Busted: The Contrived Racism Attacks On Voter ID

“Aw, why close the door now? The horse hasn’t escaped yet!”

The very day after Pennsylvania’s tough new voter ID law was upheld in court, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit alleging it was discriminatory, a 93-year-old African-American woman named Viviette Applewhite, who had sued  the state claiming that the requirement of a picture ID effectively disenfranchised her, walked into her local Department of Motor Vehicles branch. Though she had neither a birth certificate nor a Social Security card, she was duly issued a photo ID.

But of course. The accusations cynically and dishonestly adopted by Democrats and the Obama administration claiming that voter ID requirements are a thinly-veiled attempt to rob African-Americans and other minorities of their right to vote have always been nothing but a particularly scurrilous component of the 2012 campaign strategy of tarring Republicans as racist for opposing Barack Obama. Because the mainstream media has been willing to give the myth credence, it has had more staying power than blatant lies deserve. When challenged to show that their claims are real, however, Democrats and civil rights advocates have been exposed as frauds.

For example, in the Texas trial where the Justice Department’s use of the civil rights statutes to block voter ID laws was challenged, the only individual called to testify by the government as an alleged victim of disenfranchisement was Victoria Rodriguez, who claimed to be one of the 1.5 million Texans the Justice Department says would be discriminated against by the Texas law requiring a picture ID to vote.  She testified under oath that she lacks a photo ID as well as the documentation needed to obtain one, and Democratic State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer testified that requiring her to pay to obtain those documents would be the equivalent of a “poll tax.”  Under cross-examination, however, the teen admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security card. With just two of these three documents, she could a obtain a free voter ID card. “Yes but…”,  Rodriguez protested, she “doesn’t have time” to obtain the free  voter ID card. She did, however, have the time to fly from San Antonio to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and spend hours in a federal courtroom to testify how the Texas voter ID law won’t allow her to vote.

Like Rodriguez, Viviette could have gone ahead and gotten an ID before the trial, but then race-baiting opponents of a completely reasonable and responsible law would have had to find another dubious “victim.” The ease with which she was able to get her ID exposed the unethical basis of the trial: if the lead plaintiff claiming that the law disenfranchises the elderly and minorities because people like her can’t get picture ID’s can get one the day after the trial ends, then she could have gotten one before that trial began. If opponents of the various state laws have to resort to fake victims like Rodriguez and Applewhite to prove their case, why are Obama supporters, Democrats and journalists taking their accusations seriously?

It’s pure conformation bias. They want to believe that Republicans are racist, because their side’s candidates will be bolstered if the American public believes it too. Requiring identification in order to vote is natural, logical, reasonable, and was upheld as such in a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court in 2008. In that case, the Court acknowledged that some Republican lawmakers might favor the requirement of voter ID’s in part based on the theory that it might suppress the participation of some Democratic voting groups, but that the fact that some may have unethical motives for passing a fair and reasonable law does not make the law less fair or reasonable.  A legitimate state purpose “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators,” the opinion said.

The official logic behind opposition to making the vital process of a citizen’s vote in a democracy at least as secure as the process of entering a government building, renting a car, checking into a hotel or getting on an airplane is based on statistics showing that identity theft in voting is rare, thus any inconvenience to potential voters in pursuit of integrity is too much. This is the “reverse barn door” fallacy: since the horse hasn’t escaped the barn while the door has been unlocked and wide open, why bother closing the door now?  The rebuttal is obvious. You close the door because it is foolish and irresponsible to leave it open, and because after the horse has fled, it will be too late.

Democrats and Holder’s Justice Department have been calling responsible legislators racists for trying to close an open door that common sense dictates belongs shut. They have a heavy burden of proof to show that their accusations aren’t just more election year race-baiting, and to demonstrate that minorities, the poor and the elderly are really being targeted. That requires finding some citizens who really want to vote and can’t, because they can’t get identification. If the best the ID opponents can find are the likes of  Viviette Applewhite, and we must presume that is the case, then their attempts at proof have boomeranged. The accusation of Republican racism for seeking legislative passage of a reasonable measure approved by the U.S. Supreme Court certainly appears to be another in a chain of divisive tactics being used by desperate Democrats to energize the so-called Democratic “base” at the cost of dividing the nation and sowing discord between races, ethnic groups, and socioeconomic divisions.

ADDENDUM (8/26/12 ): I happened upon an NPR report on this topic yesterday. As you might expect. NPR’s position was crystal clear though unstated, and while the reporter skeptically cross-examined the GOP state legislator attempting to defend her support of voter ID measures, the same interviewer uncritically allowed an academic to go unchallenged with his contention that while “nobody can know the motives behind such legislation,” it was unconscionable for politicians to “interfere with access to the voting franchise for political gain.” My question: “But sir, when you characterize voter ID requirements this way, aren”t you doing exactly what you just said you would not, which is to presume bad faith motives for the legislation?” But then, I’m not a trained journalist—or a trained journalist who works for a government-funded, left-biased radio network.

As the report continued, it focused, as such things usually do, on the plight of one woman, a lower middle-class Hispanic-America citizen who did not have identification and who felt oppressed by her state’s voter ID law, which she, like the prof, believed was intended to stop people “like her” from voting. At the end, the reporter told us that the oppressed woman was going to get someone to drive her to the DMV to get her free ID, but that she deeply resented the inconvenience. So NPR also couldn’t locate a citizen who both intended to vote and would not be able to do so because of voter ID laws….if it could, it certainly would have done so. “The Republicans are stopping minorities from voting” was the report’s thesis, yet the most it could show is “Republicans are annoying minority voters by requiring them to be like everybody else.”

That’s hardly news.

________________________

Facts: Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Source: Mega 949

Graphic: Luxury Homes in Denver

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

148 thoughts on “Busted: The Contrived Racism Attacks On Voter ID

  1. Then you have knuckleheads like Mike Turzai of Pennsylvania. I don’t see a problem with requiring an ID to vote. The thing I think is a bit chincy is asking for photo ID. Photo IDs have been faked for a long time. How many can rely on absentee votes to be honest as well? How does one know for sure when someone gets a government photo ID at the DMV- how do they prove that they are who they say they are? They use a birth certificate, right? How is that proving a face belongs to a birth certificate? Then at the polls how are they going to authenticate the photo ID? Are they going to train the election judges to look at every ID or are they going to have electronic readers? Is this going to take more time? Is this seen as another regulation to an already overregulated government? How is this going to be funded? There are valid discrimination points, but to me they are a side show. I have relatives who won’t be able to vote because of voter ID requirements and they aren’t illegal aliens and they are white Americans. When my dad received his first drivers license, he didn’t even need to take a test. Then when he had to renew his license in later years, they took a picture of him and put it on his ID card. I can not believe voter fraud is new in this millennium. Why is there all of a sudden a rush before this election. It isn’t something that can be phased in? Why doesn’t the League of Women Voters do something like help issue them at the polls? I think there are ways to do this without it having to be done in haste.

  2. The voter ID movement isn’t racist, but it is a Republican move to make it harder for the poor, the elderly,and students to vote. Some, maybe most will go to the trouble of getting the necessary ID; many won’t. Hmmm, I wonder which party will benefit? And since voter impersonation fraud is rare, I wonder what problem the various republican-majority legislatures are trying to solve?

    • If such people won’t go to the trouble of getting the necessary ID, they most likely won’t go to the trouble of becoming informed about the basic issues either. This is patently irresponsible, and such individuals have no ethical right to participate in the process of determining how to spend other people’s money.

          • I was asking if people like me who pay taxes at a higher rate than most earning more than I do have any right to decide how my tax money is spent? Or doesn’t my vote count because I earn less and pay less in net taxes? And I have paid FICA… etc.— I have friends who are very intelligent and extremely ambitious, but couldn’t work? What do they deserve? Nothing since they were unable to work, yet more than likely knew the issues better than the one’s who vote straight party ticket? You are saying they don’t have a right to vote?

            • Once again: huh? What does any of that have to do with voter ID? They have a right to vote, and voter ID is designed to make sure that it’s them voting. When did I say anyone didn’t have the right to vote? Getting a driver’s license is a major pain in the neck, a lot tougher than getting a driver ID, and more expensive besides—does that mean some conspirators against people like me are trying to take away my right to drive? You point is pointless.

              • My comment was a reply to Peter’s: If such people won’t go to the trouble of getting the necessary ID, they most likely won’t go to the trouble of becoming informed about the basic issues either. This is patently irresponsible, and such individuals have no ethical right to participate in the process of determining how to spend other people’s money.

                What does he mean by necessary ID? Birth certificate? What about the people who have a difficult time getting it because they were born away from a hospital? The stay at home mom’s who never drove or worked a day in their life without SS cards?

                And this: Yup, although if they are net tax contributors instead of net tax recipients, at least there is perhaps SOME basis for a legitimate right to vote.
                People who never earned a penny because of disability and received money from the government because of their disability.– They aren’t allowed to vote based on income?

                • I think Peter is probably correct in the vast majority cases. Engaged citizens who take the time to be civicly responsible and informed also tend to value the franchise and are willing to take assertive steps to vote. Those who complain that it’s too much trouble or too time-consuming or who balk at a minor fee for an ID are very likely to be unengaged voters too. They all have the right to vote, but they don’t do us or the nation any favors by exercising that right. Having gone through 9 months of hell just trying to get my son a replacement social security card, thanks to tightened Homeland Security regs, involving the payment of over 600 dollars in fees and not one but 5 treks of over an hour round trip, I’m pretty unsympathetic to stories about how requiring an ID inconveniences some voters. If they care about voting, they’ll do what they have to, and that’s that. Exactly how many Americans don’t have a “penny,” and don’t live in communities that provide free ID’s, as in Pennsylvania? Who are these mystery victims? How many are there? Why do you think reasonable voting requirements should be curtailed because of them?

                  • Ok.- I have friends who are in the know but are handicapped or are in their late years but mentally capable to vote. It might appear for many who are physically capable that it easy to get Photo ID. I’m not saying there aren’t people who are capable to get IDs and know the issues and are making a fuss about their lack of motivation to get Photo IDs. But it isn’t always as easy as it seems for people to get “photo IDs”. I live an hour and a half one way from my polling place and DMV. I have to mail-in my vote because I am unable to drive (medical reasons) and most in my area don’t vote. So I would have to wait for my wife to get home in order to vote (she works a half hour a way from home). She is an election judge in the evening after getting done with work and has to drive the 2 hours to the polling place. The reason the polling place is so far away, is because we live in a sparsely populated area and the voting machines for the townships are quite expensive for only 2 elections every 4 years. I do have many “photo” IDs- passport, passport card, identification card, university ID, and military ID. I am not complaining about getting a photo ID, I am saying that if I didn’t have those Photo ID’s, I would be SOL if they would implement those laws 2 months before the election. I have friends and who are in similar situations but don’t have a photo ID. We are all disappointed about this in this particular election, but we don’t disagree with the “photo” ID part. We are just on short notice and our resources are limited. But we are Americans and value all our rights.

                    • Makes sense to me. But it also the nature of the beast that legislatures only start thinking about elections and voting as elections approach. Again, the supposed victims of this legislation who really, honestly, truly, want to vote and would vote but can’t get ID (rather than “will be inconvenienced/have to drive a long way/ have to pay 20 bucks they would rather use for something else/ have to go through a lot of paperwork/ have to waste time/etc.”) remain theoretical. If there are very few, as I suspect, they are the snail-darters of voting reform.

                    • Talking about the people who can’t actually vote is a red herring. The issue is the attempt to make it more difficult for certain people to vote. Certain people who tend to vote overwhelmingly for democrats.

                    • Surely if there are no people who can’t actually vote, it’s not a red herring. All rules and regulations fall disproportionately on one group or another. Dead people also seem to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in some jurisdictions. If reason dictates that voters should be able to produce identification, and it does, who happens to be most burdened by that requirement is irrelevant. Requiring mandatory driving tests for elderly drivers is unfair to drivers who maintain their reflexes into old age, and burdensome for those who don’t. If some senior-hating legislator votes for such a law because he harbors hatred for his aged parents, that doesn’t invalidate the value of the law itself.

                    • Jack,

                      Just because someone could do something bad does not mean there needs to be a restrictive law about that thing.

                      A kid could get hurt on the swings at a playground. Sounds like it’s justified to get rid of all swingsets, or to require that all kids under the age of 18 be supervised, or to put a giant fence around the playground.

                      The government has awesome powers, and the government always needs to look at the effects of their regulations. When balancing the rare cases of fraud against disproportionate hardship and likely disenfranchisement, it’s more important to avoid the latter.

                      Karla,

                      We know the supposed idea, but it’s a vanishingly small problem who’s fix creates much larger problems. The only way you can come out on the side of voter ID laws is if you don’t care about intentionally disenfranchising largely democratic voters (or desire to disenfranchise largely democratic voters). If that’s worth 0, then voter ID laws win. If that’s worth pretty much anything, then voter ID laws are bad.

                    • I agree with your statement, but it just doesn’t apply here. A vote is a personal possession and right; I have a legitimate interest in a) making sure nobody pretends to be me to take away that possession and 2) that nobody unauthorized to vote by virtue of citizenship, residence or anything else cancels out my vote through identity fraud. The Democratic position that votes are so vital and important that the government can’t take reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of elections is self-contradictory….and, I firmly believe, disingenuous, though not in your case personally.

                      And opponents of reasonable measures have the burden of proof. In both Texas and Pennsylvania, they failed that burden.

                    • The Democratic position that votes are so vital and important that the government can’t take reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of elections is self-contradictory….and, I firmly believe, disingenuous, though not in your case personally.

                      As noted, reasonable measures are perfectly fine by me. The issue is that voter IDs is not reasonable given the threat. This could be mostly remedied. Require IDs for only new registrations, and empower the registrar’s to verify identification would work.

                      And opponents of reasonable measures have the burden of proof. In both Texas and Pennsylvania, they failed that burden.

                      I’d say they actually showed there’s a burden, and that there’s no need for the law. The court decisions use logic that would uphold poll taxes.

                    • I’d say they actually showed there’s a burden, and that there’s no need for the law. The court decisions use logic that would uphold poll taxes.

                      No, they did not, because there is an explicit amendment that bans poll taxes.

                      No similar amendment bans voter ID.

                    • Michael,

                      I stand by my statement. The logic that was used could equally be used to uphold poll taxes. The externality that poll taxes are banned by an amendment does not affect my statement.

                    • Michael,

                      That’s irrelevant. Both poll taxes and voter id have the effect of making it more difficult for certain classes of people to vote, and there is a strong need for neither. The logic that was used to keep the voter ID was “It doesn’t make it impossible for anyone to vote… just making it difficult for certain classes of people doesn’t matter, even if there’s no need for it.”

                    • Of course, there is a need for it. Denying that an essential activity personal to the individual that can not be duplicated if taken away requires a method of confirming that individual’s identity is logically indefensible, and “nobody steals votes is 1) a rationalization (nobody should be able to steal them whether they actually have or not) and 2) untrue.

                    • Jack,

                      Stealing is illegal. Noncitizen voting is also illegal. If you wanted a parallel situation, you’d have to find something that nobody steals, then demand that a giant wall be put up around it so that nobody would be able to steal it. The point is, there’s no need for the wall. Also, the wall would have to add an hour to the commute of mostly undesirables. Is putting up the wall defensible? No.

                    • “If you wanted a parallel situation, you’d have to find something that nobody steals, then demand that a giant wall be put up around it so that nobody would be able to steal it. The point is, there’s no need for the wall. Also, the wall would have to add an hour to the commute of mostly undesirables. Is putting up the wall defensible? No.”
                      On the other hand,take a community where nobody locks their doors…no need to. But when one household gets broken into then everybody should start locking their doors.

                    • Karla,

                      Locking doors has no external cost. Not a valid comparison. Also, if there’s only been one break-in, going into defensive posture is not rational.

                    • Seriously Michael?

                      Locking your door affects nobody but the people living in your house. The voter ID law (and wall, in my example) negatively affect people external to the decision.

                • We as a nation, now face the situation predicted by the Founding Fathers, as the primary threat to the success of democracy— that situation in which those who benefit from the labors of others, through taxation on their productivity, outnumber those who are net recipients, as classically put in the crude aphorism, “You know you are in trouble when those who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.” Now, there is some doubt as to this conclusion about the cited figure that 51% of American workers pay no Federal income taxes, to be sure, as noted in the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id= yet the fact remains that all taxation is theft, simply put. One can argue that theft is sometimes justified for the provision of infrastructure, national defense and such things, and about whether government or the private sector can do such things better, but taxation is theft nonetheless. Simply put: when you involuntarily demand a portion of my stored labor (taxation of my earnings) at the point of a gun, this is theft, quite simply. It just seems less obvious when a diffuse and invisible band of voters do it, compared to when a thug approaches you on the street and demands your wallet. But the thug doesn’t pretend that it’s for “the common good” or “your debt to society.” And anyone who doesn’t believe that the IRS is an “enforcer” in this manner should please contact me, because I have something to learn. Clearly, those against whom such theft, i.e. taxation, is promulgated ought to be the ones who have a say about the “justifiable” uses of resouces which are forcibly taken from them.

                  It is my opinion that no one should be allowed to vote in their respective Federal or state elections until 1) he or she can pass the same citizenship quiz required for all naturalized US citizens, and 2) he or she has made SOME contribution in Federal/state/payroll tax system, for SOME period of time. This is intended to exclude, and ought to exclude, the generations of welfare recipients who have not done so. Remember that the Founding Fathers insisted that one must be a property owner as a condition of being given the privilege to vote, and there was a reason for that; this should not be difficult to discern.

        • Yup, although if they are net tax contributors instead of net tax recipients, at least there is perhaps SOME basis for a legitimate right to vote.

    • Mr. Stone,

      With one short paragraph you have destroyed any and all respect I have ever had for you.

      Naked. Partisan. Bias.

      –Dwayne

      • Can you point to anything in the statement that was actually incorrect. What we know:

        * Impersonation based voter fraud is extremely rare.
        * Voter ID requirements disproportionately affect poor city dwellers.
        * Poor city dwellers vote overwhelming Democratic.

        Possibly conclusions:
        * The Republican controlled legislatures are completely incompetent.
        * The Republican controlled legislatures are attempting to disenfranchise their opponents.

        Take your pick.

    • With all due respect, Bob, isn’t this an example of “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts”? If what you say is true, why are critics of the laws unable to produce any credible victims of them when the issue gets to court? Don’t you regard the Pennsylvania case as bad faith? Why does a strong majority of the public favor such laws—is it common sense, or is it nascent racism? Why did Justice Stevens write the majority opinion declaring the measures reasonable? Why have they been supported by many Democrats? Charging for food makes it harder for the poor and elderly to eat—is that why we charge for food? If everyone had exactly the same resources, rich or poor, would it be wrong to require ID to vote? Isn’t the argument against voter ID’s a classic “let the perfect be an enemy of the good” fallacy? Isn’t the remedy to find ways to make it easier to get IDs rather than to let there be a hole in the integrity of the voting system.

      And the rhetoric of Holder and the Democrats IS that the measures are racist, and the Justice Department lawsuits are based on the premise.

      • How many cases or convictions of voter fraud have there been? Isn’t it strange that you are able to buy rifles or assault rifles without an ID? Isn’t that more dangerous? My beef is -why are they pushing this so much before this election? This should be a bipartisan issue, but it’s not. It has been voted along party lines. I also believe the ones who vote specifically for one party are also lazy to learn the issues. I don’t see the difference between that and a person who only has a radio to learn the issues to and from work. Sometimes those people have to work straight days, 12 hour shifts. They may be able to vote but there are few dmv’s open after 6pm.

        • One of the first major issues I paid attention to beginning some 30 years ago was the issue of voter ID and national ID. It seems the only time it gets much attention by the major media outlets is prior to an election that is believed to be closely contested.

          It is not all that hard to find cases and convictions for voter fraud if you look for them outside of the major news outlets. It is also not difficult to find elections that were arguably decided based on fraudulent votes, particularly in smaller markets.

          I am much more interested in whether an election is fair and only legitimate voters have participated than I am in who wins it. After all, isn’t that what we should be interested in? If the direction of our country, state, county and locality is going to be determined by citizen votes, don’t we have an ethical obligation to be sure the results are legitimate?

      • The laws have a disproportionate effect on blacks. I think that racism is a matter of intent. So I don’t think the laws are racist. And the voter fraud people are confused; the Tennessee case was clearly a case of COUNTING fraud, not IMPERSONATION fraud, which is all that the ID laws are designed to prevent.

        Here’s the fundamental issue: When government changes the rules (about anything) it needs to have a very good reason. And it has to take reasonable measures to mitigate the injury to innocent people; e.g., by grandfathering them or by giving them plenty of time and opportunity to comply.

        Moreover the simultaneous reduction of early voting opportunity makes it pretty clear that the intent is to reduce democratic voting more than to prevent voter fraud.

        • I think the point of Jack’s post was that they were unable to document that this law would have a disproportionate effect on minority voters. My point in using the 3300% was not to document that there was that much impersonation fraud in that particular election, but the assertion had been made that there is little or no vote fraud problem in the US. That is quite clearly not true.

          Those of us that want clarity in voting results don’t want the rules to be changed. It has ALWAYS been the case that people were not supposed to vote more than once per election and were not supposed to vote under a different name etc. Back when I lived in Indiana and the voter ID laws came into effect, we all chuckled a bit at the polls since half the people in the room were well acquainted with one another. Now, in my city here in Florida, I can wander around for a couple of weeks and never run into anyone that I know. The point is, the citizenry has changed along with a lot of other things, so voter ID is necessary. It is simple fairness as well. If I vote once, and someone else votes twice, my vote has been stolen. One of the principal marks of my citizenship has been taken away from me.

          I am glad to hear you say that you don’t believe that the proposed voting laws are inherently racist. Most who are opposed to the laws seem to think that they are either racist or intended to suppress the votes of those who would normally vote for one party over the other. I think that makes as much sense as if I were to assume that those who object to voter ID laws are doing so because they want to steal elections.

        • “The laws have a disproportionate effect on blacks.” Simply put, prove it. I don’t think it is so to such a significant extent that it justifies letting people vote who can’t prove who they are, that they live in the community, or that they are citizens. The statement is partisan cant–there is nothing but self-serving assumption there. Can anybody who wants to vote, vote with a little initiative and effort? Yes. Are certain requirements less burdensome for some than others? Sure—that doesn’t make them discriminatory. Criminal laws have a disproportionate effect on the poor and minorities—should Holder attack those too?

          If it’s easy for the supposed victim to mitigate the injury, then the government shouldn’t have to. Example: Viviette. How can you—anyone— look at that case and not conclude that this is trumped up nonsense?

          Early voting is and always was a terrible idea, ripe for abuse, and contrary to the whole principle of a campaign. Heck, why not allow lifetime voting, and have knee-jerk partisans just vote a straight part ticket decades ahead? I would work to kill early voting, and ID-less voting, and it has nothing to do with suppressing Democratic votes. Nor does there have to be any “more” about it: voter fraud opportunities should be minimized. That some voters are inconvenienced by it shouldn’t be a factor in the decision. That is secondary to the integrity of the elections. The timing of the racism claims by Holder is what I think is suspect. Requiring voters to identify themselves is always timely.

          • I don’t think it is so to such a significant extent that it justifies letting people vote who can’t prove who they are, that they live in the community, or that they are citizens.

            is there a rash of cases of people voting who aren’t who they say they are, don’t live where they claim, or are not citizens? No.

            Therefore, putting any restrictions in place cannot be justified.

            “The laws have a disproportionate effect on blacks.” […] The statement is partisan cant–there is nothing but self-serving assumption there.

            But it’s true. You tacitly admit that by spending the rest of the post rationalizying why it doesn’t matter.

            Can anybody who wants to vote, vote with a little initiative and effort?

            Let’s make a poll tax of $100. Can anybody who wants to vote, vote with a little initiative and effort? Yup.

            How about we remove all handicap accessibility, so people in wheelchairs need to be carried in. Can anybody who wants to vote, vote with a little initiative and effort? Still true.

            Poll taxes and removing wheelchair ramps are still wrong.

            Yes. Are certain requirements less burdensome for some than others? Sure—that doesn’t make them discriminatory. Criminal laws have a disproportionate effect on the poor and minorities—should Holder attack those too?

            If the laws don’t rationally serve a purpose, then yes, they are discriminatory. That’s the issue here. It’s not that blacks are going to be affected more than whites, it’s that there’s no justifiable reason for the rules that affect blacks more than whites. We’ve been over this multiple times, and you ignore it every time.

            If it’s easy for the supposed victim to mitigate the injury, then the government shouldn’t have to. Example: Viviette. How can you—anyone— look at that case and not conclude that this is trumped up nonsense?

            The government shouldn’t be allowed to cause the injury unless they have a justifiable reason for the regulation. The Government could decide that everyone has to have a black mark on their cheek. It’d be easy for me to put a black mark on my cheek, but that doesn’t mean the regulation is ok.

            Early voting is and always was a terrible idea, ripe for abuse, and contrary to the whole principle of a campaign.

            Not one of those things is true.

            Heck, why not allow lifetime voting, and have knee-jerk partisans just vote a straight part ticket decades ahead?

            Because that would be stupid. Opening up voting for 2 weeks up to election day doesn’t have any of the negative consequences you suggest. What it does do, though, is accomodate for the people for whom voting has a significant cost.

            I would work to kill early voting, and ID-less voting, and it has nothing to do with suppressing Democratic votes. Nor does there have to be any “more” about it: voter fraud opportunities should be minimized. That some voters are inconvenienced by it shouldn’t be a factor in the decision. That is secondary to the integrity of the elections.

            Take problem that doesn’t exist. Demand it be fixed. Ignore consequences. This is the same logic that brought us the sex offender registry. Sure. People on the registry can live places, but it’s extremely and unnecessarily difficult.

            If there was a problem with the integrity of the elections based on invalid voting, then I’d agree that voter id’s could make sense. When you argue a counterfactual, you can get to a decent conclusion…it just doesn’t apply to the situation we have.

              • Nobody’s asking for an exact count… just evidence they actually do. So far, it’s fallen flat. Also, if the voters are on the rolls, the error is in registration, not voting.

    • I should add this—I think this kind of comment plays into the “our side is virtuous and the other guys are evil” culture that has made politics a cesspool. Do you really doubt that some/any/many/most Republicans want voter ID because is simply makes sense and is a needed reform, and because conservatives tend to believe in rules and that everyone should be equally bound by them? If Democrats could complain that such rules are more burdensome to certain groups—I don’t doubt that, I just don’t believe they are excessively or unfairly burdensome—without throwing race accusations around, I could respect their stand—though they would still have to find something other than “everybody knows” to support it. But they don’t—it is being used to impugn, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is being used a partisan weapon.

      • If Democrats could complain that such rules are more burdensome to certain groups—I don’t doubt that, I just don’t believe they are excessively or unfairly burdensome—without throwing race accusations around, I could respect their stand—though they would still have to find something other than “everybody knows” to support it.

        The burden would be heaviest on the rural poor, who would be less likely than other groups to have ID, have limited means of transportation, and be almost invisible to political machines that could assist them with getting ID.

        And yet, nobody from the backwoods of Indiana was called to testify in the Pennsylvania trial, telling the court how they were disenfranchised by voter ID laws. After all, if anyone would be disenfranchised by this law, it would be the rural poor, and yet these high-priced lawyers were apparently unable to find any of these disenfranchised Indiana voters.

        (if they did not even try, they should turn in their law licenses.)

    • You actually don’t have to look all that hard to find cases of voter fraud. In the TN primaries in just the last few days, one voting district had a 3300% voter turn out. The bulk of the state had the more normal primary turn out of 20-30%. I don’t even care what party may have “benefited” from that turn out – it makes me sick.

      • Yes, well put. It amazes me that the new media has adopted this “there is no voter fraud” refrain when we have a U.S. Senator (and a buffoon) from Minnesota the last President elected by a relative handful of votes. And again, who cares how often an obvious weakness in the system is exploited for a decisive result? There shouldn’t be such a weakness in the world’s largest and most successful democracy.

        It makes me sick, too…but the arguments against voter ID make me sicker.

  3. Sorry if a dumb question: What kind of ID did Victoria Rodriguez use for clearance to board her flight from San Antonio to Baltimore?

      • tgt: don’t you need an ID to fly? You must work for TSA. Everyone else needs an ID to fly, commercial, or private, at least on this planet. Not sure which one you’re talking about.

          • Your own post says that a valid photo ID is necessary, except during loss of the photo ID DURING TRAVEL. And then, TWO additional forms of ID are necessary, PLUS additional screening of the TSA officer, PLUS subject to the TSA officer’s discretion, PLUS possibly subject to additional screening.

            • Uh huh. ID is required…unless you don’t have it, and then there are other procedures in place. Translation, the government issued photo ID is not actually required.

              That means ID is not required. This is like ads that say “20% off everything!*” and then have in small print a list of exceptions a mile long.

              Just like the coupon can’t be used on everything, IDs are not required.

                • You’re saying you got to the airport 2 hours before your flight, tried to board without ID, were turned away, went out and got an ID, and made it onto your or a different flight? You weren’t just told by the airline when purchasing your tickets or asking about things?

                  • “You’re saying you got to the airport 2 hours before your flight, tried to board without ID, were turned away, went out and got an ID, and made it onto your or a different flight? You weren’t just told by the airline when purchasing your tickets or asking about things?”
                    No,I was told when getting the ticket. But that doesn’t make sense. Why tell me I need it if I don’t? Something is messed up.

                    • Why tell me I need it if I don’t? Something is messed up.

                      Things are definitely messed up, but they’re (unfortunately) par for the course messed up.

                      Airlines don’t always know what the proper regulations are, even their own regulations. You can see dozens of examples at http://www.consumerist.com.

                      Customer service agents are only as good as their training and their abilities.

                      Policy could be to give the short version of the regulation. It does say that ID is required.

                      I haven’t had the experience with airlines, but misinformed and misinforming customer service is something I’m familiar with, up until relatively recently, it was against merchant agreements for a business to check your ID when making a VISA or MasterCard purchase. I can’t count how many times cashiers fought me on this. It got better at the manager level, but they were still often wrong. Company policy was usually cited…even though company policy violated their signed contracts.

                      For another situation, I don’t show my receipt to receipt checkers if I haven’t agreed to do so (like at CostCo). In one situation, even the responding police officer didn’t know the law on the matter, and didn’t understand that threatening me and taking my purchases without my consent was robbery.

                      Incompetent people are annoyingly common.

  4. Why after over 200 years of not requiring a phot ID at the polls, does this election have to be the one to initiate these laws? I will admit there may have been voter impersonation fraud in the past. Why is this issue passionately debated in this particular election? Why the photo ID laws now? Why can’t this be phased in? If people are going to the trouble of standing in long lines to vote, are they really going to spend more time trying to beat the system? Why anyone who would spend time to fraudulantly cast ONE vote which won’t personally affect them but could if found guilty of voter fraud is beyond me. If the proponets would have used another tactic like: voter photo ID would help speed up the voting process therefore less wait time and possible more votes because the lines wouldn’t be as long– I think could be a fair argument.

    • My answer: because this is the first election in which the U.S, government has made it clear that it encourages illegal immigration, and won’t lift a finger to stop illegals from engaging in all sorts of activity they have no right to engage in. When the integrity of US citizenship is under attack, tightening up the security on the #1 privilege of citizenship makes sense.

      I would add that “Why now, what’s the rush?” is a classic rationalization against reformed, and has been used to question or block measures to ensure women’s rights, gay rights, environmental reforms, and many, many other important types of legislation. It is simply the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” refrain, which was especially popular in the South when Jim Crow was under attack.

      • My answer: because this is the first election in which the U.S, government has made it clear that it encourages illegal immigration, and won’t lift a finger to stop illegals from engaging in all sorts of activity they have no right to engage in. When the integrity of US citizenship is under attack, tightening up the security on the #1 privilege of citizenship makes sense.

        I would also add that the Indiana voter ID law upheld by the Supreme Court was first enacted in 2005. Michael Boyd’s comment thus flowed from an incorrect premise.

        I would add that “Why now, what’s the rush?” is a classic rationalization against reformed, and has been used to question or block measures to ensure women’s rights, gay rights, environmental reforms, and many, many other important types of legislation.

        It might have been used in arguing against OSHA.

        It is simply the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” refrain, which was especially popular in the South when Jim Crow was under attack.

        It is a legitimate argument when the costs of “fixing it” are too high.

        In this case though, the costs of “fixing it” are relatively cheap. Indiana has required voter ID since 2005, and surely there would be hundreds of thousands of examples of disenfrachisement if all the fearmongering is correct.

  5. This is the “reverse barn door” fallacy: since the horse hasn’t escaped the barn while the door has been unlocked and wide open, why bother closing the door now?

    That would be like exempting workplaces from OSHA merely because there were never any serious workplace injuries there before.

    Can a company defend against OSHA violations on the basis that there had never been a documented injury (let alone fatality) before?

    Finally, you should read this post from this forum.

    The state did just pass a law providing free voter ID cards to anyone who wants one; and ones which can be obtained with proof of residence (mail in other words) and a social security number. That may prove enough to stop the constitutional challenge against the ID requirement unfortunately. (emphasis added)

    • I’ve seen a lot of similar posts. It’s Orwellian “logic.” It’s also ironic, since many of these same people (rightly) derided cigarette manufacturers’ long-held position that the causal relationship between death and tobacco had never been “proven.” Their “voter fraud is a myth” nonsense in along teh same lines, as well as similar to claims that there is no evidence of global warming.

      • It’s also ironic, since many of these same people (rightly) derided cigarette manufacturers’ long-held position that the causal relationship between death and tobacco had never been “proven.”

        It has been proven, with controlled experiments.

        Their “voter fraud is a myth” nonsense in along teh same lines, as well as similar to claims that there is no evidence of global warming.

        It depends on timescales.

        Year-by year, there was no global warming in 1999 and 2000. (1998 was warmer.)

        On a timescale of centuries, 1999 and 2000 were in a period of global warming starting from the 17th century.

  6. If an photo ID to vote isn’t too much to ask for, then isn’t it also too much to ask for states to implement a plan to issue photo ID at the polls? Another idea would be to extend hours on the Monday before at photo ID issuing offices? The private sector stays open during holiday seasons. The public sector shouldn’t have a problem with doing the same during election times. Then I could make an assessment whether this is voter suppression or prohibiting voter fraud. Wisconsin Governor Walker should not have a problem with it since his policies regarding public employees. This isn’t a loophole. It is a way to rectify the problem of not having proper ID and not just for voting. This country encourages people to vote, at least that is what I remember in past elections. If it is inexpensive and easy to implement the law, then they shouldn’t have a problem with it. How much difference would that be compared to same day registration?

  7. “Fast and Furious Holder doesn’t have the right to point fingers at anybody imo. Any American citizen has a birth certificate and SS number and will have no problem getting a photo ID. Dems know this has nothing to do with racism and their argument falls so flat especially when lying and cheating is involved to try and prove victimization. Next they’ll be crying discrimination against all those dead people they get to vote for them.

    • Any American citizen has a birth certificate and SS number and will have no problem getting a photo ID.

      It’s not true that all citizens have a birth certificate.

      It’s not true that it’s no problem to get a photo ID for all people.

      Dems know this has nothing to do with racism and their argument falls so flat especially when lying and cheating is involved to try and prove victimization.

      I’ll stipulate to the first. This isn’t racist. It’s about disenfranchisement of people likely to vote the democratic ticket.

      The cases of lying and cheating are chimeras.

      Next they’ll be crying discrimination against all those dead people they get to vote for them.

      If you can cite this actually occurring, I’d love to hear about it.

      • “It’s not true that all citizens have a birth certificate.” You’re right. Some may have been born on the kitchen table, Even then, a person can register with the local county bureau of vital statistics (and in Hawaii, apparently, you can become a citizen if one of your parents was a Hawaiian citizens at one time, and you simply declare it, but that is another story). The point is this: in the United States, in 2012, it’s impossible to live (unless you’re Ted Kaczynski) without some kind of interaction with the rest of American society that does NOT require SOME kind of identification. I agree with you that states should make a no-cost photo ID process available, and I believe most of them do (or very nominal cost). But here’s a deal for you: pay less than 10% of the benefit you get from government by voting, up to $10 for a photo ID and we’ll call it even.

        To argue somehow, that a person should not have to prove some kind of ID for the privilege of voting is ludicrous on its face, and attempting to defend this simply makes you look like a “глупец”. (Russian used to save your embarrassment).

        • “It’s not true that all citizens have a birth certificate.” You’re right. Some may have been born on the kitchen table, […]

          There are multiple reasons someone wouldn’t have a birth certificate, yet still be a citizen. Not everyone has responsible parents.

          The point is this: in the United States, in 2012, it’s impossible to live (unless you’re Ted Kaczynski) without some kind of interaction with the rest of American society that does NOT require SOME kind of identification.

          We were talking about a birth certificate or state issued photo ID, not “some kind of identification”. If you live in the city with mass transit and are unbanked (or were banked prior to 2003), a photo ID doesn’t come up that often.

          I agree with you that states should make a no-cost photo ID process available, and I believe most of them do (or very nominal cost). But here’s a deal for you: pay less than 10% of the benefit you get from government by voting, up to $10 for a photo ID and we’ll call it even.

          Indiana had a free ID, but the MVA employees were not allowed to tell anyone unless they specifically asked. That’s beside the point though. It’s the hassle to get an ID for many people, and since there’s no need for the requirement, it’s unfair.

          Also, you realize you just suggested that poll taxes are fine, right?

          To argue somehow, that a person should not have to prove some kind of ID for the privilege of voting is ludicrous on its face, and attempting to defend this simply makes you look like a “глупец”. (Russian used to save your embarrassment).

          Why is it ludicrous? The supposed reason for the ID is to counter imaginary fraud. That is what should be ludicrous.

          • “It’s not true that all citizens have a birth certificate.” You’re right. Some may have been born on the kitchen table, […]
            There are multiple reasons someone wouldn’t have a birth certificate, yet still be a citizen. Not everyone has responsible parents.
            The point is this: in the United States, in 2012, it’s impossible to live (unless you’re Ted Kaczynski) without some kind of interaction with the rest of American society that does NOT require SOME kind of identification.
            We were talking about a birth certificate or state issued photo ID, not “some kind of identification”. If you live in the city with mass transit and are unbanked (or were banked prior to 2003), a photo ID doesn’t come up that often.
            I agree with you that states should make a no-cost photo ID process available, and I believe most of them do (or very nominal cost). But here’s a deal for you: pay less than 10% of the benefit you get from government by voting, up to $10 for a photo ID and we’ll call it even.
            Indiana had a free ID, but the MVA employees were not allowed to tell anyone unless they specifically asked. That’s beside the point though. It’s the hassle to get an ID for many people, and since there’s no need for the requirement, it’s unfair.
            Also, you realize you just suggested that poll taxes are fine, right?
            To argue somehow, that a person should not have to prove some kind of ID for the privilege of voting is ludicrous on its face, and attempting to defend this simply makes you look like a “глупец”. (Russian used to save your embarrassment). Why is it ludicrous? The supposed reason for the ID is to counter imaginary fraud. That is what should be ludicrous.

            • REPOSTED DUE TO FORMATTING ISSUES:

              “It’s not true that all citizens have a birth certificate.” You’re right. Some may have been born on the kitchen table, […]
              There are multiple reasons someone wouldn’t have a birth certificate, yet still be a citizen. Not everyone has responsible parents. [How to prove citizenship, then? Or this just a matter of saying, ” …because I think I am”? Even without responsible parents, one can be responsible for oneself, and file appropriate papers later on his own. Look, if it’s too much effort for you to register, and find the necessary documents to do it, it’s too much effort for me to pay for your “unemployment” benefits for 99+ weeks and your other welfare handouts from the government, i.e the taxpayers.]
              The point is this: in the United States, in 2012, it’s impossible to live (unless you’re Ted Kaczynski) without some kind of interaction with the rest of American society that does NOT require SOME kind of identification.
              We were talking about a birth certificate or state issued photo ID, not “some kind of identification”. If you live in the city with mass transit and are unbanked (or were banked prior to 2003), a photo ID doesn’t come up that often. [Look bub, voting is a privilege, and you’re going to have to jump through some hoops to have it. There are ways for MOTIVATED people to do this, and if they aren’t so motivated, why should they be given this privilege?]
              I agree with you that states should make a no-cost photo ID process available, and I believe most of them do (or very nominal cost). But here’s a deal for you: pay less than 10% of the benefit you get from government by voting, up to $10 for a photo ID and we’ll call it even.
              Indiana had a free ID, but the MVA employees were not allowed to tell anyone unless they specifically asked. That’s beside the point though. It’s the hassle to get an ID for many people, and since there’s no need for the requirement, it’s unfair. [Why should MVA employees be required to inform you? If you want to vote, you’ll ask questions and find out how to do it. If they refuse to answer your questions, however, you have a case.]
              Also, you realize you just suggested that poll taxes are fine, right? [Under the circumstances I suggested, probably so, although now illegal. But conceptually, I stand by my statement. Perhaps a 5% or 1% figure is more appropriate, but yes, if you benefit from the taxation proceeds from someone else’s pocket, you need to give back a little. VERY LITTLE, but something just the same.]
              To argue somehow, that a person should not have to prove some kind of ID for the privilege of voting is ludicrous on its face, and attempting to defend this simply makes you look like a “глупец”. (Russian used to save your embarrassment). Why is it ludicrous? The supposed reason for the ID is to counter imaginary fraud. That is what should be ludicrous. [Proverbs 26:4. Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (глупец= fool, simpleton.) ]

              • 1. Birth Certificates: You’ve now switched from “everyone has to have one” to “everyone should go get one”. You’re moving the goalposts. It isn’t worth bothering why you’re wrong here, as you’ll just switch up the requirement again.

                2. Voter id: The point was that it’s an unnecessary hassle in the best of existing circumstances. Your ignored that. You also got the part you responded to wrong. I never said the workers should be required to tell people about the free ID on their own. The problem was that they were required to not tell them that was the problem. They couldn’t tell them about it. It wasn’t posted anywhere. The legislature did their best to hide the free ID.

                3. Giving back if you benefit has no relation to poll taxes. It’s also stupid. You deserve $100, but you have to give $1 back, not because you don’t deserve it, but because I want to see you’re making an effort, and I don’t think it’s bad to give you less than what you deserve.

                The point of poll taxes is to disenfranchise. They’re inherently unfair. You back them, Clearly, you don’t care if something is unfair.

                4. If you can show the fraud is any way significant, do so. Good luck. Nobody has been able to yet. Instead of calling me a fool, try to poke a hole in my reasoning. Oh wait, you tried that. There was no hole.

        • Then the Tea Party, cries of of eroding freedoms and more government regulations. I don’t about know about now but at one time to be able to vote in Russia, didn’t you need to be a member of the Communist Party?

            • Communist. Really? Where’s the proof he is socialist or communist? He didn’t enact legislation like the Patriot Act. He didn’t sign the No child left behind act. To me those come close to being fascist and for that matter socialist.

              Then how is this photo ID rule going to completely prevent voter fraud? People are saying that one fraudulant vote is one too many. What about fake IDs. Are the polls going to have card swipers? How are the poll judges going to be trained to spot a fake ID? Poll judges aren’t paid? Are they? Isn’t many of these reforms equal to more government regulation? Something the Republican party is opposing. Isn’t this more costly spending? How are these new rules going to be funded. If people have to spend more money on voting, are they going to actually want to be taxed to vote? Many state offices are not advertising how to get free phot IDs. In fact some have discouraged the workers not to say anything unless asked. Voter legislation enacted by one party shortly before an election is “fishy”. I may be more likely to approve of such if it had bipartisan support. I also would have liked both parties involved in the healthcare law. But at least it is a starting point. Nothing in a law is absolutely set in stone.

              • Communist Party endorses Obama, but then withdraws evidence of same from internet: http://www.reflector.com/greenville-news-board/communist-party-usa-endorses-obama-2012-1189977

                See above link for obvious voter ID fraud in Minnesota, which is likely only one example. Voting is a privilege, not another leftist, progressive “entitlement.” Follow the rules, show up and register with REAL ID, not fake ID, and not with someone else registering for you (or voting for you, with evidence of all the Illinois-plate cars parked outside a polling station in Wisconsin recently).

                • Group A endorsing person B does not imply that person B is part of A.

                  Bigots endorse Mitt Romney all the time, but unless he suggests an afinity for the bigot, it’s not news.

                  While voting is not an “entitlement”, it actually is an entitlement. It’s one of our natural rights.

                  • Obama’s primary mentor as a youth was Frank Marshall Davis, well-known Hawaii Communist Party member, author and leader. This is well-known, unless you read the mainstream media. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that, indeed, Davis may have been his real father, as detailed in the film “Dreams from my Real Father.”

                    As for voter fraud, you wanted proof. I have you proof. Now what do you say?

                    As for entitlement as a term for the capacity to vote, no it is isn’t, any more than a driver’s license is an entitlement. You have to DO something to earn it, not just BE something, or someone. For example, 1) not be a criminal, 2) not claim you are someone else, 3) commit fraud in the process of registering to vote.

                    • My primary mentor as a youth was my father, a Catholic who studied for half a dozen years to become a Jesuit priest. I am an athiest. Your first paragraph is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

                      I haven’t been able to watch your voter fraud video, but I will.

                      Your last paragraph is beyond idiotic. You don’t have to do anything to gain the right to vote. You just have to abstain from doing things that take away that right. By your logic, living freely is not an entitlement. Heck, LIVING is not an entitlement.

                  • Your first comment is disingenuous. Stupid is as stupid does, communist is as communist/Marxist/socialist/collectivist/statist does. I am sorry that your father’s teachings apparently fell flat with you. He is probably quite disappointed in you.

                    “You just have to abstain from doing things that take away that right.” Agree. If you weren’t trying so hard to find fault, you would have realized that my double-negative, while awkward, does restate this. Voting is not a “natural entitlement,” but a right of citizenship. That is, one must be a citizen, not a felon, and so on. You are not born with it. The pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit (but not guarantee) of happiness are, indeed natural rights, with which one is born, God-given, by the way, and not given by government.

                    • My first statement was true. Just because someone “had a mentor who was an Xist”, that doesn’t imply that the mentee is now an Xist. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to acknowledge it… Otherwise, you’ll just be written off as a crackpot.

                      I understood what you said, and your reasoning is still wrong. The right to vote is an entitlement the same way the right to free speech is an entitlement. It’s something that we are entitled to for being citizens. I’m using the words and terms properly. You, on the other hand, are claiming that voting is a privilege. That’s antithetical to democracy.

                  • You have seen the fraud YouTube, or you haven’t?

                    [My first statement was true. Just because someone “had a mentor who was an Xist”, that doesn’t imply that the mentee is now an Xist. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to acknowledge it… Otherwise, you’ll just be written off as a crackpot.] Again, “Stupid is as stupid does, communist is as communist/Marxist/socialist/collectivist/statist does.” We’re only arguing about the source of his ideology. Obama’s actions demonstrate his ideology, and it’s the only thing that counts, not words. In any case, the Communist Party’s endorsement is in no way anything that any true American would NOT immediately disavow. The fact that they had to hide it quickly from the light of day and remove this notice from the internet proves that even they knew it.

                    [I understood what you said, and your reasoning is still wrong. The right to vote is an entitlement the same way the right to free speech is an entitlement. It’s something that we are entitled to for being citizens. I’m using the words and terms properly. You, on the other hand, are claiming that voting is a privilege. That’s antithetical to democracy.] Again, you’re arguing for the sake of argument, either because you are a lawyer, or my ex-wife. “Entitlement,” “privilege,” “potato,” “potáto”, it’s all the same, as long as you realize it can be taken away if you don’t meet certain standards of performance. And no, we don’t have a democracy, we have a republic, and it would be helpful if you would study enough American history to know the difference. If we had been a pure democracy, we would have been extinct long ago, as opposed to by the year 2016, as the movie well demonstrates will likely occur, if this charlatan is reelected.

                    • No I have not yet watched the video. When I do, I will reply about it.

                      —-

                      Trip down memory lane for you (this includes paraphrasing):

                      Peter: If Obama had his way, you would STILL have to be a member of the Communist Party to vote. 🙂

                      Michael Boyd: Communist. Really? Where’s the proof he is socialist or communist?

                      Peter: Yes really, because the Communist Party endorsed Obama

                      Me: That doesn’t mean anything

                      Peter: Well, his mentor was a Communist

                      Me: Again, that doesn’t mean anything

                      Peter: We’re not arguing about his being a communist, just from where it stems. Actions demonstrate ideology, but I’m not going to come up with any examples of actions to support my claim of Ideology. Also, the Communist party endorsement thing.

                      Me, right now: Liar, and not a very good one at that. Past lying, you still haven’t given the requested proof. Just claimed it’s existence, despite the fact that only examples so far go against your claim.

                      —–

                      Again, an entitlement is not a privilege. It’s a right. Yes rights can be taken away in some circumstances, but you’re pretended that a citizen’s ability to vote is at the whim of the government. While technically true, the ability to vote is a core principle in our system of government. Without it, we wouldn’t be the USA.

                      Technically, we have a representational republic founded on the idea of democracy. I never suggested the US was a pure democracy. You know how we’re talking about voting? Well, that’s the democracy part, and the right to vote is inherent in this system.

                • I still don’t see how that video proved that there was voter fraud. It showed how someone could possibly register under a different name. The registration forms ARE looked at and compared to cesus recorsd and other forms to prove they live in that district. The district which was questioned in the video, vote heavily Republican. So their must be Republican voter fraud as well? Are you saying Republicans are liars? You seem to suggest that with the Democrats-Socialist-Communist. That is why it should be a bipartisan bill. But then again someone would find a way to allow only the “priviledged” to vote. So I don’t see how that is proof that voter fraud exists. I am still waiting for my answer to how this is not more government regulation and how it will be funded to get the free photo IDs? At the polls how are the election judges supposed to authenticate the IDs? Fake IDs are a problem as well, maybe moreso than voter fraud. Then if they can’t afford the IDs it would be a priviledge and also a poll tax. As far as I remember voting was a right and a civic duty.

    • And despite the fact that all the witnesses presented by the government were thoroughly discredited. Judges don’t have to pay attention to the evidence or arguments, and frequently don’t. It was clear from the judges’ comments during the trial where they stood from the beginning.

      • The judges struck down the law because it had a disproportionate impact on minorities. Even if that were the case, mere disparate impact alone does not prove discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court has made clear
        that its cases “have not embraced the proposition that a law
        or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it
        has a disproportionate impact.” Washington v. Davis, 426
        U.S. 229 at 239 (1976) And the Supreme Court already established the purpose of these laws.

  8. What do you say about Turzai’s statement that the voter ID law in PA will “”allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”? Was there a large amount of voter fraud in PA that was tipping the scales to the Democrats? I’m wondering why he would say such a thing.

    Can you comment on this article:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/new-voting-laws-bending-the-arc-of-history-away-from-justice/261889/

    I’m a novice at politics and am searching hard for the truth and whether or not politicians I’m reading about and listening to are acting ethically (that’s why I regularly read your site here).

    Also, please explain your comment “Dead people also seem to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in some jurisdictions” Specifically – what jurisdictions? And how many votes are we talking about?

    Finally, my husband just returned from a deployment to Afghanistan last week. He has applied for an absentee ballot, but did not have to show his photo ID. My son, who is away from his poling station at College also applied for an absentee ballot without showing his photo ID. They both applied online without proving who they were. Do you have an opinion about that?

    Thanks for your consideration.

    • 1. Turzai said that because he is an idiot.
      2. Having voters be able to identify themselves is completely reasonable. The fact that a legal requirement is more inconvenient for some citizens than others is inevitable; this is a completely reasonable requirement.
      3. I believe that the stink being raised by Holder’s Justice Department is less to allow individuals to vote illegally than it is to help promote the Democratic race-baiting strategy for the election.
      4. The experience of your husband and son is absurd, and shows why voter ID is necessary and reasonable.

      • 1. Yes, he’s an idiot. He’s an idiot for telling the truth.
        2. Irrelevant to the comment. Also, your arguments about such have already been refuted. That you keep stating a position after it’s shown to be wrong is positively Bartonesque.
        3. Irrelevant to the comment. Also, it seems to be more using the disproportionate affect on race to attack the attempt disenfranchise democrats
        4. Do you have any evidence of any actual fraudulent voting? Again, that it is possible does not mean that we have to build extra protections. You normally know this.

        You also ignored this:

        Also, please explain your comment “Dead people also seem to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in some jurisdictions” Specifically – what jurisdictions? And how many votes are we talking about?

        It’s a common joke. It may have even once been true. Is it true now, or was it just an irrelevant attempt to paint voter fraud as rampant.

        • It doesn’t matter to me at all how many fraudulent votes are cast because of the lack of ID. It is enough that the lack of ID makes fraudulent voting easier. What is more telling is that the race-baiters in fact have been unable to produce anyone credible who wants to vote and intends to vote but who won’t be able to get ID if they care enough to try. That makes it the phony issue that it is.

          • Aren’t these laws enacted right before an election a type of race-baiting, knowing that a large majority of minorities don’t have photo IDs?

            • Aren’t these laws enacted right before an election a type of race-baiting, knowing that a large majority of minorities don’t have photo IDs?

              So what? Indiana has had these laws for five years. Surely the disenfranchisement effect would have been observed there.

              • And how would the disenfranchisement effect by observed? Do we have the percentage of the low income and minority populations that voted in Indiana in ’06 and ’10?

                • And how would the disenfranchisement effect by observed? Do we have the percentage of the low income and minority populations that voted in Indiana in ’06 and ’10?

                  The Justice Department, with all its resources, could not figure it out?

          • It doesn’t matter to me at all how many fraudulent votes are cast because of the lack of ID. It is enough that the lack of ID makes fraudulent voting easier.

            Putting a 30 foot wall blocking your access to all major highways around your house would make stealing less easy. It doesn’t matter if this is a reasonable response to the threat of theft. It doesn’t matter that this was designed to make Jack Marshall’s life a living hell. It makes theft less likely.

            You’re claiming that anything that makes something bad less likely is a good thing, no matter what other bad things occur and no matter what the likelihood of the original bad thing was. It’s wrong on its face. Its self-contradictory.

            What is more telling is that the race-baiters in fact have been unable to produce anyone credible who wants to vote and intends to vote but who won’t be able to get ID if they care enough to try. That makes it the phony issue that it is.

            What is more telling, is that (1) You keep refusing to acknowledge that making it significantly more difficult for certain people to vote is the actual problem, and (2) any procedures that allow people without birth certificate to get ID to vote could be employed by anyone actually intenting voter fraud. The law has no benefit.

          • It’s a poll tax by another name. It effectively disenfranchises part of the electorate. That’s why I don’t like voter ID in reality.

            If we actually moved to a system where we had a national ID, it wasn’t a relative issue for everyone to have such ID, it was fully understood by all, then no, I wouldn’t have a problem with voter ID.

            I did suggest in this thread that if the voter ID requirement had been applied to only new registrations, and the people who accept registrations were empowered to check documents to generate ID, then we’d be in a completely different situation. At that point, I think the burdens would drop low enough for benefits to outweigh them.

            • Is it a poll tax that voters without clothes will be arrested for indecent exposure before they get to the polls? So they have to but underwear to vote–sorry, life is unfair. It is nothing at all like a poll tax, which requires payment to do what the citizen already has a right to do. It is no different from requiring registration to vote, which may require a cab ride or some gasoline.

      • Jack, just a gentle reminder to an old friend, regarding the below….
        “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Proverbs 26:4. It is a waste of your valuable time and intellect to try to do so.

  9. I was able to uncover much information on the internet about dead people on the roles as registered voters in States across our land. 10s of thousands – some estimate over a million. However, I cannot find much evidence that these dead people actually voted – only a few cases and in very low numbers. There are cases where voter fraud (one example was of over 1,000 felons voting) that have proven to shift very tight races. Well, that’s one case anyway.

    I wish that our country would enter the millennium with regards to technical advancements in the voting process. Really, how hard is it to compare a list of registered voters with the Social Security Death Index? The way they verify registered voters in Mexico (holographic id cards with bar codes and finger print identification) is amazing. Overkill probably – but still a technological wonder.

    I’m not convinced that what is going on is good for our democracy. It just doesn’t seem right – the timing of these laws, the potential negative affect on millions of voters/votes versus the potential negative affect of maybe 2,000 fraudulent voters/votes. If I went to vote and couldn’t because someone had stolen my identity, I would raise all kinds of heck. This could be quickly verified and corrected.

    Of course I’m for eliminating voter fraud. But cramming new laws down the throats of voters at this late a date is not a reasonable approach. It begs many questions.

  10. An excellent point on “racist” voter ID laws.

    Here’s the thing: Let’s take the DOJ’s rationale for overturning the will of South Carolinians as enacted by their lawful representatives at face value, instead of the politically-motivated fraud designed to disenfranchise Republicans they know it is. If Perez is correct, that lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise minorities from their right to vote, why would we not also believe it would have a similar effect on their right to purchase a firearm, as is specified on ATF’s Form 4473 requiring a driver’s license or “valid government issued photo identification,” and similar forms as proof of eligibility?

    The government can’t have it both ways. By their own admission and actions, they consider a requirement to produce official photo identification as discriminatory, with a significant statistical impact on the enfranchisement of minority rights. Heller and McDonald leave no doubt that the Second Amendment articulates an individual right recognized by the federal government and applicable to the states, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to ensure that denials of rights are prosecuted.

  11. Problem 1, how does overturning voter laws disenfranchise republicans?

    Problem 2, constitutionally, the limitations on gun ownership have been weighed against the difficulty this causes in getting guns and has been termed valid. Limits based on mental illness, for instance. Also, the disparate impact of violations and occurrences that the ID laws are supposed to be protecting against Moreover, if there is difficulty in getting a gun, it is a temporary problem. With voting, the error would be uncorrectable. You’re quoting the law all the time, you should know this.

    • Problem 2, constitutionally, the limitations on gun ownership have been weighed against the difficulty this causes in getting guns and has been termed valid.

      The same was said by the Supreme Court concerning voter ID laws.

      • I’d say the majority actually improperly ignored the comparison (as was called out in the dissent). I’d also point out that you don’t atually have an argument here. The justice department has pushed for specific results based on how they see the factors weighted. That the supreme court has not always agreed with the JD’s weighting does not create a contradiction in the Department’s push for rights.

        Basically, the argument is “You gave that kid an A, but this other kid a D, that’s inconsistent” while the one kid got every question right, and the other only got 65% right. The situations are treated evenly, but even treatment of different situations often ends up with different results.

        Also that’s 1 piece of 1 of the 2 problems i pointed out. By only responding to that piece, are you admitting the other points are valid?

  12. Would you accept a check from me without knowing me and without ID? If not,why not? I’ve never defrauded you before so you have no reason to require me to go to the trouble of getting ID just because my check could be no good. Why do Democrats have to have ID cards to get into conventions? Isn’t it because someone might slip past who isn’t a Democrat? Not that anyone has but just in case.

    • Would you accept a check from me without knowing me and without ID? If not,why not? I’ve never defrauded you before so you have no reason to require me to go to the trouble of getting ID just because my check could be no good.

      No, I wouldn’t accept a personal check from a random stranger, but ID has nothing to do with it as ID doesn’t actually protect anyone from the various kinds of check fraud. Why wouldn’t I accept a personal check? (1) check fraud is real and common, (2) check fraud can have devastating personal consequences for the invidual stuck with the bum check, and (3) ther are likely no externalities for me in not accepting checks from a random stranger.

      In other words, your proposed parallel situation isn’t even close to parallel.

      Why do Democrats have to have ID cards to get into conventions? Isn’t it because someone might slip past who isn’t a Democrat? Not that anyone has but just in case.

      Of course, to make sure people are invited and to know who people are. The conventions also issue those IDs to people attending, usually as they are entering.

      I understand the point of ID, but the point of ID isn’t in a vaccuum.

      • “No, I wouldn’t accept a personal check from a random stranger, but ID has nothing to do with it as ID doesn’t actually protect anyone from the various kinds of check fraud. Why wouldn’t I accept a personal check? (1) check fraud is real and common, (2) check fraud can have devastating personal consequences for the invidual stuck with the bum check, and (3) ther are likely no externalities for me in not accepting checks from a random stranger. ” etc.
        Good answers. I found the questions on a Republican site.

        • A vote is more important to society than any one check, and more valuable to an individual than most checks. I wouldn’t let someone have a say in my welfare without knowing he or she was qualified to do so. The vote is important enough that merely inconveniencing an individual by forcing him to get proper credentials is worthy of civil rights suits and race baiting, but not so important as to require minimum identification.

          Honestly, I don’t know how opponents of voter ID can look at themselves in the mirror–it seems to me to be such an intellectually and ethically untenable position.

          • If one must show an ID to pick up a welfare check, then one ought to be required to show one to vote in favor that the welfare checks keep coming . Ooops, how HORRIBLY politically incorrect. Take it back….. let’s omit IDs for picking up the welfare checks, now. [Come to think of it, they already have.]

            • Trolling, trolling, trolling.

              Your argument is based on people who get welfare being required to do work to get that welfare…like paying some of it back. It’s still invalid no matter how you dress it up.

          • Rationalization. This is “merely inconveniencing” someone, without creating a large benefit. It might give you peace of mind, but the TSA gives people peace of mind, too.

            Talking about how it’s more important than the check is irrelevant. I agree that votes are more important in the grand scheme than checks, but the situations are so completely different that it’s nothing but a red herring.

            Honestly, I don’t know how opponents of voter ID can look at themselves in the mirror–it seems to me to be such an intellectually and ethically untenable position.

            I’d say the same about you and the way you’re throwing ethics to the wind on this topic, but the answer is likely belief and bias.

      • First section under the 14th. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          • That was the basis of the Supreme Court challenge, in part, and it was rejected. Like requiring registration, voter ID is reasonable, and it doesn’t abridge rights and privileges.

            If we are to take the Justice Department’s arguments at face value, then what are we to say about federal gun laws ?

            Good question, Carla. A social security card is not a valid form of identification. Federal law requires that we obtain a government-issued photo ID, Driver’s License, or an identification card issued by a State in place of a license. These forms of identification must show photograph, address, date of birth, and signature. If the buyer is a member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty acquiring a firearm in the State where his or her permanent duty station is located, but he or she has a driver’s license from another state, you should list the buyer’s military identification card and official orders showing where his or her permanent duty station is located.

            If voter ID is a racial classification that infringes on the fundamental right to vote, as the Justice Department argued and as the district court ruled, then it follows that this law requiring ID to purchase a handgun from a private vendor must be a racial classification that infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

  13. @Michael….How many people know about the laws requiring a person (who are in the market for firearms) to purchase? I do! How many people(who have voted in past elections) who don’t have internet, TV, or periodicals, know that you need (the necessary) ID to vote in the the next election? There has been very little advertizing. There is nothing pertaining to my argument that is about race. I am talking about all lawful citizens regardless of party. Because I know of Republicans who are also against these rules.

    • No need to limit it to people without internet, TV, and periodicals. Just to people who plan on voting but aren’t high information voters, so, most of the public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.