Rigged Elections and Voter Fraud - how common is fraud? Not very.

[OKTexas]

How?

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

“A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
​

Courts are finally pointing out the racism behind voter ID laws

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”


The documents acceptable for proving voters’ identity in North Carolina were the ones disproportionately held by whites, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs, and the ones that were left out were the ones often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law was designed the same way: There, officials accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs. The Texas legislature was repeatedly advised of the likely effect on minority voters but rebuffed nearly all amendments that would have eased its harsh impact.​

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Right, it took a total of 45 minutes and 10 dollars to get my mother-in-law, who move here from out of state, an ID acceptable for voting. 5 minutes on the phone and a 5 dollar charge for her birth certificate and about 40 minutes and 5 dollars at the drivers license bureau. If she had been indigent, the ID would have been free. Your arguments are a joke. We live in a rural area BTW.

Oh right. Because it was so easy for your mother-in-law it MUST be easy for everyone! Now why didn't I think of that?

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to follow a simple two step process?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

You have to understand there is a difference between a college ID and a CCW permit. When I got my permit, they checked me out from the day I turned 18. I had to be electronically fingerprinted, I had to present two verifiable forms of ID. I had to bring my own photo from a place that makes them for passports. No other picture would be accepted.

If people don't have a ride to get an ID, then how would they get a ride to vote? How do they go grocery shopping? How do they get to their doctors appointments? How do they cash their checks wherever they come from?

The situations you present are not valid, they are cheap excuses. They are reasons to fight to continue having such a fragile and weak means of voting where fraud can continue.

 

[Tilly]

...In Veasey v. Abbott, Texas (and the cause of election integrity) suffered a blow three weeks ago when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the voter ID law violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it supposedly had a discriminatory effect, despite the fact that there was no evidence that the ID law had diminished turnout in Texas elections.

In fact, as the dissent pointed out in the appeals court, “despite extraordinary efforts,” neither the Justice Department nor any of the other so-called civil rights organizations who sued were able to uncover any Texas voters who were unable to vote because of the law.....

Texas Keeps Voter ID for November Election

 

[Billy000]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

 

[Tilly]

The Poll tax nonsense was thrown out.

.....
The district court judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, a 2011 President Barack Obama appointee, had found Texas guilty of purposeful discrimination even though, as the dissent noted in the appeals court, “the multi-thousand page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature.”

Ramos even made the bizarre claim that the voter ID law was a prohibited poll tax, despite the state providing free IDs to its residents. Fortunately, that wacky ruling was thrown out by the 5th Circuit....

Texas Keeps Voter ID for November Election

 

[Coyote]

Is disenfranchisement a factor in these laws? Not if you believe the righties.

Why voter ID laws aren't really about fraud.

According to this article, none of these laws address the area where fraud is much more likely - absentee ballots.

Voter fraud generally rarely happens. When it does, election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls. An analysis by News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, found 28 cases of voter fraud convictions since 2000. Of those, 14 percent involved absentee ballot fraud. Voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent, made up only 3.6 percent of those cases. (Other types included double voting, the most common form, at 25 percent, and felons voting when they were prohibited from doing so. But neither of those would be prevented by voter ID laws, either.)​

Now here is where it gets interesting:

Mark Obenshain, a Republican Virginia state senator who was the primary sponsor of his state’s voter ID law, said that lawmakers tried to balance improving security with maintaining access to the ballot for elderly and disabled people.

“There are good arguments that there are gaps with absentee ballots,” he said. “But the issue is, how can we close that gap without unduly burdening the right to vote?” Obenshain said that these voters might not have access to a scanner or Xerox machine to make a copy of their ID.

And, because absentee ballots must be sent to a voter’s registered address, they are still relatively secure, Obenshain said. “It doesn’t warrant making the voters jump through unnecessary hoops.”​

So, we DON'T want to make this particular demographic have to jump through extra hoops in order to prove who they are or "unduly burden their right to vote" despite the fact that MORE fraud has been found in this process than in the polls. But we have no problem making OTHER groups jump through extra hoops in order to have "the right ID" nor do we seem concerned at all about "unduly burdening THEIR right to vote".

Why is that? What are the demographics of these groups?

Absentee voters tend to be older and whiter than in-person voters. In 2012, nearly half, or 46 percent, of mail-in voters were aged 60 and older, and more than 75 percent were white, according to an analysis by Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida who tracks demographic trends in voting. Older white Americans generally are more likely to vote Republican.

African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are less likely to use mail-in ballots. Although they make up about 13 percent of the population, only 8 percent voted by mail in 2012.​

Who is affected?

Laws that require photo ID at the polls vary, but the strictest laws limit the forms of acceptable documentation to only a handful of cards. For example, in Texas, voters must show one of seven forms of state or federal-issue photo ID, with a valid expiration date: a driver’s license, a personal ID card issued by the state, a concealed handgun license, a military ID, citizenship certificate or a passport. The name on the ID must exactly match the one on the voter rolls.​

African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack one of these qualifying IDs, according to several estimates. Even when the state offers a free photo ID, these voters, who are disproportionately low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain one.


In Texas, for example, challengers to the law cited an African-American grandmother who could not afford the $25 to purchase her birth certificate to get an ID, and an elderly African-American veteran and longtime voter who was turned away at the polls in 2013 despite having three types of ID, because none qualified under the new law.


And new research from the Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that prepares reports for members of Congress, suggests that voter ID laws are having an impact at the polls. Turnout dropped among both young people and African-Americans in Kansas and Tennessee after new voter ID requirements took effect in 2012, the study found.​

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

 

[OKTexas]

The Poll tax nonsense was thrown out.

.....
The district court judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, a 2011 President Barack Obama appointee, had found Texas guilty of purposeful discrimination even though, as the dissent noted in the appeals court, “the multi-thousand page record yields not a trace, much less a legitimate inference, of racial bias by the Texas Legislature.”

Ramos even made the bizarre claim that the voter ID law was a prohibited poll tax, despite the state providing free IDs to its residents. Fortunately, that wacky ruling was thrown out by the 5th Circuit....

Texas Keeps Voter ID for November Election

Yep and with IDs we've had record voter turnout, even in the primaries.

 

[Billy000]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

No one ever said it didn't happen. It's just very rare and therefore doesn't matter. Again, you people didn't give two shits about this issue before repubs in office started whining over it in 2012.

 

[Tilly]

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

“A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
​

Courts are finally pointing out the racism behind voter ID laws

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”


The documents acceptable for proving voters’ identity in North Carolina were the ones disproportionately held by whites, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs, and the ones that were left out were the ones often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law was designed the same way: There, officials accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs. The Texas legislature was repeatedly advised of the likely effect on minority voters but rebuffed nearly all amendments that would have eased its harsh impact.​

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Right, it took a total of 45 minutes and 10 dollars to get my mother-in-law, who move here from out of state, an ID acceptable for voting. 5 minutes on the phone and a 5 dollar charge for her birth certificate and about 40 minutes and 5 dollars at the drivers license bureau. If she had been indigent, the ID would have been free. Your arguments are a joke. We live in a rural area BTW.

Oh right. Because it was so easy for your mother-in-law it MUST be easy for everyone! Now why didn't I think of that?

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to follow a simple two step process?

It is really patronising and racist, isn't it?
A Gallup poll in fact shows that more or less as many non whites support voter ID as whites. Most people seem to prefer the idea that fraud is kept to a minimum - even non whites!. Who'd a thunk it?!!!


Though many of the arguments for early voting and against voter ID laws frequently cite minorities' voting access, nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites. Seventy-seven percent of nonwhites favor both policies, while whites favor each at 81%.

Americans' Support for Election Law Policies, by Party
Do you favor or oppose each of the following election law policies? (% Favor)
Early voting Photo ID requirement Automatic voter registration
% % %
Republicans 74 95 51
Independents 80 83 58
Democrats 85 63


Four in Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Early Voting

 

[Ame®icano]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Right, it took a total of 45 minutes and 10 dollars to get my mother-in-law, who move here from out of state, an ID acceptable for voting. 5 minutes on the phone and a 5 dollar charge for her birth certificate and about 40 minutes and 5 dollars at the drivers license bureau. If she had been indigent, the ID would have been free. Your arguments are a joke. We live in a rural area BTW.

Oh right. Because it was so easy for your mother-in-law it MUST be easy for everyone! Now why didn't I think of that?

Are you saying minorities are too stupid to follow a simple two step process?

It is really patronising and racist, isn't it?
A Gallup poll in fact shows that more or less as many non whites support voter ID as whites. Most people seem to prefer the idea that fraud is kept to a minimum - even non whites!. Who'd a thunk it?!!!


Though many of the arguments for early voting and against voter ID laws frequently cite minorities' voting access, nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites. Seventy-seven percent of nonwhites favor both policies, while whites favor each at 81%.

Americans' Support for Election Law Policies, by Party
Do you favor or oppose each of the following election law policies? (% Favor)
Early voting Photo ID requirement Automatic voter registration
% % %
Republicans 74 95 51
Independents 80 83 58
Democrats 85 63


Four in Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Early Voting

With voter ID law, early voting also makes sense, since only eligible to vote can vote and can vote only once.

 

[OKTexas]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

No one ever said it didn't happen. It's just very rare and therefore doesn't matter. Again, you people didn't give two shits about this issue before repubs in office started whining over it in 2012.

You mean people are rarely caught, the way the system is set up, it encourages fraud, there are no meaningful ways to check citizenship and without ID you have no way to check if it is the person registered.

 

[Coyote]

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

You have to understand there is a difference between a college ID and a CCW permit. When I got my permit, they checked me out from the day I turned 18. I had to be electronically fingerprinted, I had to present two verifiable forms of ID. I had to bring my own photo from a place that makes them for passports. No other picture would be accepted.

The process for concealed carry permits varies according to state. In Texas, for example, convicted felons were getting permits due to the sloppyness of the procedure. In Alabama - the only ID you need is a photo ID. "Any other documents required vary depending on your county sheriff."

How is that ID any more valid than a student ID for voting?

The process for a student ID - in our state university, requires two forms of ID, including a photo ID such as a drivers license.

If people don't have a ride to get an ID, then how would they get a ride to vote? How do they go grocery shopping? How do they get to their doctors appointments? How do they cash their checks wherever they come from?

Each district has it's own polling place - they aren't that far away that transport can't be gotten most likely. I think there are laws regarding that - location, hours open, etc so as not to disenfranchise voters. Churches often bus voters to the polls for "Sunday voting" as well. But if you read any of the articles I linked to, you would see that is not the case for where they need to go to get an ID - which can be as far as 100 miles or more from their residence, and might only be open one day a month.

The situations you present are not valid, they are cheap excuses. They are reasons to fight to continue having such a fragile and weak means of voting where fraud can continue.

And there are reasons to fight against the disenfranchisement of an integral right for partisan purposes when there is little to no evidence of actual fraud.

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

 

[OKTexas]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all. What can I say, votes cast by dead people piss me off.

 

[Coyote]

What blows my mind about the voter fraud issue is that the RW didn't even care about this issue before repubs in office expressed faux outrage over it in the 2012 election. For some bizarre reason, USMB cons believe everything republicans in office tell them.

So what are these Republicans telling us?

Look......some of us here have presented multiple stories of voter fraud evidence. I have an entire folder of links. Voter fraud is real.

If you want to talk about what those in office tell us, it's your party that made this into a nonexistent racial thing when race was not even a subject. The reason Democrats do this is because race is such a sensitive issue and expect most to cave in on it.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with party. One law fits all. How much more fair can it be than that?

The problem of race is less that it's deliberately racist (other than trying to affect those who tend to vote democrat) then that it's effectively racist (in that those affected by the laws are disproportionately minorities).

One law fits all. Well, that's what the poll tax was, but it was struck down.

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

Only the ineligible and illegal, that's not regressive at all.

Nothing regressive in insisting that all eligible voters are able to vote either. So why are you throwing around "regressive regressive regressive"?

 

[Ame®icano]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

We trying so hard to prevent multiple votes being cast, and to prevent dead people, illegals and cartoon characters from voting.

 

[Coyote]

It doesn't effect all poor people the same because not all poor people have the same issues with ID's and birth certificates. As one article pointed out minorities are substantially more effected, and when you add in the fact that the ID's they are more likely to have, are not on that very narrow list of "acceptable" ID's - you compound the problem for those groups.

I got to give it to you - you guys did a hellacious job in trying to disenfranchise voters. This has been the most successful effort since the poll tax.

Really? Because Tilly posted some great articles about how states with Voter-ID's didn't see any disenfranchisement at all.

Yes really. Different laws in different states - the ones with the most restrictive laws (such as Texas and NC) were slammed by the courts. They also had the poorest educational and outreach efforts to try and assist people in getting id's and letting them know what ID's would work. One the worst things is that they also had the fewest number of acceptable ID's (and, amazingly - those were the types of state ID's largely used by Republicans and whites such as handgun permits and military ID's) - other forms of state ID (such as student ID's) were not allowed. Indiana's law seems to be working well - Indiana also did a lot of work to provide free ID's for people that didn't have then, to provide education and information well ahead, so that may have have helped.

But there are significant problems with older and poor people, especially minorities who might not have a birth certificate, for example - or the means to get to the places they might have to go in order to get the documentation or ID's if they don't have a car, live in a state where locations are open only a few days a month and are far away. They probably would just give up and not vote (which I think is what some desire).

I would have less of a problem with Voter ID if they were less restrictive in what was allowed for an ID, and if the cost was covered for the voter of any documentation and transportation needed to get that ID. If people can transport voters to polling places, they can do so for ID's.

So why are you regressives spending so much on lawyers trying to kill these laws, couldn't you put those same funds helping people get their IDs?

Why are you regressives trying so hard to prevent your opponents from voting?

We trying so hard to prevent multiple votes being cast, and to prevent dead people, illegals and cartoon characters from voting.

You're trying so hard for a mostly non-existent problem, meanwhile the fraud goes on.