The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483.16 The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver's license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana's BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Supreme court says you are wrong romo.

#62 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

#62

States do not provide free birth certificates nor do they provide transportation to the offices that issue them. Many elderly people do not even have birth certificates on record since many no longer exist in government archives. Citizens have never been provided with their own birth certificates and they have to be produced in order to acquire state-issued ID. This is a modern day poll tax.

Anecdotal evidence pales in comparison to the real world statistics that prove many millions of registered, legal voters do not possess state issued ID. Millions don't drive and millions more have had their driving privileges taken away.

Regurgitating non-relevant factoids does not diminish the truth.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Supreme court says you are wrong romo.

Yes they have, but their arguments have been proven fallacious themselves due to the factors listed above that they ignored and others that weren't presented for deliberation.

Being legal doesn't make it right. Slavery used to be legal and so did discrimination against women and minorities.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

#56/57,

it all sounds like huge numbers on a macro scale that could be impacted.

We both know many people in those groups you mentioned. I can't think of one of them who has a reasonable excuse to not have an ID.

Seriously, as I said....I think voter ID isn't necessary but I believe that if this were required.....I think Americans should get off their fat asses and own their constitutional rights.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can't think of one of them who has a reasonable excuse to not have an ID.

Note to self: Steal Eberly's wallet on election day.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

nice strawman.

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Enjoy getting off your fat ass and replacing your ID on election day.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Being legal doesn't make it right.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree. Abortion and gay marriage come to mind in current times.

#69 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy, this is a list of things that could get in the way of me getting to voting booth on election day.

I get sick
someone in my family gets sick
my house catches on fire
I lose my job
One of my clients has a huge loss

Bottom line is there are a ton of things that could block me from voting. Losing my ID is on that large large list but isn't nearly as likely to happen as the things I just mentioned.

it's a strawman argument, Snoofy....and the # of people losing their ID on election day isn't going to sway election results.

Which is what I care about most......elections not be affected by anything.

Which is why I am against the ID in the first place because it's been substantiated that the ID combats a non-existent vote fraud in the first place.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Regurgitating non-relevant factoids does not diminish the truth.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please provide statistical evidence (non-anecdotal) of voter suppression due to ID requirements or stuff it. The black panthers have suppressed more votes in Philly than ID requirements in TX - that YOU can prove.

#71 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-08 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

I posted the famous Stalin quote yesterday because stories like this are red herrings. This is an attempt to place blame on the voters when the real fraud takes place in the counting rooms and always has.

#72 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-08 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are democrats really more stupid than republicans? Yes, according to democrats they are.

They are too stupid to get an I.D.
They are too stupid to show an I.D.

What do they do when the police want them to show an I.D? Sit down and poop themselves?

Democrats don't want voters to show an I.D. because it will make it harder for them to cheat in elections pure and simple.

Democrats have been trying to paint this as some form of racist white poll tax but it is not working. Blacks can get an I.D. just as easily as whites.

#73 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-08-08 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only 31 Possible Voter Frauds in 1 Billion Votes

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure all 31 were for Obama. Otherwise, Romney would be leading us to victory.

#74 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-08 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you can't substantiate your claim that "infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID," then why'd you make it?

Because it is backed up by research. The same research I have cited many times. Although requested many times, no one provides research otherwise. All I get is news reports and anecdotes.

Photo ID, Provisional Balloting, and Indiana's 2012 Primary Election

This article represents the continuation of a series of studies that measure the impact of photo identification on the electorate by examining provisional ballots cast and not counted because prospective voters lacked photo identification. Prior studies examined provisional balloting at Indiana's 2008 primary and 2008 general elections.
Access Versus Integrity in Voter Identification Requirements
Voter identification is the controversy that isn't. Almost no one is excluded by this requirement and when problems arise there is now a reasonable fail safe mechanism. It is not surprising, then, that large majorities in the public support the idea.
Bookmark those two cites. I will refer to them any time this issue comes up as I have done many times. Your memory fail notwithstanding. Again, got any research to the contrary?

#75 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#75 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2014-08-08 04:21 PM | FLAG:

NW!!!!

#76 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-08 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"measure the impact of photo identification on the electorate by examining provisional ballots cast and not counted because prospective voters lacked photo identification."

Not the same as "vote suppression by voter ID."

From your second link, "Simply put, almost no one was excluded from voting. Only 23 people in the entire 36,500 person sample said they were not allowed to vote because of voter identification requirements."

This headline is "Only 31 possible voter frauds in 1 billion votes."

For your claim to have merit, 36,500 would have to roughly equal 1,000,000,000.

Have a nice day.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#77

Again, got any research to the contrary?
#75 | Posted by et_al

Next time just type "no."

#78 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#78

I guess the fact that neither study has ever tried to quantify the people who didn't actually show up at the polls because they didn't possess a valid ID hasn't managed to diminish your enthusiasm for the current SCOTUS approved laws.

Many statistics are outlined in post #56 and while I readily admit it is almost impossible to accurately survey the various factors which inhibit many sectors of society from having state-issued ID, to say that they do not rise to a concerning level as they impact otherwise legal voters is to ignore common sense and respect for the history of this nation without ID requirements and the myriad elections that no one has ever claimed were illegitimate because of in-person voter ID not being required.

The legal argument while being constitutional, does deny many legal voters the opportunity of exercising their right to vote whether scholarly studies quantify it through their research or not.

#79 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't you understand that the research you cited, coupled with the article at the top, contradicts your claim that "infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID?"

I know that math is hard, so read #77 as many times as it takes.

31 cases out of a billion vs 23 cases out of 36,500. Those ratios differ by many orders of magnitude.

If the rates were the same, as you so ludicrously claim, there wouldn't even be one denied vote in that tiny sample of 36,500.

Stay in school, kids.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess the fact that neither study has ever tried to quantify the people who didn't actually show up at the polls because they didn't possess a valid ID

He'll never, admit that that is suppression.

That also gets to the heart of the issue: The definition of suppression, which he still hasn't provided.

It's even clear if something like this amounts to voter suppression, but I'm guessing to him it wouldn't, because the voter didn't successfully demand and obtain a provisional ballot: "It is important to know that many poll workers are improperly trained to handle provisional ballots, and may fail to inform voters' of their right to cast a provisional ballot." www.866ourvote.org link goes to this report, www.demos.org

31 states planned to invalidate ballots cast in the wrong precinct -- even for
statewide races. Some of those states and others required new voters who did
not present identification on or before Election Day to return, before the official
canvass, to prove their eligibility. As the report predicted, these new voters were
often not told that they must return if they wanted their votes counted.
• In 10 states, their votes would be automatically invalidated, even if they
returned with ID before the official canvass.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lots of elections have been stolen by dead voters. LBJ started his career that way. Kennedy won the election over Nixon by sweeping the dead vote in Chicago.

#82 | Posted by TexasToast77627 at 2014-08-08 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

What % of voters don't have an ID? I would think it is very low given all of the other places an ID is required.

#83 | Posted by TexasToast77627 at 2014-08-08 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

What % of voters don't have an ID? I would think it is very low given all of the other places an ID is required.
#83 | Posted by TexasToast77627

You think it's more or less than the percentage Bush won Florida by in 2000? 537 out of 6,000,000.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

In addition to Voter ID laws, Republican legislatures in quite a few states have shortened early voting and eliminated same day registration WITH ID.

Other efforts include:

- Eliminating 'motor voter' laws, where you're automatically registered when you get your drivers license.

- The GOP Secretary of State in Ohio eliminated voting on the Sunday before election day when black churches have typically voted in large numbers. Only after a federal court overturned that BS move was it reinstated this year.

- GOP Election Commission members allocating more than enough machines in Republican leaning precincts and knowingly shorting machines in heavily used Democrat leaning precincts, causing long lines

Voter ID laws are hardly the only tricks the GOP are using to suppress the vote of people they don't think will vote for them.

#85 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-08 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

That also gets to the heart of the issue: The definition of suppression, which he still hasn't provided.

Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but I believe that it's "supression" can only be statistically quantified by measuring the amount of people who actually show up at polling places on election day and are denied voting because they cannot present valid ID, versus the amount of tabulated voters in any particular election.

Obviously, no one would take the time to track potential voters prior to an election that don't possess needed ID, and to then establish that they would have gone to vote if the ID restrictions weren't enforced. At present, this is the trap that ID opponents have an impossible time escaping from in any appreciable way, but for extrapolating on the very few highly publicized incidents that aren't supposed to be the norm.

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-08 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#86, believe me, I get it. I would presume Et_Al does too.

But the inability to measure something doesn't mean that the actual quantity is zero.

And he still hasn't address 31 out of a billion versus 23 out of a few tens of thousands.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The definition of suppression, which he still hasn't provided.

See 47. Otherwise, courts don't address the issue in those terms. You can read this opinion to figure out how a trial court approaches the issue. Federal Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in North Carolina Voting Case

And he still hasn't address 31 out of a billion versus 23 out of a few tens of thousands.

Why would I, it is not my contention that in person voter fraud is a problem (I also note the thread article is anecdotal). It is basically irrelevant to the analysis. My contention is that voter ID is constitutional and that the negative impact is not statistically significant, as shown by the two studies. 23/36500=0.0006301

#88 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-08 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

23/36500=0.0006301

Six million voters in Florida 2000, at that rate 3,780 were disenfranchised, and Bush won by 537 votes.

Hmmm.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Meanwhile, at 31 per billion, the number of fraudulent votes in Florida in 2000 would be... zero.

Hmmm.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmmm.

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. www.law.cornell.edu
Hmmm, indeed.

#91 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-09 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring

Versus 23 cases out of 36,500.

You're still sticking with "The infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID?"

23 = 0. A lawyer said so, it must be true!

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 01:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

23 = 0. A lawyer said so, it must be true!

You want to point out where I said any such thing?

On second thought, never mind. I said no such thing. Since we have reached the point where you quibble over minor points because you have no argument regarding major points, I'm out.

Bottom line, voter ID is constitutional according to the SC. There are several cases pending in federal trial courts and at least one pending in a circuit court. We'll see where it goes. Until then see if you can grasp the legal issues involved because in about 2 years of discussing this with you no signs of that have appeared.

#93 | Posted by et_al at 2014-08-09 02:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your statement was "The infrequency of voter fraud is matched by the infrequency of vote suppression by voter ID"

While they're both quite rare, the evidence presented in this thread indicates voter suppression is about thirty thousand times more common than voter fraud.

See #89 as to why that might matter.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

just as the left refuses to use the word "NET" on economic issues because they know the low info voter won't get it.....or might look for the truth...

there is one word here to add to this headline and that is the word

"reported"

#95 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-09 01:16 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