Voting ID, the problems it purports to solve, and the problems it might create

rosenhane wrote:

I still haven't seen where voter fraud numbers come from. If we aren't checking IDs, how do we know that sort of fraud isn't going on? Do people just walk into the police station and confess afterwards? Do we follow up on people who voted? Again I remember that several thousand names were submitted to various counties by some group, many of the local prosecutors chose to do nothing about the information, some pursued some (where the prosecution I mentioned before came from). This list was some group going off of publicly available information. Many of them were for felons voting, if memory serves.

What exactly are you worried about happening? The fraud we need to be worried about is being perpetrated by the people counting the votes. Ex-cons or fellons voting? We should be glad. When who ever posted that article about the lawyers going after cons who voted all I could think was what a f*cking waste of time that was. It really of pissed me off.

I still haven't seen where voter fraud numbers come from. If we aren't checking IDs, how do we know that sort of fraud isn't going on? Do people just walk into the police station and confess afterwards? Do we follow up on people who voted? Again I remember that several thousand names were submitted to various counties by some group, many of the local prosecutors chose to do nothing about the information, some pursued some (where the prosecution I mentioned before came from). This list was some group going off of publicly available information. Many of them were for felons voting, if memory serves.

edit: I can see how some might be disenfranchised by Voter ID laws, and there should be some way to make as many legitimate voters able to vote while also excluding ineligibly voters from voting. Obviously there are some trade offs, but as Malor pointed out every ineligible vote cast disenfranchises some eligible voter.

rosenhane wrote:

Again I remember that several thousand names were submitted to various counties by some group, many of the local prosecutors chose to do nothing about the information, some pursued some (where the prosecution I mentioned before came from). This list was some group going off of publicly available information. Many of them were for felons voting, if memory serves.

At a martial arts retreat and on my phone, so forgive my brevity:

Citation needed.

Well if they submitting some public list of people to counties, then it sounds like a drive to purge voter rolls, which is an entirely different can of worms. If they were on the voter roll when they shouldn't of been, how does requiring a photo ID stop their ineligible vote from being cast? Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.

rosenhane wrote:

I still haven't seen where voter fraud numbers come from.

Convictions and arrests. Same way we get all other crime numbers. It is exceedingly rare. And the most prevalent instances were selling votes, buying votes. Voting under a false identification or voting by an illegal immigrant is so rare as to be non-existant.

Convictions and arrests, but how do you get an arrest if you aren't checking to see if that person is the person they say they are? I mean if that is our only metric until last year Penn state was a great place to send your teenage child.

rosenhane wrote:

Convictions and arrests, but how do you get an arrest if you aren't checking to see if that person is the person they say they are? I mean if that is our only metric until last year Penn state was a great place to send your teenage child.

So you believe we don't know the true extent of the problem, but you're okay with these laws potentially disenfranchising approximately 10% of Americans (percentage estimated who don't have photo IDs)?

rosenhane wrote:

Convictions and arrests, but how do you get an arrest if you aren't checking to see if that person is the person they say they are? I mean if that is our only metric until last year Penn state was a great place to send your teenage child.

Last summer my state had an investigation into potential voter fraud, brought on primarily because a BMV worker thought that non-citizens were registering to vote. The GOP Chairman also had a bug up his ass about college students committing fraud, and submitted 200 or so names of college students currently in Maine that he thought might have committed voter fraud (based on his own, personal investigation). After looking through the voter roles for people who got a Maine ID without using a social security number and people who'd previously been involved with ID theft, fraud or misuse, they came up with almost 500 people to further investigate (including the college students). They only found a single instance of fraud, and that was a non-citizen who voted in 2002 (who had been deported well before the investigation started). Of the 200+ college students, none committed fraud. 5 did vote in two different states in the same year, but they were two different elections.

Almost all of the students (191) didn't have a Maine license at the time of the investigation, which they're apparently required to do within 30 days after declaring Maine residency (which they have to do to register to vote). They've been sent letters requesting them to comply with that law, but it's not voter fraud. The law in question is related to drivers licenses specifically, not voting, and it's an incredibly easy thing to not know to do, as neither the Maine Voter Guide, nor the voter registration form itself mentions it at all. It's also not one the page that lists how voting residence is determined. It is listed on the page about how to get a driver's license.

Lucky Wilbury wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

Convictions and arrests, but how do you get an arrest if you aren't checking to see if that person is the person they say they are? I mean if that is our only metric until last year Penn state was a great place to send your teenage child.

So you believe we don't know the true extent of the problem, but you're okay with these laws potentially disenfranchising approximately 10% of Americans (percentage estimated who don't have photo IDs)?

No I'm saying that there needs to be some way to make sure only actual eligible voters are voting. I am having trouble believing that 10% of the eligible voters have no IDs of any sort. These people need to be able to cast *a* vote.

rosenhane wrote:
Lucky Wilbury wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

Convictions and arrests, but how do you get an arrest if you aren't checking to see if that person is the person they say they are? I mean if that is our only metric until last year Penn state was a great place to send your teenage child.

So you believe we don't know the true extent of the problem, but you're okay with these laws potentially disenfranchising approximately 10% of Americans (percentage estimated who don't have photo IDs)?

No I'm saying that there needs to be some way to make sure only actual eligible voters are voting. I am having trouble believing that 10% of the eligible voters have no IDs of any sort. These people need to be able to cast *a* vote.

What I think that you aren't understanding is that, by every study that has been done, there is the next best thing to no voter fraud that would be solved by mandatory voter IDs. In addition, the number of people who would be prevented from committing the voter fraud would be dwarfed by the number of people who would be prevented from voting due to their inability to obtain the required ID.

rosenhane wrote:

I am having trouble believing that 10% of the eligible voters have no IDs of any sort.

Well, there's your problem.

rosenhane wrote:

No I'm saying that there needs to be some way to make sure only actual eligible voters are voting. I am having trouble believing that 10% of the eligible voters have no IDs of any sort. These people need to be able to cast *a* vote.

There are already laws in every state that requires voters to identify themselves. This new batch of laws requiring photo IDs, at their core and by their very existence, suggest that the previous laws are inadequate and/or ineffective.

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]A survey to determine the extent to which American citizens possess government-issued photo ID and documentary proof of citizenship. We reported that 11 percent of voting-age American citizens—and an even greater percentage of African American, low-income, and older citizens—do not have current and valid government-issued photo IDs. These findings have been confirmed by multiple independent studies.

Rosenhane, what you are missing is that there are *already* laws that require voters to register (thus asserting their identity) and then provide proof of identity when they vote. Note that the registration card itself is unique, and provides verification that a voter only votes once (since if they voted twice, it would show up in the records, and fake cards will show up as anomalies in the voter records to be investigated - fake numbers, duplicate information, etc.) What you need to show is that the existing procedures don't actually reduce voting fraud to a nearly non-existent state, so that we can justify the disenfranchisement of voters (and the additional millions spent) in *new* enforcement efforts.

You'd need to show that the changes provide a net benefit. This conflicts with the evidence offered, that the new changes provide a net *negative* effect. You can't turn that around with some figures from some group addressing some problem in some state.

Honestly I'm not too worried about the people that have been registered for a while already. My main concern would be newly registered voters and walk in voters. Until we get around to a much more sensible national mandatory ID to be issued to all residents, which could be easily checked against a main database. Everyone gets the card, so it is no longer an issue that some people won't have an ID, it will make tracking taxes and governmental benefits much more efficient. Basically the next logical step past the current Social Security card system.

Robear,
Specifically in regards to your comments about voter registration cards, it isn't anything that complicated from what I have experienced here in MN. My card shows up and I don't need it to vote, it just tells me where the polling location is. I give them my name and say that is my line in the big book of names, write a signature next to it and get a ballot.

Right. The fact that you have the card shows that you are eligible to vote. The system you have in Minnesota has resulted in detection of the largest number of fraudulent votes since 1936. And those votes were 113 felons who apparently voted knowingly (with perhaps 2500 or so whose names match those of known felons.) There were no cases of double voting, illegal aliens or any of the other feared types.

That .0038 percent of registered voters.

So what is your desired level of accuracy, and how many millions of dollars are you willing to spend to get there? And why wouldn't a simple, inexpensive computer check of voter rolls against felons do the job? Why is a potential poll tax of over $60,000,000 have to come into play (assuming $20 per id and 3,000,000 voters)? Even if the state pays for it all, that's a lot of money (not mention the knock-on costs, like the time involved in issuance, mailing notifications to all households, dealing with problems, buying radio and tv time, and so forth).

Is that really worth it to prevent 113 votes - or even, worst case, 2800 votes (.093% of votes cast) which are already detectable with current methods?

(And for mail-in votes, the same thing - check against the existing rolls, and if the person is not found, then make the vote provisional and do further checks. No new id system needed.)

the number is closer to 216,000 voters that are estimated to not have a current valid MN ID, but keep in mind that you can register to vote without those. However you can register/vote with the following and still be in that number
Eligible photo IDs: Minnesota driver's license, Minnesota ID card, U.S. passport, U.S. military ID card, Minnesota college/university student ID card, or tribal ID with your signature issued by a tribe recognized by Bureau of Indian Affairs "BIA"
Eligible documents with current address:current student fee statement, an original utility bill due 30 days before or after the election, or a rent statement that shows utility expenses. Eligible utility bills: gas, electric, solid waste, water, sewer, phone, cell phone, television, or internet service provider.

I guess what I am saying is that I suspect the total number of people that are without any sort of ID is fairly small.

edit to add: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.asp...

rosenhane wrote:

I guess what I am saying is that I suspect the total number of people that are without any sort of ID is fairly small.

I wouldn't call disfranchising 4% of Minnesota's population "fairly small."

You're basically saying that you're OK with having a city about the size of St. Paul not have their constitutionally guaranteed vote count because you're terrified that a felon or an illegal might vote and...well, I really don't know what you're afraid might happen. It must be huge and scary if your solution is to deny hundreds of thousands of your fellow Minnesotans their right to vote.

OG_slinger wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

I guess what I am saying is that I suspect the total number of people that are without any sort of ID is fairly small.

I wouldn't call disfranchising 4% of Minnesota's population "fairly small."

You're basically saying that you're OK with having a city about the size of St. Paul not have their constitutionally guaranteed vote count because you're terrified that a felon or an illegal might vote and...well, I really don't know what you're afraid might happen. It must be huge and scary if your solution is to deny hundreds of thousands of your fellow Minnesotans their right to vote.

This is what I was trying to say. OG talk moar bettr.

OG_slinger wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

I guess what I am saying is that I suspect the total number of people that are without any sort of ID is fairly small.

I wouldn't call disfranchising 4% of Minnesota's population "fairly small."

You're basically saying that you're OK with having a city about the size of St. Paul not have their constitutionally guaranteed vote count because you're terrified that a felon or an illegal might vote and...well, I really don't know what you're afraid might happen. It must be huge and scary if your solution is to deny hundreds of thousands of your fellow Minnesotans their right to vote.

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote. With voter turnout hovering around 37%, in actuality you're looking at a more likely figure of 1.48%, and that's only if the people in this demographic are equally as likely to vote as the general population, which I would find... doubtful? Some studies I've seen have put poverty level people being like half as likely to vote as the rest of the population.

bandit0013 wrote:

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote. With voter turnout hovering around 37%, in actuality you're looking at a more likely figure of 1.48%, and that's only if the people in this demographic are equally as likely to vote as the general population, which I would find... doubtful? Some studies I've seen have put poverty level people being like half as likely to vote as the rest of the population.

Seriously? You're justifying denying people their right to vote because maybe they won't vote anyway?

iaintgotnopants wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote. With voter turnout hovering around 37%, in actuality you're looking at a more likely figure of 1.48%, and that's only if the people in this demographic are equally as likely to vote as the general population, which I would find... doubtful? Some studies I've seen have put poverty level people being like half as likely to vote as the rest of the population.

Seriously? You're justifying denying people their right to vote because maybe they won't vote anyway?

To be fair, he doesn't want to deny them their right to vote, just make it harder for them to exercise it.

bandit0013 wrote:

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote.

Whether they want to or not doesn't matter. They have the right to vote and no barriers should be put in their way to exercise that right.

OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote.

Whether they want to or not doesn't matter. They have the right to vote and no barriers should be put in their way to exercise that right.

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

Odd.

bandit0013 wrote:

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

Odd.

As long as you're part of a well regulated militia.

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

Odd.

As long as you're part of a well regulated militia.

Kind of behind the times on that one. The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. DC vs Heller. Big news on that case.

bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Yes but it doesn't have to be picture ID. That's the point. Ever get a job? You know those W-9 forms you have to fill out, where it has like 10 different things that can be used to identify you. Like a social security card and birth certificate? Yeah you can use those things that citizens are issued when they are born here to identify you.

That $20-50 driver's license you have to go take a test to get? Those aren't issued to everyone freely, only people who want to drive. That $100+ passport? You buy those if you're leaving the country, which generally costs quite a bit more money on top of that fee.

If you live in a city with good public transportation you might forgo driving and even getting a license. If you are still college age, live on campus and walk to class, you might forgo a license as well. There were just some stories up on Yahoo and other news sites in recent months about how teens today are waiting longer and longer to get their licenses, if at all.

Just because I grew up in a semi-rural area and was busting down the door of the DMV on my 16th birthday so I could get around doesn't mean that I assume 300+ million other citizens do things exactly the way I do. But every single one of us has the right to vote.

For what seems like the millionth time, driving is a privilege not a right. There's nothing that says anyone anywhere must get a driver's license just for ID.

bandit0013 wrote:

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

As I said earlier:

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd contend that voting isn't a basic right. It is, after all, not in the Bill of Rights--the founders debated if those first 10 amendments a necessity, or if they just made explicit things that the rest of the Constitution implied. Obviously, there are later amendments that extended voting rights, but they don't come up in the Bill of Rights, because unlike the freedoms of speech, assembly, due process and so forth, voting wasn't implied in the Articles, is was directly stated.

So, voting isn't a basic right, it's a foundational concept upon which our nation was built. As such, we really shouldn't put barriers around it--no matter how insignificant that barrier may seem to a limited imagination.

bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.