Why we need Voter ID laws

[Gravitymaster 0]

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.

In a new video provided to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates why Holder should stop attacking voter ID laws--by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s primary ballot. Literally.

The video shows a young man entering a Washington, DC polling place at 3401 Nebraska Avenue, NW, on primary day of this year--April 3, 2012--and giving Holder’s name and address. The poll worker promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.

The young man then suggests that he should show his ID; the poll worker, in compliance with DC law, states: “You don’t need it. It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”

The young man replies: “I would feel more comfortable if I just had my ID. Is it alright if I go get it?" The poll worker agrees.

"I’ll be back Faster than you can say Furious,” the young man jokes on his way out, in a reference to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that has plagued Holder’s Department of Justice.

Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.

As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws.

Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, prompting the state senate to pass a voter ID law; they’ve also shown people can use celebrity names like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota, prompting the state legislature to put voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

[davjohns 1]

I once worked for a yellow dog democrat who told me he had changed his polling place to the downtown location near the office for convenience. I had to go to the courthouse on a voting day and almost voted on his behalf as a joke. I tend toward the conservative side. I knew his name, address and such. Nothing could have stoppd me. I've even joked with poll workers that I would return for another ballot after my first one. When they look me up on the paper sheet right before my eyes, I can see the names of other registered voters who have not been checked off. And with a name like David Johnson and ID to match, even ID might not stop me for voting early and often.

I need ID to use a credit card, drive a car, buy a drink, fly, cross the border, get my things from the police, go to the doctor, enter the White House or most any government building...some of them polling places who reduce security on voting day. Why does it not make sense to show ID before you vote?

If someone votes for me and I later show up to vote, do I get to? Do I have to show ID then?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Dave, I'm addressing this to you because I trust your intellectual honesty, even if we often disagree on politics; and you and I also speak a common professional jargon.

I don't dispute the facts you mention. But the justification for the recent spate of voter ID laws is intellectually dishonest. It's a cosmetic "pretext", based on a justification that looks genuine on the surface, used to disguise an underlying true agenda, much in the sense that the term "pretext" is used in, for example, employment discrimination law.

It's not a matter of whether the ability to commit voter fraud is there; sure it is. It's a question of whether in practice it's enough of a problem - quantitatively - that it needs a solution. And it doesn't.

The US doesn't have a universal-participation official photo ID system; and lots of Americans don't have passports. The closest thing we have to it is our driver's licenses, which are generally used and accepted for that purpose. The vast majority of adults in the US who don't have driver's licenses tend to be lower-income urban dwellers; and What a Coincidence!! that that demographic just happens to coincide with people likely to vote for Obama, and that these laws seem to be so urgently pressed now.

So please: acknowledge the pretext for what it is. It's a solution to a non-epidemic, much like laws against, say, flag burning address a non-epidemic. As for me, the next time I hear the tired argument for voter ID laws, I'll pass the speaker a hanky to dab his crocodile tears.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that there is no proof that in-person voter fraud is a problem. He's about to see proof that even he can't deny.

.

That's not proof it's a problem. It's proof it's possible.

When Indiana enacted its voter ID law, the proponents could not come up with a single instance in state history of voter ID fraud. Not one. Yet somehow this NON PROBLEM required a solution that likely deprives a bunch of citizens of their ability to vote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Yes and no.

I agree that there really must be a better way to steal an election than to have someone go to the polls and pretend to be several other people. So, it is unlikely this is a problem.

At the same time, I'm pretty sure every state provides a non-driver ID that looks like a driver's license and is perfectly viable (lack of a federal ID isn't a factor since voting is handled at the state level). I'm pretty sure those unlicensed poor people need an ID to pick up welfare checks, receive unemployement , open a bank account, apply for assistance, etc. So, preventing poor people from voting seems like an unlikely purpose for a subterfuge.

I agree it is unlikely there is evidence that lack of voter ID is a substantial problem. I also doubt requiring a voter ID would present a substantial problem for law abiding citizens.

Personal anecdote: as a police officer, I never stopped someone who didn't have an ID because they couldn't afford it. Some claimed to not have an ID because they had outstanding warrants, however.

Edit - I checked a couple of websites to see if there was any merit to my assumptions. Seems you do need photo ID to apply for most forms of government aid and even Soc. Sec. Number. And the Alabama voter ID law provides for free ID on request. Not definitive on the matter by any means, but I just think the argument that it disenfranchises the poor is thin.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But the justification for the recent spate of voter ID laws is intellectually dishonest. It's a cosmetic "pretext", based on a justification that looks genuine on the surface, used to disguise an underlying true agenda,

interesting, so if someone has a genuine position that voter ID is a good thing - you just dismiss them as having ulterior motives

I wonder what your real agenda is......hmmmmm

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Dave, I'm addressing this to you because I trust your intellectual honesty, even if we often disagree on politics; and you and I also speak a common professional jargon.

I don't dispute the facts you mention. But the justification for the recent spate of voter ID laws is intellectually dishonest. It's a cosmetic "pretext", based on a justification that looks genuine on the surface, used to disguise an underlying true agenda, much in the sense that the term "pretext" is used in, for example, employment discrimination law.

It's not a matter of whether the ability to commit voter fraud is there; sure it is. It's a question of whether in practice it's enough of a problem - quantitatively - that it needs a solution. And it doesn't.

The US doesn't have a universal-participation official photo ID system; and lots of Americans don't have passports. The closest thing we have to it is our driver's licenses, which are generally used and accepted for that purpose. The vast majority of adults in the US who don't have driver's licenses tend to be lower-income urban dwellers; and What a Coincidence!! that that demographic just happens to coincide with people likely to vote for Obama, and that these laws seem to be so urgently pressed now.

So please: acknowledge the pretext for what it is. It's a solution to a non-epidemic, much like laws against, say, flag burning address a non-epidemic. As for me, the next time I hear the tired argument for voter ID laws, I'll pass the speaker a hanky to dab his crocodile tears.

We'll need it, after all the tired arguments about "it's *really* just racism".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

Well, he would need to be lined up to the many Investigative "Journalists" who have done similar things then.

The Voter ID laws will help reduce this small percentage of fraud, that is good. It should be part of a larger comprehensive measure to eliminate fraud, politics and race aside.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

I believe he would have needed to break the law first. What would really be awesome is if we had the same standard for voting as we have for Obamacare. Unless you think some ID isn't going to be required.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

That would smack of retaliation against a guy revealing an inconvenient truth. A bit heavy handed, no? What happened to free speech? And besides, he didn't commit the felony, just demonstrated that he could.

Now the reason this scenario is a non problem has already been explained. It's not happening. And if it were, we'd know in every case where the actual voter comes in and is denied for having already done it. And BTW, photo ID hardly prevents this from happening. If someone did want to orchestrate a large scale fraud, they already have the names and addresses with which to make the IDs.

If you want to solve the problem, you move forward to an openly designed online/electronic voting scheme with a paper receipt and the ability to look up your recorded vote. But I don't imagine the GOP would want this either....too likely to encourage younger votes.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

At the same time, I'm pretty sure every state provides a non-driver ID that looks like a driver's license and is perfectly viable (lack of a federal ID isn't a factor since voting is handled at the state level). I'm pretty sure those unlicensed poor people need an ID to pick up welfare checks, receive unemployement , open a bank account, apply for assistance, etc. So, preventing poor people from voting seems like an unlikely purpose for a subterfuge.

I agree it is unlikely there is evidence that lack of voter ID is a substantial problem. I also doubt requiring a voter ID would present a substantial problem for law abiding citizens.

It can be surprising difficult to get an ID for somebody if they do not already have one. The problem is that just about every form of government issued ID requires that you already have some other form of ID to prove identity.

It is really a difficult trap to get out of in many cases.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Edit - I checked a couple of websites to see if there was any merit to my assumptions. Seems you do need photo ID to apply for most forms of government aid and even Soc. Sec. Number.

You certainly do not need ID to get a SSN - every parent does it for the kids around birth now because they can't get any deductions on their tax return without it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Dave, I'm addressing this to you because I trust your intellectual honesty, even if we often disagree on politics; and you and I also speak a common professional jargon.

I don't dispute the facts you mention. But the justification for the recent spate of voter ID laws is intellectually dishonest. It's a cosmetic "pretext", based on a justification that looks genuine on the surface, used to disguise an underlying true agenda, much in the sense that the term "pretext" is used in, for example, employment discrimination law.

It's not a matter of whether the ability to commit voter fraud is there; sure it is. It's a question of whether in practice it's enough of a problem - quantitatively - that it needs a solution. And it doesn't.

The US doesn't have a universal-participation official photo ID system; and lots of Americans don't have passports. The closest thing we have to it is our driver's licenses, which are generally used and accepted for that purpose. The vast majority of adults in the US who don't have driver's licenses tend to be lower-income urban dwellers; and What a Coincidence!! that that demographic just happens to coincide with people likely to vote for Obama, and that these laws seem to be so urgently pressed now.

So please: acknowledge the pretext for what it is. It's a solution to a non-epidemic, much like laws against, say, flag burning address a non-epidemic. As for me, the next time I hear the tired argument for voter ID laws, I'll pass the speaker a hanky to dab his crocodile tears.

We'll need it, after all the tired arguments about "it's *really* just racism".

This would be pretty damned funny if it wasn't for the fact that it was the left-wing that was claiming massive voter fraud in Florida during the election in 2000. Back then they screamed that the election had been stolen due to voter fraud. Now it's no big deal. I wonder how the psuedo-intellectually honest among us would react if their candidate lost by a few votes that were later discovered to be fraudulent?

http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documents/2011-Report-Voter-Fraud-Convictions.pdf

Yep, no problem here.

[mnealtx 0]

Egg-zackly.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Egg-zackly.

Got a hanky???

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This would be pretty damned funny if it wasn't for the fact that it was the left-wing that was claiming massive voter fraud in Florida during the election in 2000. Back then they screamed that the election had been stolen due to voter fraud. Now it's no big deal. I wonder how the psuedo-intellectually honest among us would react if their candidate lost by a few votes that were later discovered to be fraudulent?

??

I don't recall that charge in Florida. I think the courts bollocked up the recount by stopping the count, then correctly insisting on meeting a deadline, but we know ultimately the correct result occurred. The Democrats did object to a substantial purging of the voter polls in advance of the election, snaring some innocents. (purging before the primary may be legitimate, but not just before the general election, imo). Then there were the issues around the butterfly ballot layout.

But getting back on topic - voter ID is bullshit theater, no better than the TSA. Solves a non existent problem...and you'd like us to believe there isn't an underlying motivation behind it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you think that if Obamacare is instituted that ID will be required? Do you think the poor will just forgo "free" healthcare because they are incapable of securing ID?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

That would smack of retaliation against a guy revealing an inconvenient truth. A bit heavy handed, no? What happened to free speech? And besides, he didn't commit the felony, just demonstrated that he could.

It's not a free speech issue. Journalist (and O'Keefe is a questionable one at best) are not protected in the commission of crimes while researching stories. He did, in fact, commit a crime by misrepresenting himself to a voting official.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[matthewcline 0]

Same things with Gas prices and POTUS' power over them, SSDD.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

That would smack of retaliation against a guy revealing an inconvenient truth. A bit heavy handed, no? What happened to free speech? And besides, he didn't commit the felony, just demonstrated that he could.

It's not a free speech issue. Journalist (and O'Keefe is a questionable one at best) are not protected in the commission of crimes while researching stories. He did, in fact, commit a crime by misrepresenting himself to a voting official.

No he didn't. He went in and simply asked if they had an Eric Holder registered. The person at the voting place then took it upon themselves to "assume" he was Eric Holder. He never claimed to be and he never voted.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know what would be awesome? If O'Keefe, or whoever the "young man" was, got his ass landed in jail for attempting to commit a felony.

That would smack of retaliation against a guy revealing an inconvenient truth. A bit heavy handed, no? What happened to free speech? And besides, he didn't commit the felony, just demonstrated that he could.

It's not a free speech issue. Journalist (and O'Keefe is a questionable one at best) are not protected in the commission of crimes while researching stories. He did, in fact, commit a crime by misrepresenting himself to a voting official.

OOOOHHHH, he misrepresented himself! That's almost as bad as lying to Congress.

Let's be honest, you're advocating retaliation. An emotional reaction due to political beliefs you hold. If he had done this to expose the Right, or perhaps a evil gun owner, you'd be defending him against all comers.

[Gravitymaster 0]

The contention that there are these massive number of poor without ID is also a specious argument.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-georgia

Quote

The latest data compiled by the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brian Kemp, about the state’s experience with voter ID once again shows that the claims by opponents of voter ID are wrong.

Contrary to their assertions that there are large numbers of American voters without a government-issued photo ID, Georgia has had to issue a remarkably small number of IDs to individuals who did not already have one. The state’s specific turnout data on racial minorities also shows that the claim that voter ID will “suppress” their vote lacks any foundation in facts.

[quade 4]

Quote

Let's be honest, you're advocating retaliation.

No. I'm advocating following the law as well as journalistic ethics.

Quote

An emotional reaction due to political beliefs you hold. If he had done this to expose the Right, or perhaps a evil gun owner, you'd be defending him against all comers.

An assumption on your part not founded in fact.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Heritage Foundation is always an interesting source, but this part jumps out:

Quote

In fact, the state conducted a statewide, multimedia education campaign prior to six elections between September 2007 and the November 2008 general election. That included sending out over 5 million pieces of direct mail and utility bill inserts to individual voters, as well as 633 packages of 57,000 brochures and other materials to chambers of commerce, churches, libraries, and other nongovernment organizations all over the state.

The state also ran over 60,000 radio public service announcements (PSAs) and 1,232 video PSAs that ran during newscasts, traffic reports, and Atlanta Braves games. Home games of the Atlanta Falcons football team even featured end-zone-to-end-zone LED banners directing fans to the state’s website for more information on the voter ID requirement, and 400 ads were placed on buses operated by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

so how much money did they spend to solve a non problem?

The evidence looks pretty, but it doesn't actually answer the question of how many people might have been prevented from voting. The surge in voting due to the Obama campaign may prove this was an non issue, or it may instead mask that effect.