Wisconsin Voter ID

[johnny karate]

Reasonable requirements to help insure honest elections.

I wasn't aware we had a problem with dishonest elections. I look forward to the data you provide that substantiates such a claim.

Like all the other countries that do it.

Other countries have universal healthcare and gun bans.

Do you support universal healthcare and a gun ban in the U.S. based on the same "other countries do it" rationale?

If not, why not?

Funny how all the other countries that have voter ID laws on the books don't have issues with restricting peoples right to vote. The left wing in the US is of the opinion that old people and certain races are too stupid to acquire any of the many forms of ID that these voter ID laws propose.

The right wing in the U.S. support voter ID laws because they hate democracy and want to prevent as many people from voting as possible.

Straw man arguments are fun!

 

[thaiboxerken]

The right wing in the U.S. support voter ID laws because they hate democracy and want to prevent as many people from voting as possible.

Straw man arguments are fun!

Excepting the "hate democracy" part, the right wing is on record staying that they want to prevent as many people from voting as possible.

 

[applecorped]

the right wing is on record staying that they want to prevent as many people from voting as possible.

cite?

 

[mumblethrax]

And as has been pointed out, the states trying pass voter ID have multiple ID options in addition to many of them offering provisional voting with the ID to follow.

Yes. Here's a list of the options in Texas, for example.

Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport

This is a much narrower list of options than those discussed for Canada earlier. Very few of the people who don't have a driver's license or a non-driver's ID issued by the DPS are going to have any of the other forms of ID on that list.

Provisional voting in Texas, meanwhile, provides no recourse to those without valid IDs under normal circumstances--it just gives you six days to present one.

It's simply the liberal excuse for their hidden belief that some races aren't smart enough to meet the requirements.

It's interesting that when you poll people about these laws, they enjoy widespread support...except among minorities. It's almost like "some races" have reason to believe that this is just another in a long, unhappy lineage of attempts at suppression and disenfranchisement of their votes.

I mean, if you ask me, I think most people are "smart enough" that they could come up with a $20 poll tax. I hardly think that's sufficient justification for a poll tax, however. If you can appreciate why being smart enough is not really the issue with poll taxes, you can appreciate why it's not really the issue here, too.

Yep that same non-existent problem that most other countries seem to be concerned with.

It's surprising that a skeptic would continue with this "everyone else thinks it's real, so it must be real" line of reasoning. Almost every other country has hate speech laws, so hate speech must be a problem worthy of legislation. Any hate speech legislation, even relatively restrictive hate speech legislation is therefore justified. Right?

The big problem, apart from the fact that this doesn't establish the existence of in-person voter impersonation fraud, is that the amorphous "most countries" you're looking to differ from the US in relevant ways. For example, many countries have a compulsory national ID, and undergo considerable pains to ensure that everyone has one. This would neatly dispose of the burdensome aspect of voter ID requirements.

The most sensible comparison here is to the other common law countries, which are historically and legally similar to the US, and like the US, have been reluctant to adopt national ID proposals. In those countries, it turns out, photo identification is not commonly required at the polls.

 

[Unabogie]

And as has been pointed out, the states trying pass voter ID have multiple ID options in addition to many of them offering provisional voting with the ID to follow. The difficulty of obtaining ID is a bogus argument. It's simply the liberal excuse for their hidden belief that some races aren't smart enough to meet the requirements.

And yet the courts keep finding that there's a burden placed on poor people. They keep finding that obtaining these kinds of IDs is difficult for people who work regular hours and can't take time off of work and don't have money to spend on gas, time off, and documentation.

Yep that same non-existent problem that most other countries seem to be concerned with.

And yet not one of the GOPers seeking to pass these laws can document any cases of this. Why is that?

See the above and keep trying trying to convince yourself that most other countries are somehow not racist while the US is.

Other countries may or not be racist. But this country is built on white supremacy. We had centuries of slavery followed by a century of apartheid and lynchings. This sucks, but it's still a historical fact. There's a lot of racism left over, and it's concentrated mainly in the South and mainly in the GOP. Remember when they asked Republicans if interracial marriage ought to be legal?

In your own words, how do you explain that poll result?

 

[Neally]

I wasn't aware we had a problem with dishonest elections. I look forward to the data you provide that substantiates such a claim.

"Help ensure" means proactively taking action to prevent potential abuse.

Other countries have universal healthcare and gun bans.

Off topic.

It's interesting that when you poll people about these laws, they enjoy widespread support...except among minorities. It's almost like "some races" have reason to believe that this is just another in a long, unhappy lineage of attempts at suppression and disenfranchisement of their votes.

Yes, the left has been very successful in selling the meme that secure elections = disenfranchisement.

It's surprising that a skeptic would continue with this "everyone else thinks it's real, so it must be real" line of reasoning.

What's surprising is that the left avoids addressing and acknowledging the rationale as to why so many other countries have voter ID without the lame crying about disenfranchisement.

The big problem, apart from the fact that this doesn't establish the existence of in-person voter impersonation fraud, is that the amorphous "most countries" you're looking to differ from the US in relevant ways. For example, many countries have a compulsory national ID, and undergo considerable pains to ensure that everyone has one. This would neatly dispose of the burdensome aspect of voter ID requirements.

Not having the multiple acceptable forms of ID that most laws provide for in the states is a laughable excuse as to why there should be no voter ID laws. Hell, you have to have an ID to rent a hotel room or buy booze if you look under 25-30. I've yet to hear the left screaming about how racist those ID requirements are. For some reason some ID requirements are racist, and some aren't.

And yet the courts keep finding that there's a burden placed on poor people. They keep finding that obtaining these kinds of IDs is difficult for people who work regular hours and can't take time off of work and don't have money to spend on gas, time off, and documentation.

Wait, spending on gas must mean they have a car and thus have a drivers license. Many states provide free options for obtaining the necessary ID. Going to the polls requires taking time, getting there, etc. All can be "difficult" for someone, sometime, somewhere, just like going to the grocery store and doing a thousand other things in day to day life. I'm against disenfranchisement, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be reasonable requirements to help ensure honest elections. Reasonable requirements doesn't mean zero effort, cost, time, etc. It means reasonable in the context that getting by in life with other normal day-to-day tasks requires similar time, effort, and expenses.

And yet not one of the GOPers seeking to pass these laws can document any cases of this. Why is that?

Same reason other countries don't document cases before enacting the laws. It's simply an obvious reasonable requirement to help ensure honest elections.

In your own words, how do you explain that poll result?

Another off topic statement. The liberals seem to have a passion for trying to divert the discussion to irrelevant points when faced with common sense facts that are hard to deal with.

 

[Corsair 115]

Reasonable requirements to help insure honest elections. Like all the other countries that do it.

But here's the curious thing: in spite of this lack of 'reasonable requirements' there are currently almost no cases of election fraud in the U.S. This, it seems to me, speaks well of the American character in that its citizens continue to vote honestly in spite of a lack of these supposed 'reasonable requirements'.

 

[johnny karate]

"Help ensure" means proactively taking action to prevent potential abuse.

Yes, after two hundred years it's about time we got "proactive" on this issue. Because that huge wave of voter fraud could be right around the corner!

Manufactured Conservative Paranoia: It's not just for starting wars anymore.

Off topic.

Translation: I would rather stick to my Fox News talking points than discuss my raging hypocrisy.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes, the left has been very successful in selling the meme that secure elections = disenfranchisement.

I don't know that I agree. Most of the polls are a bit out of date, but I suspect that these laws still enjoy strong support from most Americans.

The polls do show, however, that most people are basically ignorant of the issue, and that support tapers off as they become more informed. So to the extent that voter ID opponents have been successful in selling this meme, I suspect they've done so by getting people to spend a few minutes thinking about it.

What's surprising is that the left avoids addressing and acknowledging the rationale as to why so many other countries have voter ID without the lame crying about disenfranchisement.

This is a pretty straightforward deflection. Having no answer for why you refuse to examine the empirical evidence and base your conclusions upon it, you insist that opponents of voter ID laws (who you refer to as the left, for whatever reason) "refuse to acknowledge the rationale" for these laws.

In fact, opponents have repeatedly acknowledged that rationale, and have shown why it is flawed. The reality-based proponents of voter ID laws have responded by shifting rationales--now these laws are about shoring up confidence in elections. Unfortunately, that view, too, has no empirical basis.

It is now incumbent upon thinking proponents to rebut the argument presented by opponents, to shift rationales again, or to cede the debate.

Non-thinking proponents, of course, are free to just make **** up.

Not having the multiple acceptable forms of ID that most laws provide for in the states is a laughable excuse as to why there should be no voter ID laws. Hell, you have to have an ID to rent a hotel room or buy booze if you look under 25-30. I've yet to hear the left screaming about how racist those ID requirements are. For some reason some ID requirements are racist, and some aren't.

In addition to the newfound deference to the laws of foreign countries that some are enjoying thanks to this debate, we also see a sudden abandonment of "Who knows best, Washington or you?" conservative-libertarianism in favor of class-centric paternalism. When it comes to the poor, apparently, father knows best. Doesn't matter if someone tells you that they don't have any trouble getting booze without ID or that paying for a hotel room is a distant dream and that they are therefore uniquely burdened by voter ID requirements--you've already made their decision for them. Kudos to ravdin for maintaining a consistent libertarian position.

 

[Neally]

This is a pretty straightforward deflection. Having no answer for why you refuse to examine the empirical evidence and base your conclusions upon it, you insist that opponents of voter ID laws (who you refer to as the left, for whatever reason) "refuse to acknowledge the rationale" for these laws.

Look what the majority of political persuasion is fighting against voter ID requirements and you'll have the answer to "whatever reason".

In fact, opponents have repeatedly acknowledged that rationale, and have shown why it is flawed.

There's nothing flawed about having reasonable voter ID requirements to help ensure honest elections. That's why so many other countries do it.

It is now incumbent upon thinking proponents to rebut the argument presented by opponents, to shift rationales again, or to cede the debate.

Already rebutted: Poor people, old people, all races are competent enough to acquire the multiple forms of ID these laws demand. Some reasonable effort and time will be required, just like getting through daily life requires time and effort.

In addition to the newfound deference to the laws of foreign countries that some are enjoying thanks to this debate, we also see a sudden abandonment of "Who knows best, Washington or you?" conservative-libertarianism in favor of class-centric paternalism.

It's not the right thing to do because others are doing it. It's simply evidence that it can and is done without screams of disenfranchisement.

 

[mumblethrax]

Look what the majority of political persuasion is fighting against voter ID requirements and you'll have the answer to "whatever reason".

I would describe the majority of opponents as civil libertarians and affected minorities. You don't need to be on the left to understand why impositions on a process as fundamental as voting deserve heightened scrutiny.

There's nothing flawed about having reasonable voter ID requirements to help ensure honest elections. That's why so many other countries do it.

That's true. Sadly, these requirements are not reasonable, because imposing a burden on voting to address a non-existent problem is not reasonable. It is, as johnny karate intimated, an exercise in idiocy.

Already rebutted: Poor people, old people, all races are competent enough to acquire the multiple forms of ID these laws demand. Some reasonable effort and time will be required, just like getting through daily life requires time and effort.

I believe this argument was attempted in the last thread on this topic, too, and it hasn't gotten any better with age. There's a big difference between an effort which is necessary for a given task, and one arbitrarily imposed through wrong-headed legislation.

If a law was passed requiring every polling place to make every voter wait for four hours before voting, independent of any queuing going on, would you say "That's fine, because daily life requires time and effort, and I'm sure most people are patient enough to put up with it" or would you say "That's dumb, because such a requirement is not rationally related to anything we might consider necessary to the process, and will surely deter at least some people from voting"?

It's not the right thing to do because others are doing it. It's simply evidence that it can and is done without screams of disenfranchisement.

If you're saying that such laws are not necessarily burdensome, and are not necessarily passed with suppressive intent, I agree.

Why is that relevant where we know that they're burdensome, and we have good reason to suspect that they were intended to be?

 

[maxpower1227]

I still don't understand why we had to pass a Constitutional amendment outlawing poll taxes. Is the intent to say that minorities are too incompetent to be able to pay a small fee or pass a literacy test in order to vote? That's racist!

 

[Neally]

I would describe the majority of opponents as civil libertarians and affected minorities. You don't need to be on the left to understand why impositions on a process as fundamental as voting deserve heightened scrutiny.

This poll shows that overall 83% of the people think voter ID is good. The opposition is 25% Dem. % 1 GOP, ergo most of the opposition is from the left. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/740010/complete-july-2013-usa-mcclatchy-marist-poll.pdf

Sadly, these requirements are not reasonable, because imposing a burden on voting to address a non-existent problem is not reasonable.

With multiple ID options including free ones, and provisional voting without ID, it is more than reasonable to help ensure honest elections. That's why so many other countries do it.

There's a big difference between an effort which is necessary for a given task, and one arbitrarily imposed through wrong-headed legislation.

I guess most of the rest of world has fallen into your "wrong headed legislation" category.

If a law was passed requiring every polling place to make every voter wait for four hours before voting, independent of any queuing going on, would you say "That's fine, because daily life requires time and effort, and I'm sure most people are patient enough to put up with it" or would you say "That's dumb, because such a requirement is not rationally related to anything we might consider necessary to the process, and will surely deter at least some people from voting"?

I'd say let's look at why you are asking for a 4 hour wait and see if it makes sense. Voter ID makes sense to help insure honest elections. The burden is minimal, thus it is a reasonable requirement.

Why is that relevant where we know that they're burdensome, and we have good reason to suspect that they were intended to be?

Some have been ruled by the courts as being unreasonably burdensome and some have been upheld as not. I'm in favor of changing the ones rejected to make them less burdensome. Again I'm against disenfranchisement while at the same time have no problem if reasonable effort and time will be required to comply.

 

[johnny karate]

This poll shows that overall 83% of the people think voter ID is good.

Right because if a lot of people agree on something, that makes it true and correct.

 

[The_Animus]

With multiple ID options including free ones, and provisional voting without ID, it is more than reasonable to help ensure honest elections.

Here is the thing, this was all gone over in the court case. Both sides had their chance. The republican lawyer couldn't show any evidence of voter fraud. The other side was able to show specific examples of people whose burden to vote would have been great enough to warrant a problem as well as statistics showing that a significant number of people would experience similar issues.

The fact is it has been shown through this case that these laws WILL result in a portion of the population, most of whom would vote democrat, being unable to vote in order to prevent imaginary voter fraud.

I'd say let's look at why you are asking for a 4 hour wait and see if it makes sense.

It's probably because of the other voter legislation passed in Wisconsin, reducing the number of days and the hours in which you can vote early in large cities. Because big cities only need as much time and resources as small rural towns apparently. For fairness. It's definitely not another attempt at suppressing votes.

If your policies are terrible and you are worried about losing an election, just gerrymander the state into oblivion in secret at your lawyers office. Then pass various legislation intended to make it harder to vote.

The most depressing thing is that it will work. Wisconsin will remain republican, all because of voting shenanigans.

 

[Neally]

Right because if a lot of people agree on something, that makes it true and correct.

That wasn't the point. Do try to follow the discussion if you are going to chime in.

 

[Neally]

Here is the thing, this was all gone over in the court case. Both sides had their chance. The republican lawyer couldn't show any evidence of voter fraud. The other side was able to show specific examples of people whose burden to vote would have been great enough to warrant a problem as well as statistics showing that a significant number of people would experience similar issues.

The fact is it has been shown through this case that these laws WILL result in a portion of the population, most of whom would vote democrat, being unable to vote in order to prevent imaginary voter fraud.

And in other states that have voter ID in which it has gone to court, the voter ID laws were upheld.

 

[mumblethrax]

With multiple ID options including free ones, and provisional voting without ID, it is more than reasonable to help ensure honest elections. That's why so many other countries do it.

The free IDs aren't free, since they entail costs for a non-negligible chunk of voters. That represents an unreasonable burden, given that neither you nor anyone else has been able to identify any way in which these laws help ensure honest elections. (Why does this phrasing remind me of "part of this nutritious breakfast", I wonder?)

I guess most of the rest of world has fallen into your "wrong headed legislation" category.

Beats me. I've already explained why I think most other countries are not directly comparable to the US, and I've also explained that those which are best compared to the US don't actually have photo ID requirements.

It's not my responsibility to catalog the world's electoral systems and critique each one in turn. I've told you why these laws, the ones being passed in the US, are unreasonably burdensome and therefore suppressive--feel free to respond at any time with evidence to the contrary. Saying "other countries do it" is, at best, irrelevant.

I'd say let's look at why you are asking for a 4 hour wait and see if it makes sense.

Assume that when you ask why you're being required to wait four hours, you're told that "Waiting four hours makes sense to help ensure honest elections. The burden is minimal, thus it is a reasonable requirement." When you ask how it ensures honest elections, you're told that other countries do it. When you point out that waiting four hours is actually a pretty big inconvenience, given that you need to get back to work, you're told again that it's a minimal burden.

How do you feel about it now?

Some have been ruled by the courts as being unreasonably burdensome and some have been upheld as not. I'm in favor of changing the ones rejected to make them less burdensome. Again I'm against disenfranchisement while at the same time have no problem if reasonable effort and time will be required to comply.

I think it would be more accurate to say that some have been ruled unconstitutionally burdensome (the court seems to have set itself a high bar for getting involved), while others have not been, given the evidence presented at the time. That's not the same as being unreasonably burdensome, and it's also not the same as not being a complete waste of time. I take it for granted that a voter ID law that advanced no state interest and imposed no burden would pass muster, but it would also be a moronic waste of time and money. We ought to withdraw support on that basis alone.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Neally,
You keep repeating that "other countries" theme. How about you list those other countries who created Voted ID laws where there WAS PREVIOUSLY NO FORM OF NATIONAL ID. Or the countries that allow every different province or district to create their own versions of an acceptable local ID in order to vote in A NATIONAL ELECTION.
So there's the solution to the voting ID problem. Give the national government (big... evil... over-reaching) the authority to establish a national US identity card. We all have a unique number anyway... Social Security. Put the mechanisms in place to have that made into a photo ID system.

And then... make that the requirement for voting. The history of our country is that we never required people to have valid ID on them to do many things... travel from state to state, for instance. I know people in the States who have a wallet full of bank and credit cards but not a form of ID in there. So put the mechanisms in place and then make them the requirement.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

We all have a unique number anyway... Social Security. Put the mechanisms in place to have that made into a photo ID system.

You are not required to have a social security number. Most people do, but it's not a requirement.