sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID Law
- Thread starter sarahb
- Start date
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
It's not the requirement for ID per se that is the problem, but new proposed laws in various states (usually ones were Republicans are in tight races with opponents supported by brown people) that attempt to narrowly define the type of id that will be acceptable (ONLY photo, issued by only one entity, that has a single office in the back of beyond, that sort of thing), and the timing of those restrictions - often attempted to be implemented near an election so as to create the most confusion possible.
Since virtually ALL of the concern for supposed rampant voter fraud is coming from a single party directed AT a single party it is pretty safe to say that most of these attempts are actually designed to suppress the vote of people who might swing an election should they decide to get motivated and get out.
Here's an overview and analysis on just how real all this rampant voter fraud is, and another on the state of the various laws that are attempting to restrict voting via restrictive voter id laws. I will need to sit down and study both of these too before I can speak in more detail. This is not an issue I have followed terribly closely since about 2012, so my knowledge status other than broad strokes on this topic is a bit rusty. I'll come back after I've read up myself, and if the discussion hasn't devolved into a slugfest.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2012-voting-laws-roundup
It's not the requirement for ID per se that is the problem, but new proposed laws in various states (usually ones were Republicans are in tight races with opponents supported by brown people) that attempt to narrowly define the type of id that will be acceptable (ONLY photo, issued by only one entity, that has a single office in the back of beyond, that sort of thing), and the timing of those restrictions - often attempted to be implemented near an election so as to create the most confusion possible.
Since virtually ALL of the concern for supposed rampant voter fraud is coming from a single party directed AT a single party it is pretty safe to say that most of these attempts are actually designed to suppress the vote of people who might swing an election should they decide to get motivated and get out.
Here's an overview and analysis on just how real all this rampant voter fraud is, and another on the state of the various laws that are attempting to restrict voting via restrictive voter id laws. I will need to sit down and study both of these too before I can speak in more detail. This is not an issue I have followed terribly closely since about 2012, so my knowledge status other than broad strokes on this topic is a bit rusty. I'll come back after I've read up myself, and if the discussion hasn't devolved into a slugfest.
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2012-voting-laws-roundup
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,283
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Where I'm from I think it's manditory to have some sort of government ID to vote. You can get a drivers license, a general government ID, passport, etc. Theres a lot of different forms, a general ID is pretty inexpensive I think. BUT I don't think it's fair that they are trying to change a law so close to the election. Implement it after this election, and give people time to get their ducks in a row.
Where I'm from I think it's manditory to have some sort of government ID to vote. You can get a drivers license, a general government ID, passport, etc. Theres a lot of different forms, a general ID is pretty inexpensive I think. BUT I don't think it's fair that they are trying to change a law so close to the election. Implement it after this election, and give people time to get their ducks in a row.
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Hi Kissinger, thank you for your comments--I did want to clarify a few points. Just don't want to assume what I 'think' is what you are trying to convey.
'....usually ones were Republicans are in tight races with opponents supported by brown people.'
This remarked is leading--are you saying one party is driven not only by the Voter ID issue but also by vote suppression along ethnic lines? Ie, racist? What facts document this behavior, which I find repugnant! Please clarify this for me, just to be sure.
Then,
'Since virtually ALL of the concern for supposed rampant voter fraud is coming from a single party directed AT a single party it is pretty safe to say that most of these attempts are actually designed to suppress the vote of people who might swing an election should they decide to get motivated and get out.'
Since voter fraud occurs on both sides of the aisle, which party are you referring to here? What sources document this behavior? I for one, would appreciate knowing, as this behavior is intolerable IMHO!
By the way, that Brennan Center article is 2 years old, I'll see if I can find something current showing current sate law to share
A small detail worthy of exposure: the Brennan Center for Justice, is in part funded by the Open Society Institute, which is one of the George Soros Open Society Foundations, more here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
Another compelling reason to vet all sources of information, no matter who or what. I do appreciate hearing different voices in a discussion, thank you for adding yours!
ksinger|1412324432|3761200 said:
Hi Kissinger, thank you for your comments--I did want to clarify a few points. Just don't want to assume what I 'think' is what you are trying to convey.
'....usually ones were Republicans are in tight races with opponents supported by brown people.'
This remarked is leading--are you saying one party is driven not only by the Voter ID issue but also by vote suppression along ethnic lines? Ie, racist? What facts document this behavior, which I find repugnant! Please clarify this for me, just to be sure.
Then,
'Since virtually ALL of the concern for supposed rampant voter fraud is coming from a single party directed AT a single party it is pretty safe to say that most of these attempts are actually designed to suppress the vote of people who might swing an election should they decide to get motivated and get out.'
Since voter fraud occurs on both sides of the aisle, which party are you referring to here? What sources document this behavior? I for one, would appreciate knowing, as this behavior is intolerable IMHO!
By the way, that Brennan Center article is 2 years old, I'll see if I can find something current showing current sate law to share
A small detail worthy of exposure: the Brennan Center for Justice, is in part funded by the Open Society Institute, which is one of the George Soros Open Society Foundations, more here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
Another compelling reason to vet all sources of information, no matter who or what. I do appreciate hearing different voices in a discussion, thank you for adding yours!
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
'By the way, that Brennan Center article is 2 years old, I'll see if I can find something current showing current sate law to share.'
Here is a link to the National Conference of State Legislators, a bipartisan group formed to provide states idea's, voice, connections and a strong voice on Capitol Hill. The executive committee leadership alternates between parties, providing a more bipartisan atmosphere.
Edited to add:
Here is the section on state Voter ID. It is current as of 9/12/14:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
'By the way, that Brennan Center article is 2 years old, I'll see if I can find something current showing current sate law to share.'
Here is a link to the National Conference of State Legislators, a bipartisan group formed to provide states idea's, voice, connections and a strong voice on Capitol Hill. The executive committee leadership alternates between parties, providing a more bipartisan atmosphere.
Edited to add:
Here is the section on state Voter ID. It is current as of 9/12/14:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Sarah, you're right, I did not check as deeply as you did, so bad on me. And I've been distracted by other things and have not been able to get back to read more deeply, so there's that too. Although I did (and thought I posted but did not apparently) get back there and found that that site has both a 2013 and 2014 "state of legislation" pages, so you might want to check there. It's a fast moving subject with a lot of ebb and flow. I still haven't found info about the latest things going on OK, although my husband mentioned that HE knew of the latest legislative attempts to restrict registration here. We have not yet had a chance to discuss it.
I think though, that before we talk more deeply on this subject and poking holes in sources - and I WAS assuming it was voter fraud that was the issue at hand and not just "gee, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a valid ID to vote", that we should define exactly what voter fraud is and how rampant we (each of us) really thinks it is. Whether you like the Brennen source or not, the link to the piece on voter fraud does have a good preliminary enumeration of the types of voting irregularities that can happen, and seeks to distinguish fraud - which implies intent - from clerical/human type errors. So tell me how you perceive the problem, and we can move from there.
A bit tangential, but it clicks in with discussion of voting restrictions....here is a link to the Republican site that is more than a bit candid that the redistricting rights they won in 2010, made sure that even though there were more actual votes for Democratic candidates, their gains in the house were solidified. Quote from that Republican site:
http://www.rslc.gop/redmap_2012_summary_report
"The rationale was straightforward: Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade."
My assertion that voter restriction laws are an attempt to restrict the voting of brown people was too snarky and off the cuff, but is still actually a bit too narrow. It's actually simply attempts, after the redistricting (some would call it gerrymandering) successes of 2010, to either blunt the impact of voting by democrats in general, or as the REDMAP entry pretty candidly states, more attempts to lock in gains from 2010. The "brown person" comment can be construed as acknowledgment that the Republican party is not exactly the home of blacks or hispanics. And of course its entrenched gender problems are pretty legendary these days, and not improving from all I can tell.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
I'll try to get back when I can, I just now got back on FB after about a month hiatus. It's been a hard time in my house for a while, and no end in sight, but I'm trying to get back to some semblance of normal.
Hence, being "outward" here in a political discussion instead of hiding under my rock. So I will apologize in advance for rambling, sub-par posts here. So, hack away at them, I need the distraction AND the practice! 
sarahb|1412441980|3762010 said:ksinger|1412324432|3761200 said:
Hi Kissinger, thank you for your comments--I did want to clarify a few points. Just don't want to assume what I 'think' is what you are trying to convey.
'....usually ones were Republicans are in tight races with opponents supported by brown people.'
This remarked is leading--are you saying one party is driven not only by the Voter ID issue but also by vote suppression along ethnic lines? Ie, racist? What facts document this behavior, which I find repugnant! Please clarify this for me, just to be sure.
Then,
'Since virtually ALL of the concern for supposed rampant voter fraud is coming from a single party directed AT a single party it is pretty safe to say that most of these attempts are actually designed to suppress the vote of people who might swing an election should they decide to get motivated and get out.'
Since voter fraud occurs on both sides of the aisle, which party are you referring to here? What sources document this behavior? I for one, would appreciate knowing, as this behavior is intolerable IMHO!
By the way, that Brennan Center article is 2 years old, I'll see if I can find something current showing current sate law to share
A small detail worthy of exposure: the Brennan Center for Justice, is in part funded by the Open Society Institute, which is one of the George Soros Open Society Foundations, more here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
Another compelling reason to vet all sources of information, no matter who or what. I do appreciate hearing different voices in a discussion, thank you for adding yours!
Sarah, you're right, I did not check as deeply as you did, so bad on me. And I've been distracted by other things and have not been able to get back to read more deeply, so there's that too. Although I did (and thought I posted but did not apparently) get back there and found that that site has both a 2013 and 2014 "state of legislation" pages, so you might want to check there. It's a fast moving subject with a lot of ebb and flow. I still haven't found info about the latest things going on OK, although my husband mentioned that HE knew of the latest legislative attempts to restrict registration here. We have not yet had a chance to discuss it.
I think though, that before we talk more deeply on this subject and poking holes in sources - and I WAS assuming it was voter fraud that was the issue at hand and not just "gee, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a valid ID to vote", that we should define exactly what voter fraud is and how rampant we (each of us) really thinks it is. Whether you like the Brennen source or not, the link to the piece on voter fraud does have a good preliminary enumeration of the types of voting irregularities that can happen, and seeks to distinguish fraud - which implies intent - from clerical/human type errors. So tell me how you perceive the problem, and we can move from there.
A bit tangential, but it clicks in with discussion of voting restrictions....here is a link to the Republican site that is more than a bit candid that the redistricting rights they won in 2010, made sure that even though there were more actual votes for Democratic candidates, their gains in the house were solidified. Quote from that Republican site:
http://www.rslc.gop/redmap_2012_summary_report
"The rationale was straightforward: Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade."
My assertion that voter restriction laws are an attempt to restrict the voting of brown people was too snarky and off the cuff, but is still actually a bit too narrow. It's actually simply attempts, after the redistricting (some would call it gerrymandering) successes of 2010, to either blunt the impact of voting by democrats in general, or as the REDMAP entry pretty candidly states, more attempts to lock in gains from 2010. The "brown person" comment can be construed as acknowledgment that the Republican party is not exactly the home of blacks or hispanics. And of course its entrenched gender problems are pretty legendary these days, and not improving from all I can tell.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-democrats-regardless-age.aspx
I'll try to get back when I can, I just now got back on FB after about a month hiatus. It's been a hard time in my house for a while, and no end in sight, but I'm trying to get back to some semblance of normal.
Hence, being "outward" here in a political discussion instead of hiding under my rock. So I will apologize in advance for rambling, sub-par posts here. So, hack away at them, I need the distraction AND the practice!
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Kainger, I so appreciate your willingness to discuss intelligently the issue, it is refreshing. My purpose here, was not to delve into partisan bickering, (which is usually what happens!) but to discuss the topic forthright. I so wish we, as a nation, could come up with a worthwhile solution to the problem.
I do believe vote fraud exists across party lines & without being presumptive, I'd say you do as well?
The only mechanism to fundamentally verify vote duplication is not taking place, is to identify each voter. Each person in the US has a unique identifier with our SS #'s. Perhaps the type of ID is the crux of the disagreement between parties. We need some sort of ID to protect the integrity of our elective process.
Here's my thoughts re voting fraud: Not having Voter ID, & the extention of voting over days/ sometimes weeks, has added another layer of opportunity for fraud. As well as same day voting/registration. Without voter ID, how can authorities determine the individual has only registered 1x & voted 1x during that cycle? Not to mention the stories I read about bus loads crossing state lines to vote!
The integrity of our elections is a HUGE problem. It makes no sense to Not advocate for integrity in our elections no matter what party.
Kainger, I so appreciate your willingness to discuss intelligently the issue, it is refreshing. My purpose here, was not to delve into partisan bickering, (which is usually what happens!) but to discuss the topic forthright. I so wish we, as a nation, could come up with a worthwhile solution to the problem.
I do believe vote fraud exists across party lines & without being presumptive, I'd say you do as well?
The only mechanism to fundamentally verify vote duplication is not taking place, is to identify each voter. Each person in the US has a unique identifier with our SS #'s. Perhaps the type of ID is the crux of the disagreement between parties. We need some sort of ID to protect the integrity of our elective process.
Here's my thoughts re voting fraud: Not having Voter ID, & the extention of voting over days/ sometimes weeks, has added another layer of opportunity for fraud. As well as same day voting/registration. Without voter ID, how can authorities determine the individual has only registered 1x & voted 1x during that cycle? Not to mention the stories I read about bus loads crossing state lines to vote!
The integrity of our elections is a HUGE problem. It makes no sense to Not advocate for integrity in our elections no matter what party.
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Ksiner, just spent some time on your links, enjoyed reading them. Thanks for sharing, I hope things are good today at your house--we've just become empty nesters, although we have ours back for fall break, good to see him in the flesh!
Ksiner, just spent some time on your links, enjoyed reading them. Thanks for sharing, I hope things are good today at your house--we've just become empty nesters, although we have ours back for fall break, good to see him in the flesh!
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Just 3 years ago democrates lumped all the conservative leaning areas around me into one to reduce the Republican leaning areas into one seat instead of 2 in the state and federal house of representatives races.
It is wrong when either party does it but they are both just as guilty and it has been going on for decades.
The Democrats have been doing the same thing in IL for decades.ksinger|1412518153|3762438 said:
Just 3 years ago democrates lumped all the conservative leaning areas around me into one to reduce the Republican leaning areas into one seat instead of 2 in the state and federal house of representatives races.
It is wrong when either party does it but they are both just as guilty and it has been going on for decades.
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Totally agree Karl, there is culpability on both sides of the aisle on nearly every single issue.
Some of those issues are so hard to clean up. Like gerrymandering.
Voting is a bit different. The integrity of our election is vitally important. Everyone who votes needs health care at one time or another. You cannot get health care without an ID.
With the amount of effort put into fighting voter integrity laws, there must be a TON of voter fraud.
We're watching Breaking Bad, I'm writing between the action scenes....
Karl_K|1412537171|3762568 said:
Totally agree Karl, there is culpability on both sides of the aisle on nearly every single issue.
Some of those issues are so hard to clean up. Like gerrymandering.
Voting is a bit different. The integrity of our election is vitally important. Everyone who votes needs health care at one time or another. You cannot get health care without an ID.
With the amount of effort put into fighting voter integrity laws, there must be a TON of voter fraud.
We're watching Breaking Bad, I'm writing between the action scenes....
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Since I don't like posting stuff without some evidence.....
Take a look at these maps and tell me what is wrong with this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_districts
Since I don't like posting stuff without some evidence.....
Take a look at these maps and tell me what is wrong with this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_districts
FrekeChild
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 19,456
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
I'm sorry, but this isn't a subject I'm terribly familiar with. Is voter fraud terribly prevalent? Does someone actually have numbers for that? Because if it's actually really low, then why should voting depend on having an ID?
Tax dollars at work....
ETA: Watching Breaking Bad makes me miss home.
I'm sorry, but this isn't a subject I'm terribly familiar with. Is voter fraud terribly prevalent? Does someone actually have numbers for that? Because if it's actually really low, then why should voting depend on having an ID?
Tax dollars at work....
ETA: Watching Breaking Bad makes me miss home.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
For example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374882/nc-state-board-finds-more-35k-incidents-double-voting-2012-andrew-johnson
An analysis of census figures and voter registration numbers in Illinois reveals a baffling conundrum: fourteen of the state's 102 counties have more registered voters than voting-age residents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html
The problem is both sides want to play with the numbers and I don't think there is an honest number out there on the totals. But there are enough independently verified cases that it is a large problem.FrekeChild|1412578740|3762795 said:
For example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374882/nc-state-board-finds-more-35k-incidents-double-voting-2012-andrew-johnson
An analysis of census figures and voter registration numbers in Illinois reveals a baffling conundrum: fourteen of the state's 102 counties have more registered voters than voting-age residents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
This article is as of 2012, but it covers the history, as well as some voter fraud statistics:
http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
What bothers me most about this is the connection to ALEC. I do not like ALEC at all, I am very suspicious of anything in which it has a hand (or pen). And, I suppose, the fact that we eat what we're told to eat, and there are very few unbiased media resources -- and one has to hunt them down.
This article is as of 2012, but it covers the history, as well as some voter fraud statistics:
http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
What bothers me most about this is the connection to ALEC. I do not like ALEC at all, I am very suspicious of anything in which it has a hand (or pen). And, I suppose, the fact that we eat what we're told to eat, and there are very few unbiased media resources -- and one has to hunt them down.
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
FrekeChild|1412578740|3762795 wrote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't a subject I'm terribly familiar with. Is voter fraud terribly prevalent? Does someone actually have numbers for that? Because if it's actually really low, then why should voting depend on having an ID?
Tax dollars at work....
ETA: Watching Breaking Bad makes me miss home.
Although not 'home', I did spend a significant portion of my life in NM.
FrekeChild|1412578740|3762795 wrote:
I'm sorry, but this isn't a subject I'm terribly familiar with. Is voter fraud terribly prevalent? Does someone actually have numbers for that? Because if it's actually really low, then why should voting depend on having an ID?
Tax dollars at work....
ETA: Watching Breaking Bad makes me miss home.
Although not 'home', I did spend a significant portion of my life in NM.
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
The redistricting was done by the democrats to create the most safe seats for themselves.
Here is the one for the state districts:
https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http://ilhousedems.com/redistricting/2011-maps/Senate_Bill_1177_Amendment_2/ab9Plan0520.kmz&aq=&sll=39.797399,-89.664939&sspn=0.014294,0.018132&ie=UTF8&z=7
yea funny isn't it.... well not really.sarahb|1412616041|3763007 said:
The redistricting was done by the democrats to create the most safe seats for themselves.
Here is the one for the state districts:
https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http://ilhousedems.com/redistricting/2011-maps/Senate_Bill_1177_Amendment_2/ab9Plan0520.kmz&aq=&sll=39.797399,-89.664939&sspn=0.014294,0.018132&ie=UTF8&z=7
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
RE: redistricting.
Indeed, both parties use this for their advantage. Makes me wonder why we let them do that. Districts should be drawn based on population and communities. Given the current nature of politics, perhaps this should be taken out of legislative control? Iowa has a unique system that seems to be working well: http://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Iowa
RE: voter ID in Wisconsin
One of the issues with this timing is that the voter ID law got the go-head just 6 weeks before a gubernatorial election. 1 out 5 people polled do NOT know that a valid ID is now required.
RE: voter ID in general
In general, I would accept voter idea as an OK idea. Why not? Except, when I look at the issue more closely, I ask, why? It indeed appears to be a move to disenfranchise certain voters. Elderly, economically disadvantaged, and people of color. People who are already less likely to vote, and for who this is just one more hurdle to jump (or maybe not try). People who are more inclined to vote for a certain party. Representatives of the other party have admitted that this does, indeed, single out certain groups of people and helps their party. Looking at how some laws are just a foot in the door to push more restrictive measures, I wonder what comes next. The statistics on voter fraud show is it minimal, almost non-existant. It cost me $20 to get the proper ID. Is this a poll tax? I'm a little pi**ed off, even though I can afford it, and I did it two years ago so I wouldn't have to scramble if and when the law went into effect. The source of this legislation makes me quite uneasy.
This is legislation that was sponsored by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), a conservative group (yes, I know) that works with legislators (usually of a certain party) to write legislation to be introduced across all states. ALEC membership includes many large corporations (a number of which have disengaged after ALEC practices were publicized). There is much unofficial lobbying, there are many lavish trips and gifts for members that are legislators. ALEC writes and helps strategize legislation on education, abortion, sex education in schools, enviromental regulations, laws affecting businesses, employment laws. One of the strategies is that if it can't be done at the national level, get it done in the states. It then becomes precident and can be finally broached at the national level. ALEC has brought to my state a lovely continuim: the only mandated sex education is abstension, restrictions on birth control, restrictions on who can perform abortions and the clinics in which they can be performed. Sex education with contriceptive information has been proved to be the best preventor of pregnancy AND abortion. So, is the ALEC answer don't tell, then punish for ignorance?
It's all very much more complicated than can be expressed in a paragraph or two. But, the voter ID is an ALEC initiative. And I wonder what the end result will be. Part of it is to allow election observers to more closely observe voters. How close can these people get to my personal space? In Wisconsin, a group is intending to identify and intimidate voters who signed recall petitions for the current governor. Excuse me? It's not 1940's Germany, but this feels a little intrusive to me. Will members of this group be election observers? Will people eventually have to prove that they have the proper education to vote? (Well, OK, I would like to better educate some people on voting, but to be fair that education should be on why it's important, and how to find unbiased information and be done outside of any party affilliation.)
I find it all very complicated, and simple answers are usually, um, simple -- and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.
In my Pollyanna world we would get the money out of politics and we eschew party lines for looking at the problem and finding the best possible solution, regardless of ideology. Yes, I'm gonna live on island I purchase, outside of any other governmental jurisdiction.
There are a lot of important issues, but I think money out of politics is the first one that has to happen. Voter ID is brought to you by money in politics.
Ok, (steps off soapbox)
RE: redistricting.
Indeed, both parties use this for their advantage. Makes me wonder why we let them do that. Districts should be drawn based on population and communities. Given the current nature of politics, perhaps this should be taken out of legislative control? Iowa has a unique system that seems to be working well: http://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Iowa
RE: voter ID in Wisconsin
One of the issues with this timing is that the voter ID law got the go-head just 6 weeks before a gubernatorial election. 1 out 5 people polled do NOT know that a valid ID is now required.
RE: voter ID in general
In general, I would accept voter idea as an OK idea. Why not? Except, when I look at the issue more closely, I ask, why? It indeed appears to be a move to disenfranchise certain voters. Elderly, economically disadvantaged, and people of color. People who are already less likely to vote, and for who this is just one more hurdle to jump (or maybe not try). People who are more inclined to vote for a certain party. Representatives of the other party have admitted that this does, indeed, single out certain groups of people and helps their party. Looking at how some laws are just a foot in the door to push more restrictive measures, I wonder what comes next. The statistics on voter fraud show is it minimal, almost non-existant. It cost me $20 to get the proper ID. Is this a poll tax? I'm a little pi**ed off, even though I can afford it, and I did it two years ago so I wouldn't have to scramble if and when the law went into effect. The source of this legislation makes me quite uneasy.
This is legislation that was sponsored by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), a conservative group (yes, I know) that works with legislators (usually of a certain party) to write legislation to be introduced across all states. ALEC membership includes many large corporations (a number of which have disengaged after ALEC practices were publicized). There is much unofficial lobbying, there are many lavish trips and gifts for members that are legislators. ALEC writes and helps strategize legislation on education, abortion, sex education in schools, enviromental regulations, laws affecting businesses, employment laws. One of the strategies is that if it can't be done at the national level, get it done in the states. It then becomes precident and can be finally broached at the national level. ALEC has brought to my state a lovely continuim: the only mandated sex education is abstension, restrictions on birth control, restrictions on who can perform abortions and the clinics in which they can be performed. Sex education with contriceptive information has been proved to be the best preventor of pregnancy AND abortion. So, is the ALEC answer don't tell, then punish for ignorance?
It's all very much more complicated than can be expressed in a paragraph or two. But, the voter ID is an ALEC initiative. And I wonder what the end result will be. Part of it is to allow election observers to more closely observe voters. How close can these people get to my personal space? In Wisconsin, a group is intending to identify and intimidate voters who signed recall petitions for the current governor. Excuse me? It's not 1940's Germany, but this feels a little intrusive to me. Will members of this group be election observers? Will people eventually have to prove that they have the proper education to vote? (Well, OK, I would like to better educate some people on voting, but to be fair that education should be on why it's important, and how to find unbiased information and be done outside of any party affilliation.)
I find it all very complicated, and simple answers are usually, um, simple -- and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.
In my Pollyanna world we would get the money out of politics and we eschew party lines for looking at the problem and finding the best possible solution, regardless of ideology. Yes, I'm gonna live on island I purchase, outside of any other governmental jurisdiction.
There are a lot of important issues, but I think money out of politics is the first one that has to happen. Voter ID is brought to you by money in politics.
Ok, (steps off soapbox)
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
A few years back I personally saw vote fraud happen that id would have prevented.
I was in line waiting to vote and a lady was talking about how she moved but was voting there.
Which even if she did not vote twice it is vote fraud because she is voting in a district she did not live which is not legal and not fair to the people who do.
The people handing out the ballots heard her and asked her about it and still let her vote.
If id was required and the address had to match that vote fraud would not have happened.
ie: timing
No matter when it is passed it is going to go into effect close to an election just because of the timing of the legislative rules.
A few years back I personally saw vote fraud happen that id would have prevented.
I was in line waiting to vote and a lady was talking about how she moved but was voting there.
Which even if she did not vote twice it is vote fraud because she is voting in a district she did not live which is not legal and not fair to the people who do.
The people handing out the ballots heard her and asked her about it and still let her vote.
If id was required and the address had to match that vote fraud would not have happened.
ie: timing
No matter when it is passed it is going to go into effect close to an election just because of the timing of the legislative rules.
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
I don't know if that was really vote fraud. In many places it is allowed to vote in the old district, depending upon the timing. Depends upon the place, but here if one moves within 30 days of an election, one votes in the old jurisdiction. The new one isn't an option. It also begs the question of if a person should lose the right to vote if one moves close to an election date. Now, granted, if she had moved months or a year ago, that's questionable. But we don't know and she was up-front about what she was doing. I interpret fraud to mean voting more than once, and/or for someone else. Voting once in one of one's recent address districts doesn't strike me as fraud.
Timing. If the law had gone into effect when first passed, it would have been 11 months to the next election. Only a few months before the primaries (when it was in effect), but a good piece of time before the actual election. At the time, there was also a good deal of money allocated for voter education -- we are now 4 weeks out on the election and the state has finally allocated some funds for voter education. Can it be done -- guess so. Is it fair, not in my opinion. But then life isn't fair, even if I think it should be.
Karl_K|1412693672|3763613 said:
I don't know if that was really vote fraud. In many places it is allowed to vote in the old district, depending upon the timing. Depends upon the place, but here if one moves within 30 days of an election, one votes in the old jurisdiction. The new one isn't an option. It also begs the question of if a person should lose the right to vote if one moves close to an election date. Now, granted, if she had moved months or a year ago, that's questionable. But we don't know and she was up-front about what she was doing. I interpret fraud to mean voting more than once, and/or for someone else. Voting once in one of one's recent address districts doesn't strike me as fraud.
Timing. If the law had gone into effect when first passed, it would have been 11 months to the next election. Only a few months before the primaries (when it was in effect), but a good piece of time before the actual election. At the time, there was also a good deal of money allocated for voter education -- we are now 4 weeks out on the election and the state has finally allocated some funds for voter education. Can it be done -- guess so. Is it fair, not in my opinion. But then life isn't fair, even if I think it should be.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,650
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
She was telling a friend about it and one of the ballot people I and others heard her she did not go up and say I moved.
I do believe there is something like a 30 day rule but it was over that in her case.
If she just voted once it is not a big deal for the national elections but for the district ones it is a big deal.
She was telling a friend about it and one of the ballot people I and others heard her she did not go up and say I moved.
I do believe there is something like a 30 day rule but it was over that in her case.
If she just voted once it is not a big deal for the national elections but for the district ones it is a big deal.
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
I don't know if that's enough to say it was voter fraud. Is it a process thing? Voter rolls are not adequately updated in a timely manner, voting workers not properly trained? Would she have stated the problem once she asked for her ballot? Did the poll workers opt to expedite the issue once they overheard her? Was she still on the district list? If it was long after 30 days, why?
Here, before voter ID, I had to:
1) register in my district
2) on voting day, state my address
3) state my name
4) be given a ballot
Now I have to do all of the above, plus:
5) sign my name
6) show ID
back to 4) get ballot
All on an individual basis, regardless of what I may have said/thought while waiting to get my ballot.
Are we putting the onus on citizens, for bureaucratic issues? Wouldn't be the first time.
Here, it's also not just voter ID. It's also restriction of extended voting hours, early voting, absentee voting. Oh, did I mention that absentee ballots had already been mailed for several thousand voters (including armed services personnel stationed overseas) prior to the court saying the state could go ahead with the ID law, IF IT WISHED. Meaning the state (i.e. the party in power) could decide when to start enforcing the law. Kind of messy. Sounds like a perfect situation for accusations of party sponsored election fraud, recount demands, etc. All at the expense of the state. And the bills and the responsibility all get laid on the voters. Who the heck comes up with these ideas?
I don't know if that's enough to say it was voter fraud. Is it a process thing? Voter rolls are not adequately updated in a timely manner, voting workers not properly trained? Would she have stated the problem once she asked for her ballot? Did the poll workers opt to expedite the issue once they overheard her? Was she still on the district list? If it was long after 30 days, why?
Here, before voter ID, I had to:
1) register in my district
2) on voting day, state my address
3) state my name
4) be given a ballot
Now I have to do all of the above, plus:
5) sign my name
6) show ID
back to 4) get ballot
All on an individual basis, regardless of what I may have said/thought while waiting to get my ballot.
Are we putting the onus on citizens, for bureaucratic issues? Wouldn't be the first time.
Here, it's also not just voter ID. It's also restriction of extended voting hours, early voting, absentee voting. Oh, did I mention that absentee ballots had already been mailed for several thousand voters (including armed services personnel stationed overseas) prior to the court saying the state could go ahead with the ID law, IF IT WISHED. Meaning the state (i.e. the party in power) could decide when to start enforcing the law. Kind of messy. Sounds like a perfect situation for accusations of party sponsored election fraud, recount demands, etc. All at the expense of the state. And the bills and the responsibility all get laid on the voters. Who the heck comes up with these ideas?
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Some new data on voter ID laws, although not conclusive by any means:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/voter-id-restrictions_n_5955736.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/voter-id-restrictions_n_5955736.html
NPR had a segment this morning on provisional ballots:
1) about 25% of provisional ballots may never be counted (various reasons)
2) some states/counties/precincts count them, some don't
3) sometimes people at the wrong polling place are allowed to vote to mollify them. Sometimes these ballots are not counted at all, sometimes only the votes valid for candidates in the voter's proper home district are counted.
4) in some places it depends upon the party affiliation of the local clerk as to whether the provisional ballots will be counted or not
5) voters who cast provisional ballots may never know if their votes were counted
Some new data on voter ID laws, although not conclusive by any means:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/voter-id-restrictions_n_5955736.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/voter-id-restrictions_n_5955736.html
NPR had a segment this morning on provisional ballots:
1) about 25% of provisional ballots may never be counted (various reasons)
2) some states/counties/precincts count them, some don't
3) sometimes people at the wrong polling place are allowed to vote to mollify them. Sometimes these ballots are not counted at all, sometimes only the votes valid for candidates in the voter's proper home district are counted.
4) in some places it depends upon the party affiliation of the local clerk as to whether the provisional ballots will be counted or not
5) voters who cast provisional ballots may never know if their votes were counted
sarahb
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,976
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
On my daily surf around the internet, came across this article--for what its worth:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/09/3-7-percent-voters-burlingtons-last-big-election-rolls//?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
I wonder where we'd be as a nation today if we had 'clean' elections. Stunning when you think about the potential real world ramifications.
On my daily surf around the internet, came across this article--for what its worth:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/09/3-7-percent-voters-burlingtons-last-big-election-rolls//?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
I wonder where we'd be as a nation today if we had 'clean' elections. Stunning when you think about the potential real world ramifications.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Well, t'would appear that that even that uber-conservative body, the US Supreme Court, agrees that Wisconsin voter id attempts impose too great a burden on minorities. Even Texas ruled the same on theirs. Texas no less. It's got to be pretty blatant to get Texas on board, I'm thinking.
And therein has always been the danger: taking the recent proposed voter id legislation at face value, and viewing it as "voter id = good" without a thorough understanding of how voting laws have often been used in our sordid racial history, to restrict or blunt the voting rights of blacks, pretty much out of existence. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did NOT come to be in a vacuum, and neither do these attempts. These rulings show an understanding and acknowledgement of that history, and how many of these attempts have the same intent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0
The Supreme Court on Thursday evening stopped officials in Wisconsin from requiring voters there to provide photo identification before casting their ballots in the coming election.
Three of the court’s more conservative members dissented, saying they would have allowed officials to require identification.
Around the same time, a federal trial court in Texas struck down that state’s ID law, saying it put a disproportionate burden on minority voters.
.
.
.
Thursday’s ruling from Texas, issued after a two-week trial in Corpus Christi, found that the state’s voter ID law “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos wrote.
A spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal “to avoid voter confusion in the upcoming election.”
Ryan P. Haygood, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, welcomed the decision. “The evidence in this case,” he said, “demonstrated that the law, like its poll-tax ancestor, imposes real costs and unjustified, disparate burdens on the voting rights of more than 600,000 registered Texas voters, a substantial percentage of whom are voters of color.”
Well, t'would appear that that even that uber-conservative body, the US Supreme Court, agrees that Wisconsin voter id attempts impose too great a burden on minorities. Even Texas ruled the same on theirs. Texas no less. It's got to be pretty blatant to get Texas on board, I'm thinking.
And therein has always been the danger: taking the recent proposed voter id legislation at face value, and viewing it as "voter id = good" without a thorough understanding of how voting laws have often been used in our sordid racial history, to restrict or blunt the voting rights of blacks, pretty much out of existence. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did NOT come to be in a vacuum, and neither do these attempts. These rulings show an understanding and acknowledgement of that history, and how many of these attempts have the same intent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0
The Supreme Court on Thursday evening stopped officials in Wisconsin from requiring voters there to provide photo identification before casting their ballots in the coming election.
Three of the court’s more conservative members dissented, saying they would have allowed officials to require identification.
Around the same time, a federal trial court in Texas struck down that state’s ID law, saying it put a disproportionate burden on minority voters.
.
.
.
Thursday’s ruling from Texas, issued after a two-week trial in Corpus Christi, found that the state’s voter ID law “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose,” Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos wrote.
A spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal “to avoid voter confusion in the upcoming election.”
Ryan P. Haygood, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, welcomed the decision. “The evidence in this case,” he said, “demonstrated that the law, like its poll-tax ancestor, imposes real costs and unjustified, disparate burdens on the voting rights of more than 600,000 registered Texas voters, a substantial percentage of whom are voters of color.”
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Wisconsin's ID law wasn't struck down, the Supremes just said it can't go into effect for the November election, mainly because 12,000 absentee ballots had been mailed before the ruling that the state could implement it during the on-going litigation, if it so chose.
I really wanted to post a link to an opinion article written by a local paper blogger, but it currently appears to be only available behind the pay wall. It is a first person account of the cost of obtaining an approved voter ID for a quadriplegic wheelchair user. Including needing to hire a driver, take a day off of work, and get assistance in filling out the forms. He wound up in his current physical state as the result of being hit by a drunk driver in 2010. His current life style doesn't require a photo ID. He has a passport -- but it can't be used as a voter ID in Wisconsin because it's not proof of state residency. He points out that people who think, "who doesn't have ID and how hard is to get one?" are "restricted by their viewpoint. Because it's not difficult for them, they assume it's easy for everyone."
Whatever I feel about voter ID, I do believe this was the correct ruling for Wisconsin for the November election.
Best.
Wisconsin's ID law wasn't struck down, the Supremes just said it can't go into effect for the November election, mainly because 12,000 absentee ballots had been mailed before the ruling that the state could implement it during the on-going litigation, if it so chose.
I really wanted to post a link to an opinion article written by a local paper blogger, but it currently appears to be only available behind the pay wall. It is a first person account of the cost of obtaining an approved voter ID for a quadriplegic wheelchair user. Including needing to hire a driver, take a day off of work, and get assistance in filling out the forms. He wound up in his current physical state as the result of being hit by a drunk driver in 2010. His current life style doesn't require a photo ID. He has a passport -- but it can't be used as a voter ID in Wisconsin because it's not proof of state residency. He points out that people who think, "who doesn't have ID and how hard is to get one?" are "restricted by their viewpoint. Because it's not difficult for them, they assume it's easy for everyone."
Whatever I feel about voter ID, I do believe this was the correct ruling for Wisconsin for the November election.
Best.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Re: Supreme Court just asked to block Wisconsin's Voter ID L
Yeah, for me the issue is not id per se, but the fact that the voter id accepted is SO restricted. Seriously? You're at your polling place, and present a PASSPORT, and that's not good enough proof that you are the person in question? It works for Homeland Security but NOT for Wisconsin? The state has a person on the books as a registered Wisconsin voter, but after presenting photo id (passport) HE has to present additional proof of residency? Methinks the intent is not to ensure voting integrity, but to restrict voting. And to confuse the waters right before an election, again, to discourage voting by those for whom it is probably already extra difficult.
kimpnoth|1412942489|3765334 said:
Yeah, for me the issue is not id per se, but the fact that the voter id accepted is SO restricted. Seriously? You're at your polling place, and present a PASSPORT, and that's not good enough proof that you are the person in question? It works for Homeland Security but NOT for Wisconsin? The state has a person on the books as a registered Wisconsin voter, but after presenting photo id (passport) HE has to present additional proof of residency? Methinks the intent is not to ensure voting integrity, but to restrict voting. And to confuse the waters right before an election, again, to discourage voting by those for whom it is probably already extra difficult.
300x240.png)