Voter Fraud, Really?

[phank]

Also ruled unconstitutional.

ETA: Actually not. Learn something new every day. Quite probably illegal under the Voting Rights Act but not actually unconstitutional. Of course, such tests would undoubtedly come to be used as a cudgel against the poor and minorities, making them abominable.

Indeed they were. I recall from my constitutional law classes that at least California's literacy test for voting was tossed.

But seer has changed horses in mindstream. First he wants to make sure no noncitizens are voting, but now he's talking about making sure no uneducated people are voting, so he proposes the equivalent of a literacy test. Whose purpose, of course, would be to disqualify eligible citizens (while presumably noncitizens could pass those tests and never be detected).

I remember reading that every Presidential election, a straw vote is taken among all the inmates/patients in mental hospitals, and that those results (tens of thousands of votes) almost invariably are within a fraction of a percent of the popular vote nationwide. So apparently insanity is NOT a disqualification in seer's terms.

[lilpixieofterror]

Only about 46% of women who have changed their last name have their birth certificates, for example.

Too bad that most state web sites have the ability for you to order your birth certificate and have it mailed to your house. Showing, yet again, that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. See Sam, both my husband and myself were born out of the state we lived in. Before we decided to get married, we got our documents in order. Which included him getting his birth certificate. I am kind of curious how it was figured out the cost was 'hundreds of dollars' when my husband got his for under 20 dollars. If I needed one, my state also does online services for obtaining a birth certificate. Don't people you know... bother to use a simple Google search BEFORE they decided to complain or is whining much easier than doing something about it?

Especially if they have moved out of state, obtaining the necessary documentation to prove identity can impose a real cost. The adjusted cost of the poll tax ruled unconstitutional was only ~$11 so even that amount is an unconstitutional burden if Voter ID laws are unnecessary or even not the least restrictive means.

That's right because even though not all states require the poor to get their documents in order and some will even look FOR YOU, it is obviously a 'poll tax'. Have you ever had to obtain a birth certificate, when you live out of state? It isn't that hard.

[Paprika]

You realize that the study that created this thread validated only five non-citizen votes, correct? If the OP study is valid, it's hard to argue that this study isn't valid.

If you disagree with the conclusion, you have to state a good reason why you disagree. Bad methodology?

I think that the two main conclusions is unjustified - about how much photos IDs "typically cost" from an examination of a limited number of individuals per state, and that "there is no such thing as a “free” voter ID" from the examination of systems in three out of 22 states.

[phank]

After further review, I learn that literacy tests are a tricky proposition. In a North Carolina case, SCOTUS ruled that in principle such tests are OK, provided they are unbiased against minorities, but in an Alabama case, they ruled that the test was biased. So the constitutionality of a literacy test depends pretty much on the racial pattern of those who pass it.

A lot of this is interesting reading, because it puts the voter ID laws into a rich historical perspective. Such efforts go along with poll taxes, literacy tests, certificates of residency, and quite a number of indirect efforts to discourage mostly poor people from voting. And this goes all the way back to the vote on the Constitution itself, restricted as it was to adult white male landholders -- who voted what amounted to state electors, who in turn were adult white male landholders who cast a state's support in favor or against the proposed Constitution.

What's different about this latest effort is that its intention is to distinguish on the basis of political affiliation rather than race.

[phank]

<omit gratuituous insults> Before we decided to get married, we got our documents in order. Which included him getting his birth certificate. I am kind of curious how it was figured out the cost was 'hundreds of dollars' when my husband got his for under 20 dollars.

Well, (1) if $11 is unconstitutionally high, why do you think $20 is not?
(2) Presumably, the costs are detailed in the study being referenced.

<omit more snark and bile>

[Sam]

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, (1) if $11 is unconstitutionally high, why do you think $20 is not?

You're assuming that the states that make voter ID laws have not already thought of this. You are aware that many of the states that made voter ID laws, will go and look up your information for you, for free, if you are unable to afford your documents, right? Of course you are not aware of facts, such as that, because than you couldn't make complains online about laws you clearly don't know a thing about.

(2) Presumably, the costs are detailed in the study being referenced.

Which you still haven't explained where the hundreds of dollars figure comes from.

<omit more snark and bile>

Awww yep, the person, who calls people who dare disagree with him a bunch of names complains about it in others. Hypocrisy, not just for Christians, eh phank?

[Paprika]

That's fine but understand the scope of your argument: you're arguing that the excessively high costs cited by the study may not be representative of a typical situation. But that's not the relevant argument (though, if true, it certainly makes the relevant argument stronger) — what you have to argue is that costs associated with obtaining a valid ID are negligible or necessary. They are clearly not negligible; even a $12 fee is more than the cost of a poll tax back when it was used.

You might as well say that costs associated with travelling to a place to vote and then voting has costs (time costs + travel costs) and hence the government should subsidise all these.

So you have to rest your argument on the necessity of strict Voter ID laws. Simply questioning whether the costs (direct costs + time costs + postage costs + travel costs) are really $75+ dollars doesn't really help the argument supporters of Voter ID are (or, more accurately need to be) making.

I have no problems with the fact that in some states there exists significant costs; it does not mean that there are no ways to implement Voter IDs in a costless fashion, let alone that no states have insignificant cost barriers to obtaining Voter ID.

[seer]

Also ruled unconstitutional.

ETA: Actually not. Learn something new every day. Quite probably illegal under the Voting Rights Act but not actually unconstitutional. Of course, such tests would undoubtedly come to be used as a cudgel against the poor and minorities, making them abominable.

Why would we want ignorant people voting, people who are basically clueless? What do uniformed people bring to the table? Why on earth would we want such people steering the destiny of this nation? BTW - some of the most ignorant of this group were college students.

[seer]

But seer has changed horses in mindstream. First he wants to make sure no noncitizens are voting, but now he's talking about making sure no uneducated people are voting, so he proposes the equivalent of a literacy test. Whose purpose, of course, would be to disqualify eligible citizens (while presumably noncitizens could pass those tests and never be detected).

No, I'm not changing horses. I would like to see both.

[seer]

CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...linois-county/

I wonder if there are machines that were "accidentally" calibrated to turn votes for Democrats into votes for Republicans.

[Cow Poke]

I wonder if there are machines that were "accidentally" calibrated to turn votes for Democrats into votes for Republicans.

Which makes me wonder --- how many dead Chicago voters vote Republican?

[seer]

Which makes me wonder --- how many dead Chicago voters vote Republican?

Let me guess - zero?

[Cow Poke]

Let me guess - zero?

No, silly.... it's EQUAL... it's just that the Republicans are the only ones who CARE about it.

[rogue06]

I guess it is just silly to think that voter ID is important. After all, nobody would do something like that

Source: La Raza Promotes Washington Post Guide On Where People Can Vote Without An ID

The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.

“Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election,” explained The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful (sic) graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”

So who ended up using the Post’s helpful graphic? The country’s foremost pro-amnesty Hispanic immigrant organization.

The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice tweeted Blake’s article with the message, “Reminder — #Illinois does NOT require #voterID to cast a ballot,” along with the pro-Democrat hashtag #TurnOutForWhat. The tweet was helpfully retweeted by the National Council of La Raza.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

So if presenting an ID while voting is a waste of time then why are groups teaching people to go to places where IDs aren't required to vote illegally?