Voter Suppression?

[Cow Poke]

Put it this way dummy

You're talking to yourself again.

[sylas]

Actually sylas, several states have dealt with that one as well. Kansas will give you a free birth certificate if you were born in the state and need one for voting ID purposes. Pennsylvania will confirm your information and give you a free ID card. Other states take a different approach where you need to sign an affidavit confirming you are indeed you. Would either of these three approaches be enough to satisfy the requirements?

The affidavit approach, in my view, looks to be a way to resolve the problems. It would remove my objections, though I would still consider the whole process a waste for addressing a non-problem.

My own personal position is that there is no sensible reason to introduce these voter id laws at all. The problem it purports to address is a non-problem. But that's just my view, and I'm not in the USA so have no say on the matter. We do have a similar situation in Australia, where there's no id of any kind used when voting; you just give your name and address by word of mouth, and they use that to cross you off the list of voters. There are some groups campaigning to introduce some kind of voter id, but here, as in the USA, the actual effect of removing fraud would be negligible; and the costs and problems would be significant. So I don't expect it to come in anytime soon here.

What I am trying to present here is some relevant and properly sourced information, on matters that have been raised in the thread but which had been overlooked in favour of, apparently, a lot of mutual insult and focus on personalities. Specifically; the Wisconsin decision had been mentioned, but without any good links and without much of anything looking at what the decision actually said.

The Wisconsin court case that threw out the voter id law addressed the issues of costs directly. Here's the link: Wisconsin court decision on the Wisconsin voter id laws.

The relevant section to your remarks on birth certificates and costs is section "B. The Burdens Imposed by Act 23", which goes from page 22 to page 37. It notes that the id requirement applies to all Wisconsin citizens, but that it places a particular burden on those citizens who do not have photo id already, and who would derive no benefit from obtaining the id other than being able to vote.

The decision looks at the costs and time burden involved in obtaining the free id; for low income residents these can make a big difference.

The decision then goes further, and considers the special case of voters who not only lack the photo id, but who have special difficulties in obtaining the free id. Testimony was given in the case from eight witnesses who attempted to obtain the free photo id and were unable to do so because of various requirements. (This testimony is summarized on pages 24 and 25.)

A major issue with people who tried and failed to get photo id was lack of a birth certificate. Again; the issue here is not only cost -- though that is a factor.

Evidence in the case included a survey finding that "survey of Milwaukee County eligible voters, found that 25,354 persons lacked both a qualifying ID and a birth certificate" (page 27). Wisconsin charges $20 for the birth certificate -- and there is also associated cost and burdens with going through the process, and with obtaining the documentary requirements for the birth certificate. The costs and difficulties are typically more for residents born in a different state; and that applied to 46.9% of those voters.

The survey also found that "approximately 1,640 eligible voters in Milwaukee County alone who do not have qualifying photo IDs and do not have any of the documents the DMV accepts to prove identity". (page 28)

Page 29 looks at additional problems for homeless persons; the free photo id cannot be picked up in person.

There's more; on "calculus of voting", on problems when there are discrepancies in documentation, on issues of transportation to necessary offices, and so on.

Then, on page 38, there's the other side of the equation: section C, Weighing the Burdens Against the State Interests. If there is actually a significant state interest justifying the need for voter id, then the burdens associated might be an unfortunate but necessary cost. The court found, however, "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes". That is, the effect of the act is overwhelmingly negative. It works to prevent a substantial number of legitimate votes for the sake of preventing a negligible number of fraudulent votes.

So the free DMV id card did not (according to the court) prevent the discriminatory effect of the law. Free birth certificates were moot in this case, since there IS a cost in Wisconsin. But even so, the cost of the certificate itself is only a part of the total burden, and there are still more cases of legitimate voters who have special extra difficulties beyond only cost with obtaining birth certificates than there are fraudulent votes that would be prevented by the legislation.

Cheers -- sylas

[lilpixieofterror]

Of course you don't know Lilpix, but thats because you don't want to know, and even if you did know, you would only continue in your denial.

Sorry Jimmy, but you brought it up and not me. It is your job to go ahead and show what I asked and it isn't my job to do your work for you. Let me guess, you heard that quote from one of the talking heads on TV and didn't bother to go and look it up for yourself.

I don't know Lilpix, sometimes I'm just not sure if you are actually this dumb, or if you are just playing dumb. The voter ID laws in question are being challenged in court, they haven't been employed yet. But other voter suppression tactics have been employed, such as those that I mentioned in post #38. Are you willing to admit that you are so dumb that you are not even aware of them?

Ummm Jimmy, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The voter ID laws have been in affect, in some states, since the 2006 elections and were found constitutional back in that time frame too and again years later. Don't think that's true? Well, here you go for yourself. I want you to show a single republican that has won an office due to voter ID laws. Obama won the state of Indiana in 2008 and again in 2012 despite the voter ID law. So much for the idea that Republicans can use it to win elections, eh? Finally, bringing up a soundbite from when I was a baby somehow proves that 30 years later, republicans are trying to suppress votes? How does that work out? Does that mean if I found quotes of racist democrats from decades ago, that therefore means democrats today are racist? I want hard evidence Jimmy, not a pile of assertions.

You don't have to deny them idiot, you just need make it to difficult for them to carry through.

Then why is there no hard evidence to support your views? Do you want to know the reason that the case against the voter ID law in Indiana was dropped? It is because they were unable to produce just one person that was unable to vote due to the voter ID law. You have also failed to produce one republican that has won an office due to voter ID laws. Here is another paper you can read for yourself too that points out all the flaws in your argument and (unlike you) it admits both sides of the issue do have their strengths and weakness. It also is very critical of reports that try to make it sound as though 1 in 4 African American's do not have an ID card and points out the real numbers seem to be closer to 1-3% do not have one and about .9% do not have any of the documents to get one. AKA it isn't going to be enough to help Republicans win an election and the fact they haven't been able to defeat Obama in Indiana nor has it been shown to cause any sort of massive drop in voter turn out. Something you fail to understand. Why do you fail to understand that Jimmy?

Oh, one woman was able to get her ID in Pennsylvania! I guess you got me there Lilpix. Cased closed. For one thing, Pennsylvania's ID law was shot down Lipix. For another, one person is such a hilarious argument for your case I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Besides, I know you well Lilpix, you don't want hard evidence, hard evidence is easy to come by when it comes to voter suppression tactics employed by republicans and I've gone through it all with you before. You live in a state of denial, and I'm afraid you always will.

First off Jimmy, the Pennsylvania law was shot down because of a lack of places to get one moron. Second, she claimed she couldn't get one. That was proved false when she was indeed able to get one. Third, you have not produced one election that the republicans have won due to voter ID laws. Not a one. Finally, you haven't even been able to produce one person that was unable to vote due to voter ID law. So all the evidence taken together. It seems you're the moron that is living in denial. I want evidence Jimmy, not soundbites from somebody that spoke something from when I was a baby. I produced evidence and one from a group that seems to bring up valid points (mainly due to issues with the ability to distribute ID cards), but they seem to have not figured out that the law was passed to help republicans win. Who should I believe Jimmy, a place dedicated to studying elections and writing good informative reports or you and you're bias MSNBC talking heads? Decisions decisions...

Put it this way dummy, show me one piece of evidence that anybody has not won an election due to voter suppression tactics. You must think everyone is as stupid as you are Lilpix.

Sorry Jimmy, most people know that you can't prove a negative, so what you are asking shows who really is the dumb one. Sure, I could prove that republicans have been unable to win Indiana in 2008 or 2012, despite the strict voter ID laws, but you'll ignore that because the talking heads on MSNBC haven't told you that one yet. Anyway, you're making the claim that Republicans put this into effect to win elections. You made the assertion, the burden of proof sits upon the one making the positive claim, which is you. All I need to do is point out all the dozens of examples of republicans losing elections, despite voter ID laws or how the percentage of people who would not be able to vote (assuming that percentage stays the same during the election) would be so small, that it would not statistically help the republicans win an election. Now, do you have just a single example of republicans winning an election due to voter ID laws, just one? Let me guess, your burden shifting game proves you can't, right?

No stupid, try thinking just a bit before making such a fool of yourself. Eveyone knows that there are plenty of speeders out there, whether they get written up or not, we can see that with our own eyes. Most of us speed at one time or another. And if a study was done on speeding, that fact, which we all already know to be the case, would be revealed. But you can't see people committing voter fraud can you Lilpix? Its only an accussation unless proven. So an independent study was done on voter impersonation fraud, and what was revealed is that it is rarer than rare. Now please stop talking logic until you learn how to apply it, it makes you look like a real doofus.

And idiot, it is pretty easy to go and show that many speeders do not get caught and I could think of a few things to do to give a pretty decent percentage of people who don't get caught speeding. The problem with voter fraud is so few people are going to admit to it. Admitting to speeding might get you a ticket (but I doubt it), admitting to voter fraud will land you in prison for at least 5 years. If you think this is wrong, go ahead and propose a study that can accurately measure a crime that is almost impossible to detect without checking for an ID. I'll be waiting.

[lilpixieofterror]

The affidavit approach, in my view, looks to be a way to resolve the problems. It would remove my objections, though I would still consider the whole process a waste for addressing a non-problem.

How do you know it is a 'non problem' sylas? What is the number of illegal immigrants you guys have in Australia? We have millions here and we also have millions more that are here legally, but are not citizens of our country. Is not reasonable to ensure that those voting for our elected officials are citizens?

My own personal position is that there is no sensible reason to introduce these voter id laws at all. The problem it purports to address is a non-problem. But that's just my view, and I'm not in the USA so have no say on the matter. We do have a similar situation in Australia, where there's no id of any kind used when voting; you just give your name and address by word of mouth, and they use that to cross you off the list of voters. There are some groups campaigning to introduce some kind of voter id, but here, as in the USA, the actual effect of removing fraud would be negligible; and the costs and problems would be significant. So I don't expect it to come in anytime soon here.

There is some similarities, but Australia also is out in the middle of an ocean without any neighboring countries. What is the extent of non citizens in your country there legally and illegally? I've also read many different reports that see to indicate that the majority of our population either already has an ID card or has the documents to get one. This link here is a pretty decent report that does make a valid point. Page 15-16 are the one that seem to indicate that 1.1% have no type of valid ID card in the study, with the state of Indiana (the state with some of the strictest voter ID laws in the US) reported under .3%. I'm sorry, but I do not see the expense as being really all that high to begin with, based upon this study that was made has indicated.

What I am trying to present here is some relevant and properly sourced information, on matters that have been raised in the thread but which had been overlooked in favour of, apparently, a lot of mutual insult and focus on personalities. Specifically; the Wisconsin decision had been mentioned, but without any good links and without much of anything looking at what the decision actually said.

That is because Jimmy likes to throw out assertions and not give details to his assertions.

The Wisconsin court case that threw out the voter id law addressed the issues of costs directly. Here's the link: Wisconsin court decision on the Wisconsin voter id laws.

The relevant section to your remarks on birth certificates and costs is section "B. The Burdens Imposed by Act 23", which goes from page 22 to page 37. It notes that the id requirement applies to all Wisconsin citizens, but that it places a particular burden on those citizens who do not have photo id already, and who would derive no benefit from obtaining the id other than being able to vote.

I think the 'no benefit' thing is highly suspect due to how many things today you need your ID card for. If you ever want to enter a US federal building, you need an ID card. If you ever want to enter a courthouse, you need an ID card. If you ever want to fly on an aircraft, you need an ID card. If you ever want to open a bank account, you need an ID card. How do these people do these things, without one?

The decision looks at the costs and time burden involved in obtaining the free id; for low income residents these can make a big difference.

Based upon what I have been able to find, no it wouldn't.

The decision then goes further, and considers the special case of voters who not only lack the photo id, but who have special difficulties in obtaining the free id. Testimony was given in the case from eight witnesses who attempted to obtain the free photo id and were unable to do so because of various requirements. (This testimony is summarized on pages 24 and 25.)

And what were these requirements and it kind of blows a huge hole in the idea it will 'help the republicans win' considering that 8 people are not going to make a turn in an election anyway.

A major issue with people who tried and failed to get photo id was lack of a birth certificate. Again; the issue here is not only cost -- though that is a factor.

Birth certificates are not the only valid forum you need to get an ID card.

Evidence in the case included a survey finding that "survey of Milwaukee County eligible voters, found that 25,354 persons lacked both a qualifying ID and a birth certificate" (page 27). Wisconsin charges $20 for the birth certificate -- and there is also associated cost and burdens with going through the process, and with obtaining the documentary requirements for the birth certificate. The costs and difficulties are typically more for residents born in a different state; and that applied to 46.9% of those voters.

So do what Kansas did, make the birth certificates free for anybody who needed one for a voter ID. Problem solved. BTW I was also born in a different state and somehow was able to get mine and so was my husband, who was also born in a different state. I also really hope they never get married or never try to go into a federal building. I wonder how they would manage to get into the door.

The survey also found that "approximately 1,640 eligible voters in Milwaukee County alone who do not have qualifying photo IDs and do not have any of the documents the DMV accepts to prove identity". (page 28)

Page 29 looks at additional problems for homeless persons; the free photo id cannot be picked up in person.

There's more; on "calculus of voting", on problems when there are discrepancies in documentation, on issues of transportation to necessary offices, and so on

So how do they get down to vote to begin with, if they do not have the ability to go down and get an ID card?

Then, on page 38, there's the other side of the equation: section C, Weighing the Burdens Against the State Interests. If there is actually a significant state interest justifying the need for voter id, then the burdens associated might be an unfortunate but necessary cost. The court found, however, "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes". That is, the effect of the act is overwhelmingly negative. It works to prevent a substantial number of legitimate votes for the sake of preventing a negligible number of fraudulent votes.

It is interesting how other studies have come to opposite conclusions. I wonder why that is...

So the free DMV id card did not (according to the court) prevent the discriminatory effect of the law. Free birth certificates were moot in this case, since there IS a cost in Wisconsin. But even so, the cost of the certificate itself is only a part of the total burden, and there are still more cases of legitimate voters who have special extra difficulties beyond only cost with obtaining birth certificates than there are fraudulent votes that would be prevented by the legislation.

So therefore, other solutions can be used there, that were used in other states, that totally defuse the problem and make these issues into non problems.

[JimL]

Sorry Jimmy, but you brought it up and not me. It is your job to go ahead and show what I asked and it isn't my job to do your work for you. Let me guess, you heard that quote from one of the talking heads on TV and didn't bother to go and look it up for yourself.

No, its not my job to waste my time trying to prove the obvious to an obvious denier of the obvious. If you are totally unaware of the suppression tactics employed by republican run states, ID being only one of them, then it is only because you refuse to see it. There are none so blind as they who refuse to see, and no one is able to open their eyes but themselves.

Ummm Jimmy, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The voter ID laws have been in affect, in some states, since the 2006 elections and were found constitutional back in that time frame too and again years later. Don't think that's true? Well, here you go for yourself. I want you to show a single republican that has won an office due to voter ID laws. Obama won the state of Indiana in 2008 and again in 2012 despite the voter ID law. So much for the idea that Republicans can use it to win elections, eh? Finally, bringing up a soundbite from when I was a baby somehow proves that 30 years later, republicans are trying to suppress votes? How does that work out? Does that mean if I found quotes of racist democrats from decades ago, that therefore means democrats today are racist? I want hard evidence Jimmy, not a pile of assertions.

OMG, all the way back to 2006 Lilpix. I don't know if those laws are being challenged as unconstitutional or not Lilpix, but many of the newly enacted ID laws are being challenged and are so far losing in court as unconstitutional. They will most likely be appealed, but don't count on an overturning of the ruling. Also, it isn't a matter of whether or not the voter ID laws achieve their objective, that is not what the courts rule on, its whether they are constitutional or not.

Then why is there no hard evidence to support your views? Do you want to know the reason that the case against the voter ID law in Indiana was dropped? It is because they were unable to produce just one person that was unable to vote due to the voter ID law. You have also failed to produce one republican that has won an office due to voter ID laws. Here is another paper you can read for yourself too that points out all the flaws in your argument and (unlike you) it admits both sides of the issue do have their strengths and weakness. It also is very critical of reports that try to make it sound as though 1 in 4 African American's do not have an ID card and points out the real numbers seem to be closer to 1-3% do not have one and about .9% do not have any of the documents to get one. AKA it isn't going to be enough to help Republicans win an election and the fact they haven't been able to defeat Obama in Indiana nor has it been shown to cause any sort of massive drop in voter turn out. Something you fail to understand. Why do you fail to understand that Jimmy?

Why is it that you fail to understand that that is not the point? Whether the laws have achieved their objective or not, i.e. whether they have suppressed the vote enough to steal an election, is not the point, the point is whether or not they are constitutional.

First off Jimmy, the Pennsylvania law was shot down because of a lack of places to get one moron.

Gee, now why do you suppose there would be a lack of places to get a required ID Lilpix, eh moron?

Second, she claimed she couldn't get one. That was proved false when she was indeed able to get one. Third, you have not produced one election that the republicans have won due to voter ID laws. Not a one. Finally, you haven't even been able to produce one person that was unable to vote due to voter ID law. So all the evidence taken together. It seems you're the moron that is living in denial. I want evidence Jimmy, not soundbites from somebody that spoke something from when I was a baby. I produced evidence and one from a group that seems to bring up valid points (mainly due to issues with the ability to distribute ID cards), but they seem to have not figured out that the law was passed to help republicans win. Who should I believe Jimmy, a place dedicated to studying elections and writing good informative reports or you and you're bias MSNBC talking heads? Decisions decisions...

Because, apparently Lilpix, you are just to stupid to understand that whether or not the objective of the laws has yet been achieved, or whether or not that can even be determined, is not the point, nor is it the issue before the courts.

Sorry Jimmy, most people know that you can't prove a negative, so what you are asking shows who really is the dumb one. Sure, I could prove that republicans have been unable to win Indiana in 2008 or 2012, despite the strict voter ID laws, but you'll ignore that because the talking heads on MSNBC haven't told you that one yet. Anyway, you're making the claim that Republicans put this into effect to win elections. You made the assertion, the burden of proof sits upon the one making the positive claim, which is you. All I need to do is point out all the dozens of examples of republicans losing elections, despite voter ID laws or how the percentage of people who would not be able to vote (assuming that percentage stays the same during the election) would be so small, that it would not statistically help the republicans win an election. Now, do you have just a single example of republicans winning an election due to voter ID laws, just one? Let me guess, your burden shifting game proves you can't, right?

See above dummy.

And idiot, it is pretty easy to go and show that many speeders do not get caught and I could think of a few things to do to give a pretty decent percentage of people who don't get caught speeding. The problem with voter fraud is so few people are going to admit to it. Admitting to speeding might get you a ticket (but I doubt it), admitting to voter fraud will land you in prison for at least 5 years. If you think this is wrong, go ahead and propose a study that can accurately measure a crime that is almost impossible to detect without checking for an ID. I'll be waiting.

People don't have to admit it to find it Lilpix, and as I said the state failed in their attempt to show any voter impersonation fraud, as well as did the independent investigation, not to mention how ridiculously difficult it would be to pull it off in the first place as the federal judge in the Wisconsin case explained.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, its not my job to waste my time trying to prove the obvious to an obvious denier of the obvious. If you are totally unaware of the suppression tactics employed by republican run states, ID being only one of them, then it is only because you refuse to see it. There are none so blind as they who refuse to see, and no one is able to open their eyes but themselves.

Sorry Jimmy, but repeating your same failed assertions does not make them true because you said so. I have presented hard numbers and data which totally refutes your claim. On top of that, the fact the republicans were unable to win Indiana, despite its strict voter ID laws, is more of an indication that your assertion is wrong. Now, go ahead, show one republican that won their office due to voter ID laws. Just one. Ball is in your court and ignoring my question and just repeating your same tired assertions will not make the question go away.

OMG, all the way back to 2006 Lilpix. I don't know if those laws are being challenged as unconstitutional or not Lilpix, but many of the newly enacted ID laws are being challenged and are so far losing in court as unconstitutional. They will most likely be appealed, but don't count on an overturning of the ruling. Also, it isn't a matter of whether or not the voter ID laws achieve their objective, that is not what the courts rule on, its whether they are constitutional or not.

And your point is what? Why do you assume evil intentions when simply human error and stupidity is a far better explanation for the errors of judgment made. Unlike you, I do not assume anybody who dares to disagree with me automatically has evil intentions. Now, do you have any hard evidence that these laws were put in place with evil intentions or do you just like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming loudly that you're right?

Why is it that you fail to understand that that is not the point? Whether the laws have achieved their objective or not, i.e. whether they have suppressed the vote enough to steal an election, is not the point, the point is whether or not they are constitutional.

Too bad many courts have already found the general idea as sound as constitutional, eh? The Indiana law has already been challenged twice and, both times, has been found constitutional. Screaming, "Oh yeah, these ones are not!" and ignoring the primary reason isn't based on the law itself, but simply upon inadequate ability to distribute these ID cards doesn't make your case look anymore valid. If anything, it makes you sound like a screaming banshee that isn't interested in truth and just wants to declare that anybody and everybody, who dares to disagree with him, has evil intentions instead of being simply human and making simple human errors of judgment.

Gee, now why do you suppose there would be a lack of places to get a required ID Lilpix, eh moron?

Because the system wasn't designed to distribute ID cards for voting purposes and law makers didn't take everything into account when the made the law? Again Jimmy, do you have any hard evidence of evil intentions instead of simple human error? Unless you're going to say this is a grand conspiracy in the making for decades (that seems to have managed to say totally secret) you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy lunatic that should be laughed at instead of taken seriously.

Because, apparently Lilpix, you are just to stupid to understand that whether or not the objective of the laws has yet been achieved, or whether or not that can even be determined, is not the point, nor is it the issue before the courts.

I'm the stupid one when you haven't presented one piece of evidence to support your assertions and you just scream, 'WAAAA!!! VOTER SUPPRESSION!" at the top of your lungs without ever addressing a single point made. Can you please explain how human error and oversight isn't the logical explanation and instead it is a grand conspiracy to suppress the vote (even though it appears that the margin is way too slim to help republicans win in any way)? I want evidence, not assertions. Now go ahead, prove evil intentions vs simple human error isn't the cause of these problems.

See above dummy.

Please prove evil intentions vs human error is the real cause.

People don't have to admit it to find it Lilpix, and as I said the state failed in their attempt to show any voter impersonation fraud, as well as did the independent investigation, not to mention how ridiculously difficult it would be to pull it off in the first place as the federal judge in the Wisconsin case explained.

It's difficult to walk into a place, say you are such and such, vote in their stead, and move onto another polling place and vote instead of another voter? Go ahead JImmy, explain how that is ridiculously difficult to pull off because it doesn't sounds that complex (or it could be for your limited intelligence).

[JimL]

Sorry Jimmy, but repeating your same failed assertions does not make them true because you said so. I have presented hard numbers and data which totally refutes your claim. On top of that, the fact the republicans were unable to win Indiana, despite its strict voter ID laws, is more of an indication that your assertion is wrong. Now, go ahead, show one republican that won their office due to voter ID laws. Just one. Ball is in your court and ignoring my question and just repeating your same tired assertions will not make the question go away.

Ignoring my answer and repeating your same irrelevant questions just goes to show your disinterest in the actual issue. Whether the objective of the voter suppression laws is achieved or not is not the issue before the court dumbell. Try to hold that idea in your head before spouting your tiresome old talking points again, would you please?

And your point is what? Why do you assume evil intentions when simply human error and stupidity is a far better explanation for the errors of judgment made. Unlike you, I do not assume anybody who dares to disagree with me automatically has evil intentions. Now, do you have any hard evidence that these laws were put in place with evil intentions or do you just like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming loudly that you're right?

Of course there is evidence, and if you weren't such a willfully blind hyperpartison boob you would admit to it. Are you really so dumb as to believe that all of these voter suppression tactics and laws which target democrats and democratic leaning districts is just a coincidence.

Too bad many courts have already found the general idea as sound as constitutional, eh? The Indiana law has already been challenged twice and, both times, has been found constitutional. Screaming, "Oh yeah, these ones are not!" and ignoring the primary reason isn't based on the law itself, but simply upon inadequate ability to distribute these ID cards doesn't make your case look anymore valid. If anything, it makes you sound like a screaming banshee that isn't interested in truth and just wants to declare that anybody and everybody, who dares to disagree with him, has evil intentions instead of being simply human and making simple human errors of judgment.

There is no inadequate ability to distribute cards Lilpix, there is a concentrated effort to make it difficult for people to get those cards, all which ignores the fact that there is no evidence of voter impersonation fraud to begin with.

Because the system wasn't designed to distribute ID cards for voting purposes and law makers didn't take everything into account when the made the law? Again Jimmy, do you have any hard evidence of evil intentions instead of simple human error? Unless you're going to say this is a grand conspiracy in the making for decades (that seems to have managed to say totally secret) you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy lunatic that should be laughed at instead of taken seriously.

The state systems were redisigned to make it difficult to get ID's oh willfully blind one. Thats part of the tactic employed idiot.

I'm the stupid one when you haven't presented one piece of evidence to support your assertions and you just scream, 'WAAAA!!! VOTER SUPPRESSION!" at the top of your lungs without ever addressing a single point made. Can you please explain how human error and oversight isn't the logical explanation and instead it is a grand conspiracy to suppress the vote (even though it appears that the margin is way too slim to help republicans win in any way)? I want evidence, not assertions. Now go ahead, prove evil intentions vs simple human error isn't the cause of these problems.

Yeah, apparently you are the stupid one because you just can't seem to get it through that thick head of yours that whether or not the suppression tactics are the result of human error or oversights made by a bunch of constitutionally inept morons or whether or not they have as yet achieved their intended, or hoped for goal, is not the issue before the courts.

Please prove evil intentions vs human error is the real cause.

Is the closing of targeted RMV offices in democratic leaning districts at the same time as enacting the ID requirement human error Lilpix? Do you think? Is the closing of many voting sites and less voting machines in democratic leaning districts causing people to stand in line until midnight in order to vote human error Lilpix? Do you think? Is the enactment of laws prohibiting the ability of college students to vote where they live, i.e. in the state where they go to college, human error Lilpix? Do you think? Is ending early voting making it more difficult for working people to get to the polls human error Lilpix? Do you think? Do you really think that all of these tactics combined with Voter ID laws are about human error Lilpix or are you just a thoughtless windbag?

It's difficult to walk into a place, say you are such and such, vote in their stead, and move onto another polling place and vote instead of another voter? Go ahead JImmy, explain how that is ridiculously difficult to pull off because it doesn't sounds that complex (or it could be for your limited intelligence).

Yes it is difficult and if you ever payed attention to anything but your own swirling thoughts you would have read the federal judges reasoning on that. First off a person can't just walk in, say he's such and such, because they would first need to know such and suches name, they would have to know where such and such lives and they would have to know if such and such is registered to vote. Then they would have to know that such and such has not already voted, and they would have to know that no one at the polling place knows such and such and so knows that the person voting in such and suches stead is not such and such. Got it now?

[lilpixieofterror]

Ignoring my answer and repeating your same irrelevant questions just goes to show your disinterest in the actual issue. Whether the objective of the voter suppression laws is achieved or not is not the issue before the court dumbell. Try to hold that idea in your head before spouting your tiresome old talking points again, would you please?

I'm glad to see you Jimmy, did you have to watch a few clips on youtube and your DVR or your MSNBC buddies a few times to re-enforce the brain washing? Anyway, I already answered your 'answer' Jimmy and the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about and keep screaming assertions at the top of your lungs. Funny, I got these 'talking points' from groups supported by people like Jimmy Carter. Are you now going to assert that Jimmy Carter is a secret Republican too or are you just going to face the reality that your buddies on MSNBC are just plain wrong? These are the facts Jimmy, less than 1% of the people asked about if they had a government ID card or documents to go and get one in the state of Indiana. This was done by an independent group without ties to the republicans or the democrats. 1% isn't going to help the Republicans when you consider that many of them were unlikely voting anyway. Can you show a single republican that has won an office due to these voter ID laws? I know you can't because it doesn't appear these voter ID laws are capable of doing what you claim they can do. They can only be 'voter suppression' if they are actually suppressing the vote and actually helping candidates win. Clearly, they are not doing that job and your assertion they are is going down the tubes.

Of course there is evidence, and if you weren't such a willfully blind hyperpartison boob you would admit to it. Are you really so dumb as to believe that all of these voter suppression tactics and laws which target democrats and democratic leaning districts is just a coincidence.

Then you should have no problems presenting the evidence and showing a republican that has won due to voter ID laws. If that really is true, you should be able to do that. Now, I want hard evidence, not assertions and not, "DUH THEY ARE ATTACKING DEMOCRATS!" despite the fact you have not presented even one case where a republican has won his or her office due to voter ID laws. If really is 'voter suppression' it seems to be a colossal failure or you're just a total moron that can't support a word he says. You made the positive claim Jimmy, your job to support them, not mine.

There is no inadequate ability to distribute cards Lilpix, there is a concentrated effort to make it difficult for people to get those cards, all which ignores the fact that there is no evidence of voter impersonation fraud to begin with.

And again, do you have hard evidence that was on purpose or are you still assuming evil intentions because anybody who disagrees with Jimmy must be secretly evil and secretly trying to suppress the vote because they disagree with you? Your paranoia is quite amusing, but seems to not have a single piece of hard evidence to support it. Why is that?

The state systems were redisigned to make it difficult to get ID's oh willfully blind one. Thats part of the tactic employed idiot.

Really or is the sign of a penny pinching government that doesn't know what its right and left hand is doing? Again, your job to prove evil intentions, not mine. Now go ahead, show a single document, from a single republican, that proves evil intentions vs stupidity and human error. I'm waiting...

Yeah, apparently you are the stupid one because you just can't seem to get it through that thick head of yours that whether or not the suppression tactics are the result of human error or oversights made by a bunch of constitutionally inept morons or whether or not they have as yet achieved their intended, or hoped for goal, is not the issue before the courts.

These's a huge difference between a person make errors by mistake a person with evil intentions doing these things on purpose. If you can't figure this one out, not my problem, Now again, I want hard evidence, not assertions. Do you have any evidence of evil intentions or not?

Is the closing of targeted RMV offices in democratic leaning districts at the same time as enacting the ID requirement human error Lilpix?

Hummm perhaps because many states are facing budget crisis and attempting to penny pinch without thinking about what their laws in the other hand are doing either because they are unaware or just plain stupid? The federal government is also penny pinching and my home state of California is also doing the same thing. Are you going to assume these are also secret republican plots or are you going to actually use that empty head of yours to think instead of letting MSNBC do all of your thinking for you? States are facing limited state budgets that continue to shrink and are trying to find ways to save a few dollars by closing up offices, closing down hiring, etc. It is something going on in governments of all levels across the political spectrum. You would know this if you bothered to look things up instead of assuming.

Do you think? Is the closing of many voting sites and less voting machines in democratic leaning districts causing people to stand in line until midnight in order to vote human error Lilpix? Do you think? Is the enactment of laws prohibiting the ability of college students to vote where they live, i.e. in the state where they go to college, human error Lilpix? Do you think? Is ending early voting making it more difficult for working people to get to the polls human error Lilpix? Do you think? Do you really think that all of these tactics combined with Voter ID laws are about human error Lilpix or are you just a thoughtless windbag?

As I pointed out above Jimmy, government offices all over are facing smaller budgets and are being forced to downsize/close up office. See Jimmy, just as at the federal level, the governors and state legislators do not know what goes on at every level of their government and they put people in charge of those areas because it is too much for any one person to run. It usually works out, but sometimes backfires in cases like this. Governments all over have been facing smaller budgets for the past 5 years. Some of these states can't run over budget (it is actually against some of their state constitutions), so they have to cut money from somewhere. Now, do you have evidence that this isn't the case Jimmy and it isn't instead due to evil intentions?

Yes it is difficult and if you ever payed attention to anything but your own swirling thoughts you would have read the federal judges reasoning on that. First off a person can't just walk in, say he's such and such, because they would first need to know such and suches name, they would have to know where such and such lives and they would have to know if such and such is registered to vote. Then they would have to know that such and such has not already voted, and they would have to know that no one at the polling place knows such and such and so knows that the person voting in such and suches stead is not such and such. Got it now?

So you're telling me they can't steal things from people's mail boxes and figure out their names and where they are suppose to go to vote? Wow, it must be impossible in Jimmy land to steal from an unlocked mail box.