Are the Republicans trying to prevent minorities from voting?

Be like Nutella · 08-09-2012 12:02AM #1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNpGtrisCPY

FOX

" A serious Threat to our Democrasy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

We've all heard bits about this I'm sure at this stage but is it a bunch of crap? or is it a legitimate effort on the part of Republicans to cheat? (I'm not saying illegally I'm merely saying CHEAT as most people would understand it as)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEtdDqVUPg8

bring on the arguments ! : )

matthew8 · 08-09-2012 12:18AM

Yes I suppose would be the short answer to it.

Manic Moran · 08-09-2012 02:24AM

No, but the Democrats like to claim they are.

They're trying to prove that they're tough on crime, are strict, and upholding the integrity of the electoral process, unlike their opposition who will not defend it: Concepts important to the conservatives they're trying to court. It is certainly arguable that this is simply a showpiece, that they're building a strawman of voter fraud and knocking it down again with their solution. I am suspicious of the 'more likely to be struck by lightning' claim as it is a figure based on identified cases of fraud which, unless someone up and advertises it, or is accused of voting twice, seems to me to be undetectable. However, I will stipulate that it's not likely to be a significant problem as I have no reason to believe that it is one (arguments about proving a negative aside)

The flipside is that there is also a strawman on the other side of this. It really isn't all that hard to get an ID card, or do whatever other hoops have been proposed in the various States that I've seen. If you've done whatever it takes to get onto the electoral rolls in the first place by registering and proving your eligibility to vote, and then are able to get to the polling station or register for absentee voting and go buy a stamp, the extra hoop of getting the ID card doesn't exactly shadow the voting process with difficulty.

NTM

Overheal · 08-09-2012 02:43AM

I don't follow the Democrat stance on this, or why people wouldn't have ID - Any form of ID.

The Right correctly points out many functions of society require ID: opening a bank account, operating a vehicle, buying tobacco or alcohol, crossing a federal border (land, sea, or air travel), purchasing a firearm, etc.

It just seems logical to me. I question the low number of fraud cases reported. Reported. What happened to ACORN anyway? Bottom line, there's always something somewhere going unreported, the only variable is how severe it is.

But it also seems more non-partisan not to talk about it right up to an election cycle. But since some cycle or another happens every 2 years just draft a legislation that comes into effect in 4 years time from the date of signature or until the next general election, whichever is later. So, if they passed it tomorrow, it wouldn't come into effect until after the election or any recount of the General Election 2016.

Duck Soup · 08-09-2012 07:47AM

Yes, they are. Simple as that.

To answer some of the points raised. Many things require ID; most things accept multiple forms of ID, including student card, photo ID from state/government employers etc. The photo IDs asked for voting are typically only passports and driver licences. In some states an army ID is acceptable to vote, but not a student ID or social security card. Can't imagine why.

All of the states putting forward photo ID requirements/voter suppression measures are Republican. All of them.

You can buy alcohol in many states with no ID (unless you look too young) and you can buy guns and ammo online from anywhere within the US with no ID.

Most people possess some form of ID - social security card for example - but these are not acceptable under voter ID laws. In some states they accept only two forms of photo ID, driver licences and passports. Others allow army ID but not student ID. People in the army vote predominantly Republican; students vote predominantly Democrat. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Nationally, about 12% of people don't have either a passport or a driver's licence. Amongst minority voters, the figure is about 23%. Pretty much double. African American voters are polling 95% in favour of Obama. Hispanic voters favour Obama over Romney by 3 to 1. Once again, that must be a coincidence.

The voter ID measures are taking place in tandem with early voting restrictions across a number of states. Early voters tend to be heavily Democratic, so that must be another strange coincidence.

Voter ID measures are also taking place at the same time, and in the same states, as voter roll purges. The voter roll purges are ostensibly to clear out the names of people no longer eligible to vote. They have proved (a) horrendously incorrect, (b) conspicuously heavy with Hispanic sounding names and (c) disproportionately and incorrectly disqualifying Hispanic Democratic voters. The voter roll purges have proved so badly wrong and obviously partisan that some electoral roll managers have refused to use them and returned them.

But here's the real kicker. And as Bill Clinton said the other night, I want you to listen real good here. The voter ID measures will not stop 99% of illegal voting.

Put to side for one moment that the level of voter fraud is minuscule. Put to one side for a moment that you can't create policy and law on a hunch that there might be a problem (I could feel in my gut that there's a problem with goats grazing on public parks unseen at night, but I can't formulate law based on it). Nearly all illegal votes cast are from people voting who were given a vote erroneously, placed on the electoral roll and then used it. The most common reason is people who have been convicted of a felony and have either lost their vote or, as is the case in most states, have been disqualified from voting for a proscribed period of time.

They receive their voting card, assume that they are now eligible to vote and then do so. It's illegal, but it's not deliberate. The initial problem lies with the state, rather than the voter.

Actual in-person, impersonation voter fraud - people pretending to be someone else - is the only form of illegal voting that voter ID will catch and it's as rare as unicorn shít. Voter ID requirements have zero impact on invalid voting, which accounts for pretty much all illegally cast votes.

The acronym to remember here is not ACORN, but ALEC. ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing lobby group. Their membership consists solely of conservative activists and Republican politicians, and they are funded primarily by the Koch brothers. ALEC provides Republican state legislatures with 'model bils' - a.k.a. templates - for passing legislation on issues such as Stand Your Ground bills, repealing labour rights, limiting environmental protection and, you've guessed it, Voter ID bills.

But don't take my word for it that voter ID/voter suppression laws are a deliberate tactic to suppress minority voting to enable Mitt Romney to win the 2012 election. Take the word of Republican congressman Mike Turzai of Pennsylvania. What's that old saying about a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth?

Be like Nutella · 08-09-2012 04:17PM

ok so clearly the whole thing is cheating.

what else could that dude have meant than that new Voter ID law would help their guy win .... cat out of bag argument over - it's clearly cheating..... how can you disagree with that?

Mjollnir · 08-09-2012 05:13PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, but the Democrats like to claim they are.

They're trying to prove that they're tough on crime, are strict, and upholding the integrity of the electoral process, unlike their opposition who will not defend it: Concepts important to the conservatives they're trying to court. It is certainly arguable that this is simply a showpiece, that they're building a strawman of voter fraud and knocking it down again with their solution. I am suspicious of the 'more likely to be struck by lightning' claim as it is a figure based on identified cases of fraud which, unless someone up and advertises it, or is accused of voting twice, seems to me to be undetectable. However, I will stipulate that it's not likely to be a significant problem as I have no reason to believe that it is one (arguments about proving a negative aside)

The flipside is that there is also a strawman on the other side of this. It really isn't all that hard to get an ID card, or do whatever other hoops have been proposed in the various States that I've seen. If you've done whatever it takes to get onto the electoral rolls in the first place by registering and proving your eligibility to vote, and then are able to get to the polling station or register for absentee voting and go buy a stamp, the extra hoop of getting the ID card doesn't exactly shadow the voting process with difficulty.

NTM

No, the Dems are quite accurately portraying the Republicans as attempting to lessen the votes of minorities, the elderly, students, etc....

Our system has worked just fine for hundreds of years w/out the restrictions the repubs are trying to impose on it. They are offering a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist, and all data points to the opposite of what they're claiming. There is simply zero reason for trying to legislate what the republicans are trying to legislate. They're offer a 'solution' to a problem that isn't there.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9481

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/the_fake_voter_fraud_epidemic_and_the_2012_electio.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/gop-voter-id-data-voter_n_1773142.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Ah, and here's a real winner:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/heritage-foundation-expert-cant-cite-any-ex

Be like Nutella · 08-09-2012 05:24PM

right well that last vid there just proves that it's a pile of my arse. They're just trying to stop people who would vote Obama doing so simple as that debate over end of thread I say. Unless there's a pro-Rep who actually can offer some intelligent input to counter all said and supported so far?? well?

Be like Nutella · 09-09-2012 05:05PM

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/can-romney-win-just-white-votes?wpisrc=obinsite

"The supposed standard break point for GOP presidential candidates to bag the White House is they must get 60 percent or more of the 104 million white voters, who make up close to 75 percent of the nation's voters. In eleven major polls, Romney averages slightly more than 53 percent of white voters. The CNN poll is the most generous and gives him only 55 percent of the white vote."

"Getting the supposed magic number of white votes in the GOP column is even more crucial given the crushing majority overall of Democrats to Republicans. There are 55 million registered Republicans and 72 million registered Democrats."

Manic Moran · 10-09-2012 05:55AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

To answer some of the points raised. Many things require ID; most things accept multiple forms of ID, including student card, photo ID from state/government employers etc. The photo IDs asked for voting are typically only passports and driver licences. In some states an army ID is acceptable to vote, but not a student ID or social security card. Can't imagine why.

Social security cards don't have a photo on them, for starters. Mine certainly doesn't.

Student IDs are not usually issued by the government. You won't see a student ID being accepted as proof of eligibility to work, for example, when you start a job. They are also not considered authoritive for the purchase of alcohol either, for what it's worth. Some vendors will accept them, but no law mandates that they do so: If the ID turns out to have been fake, the vendor is on shaky ground.

You can buy alcohol in many states with no ID (unless you look too young)

And if you do look too young.... You need an ID.

and you can buy guns and ammo online from anywhere within the US with no ID.

Odd, that. I've always had to present ID when I purchased my firearms online. I've purchased both from a reseller (LANWorld) and direct from a manufacturer (Tactical Products Design). They shipped to an FFL locally who then processed the paperwork, verified my ID and conducted the NICS check. (It would have been illegal for them to ship directly to me and thus bypass the ID check)

Bearing in mind that purchasing a firearm is just as much a Constitutional right as the right to vote, and few people seem to have significant issues with the concept of presenting an ID card to exercise that right. Now, of course, it is possible that a future court case will say that the requirement to present ID to purchase a firearm is unConstitutional (it means that a number of people who predominantly vote Democrat aren't allowed own guns), but I don't personally see that as likely.

Put to side for one moment that the level of voter fraud is minuscule. Put to one side for a moment that you can't create policy and law on a hunch that there might be a problem (I could feel in my gut that there's a problem with goats grazing on public parks unseen at night, but I can't formulate law based on it).

Actually, you can. There are a number of laws on the books based on that premise in the US, I'm afraid to say. It is not up to the courts to determine if any law is particularly based on sound premise, only if it is legal. Is there really a problem with sleeping in cars that it should be illegal? And how much of a problem is it in Chico that the law states "No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system"? Did they have evidence to believe that there was a group of people testing nuclear missiles in the city park?

NTM

Memnoch · 10-09-2012 06:08AM

It always irks me when posters on boards resort to arguments based on semantics or legalese (except on the legal forums :P). I'm not sure we are in a position to question the specific legalities of the law, that is for the courts obviously.

That said, if a law's sole intent is to disenfranchise minorities and such a law can be passed then it suggests a severe weakness in the American legislative system.

It's clear that this law is not about voter fraud but about limiting the turn out of minority voters for whom, having to obtain a driving license or passport is a barrier to casting their vote.

It is clear that the GOP are acting with dishonest and dishonorable intent.

For all the hand wringing the GOP supporters engage in about the encroachment of government on civil liberties and the destruction of American values, surely the overreach here to disenfranchise citizens and prevent them from voting must be alarming and abhorent to them. Or maybe not, cause it's only them blacks and browns who will be disenfranchised and well, something has to be done to protect the 'native white true American population,' against these others.

After all, we can't be having a black, Muslim, foreign born, Jihadi sympathiser, communist, marxist socialist be president for another 4 years! So whatever it takes!

Eliot Rosewater · 10-09-2012 08:13AM

I think people are getting too caught up in the Republican=Bad Democrat=Good Irish dichotomy to actually make a fair analysis of this issue.

In recent years, there has been no election or referenda at which all of the electors in my house (5) have actually been present to vote. In the last referenda, both my brother and I were absent. If voter ID laws were as lax in Ireland as people on this thread want them to me, my father could have taken each of our voting cards and voted three times, including himself. I like my father, but I don't want him voting on my behalf.

The premise of the first video is flawed: it claims there are tiny rates of voter fraud, but by its very nature it isn't generally detected, and so one can't make that conclusion.

DB21 · 10-09-2012 11:41AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think people are getting too caught up in the Republican=Bad Democrat=Good Irish dichotomy to actually make a fair analysis of this issue.

See, I feel the republicans are doing that to themselves. When the plan was announced for Pennsylvania, the republican that headed it up said explicitly that it would help Romney win the state. It's out and out dirty play by the GOP.

Overheal · 10-09-2012 01:40PM

The timing of it is political, yes. It's not the first time this conversation has come up though.

Like I said the only way to keep this impartial would be to legislate in some mid term of a congress and have it's action take effect at some point beyond 4 years from that point so the piece of legislation doesn't have an impact on whomever the next President would be, meaning it would take effect within any timeframe between 4+ years and 8 years. That also leaves plenty of time for voters to transition into getting ID.

Neither side is especially interested in that though. Kind of like the Drill Baby Drill tangent we had 4 summers ago: The conservative movement went from calling the benefits of more drilling something we would see take effect within ~20 years, down to just a few months, as their campaigning on the issue progressed over just a couple of weeks. I can pull up a montage of those statements on demand.

There was nothing wrong with what they were arguing for, but they felt that it wasn't enough. They were trying to use drilling as a campaign tactic. So the results had to come sooner, to drive their poll numbers up. What better way to appeal to voters who were eating $4/gallon and up. So instead of using the true value estimates (years and decades - a Long Term and Sustainable plan for energy independence) they needed to deliver something that sounded like Vote McCain = $2/gal gas by spring break. Deepwater Horizon being an irrelevant regulation failure: the point is people don't talk the big talk unless it's on the campaign trail, and then when everyone is in session it's back and forth filibustering and gabbing and people taking up floor time to have a good cry over their drinking buddy who's retiring from the Senate.

Memnoch · 10-09-2012 04:24PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think people are getting too caught up in the Republican=Bad Democrat=Good Irish dichotomy to actually make a fair analysis of this issue.

In recent years, there has been no election or referenda at which all of the electors in my house (5) have actually been present to vote. In the last referenda, both my brother and I were absent. If voter ID laws were as lax in Ireland as people on this thread want them to me, my father could have taken each of our voting cards and voted three times, including himself. I like my father, but I don't want him voting on my behalf.

The premise of the first video is flawed: it claims there are tiny rates of voter fraud, but by its very nature it isn't generally detected, and so one can't make that conclusion.

Neither can one conclude that voter fraud is a serious problem, certainly there is NO evidence to suggest that it is.

When you are discussing an issue like this its about achieving a practical balance. You want to introduce voter ID to cut out POTENTIAL fraud, then fine, do so in a gradual way and create rules that make it easy for someone to get the required ID. Getting a passport and or license is a big pain for many people, especially poor people.

It seems to be exclusively republican legislatures that are concerned about 'voter fraud,' there is an implied accusation therefore that this is something the democrats engage in on a scale that worries them. Yet there no evidence of this.

You can make all the semantic arguments you want about it, but to me it is undeniably obvious that the PURPOSE of these measures is not to ensure a FREE AND FAIR election but to suppress minority turnout in order to influence (wrongly) a democratic process.

This is something that is abhorant and it is actions like these that make the Republicans the bad guys in the eyes of people who are not willfully ignoring their common sense in such an obvious scenario and can see where the truth so blatantly lies.

Duck Soup · 10-09-2012 05:13PM

Just to respond to a few of the points raised. I'm happy to stand corrected by MM that you require ID to purchase a gun-online. The gun purchased online is transferred to a local Federal Firearms Licence holder, where you present ID and pass a background check. However, you don't need a FFL intermediary or check up to purchase ammo. They deliver it direct to your door.

If not all school or university IDs are issued by the government or state - there are many private educational institutions for example - then why not simply recognize government issued student ID? In fact some already do. Alabama accepts "Valid student or employee ID card issued by a college or university in the state, provided it includes a photo". So it can be - and already has been - done.

And certainly you can pass law on anything you like, whether there they make sense or not. All you need is a majority on a legislature. In Kentucky, you may not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless more than six are for sale at once. However, the existence of laws without rhyme or reason is hardly a good argument for more of them.

As for Eliot's point about this being a simplistic Republican=bad/Democrat=good dichotomy, certainly there's a lot of that around, but in this instance the original poster asked a simple question: are the voter ID laws aimed at suppressing minority voting? And the answer is yes, they are. And the effort to suppress minority voting comes solely from Republican legislatures. You can hardly answer the question, never mind delve into the detail, without acknowledging it. In fact, it's the reason for it. It's an effort to suppress voting for party political advantage.

You see, we can go back and forth about the parallels with everything and anything else that requires some form of ID, but what we are talking about here - and apologies for repeating myself - is that the laws that do not address the problem that they purport to deal with. We have gun laws to stop loonies getting guns. We have alcohol purchasing laws to stop minors purchasing alcohol. Here we have a problem - judge for yourself whether it's small or large - of illegally and fraudently cast votes and the laws don't deal with that.

The voter ID laws do not catch absentee ballot fraud.

The voter ID laws do not catch duplicate voting fraud.

The voter ID laws do not catch invalid (voting while disqualified from voting) voting fraud.

The only form of tampering with the integrity of the electoral process that is caught by the photo ID laws is in-person, impersonation voting. And as I said, that is (a) as rare as unicorn poop and (b) a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall problem of illegal voting.

But let's get a little more specific. This electoral unicorn ka-ka - just how rare is it? Luckily for us, News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project in 2011 published a report into in-person voter impersonation. Their reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity - including registration fraud; absentee-ballot fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation.

They analyzed 2,068 reported fraud cases, of which they found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. That's one case of in-person voter impersonation fraud per year. That's what the slew of new laws (and the possible disenfranchisement of millions of American voters) is dealing with. Or put it another way. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, that represents about one instance of voter impersonation fraud for every 15 million prospective voters.

Heck, even if you believe if the problem is huge, why would you only enact laws that don't address 99% of the problem?

Oh, and I missed one. The Republican strategy to suppress the opposition's vote has four prongs, not three.

1. Photo ID laws, which disproportionately affect minorities.

2. Curtailment of early voting, which is done predominantly by Democrat voters.

3. Partisan voter roll purges.

4. And the one I forgot about - restriction of voter registration drives.

Voter registration drives are particularly strong amongst groups dealing with minority communities and with students. Both are Democratic leaning; there's another of those darn coincidences that seem to all point in one direction.

In Florida, they changed the time a registration form had to be turned in from 10 days to 48 hours. The person returning the forms faced $50 fines for each late form up to a total of $1,000 per year. This caused the League of Women Voters to suspend all voter registration drives in the state, so as not to leave their members open to prosecution. A judge has since suspended these restrictions, but they've already done the job they were intended to. During the 13-month July-August time span ahead of the 2004 and 2008 elections, the number of registered Democrats grew by an average of almost 210,000 voters. But since Florida's new elections law went into effect in July 2011, the number amounted to a little over 11,000.

It isn't coincidence. It isn't about electoral integrity. It's a deliberate, co-ordinated, complex and targeted strategy across a number of fronts to suppress voting, coming from one side of the political divide. I absolutely fail to see how it can be viewed otherwise.

Mjollnir · 10-09-2012 06:48PM

A most excellent and well-thought out response.

May I borrow it?

Amerika · 10-09-2012 06:49PM

I really laugh at all the hysteria over photo ID’s needed to vote laws. Let’s invoke some common sense here. First, do you really think there are great amounts of people who honestly cannot get government ID's, and who vote in elections? Secondly, very few people lack photo ID’s, including the abjectly poor… who do need the same ID’s needed to get photo ID’s as to qualify for government entitlement programs including food stamps and welfare.

IMO, Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the same reason Republicans favor them… because fraud is happening, and most often not investigated or litigated. The only difference is which one the fraud benefits.

Mjollnir · 10-09-2012 07:27PM

Amerika wrote: »

I really laugh at all the hysteria over photo ID’s needed to vote laws. Let’s invoke some common sense here. First, do you really think there are great amounts of people who honestly cannot get government ID's, and who vote in elections? Secondly, very few people lack photo ID’s, including the abjectly poor… who do need the same ID’s needed to get photo ID’s as to qualify for government entitlement programs including food stamps and welfare.

No, what's funny here is how you're claiming that a system that's worked just fine as is for hundreds of years is somehow, magically, in need of repair, and I notice you've failed to define 'very few'.

IMO, Democrats oppose voter ID laws for the same reason Republicans favor them… because fraud is happening, and most often not investigated or litigated. The only difference is which one the fraud benefits.

Clicking the heels of ruby slippers together and blithely saying that it's so doesn't, in fact, make it so.

The evidence that it's not taking place has already been supplied here amply.

Ignoring it doesn't do much to support your claims.

Duck Soup · 10-09-2012 07:32PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

A most excellent and well-thought out response.

May I borrow it?

Be my guest.

Paleface · 10-09-2012 08:54PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ignoring it doesn't do much to support your claims.

Ignoring truths is fast becoming the corner stone of all Republican policy. I think this election is proving that in spades.

If they ignore the truth and peddle their own party line long enough it will take hold among the base.

Overheal · 11-09-2012 02:04AM

Amerika wrote: »

fraud is happening, and most often not investigated or litigated.

Is that verifiable though? The burning question. Otherwise, what you're saying here is simply conjecture.

Manic Moran · 11-09-2012 02:40AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

However, you don't need a FFL intermediary or check up to purchase ammo. They deliver it direct to your door.

Ammo doesn't do you a hell of a lot of good without the firearm. Indeed, you don't even need an ID to buy most of a firearm, only the receiver. But having the barrel, trigger group, stock, magazine or ammunition doesn't do you any good without the receiver. Bottom line, with limited exception (some states allow person-to-person transfer), it is a Constitutional right which cannot be conducted without a State-issued photo ID. (Even federal IDs like passports or military ID don't count, as one has to prove State residency). And the fact that a number of people can't exercise this right without photo ID doesn't seem to concern many Democrats, even when the affected people are heavily their demographic. There is no reason in principle why similar restrictions (and we're thinking less, since I believe Federal IDs are generally accepted for voter ID laws) should not be just as applicable for another Constitutional right such as that to vote, except that in this case, the Democrats don't like it.

In fact some already do. Alabama accepts "Valid student or employee ID card issued by a college or university in the state, provided it includes a photo". So it can be - and already has been - done.

Well, if Alabama (And VA and to an extent SD, now I look) are confident enough that fake passable student IDs are sufficiently difficult to reproduce that it's not an issue, then good for them. Not sure that's necessarily going to work in a State with as many schools as California, however (I saw one shop which even refused to accept out-of-State State IDs, allowed because it is unreasonable to expect the store-owner to be familiar with the ID cards of all fifty States to be able to identify frauds)

And the effort to suppress minority voting comes solely from Republican legislatures. You can hardly answer the question, never mind delve into the detail, without acknowledging it.

Well, I believe Rhode Island may be the exception, but yes, it is a reasonable generalisation that legislatures which are controlled by Republicans are the source of them.

The only form of tampering with the integrity of the electoral process that is caught by the photo ID laws is in-person, impersonation voting. And as I said, that is (a) as rare as unicorn poop and (b) a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall problem of illegal voting.

I'm not arguing that it's a significant problem. I am arguing that it's not a significant burden. Note also that workarounds like absentee ballots may not be as easy an option in States which will only issue absentee ballots to certain persons, or others which require a photo ID and signature when you register to vote absentee.

But let's get a little more specific. This electoral unicorn ka-ka - just how rare is it? Luckily for us, News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project in 2011 published a report into in-person voter impersonation. Their reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity - including registration fraud; absentee-ballot fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation.

I understand that. What I don't understand is how they expect to identify any cases of in-person voter impersonation after the fact. For example, I send in my absentee ballot, with my signature on the back of the envelope. (It gets compared with what's on the record here in California: Failing to match the signature on record is a significant cause of spoiled absentee ballots, over 17% according to the Electoral Assistance Commission). I then go to the polling station, and claim to be my dad who I know is on vacation and didn't apply for an absentee vote. No signature is required for an in-person vote in California). How can this possibly be detected in a review? A near zero case of reported incidence is surely to be expected unless the offender was stupid enough to do something to get himself caught (which, granted, does happen from time to time).

NTM

Amerika · 11-09-2012 12:58PM

Overheal wrote: »

Is that verifiable though? The burning question. Otherwise, what you're saying here is simply conjecture.

You always see terms like “very few convictions” bandied about whenever oppositon to tighter election voting laws comes up. I have read numerous reports that the reason you get few convictions or investigations for that matter is because many election officials just don’t have the resources or wherewithal to do investigations. If your voting area is anything like mine, the little old ladies and gents manning the voting stations simply open the book, have you sign, and off you go to the voting booth. I doubt many of them would even know what to do if there even was suspicion of voter fraud. Voter fraud does exist. Here are some examples:
http://www.humanevents.com/2007/12/04/the-stunning-reality-of-voter-fraud/

It will be interesting to see come November, now that Wisconsin has instituted tougher voting laws, if Three-Fifths of Milwaukee’s black voters actually have vanished without a trace.

Manic Moran · 11-09-2012 03:03PM

Wasn't the Wisconsin law overturned by a State judge?

Amerika · 11-09-2012 04:16PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Wasn't the Wisconsin law overturned by a State judge?

Yes, by two judges. But State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is now asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to step in and review rulings by two judges striking down the state's voter ID law and to do so in time for the November presidential election.

Manic Moran · 11-09-2012 09:52PM

Well, until that happens, I'd work on the assumption that Wisconsin will not have the law during the election. At this point, I think it's far too close to the election for any judge to reverse position and re-authorise the law: Voters have to be given a reasonable amount of time to get their IDs.

joseph brand · 12-09-2012 09:49AM

"Jim Cramer: Voter ID Law Will Disenfranchise My Dad"

“My dad, a vet, won’t be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can’t prove his citizenship,” Cramer wrote on Twitter.

Republicans not mad about freedom. Pretty much the opposite.

brianbaru · 12-09-2012 10:02AM

when the georgie bush ran for election, they realised the black vote could lose it for them as they always vote for the democrats . Most of the people in florida who had felony convictions were black, so they invented a new law banning anyone who had a felony conviction from voting. They sent off tens of thousands of letters to EVERY black person in florida (not just those with felony convictions) telling them they would be arrested if they turned up to vote. Even one of his female campaign managers who was black got one. I guess that tells me republicans don't want the black people to vote.

Amerika · 12-09-2012 12:40PM

I find it hard to believe Jim Cramer’s dad is a vet and can’t prove citizenship, but who is receiving social security, veteran’s benefits and medicare – all of which needed pretty much the same ID’s to obtain. Perhaps Cramer should take time from his moronic tweets and help his dad get what he needs.

There is s Pennsylvania politician I was listening to this morning, who voted for this Photo ID law, who is voluntarily driving people himself who claim they can't get an ID, in order to help them out and get what is needed. So far he has had only 8 people take him up on it, and the majority of those only seemed to do it so they can give him a piece of their mind. :rolleyes:

Be like Nutella · 12-09-2012 01:02PM

Amerika wrote: »

I find it hard to believe Jim Cramer’s dad is a vet and can’t prove citizenship, but who is receiving social security, veteran’s benefits and medicare – all of which needed pretty need the same ID’s to obtain. Perhaps Cramer should take time from his moronic tweets and help his dad get what he needs.

There is s Pennsylvania politician I was listening to this morning, who voted for this Photo ID law, who is voluntarily driving people himself who claim they can't get an ID, in order to help them out and get what is needed. So far he has had only 8 people take him up on it, and the majority of those only seemed to do it so they can give him a piece of their mind. :rolleyes:

With so much blatant evidence that these efforts are clearly to benefit Romney the debate seems over. Those still arguing that these laws are NOT intended to benefit Romney at this point seem like they have fingers in their ears so nothing can be done for them but it is actually slightly cringeworthy to see.

Fraud has never been a major problem and if these laws result in just 1000 people being disenfranchised then this ploy is underhanded and completely dishonorable. Question is; when push comes to shove will the Dems be willing to really play dirty in the last 2 months and fight fire with fire? and should they?

They're accused of being too soft and being unwilling to get their hands AS DIRTY AS the Reps in most elections so should they take the gloves off in this one and go for the jugular to get the win and trade off their usual moral authority? I think the risks involved in a Romney/Ryan leadership are too great given what's going on in the world at the moment so I don't mind what the Dems have to do to get the win ..to some extent.

Are the Republicans trying to prevent minorities from voting?

Comments