Judge Blocks Pennsylvania Voter ID Law for November Election

Law • October 2012 • Views: 1,667

Philadelphia (CNN) — A Pennsylvania judge ruled Tuesday that state officials cannot enforce a new voter identification law in next month’s presidential election.

The ruling by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson is expected to be appealed, but amounted to good news for Democrats who contend the voter ID law is motivated by Republican efforts to suppress the traditionally Democratic minority vote.

“It’s a huge victory in that the photo ID requirement for the November election has been blocked and people without ID will be able to vote on regular ballots,” said Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania.

Recent Pages by Rightwingconspirator:
What Result Will There Be From the Trump Trial? Russia's New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case Against Right Wing Hacks About That Flood Warning for Los Angeles? Coastal Serenity

Jump to bottom

73 comments

cat-tikvah Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:37:02am

Finally, some common sense in the Commonwealth. Bare-faced lies will only get you so far, Corbett/Turzai et al.

Dustoff848 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:42:45am

I've had to show an ID in order to vote in every town, state, and national election for the last 30 years. So does everyone around me. Nobody complains because it's just accepted that you have to prove who you are before you cast your vote in town. Other states do too. Why is that such a horrible thing for everyone to have to do? It might cause some consternation the first year, but eventually people will accept it and just get the ID required if they want to vote. This uproar is crazy. Change is sometimes scary but it needs to be embraced.

wrenchwench Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:45:43am

re: #2 Dustoff848

This is a voter suppression tactic and it does not need to be embraced, especially if a court says it doesn't.

Dustoff848 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:49:20am

9re: #3 wrenchwench

Funny, the people in my state (and all the other states that require ID) don't see it as a 'voter suppression' tactic. I have to show an ID to cash a check or use my credit card....is that a "consumer suppression" tactic?

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:54:02am

I still maintain we have uncovered an unacknowledged problem-Everyone needs ID for many reasons. Maybe one of the most important reasons is ordinary banking so a poor person is not subject to further penalty at check cashing places. You can't get into court without ID. How do you see the clerk to pay?

Access to banking is a critical need for just about any one of us. Just try to open an account without ID.

This of course de-fangs the suppression effort.

So what's the downside of getting ID to all adults again?

nines09 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:54:06am

re: #2 Dustoff848

I did too. It's called a voter registration card in Pennsylvania. Now it's not good enough? The intent and timing of the law is the entire point. Can you see that the state has botched the bill? Can you see where an unfair burden was placed on the poorer and students and those with lack of rides or help? Can you see what the intent is?

aagcobb Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:55:46am

re: #2 Dustoff848

Change is sometimes scary but it needs to be embraced.

Why? The evidence clearly shows that the voter fraud it is supposedly going to prevent doesn't exist. The purpose is to create a hurdle to jump over which will dissuade easily discouraged voters from voting.

aagcobb Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:00:03am

re: #4 Dustoff848

9

Funny, the people in my state (and all the other states that require ID) don't see it as a 'voter suppression' tactic. I have to show an ID to cash a check or use my credit card....is that a "consumer suppression" tactic?

People have an incentive to cash stolen checks or use stolen credit cards. There is no incentive to vote pretending to be someone else; its an incredibly risky and inefficient method of voter fraud, and there is no evidence it happens.

Dustoff848 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:01:32am

re: #6 nines09

The intent and timing of the law is the entire point. Can you see that the state has botched the bill? Can you see where an unfair burden was placed on the poorer and students and those with lack of rides or help? Can you see what the intent is?

So, enact the law the day AFTER the elections. Would that be ok then? If it's all about the timing then remove that from the equation. I just don't have any issue with having to prove who you are before they cross off your name and you step into the voting booth.

nines09 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:12:36am

re: #9 Dustoff848

Why don't they just figure out how to do it properly and without charging money and getting everyone who wants one on board? This way is evidently biased. Funny, now the GOP wants a State ID.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:15:41am

Tea party cat says it best

Fox News headline: "Judge in Pennsylvania says voter fraud OK when blacks do it"
— Top Conservative Cat (@TeaPartyCat) October 2, 2012

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:29:26am

re: #11 alinuxguru

I take it you oppose getting ID out to the poor and minorities that could use it? Or did you mistakenly conflate fixing this ID problem with attempts to suppress votes?

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:32:56am

re: #5 Daniel Ballard

I still maintain we have uncovered an unacknowledged problem

We should first adress the greater threat of leash laws for Unicorns. What kind of world do we live in where Unicorns go around pooping on public roads?

Dustoff848 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:34:40am

re: #13 alinuxguru

We should first adress the greater threat of leash laws for Unicorns. What kind of world do we live in where Unicorns go around pooping on public roads?

Great comeback. That's the way to advance the discussion.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:38:38am

re: #14 Dustoff848

Great comeback. That's the way to advance the discussion.

When you come up with a relevant argument to deny people their constitutional right to vote, I will respond. To advance the discussion, you must first begin it.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:39:37am

re: #12 Daniel Ballard

I take it you oppose getting ID out to the poor and minorities that could use it? Or did you mistakenly conflate fixing this ID problem with attempts to suppress votes?

I am sorry, but did you conflate check cashing with voter suppression?

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:43:08am

re: #16 alinuxguru

I am sorry, but did you conflate check cashing with voter suppression?

Okay so please explain how getting ID out to the poor where this ruling has now protected their ability to vote is a bad thing.

MichaelJ Tue, Oct 2, 2012 11:45:22am

re: #17 Daniel Ballard

Getting ID's to people who need them is a good thing. However, trying to make people get ID's to vote in a crucial election immediately prior to the election is nothing but voter suppression. As nines09 said, the timing and intent are obvious. This wasn't a humanitarian measure aiming to help poor people out. It was an attempt to put a speed bump in front of the voting booth.

blueraven Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:00:55pm

re: #5 Daniel Ballard

I still maintain we have uncovered an unacknowledged problem-Everyone needs ID for many reasons. Maybe one of the most important reasons is ordinary banking so a poor person is not subject to further penalty at check cashing places. You can't get into court without ID. How do you see the clerk to pay?

Access to banking is a critical need for just about any one of us. Just try to open an account without ID.

This of course de-fangs the suppression effort.

So what's the downside of getting ID to all adults again?

The problem is the process.
If we want to require a voter ID then make it for 5 years out...not just before a big national election. Do it right, make it fair.
Also, cashing a check is not a constitutional right, voting is.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:09:26pm

re: #5 Daniel Ballard

I still maintain we have uncovered an unacknowledged problem-Everyone needs ID for many reasons.

Many people do not need an ID for any reason. If I didn't go out and have a drink out every once in awhile, I would not need an ID.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:10:04pm

re: #19 blueraven

I agree with you but many seem to think we can ignore the every day problem those without ID face. Check cashing may not be a constitutional right but the right to cash your paycheck or assistance is protected and obviously essential.

They vote maybe once every two years. Paychecks and assistance comes at least monthly. What is more important in their daily lives? Cashing the check.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:12:04pm

re: #12 Daniel Ballard

I take it you oppose getting ID out to the poor and minorities that could use it?

Why would you take that?

Or did you mistakenly conflate fixing this ID problem with attempts to suppress votes?

There isn't a widespread lack of ID problem. The majority of people who don't have an ID are ones who don't need to use IDs.

It might or might not be a good idea to have a national ID system. Probably a good one. But we're really far away from that right now, and what you're doing, in my view, is falsely conflating honest attempts to sort out the tangle of IDs with the reality of voter ID laws, which are very obviously politically aimed at voter suppression.

If we want to do a national ID program, I can support that. As a benefit, we can then require IDs to vote because everyone will have one. As long as they're free, of course.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:12:48pm

re: #21 Daniel Ballard

I agree with you but many seem to think we can ignore the every day problem those without ID face. Check cashing may not be a constitutional right but the right to cash your paycheck or assistance is protected and obviously essential.

They vote maybe once every two years. Paychecks and assistance comes at least monthly. What is more important in their daily lives? Cashing the check.

Your concern for the 47% is duly noted. But, how is the party that putatively encourages deregulation reconcile forcing all citizens to undergo additional, unneccessary regulations?

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:13:23pm

re: #20 Obdicut
I don't want national ID. State ID is sufficient. I already have international ID, my Passport. Many do.
Try opening a bank account or entering an LA courthouse without ID. If places where you shop don't ask to see your ID matching your plastic or your check you are more subject to crime. Where might we need ID? Let's take a look.

Grocery stores ( if you are using Credit Card )
Gas stations (when you are buying anything using Credit card)
Liquor store.( Even if you do not buy and accompany with others)
Dance Clubs and Bars
Mail pick up from FedEx, UPS or any others
Public Library (for getting library Card )
Casino (even if you do not play)
Banks ( if you want to withdraw money or check balance)
Airport
Any stores where you buy using Credit Card.
Fast Food places (if you use credit card)
Restaurants (if you use credit card)
Any corporate offices ( if you are visiting anyone, for Visitor ID)
Coffee shops ( if you use credit card)
Renting anything for outdoor Jet Skis, Boats, Canoe, etc
Car Rentals ( You need Driver’s license for sure)
Any theme parks like Disney, etc for rentals
Any outdoor activity like Sky diving, Bunge Jumping, etc

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:16:39pm

re: #24 Daniel Ballard

Try opening a bank account or entering an LA courthouse without ID.

This is a strawman. Many people-- like the elderly-- do not need to open bank accounts, they've had the same one for thirty years. Again: I could get along perfectly fine without an ID if I didn't go out to bars. And, given my age, I can basically skip that too. So please, actually listen: I do not need ID for anything important in my daily life. Deal with this reality.

Where might we need ID? Let's take a look.

Yes. You might. But you also might not. And the vast majority of restaurants, fast food places, stores, etc. do not require ID when using a credit card.

Obviously, most people need IDs, so they have them. But a significant number of people do not need to have IDs. It is not going to change because you list ways that IDs are useful. They don't actually need them.

And again, the reality of the political situation is that Voter ID laws are explicitly political attempts at voter suppression, usually done on the pretext of in-person voter fraud which is basically non-existent.

If you want to start a campaign for national ID, I will support you. That campaign has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with voter ID laws. National ID should come first, then we can require IDs to vote.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:18:01pm

re: #22 Obdicut

Can you explain to me why a two pronged attack on ID caused suppression is a bad thing? Attack the law and help these people every other year with ID. Big deal. Whopee.

Get them ID and you help them far more often. At least monthly more likely daily.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:19:08pm

re: #25 Obdicut

Why must ID be national? That has constitutional challenges likely nay, certain. Why not state ID? I don't get it.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:19:31pm

re: #26 Daniel Ballard

Can you explain to me why a two pronged attack on ID caused suppression is a bad thing?

I don't understand this sentence. Did you mistype it?

Attack the law and help these people every other year with ID. Big deal. Whopee.

Again, I don't understand what you're saying. This doesn't really read like english. What law?

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:20:02pm

re: #25 Obdicut

Why trap older people at their existing bank? What happens when that bank is not right for them and a change is desired?

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:20:39pm

re: #27 Daniel Ballard

Why must ID be national? That has constitutional challenges likely nay, certain. Why not state ID? I don't get it.

Um, okay, I thought you were pushing for a cohesive ID system. I'm wrong. Apparently, you're pushing for individual campaigns in every state to get ID to their citizens.

I'll support that too. And once we've gotten people that free ID, and made sure that people like the elderly and the working poor for whom it's a big hassle to get are helped in getting them, we can require ID to vote.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:20:46pm

re: #28 Obdicut

Prong 1 Attack the suppression based laws.
Prong 2 Get ID out to those who lack it.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:21:29pm

re: #29 Daniel Ballard

Why trap older people at their existing bank? What happens when that bank is not right for them and a change is desired?

Then they'd go and get an ID and then get a new bank account. I'm really not getting your argument here. You're arguing that there's lots of people who really want IDs who don't have them. I'm pointing out that there are people who choose to not have an ID. Do you just not believe that?

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:23:28pm

re: #31 Daniel Ballard

Prong 1 Attack the suppression based laws.
Prong 2 Get ID out to those who lack it.

Okay, well, that's exactly what I'm doing. All the current voter ID laws are supression laws. And I support efforts to get IDs out to those who want them.

What I don't get is why you asked:

So what's the downside of getting ID to all adults again?

Because nobody has said there is any downside to that.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:24:09pm

re: #32 Obdicut

I think that is a very rare instance, so much so as to be a red herring in this matter.

RemainCalm Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:25:23pm

Before getting a ballot, registered voters have already had their identity confirmed by voter registration, and must affirm by signature on an affidavit as binding as being sworn in court (no photo ID required there) that that they are eligible to vote and they are who they say they are. This is the United States, where our word is our honor, and almost every single voter in the past ten years has been a trustworthy signatory of the ballot affidavit. The instances of fraud that this law purports to avoid have been virtually nonexistent: maybe a dozen instances in the past ten years nationwide. In tyranny the citizens meekly submit to "papers, please" when government demands it, giving up their honor. Only those who allow tyranny to develop through inaction, or those who profit from tyranny, would support these laws that exist specifically to discourage certain populations from voting so the people in power get to stay in power.
Few people who support these new voter ID laws would also allow government officials to enter their home at will to check their IDs to make sure they are not harboring wanted felons. But the chance of harboring fugitive felons is many dozens of times higher than the chance of voter ID fraud being perpetrated. We must balance alleged fraud prevention with "innocent until proven guilty." Photo ID is often required in financial transactions to prevent fraud, when a criminal might collect property that by rights belongs to somebody else. But unlike with alleged voter ID infractions, we have countless instances of financial fraud happening, and reasonable precautions to prevent such crimes are a legitimate government function, whereas voter ID fraud happens, well, pretty much never.

The Constitution guarantees the right to vote, which is not constitutionally subject to any personal expenses for traveling to poorly-operated motor vehicle offices to wait in line during a workday to get a photo ID.
When we compare the number of times somebody has perpetrated voter ID fraud to the number of times votes are cast legitimately, we find that this is a solution in search of a problem, even if we pretend there is no blatant political manipulation in play. And we KNOW there is blatant political manipulation in play because Republican Party leaders have admitted it and the populations affected by these new unnecessary requirements are heavily dominated by likely non-Republican voters. We must always protect the right of all citizens to vote, even when we disagree with their ideology or their decision-making, or we risk allowing some future power mongers preventing us from voting because they disagree with our ideas, regardless of how intelligent or logical we know our ideas may be. It’s dishonorable for a political gang to use their power to stay in power by making voting more difficult for those who don’t agree with them. The right-wingers can’t survive by promoting the merits of their positions in the modern world, because their positions are inadequately popular with more and more voters every day, so they resort to manipulating the electorate.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:25:35pm

re: #34 Daniel Ballard

As opposed to your entire argument? Why must we create new, coercive regulations to fix a problem that does not actually exist?

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:26:18pm

re: #34 Daniel Ballard

I think that is a very rare instance, so much so as to be a red herring in this matter.

But it's not. Many students don't need to have an ID until they're 21, for example-- their student ID is all they need, they got a bank account set up with mom and dad.

Many elderly don't need them-- they have their various IDs for health care etc, don't drive, have established all their financial stuff.

And again: if I didn't drink, I wouldn't need one.

It's not in the least bit a red herring.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:27:12pm

re: #36 alinuxguru

You are not really following what I said. You are too upset at anything that could be stretched to resemble support for any kind of voter ID law NOT just the kind designed to disenfranchise.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:28:04pm

re: #38 Daniel Ballard

You are not really following what I said. You are too upset at anything that could be stretched to resemble support for any kind of voter ID law NOT just the kind designed to disenfranchise.

This logical fallacy is called "Attacking the messenger".

I will say again: "Why must we create new, coercive regulations to fix a problem that does not actually exist?"

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:29:22pm

re: #38 Daniel Ballard

He seems to be following what you said perfectly fine, to me.

Let's say that we did get ID to everyone in the country. Great job, right? Now all those people have ID, so they can open bank accounts, shop at supermarkets, etc.

There is still no actual reason to require ID to vote, because in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare. The real problems with voter fraud lie in absentee-ballots and abuse by officials.

This is what I meant when I said you're falsely conflating getting people ID with requiring it to vote.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:33:35pm

re: #39 alinuxguru
re: #40 Obdicut

You may recall the year 2000 and the HAVA legislation that followed. Close elections make this kind of thing necessary.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:37:09pm

I'd like to remind some here what I said to start with in #5-The voter ID issue has uncovered a population in need of a simple document to improve their lives, that would also thwart suppression efforts based on ID.

Win Win.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:37:48pm

re: #41 Daniel Ballard

So now we are back where we started from. Voting is a Constitutional Right. And we don't want it diluted by minorities voting.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:40:08pm

re: #42 Daniel Ballard

I'd like to remind some here what I said to start with in #5-The voter ID issue has uncovered a population in need of a simple document to improve their lives,

But it hasn't. This is your assertion. You haven't actually proved that that population is in need of that document. And you're resisting people giving you logical reasons why that population doesn't actually need that ID.

that would also thwart suppression efforts based on ID.

Sure. That is why nobody here is actually against getting IDs out to those who don't have them. You, for some reason, are pretending people are against that. What people are against, at most, is requiring ID to vote.

Nobody, at all, has taken the position you're arguing against. Nobody is against attempts to get IDs out to those who don't have them.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:42:28pm

re: #42 Daniel Ballard

However, you can't force people to get an ID if they don't want one. Unless you're suggesting criminalizing not having an ID.

wrenchwench Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:43:02pm

re: #42 Daniel Ballard

I'd like to remind some here what I said to start with in #5-The voter ID issue has uncovered a population in need of a simple document to improve their lives, that would also thwart suppression efforts based on ID.

Win Win.

My favorite way to thwart voter suppression measures is to have them declared unconstitutional.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:43:24pm

re: #46 wrenchwench

My favorite way to thwart voter suppression measures is to have them declared unconstitutional.

Well, I have good news!

Heh.

wrenchwench Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:45:43pm

To thwart something by accommodating it doesn't make any sense to me.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:47:29pm

re: #43 alinuxguru

So now we are back where we started from. Voting is a Constitutional Right. And we don't want it diluted by minorities voting.

You just implied I'm a racist. Now I have a choice. I can ignore that insult or reply. Since my blogging style is to avoid the flame wars as simply immature and pointless and I respect keeping peace in CJ's blog I'm just going to understand how unfounded your accusations are and go on with my day.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:49:36pm

re: #43 alinuxguru

So now we are back where we started from. Voting is a Constitutional Right. And we don't want it diluted by minorities voting.

That was dumb. Nothing he said in the least amounted to not wanting minorities voting.

His logic is bad, his argument is just an assertion, and he's not actually listening to any counterarguments, but there is no cause to imply racism.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:50:41pm

re: #49 Daniel Ballard

This is actually pretty hypocritical of you, though, given your previous accusation that someone was against getting IDs out to minorities, dude. That was shitty too.

alinuxguru Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:50:42pm

re: #49 Daniel Ballard

You have proferred no evidence that onerous, coercive regulations requiring voter ids provide any public good in and of itself. You then conflate ids with the right to vote. After this, you interject an equally conflated argument about HAVA laws that were used to improve voter quality with voter id laws.

In short -- you have failed to make a cogent argument to your central thesis.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:12:54pm

re: #51 Obdicut

This is actually pretty hypocritical of you, though, given your previous accusation that someone was against getting IDs out to minorities, dude. That was shitty too.

Actually I asked the obvious either or question. There are some who put the politics of this above the obvious advantage of getting ID out. Questions sort out who thinks what, and that was in response to an undeserved -1.

nines09 Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:14:46pm

re: #52 alinuxguru

My other point entirely. The intent is blatantly biased. Period. Outside of that, if the state wants to "properly" ID voters, let them provide a free and easy way to do so.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:14:46pm

re: #53 Daniel Ballard

Actually I asked the obvious either or question.

No, you didn't. There was no reason at all to even begin to think he was against getting IDs out to minorities. It was just as much bullshit as what he pulled on you. I'm happy to defend you from bullshit attacks, but I'm going to call you on yours, too.

andres Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:44:10pm

re: #5 Daniel Ballard

I still maintain we have uncovered an unacknowledged problem-Everyone needs ID for many reasons. Maybe one of the most important reasons is ordinary banking so a poor person is not subject to further penalty at check cashing places. You can't get into court without ID. How do you see the clerk to pay?

Access to banking is a critical need for just about any one of us. Just try to open an account without ID.

This of course de-fangs the suppression effort.

So what's the downside of getting ID to all adults again?

Some people don't like a national ID.

re: #27 Daniel Ballard

Why must ID be national? That has constitutional challenges likely nay, certain. Why not state ID? I don't get it.

Mainly, because a lot more people move between states than ever before. And while a State ID might be "desirable" by some, it creates the logistic problem of how to handle out-of-state IDs.

gwangung Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:21:41pm

re: #38 Daniel Ballard

You are not really following what I said. You are too upset at anything that could be stretched to resemble support for any kind of voter ID law NOT just the kind designed to disenfranchise.

How condescending. And you clearly are not listening yourself.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:31:26pm

re: #56 andres

What problem? Out of state licenses are already accepted to drive with. Why not just accept them as ID too?

wrenchwench Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:33:33pm

re: #58 Daniel Ballard

What problem? Out of state licenses are already accepted to drive with. Why not just accept them as ID too?

New Mexico grants driver's licenses to undocumented people. California is going to too, I think.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:47:09pm

re: #57 gwangung

It's an argument. Sorry you don't like the tone but these discussions can go that way sometimes. I freely admit I should have sarc tagged the first question in my #5, to better draw out alinuxguru into discussion about the -1. BTW the only ding I object to the rest AFAIK are the more customary ways some disagree with me on the topic.

Condescending? I don't see it but opinions vary. Keep in mind where i started with this-Voter ID has unearthed a problem worth addressing. I point out a side benefit of that solution. And just that got me down-dinged and in the end accused of racism. I object because alinuxguru lumped me in where I have not gone, have opposed and explained many times over.

HAVA is a legislative fact. Close elections are a fact of life. Partisan illegalities are too. I attempt to deal with all those facts in and among real suppression efforts. Talking up a different way of thwarting those efforts ought not to be treated as supporting vote suppression. Neither accurate nor fair at that point.

Obviously on this point I feel very differently than many here. That's gonna happen sometimes, I'm not one to just post in agreement.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:54:05pm

re: #60 Daniel Ballard

You haven't actually made an argument.

You've pretended that people are against people being given IDs. Nobody was arguing against that.

You've asserted there's a population of people who really need ID but don't have it. You've refused to engage with the idea that there's people who don't need ID-- like under-21 students, the elderly, or those who don't drive and don't drink.

And most of all, you've brought up the completely unrelated idea of making sure everyone has ID in response to hostility towards Voter ID laws. The two subjects are only tangentially related: if we had universal ID, then there'd be less reason to kick about ID requirements (and, incidentally, the GOP wouldn't be trying to pass the laws, since there'd be no point, as it wouldn't disenfranchise as many people). But that still doesn't mean that requiring ID to vote wouldn't be stupid and pointless, since in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:55:18pm

re: #59 wrenchwench

Well they don't vote much, so hopefully states will just accept the driving credential as ID and permission to drive.

Which brings up Dornan V Sanchez, where 624 votes were found to have been cast by undocumented aliens, but not enough to overturn the election. Real voter fraud proven out after an investigation. Dornan lost by 979 votes.

How might that kind of illegal vote best be prevented in the future? We can see it was close enough to almost make the difference.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 2:59:48pm

re: #62 Daniel Ballard

How might that kind of illegal vote best be prevented in the future? We can see it was close enough to almost make the difference.

Why do you take that case as typical? Why do you ignore the many, many investigations that have found vanishingly small rates of voter fraud?

The best way to prevent non-citizens from voting is to prevent them from registering, which is about being scrupulous about upkeep on the voter registration rolls.

I'm not sure how voter ID would have prevented these people from voting, if that's your suggestion.

Daniel Ballard Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:02:12pm

re: #61 The Toast Of God Fload Jeas

You haven't actually made an argument.

You've pretended that people are against people being given IDs. Nobody was arguing against that.

You've asserted there's a population of people who really need ID but don't have it. You've refused to engage with the idea that there's people who don't need ID-- like under-21 students, the elderly, or those who don't drive and don't drink.

And most of all, you've brought up the completely unrelated idea of making sure everyone has ID in response to hostility towards Voter ID laws. The two subjects are only tangentially related: if we had universal ID, then there'd be less reason to kick about ID requirements (and, incidentally, the GOP wouldn't be trying to pass the laws, since there'd be no point, as it wouldn't disenfranchise as many people). But that still doesn't mean that requiring ID to vote wouldn't be stupid and pointless, since in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare.

The opponents of suppression motivated voter ID made the assertion that there is a population that lacks ID and the long list of places and procedures that require ID establishes the need. You described that as originating with me in your first paragraph.

I asked a sarcastic question is response to a ding that I objected to. Missed that sarc tag. My bad.

Now as to your "completely unrelated". That's the real point where I disagree. This ID argument shows something well worth fixing IMO. We disagree over that necessity.

My network is about to go down as we add a firewall. bye for now.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:05:14pm

re: #64 Daniel Ballard

The opponents of suppression motivated voter ID made the assertion that there is a population that lacks ID and the long list of places and procedures that require ID establishes the need. You described that as originating with me in your first paragraph.

No, it does not establish the need. Why the fuck do you completely dodge the populations that I gave you-- the elderly, the students-- who do not need ID? This is reality. You really need to deal with it. Calling it a red herring and dismissing it is foolish.

Now as to your "completely unrelated". That's the real point where I disagree. This ID argument shows something well worth fixing IMO. We disagree over that necessity.

The two things are completely independent. In person voter fraud is astonishingly rare. It makes only a very little more sense to require ID to vote if we have everyone with an ID than it does now. There is still no actual problem to be solved.

garhighway Tue, Oct 2, 2012 4:22:06pm

So let's review:

1/ The voter ID laws have nothing to do with helping people who need ID get it.
2/ They have everything to do with trying to suppress voter turnout in Democratic-leaning constituencies (the poor, elderly and students).
3/ They solve no known problem, as the sort of voter fraud they are designed to remedy is extraordinarily rare.

So what are we arguing about?

andres Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:07:50pm

re: #58 Daniel Ballard

What problem? Out of state licenses are already accepted to drive with. Why not just accept them as ID too?

Sorry for the late reply, but it tends to happen that certain things from one state might not be recognize in another. I.E. Marriage and Civil Unions.

garhighway Wed, Oct 3, 2012 3:35:42am

re: #58 Daniel Ballard

What problem? Out of state licenses are already accepted to drive with. Why not just accept them as ID too?

You are missing the point. The people writing these laws don't want to reach reasonable outcomes. That's why (for example) student IDs are unacceptable under these laws. It isn't about seeing that people have IDs. It's about using their (understandable) lack of an ID as a pretext to keep them from the polls.

wrenchwench Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:27:28am

re: #62 Daniel Ballard

Well they don't vote much, so hopefully states will just accept the driving credential as ID and permission to drive.

Which brings up Dornan V Sanchez, where 624 votes were found to have been cast by undocumented aliens, but not enough to overturn the election. Real voter fraud proven out after an investigation. Dornan lost by 979 votes.

How might that kind of illegal vote best be prevented in the future? We can see it was close enough to almost make the difference.

Arizona does not accept a New Mexico driver's license as ID when they say "Papers, please". They will accept a passport.

Daniel Ballard Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:37:06pm

re: #68 garhighway

And I made the grave error of suggesting an additional way to fight that. You can look up thread and see how that awful thought was actually received. When additional measures that in no way preclude legal challenges to a states ID law something is wrong with the prevailing wisdom.

Daniel Ballard Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:50:56pm

re: #69 wrenchwench

Arizona does not accept a New Mexico driver's license as ID when they say "Papers, please". They will accept a passport.

Two things come to mind there. Arizona needs to accept NM ID period. That having been pointed out in order of priority-we should recognize border states face some extra problems to face every day with illegal immigration, smuggling and exploitation of undocumented immigrants.

garhighway Wed, Oct 3, 2012 3:20:24pm

re: #70 Daniel Ballard

And I made the grave error of suggesting an additional way to fight that. You can look up thread and see how that awful thought was actually received. When additional measures that in no way preclude legal challenges to a states ID law something is wrong with the prevailing wisdom.

I'm unclear on something. When you say "an additional way to fight that"' what do you mean? An additional way to fight what? The purpose of the law we were discussing is to disenfranchise voters. What it fights is Democratic turnout. It doesn't do anything else.

That may explain the confusion, as you talk about the current law as if it were about getting people IDs and you are proposing helpful modifications to it (and therefore sounding like a little bit of an apologist for the voter ID statute).

That may explain the intensity of the response to your earlier posts. But that's a guess.

Daniel Ballard Thu, Oct 4, 2012 1:45:44pm

re: #72 garhighway

One way to fight this is fight the Voter ID law. An additional way is get ID out.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!