….to fisk a NY Times …

“Vote early and vote often!”

You’re being just a little presumptious and condescending, don’t you think? Just who are these “lower-class voters” that you so fervently want to protect? Why do you suppose that showing an ID is any more burdensome to them than to any of us? Do you have a political bias maybe that motivates your opinion?

You seem to be up on your stats, so I wonder if you can tell me how many times between 2002-2006 a legitimate voter has been denied the opportunity to vote because of restrictive requirements at the polls?

If they put such little value on this right then it is probably a good thing they aren’t voting.

Buford on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM

so they should not be allowed to vote because of this?

Links to these stats, to your sources, please.

Theophile on January 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM

google is your friend. But still, here’s a source, the charges I listed were from 2002-2006. The convictions (86) were even fewer at the time of the articles writing (April 12, 2007). Most of the charges were mistakes not fraud. Facts suck don’t they? Once again this is a transparent attempt to disenfranchise lower-class voters and it is nothing new.

I asked her,” how can you tell if a person is a legitimate applicant for voter registration”?

She responded,” They werent allowed to ask such questions”.

This was ten years or so ago, and I was astounded to the fact that such an easily verifiable fact would just be ignored.

And I have no doubt where these votes are generally cast.

Jimmy Carter was correct in saying Americas voting system is flawed, except hes on the side of the problem.

Seriously, you cant verify if someone is a citizen of the U.S. when registering to vote!

Any law which makes little requirements for voting is suspect. The literary tests had similar justifications; I mean, if you can’t bother to read why should you be able to vote? We all have a chance to go to school here for free and learn to read etc. The point is literacy (and getting a photo-ID) shouldn’t be pre-requisites for voting. People shouldn’t be deprived of their right to vote just because they “can’t be bothered” to get an ID. Putting that requirement there is a not so subtle way to disproportionately depress turnout among certain groups. Sure they could get a photo ID, but why should they have to?

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM

It’s not “People” that have the right to vote. It’s U.S. Citizens who are at least 18 years of age, who haven’t voted previously in the election, who haven’t committed a Felony in the last ten years and who haven’t been declared incompetent by a court who may vote. The law is simply there in order to make sure that the “People” attempting to vote have the legal qualifications and right to do as such.

It’s the exact same reason that they require driver’s licenses in order to drive. It’s not a problem, especially in states where they will give you a free I.D.. It’s only an impediment to those who are not qualified (Illegal Aliens, Felons, etc.).

I know! We should also make them pay a little tax when they vote too, and maybe a literacy test as well! I mean, neither would be too difficult to do, especially if you already made all the way to the voting booth… sure Up to 20 million Americans of voting age don’t have govt.issued identification, but its a small obstacle to get one in order to vote right?

Every respectable study of voter fraud has shown that it is exceedingly rare, in fact despite an attempt by the Bush Justice department to crack down on it, there have been only 120 federal prosecutions since 2002 out of 400 million votes cast. This is clearly another attempt to discourage electon day turnout by those believed to skew heavily democratic. The Indian law was pushed through by Republican dominated legislatures and signed by a Republican governor. Do the math.

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Links to these stats, to your sources, please.

Every respectable study of voter fraud has shown that it is exceedingly rare

BS!

Ask the voters in the State of Washington how hundreds of convicted felons were illegally issued ballots after the polls had closed so that a Democrat could be “elected” governor.

Ask the voters in the State of Oregon why the State provides “service fairs” in Spannish where people can sign up for social services, get driver’s licenses and register to vote all at once.

Ask why in the State of Oregon registering to vote requires only that you sign a card affirming you are a citizen and can legally vote – without any need to verify citizenship or criminal record.

Or why (again in Oregon) virtually every election boxes of ballots go mysteriously missing and are never found.

A democratically elected government is only as legitimate as the process. If we allow noncitizens to vote, or citizens to vote multiple times then the results of those elections are no more valid than rule by divine right or military might.

Maybe what we need is to despense with the secret ballot and let the chips fall where they may!

I read somewhere on a blog a great idea. Clear off all voter lists and make everyone re-register to vote and show a birth certificate or passport to register.

I was thinking doing this every few years would help prevent voter fraud.

Thoughts? Opinions?

People shouldn’t be deprived of their right to vote just because they “can’t be bothered” to get an ID. Putting that requirement there is a not so subtle way to disproportionately depress turnout among certain groups. Sure they could get a photo ID, but why should they have to?

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM

So who’d be deprived of the right to vote, anyway? Anyone who “can’t be bothered” to get an ID in all likelihood “can’t be bothered” to go vote in the first place.

I might be willing to accept her explanation regarding voter affiliation, but the fact that she went for the tax rebate in both states indicates she knew exactly what she was doing.

Good point.

Your delicious irony of the day comes from Florida and Indiana. The litigant who is trying to kill off Indiana’s voter ID law is a walking, talking case of potential voter fraud. She certainly appears to have broken the law by registering to vote in …

I know a relevant example of the kind of people who can’t be bothered. My friend manages a moving company near Canada. It’s profitable for him, (and ultimately the drivers) to get passports so they can move across the border and back. But most of the drivers just don’t feel like getting a passport, even though their business would cover the cost of the fee. They just don’t want to get their birth certificate, a photo and the form together. Should this type of sentiment deprive them of what is perhaps the most important right in Americal the right to vote?

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM

If they put such little value on this right then it is probably a good thing they aren’t voting.

Well, how ’bout we just do away with voter registration and polling officials. Anyone who wants to exercise their right to vote should just come on in. It shouldn’t matter that you have already voted twice before or in three other precincts. Hell, it’s a right that must not be infringed upon, isn’t it? And this restictive nonsense of having only one day to vote and only half of that day is surely intended to discourage certain classes from exercising their franchise. Voting should be 24-7 for at least two weeks. How can we expect citizens to vote in two or more states when they have only one day to do it?

Yep, I think crr6 might be on to something, except that there is no Constitutional right for any of us to vote, even once, in any election. Maybe states will just have to think this through carefully and do the fair and logical thing, which is to identify each person who wishes to vote to assure that each vote is legal.

Sure they could get a photo ID, but why should they have to?

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Because people can and do commit voter fraud without this requirement. The state has the duty to make sure that everyone’s vote is equal and if someone is voting more than once there is a problem. These laws were structured and applied in such a way as to be non-discriminatory, unlike the literary tests and poll taxes which were purposely applied in a discriminatory fashion with a much higher standard/cost for blacks than whites. For you to make the comparison is ludicrous.

Even if they don’t drive the poor can certainly obtain a free ID the government will issue them. I fail to see why this would prevent them from voting unless they just can’t be bothered getting one and this certainly doesn’t make this law discriminatory.

Any law which makes little requirements for voting is suspect. The literary tests had similar justifications; I mean, if you can’t bother to read why should you be able to vote? We all have a chance to go to school here for free and learn to read etc. The point is literacy (and getting a photo-ID) shouldn’t be pre-requisites for voting. People shouldn’t be deprived of their right to vote just because they “can’t be bothered” to get an ID. Putting that requirement there is a not so subtle way to disproportionately depress turnout among certain groups. Sure they could get a photo ID, but why should they have to?

nope, I’m saying members of a certain socioeconomic group are less likely to have a government issued photo-ID. How many upper or middle class people do you know that don’t have one? I like how you immidiately turn this into some sort of illegal immigration issue. Whether it be the ecomomy, voting fraud, terrorism or juvenile diabetes everything relates to illegal immigration.

crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM

Anyone not having a government issued ID when they are FREE and transportation to get them is free, leaves only three groups I can think of that will be without the required ID.

1. Those that are trying to commit voter fraud. Well good this law is aimed at them.

2. Those who can’t get the ID. This would be the illegal aliens. Explaining why I brought them up.

3. Those who can’t be bothered. Well, that is really their own fault then isn’t it.

You have already implied that points 1 and 2 are not part of your argument, so what you are saying is that certain “socioeconomic groups” are more likely to just not be bothered with obtaining ID? You do know that most poor people have a driver’s license already don’t you? This is the U.S. after all, where the poor own cars, have cable TV, and could possibly be obese, unlike some countries where the poor live in garbage dumps and are starving. Even if they don’t drive the poor can certainly obtain a free ID the government will issue them. I fail to see why this would prevent them from voting unless they just can’t be bothered getting one and this certainly doesn’t make this law discriminatory.

By claiming this is discriminating against a certain “socioeconomic group” like a poll tax, what you are saying is that it is more difficult for members of a certain “socioeconomic group” to get a birth certificate. This statement strikes me as particularly racist.

nope, I’m saying members of a certain socioeconomic group are less likely to have a government issued photo-ID. How many upper or middle class people do you know that don’t have one? I like how you immidiately turn this into some sort of illegal immigration issue. Whether it be the ecomomy, voting fraud, terrorism or juvenile diabetes everything relates to illegal immigration.