The GOP War On Voting

KingGorilla wrote:

Sorry to take us down this road, but does constitutionality enter in? With incredibly narrow exceptions, airlines for example, id laws or policies have been struck down. If a police officer cannot demand my license, why a poll worker? Because it runs contrary to the principles of law. You set up a system where the citizen justifies herself to the government, proves she belongs.

Er?

If a police officer has a valid reason (you get pulled over etc) they certainly ask for ID. You can refuse but you are going to be arrested...

I think you are confusing the legality of an officer asking for proof of citizenship just because you are brown, which is rightfully unconstitutional. In the case of flying, bank accounts, arrests, traffic violations, voting, etc where there is a valid reason to ask, you are legally obligated to do so.

Bear wrote:

Couldn't 95% of this be linked through Social Security numbers?

You're not going to stop terrorists with ID cards. They're not real keen on lining up to have their picture taken.

The social security service isn't linked to the various BMVs or other agencies. Centralizing this would be a good thing imho.

I was just pointing out that most of the terrorists did have IDs and several of them were on watch lists. The fact that the disparate state systems don't communicate well and aren't centralized adds an extra security issue that is unnecessary. I'm not advocating that all terrorism will be stopped via ID cards, but the watch list was a glaring example of a case where it should have been easily caught.

The Supreme Court has been clear on this, absent reasonable cause to make an arrest, police cannot demand your state issued ID. This comes up in Amber Alert, Drunk Driving checkpoint cases rather frequently. There was a well publicized case from Ohio some years ago for false arrest where a man walked out of a Wal-mart refusing the bag check, Cincinnati if I recall. There were also.numerous laws requiring that people always carry state ID, struck down.

So your argument is: they don't conform, so let's make their life EVEN WORSE to force them to conform.

Because they're bad people. They don't deserve to vote.

And to try to put that into context: voting is a right, something that all people have. And you arguing that is a privilege, and that it should be taken away because you don't like how they want to live their lives.

Fargin iceholes.

Edit: I'm not going to dive too deeply into the thread, but let me throw one more voice in favor of removing barriers to voting, rather than adding additional bureaucratic restrictions.

Tanglebones wrote:

Edit: I'm not going to dive too deeply into the thread, but let me throw one more voice in favor of removing barriers to voting, rather than adding additional bureaucratic restrictions.

Yes, I've seen exactly nothing to change my stance from way, way back on page 2, so I'll just reiterate:

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

in America--it's a fundamental right under our Constitution.

Period, The End.

Tanglebones wrote:

Edit: I'm not going to dive too deeply into the thread

Nor I. I would however, point out that the use of a flat tax would go a long way in the fight against the traditional Bastiat-type problem of "legalized plunder" where one group uses the government to take from another group, which seems to be the root fear.

Malor wrote:

And to try to put that into context: voting is a right, something that all people have. And you arguing that is a privilege, and that it should be taken away because you don't like how they want to live their lives.

It's clearly both. Why can't felons vote? Again, as someone else pointed out in this thread, the idea that just because something is a right that there can be absolutely no barriers to it is absurd on its face. I will not address that point further. It would be interesting how fast your opinion would change if I took your above statement and replaced voting with owning a firearm, which is also a right as you put it that all people have in this country. If you can't see the absurdity of having rights with no restrictions whatsoever, I have nothing more to say to you.

Malor wrote:

So your argument is: they don't conform, so let's make their life EVEN WORSE to force them to conform.
Because they're bad people. They don't deserve to vote.

You are really, REALLY reaching here. I have never once argued that people who are poor are bad people. I have never once argued that economic status indicates unworthiness to vote. If you expect me to ever take you seriously and engage your points in a forum, I really hope that you'll stop projecting some sort of evil poor person oppression on me. The only stance I have advocated that indicates unworthiness to vote is anyone who doesn't follow the proper registration and procedures around voting. Do you think any person without identification, proof of residency, or even unwilling to provide their name should be able to march into any polling station they want and just demand to exercise their right to vote? Do you really think that is a system that could work in society? After all, in your vaunted view of this inalienable right showing ID is too much of a burden to bear, so I guess we could just carry your argument to absurdity and say that any barrier at all is too much to bear?

Bottom line, we live in a society. If you live in a society, it is good and convenient if you conform to certain behaviors and activities that benefit the society at large. In a day and age when we are moving towards things like required health insurance, and where regulations and legal protections require the usage of photo identification then having every citizen possess an ID is reasonable. How are you going to enforce universal health care or requirement of carrying health insurance if you can't identify your citizens? I mean, you do realize the way out of poverty is employment and you can't even work without proper identification right?

If anything, by pushing for free and reasonable identification I am helping out the poor people more than you are. You seem content to let them live in the shadows of society and not be eligible for a multitude of goods, services, and privileges. I want to make sure that everyone has access to exercise their rights, whether it's voting, owning a firearm, moving from state to state, etc. Having an Identification card in the year 2011 is not unreasonable or a burden. You and others have absolutely failed to provide any evidence that it is a burden. The challengers in court have absolutely failed to find anyone who has been disenfranchised. You have also failed to give any benefits of not having an ID, while there are a multitude of benefits to be gained from having one. You also want to take the stance of white knighting for the poor while allowing them to be ineligible for a wealth of goods and services that people with IDs enjoy.

I really think you should consider volunteering as a shuttle service to get these people up to the BMV if you're that concerned about it. See how many take you up on it. Based on the lack of evidence of any disenfranchisement I feel pretty confident on going out on a limb and saying the majority of the 300k people in Wisconsin without IDs fall into two categories:

1. They don't know
2. They don't care

Privileges are given, rights are not. Both can be taken away, but the bar to take a right away *should* be much higher.

Based on the lack of evidence of any disenfranchisement I feel pretty confident on going out on a limb and saying the majority of the 300k people in Wisconsin without IDs fall into two categories:

We have already given you evidence of people whose votes weren't counted, and you are simply rejecting it because it doesn't suit your narrative. Disenfranchisement is happening right now to combat fraud that isn't happening.

It has nothing to do with fraud, and your arguments that it does are transparent and obvious as to their real motivation. The true goal is the one you've already stated, to keep poor people out of the polls. You agree with that goal, and are thus using meretricious arguments to try to justify it.

bandit0013 wrote:
Malor wrote:

And to try to put that into context: voting is a right, something that all people have. And you arguing that is a privilege, and that it should be taken away because you don't like how they want to live their lives.

It's clearly both. Why can't felons vote?

Felons in my state do. We've found it helps them keep a connection to the world outside the prison, and lessens the danger that they'll stop seeing themselves as "worthless felons" if we don't treat them as such.

NevermoreRaven wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

You never answered what your acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement is, but mine is zero. If any of the 790 discussed upthread would have otherwise been able to cast their vote, that's unacceptable and requires fixing. If any of the 300,000 in Wisconsin who currently do not have a state-issued ID card would be able to cast their vote if not for the voter ID law, that's unacceptable and requires fixing.

First, I want to note just how extreme of position you are taking on voting. By playing with the connotations of words and accusing some action of being disenfranchisement, you are saying that any barrier to vote is unacceptable. I assume the core reason is because you view voting as a right (indicated by previous posts), and therefore any barrier that prevents a constitutional right from being realized is unlawful.

By this logic, we can safely assume that police are wholly disallowed from searching anything without warrant, that we can make no restrictions on a person's right to a firearm, regardless of whether they are convicted of a crime, and that the federal government has no ability to infringe on anyone's privacy for any reason.

That is a breathtaking position. It is also a position that does not find any traction in law.

Others have already pointed out that this is not in fact my position, but since bandit0013 has repeated the mistake, I should probably clarify what I'm actually saying. Yonder points out (very eloquently) that there a wide spectrum of barriers to participation in the electoral process. The government takes steps to ameliorate many of the possible problems, by providing braille ballots, by ensuring that citizens have at least one polling place within a reasonable distance of their residence, by making efforts to keep wait times at a polling station reasonably brief, among other things. I'm not arguing for no barriers at all - merely that we should apply cost/benefit assessments to determine whether a given barrier should exist (or to what extent government money should be spent making a barrier more easily surmountable by citizens).

In the case of the voter ID laws ALEC is pushing at the state level, they are solving a nonexistent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars. That's enough reason to oppose the legislation on it's own (even if we throw out the fact that the folks trying to pass these laws are doing it with the aim of disenfranchising Democratic voters).

Given that the upside is zero, my tolerance for even the potential of disenfranchisement is nil.

Framed differently: no unreasonable barriers is not the same as no barriers at all.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

Why are you not bitching more about the disproportionately high incarceration rates of impoverished minorities when you bitch about voter disenfranchisement? It seems to be a much more reasonable place to go than Voter ID requirements.

Primarily because this isn't a thread about incarceration. It's not really a thread about gun control either, but that's a different kettle of fish.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Oh, Poe, you silly goose. Better choose a more obscure reference next time, like "Dupin".

I'm not thrilled about the return of sock-puppetry either.

Malor wrote:

And to try to put that into context: voting is a right, something that all people have. And you arguing that is a privilege, and that it should be taken away because you don't like how they want to live their lives.

It is this sort of rhetoric that further cements these ideological divides in this country, so you know. You aren't even trying to understand bandit's argument. And you are dismissing anything I say as being from the mind of a troll. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that there could be such a thing as a reasonable person who disagrees with you shows how closed-minded you are being.

It isn't about left or right, but openness to debate. You are not.

Voting is both a right and a privilege. (But the constitutions doesn't explicitly grant any such right, and it is the right of the states to determine the final requirements for voting.)

What makes a voting requirement unconstitutional (and here I'm using Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 [1964]) is anything that directly conflicts with the US constitution (duh). A voting ID requirement probably doesn't violate the equal protection clause, it has no targeted impact. Even if you were to argue convincingly that poor people are more likely than rich people to be impacted by the requirement, you have not yet met the burden that they have an unequal protection under the law. Read Reynolds v. Sims for an idea of a system that DOES meet the requirement.

Malor wrote:

There is no visible fraud in the system at all, so there's no reason to even worry about all this sh*t, unless the real goal is to keep poor people away from the ballot box.

You are assuming that there is no use for a national ID despite not spending one second on bandit's post two posts above where he provides a list of potential uses for a national ID that have little to nothing to do with voter fraud. Here you are unwilling to read or consider the argument you are attacking. You have your conclusion "all people arguing in favor voting IDs as a requisite for voting are EVIL and HATE THE POOR." But your conclusion is non-responsive to reality.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Oh, Poe, you silly goose. Better choose a more obscure reference next time, like "Dupin".

I am aware of the connotations of Poe's Law, but you shouldn't read my posts as being written from a joke right-wing point of view. I am responding mostly to posts that are closed-minded or seemingly intolerant of another point of view. That doesn't make anything I say inherently conservative, or satirical, but challenging points of view. There are more than enough liberals here to challenge conservative and independent points of view, so why not try to be another voice that attempts to illuminate another segment of debate on a given topic?

Do I believe any of the things that I write here? I think that they are potentially reasonable positions, which is why I explore them. If they turn out to be unreasonable, oh shucks, I guess that argument doesn't really work. But you want to attack the reasoning, not the user, for any argument to be shown to be unreasonable.

Malor wrote:

Disenfranchisement is happening right now to combat fraud that isn't happening.

This is your core contention that is continuing to exist without proof or reasoning. People are not being denied the right to vote. They are being told "in order to vote, we need to be sure you are you. Please bring a state-issued ID with you. If you don't have one, come get one before election day." That is another thing from disenfranchisement entirely.

Disenfranchisement (in this context) is the revocation of the right to vote. These people are not being told "you can't vote." They are being given requirements for voting, which is fully within the power of the states to decide. Can you vote before the election day? Depends on the state. Must you vote in person? Depends on the state. These things are all constitutional and failure to meet these requirements does not mean your right to vote is taken away; it simply means that you are not voting by this state's rules, therefore your vote won't count. I defy you to point to some constitutional argument that suggests these requirements are unlawful. Link to SOMEONE besides yourself that agrees with your polemic argument.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

And you are dismissing anything I say as being from the mind of a troll.

If you don't want to be treated like a troll, stop being one.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

In the case of the voter ID laws ALEC is pushing at the state level, they are solving a nonexistent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars.

I misread your statement, and so I apologize. But I think you're waiving your hand too quickly when you say that the purpose of the legislation is wholly to protect against voter fraud and that this supposed problem isn't substantial enough to address. Politicians OFTEN attempt to sell their legislation on the most simple argument (Obama liked to sell his health care reform package by toting the millions of uninsured that would become insured under the law, but that was not the main purpose or only purpose of the law, was it?). What bandit has been consistently doing is arguing for alternative purposes for the legislation. Motivating poor and young people to get state IDs so they can have access to other state services, for instance. Hardly the EVIL DISENFRANCHISING AND POINTLESS legislation that it is being accused of, if you accept that reason as potentially valid.

Primarily because this isn't a thread about incarceration. It's not really a thread about gun control either, but that's a different kettle of fish. :)

This is a thread about disenfranchisement, no? I was mostly trying to think of other precedents for this sort of legislation that you might be able to take issue with to explore the legal aspect of the legislation. Incarceration is a requirement in many states for disenfranchisement that serves as a useful precedent for the type of state's right for creating rules for voting. It is more an example of when can voting rights be taken away legally than an example of how certain rights are unalienable. But because I misread your argument, assume that all debate on incarceration should be directed toward Malor, who is seemingly arguing for the extreme position I accused you of taking.

I'm not thrilled about the return of sock-puppetry either. :(

Doesn't sock-puppetry imply that I have another username here? I don't. If I am a sock-puppet, then we are all sock-puppets. I am a man with a love for transparency, so I will admit that I created the username with the intent of offering mainly conservative arguments. But I seek only to involve myself in debates I can rationally defend.

This is an extremely tangential point, but it is one partially explaining why I made this account. One of the travesties of the current republican party, in my view, is the lack of reasonableness. The death of the intellectual right has been one of the contributing factors of the intolerable extremism on that side of the party. However, a contributing factor to the death of the intellectual right, in my view, is also the responsibility of people on the left--though probably without their realizing it.

Every time you call a conservative "crazy," "illogical," and "unreasonable," you are more likely to drive that person to become even more conservative. You are not likely to change her views. (See also: Going to Extremes by Cass Sunstein.) If liberal minded people could start actually critically addressing conservative points of view and try to mollify those points, then perhaps there is a way back from our current brink of incredible extremism in this country.

There is a phrase in latin that I take very seriously whenever I write here. "Audi alteram partem" meaning, "Listen to another side." It implies a principle of intellectual fairness that requires the listener to listen to alternative points of view BEFORE deciding on a particular issue. I try to live my life by this principle as best I can, and--being the human that I am--I want others to employ the principle as frequently as they can as well. All of my posts in this forum have been in pursuit of another side of the debate, one that should be taken seriously. Because the more often that liberals use this principle, the more likely they will actually be able to convince other people of their point of view (speaking from experience and behavioral research, here).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

In the case of the voter ID laws ALEC is pushing at the state level, they are solving a nonexistent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars. That's enough reason to oppose the legislation on it's own (even if we throw out the fact that the folks trying to pass these laws are doing it with the aim of disenfranchising Democratic voters).

Could you please provide a citation for this claim?

The state of Georgia requires a photo ID for voters and issues free IDs to anyone who doesn't have another acceptable form of ID. Between 2006 and 2010 GA averaged 5,311 free photo IDs per year. Georgia has double the population that Wisconsin does. The state charges $10 for a non driver's photo ID, so I'm not sure what their actual cost of generating a photo ID is, but it's likely less than that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not all 300k people are going to sign up for the free ID in the same year, but if they sign up at the exact same rate that Georgians do, with double the population, assuming a $10 cost per ID, that works out to about $30,000 /yr.

If all 300k people rushed to the BMV in the same year, you might spend $3 mil, but then afterwards you'd only have new issuance and changes/lost cards, which would likely follow the Georgia model.

So do you actually have data to back up your millions claim, or like many other assertions (disenfranchisement) is this just hyperbole?

bandit0013 wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

In the case of the voter ID laws ALEC is pushing at the state level, they are solving a nonexistent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars. That's enough reason to oppose the legislation on it's own (even if we throw out the fact that the folks trying to pass these laws are doing it with the aim of disenfranchising Democratic voters).

Could you please provide a citation for this claim?

The state of Georgia requires a photo ID for voters and issues free IDs to anyone who doesn't have another acceptable form of ID. Between 2006 and 2010 GA averaged 5,311 free photo IDs per year. Georgia has double the population that Wisconsin does. The state charges $10 for a non driver's photo ID, so I'm not sure what their actual cost of generating a photo ID is, but it's likely less than that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not all 300k people are going to sign up for the free ID in the same year, but if they sign up at the exact same rate that Georgians do, with double the population, assuming a $10 cost per ID, that works out to about $30,000 /yr.

If all 300k people rushed to the BMV in the same year, you might spend $3 mil, but then afterwards you'd only have new issuance and changes/lost cards, which would likely follow the Georgia model.

So do you actually have data to back up your millions claim, or like many other assertions (disenfranchisement) is this just hyperbole?

Sure can. It's the same article you found "particularly awesome" earlier.

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]Wisconsin's bill, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, would cost more than $5.7 million to implement.

bandit0013 wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

In the case of the voter ID laws ALEC is pushing at the state level, they are solving a nonexistent problem, at the cost of millions of dollars. That's enough reason to oppose the legislation on it's own (even if we throw out the fact that the folks trying to pass these laws are doing it with the aim of disenfranchising Democratic voters).

Could you please provide a citation for this claim?

The state of Georgia requires a photo ID for voters and issues free IDs to anyone who doesn't have another acceptable form of ID. Between 2006 and 2010 GA averaged 5,311 free photo IDs per year. Georgia has double the population that Wisconsin does. The state charges $10 for a non driver's photo ID, so I'm not sure what their actual cost is, but it'd likely less than that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not all 300k people are going to sign up for the free ID in the same year, but if they sign up at the exact same rate that Georgians do, with double the population, assuming a $10 cost per ID, that works out to about $30,000 /yr.

If all 300k people rushed to the BMV in the same year, you might spend $3 mil, but then afterwards you'd only have new issuance and changes/lost cards, which would likely follow the Georgia model.

So do you actually have data to back up your millions claim, or like many other accusations (disenfranchisement) is this just hyperbole?

This is from the first link I had. I'm not sure how trustworthy it is, but here you go.

Wisconsin's population is substantially less likely to have a state-issued identification. The study showed that the following numbers about those without state-issued photo identification and who would need to obtain one under the Wisconsin Voter ID bill:

Over 177,000 elderly Wisconsinites
17 percent of white men and women
55 percent of African American men and 49 percent of African American women
46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women
78 percent of African American men age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24

[Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin, 6/05]

The need to expand the numbers and operational hours of Wisconsin DMVs to provide appropriate access could increase the $70 million biennial Wisconsin DMV budget by as much as 50 percent - on top of the current $5 million price tag to provide free identifications.

Wisconsin and Indiana have similar voting age populations (4.35 million vs. 4,8 million), but Wisconsin is 50 percent larger geographically than Indiana (54,314 sq. miles vs. 35,870 sq. miles). Indiana not only provides its residents 50 percent more DMV offices than Wisconsin has (140 to 91), but also nearly three times the total hours these facilities are open.

Additional statistics about Wisconsin lack of accessible DMVs compared to Indiana:

Twenty-six percent of Wisconsin's 91 DMVs are open one day a month or less, while none of Indiana's are open less than 100 days a year and nearly all are open over 250 days a year.
Wisconsin has only one DMV with weekend hours, while Indiana has 124 offices with weekend hours.
Three Wisconsin counties have no DMVs, no Indiana county is without a DMV.
Over half of Wisconsin's 91 DMVs are open on a part-time basis, while Indiana provides full-time DMVs in every county.

Republican claims of widespread voter irregularity have long been debunked. After a two-year investigation, Republican Attorney General JB Van Hollen has found only 11 potentially-improper votes cast out of nearly 3 million votes in 2008. Former Wisconsin U.S. Attorney under George W. Bush, Steve Biskupic concluded after a similar investigation there was no widespread voter fraud. The majority of charges in all of these cases involved felons who were technically ineligible to vote.

"The Assembly Republican Election Committee chair admitted just the other day, that this bill is being fast-tracked because of new circumstances," said Ross. "The only new circumstance is that the Republicans attack on workers' rights, public education, health care and seniors prescription drug access has put their majority in immediate peril."

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 6% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

bandit0013 wrote:

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94.5% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 5.5% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

Probably has a lot to do with compliance, making sure new forms are created and stocked and other ancillary costs, rather than just the fixed cost of printing an ID card.

Even so, $70 million biennial Wisconsin DMV budget by as much as 50 percent - on top of the current $5 million price tag to provide free identifications.

So we're talking 70 / 2 + 50%, $17 million plus $5 million just to give out 6% more IDs than you already are?

Talk about inefficiency heh.

bandit0013 wrote:

Talk about inefficiency heh.

It is the government.

Accusing someone of hyperbole, demanding they provide numbers, then being dismissive of the numbers provided (ones from the relevant governmental agency, no less) doesn't often lend itself to reasonable discussion.

bandit0013 wrote:

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 6% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

This report is the closest I can find to anything by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that measures the impact of the voter ID requirement. Much of this report's findings emphasize the costs of outreach and education about the new requirements. Though this report is from May of this year, it shows a cost of $2 million over the next two years, not the $5 million over the next undefined period of time that other sources in this thread have said the LFB claims. Still, it would be "Millions of dollars" as Dimmerswitch has claimed, so w/e.

NevermoreRaven wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 6% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

This report is the closest I can find to anything by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that measures the impact of the voter ID requirement. Much of this report's findings emphasize the costs of outreach and education about the new requirements. Though this report is from May of this year, it shows a cost of $2 million over the next two years, not the $5 million over the next undefined period of time that other sources in this thread have said the LFB claims. Still, it would be "Millions of dollars" as Dimmerswitch has claimed, so w/e.

$2,097,400 plus $1.1 Million for the University of Wisconsin. Plus an ongoing $300,000 for the university to renew these cards. This seems pretty harsh especially since the cost of a college education keeps climbing.

If I had to choose between 5 people committing voter fraud (or whatever miniscule number it is) and charging a University millions and millions over the next decade or just realizing there is no problem, I would not waste tax payer money.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
NevermoreRaven wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 6% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

This report is the closest I can find to anything by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that measures the impact of the voter ID requirement. Much of this report's findings emphasize the costs of outreach and education about the new requirements. Though this report is from May of this year, it shows a cost of $2 million over the next two years, not the $5 million over the next undefined period of time that other sources in this thread have said the LFB claims. Still, it would be "Millions of dollars" as Dimmerswitch has claimed, so w/e.

$2,097,400 plus $1.1 Million for the University of Wisconsin. Plus an ongoing $300,000 for the university to renew these cards. This seems pretty harsh especially since the cost of a college education keeps climbing.

Don't worry. They can save all that by cutting health benefits for state employees.

Paleocon wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
NevermoreRaven wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I still don't know where they're getting the $5 million from. Does it cost Wisconsin $30 to provide an ID for one of those 177k people?

Also, it's making the assumption that everyone rushes to the BMV in the same year, which given our general voter participation rates and data from other states is highly unlikely.

I'm also confused that with a population of 5 million, of which (300k / 5 mil) 94% already have an ID and are serviced just fine by the BMV that to handle an increase of 6% would require a budget increase of 50%.

Eh, I'm skeptical. But they are numbers.

This report is the closest I can find to anything by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that measures the impact of the voter ID requirement. Much of this report's findings emphasize the costs of outreach and education about the new requirements. Though this report is from May of this year, it shows a cost of $2 million over the next two years, not the $5 million over the next undefined period of time that other sources in this thread have said the LFB claims. Still, it would be "Millions of dollars" as Dimmerswitch has claimed, so w/e.

$2,097,400 plus $1.1 Million for the University of Wisconsin. Plus an ongoing $300,000 for the university to renew these cards. This seems pretty harsh especially since the cost of a college education keeps climbing.

Don't worry. They can save all that by cutting health benefits for state employees.

Actually you could just levy a 10% tax on election spending. Various PACs spent $33 million on the recall election alone.