Write4U - 10 September 2012 02:28 AM

Bryan - 10 September 2012 02:01 AM

1)  It’s very doubtful I was the first to link the Brennan Center study, so thanking me is kind but probably misdirected.

2)  I’ll thank the person who will show a willingness to discuss the methodology of the Brennan Center.  If we end up with appeal to authority plus the same old appeal to ignorance then we haven’t advanced the argument much on your side.

3)  Any word on how many votes the senate resolution received?  Twenty sponsors out of ... how many Democrat senators in 2005?  Looks like 45.  So if only the sponsors voted in favor (I don’t know whether it ever came to a vote) then the percentage is about 45 percent of Democrats (20/45).  That’s similar to the percentage who supported voter ID with the least positive framing in the survey we’ve discussed.

IMO, when there is such a significant portion of the population which has a fundamentally different ethical (moral) viewpoint of rights and restrictions, a patchwork of different laws by different states only serves to create further confusion and complications. It is time for a national discussion on this constitutional problem, including addressing the status of current undocumented immigrants in the US.

But, I agree, eventually it would be “perfect” when all persons in the US could be accounted for….at any time, any location, under surveillance by Big Brother, by issuing a federal picture ID with built in GPS and tracking signal…...

No more fraud, guaranteed!

It’s uncanny the bizarre responses I get when I try to get down to the brass tacks of the Brennan Center paper.

It must be that I’m trying to create a distraction or something.

TimB - 10 September 2012 07:05 AM

Write4U - 09 September 2012 02:35 PM

...
Suspicion (looking for potential enemies) has been a survival tool since the age of the dinosaur.
These laws at this time are based on “suspicion” of potentially significant voter fraud. The unintended consequence is the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population who cannot produce, say, a birth certificate in order to get a legal picture ID. These seemingly perfectly reasonable laws will negatively and permanently disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause.

Write, the consequence is not “unintended”.  That is why it is so sickening that anyone would argue for them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/v-print/2829960/the-gop-demographics-and-voter.html

We’ve got an opportunity to explore this statistic about “a significant portion of the population.”

That’s why we need to discuss the figures you’re drawing from the Brennan Center.

Instead, you’re more interested in combining the usual talking points with character attacks.  How dare I argue against you virtuous lot.  What a horrible person I must be.  Pfeh.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/voter_id/20978

In June, South Carolina officials indicated in federal court filings that they will quickly implement the law before the November election if it is upheld. Voters without photo ID by November would be able to sign an affidavit explaining why they could not get an ID in time.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/15/13287249-will-new-photo-id-laws-keep-down-the-black-vote-in-the-south?lite

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#in

Bryan, I am surprised by your stance that in order to prevent a few people from committing voter fraud you would be willing to disenfranchise many from their right to vote..

When you speak of numbers in favor or against, you are ignoring the fact that there will be a third party which will be injured by these actions, a large number of historically qualified people who will be disenfranchised.

Which do you consider to be more important, restricting the rights of many in order to prevent a few from abusing these rights? The restrictive nature of these new requirements at this short time before elections places an unnecessary burden on a significant portion of the population.

I am not trying to deflect your reasoning or logic. We agree.  My objection at THIS TIME is the haste with which this is being done. This is a MAJOR societal initiative which will affect millions of people without providing enough time to comply.  Voting is not a privilige, it is a Right.  Before a Right can be restricted, regardless of the popularity of a proposal, it must allow for sufficient time and costs to those who may be adversely affected.

Under the circumstances, many people will be denied their right to vote, by an administartive procedure. To me this sounds not very Democratic. It sounds more like Autocracy.

I don’t know whether a person who argues so avidly and persistently for laws, (that will disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause for those laws), is a horrible person.  But, IMO, somethin’s not right with ‘em.

TimB - 10 September 2012 05:04 PM

I don’t know whether a person who argues so avidly and persistently for laws, (that will disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause for those laws), is a horrible person.  But, IMO, somethin’s not right with ‘em.

I’d say that person needs to study some ethics.

I did not need my birth certificate until I was in my mid thirties and wanted a passport. My birth certificate had been in my mom’s purse when it was stole. I was able to get ID by declaration from my high school and use that to open accounts and get a driver’s license. When I first ordered a copy of my birth certificate, the state of my birth was….a little slow in responding. I don’t recall ever receiving it. When someone my mom knew flew to Hawaii, she had them pick up the certificates for me and my sibs. When the request came on line, I ordered a couple more. If all of this had been instituted 25 years ago, I would have never been able to vote. It isn’t always that easy.

I have no problem with saying that after this election, you must have a picture ID, but to institute it less than 100 days before an election makes me think they have something else in mind…disenfranchisement.

TimB - 10 September 2012 07:05 AM

Write4U - 09 September 2012 02:35 PM

...
Suspicion (looking for potential enemies) has been a survival tool since the age of the dinosaur.
These laws at this time are based on “suspicion” of potentially significant voter fraud. The unintended consequence is the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population who cannot produce, say, a birth certificate in order to get a legal picture ID. These seemingly perfectly reasonable laws will negatively and permanently disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause.

Write, the consequence is not “unintended”.  That is why it is so sickening that anyone would argue for them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/v-print/2829960/the-gop-demographics-and-voter.html

I agree, that the consequences are not unintended politically.
But from a strictly legal sense, which Bryan is arguing, even if it is desirable to have an “identified” voter, the practical “unintended” result of this legal action at this short notice is the disenfranchisement of a greater number of otherwise qualified people than the prevention of a smaller number of unqualified voters to commit voter fraud. This, IMO, is what Souter argued in his opposition writ.

Otherwise it is hard to argue against the establishment of voter ID laws for voting purposes. But all states have voter ID requirements in place, more or less restrictive in nature. This non-conformity presents a legal nightmare in a federal election as was seen in the Bush v Gore state ruling which changed (or may have) an entire federal election result. 
I propose a Federal voter ID to be a single federal program by te Department of Immiration which can employ various means of identification (other than a birth certificate) to establish citizenship with its attendant right to vote. This will take TIME to fully implement and time should be allowed for such a major change in the rules.

However, I do agree that a federal picture or fingerprint ID will eventually result in a more streamlined process and efficiency which in turn will save costs for administrative burdens on the general population. The notion of States’ sovereignty should have no bearing on issues which are federal in nature. Where does it say in the constitution that blacks must be allowed access to public schools? I see this as a comparable situation.

Proof of citizenship is (should be) a Federal issue. A state can require proof of residency, but citizenship (and its right to vote) is under Federal Domain, IMO.

Write4U - 10 September 2012 06:49 PM

TimB - 10 September 2012 07:05 AM

Write4U - 09 September 2012 02:35 PM

...
Suspicion (looking for potential enemies) has been a survival tool since the age of the dinosaur.
These laws at this time are based on “suspicion” of potentially significant voter fraud. The unintended consequence is the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population who cannot produce, say, a birth certificate in order to get a legal picture ID. These seemingly perfectly reasonable laws will negatively and permanently disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause.

Write, the consequence is not “unintended”.  That is why it is so sickening that anyone would argue for them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/v-print/2829960/the-gop-demographics-and-voter.html

I agree, that the consequences are not unintended politically.
But from a strictly legal sense, which Bryan is arguing, even if it is desirable to have an “identified” voter, the practical “unintended” result of this legal action at this short notice is the disenfranchisement of a greater number of otherwise qualified people than the prevention of a smaller number of unqualified voters to commit voter fraud. This, IMO, is what Souter argued in his opposition writ.

Otherwise it is hard to argue against the establishment of voter ID laws for voting purposes. But all states have voter ID requirements in place, more or less restrictive in nature. This non-conformity presents a legal nightmare in a federal election as was seen in the Bush v Gore state ruling which changed (or may have) an entire federal election result. 
I propose a Federal voter ID to be a single federal program by te Department of Immiration which can employ various means of identification (other than a birth certificate) to establish citizenship with its attendant right to vote. This will take TIME to fully implement and time should be allowed for such a major change in the rules.

However, I do agree that a federal picture or fingerprint ID will eventually result in a more streamlined process and efficiency which in turn will save costs for administrative burdens on the general population. The notion of States’ sovereignty should have no bearing on issues which are federal in nature. Where does it say in the constitution that blacks must be allowed access to public schools? I see this as a comparable situation.

Proof of citizenship is (should be) a Federal issue. A state can require proof of residency, but citizenship (and its right to vote) is under Federal Domain, IMO.

All the states make their own voter id laws.  This is not something that is going to change anytime soon. Perhaps it should, or maybe not.  But this is a separate argument than what the title of this thread is about.  The voter ID laws that have been pressed over the past couple of years are part of a concerted effort to influence the coming Presidential election in favor of the Republicans.  Photo ID requirements are just one part of this concerted effort.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153509/gop_voter_suppression_plan:_seven_tactics_to_block_your_vote_in_2012?page=0,2

Another tactic might be to argue ceaselessly about how “reasonable” these tactics are.

If the Republicans are allowed to get away with this, we could have George W. Bush, the Sequel, starring Mitt Romney.

I agree with you “at this time”, in context of the thread title.

But ... this never happens.

Write4U - 10 September 2012 04:31 PM

Bryan, I am surprised by your stance that in order to prevent a few people from committing voter fraud you would be willing to disenfranchise many from their right to vote..

How many am I willing to disenfranchise?

Again: I’m the one encouraging an examination of the Brennan Center statistics.  Everyone else at the Center For Inquiry seems willing to accept the numbers at face value.

When you speak of numbers in favor or against, you are ignoring the fact that there will be a third party which will be injured by these actions, a large number of historically qualified people who will be disenfranchised.

When I reference the support voter ID has from the public, including large numbers of Democrats, it ought to put the lie to claims that the movement toward voter ID is purely partisan.  For some reason, however, it doesn’t sem to work.  The claim gets repeated and repeated.  And participants claim that it is appropriate to repeat the claim (without addressing the bipartisan support for voter ID laws).  If this discussion occurred in a public forum perhaps members of this group would be trying to simply shout me down and discourage discussion of the issue.

Which do you consider to be more important, restricting the rights of many in order to prevent a few from abusing these rights? The restrictive nature of these new requirements at this short time before elections places an unnecessary burden on a significant portion of the population.

I don’t know how many vote fraudulently (we have poor means for measuring it) and I don’t know how many will be prevented from voting (again, we have poor means for measuring it and a number of different ways voter ID is implemented).  I don’t think you know, either.  That question contains a prejudice toward your view of things.

Voting is not a privilige, it is a Right.  Before a Right can be restricted, regardless of the popularity of a proposal, it must allow for sufficient time and costs to those who may be adversely affected.

There is no right to vote delineated in the United States Constitution.  States can limit the right to vote in ways not barred by constitutional amendment (such as keeping felons from voting).  There is federal law of dubious modern application that limits changes some states and localities can make to their voting process.  Those states and localities are typically those who engaged in poll taxes and the like decades earlier.  It’s probably time to start treating all states and localities equally as to that issue.

Under the circumstances, many people will be denied their right to vote, by an administartive procedure. To me this sounds not very Democratic. It sounds more like Autocracy.

Look, some of the voter ID laws are better than others.  That’ s why I provided an informational link to show some of the differences.  Many of the new voter laws permit voters to use a provisional ballot upon signing an affidavit having to do with ID status (those provisions appear to vary widely as to particulars).

I’ll keep saying it until people acknowledge it:  Voter ID is commonsense legislation and there are ways of mitigating the disastrous effects predicted by some of those involved in the discussion.  They’re still invited to provide solutions (and to provide evidence regarding the claimed numbers of disenfranchised voters).  Also, it is important to the election process that people trust the results.  That is the likely reason why voter ID laws carry such wide appeal, and increasing public confidence about the voting process is not the sort of thing we want to put off until after elections.

This whole thing thread about Republican conspiracy is disingenuous.  Democrats deliberately targeted elected positions that entailed the position of supervisor of elections during recent elections.  It was a special emphasis.  Conspiracy?  Politically motivated?  Of course—in the same trivial sense that voter ID and its opposition is politically motivated.  I’d like to take the issue deeper than mere partisan bickering over motivation and look directly at the numbers we’re throwing around and see how they’re justified.  It remains to be seen whether I can drag at least one of you with me.

Bryan,
How many am I willing to disenfranchise?

How about One?  Does it really matter how many?  Tell me how many cases of voter fraud can you cite?

You have just done what you acuse others of doing, except you have reversed the equations of unknown numbers.

I have told you several times that in principle I agree with your stance.  I just consider it a Federal issue when federal elections are at stake. Similar to the Brown v Board of Education case.

Write4U - 11 September 2012 12:42 AM

Bryan,
How many am I willing to disenfranchise?

How about One?

One barely justifies your charge that I’m willing to disenfranchise “many” better than none.

Does it really matter how many?

I guess not.  Maybe you’ll charge me with being willing to disenfranchise “many” regardless.

Tell me how many cases of voter fraud can you cite?

I’m stuck with numbers like yours.  “As many as x” based on the apparent registration of felons and non-citizens.  And persons voting in more than one state.

You have just done what you acuse others of doing, except you have reversed the equations of unknown numbers.

I’m afraid I’m not following what you’re talking about.  I’m trying to get you to see things from the opposite perspective, certainly.  So you might be talking about that, but it would help if you were specific.

I have told you several times that in principle I agree with your stance.

Good.  And I agree with some of what you say.  I’m in favor of voter ID laws that maximize the opportunity for people to comply.  But not to the point of allowing people to easily vote illegally.  I think the legitimacy of the voting process is important.  It’s important enough to lose a small number of legitimate votes.  We follow a similar principle in establishing a minimum voting age.

A Pennsylvania judge’s decision to uphold the state’s tough new voter-identification law last month was based in part on a 19th century state court decision that at the time disenfranchised many Philadelphia workmen who the court didn’t feel were virtuous enough to vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/voter-id-law-pennsylvania_n_1873941.html

Their aim is clear disenfranchisement, as was the law referenced for the judgement.

asanta - 11 September 2012 02:21 PM

A Pennsylvania judge’s decision to uphold the state’s tough new voter-identification law last month was based in part on a 19th century state court decision that at the time disenfranchised many Philadelphia workmen who the court didn’t feel were virtuous enough to vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/voter-id-law-pennsylvania_n_1873941.html

Their aim is clear disenfranchisement, as was the law referenced for the judgement.

That’s a distortion of the judge’s decision.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ev_zAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq;=“where+a+large+number+is+floating+upon+the+rivers+and+the+sea”&source=bl&ots=WibltTkIHo&sig=N6kIKoUDNQBYtMpgf8aBP1BFSVA&hl=en#v=onepage&q=“where a large number is floating upon the rivers and the sea”&f=false

Anybody want to talk about the Brennan Center’s standards for finding people affected by voter ID laws?