32
   

The Final Debate! No More! This Is IT! Last one!!

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 07:37 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:



C. Few convictions Not Equal few offenses. Example: John asks his neighbor Joe, "you voting?" Joe says "F*ck that. It don't help." An hour later John vouches for his neighbor Joe (who's really Jack, from another district.) Who will ever be the wiser?
Bob that lives next door to Joe is standing in line when John vouches for someone that isn't Joe. Precints are not so large that this would go on without some instances being reported. Yet we really have no reported instances, do we?

You are assuming that in every instance, none of the election judges know Joe. No one else there voting that might overhear, knows Joe. Joe doesn't call the state after he gets a voter registration confirmation in the mail to ask why the F*ck he was registered to vote when he didn't vote.

Quote:

D. Concerned about the cost of the occasional eligible homeless dude with no ID? Include in the bill that indigents can have ID for free (to be charged against their next State Tax Return.) (Probably not a bad idea as a stand alone bill anyway, really.)
I don't know how they do IDs in Wisconsin but here they mail them out to the person a couple of weeks later but will not mail them to a PO Box. How many homeless dudes have a valid mailing address?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 07:38 am
@nimh,
How many Americans lack photo ID?

nimh wrote:

roger wrote:

Now, you can maybe dream up someone in a situation where they don't work, don't cash checks, don't drive, and are still eligible to vote. It will be a stretch.

Well I could Google it again, but I read often enough that a large number of Americans dont have a photo ID. So it doesnt seem to be as outlandish or rare a scenario as you make it out to be.


OK, so I went looking. Browsing the top Google results, it seems pretty hard to find info about this subject that's not written by either clear opponents or proponents of requiring photo ID.

The League of Women Voters, however, states the following numbers and sources each of them:

Quote:
The following statistics reflect those individuals who do not have photo identification:

* 11% or as many as 21 million Americans
* 36% of voters in Georgia over the age of 75
* 18% of Americans over 65 (6 million)
* 25% of African Americans
* 10% of 40 million people with disabilities
* 15% of low income voters


Where do they get these numbers from?

Quote:
* [..] Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID. Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID. Source: NYU and Brennen Center Survey

* In Georgia, The Secretary of State estimated that over 650,000 registered Georgians do not have drivers’ licenses

Elderly:

* In 2006, the Missouri Secretary of State estimated that almost 200,000 Missourians of voting age do not have a state-issued photo ID. This includes at least 16 percent of Missouri’s seniors.

* According to the AARP, 36% of citizens in Georgia over the age of 75 do not have driver’s licenses.

* Survey results indicate that seniors disproportionately lack photo identification. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID. Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6 million senior citizens. Source: NYU and Brennen Center Survey

Minority Communities:

* The US Census reports that Americans have an annual mobility rate of 14 percent. Hispanics and Blacks, however, have an annual mobility rate of 18 percent, while those with incomes below the poverty level are almost twice as likely to move (24 percent) as those with incomes above the poverty level (13 percent). Consequently, people of color and poor people are less likely to have photo identification showing a current address, even if they have a photo ID.

* According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens. Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification. The survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical significance. Source: NYU and Brennen Center Survey

People with disabilities:

* According to disability advocates, nearly ten percent of the 40 million Americans with disabilities do not have any form of state-issued photo identification. Source: Center for Policy Alternatives

Low income people:

* Citizens earning less than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo identification as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID. Source: NYU and Brennen Center Survey


One warning: four of the nine references above source a NYU/Brennen Center survey. I find those references somewhat less persuasive than the others because the survey muddied the issue by not just asking people whether they possessed a photo ID, but whether they had it "in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow". That's a pity, but still leaves enough other references to suggest that the issue of people lacking photo ID is much more widespread than some exceptional individual scenario someone can "dream up" in a "stretch".
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 08:11 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Blatham; I am a reasonable guy... but I only made it through your first article completely. I can easily accept that Republicans would like to disrupt poor people, immigrants and minorities... for the exact same reason the democrats don't wish to trouble them with any hoops whatsoever (they tend to vote democratic.)


Pity. The second link is very informative and the BBC piece is as well. But let's take up what you've written anyway. I'll just preface what I'm going to write by letting you know that this is a subject I've only recently begun to focus on myself. The highly coordinated project across the rightwing spectrum attacking Acorn caught my attention. I'd known, of course, in a general manner of some of the previous attempts to gain electoral advantage through manipulation of laws and public perception (Blackwell in Ohio in 2004, the 'Brooks Brothers riot' in 2000 led by John Bolton, etc) but I wasn't really up on this stuff and really hadn't thought about it much. Silly me.

Your "acceptance" above posits an equivalence which is quite meaningless. A thief has a particular intention and a policeman will have an opposing intention. Noting this doesn't tell us anything valuable about how we ought to proceed with the design of our laws (which have justice/fairness/equality as their goal). Take another example...before women had the vote, there were people who acted so as to maintain that situation and there were people who acted to end it. Two intentions, surely, but any shallow appearance of equivalence disappears as soon as one considers the justice/fairness/equality aspect.

Your point B continues a strawman (you haven't purposefully engaged it, and I don't think you appreciate yet that it is a strawman, but you've bought into it and now are having trouble letting it go) which you began with in your earlier post. Consequently, you end up in a very odd place.
Quote:
B. I don't care if that does net more voluntary disenfranchisement. Concerns over people choosing not to vote for any reason are trumped by concerns over ineligible voting.

The strawman is built on "voluntary". You are taking what might be the least egregious (or most reasonable, or reasonable-sounding) examples of the problem and are holding them up as the problem...'some people are just too lazy to get their lives in order enough such that they have simple ID' and/or 'some people decide they can't be bothered to wait a bit to vote'. Thus, in your framing of the problem, they essentially choose to forgo their opportunity to vote. Who wouldn't sympathize with your position, as far as it goes?

But it doesn't go very far at all. Vote caging is something quite other http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vote_caging. The recent indictment of a third RNC operative in New Hampshire (along with the earlier jailing of two more) for phone jamming is something other http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/ap/national/main4522318.shtml. Sending out mailings into predominantly black neighborhoods which contain false information on where to vote, when to vote and what to expect are something other. Etc etc. In one disctrict right now, the RNC has been requesting the assistance of policemen and firemen to help "police" voting facilities...not teachers, not librarians, not senior citizens, not constitutional lawyers. Big beefy stern men. Intimidation is the goal, and nothing but that.

Quote:
C. Few convictions few offenses. Example: John asks his neighbor Joe, "you voting?" Joe says "F*ck that. It don't help." An hour later John vouches for his neighbor Joe (who's really Jack, from another district.) Who will ever be the wiser?


You've quite avoided the research by everyone including the Justice Department itself which has found that such cases simply do not occur but in a (literal) handful of cases. No election has been, nor could conceivably be effected by this hypothesized (mythological) scenario. Whereas voter suppression tactics can and have produced huge alterations in numbers of people being able to cast votes. As you will have noted from what you read, these tactics were and are being employed particularly in swing states where elections have turned on relatively small majorities.

Quote:
D. Concerned about the cost of the occasional eligible homeless dude with no ID? Include in the bill that indigents can have ID for free (to be charged against their next State Tax Return.) (Probably not a bad idea as a stand alone bill anyway, really.)


Sure, but as I've tried to demonstrate to you, you're dealing with the strawman here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 08:14 am
@nimh,
Quote:
The following statistics reflect those individuals who do not have photo identification:

* 11% or as many as 21 million Americans
* 36% of voters in Georgia over the age of 75
* 18% of Americans over 65 (6 million)
* 25% of African Americans
* 10% of 40 million people with disabilities
* 15% of low income voters


Jesus! It's that high?! Well done nimh.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 08:42 am
Here's an interesting one...
Quote:
YPM, a group hired by the GOP, allegedly deceived Californians who thought they were signing a petition. YPM denies any wrongdoing. Similar accusations have been leveled against the company elsewhere.
By Evan Halper and Michael Rothfeld, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 18, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.

Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.

"I am not a Republican," insisted Karen Ashcraft, 47, a pet-clinic manager and former Democrat from Ventura who said she was duped by a signature gatherer into joining the GOP. "I certainly . . . won't sign anything in front of a grocery store ever again."

It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party -- a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states -- has been accused of using the tactic across the country.

Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.


The firm, which a Republican Party spokesman said is paid $7 to $12 for each registration it secures, has denied any wrongdoing and says it has never been charged with a crime.

The 70,000 voters YPM has registered for the Republican Party this year will help combat the public perception that it is struggling amid Democratic gains nationally, give a boost to fundraising efforts and bolster member support for party leaders, political strategists from both parties say.

Those who were formerly Democrats may stop receiving phone calls and literature from that party, perhaps affecting its get-out-the-vote efforts. They also will be given only a Republican ballot in the next primary election if they do not switch their registration back before then.

Some also report having their registration status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a ballot they may be unable to vote.

The Times randomly interviewed 46 of the hundreds of voters whose election records show they were recently re-registered as Republicans by YPM, and 37 of them -- more than 80% -- said that they were misled into making the change or that it was done without their knowledge.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-fraud18-2008oct18,0,3505611.story

The second and third to last paragraphs will be relevant if consequential on Nov 4.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 02:44 pm
So, I just climbed into the bathtub and opened a NYRB issue I hadn't read yet and behold...
Quote:

Licensed to Vote

In a 6"3 decision in April written by John Paul Stevens, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , the Supreme Court upheld a 2005 Indiana law requiring voters in that state to produce a government document with a photograph at the polls. In practical terms, this meant a passport or a driver's license. Since less than a third of adults have a passport, the Indiana case focused largely on how many adults lack a license to drive. During oral arguments, several justices pressed the plaintiff's lawyer for an answer. For reasons I cannot fathom, he kept using the number 43,000, for a state whose voting-age population is 4.6 million. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration, in an easily obtained report, says that 673,926 adult residents of Indiana have no license, which works out to a not trivial 14.7 percent of the state's potential electorate. Had that percentage been stressed, we can conjecture that Justices Stevens and Anthony Kennedy might have shifted their position.

Requiring a driver's license to vote has a disparate racial impact, a finding that once commanded judicial notice. To apply for the state ID card that Indiana offers as an alternative, moreover, nondrivers must travel to a motor vehicles office, which for many would be a lengthy trip. While licenses do not record race, Justice David Souter cited relevant studies of the race of license-holders in his dissent, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In one survey, made by the Department of Justice in 1994, black residents of Louisiana were found to be four to five times more likely not to have the official photograph needed for an identifying document. (Not to mention access to a car; recall how many couldn't leave as Katrina approached.) A Wisconsin survey published in 2005 was more precise. No fewer than 53 percent of black adults in Milwaukee County were not licensed to drive, compared with 15 percent of white adults in the remainder of the state. According to its author, similar disparities will be found across the nation. [1]

The Indiana decision will not only make it harder to add new people to the rolls; many who had previously voted without photo identification are now required to produce an official photograph. If Marion County (Indianapolis) has the same proportion of unlicensed voters as Milwaukee County, I count it as having more than 44,000 black residents who will be needing transport to motor bureaus to ensure that each item in their nondriver ID application has been properly filled in. Extended nationwide, this means that a lot of on-the-ground assistance is going to be needed.

Purging the Rolls...
much more here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 06:15 pm
@nimh,
If I'd thought for a moment, I would have known you could do this. Nevertheless, a Dutch passport not being free, the cost of picture ID in the US is no more a poll tax than the charge for the passport. That's what we were talking about.

http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/files/pdf/koers.pdf
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 11:00 pm
parados wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:



C. Few convictions Not Equal few offenses. Example: John asks his neighbor Joe, "you voting?" Joe says "F*ck that. It don't help." An hour later John vouches for his neighbor Joe (who's really Jack, from another district.) Who will ever be the wiser?
Bob that lives next door to Joe is standing in line when John vouches for someone that isn't Joe. Precints are not so large that this would go on without some instances being reported. Yet we really have no reported instances, do we?

You are assuming that in every instance, none of the election judges know Joe. No one else there voting that might overhear, knows Joe. Joe doesn't call the state after he gets a voter registration confirmation in the mail to ask why the F*ck he was registered to vote when he didn't vote.
I'm guessing you live in the sticks? I do now, and sure; when I go down to vote in Cedarburg I'll recognize lots of faces, and even more folks will recognize mine. In Milwaukee, on the other hand, it would be goofy dumb luck to run into someone I knew. In West Palm Beach; it took years to recognize the people I shared a Condo with, let alone a district. Further, I myself, Bill Ward, will be voting thousands of times in November. So will Jose Perez. Michael Smith will be voting tens of thousands of times.

That scenario, btw, came right off the top of my head. I sure someone interested in commiting the crime could improve on it.

parados wrote:
Quote:

D. Concerned about the cost of the occasional eligible homeless dude with no ID? Include in the bill that indigents can have ID for free (to be charged against their next State Tax Return.) (Probably not a bad idea as a stand alone bill anyway, really.)
I don't know how they do IDs in Wisconsin but here they mail them out to the person a couple of weeks later but will not mail them to a PO Box. How many homeless dudes have a valid mailing address?
This is Wisconsin. I could stop at the DMV at 10am on November 4th, pick up ID on spot and swing over to my polling station, register on the spot, vote and still make a 12:00 appointment on the other side of town. Wink

Nimh: Wouldn't that "D." satisfy your concerns over a poll tax?

Blatham: If there is any straw being packed here; it’s not in my reference to voluntary disenfranchisement. I have in no way denied or condoned actual disenfranchisement… or even that it may be the driving force motivating Republicans; I merely pointed out that simple ID requirements don’t fit the bill. (Guess what your caricaturized version of that simple, reasonable argument constitutes?) If a poll tax is a concern; that was covered in point D. Stopping at a DMV for 15 minutes once every 8 years is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to exercise their right to vote.
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 11:22 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Stopping at a DMV for 15 minutes once every 8 years is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to exercise their right to vote.


Oh yes it is, Bill. That is absolutely too much to ask. You forgot, the Democratic voter is totally and absolutely utterly helpless. We will need to send people out to help them get dressed every morning, Bill, or even to get out of bed, that is if they feel like it. Otherwise it is breakfast in bed. And don't you even suggest that you are so heartless as to want to deprive anyone of that "right." Especially if nimh, blatham, or Parados say they have that right, then it must be so.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 12:22 am
@okie,
okie - What do they teach you at republican adult day care these days...?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 12:36 am
@okie,
Shocked
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 08:43 am
bill

Here's another fine piece by Lithwick...(lots of good internal links)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202428/

My readings of the subject lead to several claims. Could you state which of them you might still contest and say why?

1) there is no evidence, nationwide, of significant or meaningful voter fraud.

2) on the other hand, there is much evidence to suggest that voter disenfranchisement has resulted in thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens losing their opportunity to have their votes counted.

3) from a justice or fairness perspective, the first above ought to concern us far less than the second.

OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 12:37 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

bill

Here's another fine piece by Lithwick...(lots of good internal links)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202428/

My readings of the subject lead to several claims. Could you state which of them you might still contest and say why?

1) there is no evidence, nationwide, of significant or meaningful voter fraud.
So stipulated. However, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. That some voter fraud takes place, is sufficient reason to take reasonable steps to prevent it. There is nothing unreasonable about a Photo ID requirement.

blatham wrote:
2) on the other hand, there is much evidence to suggest that voter disenfranchisement has resulted in thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens losing their opportunity to have their votes counted.
So stipulated. However; there is ZERO evidence that a photo ID requirement has resulted in ANY disenfranchisement, anywhere, ever. Any disenfranchisement that did result would be voluntary. Unless you can establish a link between Photo ID requirements and Voter disenfranchisement; disenfranchisement is an irrelevant consideration in accessing the reasonableness of a Photo ID Law. Poll-Tax considerations is reasonable; but I've already shown how that can be overcome.

blatham wrote:
3) from a justice or fairness perspective, the first above ought to concern us far less than the second.
So stipulated. However, you're implying a False Dilemma. I agree completely that disenfranchisement is a far greater concern... but that is no reason to turn the blind eye to voter fraud. We could address attempts at disenfranchisement with every bit as much vigor, while we also address voter fraud with a simple ID requirement.

You are one hundred times more likely to die from disease than murder. Reasonable steps to prevent murder are taken anyway.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:15 pm
@nimh,
How many Americans lack photo ID? Part II

nimh wrote:
One warning: four of the nine references above source a NYU/Brennen Center survey. I find those references somewhat less persuasive than the others [..]

Because of this, I looked for more data. And I found a source that seems significantly more thorough:

THE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS ON THE ELECTORATE " NEW EVIDENCE FROM INDIANA
PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT: 2008 APSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, BOSTON, MA, AUGUST 29, 2008

Matt A. Barreto, University of Washington
Stephen A. Nuño, Northern Arizona University
Gabriel R. Sanchez, University of New Mexico
33 pp.

(MY) SUMMARY

Introduction


"The state of Indiana has the most stringent voting requirements in the nation, as voters are presently required to present a photo identification issued by the federal or state government in order to cast a ballot. Similar laws have been proposed and pursued in many other states, typically related to charges of vote fraud, and often times tied into the divisive debates on undocumented immigrants or African American felons. However, very little empirical evidence exists about the effects of voter identification laws [..]. [F]ew studies have empirically tested the real world consequences of voter identification laws [..]. In this study, we assess whether all eligible voters have equal access to valid photo identification [..]."

Methodology

"[W]e fielded a unique public opinion survey in 2007 in the state of Indiana to determine the impact of voter identification laws on several demographic groups of voters; African Americans, the elderly, the less educated, and the poor. Specifically, we asked registered voters and eligible non-registered adults whether or not they had a current and up to date ID card issued by the state of Indiana containing their full name. [..]

The registered voter sample included a random statewide component (n=500), and oversamples of African American registered voters (n=300) as well as low-income registered voters (n=200). These two oversamples [..] provid[e] much greater reliability in the estimates reported among these specific sub-populations. However, it is important to note that the oversamples do not skew or misrepresent the overall picture for the state of Indiana, [..] because the statewide data is weighted so that no one group is over-represented. In the final data, we weight each demographic group to its appropriate share of the total Indiana population.

In addition, a sample of non-registered voters was obtained [..]. In full, 1,000 interviews were collected among registered voters, and 500 interviews among non-registered adults.

Defining Valid Photo Identification

The state of Indiana requires that a precinct voter show identification at the polling place that meets four key requirements: (1) has a photo of the voter; (2) contains an expiration date that is current; (3) is issued by the State of Indiana; and (4) has the full legal name of the voter that matches the voter registration records.

Data

Column 3 in tables 1.1. and 1.2 in this study on Indiana list the share of those having a valid and up-to-date state ID with their full legal name:

Code:All eligible adults 81%
All registered voters 84%
Likely voters 85%

White eligible adults 83%
White registered voters 85%
Black eligible adults 72%
Black registered voters 81%

Age 18-34 80%
Age 35-54 85%
Age 55-69 86%
Age 70+ 81%

High school grads 80%
College graduates 89%
Income less than $40K 81%
Income over $80K 84%


Conclusions

"Because we present data for actual registered voters, the findings go far to suggest that voter identification laws in Indiana disenfranchise many citizens who are entitled to full voting rights."

"We find that age, race, and income significantly impact the likelihood of having proper identification required to vote under the Indiana statute."

"The results in Indiana are consistent with findings of Barreto, Nuño and Sanchez (2007), who also found that minority, low-income, and less educated residents are less likely to have access to valid photo identification."

"While likely voters are more likely to have valid ID, it is important to note that [even] about 15% of those who voted in three consecutive federal elections do not have the full proper ID credentials and could be challenged or turned away from voting in 2008."

"[A] significant gap in access to valid ID exists among White and Black registered voters, which is even more pronounced among the overall adult population [..]. Most notably, we find that the racial gap in access to valid photo identification persists among those most likely to vote. This is the strongest evidence to suggest that Black voters would disproportionately be turned away from voting under the strict Indiana rules."

"79.8% of Black likely voters [those who voted in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections] had a valid photo ID with their full legal name versus 85.1% of White likely voters. Under strict enforcement of the Indiana law, out of every 100 Blacks who go to the polls to vote in 2008, 20 could be turned away, while among Whites, 15 of 100 would be turned away [..]."

"Younger voters and older voters were both less likely to have valid ID compared to voters in the middle categories. [..] 78% of registered voters age 18-34 had proper ID and 80.6% of those over age 70 did. In contrast, [..] 85.9% of those between the ages of 55-69 [had ID]."

"Education and Income also revealed discrepancies in access to valid photo identification. Compared to college graduates, those with just a high school degree were 9.5 percentage points less likely to have access to valid ID."

"Slicing the data by party affiliation demonstrates that Democrats have lower rates of access to valid photo ID [..]. Among registered voters with valid ID, 41.6% consider themselves Republican and 32.5% are Democrats. In contrast, among registered voters without proper ID, 34.8% are Republican and 38.0% are Democrats."

"The descriptive frequency statistics [..] by themselves [..] do not prove that the 5-10 point gaps reported are statistically significant. In order to determine whether or not the differences are in fact real, we conducted probit regression analysis on each of the four dependent variables which measure access to ID. [..] Across all four measures of photo identification Whites are statistically significantly more likely to have access to valid ID [..]. Similarly, Blacks were found to be statistically less likely to have access to ID. [..] Income is positively and significantly associated with access to ID [..]. Republicans are statistically more likely to have access to valid ID as compared to Democrats and Independents."

"While the ability of rigid voting requirements to achieve the goal of reducing voter fraud is debatable at best, our results from Indiana clearly indicate that these requirements have significant electoral implications. Not only does the Indiana law disproportionately impact the communities most vulnerable to changes in the electoral process, there is also a clear partisan bias associated with these laws as well."

What was the stricter voter law intended to achieve?

"[W]hen the Indiana legislature enacted a statute [..] requiring voters to present photo identification upon voting in person [..] Crawford, et al, challenged the law as unconstitutional on its face [..]." The case eventually ended up in the United States Supreme Court, which ruled against the challenge:

"The Court noted that preventing voter fraud, and in particular voter impersonation at polling places, is a legitimate state interest because Indiana’s voter rolls contain the names of deceased voters and some no longer living in the state, and also because the NVRA’s requirement that driver’s license applications serve as voter registration forms has inflated voter rolls.
Consistent with our discussion here, the Court conceded that there is no evidence that this type of fraud has occurred, but found that its occurrence is possible because it has occurred in other parts of the country. The Court also found that the state also has a legitimate interest in protecting public confidence in elections [..]. Despite the lack of empirical evidence of fraud, the Court found that these interests outweigh the burdens the law imposes on voters."

"Our research of extant findings in this area clearly indicate that voter impersonation is extremely rare, and more importantly strict laws such as the Indiana case upheld by the Supreme Court do not effectively limit the much more rampant mail-in based fraud."

"While the state interest of preventing voting fraud is an important one, our results here question whether this interest should be advanced despite apparent evidence that this ostensible method of fraud prevention disproportionately impacts specific segments of the electorate."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:38 pm
@roger,
Roger wrote:
Nevertheless, a Dutch passport not being free, the cost of picture ID in the US is no more a poll tax than the charge for the passport. That's what we were talking about.

Fair enough, but in Holland it is legally obligatory to have a passport in the first place. You can not legally go without passport, there's an "ID duty". You dont have that in America. And when you suddenly make something obligatory for voting, specifically, that is otherwise not mandated, that's a poll charge to me.

The fact is that there's a great number of people without photo ID, a great number of regular voters even (see above). To require a significant share of the voting population to go through the cost + effort of acquiring extra ID that they otherwise dont require is a poll charge. And it seems to me that declaring a fifth of the voters ineligible until they undertake extra action stands in no proportion to a problem which has manifested itself in a handful of cases max.

I guess part of my perspective is that I'm already so puzzled by how hard they make it for Americans to vote.

In Holland, every citizen of voting age gets mailed a voter card. (This is possibly because Dutch residents are in turn legally required to register their address.) You take your voter card to the voting station, which, unless you live out in the sticks, is never more than a five minutes walk away. You never have to wait in line for more than a couple of minutes. You give the people behind the desk your card, they strike off your name, and you vote. The voting ballot is the same across the country, no hotchpotch of confusing formats. There's no voter caging and no representatives of the parties disputing your vote if they think you're of the opposing party and they have a chance.

I look at US elections with amazement. If you want to vote, you first have to register, before a date well in advance of the elections. Even if you register, authorities pushed by partisan electoral interest can strike you off the voter list again if your name doesnt match with notoriously unreliable Social Security and other databases. There's also cases where they strike you off the list on the basis of an unreliable list of felons, which had many people struck off just because they shared a last name with a felon. Or they try to use foreclosure lists to strike you off the list. In such cases, they wont warn you, you just find out when you get to the polling station. After having waited in line for sometimes hours, they'll just refuse to let you vote, or a partisan representative challenges your right to vote, in which case you get, at best, a preliminary ballot that may or may not be counted. You have to wait in line - depending on where you live, sometimes for hours on end. If you live in a poor neighbourhood you're especially likely to have to wait for hours, because there's no national system of voting stations.

I mean, jeebus. You are the wealthiest country on earth. How is it possible that it is so hard to vote? Some of this stuff is just a question of funding: setting up more voting stations, so people dont have to wait in line for hours, for example. How can that not be a priority? Dont you want everyone to vote? Dont you want voting to be the easiest thing, rather than a question of jumping through hoops?

No wonder turnout is so low, much lower than in Western Europe. The last two elections have yielded a good number of examples where whole groups of voters were wrongly struck off voting rolls. There were cases of ballot shortages, again more likely in the poorer neighbourhoods. Such basic stuff. On the other hand, you have the spectre of in-person voter fraud (as opposed to mail-voting, which is another kettle of fish), of which no remotely significant number of actual cases has emerged that would suggest it is in having any impact on the results. Faced with several major problems that's making it hard for people to vote, I'd put establishing yet more hoops that will instantly disenfranchise one in six or seven voters until they take further action, just to fight a problem that noone has any evidence of actually occurring on any significant scale in the first place, at the bottom of my to-do list to be honest. (I'd also write in shorter sentences.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 07:53 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
However; there is ZERO evidence that a photo ID requirement has resulted in ANY disenfranchisement, anywhere, ever. Any disenfranchisement that did result would be voluntary. Unless you can establish a link between Photo ID requirements and Voter disenfranchisement; disenfranchisement is an irrelevant consideration in accessing the reasonableness of a Photo ID Law.

I'm not confident I can get much further with you here, bill. You've established a position which is circular... no one has a reasonable excuse to not possess a photo ID therefore if they don't have one it is a voluntary decision on their part therefore any consequences arising (no matter what they are or of what magnitude they might be) become, axiomatically, irrelevant because they are voluntary.

Thus, for example, a citizen of the Lodz ghetto, being quite aware that he/she must wear a yellow arm band at all times (an arm band that they can easily obtain by taking a train or walking or by having their wheelchair pushed by a family member only a mere 15 miles to the Jewish Registration Center) and knowing that if they are found not wearing such an arm band can legally be shot on the spot, will be, if duly shot, not disenfranchised because their lack of that arm band is voluntary.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:44 pm
@blatham,
Frankly Blatham, you are probably right about not getting any further with me. Nimh's last two posts (especially the first) was incredibly persuasive.
What it did do:
Convince me there is a greater need, than preventing voter fraud, to make sure any change in the law accompanies a mandate to take every reasonable measure to insure that all Americans have the time and opportunity to obtain ID before the new law goes into effect. Including, but not limited to; picking up ID cost-free.
What it didn't do:
Convince me that undesirable side effects can't be effectively handled fairly to prevent disenfranchisement, while still taking reasonable safeguards to insure the integrity of the vote.

Frankly, I think Nimh's astonishment at the ridiculousness of our system is quite called for. I find much of the archaic State's Rights issues badly outdated and overdue for an overhaul. A National ID, and database management system and a universally adapted system for elections would be fairer and so much more efficient. I've wondered for many years why I can't carry one card with a magnetic strip to accomplish everything cards do.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 01:16 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OK. We can have sex now.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 03:31 pm
This is cute...

Quote:
RNC On New Mexico "Voter Fraud": Never Mind
By Zachary Roth - October 20, 2008, 4:10PM
As if you needed any more evidence that the Republican effort to tout voter fraud is less about legitimate claims and more about a political agenda, consider this sequence of events:

Last week, as we noted at the time, the New Mexico GOP had publicly claimed that 28 people voted fraudulently in the Democratic primary, held in June, for a local race.

Then this morning, the RNC sent out a press release announcing a 3pm conference call with reporters "on the recent developments in New Mexico regarding ACORN."

But at 11am, ACORN -- the community organizing group that Republicans have been trying lately to turn into a voter fraud boogeyman -- held a conference call of its own, asserting that local election officials had confirmed that the 28 people in question, mostly low-income Latinos, were valid voters.

So here at TPMmuckraker, we wondered what the RNC's response to this would be. And on the 3pm call, we asked party spokesman Danny Diaz.

Diaz dodged the question. He talked about an incident with ACORN in Washington state, then referred us to an October 9th Wall Street Journal story, which did not address the allegation made last week by the state GOP about fraudulent voting in the Democratic primary. (Instead, it reported that the FBI had opened a preliminary investigation into thousands of fraudulent registration forms submitted in an area near an ACORN office.)

When we tried to follow up, Diaz cut us off and shifted the discussion toward a general attack on ACORN for submitting fraudulent registrations.

In other words, it looks like the RNC had scheduled a call to tout evidence of voter fraud -- not voter registration fraud, mind you, but actual voter fraud -- being perpetrated by ACORN in New Mexico. But when ACORN appeared to come up with compelling evidence that no such fraud had occurred, the RNC held the call anyway, simply shifting the focus to other vague allegations against ACORN -- then refused to address the New Mexico situation when asked.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/rnc_on_new_mexico_voter_fraud.php
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 03:14 pm
Josh Marshall has a very good item up now on the "voter fraud" game in New Mexico and who is involved...

Quote:
Yesterday we told you about Pat Rogers, the New Mexico Republican lawyer who, according to reports, is deeply involved in the state party's effort to make an issue out of voter fraud -- despite essentially no evidence that such fraud is occurring. As we noted, Rogers also played a central role a few years ago in pressuring former U.S. attorney David Iglesias to bring politically motivated voter-fraud cases. Iglesias' reluctance to bring such cases led to his firing in 2006...

Perhaps most damagingly, the report contains a September 2004 email sent to Iglesias and several staffers for New Mexico's GOP congressional delegation, in which Rogers admitted that he was interested in the issue in large part for its potential to help the GOP:


I believe the [voter] ID issue should be used (now) at all levels - federal, state legislative races and Heather [Wilson]'s race ... You are not going to find a better wedge issue ... I've got to believe the [voter] ID issue would do Heather more good than another ad talking about how much federal taxpayer money she has put into the (state) education system and social security ... This is the single best wedge issue, ever in NM. We will not have this opportunity again ... Today, we expect to file a new Public Records lawsuit, by 3 Republican legislators, demanding the Bernalillo county clerk locate and produce (before Oct 15) ALL of the registrations signed by the ACORN employee.

more here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/nm_gop_lawyer_pushing_voter_fr.php
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2021 at 09:31:24