Assembly Passes Voter ID Amendment
On a 54-43 vote Tuesday afternoon, the Assembly approved the measure that requires voters to show a photo ID when they head to the ballot box. State Representative Jeff Stone (R-Greendale), a chief sponsor of the measure, says the Constitutional Amendment will encourage people to vote and provide new respect for the election system. The resolution is aimed at reducing voter fraud statewide.
Kudos to Reps Hraychuck, Jorgensen, and Krucick - the only three Democrats to vote with ALL of the Republicans in support of this common sense amendment.
Unfortunately, this will die in the state Senate. The Democrats who control the senate don’t want the voters to be able to decide this issue. Judy Robson would rather the issue be completely decided on her own judgment rather than that of the citizens of Wisconsin.
Regardless of what you think about the merits of this constitutional amendment, shouldn’t the voters at least get a say?
Yay! They passed a bill to combat a problem we don’t have, and in the process drive away minority voters! Now that’s what I call common sense!
Posted by scott on April 18, 2007 at 1910 hrs
Owen - this is certainly something worthy of the citizen’s opinion…away from the arena of politics.
Scott - I appreciate the sarcasm, but will question the premise. First, without any kind of ID requirement, how are you so sure there is not fraud? I am a poll worker and we generally work in our home district - therefore, we do get to know and recognize some people personally. Others, however, simply step up and state their name and address - unless someone questions them, it is only assumed to be true. If you had a friend across town that you knew never votes, you could simply vote his ballot, too. There are numerous scenarios where this could be happening and no one would know. Without a photo ID requirement, there would be no reason to question and no way to check.
On new registrations, we are required to get a DL# (but we cannot insist that they show it to us). If they have a license but do not know the number, they may vote a provisional ballot and get their info to the clerk by the next day. If they have no DL#, they may use a State ID or provide the last 4 digits of SS#. Now, there is also a box where you can state you have none of these - now, I have not been able to dream up a scenario where that could be the case and you would still be eligible to vote, but someone must have.
In my polling place, many people come in with their photo ID already out and are surprised when we tell them we don’t need to see it. I personally can’t imagine anyone having an issue with this unless they are either committing or condoning fraud. I also love the condescension and low expectations behind assuming that minority voters simply couldn’t manage to vote if this was enacted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2007 at 2028 hrs
So, Minorities can’t get ID’s? I am not familiar with the details of the specifics here but the last push for voter ID I was familiar with assured free ID’s to those who can’t afford them. Of course darn near every Dem I heard speak of it said “This will just drive away minorities who can’t afford the ID’s.” A bunch of crap…...Stop the fraud, voter ID is very basic commen sence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2007 at 2035 hrs
No probblem? About 100 for sure cases from the recent past and now, more voters than adults in some wards of Milwaukee, about 5000 false addresses. Yep, no problem if you are mindless liberal.
Scott, why are you such a racist? At the very least, you could have said the poor would be hardest hit, but you said minorities would be hardest hit. Plus it wouldn’t a hardship if the poor wanted to vote. I’ve moved 4 times this year and had a current ID and registered to vote at each residence- it was a pain, but I did it. I endured the lines at and the DMV, paid my money and fill out all the registration forms. What excuses do the poor have that I don’t?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2007 at 2050 hrs
Well said “wiaggie”. Don’t mind Scott. He’d gripe if he was hung with a new rope!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2007 at 2108 hrs
Look, folks, I didn’t conduct the investigation nor did I write the report. It says what it says. The conclusion they reached was that there was no widespread voter fraud. And that little bit that there was mostly concerned absentee ballots and things that have nothing to do with some guy showing up at the polling place pretending to be someone else. So the problem that you’re so worked up about doesn’t really exist. However, voter ID requirements suppresses minority votes between 5 and 10 percent.
So what are you more concerned about? The number of invalid votes in Wisconsin that we could count on one hand? or the tens of thousands of votes that don’t occur due to the “remedy”?
Tell me you have concern about that. Tell me you care. The problem with voting in America is that not enough people do it. The problem is not fraud.
Posted by scott on April 18, 2007 at 2359 hrs
I am concerned about the voting fraud. Again, the poor are not going to disinfranshised if they choose not be. There is absoutley no evedince to suggest that. And Scott, stop being a racist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0026 hrs
Voter ID bill, Gay Marriage Ban, whatever…I’m not a fan of amending the state constitution or the US Constitution as a means of getting around a bipartisan system. The constitution is permanent, and it seems exceptionally trivial to put a voter ID amendment on our constitution.
If the voters cared THAT much about it, they’d elect a governor and legislature that supported the bill. Until they do this, tough luck to the Republicans, but that’s how politics works.
A constitutional amendment should not be used as a back door.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0042 hrs
Another Republican solution in search of a problem, and as usual another cheap appeal to emotionalism.
This is yet another example why the GOP is becoming less relevant, despite their occasional victories through mob appeal.
As one former GOP legislator told me, he looks back admiringly to his father’s day when Republicans worked for the greater good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0514 hrs
There is absoutley no evedince to suggest that.
Except, of course, for the evidence that does.
About 100 for sure cases from the recent past and now, more voters than adults in some wards of Milwaukee, about 5000 false addresses.
100 cases like these? Accusing a woman who was told by poll workers to fill out a second registration card of double voting? How many fraud cases passed the smell test with juries—five?
The “more voters than adults” line is, I’m guessing, about this problem? You know, the one with a reporting glitch that doubled the ballots cast in some wards, but which didn’t change any vote totals (much to the chagrin of Vince Bobot). And the 5000 fake addresses is as laughable an accusation: When the people making the complaint later admit that they checked some addresses and they turned out to be real, you know their story is crap. Come on.
And, Dan, in the end, even if these problems in your fevered imagination were real, which of them would voter ID stop? We know what the greates causes of vote fraud really are, and voter ID chases after different problems that just don’t exist.
Posted by folkbum on April 19, 2007 at 0535 hrs
I actually agree with Adam. The constitution - state or federal - should be amended rarely and for only a very few reasons.
Aside from that, the only reason scott, folkbum, kr and the rest of the left don’t want to see a reasonable voter ID bill is very simple: voter fraud tends to benefit Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0706 hrs
voter fraud tends to benefit Democrats.
Tell that to President Gore.
Posted by folkbum on April 19, 2007 at 0752 hrs
the only reason scott, folkbum, kr and the rest of the left don’t want to see a reasonable voter ID bill is very simple: voter fraud tends to benefit Democrats.
Or, it could be for the reasons we have so painstakingly wrote above.
You’d get a lot further in this “debate” thing if you bothered to understand your opponents position, rather than just denying that we have one or making one up for us.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 0759 hrs
This has no business in the state constitution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0906 hrs
Scott - you again cite an investigation and report. What I was trying to point out is that there are some things you can investigate and others that simply cannot be checked. If a person is not required to show an ID at the polls, how can you prove one way or the other that it was a proper vote. A false address can be checked and absentee ballots actually have a little bit of a paper trail.
If police stopped you along the highway, and could not ask to see your license and registration, could they conclude that you were the rightful owner of the vehicle?
Adam/John - If requirements for voting do not belong in the constitution, I am not sure what does. Seems pretty basic to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 0919 hrs
As a tighty righty, I have to be honest . . . I agree there isn’t enough wide spread voter fraud to make the arguement for voter ID’s. At the same time, though, the turning away voters arguement is just as weak. Other states have the provision and people just do it. That’s what would happen . . . people would just do it. I compare it to emission testing more than I compare it to check cashing or video rentals. We just have to do it and we do. Same case with voter ID’s. I highly doubt there would be widespread turning away of voters as a result. For me, same day registration is more of a problem. I’d much rather see us do away with same day registration than require voter ID’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1058 hrs
Other states have the provision and people just do it.
Apparently a significant percentage of them don’t. 5.7% of black voters and 10% of hispanic voters is what I read. That’s potentially tens of thousands of legitimate votes that would not be cast here in Wisconsin.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1122 hrs
I always find it interesting that people on each side of this debate are entirely unwilling and unable to understand the other side.
Ballot security is an issue.
Voter suppression is an issue.
Yet everyone just yells at each other on this one. If you are really interested in solving the problem (or really potential problem, because that is what it is) you have to consider both concerns before offering a solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1125 hrs
Ballot security is an issue.
Except that it doesn’t really appear to be. Not when the facts are really looked at. Not if by “issue” you mean something that is of significant concern to warrant a remedy that will definitely have undesirable consequences (such as vote suppression). I’m referring to the report by the Election Assistance Commission, which - before it was altered for political reasons - concluded that “there is little polling place fraud.”
The sky isn’t necessarily purple just because one side says the sky is red and the other says it’s blue; sometimes one side is right and the other side is wrong.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1141 hrs
10%? So that means 90% show up? Wow! That’s remarkable! Scott, lots of people don’t vote. I don’t know that one can pin the reason to ID requirements. Even if you could, that’s a pretty small percentage compared to over all voting by registered voters.
Again though, I’m not all hot and bothered by reasons for the need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1206 hrs
Whether or not voter fraud is widespread - who cares?
The fact that you can place a vote without demonstrating who you are fails the common sense test. That vote is the singularly most powerful piece of citizenship - should it not be protected?
Every Voter ID proposal has provisions to provide free IDs - if you can get your ID free, YOU ARE NOT DISENFRANCHISED!!
That’s not voter suppression. Yeah, Scott, one side is wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1217 hrs
If there is no voter fraud, are voter ID is free…why is the left afraid of it? Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1222 hrs
There really is no good reason not to have to show a photo ID to vote, whether there is fraud or not. Its just common sense. Especially if the government will provide free ID’s for the needy.
When people fight this concept I get this sickly feeling in my guts they are hiding something.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1223 hrs
That should read “and” voter ID is free…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1224 hrs
Scott…
In general I’m in agreement with you on this. There is not a problem to date. Nor do I think the system is ripe for being abused (to actually commit enough fraud to significantly impact an election in this way and not expect to get caught is laughable).
However, we have not done all that we can to secure the ballot box. I agree that 82 cases doesn’t warrant a photo ID system. But I also can’t ignore that 82 cases could impact an election.
So, I do think it is an issue, and deserves careful consideration and discussion of potential remedies. But I am on your side. Given the positives of Wisconsin’s voter registration system, and the relatively few problems we’ve encountered, I wouldn’t bring a sledge hammer to kill the fly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1225 hrs
Lefty:
It’s not a “system. It’s simply showing an ID; like checking out a library book, buying a bottle of wine, cashing a check, going to an R-ated movie, etc., etc., etc. What are you afraid of?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1241 hrs
lots of people don’t vote. I don’t know that one can pin the reason to ID requirements.
Actually, you can. It’s documented that when you do these things, fewer people turn out to vote. Mostly it’s minorities. The numbers I saw recently indicate that anywhere from 5 to 10% can be the reduction.
Even if you could, that’s a pretty small percentage compared to over all voting by registered voters.
Is it now? But shouldn’t we apply that same thinking to the vote fraud issue? What percent of registered voters is that? Turns out,it’s infinitesimally smaller than the numbers who won’t cast ballots due to the “remedy.” Why are you worried about voter fraud (an extremely small number) but not worried about vote suppression (a much larger number)? If you’re so concerned about weighing things out according to the number of votes cast in America.
fails the common sense test.
I do see the appeal of your position. It’s a very rule-based sense of what is right. However, how much common sense does it really embody, if we are trying to stop a vanishingly small problem by causing a larger one?
That’s not voter suppression.
When fewer people vote because of the restrictions we’ve put on the process, that’s exactly what you call it.
It’s simply showing an ID…What are you afraid of?
Uh, vote suppression. I wish you guys would actually try to understand where we’re coming from, even if you don’t agree with it.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1337 hrs
Lefty - What are you talking about with “secure the ballot box”?
We take great pains to ensure that machines cannot be tampered with, that the count matches the number of people that come in, all poll workers certify the zero-count and end totals and deliver them to the clerk. On that side of the equation, there are numerous double-checks and procedures to ensure that ballots are secure. I guess if all the poll workers decided to conspire to violate their oaths and commit fraud, it could happen, but it would be kind of obvious if one district had 70% turnout in a 20% election.
I do worry about the absentee ballot side of things, and increasing use of that method of voting, but my concern revolves around the afore-mentioned identity confirmation and registration loopholes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1343 hrs
Why would anyone decide not to vote if they were forced to show an ID? And what the heck does being a minority have to do with that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1403 hrs
Maybe they don’t drive, it’s inconvenient, it costs money, who knows. But it’s true: legitimate voters vote less when you put these requirements on them, and it seems to fall heaviest on minority voters.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1417 hrs
Scott - Sorry, I cannot accept your premise that anything that potentially lowers voter turnout is bad. Why have any restrictions, then? Let people sign up and vote at grocery stores, gas stations, churches, wherever…as long as you’re willing to accept their word that they only voted once anyway…
The term “supression” itself carries a sinister connotation and indicates an intentional goal of preventing those eligible from being able to vote through the use of rules (things like literacy tests and poll taxes which were set up in the South, knowing blacks could not comply). Simple proof of identification does not even fall in the same universe, much less does it carry the same intent.
If I choose not to deal with the people at the DMV, take the required driving classes or pass the required test…can I claim the State is preventing me from driving? That’s the same as claiming “voter supression” because you choose not to show ID.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1426 hrs
The right of Americans to vote is primary. The only valid reason to put up even the slightest challenge or barrier is to combat a genuine threat to the legitimacy of the results. It is clear that there is no such threat. Therefore, you do not have the right to put up those barriers.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1435 hrs
CPeterson nailed it:
“Why would anyone decide not to vote if forced to show an ID?
Why would anyone choose not to try purchase liquor if forced to show an ID?
Why would anyone choose not to try to get into an R-rated movie if forced to show an ID?
Answer’s kinda obvious, isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1443 hrs
i’d liek to summarize this discussion so far.
Conservatives: if you don’t ask for ID, people will be able to commit fraud. Fraud is bad. Thus we need to ask for those IDs to prevent it, even if it means someone will not vote because of the inconvenience or expense or whatever.
Democrats: Actually, there’s been a thorough investigation of whether fraud is happening, and apparently it’s not. Meanwhile, it’s demonstrated that requirements such as IDs suppress tends of thousands of legitimate votes.
Cons: I’m in love with my logic. If you don’t ask for IDs someone can/will commit fraud!
Dems: But the facts show…
Cons: but my logic says…
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1457 hrs
I have a great idea. When welfare checks go out have them come in once and give them an ID. From then on it will be the responsibility of the recipient to keep the ID up or no check for you. Make it free of charge and we have just solved the too poor to afford an ID. It will also assure us that if a welfare check wants to be given they need an ID. I have to have an ID if I want to go into my place of employment. I have to have an ID if I want to withdraw more than $100 from my bank. Heck my bank even has a fingerprint policy. Why is it that I, who pay the bills(taxes), have to work harder for my money than some ‘poor’ person has to work for my money? If you don’t have an ID you get no welfare and can’t vote. Is that cold and heartless? No because if it is good enough that I have to do it then I can require those who I support to do it as well. All they have to do is have enough responsibility to keep their records straight. Just because you are poor does not mean that you are too stupid to be able to keep track and update the one thing required for you to eat does it?
Posted by fishaddict on April 19, 2007 at 1501 hrs
So basically, that can be encapsulated thus: “I’m in love with mylogic,” with a bonus for being patronizing and insulting to everyone upon whom the ID burden would fall heaviest.
I think it comes down to what I wrote in comment 32. without a compelling, reality-based reason, you have no business putting up even the slightest barrier for Americans to exercise their right to vote.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1507 hrs
But Scott:
If it’s free, and it’s convenient, and I’m paying for it, why is it heavy?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1510 hrs
Explain to me in detail how the state of Wisconsin, suppling FREE voter ID cards to every citizen in this state, to maintain the sanctity of the one great tool that we as citizens in the state have to make any difference at all, is somehow disenfranchising minorities.
Wait, nevermind….I think I know who minorities vote for, I just answered my own question !!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1519 hrs
I look at it this way…..
Where you slash tires to suppress votes, is fraud really that far away ???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1522 hrs
Is that all we have, then? I think I’m winning this argument, gentlemen.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1527 hrs
Scott:
You STILL haven’t answered why it is such a burden!!!
You’re losing big time, dude.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1536 hrs
Apparently a significant percentage of them don’t. 5.7% of black voters and 10% of hispanic voters is what I read.
I’d like to see a source for this statistic and examine the study as well. I have a hard time believing that the extra 3 seconds that it takes to pull your wallet out and show an ID would have a significant effect on voter turnout, unless of course the drop in from people who were unable to vote in the first place. If you are able to get out to your polling place the cast your ballot, you are able to go get yourself a free state issued photo ID.
To argue “voter suppression” I think you need to prove that the law, or rather amendment, is being enacted for the express purpose of “prohibiting” or to “forcibly excluding” someone’s right to vote. I don’t think that this would do that, though I am sure that some liberal justice would probably interpret it that way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1536 hrs
Scott,
I appreciate that rights should not be impeded unless there is a significant public interest in doing so. Gun rights come to mind… I also appreciate that some people might be too lazy to vote if they have to get a photo ID - even if it’s free and delivered to their house.
But as I have cataloged on a number of occasions, there are many forms of voter fraud that can not be known - much less proven in court - under our current system. The 5,000+ votes that were cast in 2004 in Milwaukee with same-day registration that could not be verified after the fact come to mind. There is absolutely no way to go after those people to see if they were legitimate voters.
This is how I view voter ID: it is a small burden to bear in order to help make sure that our elections are valid. I recognize that it is a burden for some people and I support programs designed to make it less of a burden.
Furthermore, I don’t see voter ID as a complete or totally non-circumventable ballot security measure. I also support doing away with same-day registration, more robust training and oversight for poll workers, and a number of other things. But voter ID seems to me to be a reasonable impediment to the exercise of our right to vote for helping to ensure the validity of our elections.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1541 hrs
You STILL haven’t answered why it is such a burden!!!
Isn’t it enough to demonstrate that it is?
I’d like to see a source for this statistic and examine the study as well.
The study is available as a giganticon pdf here, and the NY Times write-up and summary is here. Be my guest.
Posted by folkbum on April 19, 2007 at 1547 hrs
Egad! Quoting the New York Times? That’s like quoting Britney Spears on abstinence!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1557 hrs
that’s what I was thinking, but I’ll read thru it all and evaluate it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1608 hrs
Better than listening to Rush Limbaugh about drug crime.
More imaginary people in GOPWorld—the poor (Black for sure) person who is so convinced that voting multiple times will get him dat welfare.
Seen the lines in Milwaukee? No one has THAT much time to vote multiple times.
But what am I talking about and let’s cut through the BS. Any time you make voting more difficult it is suppression. Voting is a right. Not a fricken obstacle course.
There is no widespread problem, the only one being Republicans in the state legislature who do not deal with real problems (healthcare) to work on cheap political stunts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1628 hrs
so the NYT article says voters required to sign their names or show something like a utility bill were less likely to vote… nothing about photo IDs.
From the Report:
The non-photo identification requirement showed the most significant and consistent correlation with reduced turnout. This result may be surprising given the intense debates surrounding photo ID requirements. The effect of photo ID requirements cannot however, be assessed from the data the statistical analysis examined, since none of the states had laws in 2004 that conditioned voting on presentation of a photo ID. Each of the five states that had photo ID as a “maximum” requirement (i.e. the most that voters could be asked to show at the polls) accepted another type of identification or an affidavit as a “minimum” requirement in the 2004 election (i.e. they were allowed to cast a regular ballot with something less than a photo ID).
The linked report itself gives no statistics, only that the non-photo ID requirement showed the most significant correlation to voter turnout. Which I would say makes sense. Who keeps their utility bills? After I pay mine, I shred it.
It also states that the reason for low turnout may be “less user friendly systems and not stricter ID laws”.
So the professor cited in the study is referencing numbers that don’t show up in the report itself. interesting.
The report given on voter ID
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1630 hrs
Rights come with responsibilities; proving you are who you say you are is minimal.
You’re right. End the B.S. Why not put it on the ballot and let the people decide? What are the DEMS afraid of?
Gotta go..Rush is talking about drug crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1632 hrs
But what am I talking about and let’s cut through the BS. Any time you make voting more difficult it is suppression. Voting is a right. Not a fricken obstacle course.
Yeah, i agree, running through the tires, jumping hurdles, and climbing the wall in order to pull out my wallet… who needs that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1634 hrs
If you drew a venn diagram of what sources conservatives think are reliable and what sources liberals think are reliable, one hopes that there would be an intersection which would include at least some sources that cover a wide range of subjects. (eg., it won’t help us a lot if all we can agree upon is Car & Driver; it has to be something general and wide ranging.) But sometimes it seems like that list of mutually acceptable sources gets smaller and smaller every day.
When we can’t link to an article in the New York Times followed by a link directly to the US Election Assistance Commission without immediate skepticism, I really don’t know if meaningful debate is possible anymore. I get a good chuckle when one of you guys links me to the Heritage Foundation or to the NRA. But you know what? If you link me to any mainstream news source - yes, even Fox - that means something. At the very least they have a reputation of impartiality to maintain.
If you can’t accept mainstream news reporting (accompanied by primary sources, too!) as valid, then all is lost. No point in commenting here anymore.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1659 hrs
As I see it, the REAL problem with Voter ID at the time of polling is the SURPRISE of having to show ID at the time of casting your ballot. Somehow, the message is not getting out to certain jurisdictions.
I live in Virginia, and I went out for a run and then went to my regular polling place to vote. I didn’t have my picture ID because my shorts didn’t have pockets to hold my wallet. I was STUNNED to learn after standing in line I couldn’t vote! Yeah. I was pissed, but I just went home, took a shower, and came back with my picture ID. No problem, EXCEPT that somehow I had missed the “announcement” that picture ID was now a requirement to vote. My wife had a different point of view: “You dumb bastard, what were you doing running without ID and your medical card? What if you got hit by a car? What if you had a heart attack?” She put it all into perspective for me. It is a formality for most folks and a minor inconvenience for others.
I have no problem withe requirement of picture ID to cast a ballot. I have a problem with the surprise people have at the polls. It’s good this discussion is happening now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1704 hrs
Sleestak, good eye on the maximum/minimum thing; to paraphrase, the requirement of showing any identification at all is sufficent to produce the results seen in the study—drops in voter turnout. Since no state had the photo-ID requirement—where a photo ID is the minimum—that the Wisconsin Republicans want (and that got tossed out by Georgia’s courts), they could only see the results based on the mimimum of stating your name, a non-photo ID, or a signature match. in states that require non-photo ID as minimum, voters can show photo ID to meet the requirement. In other words, you don’t need to keep your utility bills if you have a driver’s license.
Or, as the authors of the study put it,
In the aggregate data, the match-signature requirement and the provide-a-non-photo ID requirement were correlated with lower turnout compared to requiring that voters state their names. But the photo-ID requirement did not have an effect that was statistically significant, possibly because in 2004 each state requiring a photo-ID provided an alternative way to cast a regular ballot for voters who lacked that document. (30)
But, as I said, the amendment the Assembly passed would be stricter than anything this study could have examined—that bill provides for no alternative way to identify yourself.
You say you don’t see the numbers Scott and I are quoting in the study, but the information is there:
The results of this modeling suggest that the stricter voter identification requirements of matching one’s signature to a signature on file with election authorities or presenting a non- photo ID are associated with lower turnout compared to turnout in states that required voters to simply state their name, holding constant the electoral context and demographic variables. (25)
For the entire population, the signature, non-photo identification and photo identification requirements all were associated with lower turnout compared to the requirement that voters simply state their names. These correlations translated into reduced probabilities of voting of about 3 to 4 percent for the entire sample, with larger differences for specific subgroups. For example, the predicted probability that Hispanics would vote in states that required non-photo identification was about 10 percentage points lower than in states where Hispanic voters gave their names. The difference was about 6 percent for African- Americans and Asian-Americans, and about 2 percent for white voters. (28)
So Scott and I aren’t lying to you. The data are real. The results—the stifling of otherwise legal votes and voters—are real. What more do you want?
Posted by folkbum on April 19, 2007 at 1705 hrs
Then I guess, you lose, Scott. Let the people of Wisconsin decide.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1707 hrs
hey, i read both the article and the report, and I see “facts” in the article that are not contained in the report. And also inferences of the data that don’t exist, i.e. photo ID will cause lower voter turnout, when the report clearly says that at best they can only say that more study needs to be done in expanded areas (user-friendly voting methods) before making an informed recommendation.
When the NYT wants to cite that report and then make the claims they do, then yes, I am skeptical of the source. And since this seems to be a trend with the NYT, then tell me why I shouldn’t question the content or slant of their stories.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1710 hrs
One question that I have not yet seen answered is: Why should we care about the vote of people too lazy, uneducated or apathetic to get an ID before voting? If someone cannot be troubled to get an ID, it is unlikely that they have taken the time or effort to fully evaluate the issues in any election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1715 hrs
REL:
Touche!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1723 hrs
REL: Because whether a person votes has nothing to do with whether you believe them to be lazy or uneducated or apathetic. In fact, I don’t give a rats ass what you think of me or any other voter. What I insist upon is that you stay the hell out of the way when we come to cast our votes, and that if you desire to place even the slightest roadblock between an American citizen the ballot box, you’d damned well better have a compelling need that is supported by empirical evidence.
You haven’t got that. So get out of the way.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1809 hrs
Perhaps what the data is showing (another interpretation) is that the slight drop represents the fact that the ID requirement keeps people away from the polls who aren’t legally voting.
As I attempted to point out earlier, any study is flawed because, without an ID check, there is no way to verify what percentage of people simply “stating name and address” at the polls are eligible voters.
To pick up on the point that bajaskier made, if you could buy liquor by simply “stating” that you were of age rather than showing ID, the incidence of underage buyers would be significantly higher (and I can say that confidently without doing a study).
To carry forward the liberal argument, we should simply allow anyone to wander into the nearest polling place and cast a ballot (increased turnout = good idea) because any decrease in turnout = voter supression.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 1811 hrs
Can you not see that if you intend to put restrictions and barriers on voting that you have to have a demonstrable reason? You really would convince me if you had some serious voter fraud to show. Do you have anything that justifies something that depresses turnout? Something besides “it just seems like someone could vote illegally!” or endless repetitions of “yes, but how do you know who the person really is?” and “what’s so hard about having an ID??!?”
The burden is on you to demonstrate the need for these measures, especially since they will reduce voter participation.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1819 hrs
I should also add that right now you case doesn’t look too good. The only data I see are the reports that indicate a) that polling place fraud is practically nonexistent, and b) that placing barriers at the polls does significantly reduce turnout.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1821 hrs
Scott. Again. Many methods of possible fraud can’t be proven under the current system. It is impossible to prove that ineligible voters might be voting if there are no safeguards against it. The only way to prove such a thing would be if they would come forward and admit it, but it’s not likely that you’re going to get a lot of people to confess to felonies. You are asking for some study or evidence of the necessity when the very system you advocate prevents any accumulation of such evidence.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1830 hrs
Owen, that’s a conclusion that seems to have escaped the government organization tasked with investigating such things. Perhaps you should write to them and tip them off.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1837 hrs
The same reason that I can’t compile evidence to prove certain kinds of vote fraud is the same reason that you can’t prove that those instances of vote fraud are not happening.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1845 hrs
a) I already have evidence that it’s not happening. It’s been investigated and the report says it’s not.
b) the burden of proof is on the person who wants to complicate voting (i.e., you), not the person who wants to leave access as open as possible (i.e., me).
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1850 hrs
a) The report says that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. That’s because there can’t be evidence for many types of voter fraud, as I have demonstrated. Absence of evidence is not absence of activity.
b) I agree that the burden falls on my side. I believe that supporters of voter ID have provided ample proof that our elections can be easily defrauded. What can’t be proved either way is how commonplace such fraud might be.
What about all of the other rules that complicate voting? The need to register? Having elections on designated days at designated places? Having to be in specific districts? Why shouldn’t we just let people phone in their vote? Why don’t we have poll workers travel around to every elector and ask them their vote?
We already have many rules to complicate voting because we want our elections to be a true reflection of the electorate. This is just one more sensible rule.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1910 hrs
Owen, your “belief” that you’ve demonstrated that the vote “can” be defrauded doesn’t inspire me to enact laws that we know will turn depress turnout. Especially when a government group tasked with investigating the “problem” doesn’t really make much mention of your “belief.”
If you want the vote to be a true representation of the electorate, you need to have as much of the electorate participating, and you need to steer clear of policies which turn them away without demonstrated cause.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1919 hrs
Gotcha. I guess a little fraud is A-OK with you. I’m not so tolerant.
So do you support being able to phone in a vote? It’s no different, security wise, than having to merely state your name and address at the poling place. And it would encourage more people to participate.
BTW, so why don’t you want the voters to vote on this issue?
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1925 hrs
Gotcha. So quite a bit of vote suppression is okay with you. I’m not so tolerant.
I don’t know a damned thing about voting by phone, Owen, and I don’t feel the slightest bit inclined to go into hypotheticals with you. You want a change, you can’t demonstrate the necessity for it, even as it has clear negative consequences for our democracy.
Why don’t I want voters to vote on whether we should suppress the vote in order to combat a nonexistent vote fraud problem? I don’t recall expressing an opinion on it, but since you ask… because you and others like you will spend a lot of time and money trying to convince people that fraud is widespread (it isn’t) and that the burden on voters will be negligible (it won’t.) And my faith in people’s ability to reliably discern truth from fiction has been shaken these last few years. Look how long it took for America to turn against Bush! I don’t want Wisconsin to wake up six years hence wondering why hispanic vote is 10% less than it was, and the black vote is 5% less than it was and overall participation is 2-3% less than it was…when nobody ever proved that this whole thing was necessary.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1934 hrs
OK, so you don’t want the voters to vote because they might make a choice that you don’t agree with. Talk about voter suppression.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1938 hrs
Okay. Should we have a vote on the FCC fairness doctrine? We’ll just ask people if broadcasters should have to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints or not. Whatcha think?
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1940 hrs
Wow. Nice deflection.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2007 at 1948 hrs
Even nicer counter deflection! Ha!
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 1953 hrs
Explain how, as a poll worker, I can feel confident that everyone who walks in is who they state they are. Owen hit it on the head when he said “You are asking for some study or evidence of the necessity when the very system you advocate prevents any accumulation of such evidence.” Your study argument is a red herring.
If you asked me to swear that everyone who voted in my polling place was eligible, I could not do it…at best, I could state that the names given were on the list (just like they’re in the phone book).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 2050 hrs
So you’re asking us to depress minority votes by 5 to 10% not because of any empirical evidence, but because of what you “feel.” That’s not good enough for me.
Posted by scott on April 19, 2007 at 2052 hrs
Having read the report, not the New York Times version, the reduction in voters was based on probabalities, not facts. When they used actual data, they found no difference in voting.
The report also did not recommend not using photo ID, though they would prefer a fall back, such as an affadvit or some other ID to back up the claim of who they are. Finally, the report report did not address, and they wouldn’t be able to, say if there if there is no hinderance in getting an ID, as would be the case in Wisconsin, to getting an ID, would the voting numbers go down.
So Scott, you may win in your own mind, but the facts, not probablities, are on our side- you lose.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 2149 hrs
Concentrate harder…no data exists because gathering it would violate the current law, which prohibits checking IDs.
In the study you keep citing, they state “Researchers agree that measuring something like the incidence of fraud and intimidation in a scientifically legitimate way is extremely difficult from a methodological perspective…” Another quote from the study, under Working Group Concerns - “We’re not sure that fraud at the polling place does not exist. We can’t conclude that.” Scott, you apparently have, however.
One of the recommendations of the study was that “administrators will maximize the potential of statewide voter registration databases to prevent fraud”. I agree. But what good are databases if there is no ID component at the user-end of the system?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2007 at 2321 hrs
A voting system that only lets you vote once reduces the number of people voting multiple times.
Yes that is vote suppression… of fraudulent votes!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0812 hrs
Yet another spokesperson for: I’m in love with this logic, evidence be damned!
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 0823 hrs
Yes Scott, your evidence is flawed. You are using models and we are using facts. Models are often wrong in all different areas. Models for bad hurricane season last year- wrong, models for global cooling, wrong.
That’s the difference in this debate- you are using models that haven’t been scientifically tested. With the states that have photo ID, has there been 1 documented case of a voter who has been disinfranchised? Please show me 1 news article that there is 1 person who actually wanted to vote but couldn’t because they were unable to get a photo ID and could not vote. I haven’t found one. Actually, why don’t you find 82 cases. Please don’t come up with a pathetic person who was too lazy to get an ID. Fact is you probably can’t and therefore, you have no facts to back up your claim and your side, once again loses the argrument and look foolish doing so.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0857 hrs
Scott,
What your saying is that your willing to negate 5% to 10% of legitimate votes simply because of how YOU feel.
If there is ONE fraudulent vote, that negates mine, I will not stand by and let that happen.
You seem to be more concerned about the fact that they vote Democrat, than that they vote.
One wonders that if the voter fraud was leaning to the Republicans favor, would you be so ready and willing to accept it ??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0909 hrs
Dan, I’m “using” two pieces of evidence for my position. First, the report from Election Assistance Commission which, after investigating claims of widespread fraud, concluded that it didn’t exist. Second, I’m using another report by the same commission which suggests that having a photo ID requirement will depress minority participation.
So, on my side we have two serious reports written by the federal agency responsible for looking into such things.
On your side, we have, what? You just really like the idea of people showing IDs, because you think someone might commit fraud if we don’t require it?
And since we’re issuing “find me an example” challenges, why don’t you find me all cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Wisconsin. If this is such a serious problem that we need to impose measures that will depress turnout, I think it’s entirely fair for you to demonstrate why it is needed.
I’m getting tired of this whole argument. Nothing new is being introduced and I keep getting challenged on the same things and I keep reiterating the same (rather good, I think) responses. I’m not being heard. But that’s fine. My position has been well documented here. if you want to challenge me or ask me something, scroll upward. My answer is almost certainly already there.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 0912 hrs
your willing to negate 5% to 10% of legitimate votes simply because of how YOU feel.
How do you figure? What votes am I “negating,” justin? Where are the fraudulent votes that are “canceling out” yours? Perhaps you could find one. But it won’t be anything like 5 or 10%. It won’t be anything like 1%. It won’t be anything like 0.01%, either.
One wonders that if the voter fraud was leaning to the Republicans favor, would you be so ready and willing to accept it ??
If there was significant fraud i’d want to do something about it, no matter who’s side it was “leaning to.” But such fraud simply does not exist. Certainly not to the extent that it justifies depressing minority votes to the extent that the ID requirement will.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 0920 hrs
1. The task force has developed evidence of more than 100 individual
instances of suspected double-voting, voting in names of persons who likely did not
vote, and/or voting in names believed to be fake. Those investigations continue.
2. In addition, the task force has determined that more than 200 felons voted
when they were not eligible to do so. In order to establish criminal cases, the
government must establish willful violations in individual instances.
3
3. Also, the task force has found that persons who had been paid to register
voters as “deputy registrars” falsely listed approximately 65 names in order to receive
compensation for the registrations. The evidence does not indicate that these particular
false registrations were later used to cast votes.
4. The number of votes counted from the City of Milwaukee exceeds the
number of persons recorded as voting by more than 4,500.http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/electionfraud.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0923 hrs
1. So how many of those “suspected” cases panned out? Are these cases still “continuing”? I notice the report is two years old.
2. this has nothing to do with voter ID laws
3. this has nothing to do with voter ID laws.
4. Interesting. What does it mean? And do you suppose that the folks at the Election Assistance Commission were aware of this claim? What did their subsequent investigation show?
I notice you didn’t mention the most common type of fraudulent vote: the absentee ballot. (Even that is rare, but hey, it’s the biggest deal going.) What about those? Voter ID law going to do something about that?
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 0932 hrs
“Voter fraud was done (jointly) at the suggestion of Mike McCann,” Biskupic said this week, noting that McCann is a Democrat. “These cases were worked jointly because we knew of these potential criticisms (of partisanship).”
Late in 2005, Biskupic announced that the task force found no evidence of a conspiracy to steal any election. He added that his office was charging 14 individuals for isolated cases of voter fraud.
That may sound like a pittance, but it represents more than 10% of the cases brought nationwide. Citing U.S. Justice Department records, the Christian Science Monitor recently reported that U.S. attorneys prosecuted about 120 election fraud cases in the past four years.
So what went wrong with the voter fraud cases in Milwaukee?
First, few of these cases were filed in the past, meaning that courts have given little direction in how to apply the law, said Frohling, the assistant U.S. attorney.
What’s more, he said, prosecutors were forced to rely largely on paper records to make their cases. They also had to prove that the felons intentionally broke the law.
That’s harder than it sounds.
Take the case of Derek Little, a 47-year-old Milwaukee resident. Yes, Little was convicted of a felony in 2002 and was still on probation, and he did vote in 2004. But when Little registered, he presented the poll worker with his state Department of Corrections offender ID.
Yeah, it’s hard to say who was more clueless - Little or the poll worker.
The feds asked that the case be dismissed.
McCann had a similar case.
Again, it involved a felon who voted in 2004. But it turned out that the guy proudly wore an “I voted” sticker when he met with his probation agent on election day.
“How the hell are you ever going to show he had the intent?” McCann asked.
As with many of these cases, you can’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0933 hrs
An even better question is, how would a voter ID law have prevented that guy from voting?
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 0951 hrs
Scott,
The report might be two years old, and I am digging for better info. The number of votes counted from the City of Milwaukee exceeds the
number of persons recorded as voting by more than 4,500. This seems to make no difference to you ???How ‘bout you show an ID as a registered voter to get the absentee ballot.
Are you not concerned about what may happen to your vote ??
It doesn’t show that it is NOT happeneing, but that it is hard to prosecute.
Who are, by the way, the minorities that will be disenfranchised ? The blacks in the inner city? Do you suppose that they are truly engaged in the polotics of this state? Maybe the illegals that should not be allowed to vote at all?
“This nonsense that voter fraud isn’t happening because there haven’t been a lot of convictions is silly. Try using the Dems’ logic on another crime: graffiti. Like voter fraud, its awfully tough to catch people in the act. Unlike voter fraud, the results are easy to see. But if a lot of people aren’t getting busted, then it must not be happening, right? The reason it’s tough to catch the frauds is because our election laws are so lax (same day registration, no photo ID requirement, letting people vouch for others, etc.)”
That is all I have to say, I see more rights being striped away by Liberals than I do by Conservatives.
Have a good weekend Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 0954 hrs
Re: 4,500. a) I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop on that stat. b) clearly one of these numbers is wrong. merely citing the stat doesn’t really indicate what, if any, fraud took place.
To whom will you show your ID if you’re overseas and you want to cast a ballot? And will this or won’t this deal with the particular kind of fraud associated with absentee ballots?
Who are, by the way, the minorities that will be disenfranchised ? The blacks in the inner city? Do you suppose that they are truly engaged in the polotics of this state? Maybe the illegals that should not be allowed to vote at all?
First of all, you should be ashamed of yourself for bashing black Milwaukeeans by insinuating that they aren’t “truly engaged” in state politics. I think the only thing not “truly engaged” here is what I shall charitably refer to as your thought process on this point. Second, you have no actual evidence that illegal aliens are committing widespread vote fraud. Absent that evidence, implementing a new voting requirement known to depress minority votes would be irresponsible and wrong.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1006 hrs
“I.D. to vote” causing “depressed minority vote”... I don’t see the logic except a) not ambitious enough to get an ID, and b) minorities vote multiple times more often than others. Scott infers a c) but does not give it.
We have heard the so-called study that ties the two together, and thats all you need to be against I.D.s… not suppressing minority vote.
But this is just a study of the relationship to the two things. Anyone can do a study between two ideas and come up with statistics, and those numbers can be made to make the two concepts appear linked.
Lets do another study. Maybe, just maybe, the non-minority vote is suppressed because of the ~lack~ of voter ID, and with it a lack of faith in the voting system. Would it be fair to suppress those votes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1056 hrs
I don’t see the logic
And I really don’t care. How that works isn’t as important as the fact that it does. I don’t need to give ‘c,’ although I’m sure there are lots of smart people who have good ideas as to why it is that elderly and minority voters are less likely to have IDs and why making them go through the hassle and expense (minor though it is), is very likely to decrease their participation by several percent.
The rest of your comment really amounts to: “statistics, peh! I could make up numbers, too!” Which I find dismissive of a large government report designed to give some definitive answers on the subject of voting.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1110 hrs
Scott STILL has not show why it is an inconveniece/impossibility for anyone to get a free iD.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1232 hrs
Why is it important to show why or how or whether it’s an “inconvenience”? I’m sure it must be to some, but so what? The relevant point is that it would reduce participation, and that reduction would fall heaviest on certain populations. That is the relevant fact, not whether I can or can’t demonstrate “inconvenience.”
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1242 hrs
In my defense Scott….
I would love to see the actual numbers of people who turn out to vote for the Governors race in the inner city and the voter turn out in Wauwatosa.
As far as the Illegal voters…..
And Tully did not stop there. Suspecting voter fraud, FAIR sent two activists from another state to the office of the former illegal alien who is not only a deputy registrar of voters in Racine but also the leader of a Hispanic organization. Tully gave the activists specific instructions.
“I wanted them to specifically tell this person they were illegal aliens, but that they wanted to register to vote—and she registered them both,” she says. The two activists received a similar response at the Milwaukee office of the Hispanic group. “This time one of the men in the office at least said it’s a felony to register someone who’s not a citizen to vote—but the office manager went ahead and registered them.”
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008330.php
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1246 hrs
And yet with all that rampant fraud, how many cases of illegal aliens voting can you come up with?
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1250 hrs
Is not two too many ?
You are so cavalier with the votes of others who take the sanctity of voting as one of the most precious things that this country offers it’s citizens.
I can asure you that if we were to require voter ID’s to vote, the people that WANT to vote will be able to do so. There are enough agencies in this state and nation that would try to make sure that ANYONE who wants to vote legally, will be able to do so, unless someone slashes the tires of the vans that would take them to register for the FREE ID card.
My mother is no longer here, and did not have a license to drive due to severe Arthritis, but you just get in her way if you told her that she could not vote without an ID. She was a life long Democrat and there is nothing that would have stopped her from doing what it took to be able to vote. Death on Mothers Day weekend 1996, was the only thing that stopped her from voting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1301 hrs
Actually, justin, those two don’t count. Or were they actually vote illegally somewhere? So it seems to me you’re at zero cases of illegal aliens voting.
You are so cavalier with the votes of others…
On the contrary. it is you who is being cavalier with others votes. You are the one who wants to change the system in a way that will result in significantly fewer people voting - and in the face of evidence that your ‘reason’ is nonexistent.
can asure you that if we were to require voter ID’s to vote,...
The remainder of your comment seems to be trying to reassure me that requiring IDs would not suppress voting. I hope you’ll forgive me if I choose to go with the government report I linked to above which indicates that it would.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1309 hrs
Okey Doket Scott
Well, as was stated before ....absense of “Rampant” voter fraud evidence, is not evidence of the absence of voter fraud.
I am sure that there is, or will be voter fraud in this state given the amount of Drivers licenses that Wisconsin gave to illegals before the stricter laws were put inplace.
The fact that they REGISTERED to vote as illegals is enough of a red flag for me. Sorry I can not tell you if they followed those actions thru with actually voting illegally, one can only assume that outcome.
You push to make it go away, and I’ll push to make it happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1333 hrs
If it is not an inconvenience Scott, then how is any one being dissenfranchised? That is YOUR arguement!! Geeez, make up your mind!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1336 hrs
You’re having some difficulty understanding. Let me try to make it simpler.
I’m telling you that a government agency has studied these kinds of procedural changes in voting and found that they do indeed reduce participation among legal voters. I make no claim about why that is, whether it’s “inconvenience” or space aliens. It would be interesting to find that out, sure. But my point is that it does reduce participation, and that’s enough reason to demand that you have more than suspicion before you do this thing.
Better?
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1417 hrs
You should all read this article and be very troubled. Especially if you appreciate the sanctity of the vote.
Campaign against alleged voter fraud fuels political tempest
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1457 hrs
THEN IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIAPATE, GET AN ID. IF YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN ID, THEN YOU SHOULDN’T BE VOTING. IT’S THAT SIMPLE. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE; DON’T NEED STUDIES, DON’T NEED EXCUSES. IF YOU WANT TO VOTE, GET AN ID. IT’S NOT BRAIN SURGERY.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1533 hrs
Well I’m glad that’s settled! Heh.
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1538 hrs
Scott- you just blew you case- as you said, the commission SUGGESTED that minority voting may go down. They also said they have not seen voting go down. Plus since you are unable to find a single case where a voter has been disenfranchised because of voter ID, you either are in favor of illegal voters, which I believe you are because you have not ever said it was bad for voters to vote illegally, you are ignorant of facts and/or you are in love with models(not the human kind).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 1932 hrs
Dan, give it a rest already.
When polling places begin challenging people for identification, participation goes down. Particpation of legal, American voters. I don’t know exactly why, but that’s not my point here. The point is, it does. Do I know with mathematical certainty that participation will go down in Wisconsin if we enact the ID law? No. But it’s dead-simple reasoning to assume that it will. In fact, I defy you to theorize that it won’t - with a straight face. I’m not playing a game here with you. We both know that it would.
I don’t have to find “a single case where a voter was disenfranchised.” I’m not the one proposing a change, you are. The one who needs to show something is you. If you want to implement policies which we know will reduce participation, the burden falls upon you to clearly show empirical evidence of the so-called problem we are trying to fix, to show why it is a worth it, why it’s necessary.
You have not done that. Neither has anyone here.
I shouldn’t even have to answer the thing about whether I’m in favor of illegal voting. Of course I am! Show me some illegal voting and i’ll be so against it you wouldn’t believe. Until then, I’m unimpressed.
Meanwhile you haven’t expressed any concern over the fact that a lot of Americans will not be voting if we enact this ID law. It does bother you, right?
Posted by scott on April 20, 2007 at 1939 hrs
Well, considering there have been several convictions of illegal voting that you haven’t acknowledged and all the various things people have posted. You haven’t discussed that. You haven’t discussed the issue about when there is an illegal voter which means a legitimate voter was disenfranchised- apparently that doesn’t concern you. There are already states that have photo ID, including Nevada, where I live and we have had not one problem in the 3 elections I have been here for. No one was disenfranchised or complained. So I have held my argument- you haven’t held up yours. Again you may deal with theories and models, I deal in facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 2158 hrs
I will concede Scott, if it is proved that there are disenfranchised voters, I am willing to go back and look at another alternative. But the evidence has to be overwhelming- not models or theories
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2007 at 2252 hrs
But the evidence has to be overwhelming- not models or theories
And where, just where, is the “overwhelming” evidence of vote fraud? Look, as Scott keeps patiently (damn him and his cool collectedness!) keeps trying to explain: You are the one claiming that the present system doesn’t work and, therefore, requires change. The burden of proof, therefore, falls on you to support that claim.
Analogy: Let’s say I decide to sue you, Dan, because I slipped and fell on your icy front walk, and broke something, let’s say, an arm. That kept me out of work, I claim, and caused me severe emotional stress. As a result, I want you to pay me a lot of money and install an expensive heated walkway so no one ever slips and falls again.
Who, Dan, has the burden of proof in that scenario? If we use your logic, it’d be you! You would have to prove that I didn’t really fall and you don’t really need a heated walkway. But that’s not the way our courts—or any reasonable system for settling debates—works. Since in this hypothetical court case I am the one demanding action, I have the burden of proof.
Now back to voter ID: You need to convince me, not the other way around. A few convictions for cases that voter ID would not even have prevented (everything from voting felons to illegally registered immigrants) is hardly the “overwhelming” proof you demand from me or Scott.
So please, try again.
Posted by folkbum on April 20, 2007 at 2327 hrs
Sorry to folkbum and Scott, we have been pointing out voter fraud with convictions, the 82 cases of probable fraud and the strong possibility of thousands of cases of voter fraud, but because of lack of records caused by the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, false addresses and more voters than adults in some wards. Now, if you choose to ignore this, shame on you, but, why wouldn’t you want to want to let the voters decide if we need voter ID? Why don’t you want the WI public to decide who is right? If the majority of people agree with you, no problem but if the majority agree with us, then you lose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2007 at 0118 hrs
Here at the 110th comment I’m declaring victory and leaving.
Posted by scott on April 21, 2007 at 0130 hrs
How hard is it to remember what we said upthread?
we have been pointing out voter fraud with convictions
How many? Five after 2004? Two after 2006? And ones like this guy, even Owen admits, wouldn’t have been stopped if we required ID!
the 82 cases of probable fraud
Eight-two alleged cases of felons voting in 2006, not a single one of who pretended to be anyone other than who they were. Not a single one of whom, therefore, would have been denied a vote if we required ID!
and the strong possibility of thousands of cases of voter fraud, but because of lack of records caused by the City of Milwaukee Election Commission
How is this different from the EAC study I linked to? What’s the difference between your imagination and data analysis? Regardless, the state voter ID database and other changes in Milwaukee (I live here; I know what’s different) have eliminated many of those same issues.
false addresses
On registrations—which means the registrars looked at some piece of identification (utility bill, lease, driver’s license) and signed off on that registration card at the polling place. If that ID had a photo—which I bet it did in many cases, anyway—how would that have stopped the typos or other errors? And when the Republican submitting the complaint admits to checking up and finding some addresses to be real, well, it casts some suspicion on how solid that evidence of fraud is. (Like Rick Graber standing in front of a house—waiting until he knew no one was home—to accuse a seminary student of double-voting. How wack is that?)
and more voters than adults in some wards
Which, as I addressed above, was the result of a software error, caught and corrected in the 2006 primaries, that did not affect vote totals.
So, sum total of fraud cases preventable by photo ID that Dan can find, even after a witch hunt by state Republicans and the frank admission of the Republican-appointed US Attorney that there is no wide-spread fraud: Less than a dozen. Maybe.
The result of the effect of polling-place ID requirements during the 2004 election, as determined by a federally funded study conducted by experts in the field: Requiring photo ID would depress voter turnout by nearly 3%, and more in specific minority populations.
Why do less than a dozen cases—less than a handful in any one election—outweigh tens of thousands of likely legal voters who would lose that vote with a photo ID requirement? That, Dan, is the question you, Owen, and everyone else on this thread have failed to adequately answer, because, frankly, there is no answer. A few cases of isolated fraud are drawfed by the reduction in turnout ID would cause. And that is simply not an acceptable trade-off. Period.
Posted by folkbum on April 21, 2007 at 0719 hrs
Folkbum, you probably either aren’t reading or don’t care to believe what you read. Fact- in the states that have photo ID, no one has been denied the right to vote- no one. That is fact. If you and Scott want to live your lives using models and therories instead of using facts- so be it. I wouldn’t want to live my life like that, but thats your choice. So, since I (we) have provided facts instead of fantasies, like Scott, I declare that our side overwhelming won the debate. But again, please answer 1 question: why not let the voters decide? If they believe your side, you win if not, we win. Or do you think the voters are too stupid to understand the issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2007 at 1117 hrs
That depends. Are you planning to vote?
Posted by scott on April 21, 2007 at 1122 hrs
No, I live in Las Vegas now, but I’d be willing to bet that if I came to Milwaukee on the day of the election, I could find a way to vote, probably multiple times.
Regardless of our views, it was nice debating you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2007 at 1242 hrs
Note the Supreme Court decision on Voter ID in the Indiana case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2008 at 1301 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 12:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).