An 84-year-old Wisconsin woman, told she can’t vote for the first time in 75 years, because she lacks an “appropriate” birth certificate, and perhaps she’s been spelling her name differently from how Wisconsin wants her to spell it, for more than 80 years.
Meanwhile, has anyone ever found any voter fraud that I.D. can stop?
Since voting is a civil liberty, the ACLU is working to keep Ruthelle voting.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 1:38 am and is filed under Civil Rights, Politics, Voting, Voting Rights Act. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
(The Life of Reason, vol. 1: Reason in Common Sense)
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Or, until that account is unsuspended by the forces supporting Donald Trump:
Follow @FillmoreWhite, the account of the Millard Fillmore White House Library
Retired teacher of law, economics, history, AP government, psychology and science. Former speechwriter, press guy and legislative aide in U.S. Senate. Former Department of Education. Former airline real estate, telecom towers, Big 6 (that old!) consultant. Lab and field research in air pollution control. My blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, is a continuing experiment to test how to use blogs to improve and speed up learning processes for students, perhaps by making some of the courses actually interesting. It is a blog for teachers, to see if we can use blogs. It is for people interested in social studies and social studies education, to see if we can learn to get it right. It's a blog for science fans, to promote good science and good science policy. It's a blog for people interested in good government and how to achieve it. BS in Mass Communication, University of Utah Graduate study in Rhetoric and Speech Communication, University of Arizona JD from the National Law Center, George Washington University
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
Morgan still wishes to keep Ruthelle out of the voting booth. Why does she scare him so?
Voting isn’t a job. It’s a privilege, or a right, protected by law and the Constitution. You don’t have such a right to a job.
Here we have a woman who has successfully provided proof that she is who she says she is for 84 years. She got through school, she got married, she got a job, she voted in at least 15 presidential elections. She’s met all the requirements.
She passed the interview, the first days on many “jobs,” orientation, and dozens of other identity checks.
So on what basis do you decide, out of the blue, that she’s not who she, the banks, the state, the city, her husband and children say she is?
She provided the proof, Morgan. Why do you want to change the rules now?
She’s not “inconvenienced.” Gov. “Ahab” Walker has stolen her rights.
Why don’t we put him on trial instead? You’re one of the last people I would have thought would stand up for the privileges of a self-confessed thief over an old, patriotic woman.
LikeLike
Poor Ed- the imaginary voices in his head make such…good arguments.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
LikeLike
Oh heck. I forgot Ed’s Lincoln argument. No person may harass…etc etc. But the goverment administers the election. It is not a private individual. They have a responsibility to ensure a free and fair election. They are not harassing me by requring me to register to vote, or to show up at the polling place, or vote on the day of the election. Why would showing my ID materially differ from those voting requirements?
Am I allowed to show up naked to vote? If not, why not? What if I don’t have any clean cloths (I forgot to do the wash)? Won’t the goverment be requiring me to buy clothing? Isan’t that then a poll tax? Again, the government can and does restrict the voting priviledge in the interest of an orderly and fair election.
When I use my credit card, I don’t think the store is harassing me to see my ID. I think they are protecting me from fraud and theft. The goverment, by asking for my ID, is protecting my vote from fraud and theft. No difference.
LikeLike
Couple of ther tidbits.
I think more than once there has been mention of cost, how ID distracts election workers, and how ID can be faked.
Well, last I checked most people already have ID – we have to show it day after day. So the added cost is…what exactly? A few extra IDs for indigents? I think we can handle that.
Fake ID? Yeah, sure. But it makes people work that much harder to steal something, which is sorta the whole point of security. It is also a weird argument, because your origional point is that there is no vote fraud, then you follow with people will steal the vote despite the added security, so security doesn’t matter. Which is it? Can it be both?
It distracts election workers? How’s that exactly? They ask my name and I produce my ID. Seems pretty easy. Also– making sure the election is clean and fair is kinda sorta an election worker’s job. You make it sound like I’m asking them to do my nails. I’m giving them a tool to better perform their function, the function which is more or less the only reason they are there for. Otehrwise we could set up a ballot box on the street corner, like a mail box, and anyone could just drop by a ballot.
Anything else? Or are we done here? It seems to me like all your arguments against ID at the ballot box have been discredited, but I remain always open minded. Solutions are cheap and legal. Solves a problem (small number of fradulent votes). Doesn’t disenfranchise anyone if done right. Protects Ruthelle and the Amish (that sounds like a band!). The vulnerability for fraud is proven. Seriously, I want to make sure I havn’t missed something. Just bullet out any remaining concerns and I’ll try to solve them for you.
LikeLike
My goodness, you guys have been busy beavers!
Okay, so Ruthelle’s problem could be solved in several ways:
1) Ruthelle could solve it herself.
2) GOTV efforts could solve the problem for her, like they already do for many people.
3) She could vote absentee with verification.
4) We could have a law that allows provisional ballots without ID.
5) We could allow a non-picure ID like a tax form or gas bill.
6) Free ID for the poor!
6 solutions. All on the table. All rational, cheap, workable, easy. I’ve even offered a path to have higher levels of registration. I’ll bet Morgan and I could even work up a couple more options, if we spent more than a couple of minutes on it.
You’ve presented no rational reason why any or all of the solutions wouldn’t fix the problem of Ruthelle and improve overall security. They are all legal and consitutional. Most are low cost. What am I to make of that? The only possible explanation I can think of you think voter fraud is a-okay. Hey, I apologize if that is not the case. But again, when people ignore obvious solutions, there is usally an obvious reason.
Actually assuming ulterior motives by me gives you guys a lot of credit. The only other options I can think of are stupidty and arrogance. And I don’t think you’re stupid….
And Libertarian James, I’d love there to be a path for voting rights to be restored to felons. I believe most states have that, but I’m not sure. I agree completely that they should not have their rights as citizens curtailed in perpetuity. Legal aliens too. I like the idea of extending the franchise, as long as it isn’t done through some back door BS of non-enforcement.
I would also note, Libertarian James, that the most libertarian solution for Ruthelle would involve her solving what is essentially her own damn problem. Figure it out. Just like I figure out where my polling place is, and the best way to get there. We all have our challenges in life, often of our own making. That’s actually pretty much the core of libertarianism, isan’t it? Small goverment, large citizen? Libertarians believe that freedom carries responsibilites. Personal responsibilites. It’s sorta like a package deal.
Is it really that you MUST HAVE and example of voter fraud? Nothing else will due? You do understand, when you don’t investigate, or have any way to measure fraud, you don’t end up with much data on it?n Gosh…if only I could find something…
Oh, wait. Check out the Milwaukee Police Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004 special election. You might want to hone in on the reccommendations on page 26, where it suggests the best way to get rid of the 1,305 or so fradulant votes cast that day is….photo ID and get rid of on-site same day registration.
Anyone care to break the news to Ruthelle, that her vote doen’t matter anyway because 1,305 people in Milwaukee already stole her voice? She might as well sit out the next election.
This was one city, one election. Wanna bet it happens all the time, everywhere it is allowed to happen?
So is that it? Can we put this sillyness to bed yet?
LikeLike
Hey Ed,
There are tons of jobs out there where it is illegal to discriminate against you, should you apply for them, according to any of the criteria you have named along with many others.
Should you interview for these jobs, you’re going to have to prove you’re you. Should you pass the interview process and get hired, on the first day of orientation, you’re going to have to prove you’re you. Here & there, a successful applicant might be missing some or all of the pieces of identification that are accepted, and it might cause a bit of a personnel problem. If & when that does happen, whether it altogether derails the interview process or not — such an incident is not on par with actual discrimination, legally or in any other way.
The whole “If Ruthelle is inconvenienced then it means her Voting Act rights have been infringed upon” is sheer nonsense. If a court, anywhere, has said otherwise, then it is wrong.
LikeLike
And all Lincoln will have to do for his closing argument is read the text of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
It’s a winning case, I think. So far, I hear, so do the Wisconsin courts, even without a team of angry ghosts leading the ACLU’s team.
LikeLike
How about you show there is a problem of significance? We’re not asking for even great harm, just a significant problem.
But so far, there is no demonstration of any harm at all that requires special voter identification cards. None. Even worse, while there are problems with voter fraud, none of the cases of voter fraud are stopped, nor even slowed, nor made easier to catch and convict, because of voter identification. And even worse than that, the folderol about voter identification actually makes it easier for voter fraud to occur, distracting voting officials from the actual checking for the fraudulent voter practices.
So, you’re asking Ruthelle to give up her right to vote, in order to make it easier for Republican officials to cheat at the polls and get away with it.
It’s astonishing that this woman is only using the ACLU to gun down the law, instead of real guns. This is such an egregious set of actions, now that you explain you cannot offer even a weak justification for stopping her from voting for the first time in 63 years, that I wonder if any jury would convict her for shooting up the place.
Can you imagine the cross examination?
I’m thinking
WilliamAndrew Hamilton will come back from the grave to defend her, and he’ll have to fight Daniel Webster and Clarence Darrow to be lead attorney. Abraham Lincoln will give the closing arguments for the ghostly team on Ruthelle’s case.You still won’t get it.
LikeLike
I see. So the criteria is, I have to provide proof of fraudulent voting having taken place. Proof that the system allows such a thing with absolutely no resistance against it, and proof that people are out there ready willing & able to take advantage of such a system, are not good enough. Even if I can show both of those vital elements exist, or existed, at the same time in the same county/precinct, that is still not good enough.
You guys want to see some actual footage of someone accepting the ballot and using it (which would be self-incriminating), or else, you want to see a police report or FBI report in which someone cast a ballot, in somebody else’s name, and somehow got busted for it. Failing that, my case becomes a nullity because you want to keep the benefit-of-doubt on your side, where, somehow, it belongs. Even though, as I’ve explained repeatedly, security in any field does not work that way.
In any area where something can be secured, if it has worth, and a credible threat is defined, it’s time to take action. This right to vote, about which you wax lyrically in terms of how precious it is and how crucial it is to the proper functioning of our government (and in this part, FWIW, I agree with you) — is an exception, it’s not valuable enough to be secured the way other things are secured.
This is why I haven’t commented too often in this thread. I’ve been somewhat busy, but also, there’s Napoleon’s rule about not interrupting your enemy when he’s making a mistake. Fifty years of “We liberals can make any silly argument look sensible just by putting the burden of proof on the other side” have spoiled you, and now you’re here all arguing the absurd position that we’re constitutionally obliged to do nothing, until a few hudred people film themselves in the process of breaking federal law.
You can’t even say “If there was vote fraud, we’d know about it.” For one thing, you know that isn’t true, and for the other thing, this goes well outside this narrow, laser-tight boundary of responsibility you’re assuming in the argument you’re presenting. What seems to have escaped your notice is the objective: You’re supposed to be communicating a sense, and a feeling, of reassurance that everythings ship-shape and there’s no problem here. You’ve lost track of the plain fact of the matter that your argument is not reassuring. It’s good to know that, me pointing it out to you, will do absolutely nothing to change your behavior so you’ll continue to make the mistake. That part I find very reassuring.
LikeLike
Morgan, ACORN was cited for making illegal registrations. Stupidly, it seems to me, they paid people for the number of voter registrations turned in (see Freakonomics for an explanation of why this is a system almost guaranteed to produce frauds on the part of those getting paid to produce the registrations, or read the history of the Vietnam War and focus on the bogus “body count” issue).
However, just as higher body counts in Vietnam did not equal progress towards victory for the U.S., higher registrations — even fraudulent voter registrations — do not provide evidence of actual fraud on voting day, nor is there any indication that any of the fraudulent registrants then voted to skew any election. In short, voter ID would not touch any part of the ACORN allegations.
So now we have a question for you: Why do you focus on the one, completely unnecessary voter fraud check that also disenfranchises senior citizens and minorities, instead of focusing on actual voter fraud?
And a follow up question: Since the voter identification hoo-haw takes away the ability of county voter registrars to prevent voter fraud, why is it you support false efforts to fight voter fraud, instead of actually fighting voter fraud?
LikeLike
How about this, then?
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
The O’Keefe video provides the data. Do you agree?
That statement is as stupid as if I said if I went out and got drunk at my local bar then went driving on the local streets then I said that proves that everyone in my town drives drunk.
Ooh…that jackanape O’Keefe went and got caught trying to commit voter fraud..that proves there’s just oodles of voter fraud.
You still haven’t proven that there is anything more then a pissante amount of voter fraud going on and that we need to start playing “Lets return to Jim Crow times” with voting.
But I assume you agree that Mittens should have his ass in jail for voting for Scott Brown in Mass. when Mittens was not living in that state right?
And you might want to really question whether or not you should be giving much credibility to O’Keefe…a criminal, a degenerate liar..and well…there is what he’s accused of trying to do to that one female former accomplice of his.
From:
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
But your accusation that I want illegal immigrants to vote, by the way, is especially cute. Because from some of the sotries I’ve heard..it’s not necessarily that hard for at least some illegal immigrants to get fake papers. Sorry, Morgan, I don’t want illegal immigrants to vote, they don’t have the right. My concern is your stupid desire to block people who do have the right to vote from voting. And yes…that does mean I am concerned about the Amish and the other examples and am not using them for political props. See I think its a bad thing if they cant vote and that shouldn’t be allowed. I’m here standing up to your stupidit because I care about their right to vote. You, however, in your moral vapidity simply don’t give a damn about anyone except yourself and how your party can gain political power no matter the cost. You want your party to be in power so much that, like a religious zealot, you refuse to consider there are better ways to ensure the integrity of the voting system then Voter ID which can be easily faked. You’re perfectly willing to toss the US Constitution and the rights of the people out the window if it means your precious conservatives get in power. When your party spouts off about “enemies of democracy” they and your party are prime example #1.
However, if they really wanted to vote..do you really think it would that hard for them to get fake IDs? After all, back when I was in college one of my dormmates who had just moved from New York City two weeks earlier already had a fake Minnesota drivers license saying he was 21.
LikeLike
The O’Keefe video provides the data. Do you agree?
No, it doesn’t provide the data. It only shows that someone could do that. And it was someone who did it only to demonstrate that it is possible, a possibility that nobody here has disputed.
But it doesn’t demonstrate that this has actually been happening. I could walk down to my neighbor’s house and steal his porch swing just to prove that it could be done, but that wouldn’t demonstrate that porch swing thefts are actually a real problem in my town.
I could deliberately rear-end someone on the freeway, just to demonstrate that its a possibility, but that wouldn’t show that we actually have a real problem of motorists deliberately rear-ending other cars.
I could kick the next policeman I see right in the groin, and that would show that it’s possible (as if anyone ever doubted it), but it wouldn’t be any kind of proof that we have a noticeable problem of people kicking policemen in the groin.
Sensible people don’t waste resources on theoretical problems that don’t really happen.
LikeLike
Nobody, but nobody undertakes extensive security efforts without a demonstration that the conceivable threat is real. No, it’s not necessary that my house be broken into before I decide to lock the door, because I see plenty of evidence that houses in general get robbed. That’s what we call “data,” sir.
The O’Keefe video provides the data. Do you agree?
If you don’t, you are an advocate for all elections to be conducted on the honor system. Oh, if James O’Keefe accepted the ballot, that would have been a crime, caught on tape! Right…and if it were not caught on tape, the perpetrator would have gotten away with it in almost every case, right? RIGHT?
Because a real perpetrator would not have been filming it. So the answer to the previous question is YES…
…which means, your continued demands for evidence are purely nonsensical, but you knew that already.
LikeLike
No, no, no, Morgan, you’re still dodging. Nobody, but nobody undertakes extensive security efforts without a demonstration that the conceivable threat is real. No, it’s not necessary that my house be broken into before I decide to lock the door, because I see plenty of evidence that houses in general get robbed. That’s what we call “data,” sir.
Now the antique porch swing on my front porch? Somebody could steal it. The canoe in my back yard? Somebody could steal it. But neither porch swing thefts nor canoe thefts are frequent events where I live, so I haven’t taken any real security measures to protect those, even though it could happen.
So “it could happen,” just ain’t enough. It has happened is required to justify making it more difficult to exercise our constitutional rights. And so far you haven’t demonstrated that it has happened. That’s why you keep emphasizing the abstract theoretical possibility–because you know damn well you have no evidence of actual events.
Some of us work with empirical evidence, some of us stick to untested hypotheses.
LikeLike
I see you keep dodging the requests to provide some evidence that people are actually losing their right to voter fraud, or that there’s any significant amount of voter fraud going on.
What’s the problem, don’t you have any evidence?
Put up or shut up, little man.
Oh my gosh, I just realized you’re completely right. There’s no evidence that the vulnerability is real, so we should presume it doesn’t exist and disband all security measures.
Come to think of it, that solves the Secret Service hooker scandal. No provable attempts on the President’s life — you can all go home, guys. Nevermind, Ted Nugent. We’ll wait until someone actually poses a threat before we do anything.
Seriously though. Not the way security works, guys. If you have to wait for something to happen before you do anything, you’re not really doing anything. I know, I know, it makes you feel all big and Alan-Alda NPR tough to say “Hey! I demand you provide X!” and put on the I’m-offended routine when you aren’t given what you’ve demanded…but, in the real world, security is a preventative measure or it’s nothing. O’Keefe’s video demonstrates why this is a fundamental to all security disciplines. Ask any professional in the industry.
I understand, already, that you don’t get this…you’ve demonstrated it many times with this question…but you can do it some more, if you wish to do so.
LikeLike
Hey, Morgan,
I see you keep dodging the requests to provide some evidence that people are actually losing their right to voter fraud, or that there’s any significant amount of voter fraud going on.
What’s the problem, don’t you have any evidence?
Put up or shut up, little man.
LikeLike
There is no one else claiming to be Ruthelle Frank. There is only the Wisconsin legislature and Gov. “Ahab” Walker who have passed legislation that can stop the one and only Ruthelle Frank from voting, from exercising the franchise protected by the 15th Amendment and further defined and protected under the Voting Rights Act.
If someone else professes to be Ruthelle Frank, especially to vote, both she and the state have a gripe with that person, and many legal means to estop the action and punish the fraud.
What you propose is that we punish Ruthelle Frank because of the fictional person you propose might exist. You’ve put the idea of individual rights exactly on its head, punishing the holder of the right for a ghost who does not exist.
LikeLike
Hey James,
Can’t speak for you, but over my comment box it says
Play nice in the Bathtub — don’t splash soap in anyone’s eyes.
Just thought it would be time to point it out.
LikeLike
Can you provide any evidence at all that illegal aliens are voting, Morgan?
Come on, quit being a chicken **** and a coward.
LikeLike
The twit writes:
Neither Ed or James actually care about the Amish, or poor old Ruthelle (how long since either has mentioned her?). Pawns, trouted out, soon to be discarded once the game is won or lost.
Here is what this argument is really about – Ed and James would like to extend the franchise to illegal aliens, felons, etc
Oh that is by far the absolute dumbest stupidest most moronic thing you’ve ever said. I don’t want illegal aliens to vote, twit. And I’d really like to see you prove that claim.
What is really going, Morgan, is that you and your party don’t care about voter accuracy..what you and your party care about is making damn sure that the least number of LEGAL voters vote.
Because your voter id idea will not do a damn thing, Morgan, to stop any voter fraud.
It is time for you to turn on your brain for once you pathetic cretin.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Morgan, Charging people to get access to the ballot box doesn’t fall within the realm of reasonable regulations because of a little thing called the 24th amendment.
BZZZZZT. Incorrect. Not what’s happening here. Nice try though.
Oh really? So there’s going to be no charge for IDs? And you and the other Republicans are going to agree to pay for the extra training and to provide ids to everyone? Oh and that would mean raising taxes. Because your idea, morgan, is going to massively increase the costs to run elections and as you and your party want this idea..then you and your party will absolutely bear the cost.
LikeLike
Morgan, Charging people to get access to the ballot box doesn’t fall within the realm of reasonable regulations because of a little thing called the 24th amendment.
BZZZZZT. Incorrect. Not what’s happening here. Nice try though.
LikeLike
Morgan,
Charging people to get access to the ballot box doesn’t fall within the realm of reasonable regulations because of a little thing called the 24th amendment.
Understand this, just because you think a regulation is reasonable based on security principles does not mean it’s reasonable from a constitutional perspective. The Supreme Court does not have a habit of using that type of security logic in their rulings. Maybe you think they should; that would be fair. But they don’t, so you keep applying a mode of analysis that provides no purchase in constitutional jurisprudence. End of story.
If Ruthelle Frank has to share her voting right with anyone & everyone who claims to be Ruthelle Frank, and/or anyone & everyone who claims to be registered to vote when they really aren’t, and/or anyone & everyone who votes multiple times because there’s no mechanism in place stopping them from doing so…she doesn’t practically have a right to vote.
Prove that it’s happening, dumbass. You keep tapdancing all around that. If it’s such a terrible thing that’s going on, then you should be able to provide evidence that it’s actually happening.
So far you are making accusations without providing evidence. Step up and be a man–show us some data or admit you don’t have any. Until you show some data I’m going to go on the assumption that you’re talking out your asshole.
Then again, every time you post on this blog you demonstrate how much you talk out of your asshole. You’re just a troll, not interested in facts and evidence.
LikeLike
James H.,
Please don’t be delusive. Cite completely.
There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
In reference to that right, it was declared by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 489, in the words of Chief Justice Shaw, “that, in all cases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;”
If Ruthelle Frank has to share her voting right with anyone & everyone who claims to be Ruthelle Frank, and/or anyone & everyone who claims to be registered to vote when they really aren’t, and/or anyone & everyone who votes multiple times because there’s no mechanism in place stopping them from doing so…she doesn’t practically have a right to vote.
And it is you and Ed who have stripped it from her. According to the case you yourself have cited. So now we know what it really says, you can stop repeatedly citing that one convenient but out-of-context passage now.
LikeLike
Neither Ed or James actually care about the Amish, or poor old Ruthelle (how long since either has mentioned her?). Pawns, trouted out, soon to be discarded once the game is won or lost.
Here is what this argument is really about – Ed and James would like to extend the franchise to illegal aliens, felons, etc. Not out of the goodness of their heart mind you, but because they percieve it will help Democrats get elected. But such proposals are deeply unpopular with the electorate, especially if the craven reasons for them are widely known. What to do?
Wow, that’s some industrial grade projection there, nonstick.
Keep in mind, first, that I’m not a Democrat. I’m a libertarian. I view the upcoming presidential election pretty much as I did the last one and the one before that–a choice between a guy who’s going to piss me off on civil liberties issue and a guy who’s going to piss me off on economic issue (or Obama, who’s pissed me off on both, actually!).
Now in fact I do think it’s unconstitutional to deny felons voting rights forever, because a basic understanding of our system traditionally has been that once you’ve paid your debt to society you go back to being an equal member of it. As a political scientist, I’d be willing to be the vast majority of those felons never would bother to vote, because most people who commit felonies aren’t the type to get politically engaged. And a large portion of the felons who would vote would be the ones who were in for financial felonies–white collar crimes–and they’d more likely vote Republican. All in all, it would probably split fairly evenly, but be a small enough number of actual voters it wouldn’t change the political landscape at all.
As to illegal aliens, I don’t know anyone who’s advocating that. It’s worth noting that at least one country–New Zealand–does let legal aliens vote, but even they don’t let illegal aliens vote.
But Non-stick can’t actually point to anything written here that would demonstrate that we want to let illegal aliens vote, so in the classic manner of conspiracy theorists everywhere, he claims it’s our secret agenda, and somehow–despite any lack of evidence–he has a special ability to ferret out it’s alleged truthfulness.
LikeLike
Nonstick,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
From the Opinion of the Court in Harper v. Virginia board of Elections.
“Long ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, the Court referred to “the political franchise of voting” as a “fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.” Recently, in 118 U.S. 356, 370, the Court referred to “the political franchise of voting” as a “fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.”
But let me say that you’ve pitched a lot better argument than Morgan has, and it’s one worth responding seriously to.
Indeed, as I tell my students, we have fewer voting rights than we usually think. There is no constitutional right to vote for the president, in fact–our state legislatures have unchallenged constitutional authority to select the electors on their own. And there is no U.S. constitutional right to have one’s local leaders be elected, as opposed to appointed by the state (a corollary of Dillon’s rule; and one that is at issue currently in my state of Michigan, due to its emergency manager law).
But if your state has an election, you have a fundamental right, through a number of amendments, to participate in that election, if you are a citizen of 18 and older, and not a felon (although I think the permanent ban on felons voting should be considered unconstitutional), and to do so without certain hindrances (such as poll taxes). Among those relevant amendments is the 14th amendment and its due process clause.
The state can deny the vote to all of its citizens for specific political choices, but for any political choice in which it allows elections, it cannot impose barriers to voting.
In other words, there is no collective fundamental right to electoral decision-making, but the individual right to participate in any electoral decision-making is fundamental. That’s why the Court normally uses strict scrutiny in those decisions. See, for example, Morris v. Kramer.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve been in some of those categories before, when I moved. Moving used to be a big part of “the American way.”
But I never committed voter fraud.
So what if there are “serious problems” with voter registration? What is a “serious problem?” Name spelled wrong? Fix it. This is not a fraud issue.
What about people registered in two states? Is any one of them voting in two states?
Who cares if people are registered to vote in several places they’ve lived? Is this a fraud issue?
I’m sure this will be news to you, but in the U.S. one serious issue is that only about half of eligible voters are even registered, and a lot of people who are registered don’t come out to vote.
Where’s the fraud? Where’s the fraud? Where’s the beef?
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve been in some of those categories before, when I moved. Moving used to be a big part of “the American way.”
But I never committed voter fraud.
So what if there are “serious problems” with voter registration? What is a “serious problem?” Name spelled wrong? Fix it. This is not a fraud issue.
What about people registered in two states? Is any one of them voting in two states?
Who cares if people are registered to vote in several places they’ve lived? Is this a fraud issue?
I’m sure this will be news to you, but in the U.S. one serious issue is that only about half of eligible voters are even registered, and a lot of people who are registered don’t come out to vote.
Where’s the fraud? Where’s the fraud? Where’s the beef?
LikeLike
Think you nailed it, NS.
Was I supposed to be answering something? I saw an accusation flying around about what I do & don’t care about, as someone ideologically positioned somewhere to the right of Bill Maher…but I don’t take much notice of those anymore…they bore me. Perhaps that proves the point, I dunno.
LikeLike
Well Morgan seems to be currently unavalible.
But there we have our answer. Neither Ed or James actually care about the Amish, or poor old Ruthelle (how long since either has mentioned her?). Pawns, trouted out, soon to be discarded once the game is won or lost.
Here is what this argument is really about – Ed and James would like to extend the franchise to illegal aliens, felons, etc. Not out of the goodness of their heart mind you, but because they percieve it will help Democrats get elected. But such proposals are deeply unpopular with the electorate, especially if the craven reasons for them are widely known. What to do?
Easy. Make the argument about something else entirely – enforcement. Rules and laws don’t matter much if no one enforces them, right? Better still, couple that effort with a DOJ in your pocket, and work very hard to replace every secretary of state with someone…friendly to the cause. That is how you corrupt the system and get what you want.
Or am I missing something? My reasonable compromise would work for the Amish as well. But it won’t achive the real goal, so it must be steadfastly ignored.
By the by, explain to me why Ruthelle and the Amish cannot use…absentee ballots? Also – I’m pretty sure the Amish have about 10% voter turnout. So the reason they don’t like pictures taken, yeah, pretty much the same reason they don’t vote either.
Simple solutions are usually overlooked for obvious reasons.
LikeLike
And because the Republicans like Morgan won’t compromise and accept a different way to “secure the accuracy of our elections” groups like the Amish as well as homeless people and people in shelters, like women who are in shelters because they’re trying to get away from abusive husbands or boyfriends, won’t be able to vote.
http://amishamerica.com/what-do-amish-think-about-photography/
It is commonly said that Amish don’t like having their photos taken. “No photos please” signs are common in Amish communities. Amish dislike zoo-exhibit treatment, and most avoid picture-seeking tourists and photojournalists seeking to capture their likenesses. At the same time, there is a variety of thought on picture-taking among Amish.
Posed vs. unposed photos
Some Amish completely refuse to allow themselves to be photographed. Posed photos in particularly may be seen as a show of pride. On the other hand, some Amish make a distinction between having one’s photo taken in a natural setting, vs. posing for a photo. Some have no problem with allowing themselves to be filmed or photographed, as long as it is obvious that they are not posing.
Unposed photo of an Amish wood worker
This is how documentarians and photographers of the Amish often work. Dirk Eitzen, in “The Amish and the Media”, explains the idea of “plausible deniability”—if an Amish person can plausibly deny that he was complicit, filming may be acceptable. This often requires shooting from the side or at a distance but not directly. Were an Amish person to be captured posing or speaking into a camera, then obviously he would not be able to deny willing participation.
Amish are typically wary of showing one’s face direct on camera. When Amish do agree to interviews on camera, they are often done from the side or with face obscured. The reluctance to show one’s face in a photo is also a reason that Amish identification is usually issued without a photograph. This practice however has been problematic in recent years with new requirements mandating IDs with photos at United States border crossings. As Amish sometimes travel to settlements in Canada, or to Mexico for cheaper medical treatment, this new mandate has been an obstacle for some.
And Morgan simply doesn’t give a damn that his position disenfranchises Americans from voting..all he wants is to make sure that Republicans have a greater chance of winning…even if it means taking democracy to the chopping block.
LikeLike
Righto Ed. Non-answer. May I assume then that no compromise is possible?
And of course, your limited answer makes no sense. Not all American are eligible to vote! So the equivalency you are making is rubbish. And purging of the roles is typically uneven between states and jurisdictions. And anytime someone tries to purge the voter roles, to make corrections, there are inevitable lawsuits and accusations of partisan shenanigans. Mostly by the Dems.
The same study found that 1 in 8 registrations of voters had serious problems, which equates to around 24 million people. Ouch. For example, 2.75 million people are registered as active voters in more than one state. Several million more are registered in multiple districts within a state.
But hey, not a problem right? None of this is worth fixing?
How about this – I’ll sweeten the pot. We go to automatic voter registration of everyone who files taxes, like Canada. We could probably pump our registration rates from 56% to 90%, doing away with messy same day registrations, etc. And the roles would be updated yearly, at little or no cost. Coupled with voter ID, free ID for the poor, and provisional voting, we could almost eliminate entire categories of fraud, error, and disenfranchisment from the system. How cool is that?
C’mon, whatya say? Ruthelle gets the vote, the system gets tightened up, and we make it easier to vote overall. Everybody is a winner.
Now, I should warn you, if you say “no” to such a reasonable compromise, or (more likely) just don’t bother responding, or respond nonsensically, I will be forced to conclude that you view fraud and error as features rather bugs in our current system. In which case your overarching goal is clearly election theft.
LikeLike
More than 2 million Americans die each year. Since voter registrations typically run two to four years, there should be about 4 million to 8 million dead, still on the voter rolls each year, since in most places there is no process to notify the voter registration people of the death of a voter.
The total is only 1.8 million? Then, obviously, the voter rolls are purged of dead people in much better fashion than we have reason to hope, and there is very little chance that any dead person’s vote can be purloined.
LikeLike
The constitution contains several sections detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax.
The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote to anyone, as it does the right to speech, for example.
It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People”. Aside from the requirements above, the definition of “people” is left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in many states persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. Those laws have been found to be constitutional. Conversely, states have liberlaized the vote with postal voting systems for all residents, or motor voter laws. These are just the reverse of ID laws. Also constitutional.
So James, I might argue that you are the one that has a rather fuzzy idea about what is or is not in the U.S. Constitution. There is no fundimental right to vote in there. It is in fact up to the individuals states to establish who the “people” are and maintain the franchise as they chose.
So regarding ID, I have no problem whatsoever with the state providing free ID to indigent individuals. I’d hazard to say almost no one does. But of course, Ruthelle’s problems seems to not be ID, but a screwed up birth certificate. At some point, doesn’t this become her problem to sort through?
Currently 32 states have voter ID laws. Nine have strict photo ID laws. Seven more have soft photo ID laws – you can still vote without ID, but your ballot is subject to verification. 16 states require some sort of ID, photo not required. So would you except even some soft limitations – the right to vote is still granted without ID, but the ballot is subject to verification? I’d be down with that. No more dead voters, but people like Ruthelle still get their vote. Happy compromise!
A paper in the Harvard Law and Policy Review, “ID at the Polls: Assessing the Impact of Recent State Voter ID Laws on Voter Turnout” the author found a 1.1% decline in turnout in states with strengthened photo ID laws between 2002 and 2006. I don’t know about you, but this seems pretty statistically insignificant – turnout varies normally much more than 1.1%. Or, an alternate argument, 1.1% of votes are fradulent and were protected by the new law. Hard to prove either way.
So back to you – ID laws seem to be having virtually no impact on voter turnout in the states that have implemented them. The reason this is probably true – people without ID are extremely unlikely to vote anyway. It would seem to me that a simple GOTV effort on the part of Dems could erase even a tiny discrepency, with the added benefit of helping poor people get valid ID they can use for other purposes. And we get to strengthen the security of the vote! Gravy all round!
Sorry but, what’s the fuss over exactly? Is requiring ID constitutional? Yes. Does it impact the vote? Not really. Can we mitigate any potential imapcts? Easily. Why all the heartburn?
Is there any form of compromise you might accept? Or is this one of those issues where facts and impacts are secondary to emotional truths?
LikeLike
Morgan,
1. How is arguing for fundamental constitutional rights–ones specifically listed in the Constitution–arguing like a progressive?
2. I already explained how you misunderstand the Constitution. First, fundamental constitutional rights can be infringed, even indirectly, only if there is a compelling government interest and the rule is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This rule is not narrowly tailored because it creates obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental right that are not necessary to the goal. (See the case I referenced below, in which Indiana’s ID law was upheld–a law that provided ID for free). Second, while preventing voting fraud is indeed a compelling government interest, hypothetical dangers don’t normally persuade the Court to allow restrictions on fundamental rights. This danger remains hypothetical because nobody has demonstrated that real harms have come about because of people without ID voting fraudulently–Ed has repeatedly challenged you to demonstrate that this problem is happening in the real world, and you have repeatedly fallen back on theory, not real world evidence. And, no, one or two people doing it here and there, with no actual effect on electoral outcomes, is not evidence of a serious real-world problem.
Second, poll taxes are explicitly unconstitutional, and any law that requires you to pony up cash to vote is de facto a poll tax. Again, look at the Indiana voter ID case I referenced–it passed muster in part because people could get their ID for free.
It’s funny that you say I’ve criticized your lack of constitutional knowledge “without substantiation,” given that I’ve pointed this out to you already.
Now here’s your turn. Prove to me you do have real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence. Don’t just tell me what you think, out of your own head, the Constitution means, because there’s a 220 years of relevant case law that is far more relevant to determining what the Constitution means than your ideological preference is. Give me relevant cases and use relevant jurisprudential terminology–you’ve done neither of those so far, which anyone mildly versed in constitutional jurisprudence would have done repeatedly by now.
It’s like if someone claimed to know your field, but never mentioned any of the relevant terminology, and made statements about it that were just very much at odds with the dominant understandings of practicioners. You’d be able to recognize them as a fraud. It’s the same thing here–years of experience enable me to quickly distinguish those who are in the know and those who aren’t.
LikeLike
Alas poor Morgan.
The right to vote is a precious thing that we can make no effort to protect from the simplest of scams, such as people voting on behalf of the dead.
There is no evidence of the dead ever voting, despite the fact we openly joke about it here in Chicago.
George Bush is an absolute incompetent who nevertheless is the final word in competence on investigating vote fraud.
There are no examples of vote fraud, despite dozens of articles on it in major U.S. papers.
There are many, many thing in the U.S. constitution, written in invisible ink, apparently viewable only through rose colored glasses.
It is too much to expect them to do a google search the words “things that are not in the U.S. Constitution”.
Saying the magic words “constitutional jurisprudence” means you don’t have to explain anything.
You are arguing that Democratic voters are more than sufficiently competent to obtain and show ID, that such a thing is a minor burden for any adult human, while Ed is arguing that no, Democratic voters are far more stupid and incompetent than Republicans, more so than you can possibly imagine, and that it is entirely too much to expect them to maintain and carry any form of ID whatsoever.
In the last case, I would, of course, defer to Ed’s best judgement.
By the way, a special shout out to James “We’ll acknowledge it just as soon as you prove that it happens on a scale big enough to justify your sides running around like chickens with your heads cut off act.” Dude. That is pure mixed metaphor run-on magic! I havn’t laughed so hard in ages. Thank you.
But joking aside, the number of people that don’t already have have valid ID must be vanishingly small, given you need ID to buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, apply for welfare, apply for food stamps, cash a check, purchase a firearm, drive, work, enter many public buildings, vote in union elections, make any large credit card purchase, open a bank account, fly on a plane, rent an apartment or get a marriage license. I show my ID several times a week, at least. Ergo, those adversely impacted by a voting ID requirement must be a very small number indeed. Hence it doesn’t seem necessary for me to show fraud on a scale big enough …chickens …something ….. All I have to do is show it is much bigger potential than the arguably microscopic potential for disenfranchisment.
NPR says that 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote. Case proven?
Let’s try this – prove to me that there are significant numbers of valid voters without ID, or access to ID. I recognize exceptions like Ruthelle, but seriously. No ID? None? Nothing? Can’t possibly get it? How is that even possible in this day and age?
Maybe I’m just lacking in imagination here. Help me out Ed.
LikeLike
Then why do you keep arguing like a prog?
You say — without substantiation of any kind — that I’ve betrayed my lack of knowledge about the Constitution. Okay, specifics please. What did I say? What part of the Constitution is at odds with it?
LikeLike
Oh, I read it, Morgan. And the author of it is talking about fundamental constitutional rights, a concept whose substantive meaning you still don’t get.
As to “proggie-prose,” I’m guessing you mean “progressive”? That’s pretty funny considering how libertarian and anti-progressive I am. I’m pretty sure I’ve pointed that out to you before, but you still seem not to grasp the difference between a progressive and a libertarian.
LikeLike
But you have not demonstrated any understanding of constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever. Either you’ve read it and didn’t understand any of it or you’ve never read it.
Your meritless proggie-prose notwithstanding, the content of the thread indicates that I’ve read the Wisconsin decision and you are the one who hasn’t.
LikeLike
Also, it’s Wisconsin’s Constitution that is at issue with that decision, since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t define a class of eligible voters, it just has some amendments in it specifying criteria according to which states may not curtail this right.
Yeah, that’s where you demonstrate your lack of jurisprudential understanding. Any time voting is at issue the U.S. Constitution is relevant.
You’re just making it up as you go along.
LikeLike
@Morgan,
So then it becomes logical to consider that maybe the people who disagree with you aren’t missing the information. Are you capable of even pondering this as a possibility?
Oh, sure. Whenever they show that they actually understand the relevant information. That is, any person who actually demonstrates some passing familiarity with Constitutional jurisprudence, but provides me with a different case analysis or another case reference I hadn’t considered.
But you have not demonstrated any understanding of constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever. Either you’ve read it and didn’t understand any of it or you’ve never read it. The latter seems the more parsimonious claim.
I’m open to persuasion, though. It wouldn’t be hard to demonstrate your jurisprudential knowedge, had you any.
LikeLike
Why must voter identification require that minorities and the elderly give up the right to vote? What’s the reason for that?
They can have their vote; they just can’t have mine.
Help Minnie Mouse The Seventeenth keep her right to vote!
LikeLike
If its ballot security you want, there are a dozen ways to beef that up that do not deprive voters of their opportunity to vote. If you want to match voters with voter rolls, or even if you just want to provide the ballot protection the Baker/Carter group mentioned, there are at least a half-dozen ways to do that without disenfranchising voters.
In all this discussion, Morgan, you’ve not offered a single reason to disenfranchise this woman. Why can’t the law accept what the banks accept? You proposed that, and yet here is a case where this woman functions well with the banks for 60 years, and suddenly it’s not good enough to cast a ballot.
Why must voter identification require that minorities and the elderly give up the right to vote? What’s the reason for that?
LikeLike
George W Bush spent 5 years looking…and found all of 300 cases. 99% of which was former felons voting when they can’t which I guarantee you would not be stopped by Voter ID. Why? Tell me..does your drivers license say whether or not you’ve been in prison?
No…but when I go vote, the precinct volunteers who do not ask to see that license, look up my name on a list they have, and then cross it out. So we have a somewhat complicated concept here, but I think one you’re capable of grasping if you just try…pieces. Parts of a solution, no single one of which entirely solves the problem on its own, but together, make a more meaningful impact against it. You know, like the progressives keep wanting us to do with other problems like climate change. So the picture ID would not protect against the convicted felons voting, but the precinct list would.
I’m detecting a good deal more than $20 worth of effort involved in providing circulation to these tired talking points about why we shouldn’t have just basic levels of security involved in one of the most cherished freedoms Americans enjoy. Why not just put that into real money and donate it to Ruthelle so she can get her birth certificate fixed? Typical libs…”Ice cream truck didn’t have my favorite flavor, so the rules are going to have to change for EVERYBODY now! Trust me…some guy you never met on the Internet.”
Meanwhile, we’ve got these elections like in Washington State, thousands more people voting than are registered, to put Christine Gregoire in the Governor’s seat. The judge tosses out the suit that results, so people like Ed can say “not enough evidence, move along, nothing to see here”…gee, Officer Barbrady, that just fills me with confidence.
But you know, if you’ve got more people voting than are registered to vote, there’s a problem. My question for you: Is it really good for the republic that we just pretend it never happened, just because you guys happen to like the outcome? That’s a yes or no.
LikeLike
To quote:
It is hard to imagine that partisan Democrats, who’s bete noire is the “stolen” Bush/Gore election, can with a straight face suggest there is no evidence of election fraud. Never. Not ever. No one ever votes who isan’t supposed to! It just doesn’t happen people! Except when they lose, then it is all about election fraud.
We’ll acknowledge it just as soon as you prove that it happens on a scale big enough to justify your sides running around like chickens with your heads cut off act.
Because, no Democrat has said that it absolutely never happens. What we’ve said is that it doesn’t happen on anything approaching the scale your side claims it does.
George W Bush spent 5 years looking…and found all of 300 cases. 99% of which was former felons voting when they can’t which I guarantee you would not be stopped by Voter ID. Why? Tell me..does your drivers license say whether or not you’ve been in prison?
Of course you can feel free to say that George W Bush and his justice department was completely incompetent if you want….
And considering that quite a few right wing groups falsely screamed “Voter fraud” when Norm Coleman lost to Al Franken and Tom Emmer lost to Governor Dayton here in minnesota…yeah apparently its also your side that screams “cheat!”
So until then..your side is stuck with the fact that your side never actually even attempts to provide proof that it’s this widespread problem that has to be dealt with.
And even if it was this widespread problem..there are better ways of dealing with it then Voter ID which really won’t stop it at all. Go ask your nearest college student how easy it is to get a fake id just for drinking.
LikeLike
Or better still search for “Chicago election fraud.” So common we joke about it. But I’m sure requiring voters to show ID would have no possible effect.
In 2010 MSNBC asked whether “vote early and often” scams had come to an end in his hometown, David Axelrod snarked: “Well, certainly on the air.”
Hardy har har.
LikeLike
Ah Morgan. While your efforts are highly amusing, they will be ultimately fruitless.
It is hard to imagine that partisan Democrats, who’s bete noire is the “stolen” Bush/Gore election, can with a straight face suggest there is no evidence of election fraud. Never. Not ever. No one ever votes who isan’t supposed to! It just doesn’t happen people! Except when they lose, then it is all about election fraud.
It is not terribly hard to find numerous examples of voter fraud. Just type in the words “more votes than registered voters” into google. Read the several hundred articles that appear. QED.
LikeLike
Right Ed, and if you actually read the opinion from the Wisconsin State Supreme Court you’ll see the point of disagreement between me and James H. I’m looking to the “Constitution” as a written document that has actual standards written into it, and the other is using it as a vague, fuzzy term, more an adjective than a noun, to describe how sacred this right to vote is.
Also, it’s Wisconsin’s Constitution that is at issue with that decision, since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t define a class of eligible voters, it just has some amendments in it specifying criteria according to which states may not curtail this right.
Now if you read back over my comments, you see I directly address the ruling from Wisconsin’s court, which evidently many others on here didn’t manage ot read. It’s a very short decision. Says Article III specs out who can vote in the state, and leaps to the unwarranted conclusion that a requirement to present ID amounts to a further (unconstitutional) curtailment. My comments on that extravagant leap are already on record here.
“Let’s make sure you’re you” is not the same as “you can’t have it.” That’s a fact. It isn’t up for debate. These are two different things.
LikeLike
That’s not right. There’s a video showing that the felony fraud requirement appears to be ample deterrent even to determined reprobates like O’Keefe, who set up circumstances he claims would lead to fraud, but didn’t.
No one favoring these identification laws has ever indicated any fraud ever done that could be fixed with the law. Not one example.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court seems convinced your position won’t prevail: http://www.minnpost.com/glean/2012/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-upholds-block-voter-id
On the other hand, there’s voter fraud in a few places across the nation — almost always committed in a fashion that makes these identification laws utterly useless in fraud prevention. They only work to discourage voting.
For example, here’s a delegate to the Colorado GOP convention complaining about alleged Romney campaign shenanigans to steal votes — all legal, all still in place despite voter ID.
Here’s how the Texas Attorney General targeted Democrats and Senior Citizens in 2008 for voter fraud that identification can’t cure.
We can find more, I’m sure.
LikeLike
So then it becomes logical to consider that maybe the people who disagree with you aren’t missing the information.
Are you capable of even pondering this as a possibility?
LikeLike
all disagreements must be because of the other person’s failure to understand some key piece of privileged information you have.
I hadn’t realized that there was anything “privileged” about understanding fundamental constitutional rights. It’s all pretty much out there in the open for anyone willing to look at that bit of information. There are legal blogs all over the web, used constitutional law books can be bought cheap, Supreme Court decisions are available for free on the web, and countless teachers around the country teach countless students all about the concept. It takes only the most minimal amount of privilege–only that of being alive and literate—to get this information.
LikeLike
Each of those actions would be more effective than requiring voter identification…
[citation needed]. Or, in simpler terms, no.
You proceed from a false premise that any process involving proof of the voter’s true identity is somehow meaningless/useless. Evidence has been presented to you that the honor system is inadequate for the needs & challenges presented here; you’ve not yet presented evidence showing that authentication of the voter’s identity would be somehow useless, ineffective or in any way redundant.
In fact, your entire argument seems to be constructed out of a (cosmetic) inability to comprehend this meaningful difference: Requirement of proof of identity so a right can be exercised, versus, being excluded from enjoyment of that right. Why conflate these two different things into the same thing? Can you really not tell the difference?
LikeLike
You know, Morgan, we could put a platoon of marines at each voting place, in order to prevent and drive off an attack by the Taliban. We could use Navy personnel to make certain any attacks by giant sea serpents, or by Beany, would not be successful. We could put Air Force people at each voting place, armed with air horns and badminton racquets, in order to fight off any attacks by harpie eagles.
Each of those actions would be more effective than requiring voter identification, in protecting the sanctity of the voting booths. None of them would have the deleterious effects of stopping U.S. citizens from voting.
Why not do the more effective thing? I mean, harpie eagles have never been sighted in the U.S., but they might decide to make an attack and migrate to do it, because their favorite food (monkeys) is threatened.
Every bit of the protection voter identification offers against fraud, none of the Constitutional problems.
What do you say?
You still have not found a single incident of voter fraud that identification as required by any bill would prevent. Not one. Your claims of harm are wholly fictitious.
Meanwhile, real voter fraud goes on, usually perpetrated by Republicans, but by people who have valid identification.
Why don’t you want to combat voter fraud? What’s your real agenda?
LikeLike
And as usual, that’s the only way it’s possible to make the left-wing idea look like a good one. Make things that are different, look like they’re the same, make things that are identical look like they’re somehow different, and all disagreements must be because of the other person’s failure to understand some key piece of privileged information you have. The formula never changes, does it?
How about…just take some steps to make sure things aren’t going awry. You know, like the liberals want to do with climate change. Then we won’t have to argue. We’ll know.
LikeLike
Morgan,
As long as you continue to misunderstand the concept of a fundamental constitutional right, we’ll get nowhere.
As long as you fail to understand the difference between a problem that’s merely theoretical, and one that has been demonstrated to be a substantial real-world problem, we’ll get nowhere.
In other words, as long as you keep living in theory world and remain divorced from real world constitutional law and politics in the U.S., we’ll get nowhere.
I have to say, though, that I’m getting quite a kick out of seeing someone try to justify infringement on fundamental constitutional rights by analogizing them to lost cell phones.
LikeLike
Oh, so now everyone who disagrees with you about this…read that as, understands the importance of people proving they are who they’re supposed to be, when they collect things that are supposed to belong to them…is a “blind sheep.” News flash: That’s a lot more people than just Republicans.
A lot of democrats own iPhones. Now if you lose your iPhone and the security guard manages to get it, what would you rather have him do. Send out an e-mail saying “I got a phone that belongs to James, come here and tell me your name is James and you can have it!” — or — something sensible, like, “Give me a call on your phone to let me know you’re on your way.” I don’t know of any simpler way to explain this incredibly rudimentary concept. I’ll just keep repeating it over and over, if you really need me to. Most people can get it.
LikeLike
Lets see here.
The Amish almost always vote Republican.
And yet, for religious reasons, they won’t allow their pictures to be taken.
Oh look..not only are Republicans going to lose that block of votes…but they’re also, according to Republican logic, trampling on the religious rights of the Amish….
And all because Morgan and his fellow blind sheep…oh sorry..I meant Republicans think that voter fraud is anything more then a phantom problem. Despite the fact that the GOP can never come up with any evidence showing voter fraud to be anything more then a pissante minor problem.
LikeLike
One thing Ed said deserves a particularly direct response: The part where there’s no outstanding question about Ruthelle Frank’s identity, everyone knows who she is, et cetera.
Uh, YES. I believe you’re right about that. The same can not be said of all those, what, 220,000 in her state who are in the same situation? That’s why this “Winifred Skinner in the Winnebago” paradigm is a particularly ineffective and just plain dumb way to discuss public policy. Sandra Fluke. Warren Buffett’s secretary. And the Republicans do the same thing with Joe The Plumber.
Like my blogger colleague Sonic Charmer said (perfectly):
But this mascotry has escaped the boundaries of that particular contrived event and is, seemingly, how we debate all issues now.
I don’t want to know about these people. Stop telling me their names. Who decided this made sense as a way to discuss political issues?
So yes, Ed, you’re right…there is no enduring mystery on who Ruthelle Frank is. That’s one of many reasons why it would make much more sense to discuss the issue: Is it okay for states and counties to hold elections on the honor system, just because Eric Holder thinks it’s probably okay? Rather than the particulars of any one identifiable person’s case. This point should not sucked into some endless debate, it should be obvious. Hope springs eternal.
LikeLike
Not sure how many more times I have to keep explaining this, it seems a lost cause.
The concept that eludes you is referred to, specifically, as authentication. You proceed from a faulty premise, one that’s convenient to democrats but is nevertheless a false one, namely, that you are being excluded from a right (or a privilege) merely because you are required to prove you’re the right person when you exercise it.
As I’ve explained twice before now, when it comes to voting this is to the benefit of the person who has the right. In fact, it is a prerequisite to enjoying the right.
What happens if you leave a fancy cell phone in the restroom of your workplace and it ends up at the front security desk — what does the resulting e-mail say? “When you show up to claim it, just let me know what the last four digits of the phone number are” or some such…describe the customized exterior…if it’s a monogrammed cigarette lighter, describe the monogram. To make sure it’s the right person claiming it. This situation is no different. If everyone who claims to be Ruthelle gets to vote, then the real Ruthelle doesn’t really get her right to vote. Which is what Ed said he wanted to have happen in the title of this post.
Why are you opposed to that happening, James Hanley?
Also — and this has been explained, repeatedly, as well — no one has demanded Ruthelle Frank pay $20 for her right to vote. She needs to pay the money to fix a problem with her birth certificate. Congratulations to her on going 84 years without having to do this, but the time’s come that it’s necessary. Our current President is pushing for a brand new right for the government to order people to buy health insurance if they don’t want to — somehow, that’s no big deal…but in this new perfect society, the paper that says you’re you, there’s a “constitutional right” to just leave that uncorrected when it costs $20 to fix it.
Do continue to argue the point though. As publicly as you can. I like it when the word gets out that democrats can only win elections, when no one knows who’s voting or how many times. The “there’s no such thing as vote fraud because Eric Holder says there isn’t” part, itself, is particularly charming.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what that has to do with helping Ruthelle keep her right to vote. Twenty dollars in her tip jar, it would seem, would solve every problem that’s managed to be defined here.
This is where Morgan is seriously off-track as a constitutional matter. To say, “Oh, we’ll only charge a small amount before you can exercise your constitutional rights” is to badly misunderstand the concept of constitutional rights.
“Yes, you can engage in free speech, but only after you post a nominal bond against revealing state secrets.”
Nope, as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, it just don’t work that way.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
James K., I’m not sure what that has to do with helping Ruthelle keep her right to vote. Twenty dollars in her tip jar, it would seem, would solve every problem that’s managed to be defined here. Weirdly, you’re off in the weeds in the “my people better than your people” turf…again…while the problem remains unsolved.
You mean besides the fact that your party has been spontaneously upping the fees? Or having DMV officials up the fees to be a bit more specific?
It is still a poll tax you idiot and poll taxes are unconstitutional.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
The eight-page ruling imposing an injunction against the law last month, if you read it, you’ll see it also proceeds from this faulty premise.
Oh you mean like the faulty premise that has led your party to oppose Obamacare?
Morgan writes:
What’s foolish, actually, is to keep repeating the tired litany that no elections have been stolen. Care to prove that?
Would you care to prove that there have been in the last 5 decades? Because its your side claiming that its happened and that there is widespread voter fraud..ergo it is your side’s responsibility to prove that claim..not our responsibility to disprove it.
LikeLike
. The eight-page ruling imposing an injunction against the law last month, if you read it, you’ll see it also proceeds from this faulty premise.
That’s just hilarious. The Court follows the precise constitutional logic I predicted they would, based on very long-standing legal precedents, and your response is that they used a faulty premise.
You know better than the experts! I’m so impressed.
LikeLike
no, there is no functional difference between this field of security and any other asset that requires security protection of any kind.
I’m almost in full agreement. Truthfully. Which is why I do lock my car. But there is a difference here because voting is a fundamental constitutional right, and that means there is a fundamental interest in addition to the government’s interest in preventing electoral fraud. The latter is a real interest–hell, in the abstract (but not necessarily in the specific case) it’s a compelling interest. But there is a competing interest that is a fundamental constitutional right. You’re ignoring that by saying, “she’s not being disenfranchised.” But whether she is is precisely the issue at question, and precisely why the Supreme Court is not going to take the “security focus only” approach that you recommend.
Sorry, but you just can’t directly transfer asset security logic onto the logic of constitutional interpretation. The Supreme doesn’t, never has, worked that way. You may think they ought to, but they won’t.
What’s foolish, actually, is to keep repeating the tired litany that no elections have been stolen. Care to prove that?
Allow me to point out that you’ve made several errors here. First, you can’t prove a negative. Second, there is no record of thefts caused by lack of ID, so you’re the one making the claim that contradicts the available evidence, which means the burden of proof is more on you.
Third, I already admitted that elections have been stolen, so by saying I’ve claimed “no elections have been stolen,” you’re making a false statement about my claim. Election fraud has been rampant at various times in U.S. history–but it has always been a case of election officials engaging in fraud, stealing elections for their party or particular politicians. (Ed, as a Texan, can probably tell you the story of how LBJ stole his Senate seat.) Those elections were stolen in ways that wouldn’t have been solved by voter ID requirements because it was the election officials who were stuffing ballot boxes. The lack of a photo ID for their fake voters wasn’t going to worry them much.
But there is no evidence that voters sneaking through without ID to vote fraudulently has caused stolen elections. Fundamental rights cannot be infringed on the basis of mere possibilities that something that’s never been demonstrated to happen could in fact happen. If you think they can, then you just don’t understand constitutional law. You’re engaging in assumptions that your beliefs must be what’s constitutionally correct. That’s really easy to do until you start studying Con Law. I have studied constitutional law, quite intensively for a number of years in grad school. It’s always easy to spot those who are simply making it up as they go along, and you, sir, are simply making it up as you go along.
LikeLike
There’s a little difference that you seem not to be aware of. Many thousands of cars are in fact stolen in the U.S. each year….despite security measures.
:
It’s really foolish and inefficient to make a dramatic response to every imaginable bad thing. It’s not real-world and sensible. If you lived in a relatively safe suburb would you put bars on your second-story windows?
Actually, if I can take my turn to strut around on the chessboard like a pigeon — it is you who have failed to detect a subtle difference even though I’ve explained it as clearly as can be managed. Threats versus actual problems. Yes, any computer network security professional will tell you why the difference is meaningful…and, no, there is no functional difference between this field of security and any other asset that requires security protection of any kind. It all adheres to the same philosophy: Reactive protection measures are no good, if the asset has any value. When you secure things that way, you’re guaranteeing something will happen under your nose, because of your crappy little so-called security policy.
What’s foolish, actually, is to keep repeating the tired litany that no elections have been stolen. Care to prove that? By their very nature, a compromise against an election would be almost impossible to detect unless 1) a duplicate was noticed, or 2) a fraudulent effort, like a falsified ballot or invalid voter registration, was uncovered. You’ve been given plenty examples of these. Just because you don’t like the fact that they’re being pointed out, doesn’t make them go away.
And what doesn’t apply, is your “strict scrutiny” argument along with anything else that begins with the assumption that Ruthelle is being disenfranchised simply because a requirement exists for her to present identification. The eight-page ruling imposing an injunction against the law last month, if you read it, you’ll see it also proceeds from this faulty premise. Seriously, look at it like this: The court orders me to cook up a ham and egg sandwich for James Hanley although, like a precinct conducting elections, I don’t have to deliver it…I’m obliged to have it ready for you when you show up. Well, “James Hanley” is not a rare name. So, to make sure you’re you, because I’m under court order to have this sandwich ready for you when you show up — I ask to correlate your drivers license to one I have on record. You left your wallet at home and this causes you inconvenience. Am I in violation of the court order?
Would you say, to make extra-extra sure you get your ham and egg sandwich, I’m obliged to cook up a new one for each and every person who waltzes in with that name?
Note that the analogy breaks down since, if you opt for the “free sandwich for everyone with my name” solution, maybe I’ll have to work my fingers to the bone and go broke buying ham, but you’re not out anything. Whereas, all voters lose something (including Ruthelle Frank) in the presence of this fraud that you say never happens…and are trying to convince me not to worry my pretty head about…since it never happens…you know how that comes off? “Hell yes it happens but it’s the democrats who benefit from it so I’m ordering you to forget all about it, and I’m hoping by being condescending I can get you to comply.”
Sorry, but a poor security practice in computer network security is a poor security practice anywhere else, too. If you can’t see it, that just means you shouldn’t be making the decisions about it.
LikeLike
Let me add a comment about the only Supreme Court ruling I can find that is relevant to the poll tax issue, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In that case the Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to have a photo ID.
Game, set and match for Morgan? No.
The Indiana law allowed people without a photo ID to cast a provisional ballot, and then within 10 days to go to the appropriate government office and either show a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can’t afford one.
So the Indiana law did not set up unreasonable standards for getting ID (such as requiring that you demonstrate who you really are if your last name is spelled differently than your grandfather’s), and did not actually require anyone to have to pony up any cash in order to be able to vote.
Ball’s in your court, Morgan. Do you have any actual case law to support your argument, or are you going to rely on claims that Constitutional law is interpreted via the standards for computer security? (Personally, if I had a case before the Supreme Court I’d hire a constitutional lawyer, not a software engineer, but that’s just me.)
LikeLike
Since computer network security doesn’t apply to anything else, and there’s that high “strict scrutiny” bar to clear, and all. NEVER lock anything up that hasn’t actually been tampered with or stolen,
There’s a little difference that you seem not to be aware of. Many thousands of cars are in fact stolen in the U.S. each year….despite security measures.
Very little voter fraud occurs each year in the U.S….despite a lack of security measures.
You seem not to have come to grips with that difference yet. All those many years of elections with little security, and such comparatively little fraud (outside particular communities, where the fraud is organized by political candidates, not by voters w/o ID cards).
You know what else is at risk? The daffodils in my front yard! Anybody could just walk up and take them! In fact one person one time did take one of them! Holy cow, maybe I should put a high fence with a high-security lock on the gate all the way around my front yard. Except…past experience shows that would be a bad decision based on a cost/benefit analysis. Likewise, requiring photo ID to prevent voter fraud.
It’s really foolish and inefficient to make a dramatic response to every imaginable bad thing. It’s not real-world and sensible. If you lived in a relatively safe suburb would you put bars on your second-story windows?
LikeLike
Thanks — a more technical and succinct version of what I was trying to say . . .
LikeLike
Then James H., assuming you haven’t too many stories to offer about your car getting stolen, I’m sure you’ll just leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition from this point on.
Since computer network security doesn’t apply to anything else, and there’s that high “strict scrutiny” bar to clear, and all. NEVER lock anything up that hasn’t actually been tampered with or stolen, yet. Always close the barn door after the horse. The Constitution requires it.
LikeLike
Morgan,
You seem to have missed the day in Constitutional Law class where they covered the “Strict Scrutiny” doctrine–the long-standing Supreme Court doctrine that says that laws that negatively affect fundamental rights have to be in furtherance of a “compelling government interest” and be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest without much in the way of inadvertent side effects. That’s all quite dubious here. I grant that preventing electoral fraud is a compelling government interest, but the Court also looks at whether that is an interest in the abstract or something that is demonstrated to be an actual real world problem. If voter fraud were a substantial–frequent, outcome-changing–real world problem, there’d be more leeway. But as our gracious host keeps pointing out to you, the demonstration that someone could steal someone else’s vote does not equal a demonstration that there actually is a substantial real world problem. Your analogy of “threats” vs. “problems” in computer network security is flawed, not because it’s not a useful distinction, but because it’s not the distinction the Court is at all likely to accept when fundamental constitutional rights are infringed–they are impressed by demonstrated real-world problems, not so much by abstract threats that have not yet been shown to have caused real world problems.
Assuming you get over the compelling government interest bar, there is the “narrowly tailored solution” bar as well. This is not a narrowly tailored solution because it doesn’t prevent the problem without having side effects. Free voter id for every eligible person in the state, with the state making a good faith effort to verify eligibility and not making proof of eligibility difficult would satisfy–but this system makes it difficult for some eligible people to prove their eligibility and requires some eligible people to endure costs before they can exercise their fundamental constitutional rights, so it evidently is not narrowly tailored as the Court interprets that term.
[JH] By the way, Morgan, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes. Requiring people to pony up money in order to vote is a poll tax.
<MF] Actually, no, it isn’t. . </em<
LikeLike
That’s why Congress has taken to putting a “purpose clause” in front of most major laws — not that it stops the Supremes from investigating the real purpose, but that it at least puts wallpaper on the issue. That’s the way things are in a Constitutional government where individual rights are protected.
No, it isn’t.
It’s difficult to see when your sympathies are on the side of the people detecting this malevolent intent, but it remains a universal fact that detecting this malevolent intent is a subjective process and must always be a subjective process. Can you think of a single law that cannot be overturned on such grounds? Our tax system is just a sinister conspiracy to make sure rich people can’t keep their money…it’s an attack on me, it’s theft, get rid of it. Obamacare is just a way to find excuses to euthanize grandma. Minimum wage laws are just money grabs by unions. The speed limit is just a way to fund an inefficient and greedy local government of donut eating hick sherrif’s deputies. Copyright law is just a way for music companies to get filthy rich. TSA? Just a way to put perverts on the government payroll.
Can you even think of a single sensible law we have, that can’t be so demonized and thus be ruled “unconstitutional” due to such a perceived malicious intent?
LikeLike
You miss grasping how law works in the U.S. by just a little — but it’s the difference between Constitutional protection and tyranny.
Yes, a law may be ruled illegitimate because of its intent — but only if its effects are otherwise illegal, too. In this case, the law prevents Americans from voting, a key part of our democratic republic and a right that has been protected since 1965 under the Voting Rights Act, and by Supreme Court decisions that say citizens do, indeed, have a right to vote, all other things being equal. That’s why Congress has taken to putting a “purpose clause” in front of most major laws — not that it stops the Supremes from investigating the real purpose, but that it at least puts wallpaper on the issue.
That’s the way things are in a Constitutional government where individual rights are protected. You can’t take away people’s rights with ill intent. You have to be nobly intentioned, and you have to have taken the path least desctructive of people’s rights.
That’s not this case.
You have not indicated that there is a threat that justifies depriving even one citizen of his or her right to vote, let alone hundreds of thousands of citizens. In computer security, rarely do you toss a grenade into the server when you identify a minor threat — though of course, you could do that, and that would probably eliminate the threat.
Let’s not make things out of proportion. You have identified that it might be possible for someone to vote for someone else. You have failed to indicate that it has EVER happened, and on the question of whether a remedy can be crafted that eliminates or mitigates the threat with minor inconvenience to voters, you don’t even try.
The voter rolls in D.C. are computer printed — there is no great reason that the poll judges couldn’t have a copy of the signature of the voter on that print out to compare to a signature put on the form (in D.C., as in Texas and Utah and Maryland and most other states and jurisdictions, voters must sign that they have received a ballot on a form that offers penalties including perjury for a false signature). You have failed to indicate that these remedy doesn’t completely eliminate the “threat” you claim to have identified (in the video, even the young criminal James O’Keefe stopped short of making a false signature, thus preventing voter fraud).
The value of one vote is minor, the harm of compromise of larger amounts unlikely and infinitesimally small.
You don’t use nuclear weapons to chase bank robbers. You don’t blow up computer systems to keep them from spelling errors in word-processor documents.
We shouldn’t erect barriers to voting for hundreds of thousands of people, including people in more than 80 Texas counties where the required identification credentials cannot be obtained by anyone inside the county, in order to give James O’Keefe another scalp for his macabre trophy room.
LikeLike
James K., I’m not sure what that has to do with helping Ruthelle keep her right to vote. Twenty dollars in her tip jar, it would seem, would solve every problem that’s managed to be defined here. Weirdly, you’re off in the weeds in the “my people better than your people” turf…again…while the problem remains unsolved.
Well, not so weirdly I suppose.
LikeLike
The other James writes:
And here I thought you pro-freedom/anti-bureaucracy folks considered yourselves constitutionalists.
Now now, other James, you should know by now that they’re only pro-freedom, anti-bureaucracy and constitutionalists when it benefits them. When it benefits them to be the opposite they’ll shed those supposed principles faster then a hooker sheds her clothes.
You know…just like they want to, supposedly, keep government out of from in between a doctor and his/her patient..unless it involves a vaginal probe.
LikeLike
No. Voter ID laws don’t compel people to do something they’d rather not do. They deny people a right that should be protected by the Constitution, if they cannot meet an arbitrary, extrinsic rule designed solely to deprive them of their right to vote. That the rule incidentally could be useful in proving identification does not change the facts — first, that there is no identifiable problem with voter fraud from lack of special voter identification now, and second, that the identification forms are unreasonably difficult to obtain, resulting in thousands of people losing their right to vote.
What a fascinating doctrine this is. A law becomes an illegitimate law, not because of its effect but because of the intent behind it; and its attackers do not need to prove the intent behind it, they can just imagine it and…down with that unjust law!
Mr. Barton and I have offered you proof, Ed, that there is an identifiable threat. In computer network security, that is the term you use, not “problem,” but threat. You weigh the value of the information asset, by measuring the harm that could be caused by a compromise of its confidentiality, integrity or availability; if that is high, and the security controls around it are inadequate, your risk assessment is going to indicate that a beefing-up of the security controls is warranted. Will it be possible to imagine nefarious motives behind these security controls? A-yup…people do all the time, with varying levels of legitimacy to their complaints.
But it’s an all or nothing proposition. To secure the information assets only until such time as it starts to get harder to do something, and then stop doing it at that point, is to fail to secure the asset. That’s why your argument makes no sense. You’re simultaneously arguing the information asset — integrity of the voting process — is superlatively high, and I agree with you in this part, but then you’re saying because the value of this information asset is so high, access to it must be unrestricted in all cases. That’s not how security works. It’s not how an economy works, either. This is a point of consistent failure in left-wing public policy. Such-and-such-a-thing is precious, people ought to value it more highly…so let us make it so plentiful that, not only can people get it on a whim, but they can’t get away from it if they want to. Here, the resulting problem, which you choose to ignore, is liquidation of the vote. “Help keep Ruthelle’s right to vote” — okay, how breezy, how casual, what a wonderful feel-good thought that is. Does Ruthelle Frank really have a right to vote, if she has to share it with six other people who are also claiming to be Ruthelle Frank? She gets to go through the motions…but responsible grown-ups, you know, they’re so pesky, they want to do something more than just go through motions.
By the way, Morgan, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes. Requiring people to pony up money in order to vote is a poll tax.
Actually, no, it isn’t. No more than, your employer requiring you to enter login credentials at the company portal to do your job, is a reverse-salary.
There are people out there who are really tough, who need to do things they’re not able or allowed to do no matter how much adrenaline and muscle they want to put into the effort…who could use the help of the courts that are tied up in Ruthelle Frank’s “twenty dollars is more than zero and that’s so unfair” suit. She’s claiming to have spent an entire life with the use of only half her body, and to be one tough cookie as a result…and she’s so passionate about voting…I’m just assuming, and this hardly strikes me as going out on a limb or anything, that she’s passionate about having her vote counted. But she’s stopped from further action by a twenty dollar expense, not (this part seems to have slipped right past you) to vote, but to get her birth certificate. Inconvenient as it may be to one of our two major political parties, “no poll tax” is not synonymous with “must entail zero effort.”
If it did, wouldn’t a shuttle be picking me up on that Tuesday morning, so I don’t have to spend any gas, zipping me down to the fire hall so I can cast my ballot, and then, when it drops me off at home again, compensating me for my time? We’d have to make sure such a system is in place, right now, wouldn’t we, if your 24th-amendment doctrine held?
Boy, Reagan really had it right. The problem with liberals isn’t that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.
LikeLike
Heh, my last name is spelled differently than it was in my great grandfather’s time. Am I now ineligible to vote?
I love the irony of these allegedly pro-freedom and anti-bureaucratic folks so eagerly defend byzantine bureaucratic rules designed to prevent a problem that hasn’t been proven to actually be much of a problem.
By the way, Morgan, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes. Requiring people to pony up money in order to vote is a poll tax. And here I thought you pro-freedom/anti-bureaucracy folks considered yourselves constitutionalists.
LikeLike
Morgan said:
No. Voter ID laws don’t compel people to do something they’d rather not do. They deny people a right that should be protected by the Constitution, if they cannot meet an arbitrary, extrinsic rule designed solely to deprive them of their right to vote. That the rule incidentally could be useful in proving identification does not change the facts — first, that there is no identifiable problem with voter fraud from lack of special voter identification now, and second, that the identification forms are unreasonably difficult to obtain, resulting in thousands of people losing their right to vote.
The process is much more onerous than it need be. If this were a rule promulgated by a regulatory agency, it would be struck down because it goes far beyond what is required to solve any identified problem (which is why the Texas law has been held in abeyance).
I thought you were anti-bureaucracy? Not so, eh? I thought you were anti-government intrusion, but not here — just so long as it disqualifies those you wish wouldn’t vote, right?
The burden to many thousands of voters is much more difficult than they can bear, reasonably. In the case the ACLU is pushing here, the woman is being required to square the spelling of her name over the past 60 years. What’s up with that? What business does any government have saying that you cannot vote if you spell your name “Morgin?” What possible public interest could be served in that?
This law is more burdensome on voters — there is no Constitutional right to drive. There IS a right to vote. You regard driving as more sacred in our republic than voting? Again, we seem to have smoked out more reality from you than we wish we knew.
Odd that we have to lecture you here on these points. People are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and governments are established among men to secure and protect those rights. Among those rights, of course, is the right to vote.
This law infringes on the woman’s right to vote, unjustly. Also, this law meets your definition of anarchy, being a change in the law simply because someone bellyached about something (The Koch brothers? It’s an ALEC proposal that Wisconsin passed . . . corruption through and through).
Why should the rules be changed on this woman now? What possible public interest is served? How much fraud does it prevent, to stop this woman from voting? How many fraudulent votes has anyone documented in Wisconsin? (Zero.)
You’ve lost all sense of proportion, and now you’re advocating restricting the sacred liberties of Americans for no good reason.
Hold on. These voters who have been patriotic Americans, served in the military, paid their taxes, raised their children, served in PTAs, served on school boards, served as elected officials — they are the ones who are having a new set of rules forced on them. You claim others have succeeded in meeting these new Jim Crow laws? Who? Where? When? The laws are too new for that to have happened. You’re making stuff up.
You’re right, these rules have been decided by patriotic-defectives who can’t cope with the basics of life, people like Wisconsin Gov. Ahab Walker, who can’t cope with working people having fair collective bargaining agreements.
He’s bad for society, you’re right. Fortunately, he may be recalled, soon.
The law that denies this woman the right to vote should be scrapped, too.
LikeLike
As for your “it’s only $20” claim morgan, sorry that doesn’t quite wash.
Why? Because states that have implemented the GOP’s little Voter ID bit have had incidents where DMV offices have been shut down and also incidents of the prices for ids suddenly being increased. Hell, Wisconsin had examples of Walker appointees deciding all on their own, supposedly, to raise rates for ids.
But tell me, Morgan, how is a poor person who is working 2 or 3 jobs going to have time to go to the DMV? You are aware of what hours DMV offices hold, yes?
For example, the ones in my state are open from 8 to 4:30 pm monday through friday with no saturday hours at all.
And still….your side can’t prove any widespread voter fraud nor point to any elections that have been effected by voter fraud.
Of course that hasn’t stopped your party from engaging in election fraud such as in Michigan where they’re stripping people of their right to vote..hell stripping towns of their local governments and appointing Republican cronies to run those towns…which puts those cronies in charge of running those town’s state and national elections. After all, if Michigan is like my state, it is local officials that are in charge of elections for state and federal positions in their areas…and oops…those towns no longer have any local officials.
Six to one says that Michigan, being a rather key battleground state, will see a lot of Republican shenanigans using that “emergency manager” law that your party illegally rammed through in order to deprive Democrats, and especially Obama, of votes in that state.
*sighs* It’s such a shame that the GOP has such a hatred for democracy.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Rules are decided by people who can’t cope with the basics of life. There isn’t much I can do to explain it to you how that’s bad for a society, if you can’t see it on your own.
*falls over laughing* and in this case it is your party deciding to make additional rules…..
So by your own admission, your own party and you can’t cope with the basics of life.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Just, please produce ID so the election officials know you are who you say you are. Shouldn’t be a problem.
And what are the people like Ruthelle, who can’t get an id, supposed to do?
THen there is the chicanery that your party so loves to engage in. Such as when Governor Scott Walker attempted to shut down DMV offices in predominantely Democrat areas after he and his minions in Wisconsin passed a Voter ID law.
THen there is still the fact, and pay attention this time Morgan, there is very little voter fraud to speak of. Since that is fact and nothing you say proves otherwise..why should we make it harder to vote?
LikeLike
If a law is unfair anytime it compels someone to do something they’d rather not do, then all laws are unfair are they not?
Or if your point is that laws are unfair when they are more burdensome on the poor, then that would mean all traffic fines, in fact any fine that is “flat” (doesn’t take income into account) is an unfair law and we are obliged to repeal it.
Actually, isn’t the whole point to having a system of laws, to get out of the anarchy in which the “law” is changed each & every time someone bellyaches about something? If that system could ever work at peak efficiency, it’s probably best suited to some wooden village out in the middle of nowhere with, at most, a hundred people in it. Someone cries “wah, hardship!” and the rules have to be changed on the spot…well a civilized society can’t work that way. Oh yeah, to have a gun out here, I have to tell people who I am, get registered, prove I am who I clame to be, be registered with the gun. Ruthelle is 84 now? So she was 64 or 65 when Motor Voter was passed.
This is a symptom of a much larger issue; Ms. Frank is not the first person to have such a problem. Most people work through it, get it taken care of, without bothering anybody else. But this one can’t solve the problem without forcing a whole new set of rules on everyone…and for that, not only does she get to decide what those rules are going to be, but she is to be called “tough.” For failing to do what others have succeeded in doing.
Rules are decided by people who can’t cope with the basics of life. There isn’t much I can do to explain it to you how that’s bad for a society, if you can’t see it on your own.
LikeLike
Producing legally-valid in all other circumstances ID is no problem. It’s odd, but most Texans don’t have handgun permits. In fact, only a tiny fraction do. So why is that a valid form of identification, but student identification is not? There are more students than handgun carriers. Why isn’t a photo identification card from a bank valid?
Federal courts stopped Texas’s voter ID law because it IS a problem. In more than a third of Texas’s 254 counties, you can’t get a valid voter identification card. The laws are written to make it difficult for the poor, for the elderly, and for minorities. They are unfair laws.
LikeLike
I lost track of the part where I was supposed to convince you of something, as opposed to vice-versa.
So fine. Apparently that’s what’s supposed to be happening here, and I’ve failed…so don’t lock anything up. Leave the front door open on your house or apartment, and if your bank is securing your checking & savings account with a secure portal, ask them to stop. If you have a bike, stop locking it up.
Frankly, you have confirmed the very worst stereotypes of liberals and democrats. Kum-ba-yah, we’re all part of the planet so nothing needs to be secured against anybody. We’re all friends, we can all trust each other…but…oops, then you start with your dark hateful thoughts about Republicans, and it all switches around.
NEVER let a liberal decide how things should be password-protected or secured. Never, never, not ever. Until they start arguing with conservatives, they forget all about people having antagonistic relationships…meanwhile…you need to do more reading James K., twenty dollars is the amount Ruthelle needs to pony up. To resolve a LIFETIME problem with her birth cert. So this is all a crock. Don’t know how many other ways I can say it.
LikeLike
But hey, if you want to continue defending this Voter Id nonsense, Morgan, then you should have no problem in finding unbiased and verified evidence to justify the need for it.
Because so far all i’ve seen from you and any other Republican boils down to “It’s needed because we say so.”
LikeLike
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. — Paul Weyrich, cofounder of the Heritage Foundation
As for your question, Morgan, she doesn’t have an id and you need a birth certificate to get one. And as Ed said, she can’t get an appropriate one.
And all those other things you have to present an ID for, Morgan, are not rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. So it is a false comparison you are making.
Your party wants to put into law a set of rules concerning a made up problem. Your party can’t even come up with any examples of widespread voter fraud. It never has. And what little voter fraud does happen, Morgan, is usually former felons voting when they’re not able to. And Voter ID will not stop that as drivers licenses and other forms of government ID don’t contain that information.
Your party is trying to suppress votes. If it wasn’t, Morgan, it would be willing to listen to alternatives to guard the elections without disenfranchising people. Because as Mr. Weyrich said..your party wins when there are less votes.
When my uncle John was in a nursing home with parkinsons he really wasn’t able to leave. Exactly how was he supposed to go renew his drivers license, Morgan? It’s not like parkinsons was affecting his brain.
The government should have the job of proving guilt..not the people having to prove they’re innocent.
LikeLike
That woman that Ed mentioned to start this thread should be disenfranchised for what reason?
Do you know of any specific proposal to disenfranchise Ruthelle Frank? Because I don’t. I see a requirement for her to present papers, just like I have to do for all kinds of things…you have to do for all kinds of things…I imagine it sells like hotcakes in an enclave of bed-wetting left-wingers to say, “whenever you’re asked to produce ID that means you’re being disenfranchised.” But normal Earth people can see a difference between those two things.
Sure she’s a little old lady and she’s likely to vote for democrats. That entitles her to equal rights, not special rights. I harbor no ill will toward the woman. Hey, this is probably her way of side-stepping the health care rationing of Obama’s death panels. And it’s likely to work. More power to ‘er.
Just, please produce ID so the election officials know you are who you say you are. Shouldn’t be a problem.
LikeLike
Well correction, my grandmother had an SSN card and one of those handicapped parking card thingys…but that apparently doesn’t count in the Republican’s minds…
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
It’s soviet, to merely guard against fraud?
It’s soviet to invent a problem that really doesn’t exist and then use it to con the people into acting against that made up problem so your political party gets what it wants and smothers democracy.
Actually it’s also very Nazi.
Morgan, there is no widespread voter fraud. Your party has been claiming that there is for years and yet it’s never produced any evidence that there is widespread fraud.
And even if there was..Voter ID won’t stop it and there are better ways to deal with such potentialities then disenfranchising people who can legally vote.
When I registered to vote, Morgan, I had to prove who I was. From that point shouldn’t it be up to the government to prove that I can’t vote if it suspects I’m voting fraudulently? You know..this little concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? Or do you Republicans not like that concept?
And tell me..how exactly is someone who will turn 18 on election day going to register to vote, which that person is legally entitled to do, if he or she can’t?
That woman that Ed mentioned to start this thread should be disenfranchised for what reason? My grandmother, were she still alive, should be disenfranchised for what reason? After all, she never had a drivers license or other government ID and the building that held her birth certificate got flooded and the records got ruined.
LikeLike
There’s no fraud to guard against.
Really? Promise?
LikeLike
There’s no fraud to guard against. It’s Soviet to invent some inflated and incoherent folderol to justify oppressing the masses. Voter ID shares more with Berea’s terror-as-a-means-of-social-control than with George Washington’s ideas of how responsibility makes a democratic republic work well.
What fraud? Where? You can only show us fraud that voter ID advocates hint at. Real voter fraud, like the Republicans in Maryland, and the Republicans in Indiana, has nothing to do with identification cards at the polling place.
LikeLike
It’s soviet, to merely guard against fraud?
LikeLike
In the old Soviet Union, people got products from GUM, the big department store, based on their party identity cards. Party apparatchiks got first shot at the good stuff, and discounts. Hypothetically, everyone could be an apparatchik — all you had to do was dedicate your life to toadying to minor officials and keep your nose relatively clean by Soviet standards.
In South Africa, the ID cards were awarded on actual color of skin — the idea being that Darwin was probably wrong, and skin color more revealing than heritage. Mothers were not allowed to live with their children, if their skin color differed.
How is the new voter ID card different from either of these examples? The cards are free, except you can’t get them if you don’t already have one and you lack the connections to get one. Rights and privileges are awarded based on the mere possession of the card, no meritocracy allowed.
Sometimes, Morgan, it seems to me you don’t think these things through. We have enough problems with the cards we already have, and the differences we already have in society. Thomas Jefferson changed John Locke’s “life, liberty and property” to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” in order to make our society more democratic.
Voter ID is a Soviet-style poke in the eye of Jeffersonian democracy. Soviet tactics you claim not to like, unless, they hurt people you imagine to be your enemies, or inferiors. Justice denied anyone is justice denied everyone, to paraphrase King. He was right, and we should all be concerned, philosophically.
You’re right, had O’Keefe followed through, it would have been a federal crime. But he didn’t. Nor is there any evidence, anywhere, that anyone else has followed through. Soviet apparatchiks used to invent bureaucracies just for the fun of it, just to interfere with the operations of freedom, simply to foul things up.
Can’t we do better than that? If O’Keefe had stolen Holder’s ballot, that would have been a crime under the Voting Rights Act. It’s also common law fraud. Because there are so few crimes of this sort, there are no prosecutions (the only major prosecutions in the past couple of years have been of Republicans, voter ID advocates, who used other means to commit voter fraud — why don’t we worry about the crimes that actually were committed and may have moved election results?).
On the bases of economics alone, there is no case to be made for voter ID laws. It is wasteful effort, and the waste is waste of our freedom.
Why are you not opposed to these laws, Morgan? I thought you claimed to be more libertarian, no?
Why should this woman have to pay $20 to vote? How is that not a Jim Crow-style poll tax? Can you guarantee that $20 will do it? The officials tell her that she has to square her non-existent birth certificate with the spellings of her grandparents’ names — that’s a separate court case, filing fees alone more than $100, and you can’t get it scheduled for three or four months.
That’s no way to treat an American citizen. It’s unjust. It’s unfair. It’s Soviet. Shame on Gov. Ahab Walker for picking on little old ladies like that — and no wonder he fears their votes, eh?
LikeLike
I know, Morgan — you’re unclear on the concept of how we determine a person is a person under U.S. law.
And yet, you can’t demonstrate how. More insults to fling at people who don’t agree with you? You don’t have anything else?
O’Keefe’s shenanigans prove nothing. Not a vote was stolen. Not one.
Right, that would have been a federal crime, caught on tape. Proggies all throughout the land would have been hollering for O’Keefe’s arrest…here, as well, I’m quite sure.
You mention several other areas of transactional law where identification rules work — why do you insist on a separate system for voting? Ms. Franks’ banking records can’t get her a ballot. Why should ballots be locked up tighter than her money?
So they can’t be stolen. This has been a problem with your brand of logic rather consistently: Your arguments rest on the unproven idea that you understand things better than I do, and yet it falls to me to explain the basics.
It’s a popular figure of speech to complain that someone is “making a federal case out of” problems that aren’t really problems. It really applies here. Ms. Frank could march down to the courthouse and solve this for $20, and yet here she is…there’s a complaint she’s being targeted because she’s likely to vote for democrats…could someone please cite the verbiage in Wisconsin Act 23 that calls her out by name?
LikeLike
I know, Morgan — you’re unclear on the concept of how we determine a person is a person under U.S. law. That’s part of the problem with the voter ID law. For 800 years we’ve functioned under a legal system that says a living human is a living human. Voter ID laws assume that’s not valid.
Franks’s identification is vouched for in the federal lawsuit. Will you conceded that a court is competent to admit arguments from living humans?
O’Keefe’s shenanigans prove nothing. Not a vote was stolen. Not one.
You mention several other areas of transactional law where identification rules work — why do you insist on a separate system for voting? Ms. Franks’ banking records can’t get her a ballot. Why should ballots be locked up tighter than her money?
In Texas, a voter’s identification and eligibility are checked out at registration. A voter card is issued to the voter. In most cases the local poll workers know many if not most of the voters. If the voter card is unavailable, a drivers license or other valid, government-issued photo-identification card will work. We have no record of voter fraud that the additional identification requirements could have stopped.
Why do you think properly identified, registered voters should be required to jump through hoops? How is that not Jim Crow all over again?
According to all the evidence presented, all we have to do to stop fraud on voter identification is arrest Mr. O’Keefe. I’ll sign the complaint, and then we can stop passing stupid laws, okay?
LikeLike
Ed,
I’m still not clear on why the benefit of the doubt is to be extended to Ms. Frank, who does not hold the paperwork that the law requires (along with the 220,000 who are said to be in the same situation let’s not forget) but you’re putting the onus on the supporters of ID laws to prove fraud has taken place. The only consistency I can see is that you’re avoiding the burden of proving anything and putting that burden on the others guys. I’m all in favor of this if Ms. Frank is accused of a crime and a jury has to consider her guilt. In this case, she could pony up the $20 to rectify the problem. Once. In her lifetime. So no sale here.
Also, it seems to me you’re moving the goalposts with Mr. Barton’s response to your challenge. Oh, okay, so now you don’t like James O’Keefe’s character. We already know that the minute we know O’Keefe is proving something you don’t want proven.
I certainly hope for your sake that your medical records, bank account information, WordPress dashboard controls, student score records, retirement plan information, car ignition system, etc., etc., etc. is not secured by means of Darrell Security Philosophy, as in, prove that a security compromise has taken place before we do anything to secure the assets. What is this “civil liberty” to vote, that is somehow kept intact when no steps are taken to ensure the votes are not fraudulently cancelled out by the next alleged-person? What c.l. is being preserved here if there’s no security to go along with it? The right to feel like you’re part of a process? It makes no sense.
LikeLike
Morgan, Ruthelle’s case is in federal court. We have on the public record sworn affadavits of who she is, and who she has been for the past 60+ years. No conjecture.
Ruthelle is exactly the kind of person Republicans are trying to disenfranchise, an older woman of very little means who will probably vote Democratic.
Voter identification laws fix no problem, but they sure do steal basic rights from Americans.
Accept nothing at face value here — the evidence clearly shows Republicans working to steal away voting rights from senior citizens.
Bob, we already know Mr. O’Keefe to be a criminal, and we already know he edits his videos to make them appear to show things they do not show.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it worked exactly as the immoral Mr. O’Keefe claims — were any elections swayed? Is there any evidence that anyone else anywhere in the nation did the same? No.
Texas’s attorney general Greg Abbott favors these bills — and he’s been unable to find a single example of such voter fraud in Texas in the past 15 years. Indiana could offer no example. Florida could offer no example.
140 million ballots cast, assuming this is accurate, there’s a chance that one ballot went awry — but of course, O’Keefe stopped short of voting.
So, 140 million ballots cast, still not a single example of voter fraud preventable by voter ID laws that disenfranchise senior citizens and poor people.
In Texas we have more than 80 counties where identification required by the voter ID law are not obtainable. Why should we disenfranchise those tens of thousands because of the not-quite-wrongdoing of O’Keefe?
It’s possible to run into many voting places and dump a soft drink into the voting machine, screwing it up. That’s not justification to require waterproofing of all voting machines — it’s not a problem. It’s possible for two people to walk into many voting places with optical scanners and pick up the scanning machine and walk out with it. That’s not justification for bolting all of the machines to the floor, nor requiring armed guards, nor requiring the machines be made too heavy to lift without special equipment.
The worst O’Keefe has shown is that a committed criminal could steal 1 vote. But he didn’t do it.
So, where is the voter fraud that justifies stealing the voting rights of tens of thousands? Not a single case has been prosecuted in the U.S. in a decade. Not one.
But the Justice Department and the U.S. courts found tens of thousands of voters whose votes were stolen by the Texas ID law.
Which is the worse crime?
LikeLike
Let’s see….she does have ID, so citing O’Keefe’s latest shenanigans isn’t relevant. She just doesn’t have the new idea that is demanded. Doesn’t matter. She’s old and useless and probably on SS and Medicare and wouldn’t vote the for the proper people anyway…which appears to be the point.
LikeLike
“Meanwhile, has anyone ever found any voter fraud that I.D. can stop?”
http://visiontoamerica.org/9126/man-obtains-attorney-general-eric-holders-ballot-just-by-asking-for-it-no-id-required/
LikeLike
Meanwhile, has anyone ever found any voter fraud that I.D. can stop?
Maybe not. They’re probably expecting you to just accept it as a reasonable conjecture, that there’s been some, just as Ruthelle is expecting people to accept it as reasonable conjecture that she is who she says she is.
I’ve been saying for awhile that you can’t make a liberal idea look like a good one, unless the other side carries all the burden of proof about everything it says, and everything the liberals say is accepted at face value without anything being proven at all. I think you just proved it.
LikeLike