What seemed most significant to Judge Posner was what he called the “changed political culture in the United States” in the years since the Supreme Court took a benign view of voter ID [in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board]. “All the strict photo ID states are politically conservative,” he wrote, illustrating the point with a map and a “political makeup” list of the nine strictest states, all with Republican legislatures. The claim that photo ID was necessary to deter or catch voter-impersonation fraud was, Judge Posner wrote, “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”The Wisconsin Attorney General Brad D. Schimel, in a brief opposing Supreme Court review, said: "It is not this court’s job to referee a debate between the Seventh Circuit panel and Judge Posner," which Greenhouse admits is a good line, even as she bashes the brief as "weak on its facts, to put it charitably."
He added: “As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin Legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?”
March 19, 2015
"The Supreme Court now has a chance to set something right in the voting-rights area."
Says Linda Greenhouse, pressuring the Court to take the case about the Wisconsin voter-ID law — which was upheld by a 7th Circuit panel. The vote to rehear the case by the full 7th Circuit court failed 5 to 5, with the eminent Judge Posner dissenting at length.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one?
I'm aware of no one who has looked very hard. Considering that the city of Chicago boasts about its level of voter fraud, it seems likely that Posner is wrong on the facts.
The only reason to oppose voter ID in all forms as democrats see to, is a desire to cheat. Full stop end of sentence.
He added: “As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one?
Bu bu but Charlie Sykes listeners swear they seen a few Illinois license plates in the parking lot of Walmart on voting day!
I remember when I needed more ID to rent a video from Blockbuster than to vote.
I'm going to sit on the case. Maybe take Ginsburg's place. Apparently, I don't need to prove who I am before I rule on it. That would be racist or something.
Obviously there is political benefit to be had on both sides of this--but the fact that the GOP would benefit from likely Democrats not voting no more invalidates their law than the fact that Democrats would benefit from these people voting should invalidate their objections to the law.
As for whether there was a "voter fraud problem" to justify the law, since when did a law need to have an existing problem to correct, rather than a potential problem that it seeks to prevent? We have laws preventing foreign royalty from becoming president but I don't recall any case in the history books where Kaiser Wilhelm tried to win the Republican nomination and very nearly succeeded.
My question is how exactly do people register to vote in the first place, if not by providing some proof of identity when registering? If they do that, then why is it worse to require identity when actually voting if they already had to do so when registering? Or are there states where you register to vote without any documentation whatsoever?
Voting is quite possibly the single most precious right we have as citizens, as it is the foundation for all other rights.
Proof of ID, even if it's not Photo ID, seems like a very basic standard to prevent one of the most critical rights of a citizen from being violated by another.
The problem is both sides are being idiotic: Republicans are saying Photo ID as if that's the goal, and Democrats are saying no verification as if that's the goal.
Neither side is working to actually accomplish rights protection.
"As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem"
Riiight. And Al Capone was only guilty of tax evasion.
Besides, it appears to be standard practice for Dems to delete evidence (Berger, Lerner, Hillary Clinton) so that's a false argument.
You can't prove voter fraud because you don't have to show ID to vote to prove you are not who you say you are.
All those opposed to voter IDs on the grounds that it is too arduous to those most disenfranchised by voter ID laws have yet to prove it is.
For some reason, the slightest possibility that someone somewhere might have some difficult getting a valid state photo ID in order to vote (which is NOT a constitutional right), who does not already have a photo ID in order to do anything else in society that require photo IDs is enough to stop voter ID laws but the integrity of the voter system is not sufficiently important to require proper id.
If she sinks, drowns, and dies she is not a witch. If she floats and does not drown, she is a witch, fetch her out and burn her...
"Or are there states where you register to vote without any documentation whatsoever?"
This ignores "Same day voting" in which both are the same. Democrats don't have to obey the rules. With illegal aliens flooding the offices of the DMV in California getting drivers' licenses, ID is not a problem.
Is not voter ID, which has to be checked, also a discouragement against vote fraud by phantom voters?
Just like guns, criminals are just going to vote fraudulently anyways, with or without big government nanny laws.
But... states with lax voter ID laws are all run by one party, too.
Are there any places where, after instituting Voter ID laws, they've had LESS voting? In 2014, minority participation was up in several places with voter ID, for example.
TreeJoe said...
Voting is quite possibly the single most precious right we have as citizens, as it is the foundation for all other rights.
Proof of ID, even if it's not Photo ID, seems like a very basic standard to prevent one of the most critical rights of a citizen from being violated by another.
The problem is both sides are being idiotic: Republicans are saying Photo ID as if that's the goal, and Democrats are saying no verification as if that's the goal.
That is not what Republicans are saying.
Interesting item: in the past few days Obama mused out loud that perhaps we should have mandatory voting. The only way to enforce mandatory voting is to have a certified voter roll.
Kenya has mandatory voting. They require a government-issued voter ID in order to be admitted to a polling station and vote.
Is Obama essentially telling us we need to do the same thing?
“All the strict photo ID states are politically conservative,” he wrote, illustrating the point with a map and a “political makeup” list of the nine strictest states, all with Republican legislatures.
Fox Butterfield? Is that you?
since when did a law need to have an existing problem to correct, rather than a potential problem that it seeks to prevent?
Why do we have Legislatures thinking up potential problems, and enacting laws?
This seems like a waste of time and money to me.
I'd prefer to have a reactive rather than proactive law-making body.
Treejoe I wouldn't rank voting that high on the list. Before you can vote you first have to be born which in this country you do not have that automatic right.
As for photo ID, other than some oldster in a nursing home who probably hasn't had a license since the early eighties who actually in this country who is a lawful resident of this country doesn't have a photo ID?
As Brando pointed out there are laws on the books to prevent things from occurring and not just punishing or deterring things from happening which is why 12 year old's and Zombie's can't vote. Apparently Democrats can't win elections when the voters are actual live US citizens in full possession of their civil rights.
Tank,
The Republican message, and some of the Republican speeches I've heard, have made Photo ID the goal.
The goal needs to be ensuring that no one else steals your right to vote as a women, minority, or low income person - among everyone else.
And how do we do that: Through some form of ID, and photo ID is the gold standard, but we'll settle just for ID verification.
I can't wait for the liberal justices to consult European laws on voter ID and use those laws to uphold the requirement .
Why oh why can't we be more like Europe!
Or how about union laws that require ID to vote in union elections and ratification of contracts?
Will the liberal judges look there too?
The more I read Judge Posner, the less I think of Judge Posner.
Why do we have Legislatures thinking up potential problems, and enacting laws?
Except every time the problem is presented as existing, it's called a "stunt".
James O'Keefe had people who were almost given Erc Holder's ballot to vote and they never even claimed they were Eric
Wait a sec, you don't think that Republicans enacting voter ID laws that seem to effect Democratic constituencies is meant to prevent Democrats from voting, do you? They wouldn't do something like that, would they?
Why don't these same people who oppose voter ID not oppose moves to ban AR-15 rounds which have never been used to kill police (or people) yet? The guns are too expensive for gang bangers to easily get.
What escaped the late judge Evans last time around, and what has now escaped judge Posner, and what continues to escape me, is why it matters if the state legislators mean to handicap Democrats. Let's stipulate that legislatures are capable of having an intent (they aren't) and that the members have a uniform intent (they don't) that we can impute into "the legislature" (we can't). Stipulate all that. What does it matter? The test is whether there's a legitimate state interest of sufficient weight to justify the rule, not whether that's what the legislature "had in mind," or for that matter what any individual legislator or aggregation of legislators had in mind, and so what does it matter what they intended? And as for the makeweight VRA claim, I mean, the plaintiffs prattle on about it but section 2 claims are predicated on "race or color," not partisan affiliation.
The courts are not prissy schoolteachers, there to mark the states' homework.
Wait a sec, you don't think that Republicans enacting voter ID laws that seem to effect Democratic constituencies is meant to prevent Democrats from voting, do you?
If the Demo constituency is "criminals", not my concern.
You still cannot explain why you think Dem voters are too incompetent to get ID.
Assuming the quote attributed to Judge Possner is true and correct and in context for that alone Congress should impeach and remove him for being unfit to be a federal judge. If only they would do so as an encourage to the rest.
There is no evidence that businesses in some neighborhoods are being burglarized.
So let's make door locks illegal in all neighborhoods because they make it difficult for the poor and minorities to visit stores after hours.
I'm not quite sure how Posner would define "not a problem". If even one person were intimidated from voting by white supremicists, I think everyone would agree that this was a problem. But can't we also agree that if even one person has his vote erased by a a person voting where not permitted? And here's an article showing 167 students voted in both MD and VA in a recent election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-officials-say-some-people-may-have-crossed-state-lines-to-vote-twice-in-2012/2014/08/28/391b4210-2edb-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html
garage mahal said...
Wait a sec, you don't think that Republicans enacting voter ID laws that seem to effect illegal voters is meant to prevent illegal voters from voting, do you? They wouldn't do something like that, would they?
3/19/15, 10:28 AM
There, fixed it for you. You are welcome!
Cubanbob said, "Treejoe I wouldn't rank voting that high on the list. Before you can vote you first have to be born which in this country you do not have that automatic right.
As for photo ID, other than some oldster in a nursing home who probably hasn't had a license since the early eighties who actually in this country who is a lawful resident of this country doesn't have a photo ID?
As Brando pointed out there are laws on the books to prevent things from occurring and not just punishing or deterring things from happening which is why 12 year old's and Zombie's can't vote. Apparently Democrats can't win elections when the voters are actual live US citizens in full possession of their civil rights."
Voting determines the limits or freedoms on every other right, so I consider it to be the most foundational right of a citizen.
To me, the way to avoid true voter fraud is to require some form of ID - photo or not. You aren't going to have 200 people running around with 30 IDs each voting at different precincts; it's untenable.
However, it's easier to say that requiring a Photo ID disenfranchises the poor. There are ALOT of poor folk, black especially, without photo ID....and alot of family members who know someone without a Photo ID. It may be a red herring, but it's an easy one to play in the press.
Sometime I think Judge Posner is over-rated. This is one of those times.
Posner is clearly past his sell by date and should retire. He is also bitter that his former colleagues, who are not as smart as he is, have won Nobel prizes for economics and seats on the Supreme Court, and he is lashing out. He should retire from the bench and take that position with Axelrod's Institute of Politics where he can bloviate to his heart's content and not threaten the rest of us.
garage mahal, there is CLEARLY a voter integrity problem when a) 100% of the votes in a district are all cast for one of two candidates and b) when there is greater than 100% voter turnout in a district. In a district greater than 1000 registered voters, item a is statistically improbable and in all cases, option b is mathematically impossible. As both of these conditions occurred in the last national election MORE THAN ONCE indicates a real problem. How can you NOT see that?
"garage mahal said...
Wait a sec, you don't think that Republicans enacting voter ID laws that seem to effect Democratic constituencies is meant to prevent Democrats from voting, do you? They wouldn't do something like that, would they?"
Lefties give a rats ass about the many many other forms of disenfranchise that these voters face. Can't get employment. Can't get on a plane. Can't get a library card. Or welfare. or food stamps. Can't drive. Or buy booze or smokes. Those are all fucking fine.
Tell you what, I start hearing about that and I'll buy your stupid arguments. Until then, fuck off.
The sensible approach seems to be what the courts have upheld in some jurisdictions (Georgia I think was a recent case)--voter ID can be required, so long as provisions are made for those (small number) voters in special circumstances, such as elderly persons without current driver licenses, or whose jobs prevent them from getting to town hall or the DMV during work hours without financial hardship. Considering how few people wouldn't have the required ID, it shouldn't be too hard to find a way to get them one (perhaps a mobile office that can be made available at certain arranged times). It is very important to make sure legit voters aren't being denied the right to vote, but overblowing this as "mass disenfranchisement" and acting as though a photo ID requirement is the 21st Century version of Jim Crow literacy tests is the sort of puerile thing I've come to expect from today's Democrats.
Tell you what, I start hearing about that and I'll buy your stupid arguments
Isn't this where you tell your lie about standing in line to vote with a bunch of illegal immigrants?
The ironic thing is that on many issues, Dems/Libs love to point at foreign countries to show how things should be done better. In this case, the US is a hot mess stuck in the 18th century, while other nations from Iraq to Canada enforce much higher standards of voter identification and integrity. Of course, Canada uses a centrally managed voter list that is maintained by Elections Canada - it works pretty well, but Canada has a population that is 1/10th of America's, and the Canadian approach would be anathema to the US ideas of federalism.
As a permanent resident in the US, I have all the ID necessary to register to vote if I was so inclined - I don't, but I know other non-citizens who have in the past. It's remarkably easy, at least in my Blue state.
Even the progressive state of South Africa, and the left's hero Mandela, recognized the value of mitigating democratic fraud through affirmative identification. I suppose the opposition today is justified by a pro-choice or selective policy that guarantees unpredictable but prejudiced outcomes. With a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy, and multi-trillion dollar deficits, there is no excuse for any American to be indigent, homeless, uninsured, let alone unidentified.
tim maguire said...
"Sometime I think Judge Posner is over-rated. This is one of those times."
He has been in decline for a few years. I don't have a problem with judges being pretty tough on the lawyers at oral argument, especially when the attorney is trying to evade the question or fight the hypothetical, but in the last couple of years, judge Posner has really turned into a scold, sometimes to the point of embarrassment. And his opinions have declined as well; he has always been the quintessential judicial activist, but lately it seems like he's more and more impatient with having to pretend that the law has real and constraining content. I haven't done any empirical work or anything like that to justify that observation, but it's just my observation, my sense from the perspective of someone who follows the court.
"garage mahal said...
Isn't this where you tell your lie about standing in line to vote with a bunch of illegal immigrants?"
You don't care what limits blacks have as long as they can vote. You are a racist.
In 2008, Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 57 districts in Philadelphia. In 2012 Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 59 districts.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/michael_smerconish/20121118_The_Pulse__Asian_American_vote_could_be_a_wake-up_call_to_the_GOP.html
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/04/colorado-counties-have-more-voters-than-people/
Rounding out the ten counties looked at by Media Trackers are San Miguel county, which topped the list at 140 percent of the population being registered to vote and 52 percent voter turnout, and Ouray county, which had 119 percent of the population registered to vote and a whopping 74 percent voter turnout.
While Ouray County has a total population of 4,356, with 17.8 percent of the population below the voting age, the county has 4,246 people registered to vote. The highest possible number of voting age residents in the county is 3,581, which is 775 less than the actual registered total.
San Miguel County has a total population of 7,359 with 19.2 percent of the population below the voting age, making the highest possible number of registered voters 5,946. If the census numbers are to be trusted, that results in the possibility of up to 2,390 individuals on the voter rolls who should not be.
and
For instance, in the 1st Ward’s 3rd Division in south Philadelphia, 192 Democrats voted for a City Council candidate and seven Republicans voted for a mayoral candidate for a total of 199 votes cast, but only 191 names were signed in, according to DeFelice’s analysis.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/04/20/philly-election-officials-take-up-gop-complaints/
And this is just a sample...
You don't care what limits blacks have as long as they can vote. You are a racist.
I never brought up blacks. You did. That's who you think photo ID laws affect, don't you?
"garage mahal said...
You don't care what limits blacks have as long as they can vote. You are a racist.
I never brought up blacks. You did. That's who you think photo ID laws affect, don't you?"
You've never said blacks are effect ed by voter ID laws? Really? Willing to give me $5 for every example I can find where you did?
My question is how exactly do people register to vote in the first place, if not by providing some proof of identity when registering? If they do that, then why is it worse to require identity when actually voting if they already had to do so when registering? Or are there states where you register to vote without any documentation whatsoever?
At least, according to the ACLU:
What if I don’t have proof of residence?
If you don’t have a document that proves your residence, you can have someone who lives in your city, town, or village accompany you and vouch for your identity and residence. That person must provide proof of residence, sign the registration form and provide his
or her address. W.S.A. §6.55(2)(b).
I found no such language supporting "vouching" in the actual statutes, however.
Though, in practice, same-day voter registration via vouching does occur.
So let me paint you a potential scenario. A chartered bus pulls up to a voting station. I walk in with 30 people in tow. I vouch for every one of them living at my "Lovehouse", without any of them having to provide any ID of any sort. After a few minutes of filling out some forms, they'd all be handed regular ballots to go vote with.
Linda Greenhouse swims out to meet troopships..
How would we do Obama's mandatory voting without some sort of id?
The idea that they have any idea what voter impersonation fraud is out there when they have had no means of catching it is way beyond me.
We know Obama's team was very, very good at determining what people never voted or rarely voted, and managed to "get them to the polls" to vote for him.
What does that mean? What could that mean? Without voter id, how do you know teams didn't discover people who never voted and then sent people (Like the SEIU!) to go vote in their place?
holdfast said...
"The ironic thing is that on many issues, Dems/Libs love to point at foreign countries to show how things should be done better."
No, no no. It's any stick to beat a dog. Progressives will grab whatever is available to use as a cudgel; they'll point to foreign law when it's useful and they'll ignore it when it's not. You'll never see a Democrat modify their position on abortion, or on Miranda or whatever, just because the rest of the world has a different opinion.
That's one reason why I couldn't ever be a Democrat: It's so unprincipled. Most of what I do, most of the thinking that I do, is about identifying principles. When we confront a problem, I'm much less interested in the "right" answer than I am in knowing what principle controls the outcome, what the governing standard is, because I don't trust individuals (least of all myself) to get the "right" answer in the heat of battle; humans are beset by cognitive biases. To get around that, if X is purportedly the right result here, I want to know by what principle we get X here, and what happens when we apply it to situation Y; are we cool if the answer there is Z?
That doesn't always happen prospectively. Sometimes it happens, as Card. Newman says, that one "first come[s] to ... conclusions by the external pressure of events," and if we previously concluded that X was the right result, we have to go back and infer the principles that produced X and then test them: Would we follow them in other situations? If not, we might have to say that we called it wrong in that situation. That's also what I'm doing when I'm reading other people's comments: I'm looking at the principles that undergird them, which are a lot more interesting and useful than the immediate result. That's why we pose hypotheticals.
And so when people say "we ought to follow the lead of Holland on decriminalizing drugs," I want to know: "What's the principle that says that we ought to follow Holland's lead on that question? Where does that principle come from and why is it binding on us? What are its contours and limits--does it privilege Holland in particular? Why? Does it privilege drug policy? Why? If Holland isn't privileged, why would we follow Holland and not, say, Russia? or Japan? If drug policy isn't privileged, why would we follow Holland on drug policy but not voter ID? Or prostitution?" Democrats have no answers to such questions because they don't have principles, they have ambitions. (Worryingly, the conservative movement is now aping this behavior, and when I say "ape," I do mean to imply that it is an uncivilized and unevolved way of thinking.) They have goals that they want to accomplish and they'll use whatever seems useful without giving a moment's thought to where those principles would lead if applied consistently. I don't think we can do that.
Last year, a woman was found dead in her garage in Michigan. She'd been dead for several years but her death was never reported.
She'd voted in the last few elections.
"What if I don’t have proof of residence? If you don’t have a document that proves your residence, you can have someone who lives in your city, town, or village accompany you and vouch for your identity and residence. That person must provide proof of residence, sign the registration form and provide his or her address."
So if that means one person (who can provide their own proof of residence) brings in several dozen people to the town hall to register, and says "they all live with me but none of them have any documentation of any sort" they all become registered voters? If anyone doesn't see the potential for fraud they're willfully blind.
Treejoe dead people have no rights. People that are not allowed to be born have no rights, if have no right to be born you comment on voting being the the most fundamental right is meaningless. As for the poor and photo ID, really? Somehow the poor manage to get the right ID's for whatever government assistance program they qualify for. Since government loves and lives to create regulations let it make a photo a part of all ID's.
As for voting rights, what about the right not to have one's legal vote diluted by an illegal vote?
"voter ID laws that seem to effect Democratic constituencies"
You mean like cemeteries ?
"garage mahal said...
I never brought up blacks. You did. That's who you think photo ID laws affect, don't you?"
garage mahal said...
The Congressional record for reauthorization of VRA in 2006 has 15,000 pages with "countless 'examples of flagrant racial discrimination.'"
This is the conservative version of minority outreach. Keep voting out of reach for minorities.n't you?
6/25/13, 11:40 AM
garage mahal said...
What problems remain?
Too many non-whites voting for Democrats, and demographically, Republicans are losing badly. But this will help!
6/25/13, 10:55 AM
Willing to give me $5 for every example I can find where you did?
Sure. And you'll agree to the same? You give me $5 for every post I find where you bring up blacks and photo ID.
Michael K:
The deceased and their illegal alien progeny. Still, it seems that democratic fraud is easier to commit through the "wire" a la Treasury's devaluation of capital and labor, executive order, judicial overruling, etc. Perhaps they are merely covering all their basis. They are nothing if not comprehensive.
Golly, I thought the mere possibility that an appearance of impropriety might one day exist was reason enough to pass really intrusive laws regarding campaign finance and restricting individuals' 1st Amendment rights of expression, but now apparently you've got to convince Judge Posner that a problem is real before a law (with a clearly rational basis otherwise) is kosher. Oh well, I am not a lawyer, best not to worry myself about it.
"However, it's easier to say that requiring a Photo ID disenfranchises the poor. There are ALOT of poor folk, black especially, without photo ID....and alot of family members who know someone without a Photo ID. It may be a red herring, but it's an easy one to play in the press. "
If we had a press that cared about broadcasting the truth, they might mention that a non-driver's-license state photo ID is free.
They could profile just who *are* all these people who never opened a bank account / cashed a check / got a library card / went to a doctor / bought OTC cold medicine / got on a plane / bought a bottle of wine / had a job. Ya think? Follow up with some in-depth reporting on how you function in 21st century life without a photo ID. Is living in a cardboard box under a bridge so attractive that even the non-dysfunctional embrace it as a lifestyle?
Really, it beggars belief. If this is such a widespread problem, maybe some group of progressive, caring individuals can set up a foundation to bus people to the county ID office once in a while.
(Taps GAD meter) Nope, still nothin'.
"garage mahal said...
Willing to give me $5 for every example I can find where you did?
Sure. And you'll agree to the same? You give me $5 for every post I find where you bring up blacks and photo ID"
LOL. The black argument is the left's...yours...not mine. I think blacks are quite capable of getting ID's.
But tell me, if, like you now contend, you don't think blacks are the ones being disfranchised, who?
called out by Posner...sick burn.
So if that means one person (who can provide their own proof of residence) brings in several dozen people to the town hall to register, and says "they all live with me but none of them have any documentation of any sort" they all become registered voters? If anyone doesn't see the potential for fraud they're willfully blind.
Registered voters who can then potentially vote by absentee ballot, sent to their "address" at Senator Lena Taylor's "Lovehouse" in future elections.
"Really, it beggars belief. If this is such a widespread problem, maybe some group of progressive, caring individuals can set up a foundation to bus people to the county ID office once in a while."
That's my thought--we're not talking about a lot of people, and these are the "off the grid" types--homeless maybe, or "people of the soil" types--and it shouldn't be too difficult for some concerned public interest group to find ways to get them to town to get their IDs. That is, if these people actually WANT IDs in the first place.
But why solve a very solvable problem when instead you can call a majority of the country racist and try to prevent them from implementing a simple antifraud hurdle?
What's funny is that people that listen to Charlie Sykes truly think there is rampant voter fraud going on, so that's why the only person they could come up with that voted more than once.....was a Walker voter. And photo ID wouldn't have even stopped it. Of course any Charlie Sykes listener already is a really dumb person to start with.
garage mahal said...
What's funny is that people that listen to Charlie Sykes truly think there is rampant voter fraud going on, so that's why the only person they could come up with that voted more than once.....was a Walker voter. And photo ID wouldn't have even stopped it. Of course any Charlie Sykes listener already is a really dumb person to start with.
3/19/15, 12:26 PM
OK, let us say you are correct. What can we do to prevent the type of voter fraud supposedly done by this Walker supporter? Cause ANY voter fraud is bad and should be prevented. What is your solution? Thanks!
@garage, that's a lie and you're a liar. Thirty seconds on Google would have led you to this article in the Washington Post.
Pity Justice Posner doesn't know how to use 21st century research tools.
This example of "reasoning" by Judge Posner is mirrored by the equally specious "reasoning" of "garage mahal" (who may be Posner with an internet pseudonym for all I know). The pernicious effects of 40 years of postmodern attacks on the centrality of Reason as a standard by which to conduct social dialogue shows up in these lunatic non sequitur strings of words masquerading as sentences and conclusive arguments. It's like having a conversation with jello. There's no logic and no attempt at connection with the listeners--just endless blather aimed at bludgeoning people into line by sheer tedium and opprobrium.
Postmodernists like Posner, Obama, and "garage" are just tribalizing tyrants pretending to be "progressive."
I'm with Simon. If you can't--or won't--demonstrate how your position reflects some fundamental political principle, then either you're lying or you've got a centrifuge for a brain.
@Simon: Democrats have no answers to such questions because they don't have principles, they have ambitions ... They have goals that they want to accomplish and they'll use whatever seems useful without giving a moment's thought to where those principles would lead if applied consistently.
This is what Orwell warned us about.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
"What's funny is that people that listen to Charlie Sykes truly think there is rampant voter fraud going on, so that's why the only person they could come up with that voted more than once.....was a Walker voter. And photo ID wouldn't have even stopped it. Of course any Charlie Sykes listener already is a really dumb person to start with. "
I'm curious--how do you know there aren't a lot more cases of ineligible people registering and voting if no proof of eligibility is required?
As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem,
False statement, compounded by the fact that you can't much detect voter-impersonation fraud without using IDs, just as there wouldn't be any straw-purchases of firearms if no ID were required. FWIW, he doesn't think citizens have to right to own guns.
Those wacky government lawyers rarely fail to entertain.
Most liberals -- and Posner is in that group these days -- use a definition of 'voter fraud' from the Brennan Center for Justice, a far-left, open-borders outfit.
BCJ got its definition from a political scientist. That definition defines voter fraud as an individual knowingly casting a fraudulent vote with the intent of undermining an election.
"Election fraud', on the other hand, consists of organized attempts to throw an election by mass action (like stuffing ballot boxes, 'losing' ballots from certain precincts, etc.)
It is very difficult to detect and prosecute voter fraud as defined by the BCJ, but very easy to commit.
Using the BCJ definition, you, a political operative, could register people you know are not legally allowed to vote, and no voter fraud will have occurred. On election day, you can pack the now-registered voters in a van, drive them to the polling place of your choice, and tell them to go in and cast a ballot. No voter fraud will have occurred unless someone can prove that the people casting the ballot know that they are voting illegally, and are voting illegally to influence the outcome of the election.
"Todd said...
OK, let us say you are correct. What can we do to prevent the type of voter fraud supposedly done by this Walker supporter? Cause ANY voter fraud is bad and should be prevented. What is your solution? Thanks!"
Good luck Todd. garage once made the argument that voter ID was voter suppression because lack of evening/weekend hours at the DMV's made getting a photo ID hard for people with jobs. Of course the fact that employment requires a photo ID was lost on him. He is a special kind of stupid.
Can't get employment. Can't get on a plane. Can't get a library card. Or welfare. or food stamps. Can't drive. Or buy booze or smokes.
Lots of people think that ONLY the following forms of ID are accepted for all of those things mentioned:
- A Wisconsin DOT-issued driver license, even if driving privileges are revoked or suspended
- A Wisconsin DOT-issued identification card
- Military ID card issued by a U.S. uniformed service
- A U.S. passport
The following photo IDs are also acceptable for voting purposes, but
must be unexpired:
- A certificate of naturalization that was issued not earlier than two years before the date of an election at which it is presented
- A driving receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT (valid for 45 days)
- An identification card receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT (valid for 45
days)
- An identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in
Wisconsin
- A photo identification card issued by a Wisconsin accredited university
or college that contains the following:
-- Date of Issuance
-- Signature of Student
-- Expiration date no later than two years after date of issuance
-- The university or college ID must be accompanied by a separate document
that proves enrollment.
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/137/voter_id_complete_packet_10_24_11_pdf_75187.pdf
Those are the only forms of ID allowed under the WI law. But other than a driver's license required for driving, other forms of ID (or, in some cases, no ID at all) can be used for everything else that was mentioned in the quote.
For example, if you show up at the airport w/o any ID it is still possible for you to get on the flight. (http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/acceptable-ids) But if you show up to vote with the wrong kind of ID, such as a Military Veteran Affairs ID, then you are denied your right to vote.
Do you know what a "Military Veteran Affairs ID" is, Madisonfella? What information is on it? What its officially approved use is?
Of course the fact that employment requires a photo ID was lost on him
The fact there are far more alternative forms of ID allowed for the I-9 form ("employment") than there are allowed for the WI voter ID law is lost on you.
The fact that employment ID's are not acceptable for voting is lost on you, Madisonfella.
Do you have a job, Madisonfella? Did you have to show some sort of ID when you were interviewed/hired?
The fact there are far more alternative forms of ID allowed for the I-9 form ("employment") than there are allowed for the WI voter ID law is lost on you.
Also the fact that he hasn't been carded in 40 years is lost on him as well.
What John Lynch said at 10:14.
- Krumhorn
"madisonfella said...
Of course the fact that employment requires a photo ID was lost on him
The fact there are far more alternative forms of ID allowed for the I-9 form ("employment") than there are allowed for the WI voter ID law is lost on you."
Far more? LOL List them.
And this is how stupid idiots like Penquin and garage are. He will come up with some ID that is okay for federal employment but not for WI voter ID ignoring that the people that have that form of ID but NO OTHER may likely be zero,
It also doesn't jive with the left's position that minorities and the elderly are those being disfranchised.
In 2008, Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 57 districts in Philadelphia. In 2012 Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 59 districts.
Relevance to Wisconsin Law?
None.
1. Change law.
2. Defend law in court.
3. Can't produce one single piece of evidence to the court to prove new law is needed and would prevent.
That should be embarrassing.
In lighter news, one of Walker's former staffers is officially headed to jail. Bye Kelly!
"garage mahal said...
In lighter news, one of Walker's former staffers is officially headed to jail. Bye Kelly!"
Millions of dollars, thousands of man hours, and finally get her to spend her six months in jail! That John Chisholm, quite the prosecutor!
MadisonMan said...
In 2008, Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 57 districts in Philadelphia. In 2012 Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 59 districts.
Relevance to Wisconsin Law?
None.
3/19/15, 2:47 PM
The request was for voter fraud. I provided documented proof of voter fraud. Now I am being asked for specific WI cases? Those are some loose goalposts you have there...
"Democrats have no answers to such questions because they don't have principles, they have ambitions."
But the unconstrained pursuit of power to further their ambitions is itself a principle of sorts.
In principle, I object to such progressivism.
It would be nice to discuss first principles. It would be nice to reason from first principles. It would be nice to let the chips fall where they may.
But in politics, at least, nice guys finish last. When one side stands on principle while the other races to power, the other wins.
For honest conservatives, it creates a dilemma.
"... eminent Judge Posner...."
Eminently silly. Really, Judge? The party that is likely to be on the receiving end of voter fraud imposes the onerous burden (sarcasm alert) on voters of actually identifying themselves.
Why do people have to present ID to pick up welfare checks anyway? I met some guys when I was a prosecutor who would have loved to see that requirement eliminated. Easy pickin's. Just like elections.
Somebody please tell Posner that we have photo ID voting laws right here in Rhode Island. Which is a Native American phrase for "Land of no Republicans."
That John Chisholm, quite the prosecutor!
Six people convicted. Not too bad. Walker sure hangs around low lifes, eh?
100 percent of the vote in 57 districts... Relevance to Wisconsin Law?
It is statistically unlikely in a diverse (i.e. more than one person) environment.
"garage mahal said...
That John Chisholm, quite the prosecutor!
Six people convicted. Not too bad. Walker sure hangs around low lifes, eh?"
For that kind of money? It's pathetic. And of course he blames lack of funding for all his plea deals. Pathetic. But hey, hardened criminal Kelly Rindfleisch won't be a threat...for six months.
If the people Walker hired weren't breaking laws the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook to prosecute them. What were they supposed to do, look away?
The incredible absurdity is the pretext that presenting ID, something common to hundreds of transactions, is unduly burdensome to voters - at least to the effete twits who vote for Democrats.
"garage mahal said...
If the people Walker hired weren't breaking laws the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook to prosecute them. What were they supposed to do, look away?"
First, not all were "people Walker hired." Strike One.
Second, the millions weren't spent on prosecutions. Strike 2
Third, John Chisholm "looks the other way" every day. First non-violnet offenders in Milwaukee County almost never serve jail time. Strike 3.
Grab some bench Corky.
The fact that employment ID's are not acceptable for voting is lost on you, Madisonfella.
I understand that, but Curious George (who still thinks he is Batman) was insisting that people who use an ID to buy a beer or get a job or board a plane or anything else can use that same ID for voting as well.
As usual, he was wrong.
"madisonfella said...
I understand that, but Curious George (who still thinks he is Batman) was insisting that people who use an ID to buy a beer or get a job or board a plane or anything else can use that same ID for voting as well.
As usual, he was wrong."
Really, my WI DL, that I used for employment, buying liquor, driving, and getting on a plane can't be used for voting?
You truly are a moron Penquin.
You haven't been carded to buy liquor in decades.
Six people convicted. Not too bad. Walker sure hangs around low lifes, eh?
Remember how useless the Starr investigation was?
The Whitewater investigation rang up 15 convictions.
So, doesn't that make the Clintons more than twice as corrupt as Walker to you?
You haven't been carded to buy liquor in decades
The way he keeps insisting that he is constantly being carded for liquor makes it obvious that he hasn't been out of high school for even a decade. And the way he is completely befuddled why someone wouldn't have a driver's license shows how out of touch he is with the world around him. Since he drives a vehicle then everyone else must also drive a vehicle - he truly can not understand how it could be otherwise for anyone and thus anyone who disagrees with him is a "moron". And the way he keeps talking about "Penguin" shows that he thinks he is Batman.
To sum it up, he is a deluded kid and totally lacking in empathy for others.
"garage mahal said...
You haven't been carded to buy liquor in decade"
Not that I buy much booze, I'm not in I Tappa Kegga like you, but I get carded every time in Pick N Save. They have a "card everyone" policy.
That was as recent as Sunday.
Like I said, grab some bench.
I bought some booze at Pick and Save a couple months ago and they didn't card me.
But then again, I'm older than 30.
madisonfella said...
I bought some booze at Pick and Save a couple months ago and they didn't card me.
Supermarket chain [Pick N Save] carding all for alcohol, cigarette buys
Guess the clerk at my store doesn't read USA Today, because they sure didn't card me.
That story doesn't say anything about the claim Batman keeps making (that the only ID's acceptable for buying booze and cigs are the same IDS that are accepted under the Voter ID law.) Do you have any information in regards to that?
"madisonfella said...
Guess the clerk at my store doesn't read USA Today, because they sure didn't card me.
That story doesn't say anything about the claim Batman keeps making (that the only ID's acceptable for buying booze and cigs are the same IDS that are accepted under the Voter ID law.) Do you have any information in regards to that?"
I never made that claim Penquin. Your attempt to move the goal posts, and make claims that are unfounded, prove what a moron and dishonest person you are.
Grab some bench.
I never made that claim Penquin
Yes you did, Batman. At 10:45 AM.
Judge Poser, I mean Posner, is a pretentious dick and an argument for term limits of judges.
My understanding is that the Court's purview in these cases is to determine whether the law is in accordance with the Constitution, not to pass judgment on on whether it advantages a particular party..
Posner is getting a bit obvious in his elder years.
"madisonfella said...
I never made that claim Penquin
Yes you did, Batman. At 10:45 AM."
LOL, like I said, you are intellectually dishonest, as well as challenged.
But I assume by all your moronic posts that you would be 100% okay with a voter photo ID law in Wisconsin as long as it matched up with the ID's required to get employment. Right?
Supermarket chain [Pick N Save] carding all for alcohol, cigarette buys
Clearly, Pick-N-Save is racist and should be boycotted, right lefties?
I thought that the Supreme Court said that it was not necessary to show that voter fraud was a problem to justify a Voter ID law. Am I wrong on that, Ann?
there is also no evidence that getting an ID is a problem, either.
The only problem is that Democrats need voter fraud to win close elections and thus oppose laws that would discourage it.
Post a Comment