"Nonparticipation in the election process is more of a problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote."
September 21, 2006 8:33 AM   Subscribe

Some people call it a poll-tax: "The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks." [previously]
posted by chunking express (192 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
One of these days I'm going to sit down and look at the tally of outrageously dumb, grandstanding ideas passed by the House and smacked down by the Senate. I'm sure someone's already keeping track somewhere, though I'm not quite sure where to start looking. When I get around to doing so, I fully expect to find "require identification at the polls" among them.
posted by majick at 8:44 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


That seems like a reasonable provision, and one necessary to fight voter fraud, but at the same time it does seem like a sort of tax unless some sort of free voter ID card can be issued to satisfy Constitutional requirements.
posted by clevershark at 8:46 AM on September 21, 2006


Clevershark FTW. Free ID solves the stated problem. Not gonna happen!
posted by Mister_A at 8:48 AM on September 21, 2006


This seems reasonable to prevent voter fraud. Every state issues ID cards if you don't have a drivers license.

I know it could be a pain in the ass for some people, esp. those at the bottom of the economic scale, but I can't imagine being able to vote without any kind of ID proving you are who you say you are.
posted by mathowie at 8:50 AM on September 21, 2006


Considering the ongoing War on Blacks Drugs, a great number of them are going to be exceptionally nervous about showing up to get identification. Even if it's free.

The Republicans know that, after Katrina, they have zero credibility with black people, and they want to keep them from voting. This measure, along with a few rumors (whether real or fake) of harassment of blacks trying to get IDs will keep a lot of them out of the polls. Even if it's just 1% (and I'm sure it would be higher), as close as elections have been in many places, it could easily change the outcome of an election.
posted by Malor at 8:51 AM on September 21, 2006


Am I wrong in assuming that my voter registration card would be proof of citizenship? How bout just sticking your picture on your voter card? Would that count? Cause it's free and fairly easy to get, but you do have to be a citizen to get one.

Seriously, I'm not sure how I would demonstrate proof of citizenship, other than my passport or birth certificate. And that's a huge pain in the ass to pick those up before I go vote. I think it would be safe to assume that most people in this country don't have passports and many don't have ready access to their birth certificate.

In my state, Tennessee, I don't think a driver's license would be able to demonstrate that you are a U.S. citizen because we give out licenses to non-citizens.

Overall, this is just a freakishly bad idea.
posted by teleri025 at 8:53 AM on September 21, 2006


mathowie: Those non-driving IDs that most states give out usually aren't free, ergo this is a poll tax, which is demonstrably unconstitutional.
posted by Inkoate at 8:56 AM on September 21, 2006


It "seems reasonable," but if it actually were reasonable its proponents would be able to point to numerous instances of voter fraud that this legislation would stop. They can't.
posted by aaronetc at 8:56 AM on September 21, 2006


THat's a good point, telerio025; driver license does not, in general, vouch for citizenship. Nor even, iirc, Soc Sec card. My passport is the best proof of citizenship I have. So yea, bring on the photo id voter reg card - I'm all for that.
posted by Mister_A at 8:57 AM on September 21, 2006


Whether it's Free or Not Free, the voter ID card is not intended to eliminate fraud. The Republicans have long wanted to add the voter ID requirement to their bag of tricks to intentionally confuse, threaten, discourage, and challenge the legality of voters in heavily Democratic districts of key states.

It's not unusual for Republican campaign operatives to interfere with the voting process in southern black communities by using caging lists or hiring off-duty police officers to stand in uniform near a sign reading "It is illegal to vote here without proof of registration." or words to that affect. Good ol' Jim Crow style intimidation. Whether it's Tom Delay gerrymandering districts or anonymous flyers calling the Democrat candidate a whole list of racial slurs, if there's a dirty trick to be had on election day, the Republicans will do it.

I expect this election the GOP operatives will be pulling out all the stops. Brace yourselves for a shit storm of stolen election allegations.
posted by StarForce5 at 8:58 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


This is an insulting joke. I have nothing but barely-contained contempt for the House Republicans anymore.

They passed the anti-security HAVA and have totally ignored the gaping wounds in our voting infrastructure for years. This is a callous attempt to look like they care about voting security while in reality undermining it.

Also, this ties in nicely with the planned national ID card. Not only will you be unable to board a public bus or enter a federal building without one, you don't get to vote, either.

On the 10-pt. scale of threats to our electoral process, Diebold, ES&S et. al. rate about a 9 and Mexicans voting because there's no ID check rates about a 2.

Brace yourselves for a shit storm of stolen election allegations.

I was and am utterly baffled that the Democrats did not raise holy hell after 2004. I fully expected a repeat of the 2000 fiasco, with electronic machines as the focus instead of butterfly ballots.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:02 AM on September 21, 2006


I have been required to have ID at every election I can remember, and I live in California! Come on people, it's not really that hard is it?
posted by Big_B at 9:05 AM on September 21, 2006


The need for some form of ID is evident but at the same time it also needs to be absolutely free while maintaining the integrity of the ID. At a minimum there has to be no chance that you'll be turned away from getting the ID if you're a citizen or that getting it can be misused by law enforcement as a quick and easy way of getting their quotas. The only thing it should say is that the bearer of this card, whose photograph appears here is a United States Citizen. It shouldn't be tied to any databases that could potentially be misused to keep people from voting (if you're black and your soundex name matches smith you might be a convict - so no vote for you!).

My guess is that politicians will take advantage of the card to increase the odds that certain classes of people won't be as likely to vote. They'll do it through fees, threats of arrest and making sure that it's inconvenient for anybody who doesn't live in the proper neighbourhoods.
posted by substrate at 9:05 AM on September 21, 2006


mathowie writes "Every state issues ID cards if you don't have a drivers license."

How hard is that ID to get though? I know here is Canada it can take months to establish paper residency in a new province, especially if you haven't got a current driver's licence/ID card to turn in from your old province.

Taking a quick look at the NY requirements reveals that a new ID card requires you to have several forms of identification already including a SS card. Even a US passport won't get you a state ID card all by itself.
posted by Mitheral at 9:06 AM on September 21, 2006


I agree that this is an obvious disenfranchisement ploy, but I am not against photo ID for voter reg. in principle. The timing is slimy though; lots of people will be unable to get their ID cards in time for the '06 elections (if that's the goal, and I'm sure it is), and I have a funny feeling that those people are the ones on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

The demos and "principled republicans" should work out a deal where the ID card is free, accessible to all, and, most importantly, demonstrably tackles obvious real and potential voter fraud issues. Preventing election fraud is important, after all. Hey maybe we should take a look at the machines that collect and tally the vote! Nahhhhh
posted by Mister_A at 9:09 AM on September 21, 2006


Orthogonality had a great post on poll taxes that is also worth reading: "[P]ass the word around that Mister Nigger is not wanted at the polls."
posted by chunking express at 9:10 AM on September 21, 2006




The news story is terrible. All states have ID requirements for voting. These requirements are generally wide-ranging - there are many acceptable forms of ID, ranging from "being personally known to the poll workers" to presenting utility bills and credit cards in that name to whatever. Those requirements work fine. People are identified when they vote.

The proposed change in the law is to get rid of all those possible ways to identify voters, and collapse them down to driver's licenses only. This does not make the system any more secure, it just adds a financial hurdle to voting. Anything that Republicans can do to depress voter turnout generally favors them, so that's why this is being pushed.

The courts have ruled on similar legislation in Georgia last year and deemed it unconstitutional.
posted by jellicle at 9:10 AM on September 21, 2006


Issuing valid IDs , even free ones, to a great part of the population would require more time then the couple moths till the next election. Obviously believing any politico's promise that time is enough, is just like believing electoral promises.
posted by elpapacito at 9:11 AM on September 21, 2006


I really think this is largley a Republican attempt to run away with the 'vote security' issue, even though they are the most egregious violators. The Democrats should have been hammering this issue all along.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:12 AM on September 21, 2006


Also, don't call it a poll-tax, I've been here for years.
posted by rxrfrx at 9:12 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


This is just exposition for the new RealID card, which you will now need to vote. The RealID will be free, so there will be no allegations of a ballot tax, but you will still sell your soul nonetheless because hey, RealID.
posted by davelog at 9:16 AM on September 21, 2006


I fail to see how race plays into this. Can someone please explain this to me? Is it more difficult to get a state ID if you're not white? Do whites get charged less? Is there some special deal that I don't know about?
posted by enamon at 9:17 AM on September 21, 2006


I'm as pinko as they come, but if you can go through the hassle of filing out voter registration paperwork, you can also endure the hassle of getting a frickin' ID. IMO, this is a common sense measure to combat voter fraud - one that transcends partisanship (or should, anyway).
posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:17 AM on September 21, 2006


enamon, it's a matter of shifting the final vote on a million-person scale. If an ID costs $30 and blacks are less likely to have $30 and a spare couple hours to get the ID, and blacks are more likely to vote against you if they do vote, by requiring ID you're swaying the vote in your favor. Does this specifically affect every black worse than every white? Of course not.
posted by rxrfrx at 9:20 AM on September 21, 2006


"I have been required to have ID at every election I can remember, and I live in California!"

I have never been required to present ID at any election I can remember, and I live in California! (The credentials used at every polling place I've attended were my name and address, which is then compared against the registration rolls.)

Requiring, for example, DMV ID adds nothing to the authenticity of my vote -- if I'm registered, my ballot is counted. If my registration is in question, my ballot is provisional. Tying that to my appearance or uniqueness in a DMV database doesn't really prevent any but the silliest of fraud scenarios.

Diebold's horrifying voting equipment (and the lax controls around the counting process) is a far greater threat to the democratic process than low requirements for identification and authentication at the polling place.
posted by majick at 9:21 AM on September 21, 2006


rxrfrx:

enamon, it's a matter of shifting the final vote on a million-person scale. If an ID costs $30 and blacks are less likely to have $30 and a spare couple hours to get the ID, and blacks are more likely to vote against you if they do vote, by requiring ID you're swaying the vote in your favor. Does this specifically affect every black worse than every white? Of course not.

This is exactly what's bothering me. Why do people all of a sudden start thinking BLACKS? Does the following make less sense?

enamon, it's a matter of shifting the final vote on a million-person scale. If an ID costs $30 and THE POOR are less likely to have $30 and a spare couple hours to get the ID, and THE POOR are more likely to vote against you if they do vote, by requiring ID you're swaying the vote in your favor. Does this specifically affect every POOR PERSON worse than every NOT SO POOR PERSON? Of course.
posted by enamon at 9:25 AM on September 21, 2006


Anything to break the backs of those churls down at Tammany Hall! Your days be numbered, Tweed!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:26 AM on September 21, 2006


Also, don't call it a poll-tax, I've been here for years. 1 (youtube) (lyrics)
Thanks for the laugh.
posted by sequential at 9:26 AM on September 21, 2006


I fail to see how race plays into this.

Two ways:

First way: It costs money to get a driver's license (or ID card). As a population, black people have less disposable income (this is not conjecture; it's a statistical reality). Populations with less disposable income are more likely to be affected by election requirements that involve spending money, even if only by a tiny degree. In tight election contests like the kind we've been having over the last few years, every percentage point--even fractions of a percentage point--can make a big difference. Every tiny bit counts.

Second way: Jim Crow laws were often written so as to seem like innocuous, even sensible rules; it was in the application of those 'reasonable sounding' rules that the harm got done.

It's a mistake to ever read proposed rules only in terms of how the rules would play out if applied as intended; proposed rules should always be read in terms of their potential for misapplication and abuse.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:28 AM on September 21, 2006


Also previously.
posted by orthogonality at 9:29 AM on September 21, 2006


Actually, now that I think about it this can be considered a more urban vs. rural/suburban issue since, if we take NYC for example, there is a significant part of the population that does not drive and does not have a driver's license (economic status doesn't matter. It's simply not worth it when you have a public transportation system, lack of parking, and high insurance rates). Compare this to the suburbs/rural areas where a car is a necessity.
posted by enamon at 9:29 AM on September 21, 2006


A lot of you are missing the point. Yes, getting free a ID is easy. But suppose you live in a Democratic district of a hotly contested state.

One fine day in October your phone rings at dinner time:

"Hi, I'm with the local election comittee. We're calling each registered voter to remind them that if you're in district 4 you need to the Collins School to vote and you'll need to bring your voter ID application."

You have no idea where or what the Collins School is. You have your free voter ID but you left the application at the office where you got the ID from. You're confused.

"Well," the caller says "You'll need a copy of that application in order to vote."

"But I have the ID itself."

"Yes, but you still need a file copy of the application."

The truth is their is no Collins School, or if there is, it's not where you supposed to cast your vote, and unbeknownst to most everyone you gets this phone call, everything the caller said is a complete lie because you're a registered Democrat and they are working for the campaign of Republican who is not polling well in your neighborhood.

Now are you starting understand why House Republicans want voter ID cards?
posted by StarForce5 at 9:30 AM on September 21, 2006


Where is the fraud? Seriously. I'm asking. Where is the fraud this is suppose to combat? Anyone?

If there is no substantial fraud problem that this measure would fix, then the only reason to even suggest the legislation would be to prevent certain eligible voters from voting.

For the last 6 years we've had one debacle after another foisted on us because we didn't have the will or intelligence to get past, "Well, it *sounds* like a good idea. Maybe. Sorta." Can we please not just accept at face value "it sounds good"? Please? We're being governed by corrupt liars who have a solid history of exerting power just for the thrill of it.

These people do not care one tiny bit about your rights or the democratic process. We need to safeguard those for ourselves. Please?
posted by Daenoora at 9:30 AM on September 21, 2006


Why do people all of a sudden start thinking BLACKS?

I think the idea is that, statistically, the average poor person is black (any statisticians out there able to confirm or refute that?). What percentage of the overall population living at or below poverty is black?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:31 AM on September 21, 2006


saulgoodman:

It is also a "statistical" fact that the lower class has less money than the middle class. Why was this not mentioned? What about people who don't need to own a car and work 9-5? Like people who live in cities? Why is the first thought that comes to mind is RACE RACE RACE?
posted by enamon at 9:32 AM on September 21, 2006


enamon: the "blacks" thing is because of Jim Crow. I'm not saying that the GOP thought process is "we hate blacks! must stop them!" but rather that blacks are a demographic that can be counted on to hurt them in an election. For some reason, poor people in general seem to like Republicans, even if they're working against their financial interests.
posted by rxrfrx at 9:32 AM on September 21, 2006


Because democrats know that race is what's on the mind of the republicans (and yes, it really is).
posted by saulgoodman at 9:33 AM on September 21, 2006


saulgoodman:

That is a big assumption. Show me ANY reference to back that up.h
posted by enamon at 9:33 AM on September 21, 2006


that blacks are a demographic that can be counted on to hurt them in an election

...In the way enamon describes.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:34 AM on September 21, 2006


enamon writes "I fail to see how race plays into this. Can someone please explain this to me? Is it more difficult to get a state ID if you're not white? Do whites get charged less? Is there some special deal that I don't know about?"

The poorest americans, for whatever reason, are dispropotionately non-white. Poor people are thought to vote DEM (Is that backed up with numbers anywhere)?
posted by Mitheral at 9:34 AM on September 21, 2006


The ID cards may be free, but to prove citizenship, you need (at least) an birth certificate or passport. Last time I got a birth certificate it was something like $15 plus shipping, and took a week or so to arrive. Passports are $67, plus phots, nd take weeks to arrive.

Now think back to your college days when you were eating 99 cent Raman noodles every night. Even fifteen bucks is two weeks of food.

This is a poll tax and a replacement for the old Jim Crow literacy tests.
posted by orthogonality at 9:35 AM on September 21, 2006


But those who didn't already have a license -- even if they had been voting at the same address for the past half-century -- would be required to get a state-issued ID. To get one of those IDs, they would need to produce proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, as well as documents showing that they were lawfully present at their current addresses. If they had ever changed their names -- if, for example, they were women voting under their married names -- they would be required to produce documents legitimizing the name change as well.

At first glance, this might seem like a minor thing. The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Delbert Scott, noted that "you have to use [photo ID] to get on an airplane, to buy cigarettes." And, after all, the requirement would impact a small group of citizens -- a mere 170,000. That's only about 4 percent of the electorate, hardly a significant number. It is only, for example, eight times the margin of victory by which Sen. Jim Talent (coincidentally running for re-election this fall) defeated Democratic incumbent Jean Carnahan in 2002.

Most people don't really have to show ID to buy cigarettes. Beyond that, to state the obvious, neither air travel nor cigarette smoking is a fundamental component of democratic self-government. Voting is. A law that increases the cost and difficulty of voting will predictably reduce the number of people who vote, and a democracy that excludes large numbers of its citizens from the franchise isn't worthy of the name.


--"You Have No Right To Vote" by Garret Epps in Salon

posted by Hat Maui at 9:35 AM on September 21, 2006


IMO, this is a common sense measure to combat voter fraud - one that transcends partisanship (or should, anyway).

That is why it is a good tactic for the Republicans to take. The immediate impulse is, "well, what could be wrong with that, it at least couldn't hurt anything." while in reality, the Republicans are dodging every attempt to get some basic standards applied to their electronic boxes they love so much.

The electronic voting issue also involves fraud in the electoral process, but it's a lot easier to believe that filthy fuckin Mexicans are steelin our votes than that the Republicans are.

Despite the fact that there is plenty of numerical evidence to support the latter and none to support the former. It's a made-up issue, entirely political in nature and entirely designed to divert attention from Republican fraud.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:35 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


Have you ever seen the kinds of data used for redistricting? Or for that matter, the focus group testing and political polling campaign managers rely on? Race is definitely a factor in the political calculations of the Republicans. Can you really deny that with a straight face?
posted by saulgoodman at 9:36 AM on September 21, 2006


I have always worked on the general notion that if the GOP is for something in large numbers, it is bad for most people, good for Republican voters, and harms the poor. I have thus far been right in my assumption.If a license is required, then many of the poor do not have them.

What good is identification if the machine used is questionable (Diebold)?
posted by Postroad at 9:36 AM on September 21, 2006


rxrfrx:

Jim Crow has nothing to do with this. I'm sorry, but this isn't the South run by Dixie Democrats. This is a completely different issue. It disenfranchises a lot of people who do not have driver's licenses.

Who is more lilkely to not have a driver's license?

Poor person working 9-5 living in a rural area (more likely to vote Republican <-- I assume)

or

Lower, Middle, and Upperclass person working 9-5 living in a city (more likely to vote Democrat <-- I assume)

?
posted by enamon at 9:41 AM on September 21, 2006


We should note that the bill the House passed won't go into effect until 2008 (ID) and 2010 (proof of citizenship).

Of course, staggering it that way is interesting too: in 2008, Democrats (since they by and large get the vote of people this will disenfranchise) will have to make sure al their voters get cards, taking away from resources to sway independent or get voters to the polls on election day.

Any voters who do get the polls, and stand in line three hours like they did in Ohio in 2004 (I know, I literally stood with them) only to ne rejected at the ballot box, will be very disinclined to even try to vote in the next election in 2010.

And in 2010, just in time for the midterms, they'll have to do it all over again, to get the proof-of-citizen cards. And in 2010, a lot of less informed voters will say, "but I went and did this two years ago, I don't have to do it again do I?", won't get the citizenship IDs, and will be turned away.

Staggering the implementation is shear Republican genius; it makes it seem less like disenfranchisement, while doubling actual work required to vote. Genius.
posted by orthogonality at 9:45 AM on September 21, 2006


This is an issue within the province of the legislature whatever the virtues of it may be.

Requiring an ID does not run afoul of any Constitutional provision. The Supreme Court made clear in Lassiter v. Northhampton Election Bd. that literacy tests and other neutrally applied standards are constitutional and can be required before permitting voters to vote in order to promote the intelligent and legal use of the ballot box. 360 U.S. 45, 51-3 (1959). The Court said it well: "We do not sit in judgment on the wisdom of that policy. We cannot say, however, that it is not an allowable one measured by constitutional standards."

It wasn't until the passage of the Voting Rights Act that literacy tests were abolished. However, the VRA is merely an act of the federal legislature. It is not a constitutional amendment. As such, the federal legislature can modify it or pass inconsistent and superceding laws as it sees fit. The VRA is the clear basis under which to analyze this proposed bill. However, this proposed bill cannot be challenged in court as violative of the VRA because the legislature can modify the VRA whenever it sees fit without Court oversight.

That is the reason that the article and the opposition refer to a poll tax. A poll tax is unconstitutional, but not under the Constitution or the first 23 Amendments. The 24th Amendment expressly prohibited the paying of poll taxes as a requirement to vote. But the requirement to have an id is not a tax under the law. To get an id, a fee has to be paid to the issuing agency. Taxes are imposed pursuant to the taxing power found in the Constitution and generally speaking, a tax is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property for the express purpose of supporting the Government. See, e.g., New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U.S. 483, 492 (1906). A tax is imposed for the purpose of raising revenue and distinct from a fee. A fee is generally imposed to pay for or defray costs associated with an action that benefits the payor solely and does not inure to the benefit of the Government and society. Quite simply, the transactional fee associated with getting a license is not a tax because the money is to defray costs, not to benefit the government or the people. See, e.g, National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974); FPC v. New England Power Co., 415 U.S. 345 (1974); Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212 (1989) As the fee is not a tax, the requirement for an ID would not be prohibited under the 24th Amendment as a poll tax.

Thus, without any inquiry into the merits of the law, its clear that it is within the power of the legislature to put forth such legislation as that bill would not be unconstitutional.
posted by dios at 9:46 AM on September 21, 2006


Yes, I meant "shear", not "sheer". "Shear," as in what gets done to sheep to steal their winter coats.
posted by orthogonality at 9:47 AM on September 21, 2006


Okay, so, all of the knee-jerkism aside, can someone please outline, clearly and without hysterics, how requiring someone to show ID to vote is a *bad* thing? Please try refraining from the normal Trotskyfilter-Republicanbashing responses that normally pop up here.

And no, I'm not being snarky. I just want someone to state the argument clearly so that we can have a discussion on merits, not a bunch of baseless diatribe.
posted by tgrundke at 9:47 AM on September 21, 2006


Fraud is a problem with absentee balllots, which no one seems to be concerned with, and not with in-person voting. The problem in rural areas (although the point about urban voters not needing driver's licenses as much is valid) is that poor and/or elderly people who live far away from the county seat (an issue in large counties) or where ever they issue these IDs, can't get there. And in Georgia, for example, those people tend to be African American and they tend to not vote for Republicans. The math, she is not hard. In the South, what comes to mind is race because, frankly, where I live is quite white and quite Republican, and where there are a lot of black people, it's quite Democratic. This is not true just in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. Again, easy math.

It is a poll tax. It's an unreasonable hurdle to vote -- free or for charge, either way. There is no reason you can't verify who I am by using my utility bills, mortgage, or any of the other 17 methods that seem to have worked fine for years. This letter breaks it down for you (including the 17 forms of ID that were allowed).
posted by Medieval Maven at 9:47 AM on September 21, 2006


I'm surprised no one's mentioned the following morsel from the article:

" But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a 'modern-day poll tax' and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights."

Personally I think it's more of an excuse to set up a National ID card system. People will complain the DMVs are too slow and overloaded and it costs too much. So... now you'll need a National ID card to vote!

People, you really need to stop thinking in terms of black and white and start thinking "What am I missing here?"
posted by enamon at 9:48 AM on September 21, 2006


dios writes "Thus, without any inquiry into the merits of the law, its clear that it is within the power of the legislature to put forth such legislation as that bill would not be unconstitutional."


Be that as it may, dios, as citizens in a Democracy, we have an obligation to look not only at the letter of the law, but at the merit and morality of the law.

Even conservatives can remember to do this, as long as they're talking about Roe or Terry Schiavo. It's only when they talk about voting and civil rights that they make these purely legalistic arguments. :)
posted by orthogonality at 9:50 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


StarForce5 has the right idea. If you read about the sorts of things the Republicans get up to, you'll realize that this is just yet another way to disenfranchise voters. Whether they are out to targets Blacks in particular is debatable, but given the way they have handled themselves in the past, is most likely.
posted by chunking express at 9:51 AM on September 21, 2006


Okay, further investigation to see just what's required in my state to vote.

In Tennessee, to get a voter registration card you are required to sign a statement verifying that you a)are a U.S. citizen, b)are over 18 years of age, c)a resident of Tennessee, and d)not a convicted felon. There is nothing on the form that requires that you show proof of these things and you are even able to get a voter card if you are homeless as long as you fill the form out in person or have it mailed to a specific location.

To get a driver's license or id only license, you have to show two forms of identification. These two forms can be a valid driver's license issued from another state, social security card, work id, birth certificate, military id, passport, marriage certificate, naturalization certificate, union membership cards, bank statements, or health insurance cards.

The cost of a driver's license is $19.50 and an id-only is $9.50.

In my county, you only need to show the voter registration card. No other id is required. So requiring a state-issued photo id could severely limit the voting rights of those individuals who for one reason or another do not have the means or the ability to get such card. Not to mention to extreme lines and excessive waits at the DMV stations, the last time I had to renew my license in person it took 4 hours. Very few people have jobs or work schedules that will allow them to take off that kind of time.

Between actions like this bill, and the rumors flying around each election year that you can be picked up if you vote and have an outstanding warrant, there is a signficant effort (in my opinion) to keep certain kinds of people from voting.

Yes, voter disenfranchishment has and always will be a problem, but why do things to make it easier to deny the right to vote. Enough people in this country don't vote as it is, we should be making it easier to get their votes in rather than harder.

And if that means a couple of illegal aliens and some dead folk might vote, then that's an acceptable risk for me. I'd rather the dead vote the wrong way than the living be denied the right to vote the way they see fit.
posted by teleri025 at 9:53 AM on September 21, 2006


I really don't see how they would enforce this where I live.
My county is trying to go to 100% mail in ballots and I've been voting mail in for years. First absentee because of military service, then because it was convenient and there was nowhere to vote within a two hour round trip from work.

Will they require notarized photocopies for mail in ballots?

Who is going to pay for this? (spending without taxing ... way to go the party of "smaller" government)
posted by Dillenger69 at 9:55 AM on September 21, 2006


rxrfrx writes "Newsmax: Karl Rove promises October surprise"

Well, I guess now we know about when to expect "Osama" to release his next taped statement. He's been pretty assiduous so far.
posted by clevershark at 9:56 AM on September 21, 2006


rxrfrx:

enamon: the "blacks" thing is because of Jim Crow. I'm not saying that the GOP thought process is "we hate blacks! must stop them!" but rather that blacks are a demographic that can be counted on to hurt them in an election. For some reason, poor people in general seem to like Republicans, even if they're working against their financial interests.

I just reread that. You just disproved (partially) your arguement that the GOP is seeking to disenfranchise black voters. After all, if "poor people in general seem to like Republicans" then Republicans are disenfranchising their voting bloc, no?
posted by enamon at 9:57 AM on September 21, 2006


teleri025 , pretty sure that Driver's Lisc thing has changed recently in TN. I believe they now require you to show proof of citizenship to obtain a lisc. My sister in TN is a Canadian born American, and they wouldn't reissue her a DL last month becasue she couldn't prove on the spot that she was a citizen. So, becasue she has school is an area that public transportation doesn't go, she has been driving without a lisc for the last month and will continue until the paperwork sorts through the system which will be another few months. Unless, of course, she gets stopped and arressted or deported.
posted by edgeways at 9:57 AM on September 21, 2006


I think the idea is that, statistically, the average poor person is black (any statisticians out there able to confirm or refute that?).

I think I just refuted this idea myself. As a percentage within the population of the group, blacks are poor at disproportionate rates. According to US census:

Although non-Hispanic whites had a lower poverty rate than other racial groups, they accounted for 44 percent of the people in poverty.

So 56% of the poor people in America are either black or hispanic.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:58 AM on September 21, 2006


Voter fraud is hardly an issue compared to voting machine fraud :P
posted by Foosnark at 9:58 AM on September 21, 2006


There is a lot of stuff they could do legitimatly to increase voter security... killing those diebold machines for one
posted by edgeways at 9:59 AM on September 21, 2006


snap
posted by edgeways at 10:00 AM on September 21, 2006


enamon writes "Actually, now that I think about it this can be considered a more urban vs. rural/suburban issue"

True. And urban voters, regardless of ethnicity, are more likely to vote Dem than their rural counterparts.
posted by clevershark at 10:02 AM on September 21, 2006


edgeways, You may be right. Although I just pulled that info off the TN DMV website. I do remember some serious flack recently because Tennessee was "letting them immigrants get licenses" or some such. Then again, I'm not too proud of my state at the moment, what with the whole English-only debate that's raging in the state capitol.
posted by teleri025 at 10:04 AM on September 21, 2006


tgrundke: Requiring an ID to vote is not bad, it is good and reasonable. What is bad is how the Republicans use obscure technicalities in each election law to challenge, confuse, and disrupt voting and vote counting in unfavorable districts. Democrats also have their own bag of election day dirty tricks but Republicans are really masters of the art.
posted by StarForce5 at 10:06 AM on September 21, 2006


It IS very interesting how the GOP is absolutely obsessed over the horrors that will ensue should a couple of illegal immigrants cast a ballot, but cannot be convinced to even have a look at the idea that the Diebold "no-accountability" voting machines may render thousands and thousands of votes meaningless in any given district where they are used, no matter how much proof is out there that the machines are questionable.

It's like a cop busting some kid for having a gram of weed while someone else is murdering a bystander in plain sight of said cop -- absolutely absurd and unthinkable, unless of course the cop and the murderer are in cahoots.
posted by clevershark at 10:08 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


"I can't imagine being able to vote without any kind of ID proving you are who you say you are." That's how I voted just last week. I walked in, and claimed to be someone whose name is on the registration rolls. Signed the "under penalty of perjury" oath, and they gave me a ballot. I registered by mail years ago, so I never had to show ID. (Heck, living in MN, I could've been unregistered and just showed up at the polls with a buddy to vouch for me!) I take on faith that the votes are counted accurately, I figure they can take it on faith that I am who I claim to be.

"How hard is that ID to get though?" Actually, it can be disappointingly easy -- what fraction of the 9/11 hijackers had state-issued IDs again? So we're not really bringing any new level of security to the election: people who already want to commit fraud can get IDs easily, while it might be quite difficult for someone who wants to be law-abiding.

I've heard lots of folks argue that you need an ID to ride an airplane or open a checking account... but voting is a more fundamental right than either of those activities.
posted by nickmark at 10:17 AM on September 21, 2006


Maybe I'm slow or something, but if I need to show proof that I'm registered to vote, wouldn't I do that with, oh, I don't know -- my VOTER REGISTRATION CARD??

Like I said, though -- maybe I'm slow.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:20 AM on September 21, 2006


Refuting dios:

There are half a dozen decisions, starting with Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), which affirm that a poll tax is a poll tax, even if it's disguised a bit. You're trying to parse some decision from 1906 splitting hairs between a "fee" and a "tax"? Please. The racists already litigated this issue, in the 60's and 70's, and they lost.

Here's a quote straight out of that decision: "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

Most recently, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you as to the constitutionality of mandatory ID laws, as they upheld a preliminary injunction last year against a nearly identical law.

Your legal foofaraw is full of crap. But you knew that, didn't you? You tried to confuse the issue by copy-and-pasting some crap that you knew was a pack of lies, didn't you?
posted by jellicle at 10:22 AM on September 21, 2006 [2 favorites]


Ironic ... the voter fraud is on the OTHER side of the booth. What are they doing about that.


Also: matthowie: Every state issues ID cards if you don't have a drivers license.

Thanks to 9/11 paranoia, this is easier said than done. I cannot get a Nebraska ID to use as photo-identification, because they require a photo-ID to qualify! Barring that, there is a list of alternatives -- virtually none are anything I have or can readily obtain. I don't drive. I don't use credit cards. A Passport? That's one of the reasons I want a frickin' State ID to begin with -- to qualify for a passport! I'm actually considering a lawsuit.
posted by RavinDave at 10:28 AM on September 21, 2006


Well, a lot of posts, but I'm still in the dark as to why it is a bad thing to require people to show identification when they vote. I understand the concern about poor people or rural people not being able to get these IDs, but what if they are made freely available to everyone?

Wouldn't that solve the problem? You want to vote you need a registration card. Don't have a registration card? We'll give you one. Can't walk there? Don't worry - the municipality will come around door to door offering them if you are unable to get one yourself. Don't want to get off your lazy ass to get one? Tough shit, you probably wouldn't have voted anyway.

I think that the Democrats are using this issue as a wedge, just as the Republicans. The Dems claim it's the Republicans trying to disenfranchise their traditional voter base and the Republicans claim that the Dems are trying to use their base to inflate votes.

Put that aside, I think it's pretty common sense to require identification of some form. The problem is making that identification available equally to everyone. If we can put people on the moon, we should be able to figure this one out, no?
posted by tgrundke at 10:29 AM on September 21, 2006


Newsmax: Karl Rove promises October surprise

Are he and Ken Mehlman finally coming out of the closet?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2006


I want them to cut down on the hour plus waits to vote in urban areas before they demand ID.
posted by drezdn at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2006


Has anyone actually looked at their voter registration card, it's a pathetically simple thing to forge? A voter registration form is not any guarantee against voter fraud.

And the reason why an ID requirement is legal is because it isn't a fee or a tax. Yes, it costs money to get one, but once you get it, you don't pay per election. A fee would be a payment per election.

Look, you can't show up naked to the polls, right? So you have to buy clothes at some point and wear them when you vote. Is that a poll tax?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


long before i got my driver's license, i went to the county courthouse and got a FREE photo ID so i could travel between states and out of the country. its NOT a hard requirement to fill. this bill is NOT a bad idea. what needs to be done anyway is a national ID initiative. i'm kind of half excited and half afraid of these type of cards though. the plus side is that you have identification with all pertinent information for life threatening and everyday situations and an excellent system to keep track of who voted. the downside is you have a 1984 style group of people who want to do MUCH more with these cards than just ID people. i dunno... i'm still torn.

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

its the restrictions upon these other necessities which makes me worry.
posted by Doorstop at 10:32 AM on September 21, 2006


tgrunke, I think the trouble is that requiring the ID creates more problems than it solves -- especially given that fraud has not been demonstrated to be a problem, why should we (the taxpayers) go to the effort and expense of providing everyone with free IDs that (based on recent turnout) only 60-odd percent of them will even use (if we're lucky)? Doesn't it make more sense to ignore the problem until there is a problem?
posted by nickmark at 10:34 AM on September 21, 2006


Your papers, please.
posted by interrobang at 10:34 AM on September 21, 2006


orthogonality writes "Even conservatives can remember to do this, as long as they're talking about Roe or Terry Schiavo. It's only when they talk about voting and civil rights that they make these purely legalistic arguments. :)"

Eh :) that seems to be an ordinary problems with cons/notcons/whateverlabel thinks restricting them is beneficial. Let's not limit us to "conservative" group , as the reps of today are the dems of tomorrow and vice versa.

dios writes "the transactional fee associated with getting a license is not a tax because the money is to defray costs, not to benefit the government or the people."

Therefore, the distinction criteria is not really the word "tax" or "fee" but the purpose for which money is collected. The government in its current incarnation creates the Federal Election Integrity Act (FEIA) to "prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes." Clearly, the purpose is that of benefiting the people AND the government by not allowing aliens not-citizens or people who lost voting rights to influence the outcome of election. Therefore what the citizen is supposed to pay to obtain ID or to prove identity is not a fee, because the ID would not ONLY benefit the payor, but also society as a whole as the government recognizes. The payor wouldn't need an ID, but can't choose not to exhibit a valid one if he wants to vote ; so in the context of a law, the price that ordinarily would be a fee for something the citizen requires for his own exclusive benefit becomes a tax , as it is collected not ONLY to defray costs , but to restrict access to vote.

Or that seems plausible right here right now...comments ?
posted by elpapacito at 10:35 AM on September 21, 2006


Well, a lot of posts, but I'm still in the dark as to why it is a bad thing to require people to show identification when they vote.

Historically, things that don't sound like bad ideas were used to keep Black people from voting. Thus you have to realize that even a fair-minded policy restricting poll access is — at the very best — deeply insulting to a people who fought for and won their right to stand up and be counted. At worst, it's a direct attack on the right of people to vote.
posted by graymouser at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2006


Disenfranchise Diebold, not voters.

Address a real problem, not an artificial one.
posted by nofundy at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2006


The problem is making that identification available equally to everyone.

It is equally available to everyone. It costs everyone about $10, and it remains in force for years.

Doorstop, I think the national ID is a very bad idea, because it will very quickly lead to the requirement that (a) they have RFID which we all know can be read remotely, and (b) you have to keep the ID on you at all times when you are out in public. This means police stopping you on waling on the sidewalk and asking to "see your papers".

Frankly, I'd prefer voter fraud to this.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:36 AM on September 21, 2006


nickmark - good argument. On the topic of "is there really a problem of voter fraud", do we have any good proof one way or the other?

For one, I can think of the problem of illegal immigration. It would be a good way a) to stop illegals from voting (if they do, again, unknown to me) and b) if they are illegal and voting, send them back home.

That reminds me of another bone I have to pick: those who have said that those with criminal records might be arrested if they show an ID when they go to vote. For those who argue that this is a *bad* thing I say.....WHAT?
posted by tgrundke at 10:38 AM on September 21, 2006


Zeig mir mal bitte deine Papiere.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:39 AM on September 21, 2006


Considering the ongoing War on Blacks Drugs, a great number of them are going to be exceptionally nervous about showing up to get identification. Even if it's free.

What? Why? Are you saying most blacks have outstanding arrest warrants? If so, don't you want them arrested? OR would you prefer a healthy fugitive population?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:40 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


graymouser - I understand what you wrote, but I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is a restriction on voting or deeply insulting to african americans or other minority groups in this country.
posted by tgrundke at 10:40 AM on September 21, 2006


the Republicans claim that the Dems are trying to use their base to inflate votes.

Huh? The Democrats are trying to increase their votes by....getting people to vote for them? What's the issue here again?
posted by inigo2 at 10:41 AM on September 21, 2006


The Democrats are trying to increase their votes by....getting people to vote for them?

Those sneaky sonsofbitches. You can't trust a democrat, that's for sure.
posted by chunking express at 10:45 AM on September 21, 2006


Are you saying most blacks have outstanding arrest warrants? If so, don't you want them arrested? OR would you prefer a healthy fugitive population?

When you present your black/white (no pun intended), either/or situation, keep in mind we're not talking about Charles Manson-like rapist-murderer-junkies wandering the streets, wanting to exercise their duty as patriotic citizens every couple of years.

To be fair, much of the incarceration rate responsible for overflowing prison populations is down to (soft) drug violations, where possession of say, marijuana, over a certain limit is considered intent to distribute and earns you a nice felony rap.

The War on Drugs has had a tidy side-effect of keeping a lot of black folk and other mostly harmless "riff-raff" out of the voting booths. It might help to consider racial disparities in overall incarceration rates, as well.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:48 AM on September 21, 2006


I'm still in the dark as to why it is a bad thing to require people to show identification when they vote. I understand the concern about poor people or rural people not being able to get these IDs, but what if they are made freely available to everyone?

They won't be. Even if they're available without an explicit fee, it's a decent bet that the offices where you can get them will be plentiful and easy to reach for suburbanites with cars but difficult for carless people to get to.

And places that really want to depress black turnout can do something like put them in police stations, so that you have to go and deal with the cops to get your free ID. And to answer your next question, you might want to avoid dealing with the cops since it gives them an opportunity to fuck around with you, claiming that you have warrants out on you, or that there are warrants out on some other guy with the same name, irrespective of whether these are true.

And, there hasn't been (AFAIK) any previous large-scale problem with voter fraud. If there's no serious voter fraud to fix, then this can't be an attempt to fix voter fraud, so their goal must be something else -- this is like claiming that the radiator on your old Beetle needs repair. It might be as harmless as simple grandstanding and trying to generate the appearance of activity. Or it might be an active attempt to disenfranchise black voters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:54 AM on September 21, 2006


And if that means a couple of illegal aliens and some dead folk might vote, then that's an acceptable risk for me. I'd rather the dead vote the wrong way than the living be denied the right to vote the way they see fit.

That's a distinction without a difference. Every illegal vote disenfranchises a legal vote for the opposing candidate.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:54 AM on September 21, 2006


On the topic of "is there really a problem of voter fraud", do we have any good proof one way or the other?

Well, I don't have studies handy, but every elected official I've heard talk about it describes fraud as a minor problem at worst -- though of course, who wants to admit that they were elected in a fraud-riddled vote? I have often heard encumbent secretaries of state claim that if their opponent wins, the result will be more fraud at the polls...
posted by nickmark at 10:55 AM on September 21, 2006


Clearly, this will all be solved when they implement the federal thumbscan database. I look forward to it, don't you?

Meanwhile, the Republican governor of Maryland is pushing for paper ballots for the upcoming election, despite the huge logistical challenge. Maryland is also having problems with its brand new electronic poll books.

I would be surprised to see any strong endorsement of new voter ID requirements in Maryland. It makes little sense anyway, since the problem is mainly with unlawful registration, which means proper ID would only legitimize non-citizen votes. Plus I have been told that South American and Latin American immigrants in the area (legal or not, there are many) tend to favor Republican ideals.
posted by zennie at 10:55 AM on September 21, 2006


And places that really want to depress black turnout can do something like put them in police stations, so that you have to go and deal with the cops to get your free ID.

Why is this about blacks all of a sudden. They are a minority, but not the largest or the smallest. And again, why can't blacks deal with cops. There are black cops, you know.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:58 AM on September 21, 2006


What? Why? Are you saying most blacks have outstanding arrest warrants? If so, don't you want them arrested? OR would you prefer a healthy fugitive population?

We have more blacks in the prison system than any other ethnicity. I don't remember the precise statistic, but I believe the percentage of black males who will spend time in prison is over 30%.

So no, of course I'm not saying that 'most black people have warrants out for them'. That's stupid. (Your stating it that way means you're trolling, but I'll answer you anyway.)

What I am saying is: of all the populations in the country, which has the most to fear from interactions with the government? Which is most likely to be dissuaded from voting?
posted by Malor at 10:59 AM on September 21, 2006


I know it could be a pain in the ass for some people, esp. those at the bottom of the economic scale, but I can't imagine being able to vote without any kind of ID proving you are who you say you are.

That's how it is in Iowa, although they do compare signatures. It seems like a resonable solution to me.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 AM on September 21, 2006


those who have said that those with criminal records might be arrested if they show an ID when they go to vote. For those who argue that this is a *bad* thing I say.....WHAT?

(1) Voting is voting. Voting is not a dragnet to catch criminals.

(2) They'll arrest some people with criminal records. They'll also arrest some people who have the same name as someone with a criminal record. They'll also arrest some people who have a name vaguely similar to any alias ever used by someone with a criminal record.

What? Why? Are you saying most blacks have outstanding arrest warrants?

No, he's saying that cops are more likely to fuck around with blacks and so blacks might be understandably reluctant to appear in places where there are lots of cops around to fuck around with them.

I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is a restriction on voting or deeply insulting to african americans or other minority groups in this country

Because we know (or at least strongly believe) that there's no actual problem of vote fraud in the US. So they can't possibly mean what they're saying, unless they're delusional. If the program isn't to prevent nonexistent vote fraud, it must be for some other purpose, such as disenfranchising blacks.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:01 AM on September 21, 2006


I was and am utterly baffled that the Democrats did not raise holy hell after 2004. I fully expected a repeat of the 2000 fiasco, with electronic machines as the focus instead of butterfly ballots.

Actually the democratic primary in Maryland was so bad this year they're actually switching to paper ballots for the general. look up Al Wynn and Donna Edwards. Boxes of ballots showed up days late, and you know those little cards you use to vote on Diebold machines? Yeah they didn't have those on election day, and had to use provisional ballots, which they ran out of, if the challengers home district...
posted by delmoi at 11:04 AM on September 21, 2006


Why is this about blacks all of a sudden.

Gee, Davey, I dunno. Could it have anything to do with 100 years of disenfranchisement? Or anything to do with the overwhelming majority of black voters voting reliably Democratic?

And again, why can't blacks deal with cops. There are black cops, you know.

Nobody is saying that you could not implement a system like this fairly, impartially, and in a racially-neutral way. You can. We just think it won't be.

Like a literacy test. You could have a perfectly fair, neutral literacy test, but they never worked out that way.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:05 AM on September 21, 2006


That's a distinction without a difference. Every illegal vote disenfranchises a legal vote for the opposing candidate.

uh, no it doesn't. you're presupposing that it's a two-candidate field, or that it's a close race where it would matter.

it's been said before -- lots of you people seem to think this is perfectly reasonable, and that's why this clear-cut example of disenfranshisement gets any traction. "voter fraud" is a red herring. it just simply isn't sufficiently big a problem to warrant increasing the obstacles in front of the franchise.

would that we could get the republican house worked up about outright, wholesale fraud by secretaries of state, party officials, and manufacturers of voting equipment!
posted by Hat Maui at 11:07 AM on September 21, 2006


"long before i got my driver's license, i went to the county courthouse and got a FREE photo ID so i could travel between states and out of the country. its NOT a hard requirement to fill."

How long ago was that? As I pointed out upthread the requirements in at least NY state are quite onerous if you have a lapse in ID.

tgrundke writes "That reminds me of another bone I have to pick: those who have said that those with criminal records might be arrested if they show an ID when they go to vote. For those who argue that this is a *bad* thing I say.....WHAT?"

The concern is with people with outstanding warrants. You can have an outstanding warrant and not be guilty of a crime let alone a felony.

inigo2 writes "The Democrats are trying to increase their votes by....getting people to vote for them? What's the issue here again?"

That some of the increase is coming from those not entitled to vote (undocumented aliens and felons).
posted by Mitheral at 11:10 AM on September 21, 2006


Black voters in United States disproportionally disenfranchised.
A U.S. Civil Rights Commission investigation concluded that, of nearly 180,000 votes discarded in Florida in the 2000 election as unreadable, a shocking 54 percent were cast by black voters, though they make up only a tenth of the electorate. In Florida, an African American is 900 percent more likely to have his or her vote invalidated than a white voter. In New Mexico, a Hispanic voter is 500 percent more likely than a white voter to have her or his ballot lost to spoilage.
WIll these voter cards make this real problem go away, or will they make this problem worse.
posted by chunking express at 11:12 AM on September 21, 2006


I'm as pinko as they come, but if you can go through the hassle of filing out voter registration paperwork, you can also endure the hassle of getting a frickin' ID. IMO, this is a common sense measure to combat voter fraud - one that transcends partisanship (or should, anyway).

In Iowa it's about 10 to 20 times more difficult to get an ID then it is to register to vote. In the last election, political parties actually came to my door in order to try to register me. To get an ID you have to go the DMV and wait in line for at least a half an hour. Definitely longer then it takes to vote.

Can you imagine if every registered voter suddenly had to show up at the DMV outlet and get an ID issued just a few weeks before the election? There would be lots of people who wouldn't have time to get one, and they would be disenfranchised. That's exactly what this law is trying to do.
posted by delmoi at 11:12 AM on September 21, 2006


That's a distinction without a difference. Every illegal vote disenfranchises a legal vote for the opposing candidate.

The issue pales in comparison with the other security flaws that they will not address. It pales numerically. It pales on every front.

Requiring picture IDs to vote is a blatant attempt at appearing to address the issue while all along undercutting it. It's shaking your hand with the right and stabbing you with the left.

The merits of a picture ID requirement barely figure, because there is no demonstration of any systematic fraud here, while there is plenty of evidence of fraud re: those fuckin machines.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:15 AM on September 21, 2006


Put that aside, I think it's pretty common sense to require identification of some form. The problem is making that identification available equally to everyone. If we can put people on the moon, we should be able to figure this one out, no?

You are not using any common sense at all. Why is this issue brought up now? Surely, if there has been a problem all along, it would have been addressed before? If non-citizens are indeed voting at any non-negligible rate, shouldn't there be some evidence?

Why is a voter registration card not sufficient?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:18 AM on September 21, 2006


EPIC's comments on the last poll tax scandal. [pdf]
The Georgia legislature cited the curbing of voter fraud as an underlying goal of the statute. We believe that the proposed statute, by preventing certain citizens from accessing the polls, will more likely reduce than enhance voting integrity.
posted by chunking express at 11:18 AM on September 21, 2006


If the program isn't to prevent nonexistent vote fraud, it must be for some other purpose, such as disenfranchising blacks.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:01 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


This argument makes no sense, because an ID requirement wouldn't disenfranchise blacks. And yes, there is actually a voter fraud problem, the 2000 election was rife with stories of felons on voter rolls, college students voting multiple times, etc. Blacks have ID just like everyone else. If they don't, they can get one like everyone else who doesn't have one.

No, he's saying that cops are more likely to fuck around with blacks and so blacks might be understandably reluctant to appear in places where there are lots of cops around to fuck around with them.

Again, a lot of cops are black too. In any case, you assume that cops in general would mess with blacks in general, therefore, blacks shouldn't have to interact with the justice system, even for procedural matters? You are saying that essentially the entire system is racist, but at the same time you're saying the system should take its institutional racism into account, instaed of holding it accountable for being racist.

In addition, a lot of you are spouting generalities and broadly accusing the institution of law enforcement of being the enemy of blacks. That's absurd. Everyone shares one government, which by law has to treat everyone the same.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:18 AM on September 21, 2006


What, did you just move to America yesterday?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:21 AM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


Bruce Schneier on the problems with national ID cards, and why they don't work.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.
So the problem that these cards are aiming to stop probably wouldn't be addressed with a national ID card.
posted by chunking express at 11:23 AM on September 21, 2006


uh, no it doesn't. you're presupposing that it's a two-candidate field, or that it's a close race where it would matter.

Well, as far as the first objection, I'll express my regrets for not writing "usually" or "most often." That's an important nit to pick WRT the US, with our strong third parties and all.

As far as the second objection goes, I don't know how your position differes from the position that a voter is disenfranchised only if the race is close.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:26 AM on September 21, 2006


Warrants (and your name on the web) for unpaid parking tickets.

Pastabagel writes "In addition, a lot of you are spouting generalities and broadly accusing the institution of law enforcement of being the enemy of blacks. That's absurd. Everyone shares one government, which by law has to treat everyone the same."

Law enforcement is the enemy of the _poor_. If you don't know this and are over the age of 21 I'm guessing you've never been poor. Blacks are disproportionately poor in America.
posted by Mitheral at 11:28 AM on September 21, 2006


The merits of a picture ID requirement barely figure, because there is no demonstration of any systematic fraud here, while there is plenty of evidence of fraud re: those fuckin machines.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:15 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


No, there isn't plenty. There is one thing and I'm not convinced it's evidence. The only "evidence" that fraud actually occured is the exit polling data, which was a model that is being used to asses reality. That's not evidence of anything other than an anomaly, but does nothing to explain the anomaly. So there is no proof that fraud on a wide scale took place. If you took the case to court with the exit fraud data, you'd lose.

I agree the machines are capable of being used for fraud, but they are replacing the stupid punchcard systems, with their pregnant and hanging chads, and bureaucrat divining the intent of the voter. Voters, at least in Florida, have proved too stupid to use a butterfly ballot, so that very simple, very trackable system has to be tossed out because of dumb people. The election agencies there also proved too stupid to be able to conduct a recount. Again, stupid people in government are at fault. Not the system. What the electronic voting machiens have right is the notion of taking stupid people out of the process to the greatest extent possible. The solution is to make them more secure, maybe publish the source code and verufy before and after that it wasn't changed, push the aggregate results out from those machines in real-time, who knows. The answer is not to go back to the old way, because voters are too dumb for the old way.

And no, I've been here the whole time. You can't write into law that the institutions are unfair, because you have an obligation to dismantle or correct them if they are unfair, and set up stiff penalities for people in the instutions treating people outside of it unfairly.

Anyway, the issue of cops is a distraction, because you can get regular photo ID (not a driver's license) at the DMV, which last I checked isn't staffed by cops.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:34 AM on September 21, 2006


Refuting dios:

Your legal foofaraw is full of crap. But you knew that, didn't you? You tried to confuse the issue by copy-and-pasting some crap that you knew was a pack of lies, didn't you?
posted by jellicle at 12:22 PM CST on September 21


Your overt rudeness and insults are misplaced, especially give the fact you are accusing me of lying because you think I intentionally ignored an 11th Circuit opinion which states that I am right and you are wrong. In the future, if you cannot engage in this debate on the level, then stay out of it.

Most recently, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals....

I presume you are referring to this.

... disagrees with you as to the constitutionality of mandatory ID laws, as they upheld a preliminary injunction last year against a nearly identical law.

Really? Did you read it?

There are a number things wrong with this.

For one, you clearly didn't read the opinion if you think it says requiring an ID is a poll tax, because the Court expressly rejected that argument. Since you didn't read it before citing it, let me quote it for you:
The Court agrees with the United States Court for the Southern District of Indiana's reasoning in rejecting a similar poll tax claim in a lawsuit concerning Indiana's Photo ID requirement for voting:
This argument represents a dramatic overstatement of what fairly constitutes a "poll tax." It is axiomatic that "(e)lection laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters," Burdick v. Takuski [sic], 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S. Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed. 2d 245 (1992). Thus, the imposition of tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax. Moreover, the cost of time and transportation cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same "costs" also result from voter registration and inperson voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax. Plaintiffs provide no principled argument in support of this poll tax theory.
Ind. Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 1:05-CV-0634-SEB-VSS, 2006 WL 1005037, at *38 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2006). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs do not have a substantial likelihood of success on their poll tax claim... For those reasons, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs have no substantial likelihood of succeeding on their
poll tax claim..
p. 177-178. The 11th Circuit rejected the argument it is a poll tax.

Moreover, you statement that it was declared unconstitutional is incorrect. To understand that, you would have to understand something about the law. You would have to understand what a preliminary injunction is and what the review by a court of appeals is when one issues. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction because the state law was imposed too close in time to the election to permit compliance.

Finally, you ignore the extremely important distinction that this is a federal law as opposed to the state law and therefore the claims about violation of the VRA and other federal laws are irrelevant to this federal piece of legislation (as I pointed out in my comment).

My comment stands, jellicle's insults notwithstanding. This is not unconstitutional because it is not a poll tax. Moreover, it does not run afoul of other restrictions contained in the Constitution just as literacy tests are constitutional. The federal government is free to legislate in this area.
posted by dios at 11:37 AM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel writes "What the electronic voting machiens have right is the notion of taking stupid people out of the process to the greatest extent possible. The solution is to make them more secure, maybe publish the source code and verufy before and after that it wasn't changed, push the aggregate results out from those machines in real-time, who knows."

The solution is Xs on paper, but that ain't sexy and won't fill the needs of CNN and Fox.
posted by Mitheral at 11:39 AM on September 21, 2006


There is one thing and I'm not convinced it's evidence.

There is in fact more than one thing, but people don't seem interested, I've been harping on this for years now.

You can't write into law that the institutions are unfair, because you have an obligation to dismantle or correct them if they are unfair, and set up stiff penalities for people in the instutions treating people outside of it unfairly.

I haven't the foggiest clue what it is you're objecting to. The laws should be such that any institutional biases will be corrected for to the greatest degree possible, no?

at the DMV, which last I checked isn't staffed by cops.

My DMV (in fact, the DMV for several different cities) is in the same building as the police station and jail, fwiw.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:41 AM on September 21, 2006


Wow, this is the best argument ever.

Side A: "The moon is made of rocks!"
Side B: "No! The moon orbits the earth!"
etc.

We're talking about voting security, which is an admirable aim, but requiring a picture ID doesn't really solve any of the inherent problems, regardless of whether or not it disenfranchises certain voting groups.

the 2000 election was rife with stories of felons on voter rolls, college students voting multiple times, etc.

Yes, but how will requiring a picture ID solve these problems? Will it magically clear up the voter rolls? Will it keep people from registering to vote in two counties? Are we going to disallow absentee ballots? How will this even be enforceable? (The secret is, all the enforcement is going to be at the state/local level - poorer states will have fewer resources for subsidised ID cards...)
posted by muddgirl at 11:42 AM on September 21, 2006 [3 favorites]


muddgirl: Hells yes. This thread could not be a clearer example of the efficaciousness of hijacking the vote security issue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:43 AM on September 21, 2006


Law enforcement is the enemy of the _poor_. If you don't know this and are over the age of 21 I'm guessing you've never been poor. Blacks are disproportionately poor in America.
posted by Mitheral at 2:28 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


So are Hispanics. So is the white population of West Virginia and Mississippi.

The solution is Xs on paper, but that ain't sexy and won't fill the needs of CNN and Fox.
posted by Mitheral at 2:39 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


No, that isn't the solution. Who is going to sit there and count x's on a paper? Try to count more than 100 of anything and you'll being to wonder if you lost count, skipped the sixties, etc. Secondly, how are you going to deal with the complaints of arthritis and whatever, preventing people from putting x's where they want.

The punchcard system was developed in response to problem with the kind of system you are talking about.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:44 AM on September 21, 2006


Look, you can't show up naked to the polls, right? So you have to buy clothes at some point and wear them when you vote. Is that a poll tax?

You need clothes to go outside. If you have no need to drive a car, you have no need for a driver's license, and requiring a driver's license to vote is a poll tax.
posted by oaf at 11:51 AM on September 21, 2006



When I was a child, I remember hearing about literacy tests for would-be voters and thinking that that was a good idea--shouldn't people be able to read to vote? Only when I was a tad older, when the history of such tests was explained--and the tests were outlawed--did I understand how the political establihsment would do anything, including cloaking bad policy in logical-sounding rules, to keep some people from voting. Given what happened in many urban areas in 2004 and the continuing Diebold disaster, we shouldn't be putting up any barricades to voting. Do we really have a problem with lots of illegals trying to vote? Have I missed something?
posted by etaoin at 11:51 AM on September 21, 2006


The "voter fraud" this is supposed to prevent is akin to counterfeiting pennies.
posted by sourwookie at 11:52 AM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel writes "What? Why? Are you saying most blacks have outstanding arrest warrants? If so, don't you want them arrested? OR would you prefer a healthy fugitive population?"

Many members of the Jewish persuasion (especially the older ones) would get nervous if you stopped them and demand that they show their papers, but that doesn't imply that they "have outstanding arrest warrants." It's your own mind and prejudices within it that are filling the blanks here PB.
posted by clevershark at 11:53 AM on September 21, 2006


Actually, this thread is a great demonstration of why there needs to be a basic skills test to allow you to vote, but that obviously is never going to happen.

The real problem here is that we have elections that where the outcome is within the margin of error. In this case, you will alwasy have fraud and disenfranchisement allegations because the hope is to create ambiguity over a number of votes = the margin of victory, and ther is no way to verify that these charges would change the outcome, because there is no way to count the votes a subsequent time that magically reduces the error.

Furthermore, in the very close two party contests we've seen recently, it means that the voting is useless. It would be just as fair to decide those elections over a coin toss, because the electorate is just as undecided.

One the one hand, we should be asking if the two parties are accurately representing the views of the public, or if they are simply oversimplifying every issues into a binary choice, stripping away and nuance, and sophistication in the platforms. On the other hand, it makes you question the quality of the electorate, and whether from a practical standpoint you want that electorate's voice to be heard, when decades old drug use and minor moral issues are somehow more important than substantive issues that will occupy the incoming adminstration.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:54 AM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel, people count X's in Canada. It's not that hard to do. Our democracy hasn't fallen apart yet, and people never complain of corruption up here.

Punchcards were developed to handle census data if I am not mistaken. How many votes are going to be cast at a particular school? How many people are there to help count? Do we really need computers doing this? And if so, are the machines used in America the best? America should look to India to learn a thing or two about electronic voting.

Secondly, how are you going to deal with the complaints of arthritis and whatever, preventing people from putting x's where they want.

Are you for real? Fuck...

I think Americans should just let their country turn to shit, and then start over.
posted by chunking express at 11:54 AM on September 21, 2006


chunking express writes "Pastabagel, people count X's in Canada. It's not that hard to do. Our democracy hasn't fallen apart yet, and people never complain of corruption up here."

Also, we vote one day and find out who won that same night. Imagine that.
posted by clevershark at 11:57 AM on September 21, 2006


Who is going to sit there and count x's on a paper?

Canada.

people never complain of corruption up here

Gomery would like a word with you.
posted by oaf at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2006


Many members of the Jewish persuasion (especially the older ones) would get nervous if you stopped them and demand that they show their papers, but that doesn't imply that they "have outstanding arrest warrants." It's your own mind and prejudices within it that are filling the blanks here PB.
posted by clevershark at 2:53 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


You're confusing two different things. I'm against the notion of having to show ID, and a national ID card in general. I was arguing about whether or not it is disenfranchisement of blacks to require everyone getting a photo ID to do so at a police station. There are too completely different things, because in the papers case, the authority is pre-selecting who gets asked. In the latter case, you walk in, and it's open to everyone.

If your suggesting that blacks may be uncomfortable around the police, that may be true, but the solution isn't to keep the police away from blacks.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2006


Actually, this thread is a great demonstration of why there needs to be a basic skills test to allow you to vote, but that obviously is never going to happen.

Why don't you tell us all how we've demonstrated a lack of relevant 'basic skills', which you presumably have.

The "voter fraud" this is supposed to prevent is akin to counterfeiting pennies.

Meanwhile, the cops are invested heavily in Acme Paper, Engraving & Printing.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2006


Actually, this thread is a great demonstration of why there needs to be a basic skills test to allow you to vote, but that obviously is never going to happen.

Why don't you tell us all how we've demonstrated a lack of relevant 'basic skills', which you presumably have


Touchy touchy. I meant that if people in FL could have read and used the stupid ballot properly, we'd be discussing none of this. I didn't mean that the people here lacked basic skills.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:17 PM on September 21, 2006


Here in Ohio, we have House Bill 3 to contend with this election season. Among other things, the new law requires that a photo ID be presented to vote. Because of the new voting provisions, there will chaos, long lines, confusion and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day this year. And why not? This disenfranchisement strategy worked great for Bush/Blackwell in the 2004 elections. Why throw out the playbook when you happen to be in charge of the election and running for governor?

Here are some interesting stats to chew on (via):
  • A recent study found that in over 9 million votes cast in the 2002 and 2004 general elections, there were only 4 proven cases of voter fraud in the entire state of Ohio. U.S. Justice Department investigations nationally also turned up "minimal" evidence of voter fraud.
  • From Ohio Census data and a detailed study from the University of Wisconsin it is estimated that 738,436 adult Ohioans have neither driver's license or state ID. Of these, 350,531 are 65 years or older. Many of these citizens with neither form of photo ID will show up at the polls with no other identification, and half of them will be over 65. For instance, if only 5% of these adults failed to bring their other identification with them, we would turn back nearly 37,000 legitimate voters (half of them elderly), forcing them to go back and return with their identification or vote provisional ballots which have a risk of rejection for trivial reasons.
  • From the University of Wisconsin study we know that four classes of citizens stand out because they are substantially less likely to have licenses or state ID: they include the elderly (23% don't have photo IDs); youth 18-24 including college students with non-local ID's, African Americans and Hispanics (about 50% don't have photoID, and the percentage is still higher in young adults). The homeless should also be included as likely to face disenfranchisement.
  • Many of those who move more frequently will not have current photo ID addresses. We know from US census data, that moving is 6 times more frequent in young adults than older adults, twice as frequent in those with low than high incomes, and 50% more frequent in minorities than non-minorities. In other words, the new ID requirement in HB3 will doubly tend to disenfranchise voters who are young, poor, or minority - first because they are less likely to have a photo ID and secondly because, if they do, it is less likely to be current because they have recently moved.
If you live in Ohio, Vote Absentee! This is the first year for "no-fault" absentee voting in Ohio, allowing all voters to cast an absentee ballot for any reason.

posted by Otis at 12:26 PM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel writes "Who is going to sit there and count x's on a paper? "

America has more party workers per capita than any one else I know. Put them to work. Every polling station has a representative from each party and they get together and count the votes after the polls close. You have one federal election employee acting as referee (who by the way isn't campaign manager for one of the parties!).

This is how Canada does it. By the way few polling stations count even a thousand votes. Because you don't need capital intensive machines, only cardboard boxes, you can make the polling stations smaller and more numerous. Even at peak times I've never waited more than five minutes to cast a vote though I've heard of people waiting 20-30 minutes.

It's a bit harder in American because you all vote for so many different things at the same time. However that could be managed quite easily in a serial manner where you deposit your ballot for one thing and get a ballot for the next issue.

And if it takes three days to count who cares? As long as you've got it done by January your good to go.
posted by Mitheral at 12:29 PM on September 21, 2006


long before i got my driver's license, i went to the county courthouse and got a FREE photo ID so i could travel between states and out of the country. its NOT a hard requirement to fill. this bill is NOT a bad idea.

Are you even an American? First of all, you don't need a photo ID, or anything else, to travel between states. Secondly, most states charge a fee for even non-driver IDs. Thirdly you need a passport to get between countries, although with Mexico and Canada you can supposedly get by with just a driver's license.

People tend to think the government works the same way everywhere in the U.S. that it does in their own state. In fact, local government varies wildly.

Doorstop, I think the national ID is a very bad idea, because it will very quickly lead to the requirement that (a) they have RFID which we all know can be read remotely, and (b) you have to keep the ID on you at all times when you are out in public. This means police stopping you on waling on the sidewalk and asking to "see your papers".

But that's the beauty. They don't need to ask, they can just scan you remotely!

Why is this about blacks all of a sudden.

All of a sudden? This has been going on for decades.

Again, a lot of cops are black too.

How does this disprove the idea that many or most cops can be racist? It doesn't at all, and it's absurd to suggest that it does.

I agree the machines are capable of being used for fraud, but they are replacing the stupid punchcard systems, with their pregnant and hanging chads, and bureaucrat divining the intent of the voter. Voters, at least in Florida, have proved too stupid to use a butterfly ballot, so that very simple, very trackable system has to be tossed out because of dumb people. The election agencies there also proved too stupid to be able to conduct a recount. Again, stupid people in government are at fault.

What's up with this idiotic "either touch screens or punch cards" thing? We want paper, optical scan ballots, which the optimal solution. Why would you ever want to vote with a sub optimal solution?

Anyway, the issue of cops is a distraction, because you can get regular photo ID (not a driver's license) at the DMV, which last I checked isn't staffed by cops.

In Texas, you have to check in with a cop before you get a license or ID at the DMV. So I guess you didn't "check" very hard.

No, that isn't the solution. Who is going to sit there and count x's on a paper?

Computers. Duh. But unlike touch screens there will be a paper record that can't hacked. If it turns out your counting computer was hacked, you can just recount the ballots with another machine.

Touchy touchy. I meant that if people in FL could have read and used the stupid ballot properly, we'd be discussing none of this. I didn't mean that the people here lacked basic skills.

What the hell are you talking about? The touch screens vs. punch cards has nothing to do with being required to show ID. It's a side debate and one you're trying to poison by implying that touch screens are the only alternative to punch cards, which is totally false.
posted by delmoi at 12:31 PM on September 21, 2006


I think Americans should just let their country turn to shit, and then start over.

We're working on it.
posted by brain_drain at 12:32 PM on September 21, 2006


chunking express writes "Pastabagel, people count X's in Canada. It's not that hard to do. Our democracy hasn't fallen apart yet, and people never complain of corruption up here."

Also, we vote one day and find out who won that same night. Imagine that.
posted by clevershark at 2:57 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


The elections you just had weren't all that close. Talk to me when you have a 49-49 split and the margin of victory is 0.5%. Or just ask Mexico.

And apparently it took until almost 2 am to count less than four million votes million votes in Quebec.

New York had twice as many in 2004, and the results were in, nationwide, before midnight EST.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:33 PM on September 21, 2006


I meant that if people in FL could have read and used the stupid ballot properly, we'd be discussing none of this.

Look, you yourself have said upthread that the real issue in 2000 was the extremely evenly-matched tallies in certain districts. If a voter has a problem with the casting method, whatever it is, they can get help from the volunteers.

The machines do nothing to address any of these problems and introduce an entire new class of vulnerabilites into our voting infrastructure. The picture ID requirement does nothing to address any of these concerns and is liable to prevent a substantial number of people from voting.

What is so difficult here?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:34 PM on September 21, 2006


America has more party workers per capita than any one else I know. Put them to work. Every polling station has a representative from each party and they get together and count the votes after the polls close. You have one federal election employee acting as referee (who by the way isn't campaign manager for one of the parties!).

Canada seems a lot less partisan then the U.S. I really don't think that would work at all.

But what would work is optical scan paper ballots, with scanners that tell you if a ballot is bad so that the voters can fill out a new one if they screwed up (making the vote even more accurate then ones which are hand counted after the fact).

This is, as far as I can tell, the best solution for voting. The immediate feedback and easy countability of touch screens with the recountability of paper ballots.
posted by delmoi at 12:38 PM on September 21, 2006


even if it's free it still increases the opportunity cost of voting. fine if you have disposable time in your life. not so good if you have a kid and work full time.
posted by jmarq at 12:40 PM on September 21, 2006


In New Hampshire, you can register to vote on election day. If you don't have proof of citizenship and domicile, you can fill out affidavits attesting to both. Those affidavits can be challenged, and of course you're subject to fines if you fill them with false info (can you not do this in states without same-day registration?). You'd think that'd be fertile ground for fraud, but no. Though a few years back the Republicans got all fired up about college students coming here from out of state and voting, and inserted language into the domicile affidavit warning that a student could lose his scholarships or tuition status if he signed the thing. That language has since been removed. Still no fraud.

Are the backers of this ID plan offering up any substantive, comprehensive data to back up their fraud claims?
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:42 PM on September 21, 2006


What the hell are you talking about? The touch screens vs. punch cards has nothing to do with being required to show ID. It's a side debate and one you're trying to poison by implying that touch screens are the only alternative to punch cards, which is totally false.
posted by delmoi at 3:31 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


I'm going to have an aneurysm. I realize that touch screens have nothing to do with ID. My point is that all of these voting issues ID, and touchscreens, which again I realize are not related directly, are all related to the problems from 2000, in the sense that had the punchcard nonsense not occurred in 2000, we wouldn't be talking about IDs for voting now, because nobody would consider the voting process to be an issue. Get it? Got it? Good.

sonofsamiam - in 2000, people admitted they did NOT ask for help, but realized after they left that they may have voted for the wrong person because the ballot was confusing, AND this occurred in those very close districts in FL.

People, i.e. the Democrats, started blaming the punchcard ballot, and we all because convinced somehow that the butterfly punchcard ballot is deceptive and defective, despite decades of use. You can't replace it with something simple, so you have to have the latest technology.

I agree with everything you say about electronic machines vulnerabilities, and the fact that ID has nothing to do with it. The reason we are hearing about both of these things now is because the mechanics of voting itself is an isses, i.e. the process of voting, the machines you use etc., the procedures when you get to the polling place, etc. are an issue right up there with the debt and the war.


Canada seems a lot less partisan then the U.S. I really don't think that would work at all.


Canada also has four viable political parties. So even if the vote is close, no single party can claim they would have won but for the victor's fraud they way the loser in a two party system can.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:45 PM on September 21, 2006


Though a few years back the Republicans got all fired up about college students coming here from out of state and voting, and inserted language into the domicile affidavit warning that a student could lose his scholarships or tuition status if he signed the thing. That language has since been removed. Still no fraud.

That's so odd. It is legal for collage students to vote locally.
posted by delmoi at 12:46 PM on September 21, 2006


But what would work is optical scan paper ballots, with scanners that tell you if a ballot is bad so that the voters can fill out a new one if they screwed up (making the vote even more accurate then ones which are hand counted after the fact).

Optical scanners are computers, and any computer can be hacked. They have been in use in the US long before 2000 as well.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:47 PM on September 21, 2006


Here's a direct link to the University of Wisconsin study menioned in my comment above:

The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin

I fail to see how race plays into this.
posted by enamon at 12:17 PM EST on September 21

From the report:

Minorities and poor populations are the most likely to have drivers license problems. Less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults in the Balance of State
(BOS, i.e., outside Milwaukee County). The situation for young adults ages 18-24 is even worse -- with only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County with a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the Balance of State.

posted by Otis at 12:48 PM on September 21, 2006


I'm going to have an aneurysm. I realize that touch screens have nothing to do with ID. My point is that all of these voting issues ID, and touchscreens, which again I realize are not related directly, are all related to the problems from 2000, in the sense that had the punchcard nonsense not occurred in 2000, we wouldn't be talking about IDs for voting now, because nobody would consider the voting process to be an issue. Get it? Got it? Good.

You seriously think this wouldn't be an issue if not for FL in 2000? How about Ohio in 2004? No punch card mess, but lots and lots of other relating to Diebold and to disenfranchisement Also touch screens are not a reaction to 2000, it's just that 2000 put caused everything to be put under a microscope. People actually voted on diebold touch screens in 2000 (although not in Florida)
posted by delmoi at 12:49 PM on September 21, 2006


Otis, that merely states that they don't have a license now. As has been said throughout, you don't have to have a driver's license, you can have a state issued photo ID that isn't a driver's license.

And the quote's use of valid license includes people who had a license and had it revoked or didn't renew it after it expired.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:50 PM on September 21, 2006


Optical scanners are computers, and any computer can be hacked.

Yes, just like punch card readers. We have been using electronic voting machines in this country for decades, if not a century.

They have been in use in the US long before 2000 as well.

Yeah I know that. Why do you think I don't know that? My first vote in 1998 was on optical scan machine. Think they're great and that everyone should use them.
posted by delmoi at 12:52 PM on September 21, 2006


delmoi, I really don't. The 2004 issues may have gotten some attention, but there were lawyers in place in 2004 on behalf of either party prepared to hear complaints about voting issues because of what happened in 2004.

And don't get me wrong, maybe this is a good thing. If fraud is working it's way into the system, maybe the idiocy of 2000 was a good thing because it focused attention on the whole process.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2006


Am I the only one who has a drivers license but always chooses the sign the affidavit rather than show it to poll workers?

I can't be the only person who thinks that displaying an ID that I paid the government for is a poll tax and refuses to do it.

Its a good thing the racists of the south didn't have DIOS as a lawyer in the 60's "Sorry Boy! you can't vote until you pay this fee to enter the polling place, and this fee for voting materials, and this fee for a 15 foot lenght of rope" "no sirreee no taxes here just fees"
posted by Megafly at 1:02 PM on September 21, 2006


Also, on the Ohio 2004 issue, I'm looking at the exit polling results and am confused by how anyone looking at them would have thought that Kerry should have won.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:02 PM on September 21, 2006


I've linked to this article several times here, but it's quite good and summarizes a lot of the dirty tricks that went on during the Ohio election: None Dare Call it Stolen.
posted by chunking express at 1:03 PM on September 21, 2006


dios writes "It is axiomatic that '(e)lection laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters,' Burdick v. Takuski [sic], 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S. Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed. 2d 245 (1992).

Because law can't, but impose burdens ? I don't see where the axiomatic necessity of burden exist, but in the brain of whoever tought that. Maybe he meant to say
"restriction" ..that isn't necessarily true, but would make some sense as regulation is still not the same as NO regulation at all. DOH.

Thus, the imposition of tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax.

Obvious ...or not ?

By analogy : given that election regulation impose some burden on voter , burden imposition don't trasform regulation in taxation.

Let's see : give that (A causes B) therefore (B doesn't trasform A in Z)

Ok..sure. Why not. Ah ah..clear. NOT..what the.......?

Moreover, the cost of time and transportation cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same 'costs' also result from voter registration and inperson voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax

Well I could just make a law imposing everybody to go to the one and only voting booth in a State, which would fall under regulation and not tax. Wait I can do better, I can impose extravagant requirements, such as reciting the national hymn in metric, twice in a row with only one pause for breathing. No tax..no tax indeed. Except that a burden comparable to a tax could be that imposed by a government/private power entity but NOT be measure in money or extolled in money ; the effect wouldn't be identical, but would cause a cost, resulting in the same effect of a tax, except that it would monetarily benefit the state or private power entity.
posted by elpapacito at 1:05 PM on September 21, 2006


problem, the 2000 election was rife with stories of felons on voter rolls, college students voting multiple times, etc.

I don't think you know what the word rife means.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:05 PM on September 21, 2006


delmoi writes "Yes, just like punch card readers. We have been using electronic voting machines in this country for decades, if not a century. "

People have worshipped bovines as divine being for thousand of years, that doesn't make them any less gullible. Tradition doesn't prove the tradition itself is sane or good or bad or anything.
posted by elpapacito at 1:08 PM on September 21, 2006


dios writes
"It is axiomatic that '(e)lection laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters,' Burdick v. Takuski [sic], 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S. Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed. 2d 245 (1992).
By analogy : given that election regulation impose some burden on voter , burden imposition don't trasform regulation in taxation.

Let's see : give that (A causes B) therefore (B doesn't trasform A in Z)

Ok..sure. Why not. Ah ah..clear. NOT..what the.......?


That's why it's an axiom, because axioms are where you start a logical proof, they don't need any support.
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM on September 21, 2006


Y'know, as dumb as this bill is, we all know it won't pass the Senate, so it doesn't matter.

Let the partisan hacks pretend that it's not politically motivated if they want to lie to themselves. It doesn't matter.

Besides, people like dios and pastabagel have no interest in seeking truth. They are just waving their arms, and trying to distract from the obvious truth that this bill is meant specifically to help the Republicans in November.

Besides, it's easier to call you the loony left if you're arguing about showing id, than it is if you're arguing that the administration is a failure in every possible important way.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:11 PM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel, here is another article that sumerizes the issues people had with the 2004 election, and in particular discusses exit polling.
posted by chunking express at 1:12 PM on September 21, 2006


delmoi writes "Yes, just like punch card readers. We have been using electronic voting machines in this country for decades, if not a century
People have worshipped bovines as divine being for thousand of years, that doesn't make them any less gullible. Tradition doesn't prove the tradition itself is sane or good or bad or anything.


Um, so are you saying you don't like optical scan machines? Because that's what I was talking about. Optical scan balots can be read by machinens and humans. The best of both worlds.
posted by delmoi at 1:13 PM on September 21, 2006


this thread sucks.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:15 PM on September 21, 2006


Besides, people like dios and pastabagel have no interest in seeking truth. They are just waving their arms, and trying to distract from the obvious truth that this bill is meant specifically to help the Republicans in November.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 3:11 PM CST on September 21


I said nothing of the sort. So please quit your trolling of me.

Besides....

I love tacos is banned. The i love tacos account has been timed out several times in the past and this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
posted by mathowie at 4:07 PM CST on June 28

posted by dios at 1:18 PM on September 21, 2006


I don't think you know what the word rife means.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:05 PM EST on September 21 [+] [!]


I don't think your memory goes back that far. Look up Marquette University, for a start. And I remind you that gore won WI by 5,400 votes.

And if you spent any time around here at all, you'd have noticed that I don't actually support the republicans in 2006.

chunking - thanks for the link, I knew that article was somewhere but couldn't get to it:

ike many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong.

Well, the exit polls in ohio clearly didn't predict that, but I don't want to get into this now...
posted by Pastabagel at 1:32 PM on September 21, 2006


Don't you need photo ID to participate in things poor people need, like welfare and food stamps and other government programs? And don't poor people, like most people, consume stuff (like alcohol and cigarettes) for which you need to prove your age with some kind of photo ID?

How many people who are actually likely to vote do not have photo ID? And can't those few be given free photo ID, at least as part of any government benefits program? What would it cost to give everyone such a card right there on the spot when they register to vote? Everyone should be given a free photo ID.
posted by pracowity at 1:47 PM on September 21, 2006


I would like to thank the Republicans in the House, because this is a golden opportunity for grassroots Democratic Party activists. We now have a simple and pressing reason--wholly devoid of the usual GOTV-centered hypocrisy, and wholly devoid of any issue that might divide Democrats-- to knock on every door, in every precinct, information in hand, in order to provide our constituents with a vital service. In my opinion, partisan politics doesn't get any better than that.

The "50 State Strategy" just got a nice boost. The whole time we're knocking on doors, we'll be making connections, sorting through our database of voters, and getting ready for 2008 (when the law is first scheduled to take effect). If the Dems can't organize their way around this in 2 years, we deserve to lose.
posted by halcyon_daze at 1:54 PM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel: no offense but you're obviously getting bad data.
posted by delmoi at 2:00 PM on September 21, 2006


There are two sections to this new election bill. The first is the one everybody is arguing about here -- the requirement for photo ID in order to vote. If you think this through, you have to ask what is the problem you are trying to solve. If it were the case that lots of people were walking into polling places and impersonating someone else to vote, you would expect somewhere, someplace you would have heard of a real person also trying to vote and being turned away because someone else had fraudulently voted for them. Have you heard of a single case of this happening recently? Does this really seem to be a common fraud? If not, then the photo ID for voting is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

The second section of the bill pertains to voting registration, not voting itself. This section requires proof of citizenship, not just an ID in order to register to vote. Think about how difficult it is going to be for everyone to prove they are a citizen. What would you need? A passport? A birth certificate? This requirement is probably why this bill is going nowhere in the Senate.
posted by JackFlash at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2006


Thank you, JackFlash, but I don't think anyone is listening to us.

Also, I blame the media (and politicians, I suppose), for skewing this pretty simple issue.
posted by muddgirl at 2:18 PM on September 21, 2006


Pastabagel writes "Canada also has four viable political parties. So even if the vote is close, no single party can claim they would have won but for the victor's fraud they way the loser in a two party system can."

Only in aggregate, the NDP ain't taking a seat in Alberta any time soon for example (best showing EDM- Strathcona where they garnered 32% and trailed the winner by 10%) and the Bloc are only in Quebec. Many of the individual seats across the country are two horse races(Con-Lib, Lib-NDP, Lib-Bloc, PC-Bloc, PC-NDP etc.) with the also ran parties about as influential as the libertatians or greens down south.

Pastabagel writes "Optical scanners are computers, and any computer can be hacked. They have been in use in the US long before 2000 as well."

With simple security precautions it is fairly dificult to hack the original paper which can be recounted in many ways including by hand. A recount of a diebold touch screen machine consists of rechecking the CF card.
posted by Mitheral at 2:28 PM on September 21, 2006


I'd like to think my inherent laziness coincides with national interest when I say, just go to full-on absentee (i.e., snail mail) voting. No, that doesn't solve all the problems, but let's not romanticize the polling place too much. It's usually a pain to get to before it closes, and a bunch of asshats from both parties are shoving material at you. If you have a mailing address, you can vote.

Couldn't be any worse (or corrupt) than letting Diebold run things. And it would save paper and effort on the part of lame GOTV efforts.
posted by bardic at 2:48 PM on September 21, 2006


Couldn't be any worse (or corrupt) than letting Diebold run things.

Oh no? Well, suppose I was an enterprising postal worker and realized I could start making a few extra bucks on the side by swapping out ballots collected on my route with ballots furnished by some political party? How would you audit such fraud in your system? Do we really want to entrust our Democracy to postal workers?

/buffoonery
posted by saulgoodman at 2:59 PM on September 21, 2006


Compared with other professions, I think postal workers are up there with teachers and doctors. Actually, check that -- mail carriers are. The guys at the post office are usually jerks.

When's the last time you baked Christmas cookies for your lawyer?

And if they did fuck with the snail ballots, they'd be liable under Federal law. And having a verifiable mailing address is pretty common -- just ask anyone who has a cell phone or credit card (probably more common than driver's licenses, although I can't imagine how someone in America could live without one of those either).

And you have to like any professional who gets to wear shorts in the summer.
posted by bardic at 3:05 PM on September 21, 2006


When's the last time you baked Christmas cookies for your lawyer?

I got Christmas cookies from my last pro bono client.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:24 PM on September 21, 2006


irregardless of racism, poll tax or other such concerns what this would do in reality would further depress the percentage of people who vote. If for no other reason then sheer laziness. Those that would vote are those that have either the time, or drive to deal with the bureaucracy and paperwork this would involve.
What prior documentation would you need to prove you are a citizen? Birth certificate? Driver's license? anything? Whether or not this is a good idea in theory it would be almost pointless in practice and would do nothing except add more personal data available to various institutions.
Stupid, stupid stupid
posted by edgeways at 3:25 PM on September 21, 2006


delmoi writes "Um, so are you saying you don't like optical scan machines? Because that's what I was talking about. Optical scan balots can be read by machinens and humans. The best of both worlds."

You are making quite a lot of confusion between machines and ballots ; the optical scanner is a computer One can use an optical scanning machine BUT it must come with hand count of every vote fed to the machine and the ballot itself must be saved, not discarded. Now I know that there is practically little or no difference between one party or the other (and that is a problem itself) but people MUST maintain trust that their voice can be heard with a civilized, rational, verifiable method. Means to an end matter, Diebold or an y other voting machine is clearly giving in to fraud.
posted by elpapacito at 3:26 PM on September 21, 2006


Oh, we're off in tangent-land, helped by certified dim-bulbs like pastabagel.

What JackFlash said. Voting is based upon positive identification: you go in and say 'I'm A.B. and I'm here to vote'. Now, if your name is Snuffaluffabus Q. Rectum III, you're going to get crossed off the list. If you're John Smith, you're probably going to have to volunteer an address. And if you're claiming to be 87-year-old Maria Gomez when you're a young white guy, then etc.

Anyway, the $64k question: in which situations does voter fraud actually occur? Postal ballots -- most of all, elderly people voting on behalf of a recently-deceased spouse.
posted by holgate at 3:57 PM on September 21, 2006


My mom thinks I'm a cool dude.

Your point?
posted by bardic at 4:02 PM on September 21, 2006


(Somewhat off topic, I needed a second form of ID in addition to a driver's license recently. My passport is expired, so I decided hey, I'll just ask my dad where my SS card or birth certificate are.

Well, he doesn't have them. And he's usually pretty organized. And since I was born in Louisiana, my paper records might not even exist any longer thanks to Katrina. Which is just to say, that nagging voice that tells you to put that stuff in a safe place? Listen to it and save yourself trouble down the road. Either that, or I've heard you can get fakie ID docs pretty easily. Not too surprising.)
posted by bardic at 4:06 PM on September 21, 2006


Some people call it a poll-tax, I call it a kaiser tax mmm-hmm.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:52 PM on September 21, 2006


Holgate, I'm not sure, but you may have missed my point distinguishing between fraud during registration and fraud during voting. Where is the evidence that positive identification is needed for voting? If it were the case that thousands of people were impersonating others in order to vote, you would expect thousands of real people screaming bloody murder when they tried to vote and were prohibited because an impersonator had already voted for them. You don't hear people screaming, therefore it isn't happening. This is all a red herring brought up by the Republicans in order to raise the hurdles for poor people voting. No ID -- sorry, you can't vote today.

Now fraud during registration -- I can see how that could occur. But impersonation at the polls -- I don't even know how you would approach that. Even if you could get a list of registered voters for each precinct, would you just go to the polls and start rattling off names from your list until they found one that hadn't voted yet? Oh, yeah, that one, that's me. The whole concept is ridiculous.
posted by JackFlash at 5:05 PM on September 21, 2006


You are making quite a lot of confusion between machines and ballots ; the optical scanner is a computer One can use an optical scanning machine BUT it must come with hand count of every vote fed to the machine and the ballot itself must be saved, not discarded. Now I know that there is practically little or no difference between one party or the other (and that is a problem itself) but people MUST maintain trust that their voice can be heard with a civilized, rational, verifiable method. Means to an end matter, Diebold or an y other voting machine is clearly giving in to fraud.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. A hand count system assumes that people can actually count ballots accurately, and I don't think that they can. It doesn't matter as much in Canada, because the elections aren't close enough to worry about error.

I think fear of any kind of electronic voting is a little misguided. The problem with touch screens is that there is no way to double-check the results. It's important that votes can be double checked by hand, but I really don't think getting rid of all electronics in voting is a good idea.

Basically what I think is needed is a way to double check and election if doubts arise.

And yes this is a question about ballots as well, as not all paper ballots are machine readable.

And yes this is irrelevant to the spesific topic of the thread, voter ID, not voter fraud.
posted by delmoi at 6:00 PM on September 21, 2006


The Dems are canvassing my area, taking mail-in ballot forms for people who are agreeable to the Maryland Democratic ticket. They won't get too many people saying no around here.
posted by zennie at 6:25 PM on September 21, 2006


delmoi writes "It doesn't matter as much in Canada, because the elections aren't close enough to worry about error. "

We've had a few nail biters.
posted by Mitheral at 6:51 PM on September 21, 2006


Where is the evidence that positive identification is needed for voting?

Perhaps I was being loose with the term. What I mean is that when you show up to vote, standard procedure is to tell someone who you are and it's cross-checked. Canadian law is pretty clear in that regard: even if you don't have anything to identify you, you can swear or affirm your identity. But you're right--

"Father Hairy Cakelinum? Father Ebula Conundrum? Father Peewee Stairmaster? Father Tight Head Lips? Father Jemima Racktouey? Father Jerry Twig? Father Spodo Komodo? Father Canabrana Lammer? Father Todd Unctious?"

Nah, doesn't happen. Voting by post for your family, on the other hand...
posted by holgate at 7:10 PM on September 21, 2006


Previously, on "Republican Solution in Search of a Problem":

Iraq is an imminent threat! INVADE!

Social Security is going bankrupt! PRIVATIZE IT!

Our flag is threatened! PASS A FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT!

Video diagnosis confirms our assumptions! SAVE TERRI SCHIAVO!

This week:

Elections are rife with voter fraud! REQUIRE ID!

Tune in next week for a Very Special Episode 8482; of "Republican Solution in Search of a Problem", where our intrepid heros -- the GOP Invent-A-Crisis Team -- hypes and solves yet another non-existent problem. Don't miss it.
posted by edverb at 7:27 PM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


our intrepid heros -- the GOP Invent-A-Crisis Team -- hypes and solves yet another non-existent problem.

Sorta related from WaPo:
Ehrlich Wants Paper Ballots

A Republican not trusting Diebold? Guess that means some Republicans are addressing REAL voting problems.
posted by bugmuncher at 10:21 PM on September 21, 2006


Overall I have to say I am against the idea, but NOT because I think it's a poll tax. (Not even close, in my opinion.)

I'm against it because I have lived in two states where getting a license or ID took ridiculously long.

In Maryland where i grew up, you could take your ID with you when you left the DMV.

In New York, you get your picture taken and they give you a piece of paper with no photo that you're supposed to carry until your license arrives in the mail. And it will look like junk mail, and you won't open it for months. Always. Yay NEW YORK!

So if the election happens before the license arrives, you're screwed.

(If you move in-state, you can write an address change on the back. no biggie.)

In Mississippi, the license-granting authority (state police? I dunno) was in my town 2 days a month. It's hardly reasonable to expect anyone to change an out-of-state license to a Mississippi license when the office is closed 90% of the time..

In all cases I take my passport with me for idenrification when I vote. It's a responsible thing to do... but if I didn't have a passport, I wouldn't want to be locked out of voting. And that's why I am opposed to this legislation (which I admittedly have not read). Until they can guarantee access to ID-granting institutions in every town of every state, requiring state photo identification to vote is a bad idea.
posted by bugmuncher at 1:11 AM on September 22, 2006


Some people call it a poll-tax, I call it a kaiser tax mmm-hmm.
posted by Smedleyman


And we have a winner!! (biscuits and mustard, mmm-hmm)

But wait, we have a later entry with edverb's amusing and succint "Republican Solution in Search of a Problem!"

The thread is saved from the dim bulbs! ("dim bulbs" being holgate's great contribution)
Woo Hoo!!
posted by nofundy at 7:04 AM on September 22, 2006


Indiana implemented a similar law this year, first applied in our May primary. How they got around the poll tax issue? State ID cards are issued by the BMV free of charge if the person requesting the card states that it is for the purpose of voting. As a Democratic precinct committeeman who predicted gloom and doom with this new law, it actually turned out to be pretty much a non-issue.
posted by AstroGuy at 10:44 AM on September 22, 2006


Just learned something new about Ohio H.B. 3:

There's a new law in Ohio, and it essentially allows poll workers to challenge voters who do not look like them. Largely unknown in the mainstream, it's unnerving immigrant communities.

House Bill 3 passed largely along party lines in January in the Republican-dominated legislature. Gov. Bob Taft signed it into law. The so-called election reform bill allows poll workers to question the citizenship status of people who sound or appear foreign and to demand to see citizenship papers.


From today's Cleveland Plain Dealer.
posted by Otis at 11:33 AM on September 22, 2006


The so-called election reform bill allows poll workers to question the citizenship status of people who sound or appear foreign and to demand to see citizenship papers.

I said this in another thread here, but I'll just repeat myself here as well: America is a piece of shit country. Damn. I don't live there, and I find in frustrating to read about all this stuff. I can't imagine what it's like to be an actual American. It'd make me crazy I think.
posted by chunking express at 12:46 PM on September 22, 2006


Fraud by voters is virtually unheard of. Fraud relative to votes is documented as being executed the vast majority of the time by officials or technocrats who have some hand in tallying votes, determining voting eligibility, enforcing eligibility guidelines, or any combination of those three.

Relative to the tale of this time-wasting House bill, the frauds--at least intellectually--are the Republican Congressmembers themselves who are arguing that this requirement of a Photo Tax (the term I would offer) stops voter fraud. Voter fraud is a red herring. And I suspect that most or all of these Congressmembers know that. By offering an argument not based on fact and by being disingenuous in offering it, they are behaving dishonorably and deserve shame.
posted by IseFire at 12:08 PM on September 23, 2006


dios: You've been banned before too.

Do you have a point or are you just pointlessly distracting from the obvious main point again?
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:22 AM on September 26, 2006


And if you spent any time around here at all, you'd have noticed that I don't actually support the republicans in 2006.

You're right. I spend very little time on the blue.

As for who you support, I never claimed you supported anybody in particular. I claimed you support controversy, hand-waving and idiocy.

Having read a few of your old posts, it's indisputably true that you are either a troll or a freedom-hating fascist monster.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:26 AM on September 26, 2006


Small update. A federal judge struck down the proof of citizenship requirement in Ohio that I mentioned above.
posted by Otis at 5:24 AM on October 5, 2006


« Older Fun in the city.   |   Branson puts his money where his mouth is Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments