The disenfranchisement issue is a classic straw man argument. The left’s position is that in order to provide an environment whereby all “qualified” citizens are guaranteed a vote, we must accept an environment that enables fraudulent votes

It would be nice to think that this was simply a question of an honest difference of opinion — But we can all rest assured that it is a matter of the Left’s blantant effort to assure continued benefit from fraudulent voters.

Of course, this is why the Times and others take as a given that fraudulent voting is not a problem.

Democracy was the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday. The court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which solves a nearly nonexistent problem by putting major barriers between voters — particularly minorities — and the ballot box.

Why does the Left believe that “minorities” are too stupid to do something as simple as obtain a free state ID card (if they don’t already have a drivers license)?

Anyone on the Right making the suggestion would be excoriated.

The left is perfectly satisfied with this arrangement since it is their candidates who benefit most from the votes of “unrestored” felons, the deceased, children, pets, and illegals. If you don’t believe that the democrats are most often the beneficiaries of those pseudo-votes, Google “illegal votes” and scan through the recent referenced cases.

The time to assure that all votes cast will be valid is before the election. The task of deducting illegal votes after the fact is inexact and difficult (see Harvard Law Review, “Deducting Illegal Votes in Contested Elections).” According to the HLR article, there are multiple methods of deducting illegal votes and the courts are tasked with selecting the method that will most accurately deduct known, identified illegal votes from a candidate. While it’s possible to identify illegal votes, it’s not possible to ascertain who they (illegally) voted for.

Meaning, if it’s just a few votes cast by persons who should not be voting, that’s ok since most likely the votes that are nullified were cast for candidates they wouldn’t support anyway and by making sure those voters with the greatest need for the government trough were able to vote, they can further expand their ideological base.

Voter fraud is a very serious problem. We as legal voters should stand up and demand that our votes are not negated by a dog in indiana.

I say indiana however the problem exist in every state in the union. This not just indiana’s problem but a national crisis.

As an american citizen i value my right to vote. We (my wife and i) have identifacation documents. I can not belive that any american citizen does not some form of i.d.

driver’s licsence?
state i.d.?
birth certificate?
marriage certifacate?
social security number?
passport?
naturalization papers?

I truly applaud indiana’s attempt delete voter fraud. And admire the court for supporting the state.

It truly amazes me that it is easier to vote than to pay for your puchase at walmart.

Like tom hanks said in BIG after he raised his hand “I don’t
get it”

An estimated 20 million Americans do not have a the required photo-ID and more than 20% of black voters in Indiana don’t own one. These are hardly small outliers or “extreme circumstances”. There is not a demonstrable risk of voter fraud as indicated in my earlier posts, it is rare to non-existent in both Indiana and the country as a whole. As to your last sentence…everyone who is a law-abiding, adult U.S. citizen “deserves” a vote. Who are you to say otherwise? If anything we should be undetaking efforts to stimulate, not suppress turnout among the poor.

crr6 on April 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM

.
Those 20 million folks without ID are illegal aliens, as that is the true number, not the 8-12 million constantly reported. I cannot accept your number of black Indianans without ID unless you can provide a reputable link – that number is way beyond believable. To your comment that there is no demonstrable risk of voter fraud, I suggest you review the investigations in Milwaukee Wisconsin where vote fraud in 2000 gave the entire state to Al Gore, the fraud which occurs every election in St Louis, Missouri, where city patronage employees track the deceased and excercise their vote for them, and also Philadelphia 2000, where in 2 or maybe 3 large precincts, more than 100% of eligible voters in the precinct cast votes. I do agree with you that ‘everyone who is a law abiding adult US citizen deserves the right to vote’ – voter ID maintains that by removing the right to vote from 1.) children/pets, 2.) the deceased, and 3.) illegal aliens. Unfortunately for democrats, these three groups provide the margin of victory in many precincts, and this is why they are complaining about voter ID.

Tell that… to the quadriplegic who doesn’t, obviously, have a drivers license nor a passport, and has to pay $100 to obtain a State approved ID…

PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM

What state charges $100 for a (non-drivers) ID? For that matter what state charges that for a drivers license? A passport doesn’t cost that much ($85, IIRC), and being a quadriplegic does not preclude one from getting a passport.

And how is that applicable to INDIANA, which, as I understand it, has a FREE voter ID?

Every brain-damaged meth head on the street can pull out picture ID. But if illegals have any they share it with their 30 closest friends.

Judging from the number of contacts that my officers have with elderly people that have no business driving but have valid licenses, there is no great shortage of IDs among the elderly either.

Fear is spreading among many L.A. companies as the federal government steps up its enforcement of immigration rules, raiding workplaces and issuing audit notices that require businesses to prove their employees are legal.

Companies in industries with high numbers of undocumented workers are re-interviewing workers, firing those who can’t produce adequate documentation and even considering importing workers from other states – all in an effort to head off enforcement actions that can close down a business.

“You look at the apparel, restaurant, construction and agriculture industries, and there’s definitely more fear among employers now,” said Josie Gonzalez, partner at Pasadena-based immigration law firm Gonzalez & Harris LLP and chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s worksite enforcement committee. . .

See the video of CEO Dov Charney in his underwear running around the plant

Funny, strict ID requirements don’t seem to deter ‘poor, older and minority’ persons from driving.

If you can stand your butt in line for hours to get a license, then you can spare 20 seconds to pull it out and show it to the poll workers….

Are the liberals telling us that a resident can’t earn that much in 6 bloody years?

Everybody gets an ID, everybody wins. Since an ID is an important/useful item to have in all areas of life, an initiative like this would help people get access to all kinds of things in addition to voting. Like renting videos. Right, crr6?

Quite right. There will always exist some risk of ‘edge cases’, but this does not amount to rational justification for abandoning the entire effort.

There is a demonstrable risk of exploitation within our electoral processes. Enforcing a measure of non-repudiation with respect to identity is a pragmatic first step in securing integrity. The vast majority of people will be able to continue voting unencumbered by this requirement. Those that find it challenging have every opportunity to seek a solution. If they are too lazy to do that, they don’t deserve a vote.

LimeyGeek on April 29, 2008 at 6:41 PM

An estimated 20 million Americans do not have a the required photo-ID and more than 20% of black voters in Indiana don’t own one. These are hardly small outliers or “extreme circumstances”. There is not a demonstrable risk of voter fraud as indicated in my earlier posts, it is rare to non-existent in both Indiana and the country as a whole. As to your last sentence…everyone who is a law-abiding, adult U.S. citizen “deserves” a vote. Who are you to say otherwise? If anything we should be undetaking efforts to stimulate, not suppress turnout among the poor.

Rose on April 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Quite right. There will always exist some risk of ‘edge cases’, but this does not amount to rational justification for abandoning the entire effort.

There is a demonstrable risk of exploitation within our electoral processes. Enforcing a measure of non-repudiation with respect to identity is a pragmatic first step in securing integrity. The vast majority of people will be able to continue voting unencumbered by this requirement. Those that find it challenging have every opportunity to seek a solution. If they are too lazy to do that, they don’t deserve a vote.

hindmost on April 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Not myself…

PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Tell that to the Floridian who was denied the right to vote, even after showing 3 forms of identificiation. Or to the quadriplegic who doesn’t, obviously, have a drivers license nor a passport, and has to pay $100 to obtain a State approved ID. Just because you think something is unlikely that doesn’t mean you can prove it so with a quaint analogy.

PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM

They could also say your toenails are painted the wrong color for this cycles elections, and it’s about as likely.

Welfare Deathmatch!

For example, what’s to stop a State, or a poll worker, from asking for 3 or 4 forms of identification, all the while acting in the name of combating voter fraud, or is excessive voter identification alright? Furthermore, requiring one to pay for an ID to vote, no matter the subsidy, which does not equal free (unless it does then I abstain from this much) is still an indirect – State mandated – cost in order to enable one’s right to vote.

Injecting minorities, old people, and others into this debate does nothing more then to muddle the law with beyond-the-pale politics. The issues not that minorities don’t have ID’s so they can’t vote. The issue is that the poll worker just asked me for my social security card, birth certificate, bill to my current address, and photo ID so I could vote. The issue is that in order to vote, I have to take time out of my work schedule, pay a due, and wait however long the State decides to take in order to issue me an ID – which if I move may not be valid anywhere else. Even if one could meet all the obligations one would need to, in order to vote, that doesn’t mean all the other citizens of the state, or country, can meet those same obligations; we are country of all the people and not just the majority.