GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who needs weeks to vote? Oh, Democrats, that's who.. the same folks that were flummoxed by hanging chads.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 2008, Obama may have won the state of Florida on the Sunday before election day when "Souls to the Polls" brought large number of Black and Latino voters to the polls to cast ballots after church. Florida had opened the polls two weeks early and in spite of that, there were long lines at all of the polling places, prompting the governor to issue an emergency order extending the hours for early voting. When it was all over, Obama had eked out a 51% win in the State of Florida.

If the Republican-controlled legislature of the good state of Florida has its way, there will be no more of THAT. According to a front-page article in today's L.A. Times:

Early voting was reduced from two weeks to one week. Voting on the Sunday before election day was eliminated. College students face new hurdles if they want to vote away from home. And those who register new voters face the threat of fines for procedural errors, prompting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration drives and accuse the Legislature of "reverting to Jim Crow-like tactics."

Election laws tightening in Republican-run states - latimes.com

What is this really all about? Election rules are being changed in Republican-controlled states in a way that will make it more difficult for demographic groups perceived to be Democatic, to get the polls to vote.

Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . .

"Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . ."

Did you vote for Clinton?

Is that where you learned the word 'slimy'?

 

[del]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.

People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.

i have no doubt that the transient, unemployed, mentally unbalanced,crackhead vote is something the founding fathers cherished.

you should sue someone for something.

immediately.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?

 

[George Costanza]

Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.

It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?

 

[rdean]

No one will explain why Republicans just don't run on their record or their ideas.

Why do they need "voter suppression"?

If they are good for America, they would be a shoe in.

 

[George Costanza]

What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?

I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing? For example, exactly HOW are "white voters" being "discriminated against" here? What is the basis for such a rule - what happened to cause it to be sought or put into effect? Exactly what is the rule that is being objected to?

More facts, PC . . . more facts.

 

[skookerasbil]

In 2008, Obama may have won the state of Florida on the Sunday before election day when "Souls to the Polls" brought large number of Black and Latino voters to the polls to cast ballots after church. Florida had opened the polls two weeks early and in spite of that, there were long lines at all of the polling places, prompting the governor to issue an emergency order extending the hours for early voting. When it was all over, Obama had eked out a 51% win in the State of Florida.

If the Republican-controlled legislature of the good state of Florida has its way, there will be no more of THAT. According to a front-page article in today's L.A. Times:

Early voting was reduced from two weeks to one week. Voting on the Sunday before election day was eliminated. College students face new hurdles if they want to vote away from home. And those who register new voters face the threat of fines for procedural errors, prompting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration drives and accuse the Legislature of "reverting to Jim Crow-like tactics."

Election laws tightening in Republican-run states - latimes.com

What is this really all about? Election rules are being changed in Republican-controlled states in a way that will make it more difficult for demographic groups perceived to be Democatic, to get the polls to vote.

Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . .

Elections have consequences s0n...........

 

[George Costanza]

Ok so, requiring voters to actually prove they are who they say they are is A) voter suppression and B) directed at Democrats.

been asking for a while now, How is this true? Explain it.

Now we have States making routine changes to voting rules and you all claim it suppresses Democrats and Obama supporters. I REPEAT, explain how that is.

People who are marginal economically - people who've lost their homes, for example, who are couch-surfing, staying with friends, or sleeping in shelters or outside - people who are transients, who have legal problems, who have never had a regular job, who work for cash, under the table, or have substance-abuse problems or mental health issues or have been to jail - these are the people who are prevented from voting by government-issued-photo-ID laws.

Republicans think these people are more likely to vote Democratic if they're able to vote; therefore Republicans want to prevent them from voting.

Spot on. Very well put.

 

[George Costanza]

In 2008, Obama may have won the state of Florida on the Sunday before election day when "Souls to the Polls" brought large number of Black and Latino voters to the polls to cast ballots after church. Florida had opened the polls two weeks early and in spite of that, there were long lines at all of the polling places, prompting the governor to issue an emergency order extending the hours for early voting. When it was all over, Obama had eked out a 51% win in the State of Florida.

If the Republican-controlled legislature of the good state of Florida has its way, there will be no more of THAT. According to a front-page article in today's L.A. Times:

Early voting was reduced from two weeks to one week. Voting on the Sunday before election day was eliminated. College students face new hurdles if they want to vote away from home. And those who register new voters face the threat of fines for procedural errors, prompting the nonpartisan League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration drives and accuse the Legislature of "reverting to Jim Crow-like tactics."

Election laws tightening in Republican-run states - latimes.com

What is this really all about? Election rules are being changed in Republican-controlled states in a way that will make it more difficult for demographic groups perceived to be Democatic, to get the polls to vote.

Slimy? You bet. But, then, this is politics . . . .

Elections have consequences s0n...........

Subverting existing laws and enacting unfair laws for political gain should not be the type of consequences that come with a new administration.

 

[skookerasbil]

Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.

It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?

fcukk this...........the assholes need to get their asses down to the DMV and get a non-driver photo ID. Otherwise.........fcukk them

 

[George Costanza]

Who needs weeks to vote? Oh, Democrats, that's who.. the same folks that were flummoxed by hanging chads.

OK - you have hit upon the one part of the OP article which, frankly, I don't understand. I can see how requiring photo ID and making it harder for students to vote would have an adverse impact on the Demorcratic vote in any election. And I can see how making it harder for Blacks and Latinos to vote would also have negative impact on the Democratic total in any election.

What has yet to be explained to me (other libs out there, help me out here) is, how does shortening the time to vote impact Blacks and Latinos any more than any other type of voter?

Anyone?

 

[George Costanza]

Did you vote for Clinton?

Is that where you learned the word 'slimy'?

No, dear - I merely observed Karl Rove in operation.

Now get back on here and give me more information as to how the Dems are disenfranchising white voters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What - no comment from anyone on this? No one attacking the source of the article? No one disputing the basis for the article?

Come ON . . . .

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?

I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing?

Georgie... a guy as concerned about voting rights as you are...and you don't know of the Ike Brown case???

Here....let me fill ya' in:

1. "In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | New Black Panther Party | Impeach Obama Campaign - Part 2

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
PJ Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)

 

[George Costanza]

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?

I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing?

Georgie... a guy as concerned about voting rights as you are...and you don't know of the Ike Brown case???

Here....let me fill ya' in:

1. "In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | New Black Panther Party | Impeach Obama Campaign - Part 2

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
PJ Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)

I was not familiar with this case. (You weren't being a little sarcastic with your, "as concerned as you are about voting rights," now were you?)

Sure - if this is what happened, then Ike is an asshole and should be run out of town on a rail. And any administration that refused to take appropriate action to rememdy such and prevent it in the future, if that is truly what happened and was truly contemplated to happen again in the future, is subject to extreme criticism.

I abhor sliminess, trickery and hidden agendas, regardless of which party is the author. It has been my experience that, when it comes to such, the Republican party FAR outshines the Democratic party, but I also recognize that, on occasion, our poop can smell a little bad as well . . . .

 

[George Costanza]

fcukk this...........the assholes need to get their asses down to the DMV and get a non-driver photo ID. Otherwise.........fcukk them

Spoken like a true Republican.

 

[George Costanza]

Sauce for the Goose Mr Scotty, The Odds will be Even.

The Changes have no effect on Fairness. Complete non story.

Wrong. Flat wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

US Presidential election is once every 4 years. If you're too lazy or stupid to make it to the poll that day you should not be allowed to vote.

Also, spare me the, "Poor old lady on her death bed eating cat food and can't make it to the poll" story

I have 0 sympathy.

 

[The T]

US Presidential election is once every 4 years. If you're too lazy or stupid to make it to the poll that day you should not be allowed to vote.

Also, spare me the, "Poor old lady on her death bed eating cat food and can't make it to the poll" story

I have 0 sympathy.

^^This^^

 

[DiamondDave]

Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.

It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?

I thought the other post I quoted had the cream of the crop for dumb shit... but this takes the cake