How is it that republican voters justify voting suppression by the GOP?

[boedicca]

Here are some important points to consider:

1) No one even thought this was a problem before Obama’s administration. Hmm what interesting timing. Why did no one care about it? Because it has always been statistically very RARE and therefore pointless to come up with policy to fight it. All it really accomplishes is keeping legal voters from casting their votes.

2) It goes beyond new extra ID requirements. It also involves closing voting stations in key democratic voting areas. How in the hell do you justify shit like that?

3) Do republican voters not care the GOP is doing this simply because it helps their side win? Is that the real truth?

4) Oh and just to state the obvious, just because dead people are still on voting records, it doesn’t somehow magically mean actual votes are being cast from these dead people. This shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

Reality:

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Lib please YOU PEOPLE demand multiple forms of ID just to get a fishing license in your Dem run states, enough with your faux voter suppression crap.

I think that the right to vote is fundamental, and far more important than the right to go fishing. Hence, I am more sensitive to problems caused by placing unnecessary burdens on voting than I am to problems caused by placing unnecessary burdens on fishing. That seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, you could probably convince me that states should reduce the amount of bureaucracy around hunting/fishing licenses, I'm just less likely to focus as much on it as a problem because it's less important.

I always thought Democrats favored government oversight and regulation? We have a Constitutional right to bear arms, spelled out under the second amendment. However the acts of a few continually force additional “government red tape” and oversight on those responsible gun owners with no criminal backgrounds.. and you want to whine about obtaining a small government ID as suppression? A photo ID is the least intrusive, when compared to the efforts required to work within a secured government facility, or use of a veterans’ benefit like the GI Bill, or even all the steps and permits required for a business to obtain in simply building on a vacant lot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However the acts of a few continually force additional “government red tape” and oversight on those responsible gun owners with no criminal backgrounds..

So what? I've never had so much as a ticket, yet I have to register every vehicle i drive with the State. I have to renew my driver's license periodically, and i am subject to back ground and criminal checks each time. I have to document every sale and purchase of every vehicle with the state, and pay taxes on it . I'm getting by just fine and understand why these things are necessary.

What makes you so special?

 

[Doc1]

LOL.
You have to have a picture ID to:
Fly
Buy Alcohol
Drive
Buy Cigarettes
But not to vote? How special.

 

[well named]

Take your time and read this thoroughly.
Voter Fraud

I finally have some free time, so let's go through this. I note right away that they list three main takeaways, and the first two line up very well with the principles I outlined in this post. Heritage writes that

1. The right to vote in a free and fair election is the most basic civil right, one on which many other rights of the American people depend.
2. Congress and the states should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one’s vote is stolen or diluted.
​

I wrote:

"I have no theoretical objection to voter ID requirements at the time of voting, in conjunction with voter registration requirements. But such requirements must (in my view) be paired with programs to ensure that the burden on acquiring the ID is minimal. The same is true for other voting burdens."
​

The requirement that the burden be minimized reflects the fact that voting is the most basic civil right, which Congress and the states should guarantee is protected for every eligible individual. I think as long we can agree on those principles we can almost certainly arrive at a proposed policy which would satisfy both of us. This is probably the most important thing to say about this article, in my view. The reason so many new voting laws have been struck down by the courts is because they don't respect those principles, and that is because the real motivation behind those laws was not actually to protect the sanctity of the elections process.

So by all means, pass voter ID laws, but make sure they respect those first two principles. Then I will not object.

That said, my previous post outlined a practical objection to some new voting restrictions, and that objection is tied up with the third key takeway that Heritage lists:

3. Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented.
​

Heritage essentially dodges the question about whether or not voter fraud is a significant issue, instead suggesting that any amount of fraud whatsoever is unacceptable, and that even a very small rate of fraud could decide a very close election. That's true, and of course we should (and do very well!) try to prevent fraud, but the implicit conclusion of this line of argument directly contradicts the first two principles. If you disenfranchise 100,000 eligible voters to prevent one person from casting an illegitimate vote you are not actually serving the principle that says Congress and the states must guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote. Therefore it is imperative to actually consider the costs of voting laws in comparison with the benefits. Heritage's own database documents only 1181 instances of voter fraud over decades -- only one of which involves more than a handful of fraudulent votes -- out of literally billions of votes cast. These numbers support the argument I made before, that there is not a problem of voter fraud sufficient to justify the kinds of new measures most states are taking.

The data also highlights something I pointed out in the NC case, where I noted that the judge found that the proposed NC law was an "inapt remedy" for the problems it was supposed to solve. Heritage lists 9 different types of potential voter fraud, but note that only 1 or 2 at most are prevented by requiring ID at polling stations specifically. There is some evidence that the most common forms of voting fraud involve absentee ballots, and yet most states don't seem interested in focusing on preventing that form of fraud. One suspects that simply reflects the demographic groups which prefer voting absentee in comparison with those that prefer voting in person.

So, to summarize all of my arguments, the point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with rules intended to protect election integrity, but those rules must protect the basic civil right to vote. There is ample evidence that most recent new laws fail this test:

1) the lack of evidence of a significant problem of voter fraud, exemplified by your own Heritage link
2) the evidence that new laws are disenfranchising significant numbers of people
3) the fact that in many cases the new laws are not suitable to prevent the kinds of fraud actually occurring
4) the fact that so many laws are being struck down for being explicitly discriminatory

You can see in this thread that most people who believe we should have stricter voting laws are just ignoring all of the actual details in favor of simple arguments like "I need ID to fly so why not to vote?" But the details matter. If the GOP stops using voting laws to try to win elections and instead starts favoring only laws looking to solve real problems in a reasonable way, then voter ID laws will cease to be a partisan issue.

​

 

[BS Filter]

Take your time and read this thoroughly.
Voter Fraud

I finally have some free time, so let's go through this. I note right away that they list three main takeaways, and the first two line up very well with the principles I outlined in this post. Heritage writes that

1. The right to vote in a free and fair election is the most basic civil right, one on which many other rights of the American people depend.
2. Congress and the states should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one’s vote is stolen or diluted.
​

I wrote:

"I have no theoretical objection to voter ID requirements at the time of voting, in conjunction with voter registration requirements. But such requirements must (in my view) be paired with programs to ensure that the burden on acquiring the ID is minimal. The same is true for other voting burdens."
​

The requirement that the burden be minimized reflects the fact that voting is the most basic civil right, which Congress and the states should guarantee is protected for every eligible individual. I think as long we can agree on those principles we can almost certainly arrive at a proposed policy which would satisfy both of us. This is probably the most important thing to say about this article, in my view. The reason so many new voting laws have been struck down by the courts is because they don't respect those principles, and that is because the real motivation behind those laws was not actually to protect the sanctity of the elections process.

So by all means, pass voter ID laws, but make sure they respect those first two principles. Then I will not object.

That said, my previous post outlined a practical objection to some new voting restrictions, and that objection is tied up with the third key takeway that Heritage lists:

3. Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented.
​

Heritage essentially dodges the question about whether or not voter fraud is a significant issue, instead suggesting that any amount of fraud whatsoever is unacceptable, and that even a very small rate of fraud could decide a very close election. That's true, and of course we should (and do very well!) try to prevent fraud, but the implicit conclusion of this line of argument directly contradicts the first two principles. If you disenfranchise 100,000 eligible voters to prevent one person from casting an illegitimate vote you are not actually serving the principle that says Congress and the states must guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote. Therefore it is imperative to actually consider the costs of voting laws in comparison with the benefits. Heritage's own database documents only 1181 instances of voter fraud over decades -- only one of which involves more than a handful of fraudulent votes -- out of literally billions of votes cast. These numbers support the argument I made before, that there is not a problem of voter fraud sufficient to justify the kinds of new measures most states are taking.

The data also highlights something I pointed out in the NC case, where I noted that the judge found that the proposed NC law was an "inapt remedy" for the problems it was supposed to solve. Heritage lists 9 different types of potential voter fraud, but note that only 1 or 2 at most are prevented by requiring ID at polling stations specifically. There is some evidence that the most common forms of voting fraud involve absentee ballots, and yet most states don't seem interested in focusing on preventing that form of fraud. One suspects that simply reflects the demographic groups which prefer voting absentee in comparison with those that prefer voting in person.

So, to summarize all of my arguments, the point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with rules intended to protect election integrity, but those rules must protect the basic civil right to vote. There is ample evidence that most recent new laws fail this test:

1) the lack of evidence of a significant problem of voter fraud, exemplified by your own Heritage link
2) the evidence that new laws are disenfranchising significant numbers of people
3) the fact that in many cases the new laws are not suitable to prevent the kinds of fraud actually occurring
4) the fact that so many laws are being struck down for being explicitly discriminatory

You can see in this thread that most people who believe we should have stricter voting laws are just ignoring all of the actual details in favor of simple arguments like "I need ID to fly so why not to vote?" But the details matter. If the GOP stops using voting laws to try to win elections and instead starts favoring only laws looking to solve real problems in a reasonable way, then voter ID laws will cease to be a partisan issue.

​

Requiring a photo ID and current address isn't asking too much of citizens to vote.

 

[LaDexter]

Requiring a photo ID and current address isn't asking too much of citizens to vote

At least, assuming the "citizen" is ALIVE....

Dems "care" about "voters like you..." and "them"

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

However the acts of a few continually force additional “government red tape” and oversight on those responsible gun owners with no criminal backgrounds..

So what? I've never had so much as a ticket, yet I have to register every vehicle i drive with the State. I have to renew my driver's license periodically, and i am subject to back ground and criminal checks each time. I have to document every sale and purchase of every vehicle with the state, and pay taxes on it . I'm getting by just fine and understand why these things are necessary.

What makes you so special?

Let’s start things off by saying it’s a known fact there are more vehicular involved accidents and deaths than those involving fire arms. Now one can try to argue that gun ownership is a choice, yet so is owning a vehicle with the availability of mass transit today. The fact of the matter is, the use of a firearm to harm someone does not make every gun owner violent. Every year we have increased hostility due to the use of a vehicle as a weapon through aggressive driving. Does this mean every owner of a vehicle should be grouped within that same category? Why is it we don’t we have more mandatory classes as the “condition” for purchasing a new vehicle? Do we consider looking at the person’s driving history for aggressive driving, speeding, drug use, and other activities that subject harm to other drivers BEFORE they make that purchase? How many individuals with a criminal background do we fingerprint before they are allowed to get behind the wheel? Driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege that’s granted and perhaps should be taken away with a select amount of stops for accidents and aggressive driving incidents. Should we not be looking to vehicle ownership in the same manner as gun owners? Particularly since there are more people mamed, permanently disabled, and killed as a result of accidents FAR more than through guns.

 

[well named]

...in many cases the new laws are not suitable to prevent the kinds of fraud actually occurring

It turns out this election may provide a useful example of this part of my argument about laws meant to prevent voting fraud:

Certification in limbo in N.C. House race as fraud investigation continues