Voter ID controversy

[Razgovory]

Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people.  You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.

As to the incidents where there are small numbers of confirmed or suspected voter fraud-- some elections are close enough to be determined by a handful of votes, and those are the ones that can be adversely affected by voter fraud.  I'll freely admit that voter fraud is probably not a decisive problem in elections where there is a sizable margin of victory (i.e., most).  But that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored altogether.

Actually it is something that should be ignored.  A few people get struck by lightning every year.  That doesn't mean we should make illegal to be outside while there is a thunderstorm.  Most cases of voter fraud have been felons or people on parole voting (something without knowing what they did was illegal), not some nefarious conspiracy to throw elections.  Voter fraud convictions are very, very rare.  Missouri hasn't had someone convicted of voter fraud  since the 1930's.  In short there is no major problem that needs to be addressed. 

[derspiess]

I was gonna add a Breitbart article just for you, Razz.

[Sheilbh]

I get the part about not many documented instances of voter fraud, but I don't get the many, many people who will be unable to vote because of voter ID laws.

Does it need to be many, many people?  How many voters should acceptably not be able to vote, to stop the very, very few documented instances (according to academic studies between 0.00004 and 0.0009%) of voter fraud?

As the Economist put it, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.  Ironically I think it's actually energised the Democrats more than anything else this election.

Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people.  You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.

I disagree.  I think your mindset on this is a wee bit conspiratorial.  There's no real evidence that this is a problem, there's no evidence of any election swung by it - but that in itself is almost a proof that it is a problem because of how difficult it is to detect voter fraud.  And so it goes.  No evidence about how rare and inconsequential it is is enough.

[Admiral Yi]

Does it need to be many, many people?

People opposed like Berkut and Seedy seem to think it has some relevance.

How many voters should acceptably not be able to vote, to stop the very, very few documented instances (according to academic studies between 0.00004 and 0.0009%) of voter fraud?

But that's not the question.  The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances.  After all, the documented ones have already been caught.

I could understand the rage if voters were required to correctly pronounce "library" before voting, or to swim, but we're talking about getting an ID card.

[Sheilbh]

But that's not the question.  The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances.  After all, the documented ones have already been caught.

Why should the state be forcing people to get IDs to exercise their basic rights?  That to me is not worth solving a problem that doesn't exist.  It is literally a cost, as well, that the state must provide those IDs either for free - with all of the bureaucracy that goes with it - or they pass the cost onto voters - which I think is fundamentally wrong.

As I say, my position on ID is different if you've already got a compulsory ID system as much of Europe does.  Because the fundamentals are the same - beyond registering (which should have ID requirements, obviously) there is no further steps a voter needs to take to vote.  They go about their daily lives and voting is integrated into that.  If they're in Europe they just turn up with their ID, if they're in the UK they don't have one, so they just turn up.

[Admiral Yi]

Why should the state be forcing people to get IDs to exercise their basic rights?  That to me is not worth solving a problem that doesn't exist.  It is literally a cost, as well, that the state must provide those IDs either for free - with all of the bureaucracy that goes with it - or they pass the cost onto voters - which I think is fundamentally wrong.

The same reason the state forces people to register, or to show proof of residence when they register: to make sure only people who are authorized to vote, vote, and only one time.

Do you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?

[Razgovory]

But that's not the question.  The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances.  After all, the documented ones have already been caught.

I could understand the rage if voters were required to correctly pronounce "library" before voting, or to swim, but we're talking about getting an ID card.

That's an absurd question.  No law will stop all instances of voter impersonation.  There will always be someone who breaks the law and any law that requires a person to pay some money (even if it's only five bucks), is unconstitutional.

[Berkut]

The issue is not the cost in dollars, it is the cost in repressed voter turnout targeted at specific elements of the population.

It is funny to see Yi kind of dance around the issue - he knows as well as me or DG that the point of this entire thing has nothing to do with keeping people who should not be voting from voting, but keeping people who won't vote in a certain manner from voting.

[merithyn]

Do you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?

It's more than a $5 card. It's time off from work in order to go to the DMV. Last time I went in to get a duplicate ID, it took me four hours, since I don't have a car and had to take public transportation and there was a long line (which is the norm, not unusual). Since I don't get paid for that time off, it cost me half a day's pay, plus the aggravation of my co-workers and employer. I was lucky in that my boss understood and allowed me the time off. Not everyone has such an understanding boss. Since the hours are limited to primarily business hours and Saturday mornings, it could be a major problem getting in for most people.

[Sheilbh]

The same reason the state forces people to register, or to show proof of residence when they register: to make sure only people who are authorized to vote, vote, and only one time.

But as I said last time why do they need to prove that they are who they say they are twice?  I think extra hassle and cost can be justified if there's a problem - as there isn't any evidence whatsoever that this is a problem, I don't think it's worth that. 

In addition the facts suggests these laws disproportionately benefits one party and they're pushing this issue.  I'm not convinced it's with the best of intentions.

Do you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?

First of all Meri's right.  In the lives of voters, exercising that right shouldn't be a hassle.  The state shouldn't be placing obstacles and making it difficult.  It's not just people who don't have ID, but the guy who decides to vote on the way to work and realises he forgot his ID.  Why should he have to make multiple trips?  Or the person who brought the wrong type of ID?

Second, there is a cost argument.  A $5 ID card is being massively subsidised by the state.  That isn't an irrelevant issue when states are going through austerity and cutting spending.  They should prioritise and in my view they should prioritise

[CountDeMoney]

Another one put off until 2013.

South Carolina voter ID law upheld by Federal court

WASHINGTON (AP) — A panel of three federal judges upheld a South Carolina law requiring voters to show photo identification, but delayed enforcement until next year, in a decision announced Wednesday, less than a month before this year's presidential election.

In a unanimous ruling, the judges said there was no discriminatory intent behind the law, ruling that it would not diminish African-Americans' voting rights because people who face a "reasonable impediment" to getting an acceptable photo ID can still vote if they sign an affidavit.

The judge declined to let the law take effect immediately, "given the short time left before the 2012 elections and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law ... and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory" effects.

South Carolina voters who now lack the proper photo ID are disproportionately African-American, so proper and smooth functioning of the law "would be vital to avoid unlawfully racially discriminatory effects," according to the decision, written by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "There is too much of a risk to African-American voters for us to roll the dice," he said.

South Carolina is one of 16 states, mostly in the South, where election laws are subject to Justice Department approval under the federal Voting Rights Act because of a history of discrimination. South Carolina's was the first law to be refused federal OK in nearly 20 years, which led state officials to challenge that decision in federal court.

The state's Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the law through last year despite heavy opposition from African-American lawmakers. GOP Gov. Nikki Haley signed it last December.

Voter ID laws and other restrictions on voting became priority issues in mostly Republican legislatures and for governors after the 2008 elections. Opponents have described them as responses to the record turnouts of minorities and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that helped put Barack Obama, the first African-American president, in the White House.

Such laws have become a critical issue in this year's election because of the tight presidential race between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Supporters have pitched these laws as necessary to deter voter fraud, although very few cases of impersonation have been found.

Officials from South Carolina could not cite a single case of such fraud during the trial, but they said the law would help enhance public confidence in the election system and prevent other types of fraud.

South Carolina's law requires voters to show a driver's license or other photo identification issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, or a passport, military photo identification or a voter registration card with a photo.

The other judges in the case were Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in Washington.

Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Bates and Kavanaugh were appointed by President George W. Bush.

[CountDeMoney]

Stay classy, Ohio!

Ohio voter fraud billboards will stay



Clear Channel, the outdoor advertising giant, said Friday that it was a mistake to sell space on dozens of Cleveland and Columbus billboards warning that "voter fraud is a felony" — many in African American neighborhoods — to an anonymous foundation.

But the company also said it has no plans to take the ads down.

Civil rights and labor groups have denounced the billboards, which also feature a giant judge's gavel and a warning of "up to 3 1/2 years and a $10,000 fine," as an attempt to intimidate minority voters. The ads are appearing in Milwaukee as well, according to Clear Channel.

The purchaser of the space remains anonymous, described at the bottom of the ads only as a "Private Family Foundation."

Jim Cullinan, vice president of marketing and communications for Clear Channel Outdoor, said that if the ad is accurate and is not "an attack ad," the company will sell the space. He added that Clear Channel usually requires that ads have the name of the purchaser at the bottom.

"Honestly it was a mistake of the specific sales person who agreed to that," Cullinan said. "But once we put them up and signed a contract, we had to live with the anonymity. We understand there's people upset. We're working with the community."

Ohio has long been a battleground for legal disputes over election issues such as early voting and provisional ballots. Secretary of State Jon Husted and Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, have been accused of pursuing policies and regulations designed to suppress black votes.

Mike Gillis, communications director for the Ohio AFL-CIO, said the location of the ads is "clearly by design."

"They're really designed to scare people," he said.

In a statement, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker and Ohio AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Pierrette "Petee" Talley called on Clear Channel to pull the ads.

"Every election year we see offensive, underhanded tactics by groups who don't want everyone to have access to the voting booth," they said. "This year, intimidating billboards that point out voter fraud are appearing in predominantly African American communities in Ohio, despite little to no evidence that voter fraud exists. ... We urge Clear Channel to remove these billboards and replace them with information that will help voters exercise their fundamental right to vote in this year's critical election."

According to wiki:

Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American mass media company, that is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, the company was taken private by Bain Capital, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners in a leveraged buyout in 2008; as a result, the company now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of CC Media Holdings, Inc..[5][6]

[Ed Anger]

Mike DeWine is my huckleberry.