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

I've not been able to find the exact show yet, but on NPR this morning i caught the end of an interview about voter registration and the Republican flat out said that Democrats were cheating and when called out on it he said that if anyone was against this paticular bill that they must be trying to cheat the system. He also called a state attorney ignorant. I honestly thought i had stumbled upon a comedy show at first.

ranalin wrote:

I've not been able to find the exact show yet, but on NPR this morning i caught the end of an interview about voter registration and the Republican flat out said that Democrats were cheating and when called out on it he said that if anyone was against this paticular bill that they must be trying to cheat the system. He also called a state attorney ignorant. I honestly thought i had stumbled upon a comedy show at first.

Was it Fresh Air? Do Voter ID Laws Prevent Fraud, Or Dampen Turnout?

DAVIES: Representative, before I let you go, I do have to address this one question. A lot has been made of a videotaped comment by Mike Turzai. You know him well. He's the state House majority leader in Pennsylvania. When speaking at a Republican state committee meeting, he was talking about legislative accomplishments, and he said, you know, voter ID, which will allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania, has been enacted.

And people have looked at that and said this - that there is a partisan motive here. Republicans think when this is done, it will help them because fewer Democrats will get to the polls. What about that?

METCALFE: Well, I think there's partisan motive to the opposition. I think that's because the majority of Democrats that are trying to stop voter photo ID don't want to see the fraud stopped. I think Mike Turzai's comments were in the context of if we stop the fraud, then a Republican in a Democrat-leaning state can still have an opportunity to win.

But we know from the Obama administration's quick review of our law, what the Department of Justice is now doing, trying to claim that they're investigating our law when it's based on the model legislation in Indiana that was held up to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, all of the opposition, from the NAACP, the ACLU, all the Democrats that voted against this in the House and the Senate in Pennsylvania, they are trying to protect status quo.

I believe they're trying to protect the fraud that they know they have happen at the polls that allow some of them to win.

DAVIES: You think Democrats are perpetrating widespread fraud at the polls?

METCALFE: I believe that Democrats are perpetrating fraud at the polls, and I believe that they know that by allowing status quo, by not requiring photo voter ID, that yes, Democrats have a better chance to win because they have a better chance to corrupt the process.

I think that's where the attention should be changed. I mean, everybody's focused on Mike Turzai's comments about, yeah, Mitt Romney can win because of voter photo ID. Well, you know, why shouldn't everybody want a level playing field? Jimmy Carter did. Why are all these other Democrats afraid to actually allow us to have a process in place that identifies that somebody is who they claim to be when they show up to vote other than they're protecting status quo, they're protecting the fraud that's been perpetrated, and they want to ensure that the fraud can continue by groups like ACORN and others that support their left-leaning policies.

And the ignorant bit:

DAVIES: OK, Representative, I just - I'm sorry to interrupt. I did want to ask you about this, and this is a document I'm sure you're aware of that was filed by the Commonwealth defending the voter ID law in the current litigation over the Pennsylvania law. And the Commonwealth attorneys acknowledge there have been no investigations or prosecution of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania, that they don't have knowledge of any such investigations. They offered no evidence that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred.

METCALFE: Well, you know what? It's not my responsibility to actually identify an attorney that is knowledgeable. You know, it's not my fault that the attorney for the state is ignorant. We have cases, we have the 1998 case where the state senator's election was overturned. We have - or 1993, rather. We have 1998 prosecution of a congressman for election fraud. We have, you know...

Yep Fresh Air... That's the one.

ranalin wrote:

Yep Fresh Air... That's the one.

Listen Here!

Warning, you will want to punch things.

Another instance of honesty in this process:

Ohio GOP Admits Early Voting Cutbacks Are Racially Motivated

Local CBS affiliate, on Twitter[/url]]BREAKING: AG Van Hollen to ask WI Supreme Court to reinstate voter ID Law ahead of November elections.

Given the collusion* between our state Supreme Court and the state GOP over 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, I expect the court to duly deliver whatever verdict the Walker administration says they want.

[Edit to add link to longer-form writeup of the story. Van Hollen is requesting that the Supreme Court bypass the Appeals courts, which would normally be the next step, in order to have the ID law in place ahead of November's election.]

What? A Voter ID law is apparently specifically designed to prevent poor people from voting, instead of being a magic wand to wave away the kind of voter fraud that studies have shown simply does not exist!

SHOCKED FACE.

Federal Judge Restores Early Voting In Ohio After Obama Suit

This was the 'Obama hates the military' law, IIRC.

Tanglebones wrote:

Federal Judge Restores Early Voting In Ohio After Obama Suit

This was the 'Obama hates the military' law, IIRC.

So do those election board members that voted for this in the first place get un-fired too?

What is the consensus among Military voters? Obama managed to win a lot of votes from the armed forces on a platform to withdraw troops in the Mid East, and end the wars in his first term. He did not exactly get that done.

KingGorilla wrote:

What is the consensus among Military voters? Obama managed to win a lot of votes from the armed forces on a platform to withdraw troops in the Mid East, and end the wars in his first term. He did not exactly get that done.

It's crazy how misinformation becomes fact. Obama clearly campaigned on a theme of increasing troops in Afghanistan. It was a key part of his campaign, when he accused Bush of taking his eye off the ball. It was big part of the debates, in which McCain said Obama was wrong to want to increase troops in Afghanistan. But somehow certain parts of the media has changed that, and accuse Obama of breaking his promise to get out of Afghanistan.

The reality is, he got out of Iraq far earlier than anyone imagined was possible, and the end is in sight for Afghanistan. But the misinformation has become so strong, that even Obama supporters (not saying you are, KG) are now spreading it. It's really bizarre.

Well a campaign promise is a lot like getting your fortune read. Enough vagaries to wiggle around, not enough specifics to disallow deniability in the event of failure or shortfalls. And if you never correct what people or papers read into them, no big problem.

Yeah, Obama always said he was going to increase our commitment to Afghanistan, not decrease it.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well a campaign promise is a lot like getting your fortune read. Enough vagaries to wiggle around, not enough specifics to disallow deniability in the event of failure or shortfalls. And if you never correct what people or papers read into them, no big problem.

I don't think he was vague.

And he also vowed that after yet another surge to have as many troops pulled out by now, summer 2011. That was the plan, more troops for a few months to a year, then major withdrawls of like numbers, proportional to what would lead to the 2014 "end" which I believe has become 2015 according to NATO.

But I think this is for the presidential candidate thread. And still no one knows the answer to my initial querry as to if the Romney statements regarding Ohio have affected Obama's military voter support, of which he had rousing support in 2008.

KingGorilla wrote:

And he also vowed that after yet another surge to have as many troops pulled out by now, summer 2011. That was the plan, more troops for a few months to a year, then major withdrawls of like numbers, proportional to what would lead to the 2014 "end" which I believe has become 2015 according to NATO.

Yeah, it's almost as bogus as "We'll be greeted as liberators."

Amazing testimony from Marci Andino, South Carolina's Election Commission Executive Director, in court last week to defend South Carolina's Voter ID laws.

Beeney: Ms. Andino, just to follow up a little bit on some of the Court's questions. If my reasonable impediment is I have no transportation to the county seat, I have to get to the county seat to defend that, right?

Andino: Not unless it's challenged.

Beeney: Well, if it's challenged, the only way I can defend it is to get to the county seat, which might suggest to a county commissioner that a lack of transportation reasonable impediment is false, since you're standing in front of me trying to defend your ballot.

Andino: Yes.

Beeney: Now, again, just to follow up on a couple of the Court's questions. At the polls there are people representing the candidates, right?

Andino: Yes, we have poll watchers.

Beeney: And so if I was a poll watcher, I get to watch what goes on at the table, the check-in table where all this is happening, right?

Andino: Yes.

Beeney: And if I wanted to, for whatever reason I may have, I could write down the name of every African American who voted by reasonable impediment and show up on Friday and challenge every one of those if I wanted to, right?

Andino: Yes.

Beeney: And there's no way that our hypothetical African American voter who's getting challenged would have any idea in the world that that's what's happening, is that correct?

Andino: That's correct.

Um. Wow.

Ohio's GOP Secretary of State Ignores Court Order To Expand Weekend Voting.

Yep. The guy is just flat ignoring the court. Seriously.

Malor wrote:

Ohio's GOP Secretary of State Ignores Court Order To Expand Weekend Voting.

Yep. The guy is just flat ignoring the court. Seriously.

Not all that uncommon, when we get to the 2nd week of November and he still has not changed course is when I would get the popcorn out.

The injunction itself only has an effect 3rd week of November.

Put another way, The Sierra Club wins an injunction to stop a highway from being built through a state park. While on appeal the road commission continues to buy concrete and rebar while they appeal. They can still prepare just not build the road.

Now from my perspective, at issue here is whether or not the Supreme Court can step in prior to the election.

KingGorilla wrote:
Malor wrote:

Ohio's GOP Secretary of State Ignores Court Order To Expand Weekend Voting.

Yep. The guy is just flat ignoring the court. Seriously.

Not all that uncommon, when we get to the 2nd week of November and he still has not changed course is when I would get the popcorn out.

The injunction itself only has an effect 3rd week of November.

Put another way, The Sierra Club wins an injunction to stop a highway from being built through a state park. While on appeal the road commission continues to buy concrete and rebar while they appeal. They can still prepare just not build the road.

Now from my perspective, at issue here is whether or not the Supreme Court can step in prior to the election.

I think the popcorn will be needed much sooner:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A federal judge ordered Secretary of State Jon Husted on Wednesday to personally appear next week at a hearing about his reluctance to restore early voting the weekend before the Nov. 6 election.

Judge Peter Economus, whose ruling Husted has resisted, scheduled the hearing on Sept. 13 in the U.S. District Court in Columbus.

IMAGE(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif)

It would be fun to see a state official held in contempt for refusing to comply with a federal judge. Do we reach the point like we had in Arkansas to enforce school desegregation and send in the army?

How many of those cases of voter fraud would have been prevented by stricter ID laws??

Woo! Disenfranchising large numbers of voters so you can prevent 2-10 extra votes from being cast! YAY!

SixteenBlue wrote:

Woo! Disenfranchising large numbers of voters so you can prevent 2-10 extra votes from being cast! YAY!

I am not familiar with how Absentee ballots work, having never done one, so I don't know if stricter voter ID laws would have done anything in those cases. Nor am I aware of the procedures for cross checking those that voted early to make sure that they do not vote on election day.

Personally, it looks to me like stricter voter ID laws wouldn't have done anything in the above cases.

an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme.

In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots.

So ten entire votes, and this is a 'massive voter fraud scheme'. Give me a f*cking break, rosenhane. How stupid do you think we are?

Four Wake residents charged with voting twice

Oh, god, four entire votes!

And your last link just proves what we've been saying all the way along:

Officials Plead Guilty in New York Voter Fraud Case

If you want to stop real voter fraud, you need to focus on the people who count the votes, insiders, not the voters.

mudbunny wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Woo! Disenfranchising large numbers of voters so you can prevent 2-10 extra votes from being cast! YAY!

I am not familiar with how Absentee ballots work, having never done one, so I don't know if stricter voter ID laws would have done anything in those cases. Nor am I aware of the procedures for cross checking those that voted early to make sure that they do not vote on election day.

Personally, it looks to me like stricter voter ID laws wouldn't have done anything in the above cases.

I'm not convinced either but for the sake of discussion I wanted to point out that we're talking 2 of those 3 articles had a total of 2-10 extra votes being cast. So even if it would solve the problem it creates a bigger problem.

When there's actual evidence that proponents of these schemes do it to suppress legitimate votes I'm shocked anyone still defends the idea.