The two most interesting issues seem to be "the constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25)" and "the constitutionality of execution by lethal drugs when the chemical protocol poses a risk of pain and suffering (Baze v. Rees, 07-5439)."
ADDED: More on the photo ID case:
In general, Republicans argue that identification laws reduce voter fraud, while Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic.
Coincidentally or otherwise, the two Seventh Circuit judges who voted to uphold the Indiana law, Richard A. Posner and Diane S. Sykes, were put on the bench by Republican presidents (Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush, respectively), while the one dissenting judge, Terence T. Evans, was elevated by President Clinton.
Writing for the majority, Judge Posner acknowledged that the Indiana law favors one party. “No doubt most people who don’t have Photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” he wrote.
But the purpose of the law is to reduce voting fraud, “and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes — dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote,” Judge Posner said. And assertions that many people will be disenfranchised, or that there is no significant voter-fraud problem in Indiana, are based on unreliable data and “may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists’ and other investigators’ choice of scandals to investigate,” the judge held.
In dissent, Judge Evans wrote that the Indiana law imposed an unconstitutional burden on some eligible voters. “Let’s not beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
Posts
167 comments:
"Republicans argue that identification laws reduce voter fraud, while Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic."
I think these two arguments are perhaps the best indicator of why we need Voter ID laws.
Of course Democratic turnout goes down when you ask voters to prove they are who they say they are!
That's because - Democrats are cheating!
I have a few questions for those who favor the process:
Who provides the photo I.D.?
Who pays for them?
How do people get them?
Are they mailed out?
Do people have to pick them up?
How long does it take to get them?
What if it isn't delivered?
What if it's stolen?
Slim999 said..."That's because - Democrats are cheating!"
And yet another highly intellectual argument is put forth.
*Now...answer my questions.
Deckard: I know that you have the correct documentation, but humor me.
Rachael: If you wish.
Deckard: You're reading a magazine. You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl.
Rachael: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard
(Blade Runner)
How is ANYONE "disenfranchised" by an ID requirement? Photo ID is available to every adult American.
Revenant said..."How is ANYONE "disenfranchised" by an ID requirement? Photo ID is available to every adult American."
Really?
You actually believe "every adult American" carries photo I.D.'s?
My mother doesn't drive and she doesn't carry one.
And again...where do we get these I.D.'s? Who pays for them? How do you get the photo taken? Where is the photo taken?
Answer the questions I posed before assuming EVERYBODY has an I.D.
It seems to me that the state a has a right (and maybe an obligation) to prevent voter fraud by assuring the identity of every voter. And it that case the state has an obligation to minimize the burden of obtaining the ID. Wouldn't you just love to see the supreme court rule that the 2 hour lines at the DMV are unconstitutional!
OK, probably a pipe dream. But I lost my wallet last week!
IDless? Just do what I had to do when I went to the polls in 2004 and wasn't on the list, even though I was totally registered. Turned out my name was entered wrong.
They didn't turn me away. I filled out a provisional ballot with my information that was later confirmed, thus contributing to George Bush's big win in California.
IDs allow for immediate voting. Don't have one, go provisional so you are confirmed.
We could also associate a photo ID with a social security card. Everyone seems to have to have one of those, with no complaints. Why not have the same kind of access to IDs.
I think the questions about availability are valid, but we just need to answer those with more availability not a rejection of the whole idea. My mom is handicapped and can't drive. I've driven her to get her state ID. Problem solved.
There are other ways to assure voters have ID cards. Maybe even one that comes with confirmed voter registration, assuming registering to vote isn't an onerous demand for voting.
Some folks just can't see nuance in issues I suppose.
I have difficulty understanding how the mentally competent poor (arguably the folks burdened by the law) obtain other government assistance without being able to prove they are the ones seeking medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, etc.
we pass all those things out to anyone who walks up?
Let me try again.
I did the googling for you LOS. It was easy. answers most of your questions even the “what if” ones.
In this day and age it seems ludicrous that anyone couldn’t get a picture ID. 40 years ago it was a different story.
The most likely outcome of this law is an increase in the demand for and supply of photo IDs. If legitimate IDs are difficult to get, market forces will fill in as required to achieve the desired outcomes. If there are parties who do not balk at cheating in the current system, they will not reform because of the new law; they will simply expand their skill set.
Sorry about the above. That's not how it looks in the preview. I tried it twice.
In fact, if photo IDs are accepted at "face" value, multiple IDs may make it EASIER to commit fraud. Those folks voting for the graveyard residents just need an ID with their own picture and the appropriate tombstone inscription.
Since one needs a photo ID to write a check for groceries or get a library card it would hardly seem a burden on an adult citizen to procure a photo ID. Ditto for flying or I believe getting a trainticket.
If they are a citizen. If they only vote in one precinct.
Many states have a special photo ID for those who do not drive. In Ohio I believe it is $7.00, the price of a movie, and valid until a person changes addresses.
On any given day up to 8 million undocumented workers are on the job with phony SS numbers and phony SS cards, a photo ID at the polls doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
I don't know about Indiana but in Wiscocnsin it cannot get any easier to commit fraud. I have seen people use the address label on Time Magazine to same day register to vote.
Voter ID is not going to fix everything but it is a good and necessary start.
Writing for the majority, Judge Posner acknowledged that the Indiana law favors one party. “No doubt most people who don’t have Photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” he wrote.
That's an assumption and nothing more. He is stating something as fact, that he cannot prove.
Ohhh trouble in River City that's for sure. Ok, just a couple quick questions here:
1. Which ID is acceptable? I just went through my wallet and I have a driver's license, a library card and my Sam's Club card with my picture. My wife's mother doesn't have a driver's license anymore. Which do I use and which does she use?
2. The local 7-11 store is the congregate place for day labor...100 or so show up there in the morning and work in the vineyards or for landscape companies. It is all cash. They have as much ID as I do that carries something that makes them look not only legal but resident. Which do they use? Who is going to check for fake ID? How is that going to work?
This stunt gets attempted every so often and lo and behold it shows up in a place where at least one of the judges seems to be from another planet.
As to slim999's (better known as slim and none)argument that we need voter ID laws, last I looked, we have them. Enforce the one's you have instead of added more with a greater set of loopholes.
I think it's pretty dang insulting to say that people who vote Democrat are the people too stupid to manage to get an ID card. If this is too much of a burden to vote, it's far far too much of a burden to *live*.
No one is trying to keep Democrats from voting because *no-one* really believes that anyone who is alive enough to *breathe* can't manage to get an ID card if they care to do so.
Do Democrats actually believe this?
I think it's just a political posture to portray those nasty Republicans as trying to suppress the vote because that message, false as it is, plays so very well with constituencies who don't seem to notice just how brain-dead stupid they are being called *by* *Democrats*.
Ann,
Would you call it a contradiction of logic if one supports Hillary's plan to require workers to show proof of medical insurance but one does not support a requirememt to show valid ID in order to vote??
Has anyone ever spotted an illegal alien over 6-ft tall?
Judge Evans' dissenting opinion in that case was a terrific, but the majority clearly had the better of it, whether by Posner's route or any other. The claims against these laws really aren't very persuasive. Generaly, they impose an incidental burden (although one can imagine that if ID cost hundreds of dollars, that might amount to a problem).
The article's attempt to make a connection between Sykes and Posner merely because they're both GOP appointees borders on the absurd. They have very different approaches - if the comparison was between Sykes and Easterbrook, that's still something of a jump, but it's at least credible. It seems to me that no one familiar with Posner's jurisprudence could seriously suggest (as the article does by implication, or outright, as Toobin does in The Nine) that Posner is a "conservative judge." Whatever the precise contours of "conservative judging" might be, it doesn't seem to me that Posner occupies those hills.
The Drill Sgt asked:
"I have difficulty understanding how the mentally competent poor (arguably the folks burdened by the law) obtain other government assistance without being able to prove they are the ones seeking medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, etc.
we pass all those things out to anyone who walks up?"
Good question Sgt; perhaps Luckoldson can answer it for us?? (lucky- FYI- this is how you ask nicely)
"In dissent, Judge Evans wrote that the Indiana law imposed an unconstitutional burden on some eligible voters. “Let’s not beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”"
I did not realize judges were mandated to demagogue from the bench. He's basically saying that everyone who has ever voted for such a law (including when it has been on the ballot) has that motivation, rather than being concerned with fraud. That is both disingenuous and a political, not legal, argument.
As for LOS's questions, here would be my answers:
"Who provides the photo I.D.?"
The state.
"Who pays for them?"
Determined by the state's legislature. I would hope that provisions are made that the poor would not have to pay for one.
"How do people get them?"
In a manner prescribed by the legislature. Hopefully the manner would preclude people fraudulently getting more than one.
"Are they mailed out?"
Ask the legislature.
"Do people have to pick them up?"
Ask the legislature. Most likely, since they would have to have their photo taken.
"How long does it take to get them?"
Ask the legislature. States can require people to register by a certain date in advance, so them having to get their ID a certain amount of time in advance should not be an issue.
"What if it isn't delivered?"
They probably should not wait until the last minute. If someone does not wait until the last minute and the government screws up getting them the ID, then either they can get that rectified, or alternately a provisional ballot seems that it would work.
"What if it's stolen?"
Same as above. If no time to get a new ID, then a police report on the stolen ID plus a provisional ballot should do the trick.
Return question-- are you trying to make the perfect be the enemy of the good?
^ That is, my recollection is that it was a terrific read, I haven't read it since the court decided the case.
My wife's mother doesn't have a driver's license anymore. Which do I use and which does she use?
You use your driver's license. Your wife's mother goes and gets your state's equivalent of one of these.
Where is Ruth Anne Adams ? We haven't heard from her in awhile, and she didn't post anything on her blog yesterday.
I'm quite concerned. Did she just wither away?
These boorish male Althouse fans keep chasing all the women away.
I've been showing a photo ID to vote for years. Yeah, close the loopholes and if you can get a busload of people down to the precinct on election day, take an afternoon and take them to get a photo ID.
While they are at it, teach them how to use the ballot. "Here mark the bubble next to the "D" and you are done. OK folks, lets go to Golden Corral, lunch is on me."
Revenant said...
"You use your driver's license. Your wife's mother goes and gets your state's equivalent of one of these."
She has her name on the County Voting Rolls. Has for 50 years. You drive her 45 miles each way, she can't stand for long due to age and health so you make that arrangement, you pay as well because otherwise it is a poll tax, and you make sure that everyone who votes produces the same thing..not a driver's license which any 18 year old who wants to drink can fake, not the stuff the illegals are walking around with, but this is america and everyone does the same thing.
and then you tell me how you are going to protect against people voting using fake ID any more effectively than you think they are doing at present...if there is a problem to begin with.
This is a kneejerk non-solution to a non-problem and if it keeps 1/10th of 1% from voting and those are majority democrats, then Lee Atwater isn't dead yet...just using fake ID.
Luckyoldson said...
"[Revenant said...'How is ANYONE "disenfranchised" by an ID requirement? Photo ID is available to every adult American.'] Really? You actually believe 'every adult American' carries photo I.D.'s? My mother doesn't drive and she doesn't carry one."
Revenant didn't say that everyone has one, but that they are available to anyone. It doesn't follow that everyone who's eligible to vote is registered to vote, and likewise, it doesn't follow that if someone doesn't have ID that they couldn't.
States can impose reasonable regulations on voting. Requiring inexpensive state-issued ID seems reasonable to me; in Indiana, where the challenged laws are in operation, even if you don't want or can't get a driver's license, you can obtain an equivalent state-issued ID at any branch of the DMV. It'll cost you the princely sum of $13 every six years ($10 for disabled and over-65s). That is not a substantial burden. Period. Just because some folks choose not to obtain it doesn't change that assessment.
People who can figure out how to get government benefits should at least be able to figure out how to vote. Otherwise, I'd argue they need guardians and should not be able to vote.
House, it is a problem. There was massive voter fraud in the state of Washington in 2004.
Harry - any legitimate state- or federally-issued photo ID will suffice. A driver's license will do it. Of course, if the state required such ID and didn't have any provision for state-issued photo ID, then I think that law would be objectionable, but that doesn't apply in Indiana, as noted above.
Mayor Hawkins: Why, Bert. I feel slighted. I'd like to join, but nobody asked me.
Sourpuss Smithers: I'm sorry, Mayor, but we voted that no politician could join.
Mrs. Hansen: Just the John Does of the neighborhood because you know how politicians are.
(Meet John Doe)
This is a kneejerk non-solution to a non-problem and if it keeps 1/10th of 1% from voting and those are majority democrats, then Lee Atwater isn't dead yet...just using fake ID.
It is enough of a problem for the Supreme Court to grant cert in order to resolve numerous and conflicting legal opinions across several jurisdictions.
Moreover, your argument works both ways: if such laws keep 1/10 of 1% of ineligible voters from committing vote fraud than once and for all the ghost of Mayor Daley will be able to rest in peace.
Well Simon, I just read the entire Indiana law...this struck me:
The photo identification requirement does not apply to a person who votes:
1) absentee by mail;
2) absentee by traveling board; or
3) in person on election day in a precinct whose polling place is located at the state
licensed care facility where the voter resides.
So the way around this is to vote absentee by mail. got it.
Maxine Weiss said...
Where is Ruth Anne Adams ..
These boorish male Althouse fans keep chasing all the women away."
....or are we all out chasing boorish women?
Gee: wouldn't voting by mail impose an undue burden on the poor: I mean they are required to put postage on the return envelope(tongue in cheek). I have voted by mail for 15 years now and it removes the hassle factor entirely as far as I am concerned.
Maxine asked if anyone had ever seen an illegal immigrant over six feet tall.
I have: He was English.
The Drill Sgt. said: "I have difficulty understanding how the mentally competent poor (arguably the folks burdened by the law) obtain other government assistance without being able to prove they are the ones seeking medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, etc."
So, you think a picture I.D. is necessary to receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid etc.?
I-don't-think-so.
Here are some stats from a recent study in Kansas:
· Only about two-thirds (64%) of the Medicaid beneficiaries surveyed expressed a willingness to purchase
one of the three state-approved forms of identification.
· Slightly more than 85% of the beneficiaries needing a new ID “strongly agree,” “mostly agree,” or “somewhat agree” with a statement suggesting that they would experience financial hardship if required to purchase a photo ID.
(An average of 1.8 IDs would need to be purchased per household, with a Kansas Driver’s License and State ID costing between $16 and $22. A passport costs between $82
and $97...but...Medicaid beneficiaries estimate that they can spend between $5 and $8 for one ID.)
· Three-quarters (76%) of respondents “strongly agree,” “mostly agree,” or “somewhat agree” that they would need financial assistance to purchase an ID.
· Respondents in households needing more new photo IDs are more likely (than those in households
needing fewer new photo IDs) to anticipate financial hardship, the need for financial assistance, and
problems with childcare when traveling to purchase an ID.
· Respondents in poorer households are more likely to anticipate financial hardship, the need for financial assistance, and transportation problems when traveling to get a new photo ID.
· Older respondents are more likely to express difficulty with transportation when attempting to obtain a new photo ID, while younger respondents express concerns about childcare issues.
If the government wants to provide, I.D.'s that can't be forged (GFL), pay for the production, delivery, etc...let's take a run at it...it couldn't possibly cost more than a billion or so...before corruption enters the equation.
But...we ALL know I.D.'s can be forged by anyone with a computer, and contrary to some of the comments here, there are plenty of people who do NOT have photo I.D.'s so it's a ridiculous proposition.
And I suspect most here already know that, too.
Maxine think ALL illegal immigrants are...little brown people who come from Mexico.
We should be able to vote by mail, extend the voting period from one day to three days, and the period should fall between Thursday and Saturday.
Plenty of time, easy to implement.
And it will probably never happen.
Here I am with my immigration form
it's big enough to keep me warm
when a cold wind's coming
so go where you will
as long as you think you can
you'd better watch out, watch out for the man
anywhere you're going.
Come on and let me in, immigration man,
can I cross the line and pray
take your fingers from the tray.
Let me in, irritation man,
I won't toe your line today
I can't see it anyway
(Immigration Man, Graham Nash 1977)
DRUMROLL:
"And just for the record, it's probably not a good idea to invite a complete stranger, who is a heterosexual male, to your home when you're a woman living alone...unless, of course, you've already decided to have sex with him. "---Christopher Althouse (6/9/2006)
So, that's the reason why Althouse didn't invite the attendees at the meet over to her place !!!
She was afraid she'd be obligated to have sex with all the heterosexual males.
However, how many of the males were heterosexual at last Saturday's meet ?
Gotcha!
http://christopheralthouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/rape-and-myspace.html
Who provides the photo I.D.?
Indiana law specifies a government-issued I.D., so a driver's license, a state ID card, or an ID issued by the federal government will work.
Who pays for them?
The person requesting the I.D., although they are free for those who can't afford one.
How do people get them?
License branch.
Are they mailed out?
No.
Do people have to pick them up?
The I.D. is printed within minutes of having your picture taken.
How long does it take to get them?
See above.
What if it isn't delivered?
Not relevant in Indiana.
What if it's stolen?
Get a new one.
It is ironic that the Supreme Court is hearing the case because the Appellate Court building where the case was heard has a sign on the outside of the building stating that a photo I.D. is required of anyone entering the building.
Too funny.
It will be interesting to see if Justice Breyer and other advocates of citing foreign law do so in the voter ID case. I don't think many European countries let you walk in and vote without ID.
First, I'm not sure at the moment whether or not this is a good law...I tend to lean toward a good decision.
However, I wonder whether the Republicans who quickly say everyone should produce ID to vote are the same ones who do not support ID to purchase a gun, or would not support fingerprinting for voter identification?
I do think any measure we can take to reduce voter fraud is good for the process, but I also think that anyone wishing to commit voter fraud will likely be wise enough to find other means.
Also, the idea that voter fraud exists only among poor (thus Democratic) voters is rather ludicrous. There are many different types of voter fraud and also disenfranchisement and they should all be investigated and punished.
Dogwood,
You act as if EVERYBODY just walks out, climbs into their car and drives to the license bureau.
(Everybody has a car?)
Who pays for it if it's "free?"
(Taxpayers?)
What if it isn't delivered? (No vote?)
When I say it' "stolen" I'm not referring to getting a new one...I'm talking about who stole the I.D. (Who votes?)
Why can't it be mailed? Credit cards, debit cards and driver's licenses are. (Security?)
The whole idea is ridiculous, would cost a fortune to implement and corrupting influences would turn it into a fiasco.
Pierre said..."I don't think many European countries let you walk in and vote without ID."
We don't either.
Does anyone have any clue what Maxine is bathering about?
Ahhh the trouble with people:
Dogwood said...
Who pays for them?
The person requesting the I.D., although they are free for those who can't afford one.
Are they mailed out?
No.
Do people have to pick them up?
The I.D. is printed within minutes of having your picture taken."
There is no provision that is clear demonstrating the litmus test for "free if you can't afford one" except that it is fairly clear that these are free without much hassle.
But my fav is "do people have to pick them up" and the answer is "they are ready within minutes..."
Let's look at that because when someone gives an answer to some other question than the one asked my natural response is why.
"they are ready within minutes" is the answer to "how long does it take to get one when you go to the driver's license place"? The question is, however, "do people have to pick them up"...so now the point of the stick....
1. people have to go somewhere where they don't normally have to go.
2. what ID do they need to show to get the ID? .. so if they can produce ID to get an ID why can't they vote with their ID? Otherwise what is the point?
3. is the purpose of the legislation to hook the driver's license people into participating with the voter people?
The best part is that after all that, they get to vote on Diebolt voting machines with less of a paper trail than it takes to get into the polling place to begin with, and on machines with components made in China and the Phillipines and assembled in ...drum roll please "Venezuala" and then brought back into the US and distributed without an US hand touching them....and we worry that some 77 year old is going to vote twice?
OHMYGOD.
Anyone too stupid or too lazy to get a photo ID shouldn't be voting. Yes, I mean that.
Sure, Maxine has been harping on the fact that she wanted everyone to be invited back to the professor's digs…..perhaps because she was there incognito…...now she picked up a post from the prof's son's blog to wave around....while implying that the people (i.e. men) who showed up were gay...now as a confirmed hetero it really doesn't scare me to be called gay... although some people like to make it a big insult on this blog...I don't know why it bothers them so much and why they harp on it nonstop....the gay guys who were there were pretty cool... but that won't stop Maxine from trying to hump a strawman...she's just being Maxine.
You drive her 45 miles each way, she can't stand for long due to age and health so you make that arrangement, you pay as well because otherwise it is a poll tax, and you make sure that everyone who votes produces the same thing..
I have no problem with raising taxes enough to pay the $7 fee an identification card costs a poor voter. As for the rest of it -- do it yourself. How on Earth does this woman even get to the polls to vote in the first place if she's that feeble?
House, it is a problem. There was massive voter fraud in the state of Washington in 2004.
And therein lies the real reason Democrats oppose voter ID. They know full well that criminals and illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Any requirement that makes it harder for those people to cast their fraudulent votes makes it harder for Democrats to get elected. It is as simple as that.
The scary thing is that Maxine can vote.
Photo ID for voting seems like a 21st century Poll Tax to me. Can't pay for an ID, either in money or time? Too bad.
What happens if you lose your wallet on Election Day before you vote?
At least when she dresses as a man and matches her driver's license.
MM: probably a provisional ballot--seems to be the way you vote when ID is problematic.
That's what I was thinking. Still, what a pain. I just go to the school basement at Blessed Sacrament and say my name. Of course, the people there know me since I've been voting there for 10 years now.
Trooper, take your pick:
Either--
1. All the men at the Meet-up were gay, and simply too "tired" to be invited over to Althouse's private abode.
-or-
2. None of the men at the Meet-up were gay, thus Althouse was afraid of being raped had she invited everyone over.
So, which is it?
LOS said...
"Only about two-thirds (64%) of the Medicaid beneficiaries surveyed expressed a willingness to purchase one of the three state-approved forms of identification."
Their willingness to do so is irrelevant to whether this law unduly burdens their right to vote. The question is whether it unreasonably burdens their ability to obain ID.
"You act as if EVERYBODY just walks out, climbs into their car and drives to the license bureau. (Everybody has a car?)"
If they have the ability to get themselves to the polling place, they have the ability to get themselves to the DMV to request and pick up their ID.
"Why can't it be mailed? Credit cards, debit cards and driver's licenses are."
Because as a commenter above noted, in Indiana at least, the ID is issued on the spot; the photograph is taken, you take a seat, and about ten minutes later you're given the card. So asking why it isn't mailed is pointless in view of the actual facts on the ground.
"The whole idea is ridiculous, would cost a fortune to implement and corrupting influences would turn it into a fiasco."
You could make that argument but for one problem: the law is already in place, and experience has falsified your prediction. It didn't cost a fortune and it hasn't become a fiasco.
Pierre said...
"It will be interesting to see if Justice Breyer and other advocates of citing foreign law do so in the voter ID case. I don't think many European countries let you walk in and vote without ID."
Of course not. Cf. Hudson v. Michigan, where the court's transnationalists said not a word about foreign law when they complained that the court was limiting the remedy to violations of a rule, notwithstanding that the rule itself has been squarely rejected in virtually every country to which they would have us look in Roper and so forth. To expect consistency in the citation of foreign precedent is to mistake the purpose of the enterprise.
ron st.amant said...
"However, I wonder whether the Republicans who quickly say everyone should produce ID to vote are the same ones who do not support ID to purchase a gun, or would not support fingerprinting for voter identification?"
I can't speak for my fellow members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but I've got no objection to gun registration laws.
TANGENT:
Maxine Weiss said...
"None of the men at the Meet-up were gay, thus Althouse was afraid of being raped had she invited everyone over."
If rape is about power rather than sex, as is commonly believed, why would you assume that gay men don't rape women? Surely the sexual preferences of the rapist would be irrelevant unless sex is the point.
Psychiatrist: Dr. Sanji?
Dr. Sanji: I don't think he's overly psychotic, but, I still think he's quite sick.
Psychiatrist: You think he's dangerous?
Dr. Sanji: Absolutely so.
(One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest 1975)
If they have the ability to get themselves to the polling place, they have the ability to get themselves to the DMV to request and pick up their ID.
Where I grew up (rural Pennsylvania), the polling place was behind my neighbors -- you walked through their yard to the school behind. The DMV required a (at least) 30-minute voyage by car. Perhaps DMVs in Indiana are placed so there's one near every school?
I just wonder this:
If Republicans were as concerned about electoral fraud as they claim they are, why do they go to great lengths to ensure that companies that voting machines don't have paper trails (making recounts more difficult or impossible in close or questionable elections) and to protect companies that make voting machines from having to divulge their source code to protect against hacking?
Keep in mind that the Nevada gaming commission requires that the source code to every slot machine or video gaming machine in the state be given to them (and it is willingly handed over by the makers of gaming machines, some of which like Diebold also make voting machines), and this makes it virtually impossible for anyone to hack into a gaming machine in Nevada. So why is it that protecting the integrity of gambling in Nevada is more important than protecting the integrity of American elections?
Photo ID for voting seems like a 21st century Poll Tax to me. Can't pay for an ID, either in money or time? Too bad. What happens if you lose your wallet on Election Day before you vote?
MadisonMan, if you'd read the previous posts you'd see that every one of those objections has already been addressed.
MadisonMan said...
"Photo ID for voting seems like a 21st century Poll Tax to me. Can't pay for an ID, either in money or time? Too bad."
At $13 for six years - just over $2 per year, yes, too bad. If the requirement was that you had to pay $200 for an ID that lasted two years, sure, then you could generate a serious argument. But this entire lawsuit is in incredibly poor taste, falsifying the presumption that de minimis non curat lex.
"What happens if you lose your wallet on Election Day before you vote?"
Several states, including Indiana, allow for provisional voting, so this argument doesn't survive scrutiny.
Eli Blake said...
"If Republicans were as concerned about electoral fraud as they claim they are, why do they go to great lengths to ensure that companies that voting machines don't have paper trails[?]"
I don't know of any Republican who's opposed to reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of the voting process. I'm sure that one can find concerns expressed about how best to ensure that integrity, but that isn't the same thing at all.
If Republicans were as concerned about electoral fraud as they claim they are, why do they go to great lengths to ensure that companies that voting machines don't have paper trails
The problem with your paranoid conspiracy theory is that overwhelmingly Democratic-dominated states such as California ALSO rushed to use electronic voting machines that left no paper trail.
Don't act like Republicans favor electronic voting via unmonitored systems and Democrats oppose it. That's a complete and utter lie. Democrats oppose it in exactly one circumstance: when they narrowly lose an election in a state that uses such a system.
A passport costs between $82
and $97.
Plus postage. :)
Maxine, you seem to be thinking Ann needs to live by the logic espoused by her offspring. I am not sure why you would think that is so, or why you think it is interesting, or why you are so interested in Ann's sex life.
Whatever the mindset, it's creepy.
LOS: "We don't either"
I have lived in states where I did not have to show any identification (photo or not) in order to vote. All I had to do was match the signature-- which was on the registration card that I did not have to show any identification for when filling it out originally.
this argument doesn't survive scrutiny.
I wasn't arguing, I was curious.
TOP-10 REASONS WHY ALTHOUSE REFUSED TO INVITE THE MEN AT THE MEET-UP OVER TO HER PLACE:
#9--She thought they'd all jeer at her Ingmar Bergman movies.
#8--She doesn't know the proper way to serve crudites and finger sandwiches.
#7--She was scared the heterosexual men would gang-rape her one she let 'em all in.
#6--She was scared the gay men would raid her extensive wardrobe.
#5--She was worried the heterosexual men would replace the filling in her Twinkies with shaving cream.
#4--She feared the gay men would redecorate.
#3--She was scared someone would find out where she hides her stash.
#2--Someone would discover her endless supply of egg-salad and know last month was simply all a publicity stunt.
#1--You are all simply not good enough to gain entry into the hallowed halls of the Althouse Inner Sanctum.
Live with it!
1. people have to go somewhere where they don't normally have to go.
Like going to the courthouse to register to vote.
2. what ID do they need to show to get the ID? .. so if they can produce ID to get an ID why can't they vote with their ID? Otherwise what is the point?
Birth certificate I believe. The feds are getting involved in deciding this issue too, so results may vary state to state.
3. is the purpose of the legislation to hook the driver's license people into participating with the voter people?
The purpose is to prevent voter fraud. State license branches are the usual locations for obtaining photo IDs, so that's where you send people.
Also, many state's have motor voter bills, so the voter people and the license branch people are already working together.
Joe said..."Anyone too stupid or too lazy to get a photo ID shouldn't be voting. Yes, I mean that."
It has nothing to do with being "stupid or lazy."
TANGENT:
I keep thinking how bloggers and commenters meeting is like Independent George meeting Relationship George.
EnigmatiCore said..."I have lived in states where I did not have to show any identification (photo or not) in order to vote."
Really?
I've alway had to show my driver's license or another form of appropriate identification.
What states don't care?
There is no provision that is clear demonstrating the litmus test for "free if you can't afford one" except that it is fairly clear that these are free without much hassle.
You sign a simple form stating you can't afford the fee and you get a free ID card.
Easy Peasy.
simon says: "If they have the ability to get themselves to the polling place, they have the ability to get themselves to the DMV to request and pick up their ID."
Many people do not go to polling locations.
Mailed and absentee ballots, etc.
Are you in favor of no longer allowing mailed or absentee ballots, too?
Slippery slope and all...
"What happens if you lose your wallet on Election Day before you vote?"
What happens if aliens kidnap you on election day?
Dogwood said..."You sign a simple form stating you can't afford the fee and you get a free ID card. Easy Peasy.
Who pays for them?
Let me guess...
EH said..."What happens if aliens kidnap you on election day?"
You're comparing possible loss, misplacing or theft of a wallet or I.D. to being kidnapped by aliens?
Get out much?
Seriously, Everyone:
Do you think Althouse regrets it, now?
Now that Maxine won't let it go, and has planted the seed....that you all deserved to be invited over...
Do you think that this will gnaw at her, the idea that she committed a major faux pas, and has created the perception that every single attendee at that Meet-up (Mash-up) ---was so far beneath her.... Althouse would never lower herself to have them in.....
Let's all take our anger out on that vicious Maxine for having the effrontery to suggest that Althouse made a major social gaff...
Yes, let's blame Maxine, then we don't have to consider Althouse's major blunder ...
The taxpayers do, Lucky, but most people have photo IDs so the number of free IDs issued is very small.
luckyoldson,
No, I'm saying people are using extremely unlikely events to object to requiring ids.
people are using extremely unlikely events to object to requiring ids.
And to support requiring them.
The basic issue is whether there is any warrant for the court to overturn a legislative judgment that a voter ID requirement does more good than harm. There is no question that it has a rational relation to a legitimate governmental interest, or that the governmental interest -- honest elections fairly conducted -- is substantial. (It's the same gov'tal interest, by the way, that trumped core First Amendment rights in Buckley v. Valeo and Wisconsin RTL.) Assuming that the ID requirement imposes a sufficient burden to discourage some voters from exercising the franchise, a court would still have to substitute its own weighing of the benefits-vs-harms in place of the legislature's to overturn the law.
I don't see any principled basis on which a court could do that. The quote from the dissenting judge that Ann features focuses, not on those issues, but on a claim that the intent of the law was to discourage Dem voters. Not having read the underlying opinion, I don't know whether he is referring to some finding of fact by the district court or is just offering his own spin. If there were such a factual finding about intent, I suspect it would make a major difference.
"people are using extremely unlikely events to object to requiring ids."
And to support requiring them.
What, exactly, is "unlikely" about fradulent voting?
Luckyoldson said...
"simon says: 'If they have the ability to get themselves to the polling place, they have the ability to get themselves to the DMV to request and pick up their ID.' Many people do not go to polling locations. Mailed and absentee ballots, etc."
Good point - but not persuasive, IMO, especially (but not exclusively) because IC 3-11-10-1.2 expressly provides that the ID requirement doesn't apply to postal and absentee ballots.
Richard - you can find the opinion below here.
The quote from the dissenting judge that Ann features focuses, not on those issues, but on a claim that the intent of the law was to discourage Dem voters. Not having read the underlying opinion, I don't know whether he is referring to some finding of fact by the district court or is just offering his own spin.
Its spin. The Democrats have not produced any evidence supporting their claim that the law disenfranchises voters.
For the record: I wasn't "incognito" at that Meet-up.
I was the Apparition floating above the table, trying to coax Althouse into inviting you all over.
However, I wonder whether the Republicans who quickly say everyone should produce ID to vote are the same ones who do not support ID to purchase a gun, or would not support fingerprinting for voter identification?
Apparently you haven't tried purchasing a firearm recently. The last firearm purchase I made I had to show my driver's license. Also, if you are purchasing a handgun, then there is the instant background check for felonies.
The Democrats have not produced any evidence supporting their claim that the law disenfranchises voters
Exactly. The objections being raised here, even if they DID prevent some people from voting (and I think it has been shown that they wouldn't) would do so in a random manner that would have no statistical impact on the election.
I.e., since Republicans are neither more nor less likely to lose their ID on the way to the polls than Democrats are, the Horrible Tragedy of ID Loss will have no net impact on any party's election chances. If 1% of voters constantly lose their IDs and the laws forbid any form of voting without one (which the suggested laws do not), that means that 1% fewer Democrats and 1% fewer Republicans will get to vote. So instead of winning 2100 to 1900, the victorious candidate wins 2079 to 1881 -- in both cases, 52.5% to 47.5%.
I wonder whether the Republicans who quickly say everyone should produce ID to vote are the same ones who do not support ID to purchase a gun
Beats me. I've never met any of those Republicans. Even the National Rifle Association has no problem with requiring ID to purchase a gun.
What, exactly, is "unlikely" about fradulent voting?
Well, how common is it? One frequently hears about it -- but then further investigations yield nada. You'd think the game plan was complain long and loud about VOTER FRAUD VOTER FRAUD VOTER FRAUD.
That so few are ever convicted of fraudulently voting? We don't need to mention that.
Someone has said this is a law in search of a problem. I agree.
Seven charged in vote-fraud scheme
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
"Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County."
"Workers accused of concocting the biggest voter-registration-fraud scheme in state history said they were under pressure from the community-organizing group that hired them to sign up more voters, according to charging papers filed Thursday.
To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.
One defendant "said it was hard work making up all those cards," and another "said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards," according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff's Detective Christopher Johnson."
The 2004 governor's race was called for Democrat Christine Gregoire with a 129-vote victory out of some three million ballots cast. King County officials had found new unsecured ballots on nine separate occasions during two statewide recounts.
It matters.
Inquiry finds evidence of fraud in election
Cast ballots outnumber voters by 4,609
By GREG J. BOROWSKI
journalsentinel.com
"Investigators said Tuesday they found clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee, including more than 200 cases of felons voting illegally and more than 100 people who voted twice, used fake names or false addresses or voted in the name of a dead person."
_____________________________
Police, FBI join investigation into possible election fraud
District attorney, U.S. attorney launch probe into invalid voter addresses in Nov. 2 election
By GREG BOROWSKI
journalsentinel.com
"Citing a Journal Sentinel review that found more than 1,200 votes cast from invalid addresses in Milwaukee, local and federal law enforcement officials launched a joint investigation Wednesday into potential voter fraud in the Nov. 2 election.
This week, the newspaper reported finding that more than 1,200 votes Nov. 2 came from invalid addresses, with nearly 75% of those coming from people who registered at the polls. Of those, a sample showed about 20% could be explained by data entry errors, such as transposed digits.
In addition, the newspaper found that 186 votes from invalid addresses were among about 5,600 addresses challenged before the election by the state Republican Party as non-existent.
Meanwhile, the newspaper's latest review of the city's records shows several hundred cases in which the same person is recorded as voting twice from the same address, though it appears to be the result of already-registered voters who re-registered to vote and consequently are listed in the database twice.
The Journal Sentinel found 314 cases where this may have occurred with the same address listed twice, and many others cases where people with identical and uncommon names are listed as voting at two addresses - perhaps due to reregistering at their new address on election day."
In your backyard, too.
Well, how common is it? One frequently hears about it -- but then further investigations yield nada.
First of all there were a number of documented cases of massive voter fraud in the last election, and people are going to prison for it. In other cases of obvious voter fraud (e.g., Seattle) they got away with it.
Secondly, how exactly does one go about proving that voter fraud occurred when there's no paper trail for the vote? All I had to do to vote, here in California, was show up and sign my name. It is *impossible* to prove that fraudulent voting has occurred under those conditions. I could have registered as ten different men and voted ten times if I'd wanted to.
You'd think the game plan was complain long and loud about VOTER FRAUD VOTER FRAUD VOTER FRAUD.
You have me confused with the Democratic Party after the 2004 election.
That so few are ever convicted of fraudulently voting? We don't need to mention that.
No, we DO need to mention it, because the reason so few people get convicted of voter fraud is that voter fraud is virtually impossible to prove. It is harder to buy a can of beer than it is to vote for the next President -- and a lot more effort goes in to catching the folks who try illicitly buying beer, too.
Someone has said this is a law in search of a problem. I agree.
Here is the rationale behind Indiana's voter ID law, which was authored by my state senator.
This is an excerpt from an article at www.stateline.org:
Much of the civil rights controversy escaped Indiana state Sen.Vic Heinold (R), who sponsored the voter ID bill now sitting on his governor's desk. He said he was inspired to introduce his bill after a conversation on the campaign trail.
"I was campaigning this summer in a minivan and met a postal worker in Indianapolis," Heinold said. "And he asked me what I was going to do about all the people voting more than once in the city."
A surprising question, Heinold said. But after hearing the man had been approached with an offer to vote more than once, Heinold said he was convinced Indiana needed a way to prevent voter fraud.
"I didn't think it was controversial," Heinold said, arguing legitimate voters are being marginalized by cheaters, at least the ones who are caught. "We have no grasp on the amount of fraud out there."
What's not said in the article, but was said by my senator during testimony on the bill, was the person encouraging the postal employee to vote more than once was the precinct committeeman.
Also not mentioned in the story is that the precinct committeeman told the postal worker that "we'll let you vote up to three times" during the day.
His first visit to the polls he was to vote for himself. Then, he was to come back three or four hours later and vote for a friend or relative that the postal worker knew wouldn't be going to the polls. Then at the end of the day, he could go back and vote for another relative or friend.
Voter fraud happens and if a simple photo ID can help discourage such behavior, then so be it.
MadisonMan said...
"What, exactly, is 'unlikely' about fradulent voting? Well, how common is it?"
I don't think that matters, frankly. Even if there were no evidence of it (which isn't so), so long as no undue burden is imposed, there's no reason why states can't have purely prophylactic laws to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
And as I see it, an acceptance of this reasoning underlies the calls (repeated above) by many Democrats for close scrutiny of electronic voting machines. The only evidence that fraud has occurred is that the wrong candidate won - but that's a merely conceit, so in the absence of real evidence of fraud, it comes down to the abstract desire to prevent fraud. That's perfectly legitimate, I don't mean to gainsay it - and so is the Indiana law.
there's no reason why states can't have purely prophylactic laws to ensure the integrity of the voting process
There's also no reason to have such hyperpartisan laws other than partisan gain. At some point, the integrity of democracy is threatened, I suppose. Or something like that.
There's also no reason to have such hyperpartisan laws other than partisan gain.
Its not partisan. Its common sense.
Or it's.
Geez.
Mort:
"At some point, the integrity of democracy is threatened, I suppose."
Sure, I don't disagree. But I don't think this law remotely approaches that point. Eighteen cents a month to vote - or quite possibly nothing, as it turns out - doesn't exactly strike me as the Prætorian Guard rumbling into Rome.
There's also no reason to have such hyperpartisan laws other than partisan gain.
An ID requirement isn't even slightly partisan. It certainly isn't "hyperpartisan".
The local lefties are trying to make it sound like there are massive numbers of Democrats out there who are legitimately entitled to vote but completely unable to scrape together the money and/or time to get a $7 ID card every few years. That's a bald-faced lie and they know it. Virtually the only people in this country without legitimate photo ID are criminals and illegal immigrants, because you can't do much of ANYTHING in this country -- besides, sadly, VOTE -- without showing an ID.
How the hell are all these mysterious little old ladies with no ID buying food? You can't open a bank account, cash a check, or use a credit card without showing ID.
My State has had voter photo ID required since the 70s after a big inner city voting fraud scandal. It has survived challenges because the state has proven it works. We don't have vote fraud anymore but for a few cases where poll workers "in" on a scam didn't require ID when a few busloads of people voted twice at two precincts. And absentee ballots - which always have a portion thrown out when they can't be linked to an actual person in a challenge.
An adjacent state with no photo ID, though, Missouri -has been beset by rampant fraud since as long as I have been around, year after year, particularly St Louis.
Jefferson Smith: I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
(Mr Smith Goes to Washington 1939)
LOS,
You really need to get a new song. This one is stale.
For instance, try to get a social security card with some form of ID - and they check it out. The same goes for all the state entitlements - and I am talking here in Queens, NY. When you go you first have to go to a window where they check your ID and other bona fides and that is before you even get to see any who actually can get you the cards you need.
What you are doing is setting up all kinds of straw men and hoping someone misses your MO. You haven't changed it in so long that it is stale now. Try another tack.
luckyoldson wants to know: who is going to pay for it?
The government is going to pay for citizens to have their TV's retrofitted:
Congress has ordered broadcasters to shut off old-style analog TV broadcasts by Feb. 17, 2009, and replace them with sharper digital ones . . . Congress has set aside $1.5 billion to subsidize the conversion. $40 coupons will be handed out, 2 to a household, on a first come first served basis. You can request them starting Jan 1, 2008.
So, lucky - that problem can be easily overcome by a bout 10% of what the government proposes for HDTV conversions. Which, when it is, will prove that you are not serious about this issue, and neither is the Democrat Party.
Pogo has listed articles of fact.
Can't take it when your world crumbles around you, can you?
Until you complain as vehemntly about driver's licenses being needed to drive, you've lost the argument.
Seriously, in this day and age, there is no good argument for not showing ID to vote at a polling place. It is not burdensome, can be remedied quite cheaply by the government, and will keep proven fraud - I saw it happen with 2 illegal aliens at my polling place , as I wrote in comments last year on this blog - to a less than miniscule problem.
Honestly elected government - something luckyoldson and the Democrat Party fear more than anything.
The other thing is that the laws need to identify what is acceptable ID. I know in Ohio they have a whole list of what you can use for ID. It doesn't solve all the problems but in the last few elections there the only problem areas have all been in the Cleveland area and just as the problem areas in Florida, Washington, Illinois the areas are in very heavily democratic regions. Funny thing about that. The dems claim the republicans are stealing elections but the screwed up areas are all democratically controlled and heavily so.
While Voter ID discussion takes up most comments on this thread, if we go back to the certs, the other is the endless death penalty foe argument that the Founders would never dream of executing someone in a manner that was cruel. That is why they opted for the painless method of hoisting someone up by a rope without breaking their neck...allowing the perp to strangle over 7-10 minutes.
Nowadays, the defense is the condemned little darlings might not be fully unconscious after a dose of barbituate adequate to knock out a horse is administered.
I think a solution might be in choice. If some thug is fretting about possible pain from lethal injection let them opt for instant death from a shotgun blast or high velocity rifle round to the back of the head. When you see a picture of Communists executing people that way with brains and pieces of skull and face flying everywhere there is no doubt that death is instant and painless.
Of course the thug's Momma has to have a closed casket.
Oh, well!
Then of course there is the Saudi Method. Dead in an instant and the head is normally sewn back on to avoid embarassment if the dispatched meets Allah later. "Mahmood! What good are 72 Virgins without you showing up in Paradise having a head?"
Then of course the thug should be allowed to opt for the method in use when the Constitution was written, just to satisfy the Federalist School strict constructionists - slow hanging.
Let the thug and his ACLU type shyster decide. Just tell them one way or the other the thug dies, but he gets a choice.
My guess is they will almost all opt for lethal injection though media covering the event would definitely prefer the thug to opt for one of the other three choices.
And right now, the biggest disgrace in capital justice is the Lawyers conspiring together to get endless revenue from endless appeals lasting 7 to 25 years, depending on the State. Scott Peterson practically has his whole life ahead of him to look forward to in Califirnia. James Couey in Florida, has 6 years to 10 and another million from taxpayers transferred into lawyer's pockets unless he is unguarded for an instant in contact with the general prison population.
(a rehearsal execution]
Brutus "Brutal" Howell: Arlen Bitterbuck, you have been condemned to die by a jury of your peers, sentence imposed by a judge in good standing in this state. Do you have anything to say before the sentence is carried out?
Toot-Toot: [gleefully] Yeah! I want a fried chicken dinner with gravy on the taters, I want to shit in your hat, and I got to have Mae West sit on my face, because I am one horny motherfucker!
(The Green Mile 1999)
I try to discourage as many people as possible from voting, without being too obvious about it.
Tammy Metzler: [her campaign speech] Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Carver. Do you really think it's going to change anything around here; make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I won't do anything. The only promise I will make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the student government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again!
[Student body erupts in huge cheers]
Tammy Metzler: Or don't vote for me... who cares? Don't vote at all!
[more cheers]
(Election 1999)
Cedarford said...
"And right now, the biggest disgrace in capital justice is the Lawyers conspiring together to get endless revenue from endless appeals lasting 7 to 25 years, depending on the State."
Actually, there's an even bigger disgrace that's closely related: two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, fully aware of said gamesmanship, have indicated their willingness to abolish the death penalty sub silentio by declaring that lengthy incarceration before execution is cruel and unusual punishment, even when the reason it takes so long to execute someone is the ongoing appeals filed by or on behalf of the prisoner. See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 995 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert); Allen v. Ornoski, 126 S. Ct. 1140 (2006) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting from denial of cert). Even if there's merit in the idea that excessive incarceration before execution is cruel and unusual, the clock ought to run from the date of final judgment in the most recent appeal filed by or on behalf of the prisoner.
Maxine,
How can you sit there at your computer, blithely posting comments, when Ruth Anne Adams is missing? Please, PLEASE go at once and search for her. And now that I think of it, I maybe heard a rumor that she might be on her way to Kyrgyzstan.
If you have any human decency at all, GO!!!
Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Why can't people understand that the Democrats are just trying to increase diversity. As it stands now only real live Americans are supposed to vote.
The Democrats want Dead People, dogs, Illegal aliens, felons in prison, insane people, and little kids to vote. And why shouldn't a disgruntled parasite like *LOS* be able to vote twice? Why are we so hung up on numbers?
The more diversity the better, as long as they vote Democrat.
Just remember Attica supports Hillary.
Here in Texas, voters are supposed to present their voter registration card to election officials when voting. Why not just put the voter's photo on that card, which is already provided by the state for no charge?
Here in Texas, voters are supposed to present their voter registration card to election officials when voting. Why not just put the voter's photo on that card, which is already provided by the state for no charge?
Because the Democrats will lose somewhere between 25% and 33% of their voters, that's why.
ron st.amant said...
[...]
However, I wonder whether the Republicans who quickly say everyone should produce ID to vote are the same ones who do not support ID to purchase a gun, or would not support fingerprinting for voter identification?
Please name one Republican legislator that supports the purchase of a firearm without a ID of some kind?
Here in the once great state of Illinois I have to show a state issued photo ID to buy either a gun or ammo.
Simon said
I can't speak for my fellow members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but I've got no objection to gun registration laws.
As a fellow member of the VRWC I have real problems with gun registration. History has shown that registration leads to confiscation. If the state wants to register me as a gun owner - I'm ok with that but what I own is my business.
Getting back to photo ID for voting - why can't emulate Mexico?
Just so you know, I didn't actually believe that "integrity of democracy" argument. It sounds too theoretical. But, I wouldn't like to see more of these laws. I really dislike the idea of tinkering with elections, through fraud or the "regulation" of it. I don't want to see tit-for-tat with this crap.
Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we....
When Althouse was graciously allowed into the Sigma Phi house in June, of 2006. She inspected every inch of the fraternity members personal bedrooms, and didn't waste any time commenting on "personal household messiness"....
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/inside-sigma-phi-house.html
"Maxine: You have a vivid imagination. I'm just referring to ordinary household messiness. It's surprising that we were allowed at all to walk around in the bedrooms and would have been rude to take photographs."---Althouse
So basically, Althouse was allowed to impose, and intrude on college boys, who felt completely exposed by her visit..... yet Althouse won't return the favor and let others have a look-see at her own personal environment.
Well, am I wrong...if you go back to that post....didn't Althouse, literally, peruse the bedrooms of the local College boys at the Sigma Phi house ???
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/inside-sigma-phi-house.html
Listen, at the end of the Brooklyn College term, I expect Althouse to invite every single one of her students over to her pad for refreshments and a goodbye party.
She needs to throw open the doors and let others shine a big light on her personal environs....just as she does to others.
Just so you know, I didn't actually believe that "integrity of democracy" argument. It sounds too theoretical.
I read an article a couple years ago about snowbirds who voted in New York & Florida. I believe it was in the New York Times, but I can't find it now.
If I remember correctly, the number of duplicate votes were in the tens of thousands.
Granted, a voter ID law can't prevent this type of fraud, but such fraud is not theoretical and tens of thousands of votes can be enough to sway a national election.
"I didn't photograph the bedrooms upstairs, because they were full of personal belongings, but these rooms were messy"---Althouse (6/24/2006)
Yeah, I'll bet. I just love how Althouse is able to inspect and comment on others' housekeeping, but nobody's allowed entry into her own disheveled abode.
Love, Maxine
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/inside-sigma-phi-house.html
Gettin' into a smackdown with an uppity Sigma Phi fraternity Bro.... I've fought much bloodier battles in my time!
And it's a no-win situation. Fraternities (any college fraternity) have a certain perception about them......whether I have an "overactive" imagination or not.
By the way, I stand by what I said back then. If the members of the Sigma Phi house are having to "scrub the house clean from top to bottom ever week"....as that one member says. There must be a reason, and I can only imagine the gallons (crates) of disinfectant they go through every month!
Love, Maxine
such fraud is not theoretical
Are you illiterate or did you deliberately distort what I wrote? I was referring to my own argument, not talking about fraud. There was no need for you to respond.
Maxine, I think it really is time to get help.
al said...
"As a fellow member of the VRWC I have real problems with gun registration. History has shown that registration leads to confiscation. If the state wants to register me as a gun owner - I'm ok with that but what I own is my business."
I understand and sympathize with that point, but as Prof. Graglia once put it in the context of the First Amendment, it doesn't follow that if we today ban Hustler, we will tommorrow ban Hamlet. Or to draw a comparison to antitrust, Judge Easterbrook recently summed up Judge Bork's view of antitrust - now orthodoxy - that instead of trying to figure out when a business' practices may become exclusionary and injure consumers, wait and see what happens. If the practice does turn out to be harmful and monopolistic, litigate if and when that happens; the problem is that if you litigate based on the supposition that something bad is going to happen and you're wrong, that is not cost-free to consumers. Likewise, I think that in the context of the Second Amendment and registration laws, while they have the potential to be a prelude to confiscation, they also have the potential to assist society in accomplishing legitimate goals. Wait and see what happens. If government subsequently tries to confiscate weapons, that becomes a second amendment claim, so litigate it at that point - but in the meantime, if government in fact has no intention of doing so, litigating now may foreclose legitimate benefits to the public of registration requirements.
This isn't to say that such programs work, only that they don't themselves offend the Second Amendment sufficiently for courts to overrule the choics of the people's representatives. We're all familiar with the canon of constitutional avoidance, but I tend to think that there ought to be a mirror-image canon that warns that where possible, and all else being equal, one should prefer to avoid a construction of the Constitution that removes a question from the democratic sphere.
Mortimer Brezny said...
"Just so you know, I didn't actually believe that "integrity of democracy" argument. It sounds too theoretical. But, I wouldn't like to see more of these laws. I really dislike the idea of tinkering with elections, through fraud or the "regulation" of it."
Well, I think -- I mean, perhaps I'm biased because I can't imagine a state I'd rather lie in than Indiana -- I think that Indiana has it about right. I do agree that if a state has a law that requires government-issued photo ID, that ID has to be obtainable for a reasonable cost. A state can't impose an undue burden, but as see it, it can require that a person of limited financial resources choose to spend those resources obtaining the means to vote versus buying the latest missive from the Dave Matthews Band or a year's subscription to Penthouse.
Out of curiosity, to what extent are you concerned with -- I won't say "theoretical," I'll say "abstract" -- questions? Perhaps this is a tangent and maybe I'm taking an inference too far, but Printz, for example, is grounded on the large-scale structure of federalism rather than any specific text, to say nothing of National League of Cities. Are you comfortable with those cases? As you see it, can federal courts enforce federalism even though one could brand it as somewhat theoretical (or, as Justice Blackmun did, a political question)?
Are you illiterate or did you deliberately distort what I wrote?
I can't speak for Dogwood, but personally I still haven't quite figured out what the heck you're talking about.
You criticized "hyperpartisan" laws, then (apparently disingenuously?) suggested that democracy would be threatened, but dismissed the possibility as "too theoretical". So your position on voter ID laws would appear to be... um I guess you're against them? I assume that "tinkering" refers to the ID requirement?
In any case, the fact that you put scare quotes around the idea of "regulating" fraud strongly suggested that you didn't think fraud was a real problem. If you don't think fraud is a problem then Dogwood's response was fair. If you do think it is a problem then your blase attitude about "tinkering" with elections needs to be explained. If fraud's a problem, fixing it isn't "tinkering".
LOL - live in, not lie in. Freudian slip!
I love all that "converted frat house" stuff.
I still have visions of that round table and the swing....
Plus, I was tickled to be scolded by some college kid....or was that one of the elders ?
Rats.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/06/inside-sigma-phi-house.html
Maxine (10:08 comment) - I always imagined that room with the round table as the sort of room a Supreme Court would meet in for conference.
I do think you need to back off somewhat, though.
"Maxine, your imagination is not only overactive, but quite rude."---June 24, 2006
Anonymous said...
I must say that I am a little offended as well. I too am a brother of Sigma Phi, not in Wisco though. I hope that you would not judge me a delinquent or malevolent deviant just based on the fact that I was member of a fraternity...one that you apparently know nothing about at that.---June 24, 2006
___________
Good grief, please deliver us all from prissy "offended" frat guys.
If you make a decision---and it is a decision---to join a fraternity....then you know what you are in for, and you know the reputation those sorts of groups have.
And, of course, if your let Althouse into your frat-boy bedroom, and she brags about it in a blogpost, clearly Maxine is gonna have something to say about it.
Love, Maxine
This is clearly a poll tax. I don't see how this is constitutional unless the id's are given for free.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Just because you call the tax something else, doesn't mean it's still not a tax.
So much for original intent.
Having not read through this thread but a little -- I just got a Social Security card in the mail for a son I have. It seems to have been free. That plus, say, a recent utility bill at the address where you are registered ought to do prove you are you.
No one -- no one has to pay a dime for this. And there need not be any waiver if you think in terms of these original documents, and if you think in purely evidentiary terms as opposed to "must be drivers license."
It's really very easy to prove to a blue-haired old lady at the polling booth that you are you, unless, of course, you are lying, in which case you would want to avoid proving that you are you.
"So much for original intent."
No originalist that I know is interested in the original intent of the authors of the text. Virtually all originalists I know of are basically formalists, and intentionalism stands at odds with formalism.
Downtown Lad wants a world just like 1789.
Seven - Neither a social security card nor a utility bill have a picture id.
Try again.
Why are you opposed to providing picture id's for free?
Who knew that the 24th amendment was passed in 1789?
But who wants to make a bet that the Roberts court uses this case as a reason to overturn Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections?
That's true, Downtown. But for the one-700th of one percent of people who have no picture ID of any kind, and who show up to vote, this would work and it would be free.
Come on, Downtown. The 1789 reference was your big segue into stoning gay people in Delaware or the Salem Gay Trials, or whatever it is you were carping about the other day.
Work with me. Help me help you.
I'm starting to think that the Iraqi method is looking good. One day to vote, you have to show up in person. after voting you dip the finger in indelible ink. and off you go. no more voting twice or three times like the Dems do here in my town.
DTL,
I believe the 24th amendment has usually been interpreted as forbidding taxes levied specifically on the act of voting, but not forbidding taxes that have the side effect of preventing you from voting if you don't pay them.
For example, if you refuse to pay income tax, you go to prison and thus cannot vote. That does not, so far as I'm aware, mean that it is unconstitutional to jail people for tax evasion. Similarly, the gas tax is not unconstitutional even though it probably makes the act of getting to the polls too expensive for some people to manage.
But in any case, it is probably worth providing the ID cards at no cost, just to avoid having the "poll tax" objection tie the law up in court for years.
Simon, I don't think that people who are opposed to registration think that it will necessarily lead to confiscation (as your Hustler-Hamlet analogy implies) but that registration removes one of the real-world practical burdens to confiscation i.e. knowing where the guns you want to seize are. So even if you believe that it isn't likely to lead there, you can't say it doesn't make it more likely, even if only incrementally.
Of course, in that example, you have to believe that if we are ever arguing about confiscation, that someone will argue "hey, it'll cost too much/be too much trouble/intrusive to find out where all the guns are, therefore confiscation is a bad idea." Maybe you don't believe that.
Over 152 posts? I find it hard to see why everyone is so worked up over photo ID. Actually going to the polls seems somehow arcane to me; I've never done it. I admit, I'm only 23, but I've voted in every election since I was 18. I grew up in Oregon, where everyone in the state votes by mail. And when I moved to Washington I filed as a permanent absentee voter.
Little booths? Butterfly ballots? Voting machines?
Weird!
Here in NC, I tell the lady my name, and she usually asks what my street address is, compares it with her list, but doesn't verify it with ID. My polling place is the parish hall of a Presbyterian church--vampires can't vote in NC.
I left Virginia 15 years ago without telling anyone--I may still be registered there.
My father still has my birth certificate and SS card, I hope, cause I haven't seen either in about 25 years.
I think I will write in "Dryer Lint" once again. I keep hoping for someone to step up but that is probably impossible in these freakish times.
My father still has my birth certificate and SS card, I hope, cause I haven't seen either in about 25 years.
Have you had the same job all that time? I have to bring my SS card every time I have a new job.
Richard Dolan said.... The quote from the dissenting judge that Ann features focuses, not on those issues, but on a claim that the intent of the law was to discourage Dem voters. ..."
This is the second time that issue was mentioned but interestingly only the dissenting judge, while Posner wrote “No doubt most people who don’t have Photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” and And assertions that many people will be disenfranchised, or that there is no significant voter-fraud problem in Indiana, are based on unreliable data and “may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists’ and other investigators’ choice of scandals to investigate,”
so its ok for the Dem judge to cut to the chase but the republican majority on the decision poo poo's the notion...
I could easily argue that allegations of voter fraud are ad hominem projections of delusional and self serving republicans.
As Carl Sagan aptly said: "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence".
Carl Sagen is wrong.
Absence of evidence certainly can be evidence of absence.
Little booths? Butterfly ballots? Voting machines?
Weird!
Voting in my neighborhood is a chance to see and greet all the neighbors. Plus there's usually a bake sale going on (the polling place is a church school cafeteria). It's festive!
downtownlad said...
"But who wants to make a bet that the Roberts court uses this case as a reason to overturn Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections?"
I think we ought to hesitate before assuming what Roberts and Alito will do when squarely presented with a challenge that requires them to either uphold or overrule a precedent they're dubious of (assuming arguendo that they think Harper was wrongly-decided). Based on the last term and a half, my suggestion has been that Roberts and Alito really are minimalists (which, if it's true, would prove wrong my earlier contention that the Chief may not be a minimalist): they don't want to overrule a precedent unless they conclude that the case at bar really can't be resolved without overruling it. Thus, in Carhart, Hein and WRTL they seemingly concluded that deciding the questions presented by those cases didn't require overruling Casey, Stenberg, Flast and McConnell, so they weren't going to do that. Just to pick Hein as an example, their reasoning (much to Scalia's irritation, and I think Souter's too) goes like this: Flast permits challenges to Congressional action; this isn't a challenge to Congressional action; no precedent says that Flast has to apply to non-Congressional action; so we can simply assume without deciding that Flast is sound and refuse to extend it. Of course, that doesn't tell us anything about whether they would reaffirm those precedents in a case where the question really was unavoidable. But I think that we can infer from a case such as Leegin that when the challenge is squarely-presented, they may be willing to throw out a precedent directly.
Revenant said...
"I believe the 24th amendment has usually been interpreted as forbidding taxes levied specifically on the act of voting, but not forbidding taxes that have the side effect of preventing you from voting if you don't pay them."
Not to mention the obvious: if there were a non-frivolous 24th Amendment claim against these laws, why wasn't that argument made in this case?
hdhouse said...
"so its ok for the Dem judge to cut to the chase but the republican majority on the decision poo poo's the notion..."
As I noted above, it takes something of a leap to say that Posner's and Sykes' judicial philosophies are sufficiently similar to attribute them both to a "Republican majority." I think you'd be interested to read Posner's book Problems of Jurisprudence in which he (among other things) dismisses most of the intellectual foundations of what we'd today think of as a "conservative" judicial philosophy (textualism, originalism, formalism, etc.). True, you might point out that you said "republican" not "conservative," but I think the former is invariably intended, in this context, to connote the latter. I don't think one would say that, if you had a putatively liberal result where the majority consisted of Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Scalia (who, along with Thomas does vote for what you might think of as liberal results, particularly in the Sixth Amendment context - Blakely, for example, or Crawford), one would refer to that as "the republican majority," even if that might well be literally true in terms of who nominated them to the bench.
I also think it's overly-simplistic to assume (as Posner does) that the poor vote Democratic; that the poor often vote Republican because they're pro-life or religious or what have you, you know, "values voters," seems to be the least objectionable aspect of Thomas Franks' book What's the Matter with Kansas.
Yeah, HD. It's a crazy assumption to say that the poor vote Democratic:
1. we know from exit polls that the poor vote Democratic;
2. the dissent state strongly that Democrats would be hurt by this law because the poor would be less able to produce licenses;
3. Democrats are against the bill and are arguing that the poor will be hurt by the bill -- clearly, they want the poor to vote because they lean Republican.
So, yeah, other than all that, it's a weak assumption.
Now, call me some names.
Simon,
"If government subsequently tries to confiscate weapons..."
... won't it be a little late to do anything about it?
Kirk said...
"won't it be a little late to do anything about it?"
Not unless one assumes that the only circumstances in which government would try to confiscate weapons is in the event of some sort of revolutionary or quasi-revolutionary suspension of normal government that shuts down the courts, which I think is far less likely scenario than is a liberal Congress deciding that banning guns will cut violent crime or somesuch. In other words, I expect the Brady Bill on steroids, not Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich.
Simon,
During the Katrina aftermath, the police used gun records to target houses for firearms confiscation.
Yes, the people were able to go to court -- eventually, once things settled down. And yes, they won. But in the meantime, people were deprived of their ability to defend themselves when they most needed it.
That's the kind of thing we're worried about.
Gun registration serves no useful purpose other than to pave the way for future confiscation.
If a gun is used in a crime, and the police have possession of the weapon, then they have the ability to trace the gun back to its original owner.
State or national databases tracking guns or gun owners is just asking for trouble.
Poor Republicans voting "against their interests" because they are against abortion or just stupid red-necks are never assumed to be unable to do what they need to do to vote. Only poor people who vote Democrat are assumed to be unable to make an effort to register or identify themselves... or show they aren't felons or are actually citizens.
As for an ID obviously being a poll tax... I would think that the people who wrote that bit up were talking about a *poll tax* and if they meant that voting should be utterly effortless in every possible way they would have said so.
When there were such things as poll taxes people *also* had to do such things as travel to the polls, identify themselves, and vote. Time and effort were involved. So if the people who wrote into law "no poll tax" meant that all effort counts as a poll tax they'd have said so.
Whatever the solution stopping voter fraud ought to be something that both major parties can wholeheartedly get behind and work together on. That *any* talk about identifying voters and making sure they are qualified to vote is reflexively demonized as *really* being about disenfranchizing voters in certain economic and ethnic groups is beginning in bad faith.
The Democrat candidate for Governor of Washington State won by fewer than the margin of votes in a single county that exceeded registered voters in that county.
Why isn't the assumption that if King county had it's voting process under control that the Democrat win would have been *larger*? Why isn't the assumption that if those obviously invalid ballots where sorted out that the votes thrown out would be equally Republican or even more Republican votes than Democrat votes?
But it's not.
The assumption is that if the process is better controlled so that election workers aren't finding boxes of ballots afterward that Democrats are going to lose votes.
The assumption is that if someone doesn't care to motivate themselves in some small way to establish their qualification to cast a ballot and so is denied, that Democrats are going to lose votes.
I have to buy gas to travel to my polling place.
Poll tax!
Post a Comment