Requiring Picture ID Not Unconstitutional

[Boxlicker101]

SCOTUS has said, effectively, that it is not contrary to the Constitution to require voters in WI to show ID before voting.
http://unfilteredpatriot.com/wisconsin-voter-id-law-survives-supreme-court/

Presumably, the law applies to all voters.

 

[sr71plt]

I was an election official for a few years. I really don't understand why proof that you are the registered voter who is voting shouldn't be required. Some seem to be working at the wrong end of this. They should be working on making it easy to get an acceptable form of photo ID. Where I am, it's even more lenient than that. We'd take a utility bill in your name at the registered address, and we'd take the voter card sent to every registered voter (which doesn't have a photo ID on it).

 

[phrodeau]

Many who hold religious beliefs against having photos taken are being excluded from voting, and it isn't just the native Americans, Amish and Presbyterians.

 

[sr71plt]

That set of folks would be so small that special voting arrangements could be made for them. The bottom line is that there's no reason why you shouldn't prove you are the registered voter voting.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Many who hold religious beliefs against having photos taken are being excluded from voting, and it isn't just the native Americans, Amish and Presbyterians.

And they make those choices freely.

 

[sr71plt]

A. No one forces you to vote in the United States. B. You had to register first to be able to vote. If your convictions won't allow you to be photographed (which isn't really what any of this controversy is about) the registrar's people will do what's necessary to ascertain you are the legal resident where you are registering and you can vote absentee, which doesn't require a photo ID. Those who show up on voting day at the polls can jolly well produce photo proof they are the legal voter they represent.

 

[phrodeau]

A. No one forces you to vote in the United States. B. You had to register first to be able to vote. If your convictions won't allow you to be photographed (which isn't really what any of this controversy is about) the registrar's people will do what's necessary to ascertain you are the legal resident where you are registering and you can vote absentee, which doesn't require a photo ID. Those who show up on voting day at the polls can jolly well produce photo proof they are the legal voter they represent.

It depends on which state you live in.

 

[RejectReality]

How many handicapped-accessible van trips to the BMV and photo ID purchases could have been made with all the money used to fight these laws, I wonder?

Considering how many things require photo ID other than voting, it would seem that's a much more empowering use of the funds for the people affected.

 

[sr71plt]

It depends on which state you live in.

I'm sure that the voting officials in all states are adult enough to figure out how to keep a small minority issue from driving massive voter fraud. Not all of us require babysitters or need to play to the lowest common denominator in everything.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This is a solution in search of a problem.

The incidence of voter fraud in this country has been so small as to be statistically nil.

 

[Que]

"No significant voter fraud" is such a crock of shit. NO ONE has any idea how much fraud occurs for something NO ONE is checking for. If you do not ID voters how can you POSSIBLY assert that the not identified voters 1) are who they say they are 2) are not proscribed from voting and 3) are voting once and only once?

It was provably sufficient in MN that Al Franken, rather than the legally elected person is still in office.

It is interesting that Democrats- who are the ones screaming about "NO FRAUD, OH GOD... THERE IS NO FRAUD!! WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT CHECK" seem to be the ones caught doing it. Chicago Democrats have held power despite their rampant fraud being widely known for DECADES.

If Republicans had any significant history of this crap the Democrats would be screaming for ID.

The "solution in search of a problem" (the solution being, don't check, Oh, GOD whatEVER you do NEVER check!!!) is the provably non-existent problem of people being unable to get an acceptable form of identification.

Frodos (latest in a long string of many) red herring is really stupid. Have the ID have no photo, mark it as the exception, and put a nice fat thumb-print where the picture would be. In first grade we had a little activity where everyone gave two (same thumb) thumb-prints. These were put in a box. The task was to match them up. NONE of the first graders had problems comparing prints and finding a match from a box of thirty exemplars. Matching one-to-one is even easier.

The REAL reason that this is an issue at all, is nothing more than the left making up a racist component to this and selling it to minorities that they hope to get angry enough to bother to vote in larger numbers than they do. That is it. Period.

Anyone mouthing anything different is simply parroting the CRAP that was fabricated to cover the actual agenda here. Get blacks and Hispanics angry, get them to the pols.l

/end

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Is there air? You don't know!

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is a solution in search of a problem.

The incidence of voter fraud in this country has been so small as to be statistically nil.

Are there any legit/independent investigations/audits done to back that up?

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is a solution in search of a problem.

The incidence of voter fraud in this country has been so small as to be statistically nil.

If Republicans were honest, which of course they never have been and never will be, they'd admit this Picture ID business is nothing more than an attempt to throw as many obstacles into the path of #ThosePeople's voting in order to delay the demise of #TheWhitePatriarchy as long as humanly possible.

 

[Que]

Are there any legit/independent investigations/audits done to back that up?

No. It has not been done because it cannot be done with the system we now have.

How could one audit the results of an election when all of the ballots are secret and the voter rolls are just a list of names with marks saying someone showed up and voted or mailed a ballot in?

Lets say you could get an independent handwriting analyst to verify that the "Phil Smith" that signed the voter registration application was the very same "Phil Smith" that showed up at the poll in precinct 23. Since "Phil Smith" is not tied to any other database other than the voter rolls, all we know is a guy showed up, filled out an application and a card was mailed to his stated address. There is no clean-up of the rolls if the card comes back returned in the mail. As long as he shows up in precinct 23 he can vote.

There is no way to verify if "Phil Smith" in precinct 27 is the same "Phil Smith." There is no way to know if he is also "Filbert Smythe" with an absentee ballot and the same home address in precinct 23 as "Phil Smith."

There is only one credible explanation why it is that only Democrats want to keep the antiquated system we have in place rather than say- meet the standards that the poorest area of MEXICO has for all voters including their Hispanic voters.

Democrats love and count on padded voter rolls. Period. Pretending otherwise either means they are being disingenuous or they are naively stupid about what goes on in the precincts that actually matter.

Red State voters tend to be rural. People know their neighbors, polls are watched by people Democrat and Republican that would notice and say something about actual irregularities. The Dems take their losses in those areas, and the republicans have no real need to cheat.

In Blue states, they are blue because the Dems outnumber the Republicans but despite what is known about the voting patterns of the personality type that would join the Democratic party, miraculously, the bluer the precinct, the higher the voter turnout will be.

This is actual math. It is called statistical analysis. Voter irregularities are well known. Democrats are not known for being math whizzes so these sort of arcane explanations are not often discussed because a UD will will scream "You have no EVIDENCE!!" as if statistical correlation is not evidence in and of itself. The best evidence that Democrats cheat is the fact that they want a fraudsters delight of a system to remain.

Dems cheat, they know they cheat, and they are really worried about winning elections if they cannot cheat in those important Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Florida precincts.

Just for fun to shut the likes of UD up, if I ever renounce my citizenship I will vote 500 times in my last election then document and release the results.

Screaming "no evidence" aside I would be interested in a Democrat's explanation about how it is that in heavily Democratic controlled areas they are "sure" that cheating is not going on whole sale. Is it because they are sure that Democrats, being such moral people would never do such a thing, or is it because they are sure Democrats are so unimaginative that they cannot figure out how to cheat?

I am pretty certain that if Republican demographics provided them with an opportunity to cheat on any kind of meaningful scale, they would do so as well. It is far cheaper to pad voter rolls than to advertise for and secure the votes of actual voters.

 

[Que]

Is there air? You don't know!

What an incredibly stupid response. We actually do have physical evidence of air, and we check and MONITOR for air quality. Not so with voter rolls.

Almost as dumb as Rob's, where his "refudiation" is parroting the very "It's 'cause they are RACISTS!!" mantra that I just covered.

If he were honest he would admit his own deep seated feelings of superiority over all blacks and his astonishment that any of them would vote any different from what they are told to do so by their liberal, paternalistic betters.

That line of thinking is far too nuanced, though for him to understand, much less admit to, however.

 

[miles]

What an incredibly stupid response.

Almost as dumb as Rob's, where his "refudiation" is parroting the very "It's 'cause they are RACISTS!!" mantra that I just covered.

You act surprised!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What an incredibly stupid response. We actually do have physical evidence of air, and we check and MONITOR for air quality. Not so with voter rolls.

Almost as dumb as Rob's, where his "refudiation" is parroting the very "It's 'cause they are RACISTS!!" mantra that I just covered.

If he were honest he would admit his own deep seated feelings of superiority over all blacks and his astonishment that any of them would vote any different from what they are told to do so by their liberal, paternalistic betters.

That line of thinking is far too nuanced, though for him to understand, much less admit to, however.

That was a quote from "Galaxy Quest" from a hysterical crewman when they opened a door onto a new planet.

How much money and time was wasted hunting down supposed voter fraud under the Bush administration?

In the end the Bush administration ended up firing eight U.S. Attorneys for not being able to find the rampant voter fraud they were looking for.

But low information types still scream "voter fraud" non-stop. Find evidence that it's a real problem, otherwise you're just playing Henny Penny.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You act surprised!

Poor miles, your top VetteBigot took an exit stage left and you're looking for a replacement already?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No. It has not been done because it cannot be done with the system we now have.

How could one audit the results of an election when all of the ballots are secret and the voter rolls are just a list of names with marks saying someone showed up and voted or mailed a ballot in?

Lets say you could get an independent handwriting analyst to verify that the "Phil Smith" that signed the voter registration application was the very same "Phil Smith" that showed up at the poll in precinct 23. Since "Phil Smith" is not tied to any other database other than the voter rolls, all we know is a guy showed up, filled out an application and a card was mailed to his stated address. There is no clean-up of the rolls if the card comes back returned in the mail. As long as he shows up in precinct 23 he can vote.

There is no way to verify if "Phil Smith" in precinct 27 is the same "Phil Smith." There is no way to know if he is also "Filbert Smythe" with an absentee ballot and the same home address in precinct 23 as "Phil Smith."

There is only one credible explanation why it is that only Democrats want to keep the antiquated system we have in place rather than say- meet the standards that the poorest area of MEXICO has for all voters including their Hispanic voters.

Democrats love and count on padded voter rolls. Period. Pretending otherwise either means they are being disingenuous or they are naively stupid about what goes on in the precincts that actually matter.

Red State voters tend to be rural. People know their neighbors, polls are watched by people Democrat and Republican that would notice and say something about actual irregularities. The Dems take their losses in those areas, and the republicans have no real need to cheat.

In Blue states, they are blue because the Dems outnumber the Republicans but despite what is known about the voting patterns of the personality type that would join the Democratic party, miraculously, the bluer the precinct, the higher the voter turnout will be.

This is actual math. It is called statistical analysis. Voter irregularities are well known. Democrats are not known for being math whizzes so these sort of arcane explanations are not often discussed because a UD will will scream "You have no EVIDENCE!!" as if statistical correlation is not evidence in and of itself. The best evidence that Democrats cheat is the fact that they want a fraudsters delight of a system to remain.

Dems cheat, they know they cheat, and they are really worried about winning elections if they cannot cheat in those important Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Florida precincts.

Just for fun to shut the likes of UD up, if I ever renounce my citizenship I will vote 500 times in my last election then document and release the results.

Screaming "no evidence" aside I would be interested in a Democrat's explanation about how it is that in heavily Democratic controlled areas they are "sure" that cheating is not going on whole sale. Is it because they are sure that Democrats, being such moral people would never do such a thing, or is it because they are sure Democrats are so unimaginative that they cannot figure out how to cheat?

I am pretty certain that if Republican demographics provided them with an opportunity to cheat on any kind of meaningful scale, they would do so as well. It is far cheaper to pad voter rolls than to advertise for and secure the votes of actual voters.

What a fucking pant-load.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What a fucking pant-load.

He's obviously hurting this morning.

 

[Sean]

If it costs one cent to get the ID needed, it's unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If it costs one cent to get the ID needed, it's unconstitutional. Period.

Poll tax by any other name is still a poll tax.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Show me your papers, comrade!

 

[Wrong Element]

I was an election official for a few years. I really don't understand why proof that you are the registered voter who is voting shouldn't be required. Some seem to be working at the wrong end of this. They should be working on making it easy to get an acceptable form of photo ID. Where I am, it's even more lenient than that. We'd take a utility bill in your name at the registered address, and we'd take the voter card sent to every registered voter (which doesn't have a photo ID on it).

That would be the case if those running Wisconsin actually wanted more people to vote. But they do not.

I've been saying it for years: the goal of the far right is 1) gain power; and 2) with the knowledge that demographics are working against them, rig the game (restrictive voting rules, Citizens United etc) so that they will never lose power again.

It is interesting that Democrats- who are the ones screaming about "NO FRAUD, OH GOD... THERE IS NO FRAUD!! WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT CHECK" seem to be the ones caught doing it. Chicago Democrats have held power despite their rampant fraud being widely known for DECADES.

If Republicans had any significant history of this crap the Democrats would be screaming for ID.

Do any of these new voter ID measures prevent someone from casting a ballot in two separate states? During the three years I lived in Texas, my voter registration in Ohio remained on the books, since there's no requirement to tell the board of elections "Hey, I'm outta here." Since anyone can vote absentee in Ohio, there would have been nothing but my own conscience to prevent me from voting in the 2012 election in both locales. (Instead, I voted in neither state, which is likewise easy but also legal.)

I ask because common sense will tell you which political party has more supporters among those who have residences in multiple states. Funny how no one seems to think that's an issue.