Campaigns/Elections

Voter ID Regulations: Real Problem; Wrong Solution

|

A voter ID law Texas wants to implement is under review today in federal court. USA Today provides the details:

If you don't feel disenfranchised yet, just wait until you read the ballot.

In the lawsuit Texas v. Attorney General Eric Holder, the state asks the court to approve its law requiring that voters produce a government-issued photo card, and also asks the court to strike down a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires states with a history of voter discrimination to get approval for new voter plans. Student IDs are not accepted under the Texas law.

Texas is one of the states required under the Voting Rights Act to have new voting laws cleared in advance by the Justice Department. In March, the federal agency struck down the 2011 Texas law, saying that based on Texas' own data, more than 600,000 of the state's registered voters lack a driver's license or ID card issued by the state's Department of Public Safety and a disproportional amount are Latino, the [Fort Worth] Star-Telegram reports. The Justice Department also maintained that providing free state cards from the public safety agency was not enough because 81 of Texas' 254 counties don't have offices, according to the news agency.

Texas Republicans say the law is necessary to combat voter fraud, while Democrats in the state say the requirement will block thousands of poor, elderly and minority voters from the right to vote. Republicans have said that if Democrats cast fewer votes, it's OK as long as the ID requirement did not target minority voters, the Star-Telegram says.

Some 30 states now require some form of ID in order to vote. There's not a whole lot of evidence that fraud at the polling place is a significant issue, at least not to a degree to justify a state law. The number is not zero, though. There have been a few real cases of voter impersonation. There's a huge logistics flaw, though, in that that a concerted widespread attempt at voter impersonation will often be found out when the real voter attempts to cast his or her ballot, which is exactly what happened in Fort Worth in May:

Hazel Woodard James, 40, is accused of arranging for her son—who was not a registered voter—to vote on behalf of his father. The incident reportedly came to light when the father showed up later in the day to vote in the same precinct, 1211, for which James is now running to be chairwoman.

Prosecutor David Lobingier said the indictment is the first case of election fraud in recent memory in Tarrant County.

"We want to ensure that our vote is sacred," he said. "We don't want people voting who are not entitled to vote. It should be sacrosanct."

Vote fraud is obviously very much a real thing. However, the fraud that needs to be addressed is happening long before votes are actually cast. The real fraud takes place in the registration process, it's a bipartisan affair, and arguably voter ID has nothing to do with the problem and won't fix it.

James O'Keefe and Project Veritas put up a video demonstrating some carefully planned out vote fraud through impersonation in North Carolina in May and is taking credit for their work resulting in the passage of voter ID laws. However, from watching their video, it's very clear that the problem is not that the "imposters" didn't have to provide identification. The problem is that the people they were posing as should not have been registered to vote in the first place:

I'm not trying to diminish their work at all. Anything that shines a light on the many bureaucratic malfunctions in the voter registration and retention process is a public good. I've spent many an Election Day taking phone calls from voters with confusing and baffling experiences at the polls with volunteer workers with inadequate training. The voting process in America is a complete mess.

Identification at the polls is not the problem, though. And if it were, certainly those who would be organizing such an effort would not be put off at the cost of having to spring for some fake IDs to complete the task. The real battle is in who gets put on the rolls, not in who shows up on Election Day.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bioethicist Complains that the Rich Are Getting Breakthrough Cancer Treatments First

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Some 30 states now require some form of ID in order to vote.”

    Will Holder challenge them all?

    1. There are some states that need to hear with the government before changing election laws – this is because said states was actively trying to maintain apartheid.

      As of now, the priority is attacking republicans that try to create as many logistical obstacles to photo ID as possible, be it by demanding a fee or by creating bureaucratic impediments and making it difficult to figure out how to get the ID and vote.

      Libertarian priorities – white dudes try to buy a gun and has to wait for a mental health validation – freedom dies, everything is terrible, nanny-state tyranny.

      Impediments that are skewed to make it harder for non-whites to practice democracy are implemented despite there being no evidence of federal voter fraud ever existing: Meh, whatever, let them stand in line and cough up money.

      Not to mention how the fee for not buying health insurance is a TAAAAX but if there is a fee for getting photo ID it’s not a poll tax.

      It’s almost as if libertarians think some people are born freer than others.

      1. There are some states that need to hear with the government before changing election laws – this is because said states was actively trying to maintain apartheid.

        So, states are not afforded equal protection under the law?

        Seriously, how can this arbitrary enforcement mechanism pass even the most basic constitutional scrutiny?

        1. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the tools needed to break down American apartheid. This was because these states, filled with racist animals who believed “state’s rights” could be used to excuse anything, refused to follow the 15th Amendment, which specifically protects the right to vote from actions “by any state.”

          These states are to this day not entrusted with changing election laws on their own, which apparently is a good idea because the white-trash pieces of shit are still trying to come up with ways to use the spectre of voter fraud to rile up other self-victimizing white dudes (like the average liberartarian) in order to get away with disenfranchising “certain” people.

          1. I’m sorry, but if that were the case, then the people responsible should have been dealt with criminally by the federal laws they were breaking. Destroying the concept of “Equal protection under the law” because of the sins (uncharged- and unconvicted-of, btw)of states a century ago is an absurd stance.

            How would you feel if your rights were curtailed because a relative of yours did something wrong in the 1920’s? That’s exactly what Section 5 of the VRA does, writ large.

            1. The point is they’re still doing it.

              Every single Republican player involved in these ID laws knows that the point is to suppress likely Democratic voters. It’s a poll tax with one thin extra layer of trumped-up justification.

              1. Citation needed

              2. That’s absurd, Tony, and you know it. The increase in illegal immigration in the past decade and a half has opened us up to a lot of potential voter fraud, especially in states where that immigration has been highest. And those are the states under the purview of the VRA.

                Now the merits of our immigration policy can be debated ad nauseum, but the requirements for ID are one sure-fire way to keep illegal immigrants from voting en masse, and that has Team Blue pissed off since they will be reliably in their corner.*

                *I have no idea why since the Obama admin has deported more in under a term than Bush or Clinton each deported in two. Perhaps it’s because he has made so many promises in an attempt to buy their (illegal) votes this campaign season and Romney is too stupid to point out Obama’s dismal record and provide a decent immigration policy of his own.

                1. Still, it’s just a hypothetical potential that isn’t backed up by any evidence, and isn’t really backed up by common sense. There is no incentive to commit voter fraud on an individual basis, and a conspiracy to do it en masse would definitely require some evidence, of which you have none.

                  In contrast, the Republicans are putting their conspiracy to damage the election process on full display.

                  1. Still, it’s just a hypothetical potential that isn’t backed up by any evidence

                    Oh yeah?

                2. “*I have no idea why since the Obama admin has deported more in under a term than Bush or Clinton each deported in two.”

                  Probably to placate the unions in exchange for support for some other pro-illegal-alien stuff he’s doing. Remember the democratic party is a coalition of both left and right wing elements.

              3. “Every single Republican player involved in these ID laws knows that the point is to suppress likely Democratic voters.”

                Yes, but are they legitimate Democratic voters?

                1. Exactly. “More than 600,000 of the state’s registered voters lack a driver’s license or ID card issued by the state’s Department of Public Safety” could also mean 600,000 bogus registrations. (Probably not, but who knows how many are legit?)

              4. It’s a poll tax with one thin extra layer of trumped-up justification.

                Poll tax?? We have a voter ID law here, and anyone that needs one can get it free from the state, but Democrats are still hysterically against it. We all know why.

                1. Because it’s an extra, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy between people and their fundamental right to vote?

                  How libertarians can possibly favor this is unfathomable. So it’s good to see which of you are just team red shills.

        2. “So, states are not afforded equal protection under the law?”

          Someone around here once said that states don’t have rights, although you could make a case that the people of those states losing the equal (to those in other states) right to enact the laws the choose.

      2. Meh, whatever, let them stand in line and cough up money.

        Are you talking about Obamacare?

      3. Not to mention how the fee for not buying health insurance is a TAAAAX

        You fucking moron. That’s what the Supreme Court said it was in order to make it “constitutional.” Do you want it to be constitutional or not?

        1. Yes, but it was called a “TAAAAX” by libertarians even before SCOTUS agreed with them, while the fee for getting photo ID is like, psht, whatever to libertarians.

          This is, once again, because libertarians despise democracy and especially how it allows people to vote for sustained welfare expenditures. Libertarians, knowing they can hide behind the excuse of combating voter fraud, are allying with republicans to disenfranchise as many people as possible.

          VOTER FRAUD!!! : Getting rid of non-white and poor voters :: WMDS! MUSHROOM CLOUD : Invading Iraq. Difference is that this time around libertarians like what the republicans are doing and so they parrot talking points like “Photo ID is used for lots of stuff!” and “It’s so cheap! Those welfare-receiving animals don’t value voting anyway!”

          1. while the fee for getting photo ID is like, psht, whatever to libertarians

            But in this case, and in many others, there is no fee for getting the voter ID. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

            1. “But in this case, and in many others, there is no fee for getting the voter ID.”

              If the only way to get the ID is to take time of from work and spend some gas getting to the office, I’m afraid it is.

              And, of course, since there is no actual voter fraud in federal elections, any change to current registration and ID requirements are automatically dubious and probably suggested in bad faith.

              But, as Juice points out, libertarians don’t value the right to vote and resent the exercise of it, so you will continue to spout republican party-line phrases while continuing to plead good faith.

              1. How many jobs can you get without an ID, shitheel?

                BOTH of my jobs required me to present my drivers’ license, and my SS card.

                If I’d told them “fuck off, if I can vote without an ID, you can fuck-well hire me without ID”, I would not have *either* job.

                But, like a midget going through a turnstile… it’s over your head.

              2. If the only way to get the ID is to take time of from work and spend some gas getting to the office, I’m afraid it is.

                The same can be said for the imposition of actually going to the polling place and casting a vote.

                And, of course, since there is no actual voter fraud in federal elections, any change to current registration and ID requirements are automatically dubious and probably suggested in bad faith.

                So you’re saying all current systems in place are adequate and must be made permanent? Funny considering there are are 50 states with varying requirements, yet you say and further requirement by any of them would be wrong.

                But, as Juice points out, libertarians don’t value the right to vote and resent the exercise of it, so you will continue to spout republican party-line phrases while continuing to plead good faith.

                I value the right to vote and do not resent the exercise of it. And if you think I’m spouting Team Red phrases, then you’re more fucked up in the head than I originally thought.

                Seriously, your arguments are Team Blue boilerplate, pure and simple. They’ve been making them for a century and a half when the true history of racism and disenfranchisement in this country can be firmly placed at their feet, from the treatment of Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 1800’s to the present day enslavement of blacks and hispanics through welfare blackmail programs.

                1. ‘Apparently’ an idiot.

                  1. Oh, it’s very apparent.

                2. “The same can be said for the imposition of actually going to the polling place and casting a vote.”

                  This is because this is *necessary* to make the one-person, one-vote concept possible given the circumstances. The new IDs and the time/money are *not* necessary since there is no evidence of voter fraud in federal elections.

                  “So you’re saying all current systems in place are adequate and must be made permanent”

                  Only until they are shown to be flawed. Permanence is not required.

                  “the present day enslavement of blacks and hispanics through welfare blackmail programs.”

                  Hey, not our fault that working honestly in this country makes so little money that scraping by on welfare is not so much worse.

                  1. Do you mean to imnply that only those that earn low wages are “working honestly”? Tell that to the engineers, doctors, accountants, auctioneers, farmers, construction workers, etc that earn a good wage.

                    And tell it to the unionized firemen and police officers you love so much. I’m sure they’d appreciate you telling them that their work is not “honest.”

                  2. Gosh ‘statist’, your syntax and style is so … eerily familiar.

                  3. there is no evidence of voter fraud in federal elections

                    Some of the evidence you have missed.

              3. “If the only way to get the ID is to take time of from work and spend some gas getting to the office, I’m afraid it is.”

                So you must be really against jury duty.

                I do agree with this “minimal hassle standard” for protection of rights though. Let’s have a look at those hoops for buying a gun again…

              4. Hahahahaha. This comedy bit is golden. Golden I tell ya!

          2. I don’t give a shit about voter fraud. It doesn’t affect me one bit. “Democracy” does affect me, though, and usually in negative ways.

          3. Wow. Are you off your meds?

      4. “apartheid”

        Look up a word before you use it, you stupid cunt.

        BTW, just for shits and grins, I went to a couple of local banks and asked to open checking accounts… but I refused to show them my drivers’ license.

        They politely told me they could not do such things.

        I feel so… violated.

        1. Difference is that they are trying to make driver’s licenses invalid.

          But keep on repeating republican talking points like a little stormtrooper, you are making my point about team-purple/team red confluence very well.

          1. Difference is that they are trying to make driver’s licenses invalid.

            [citation required]

            1. What the fuck are you on about? God, you’re a retarded bitch, statist.

              1. I take it this wasn’t really meant to be in response to me?

                1. Sorry, it was for “Apparently a leftist fucktard”, sloop.

                  1. Damn threaded comments. How do they work?

                    Fuck, we need to get rid of these worthless shitstains like The Statist and Tony and all the others. This place stinks when they show up.

                    1. I kind of like them coming around. It helps maintain a healthy discourse, as opposed to the echo chambers of most partisan sites.

                      That and it reminds me daily what most of the people out there support and what we are up against if we are ever to become free of the parasitic nature of a Team Blue-dominated welfare society or the “exceptional” world’s hall monitor nature of a Team Red-dominated one.

                    2. IF it helped maintain a healthy discourse, you mean.

                      Sorry, sloop, but there is not one of these fuckstains that can use a valid, logical basis for their arguments. Even College-Educated, Better-Than-Everyone Tony, argues from leftist emotionalism.

                    3. No. There’s nothing healthy about tards.

                    4. Even College-Educated, Better-Than-Everyone Tony, argues from leftist emotionalism.

                      Exactly. We need it reinforced every single day that we are not arguing with rational people, but are arguing with emotional creatures that are more concerned with outcome than opportunity, are more concerned with fair or unfair instead of right or wrong, want to create a utopia with force and decry producers that want direct control over the dispersal of their wealth.

                    5. We also have to point out that they are EVIL in their means and intent.

                    6. IOW, sloop, I’m asking for a better class of arguers.

                    7. Good luck with that. As irritating as they can be, they’re still hands-down more rational than most of the natives you can find at dedicated Team Red or Team Blue sites.

                    8. That’s not saying much, ant1sthenes.

                    9. It helps maintain a healthy discourse, as opposed to the echo chambers of most partisan sites.

                      Says the guy who has “beatdown” fantasies about questioners of the prevailing dogma, despite the only beatdown he and I have ever been involved in coming at the hands of Mr. Aaron Rodgers and Jake Ballard.

                    10. I have beatdown fantasies all the time, yet I too appreciate civil discourse. I understand how difficult it can be to keep that horrible, inhuman rage at very, very human ignorance and stupidity(despite our vastly different understandings of what qualifies as ignorant and stupid) in check, especially when opponents make arguments from emotion. That is, however, no excuse for using attacks on character as a primary argument.

      5. god forbid anyone should show an ID in order to vote. It’s a requirement best saved for the critical things:
        –buying booze
        –cashing a check
        –boarding a flight
        –R-rated movies
        and some other things. But let’s worry about it for a trivial matter like voting. I mean, how often can the dead vote really.

      6. Impediments that are skewed to make it harder for non-whites to practice democracy are implemented despite there being no evidence of federal voter fraud ever existing: Meh, whatever, let them stand in line and cough up money.

        Why don’t you just come right out and say “the coloreds are too dumb to get drivers licenses”.

    2. Right after he challenges whomever is responsible for requiring ID to get into the Justice Department.

    3. The ACLU is challenging where the feds can’t. Such as here in PA.

  2. Why is it that James O’Keefe causes such discomfort with libertarians?

    Strange. Very strange.

    James, if you’re listening, keep up the good work. You’re doing far more valuable work than many “libertarians”.

    1. Why is it that James O’Keefe causes such discomfort with libertarians?

      Because he’s a modern day barnum, and we don’t like our political philosophy being associated with a flim-flam artist?

      1. Showmanship and flim-flam aren’t the same thing.

  3. This will be the thread that separates the libertarian men from the Team Red boys.

      1. That’s “tingling mangina”, Putin.

    1. Leaving aside the public/private distinction for a moment, do you think it is a good idea for banks to cash checks without requiring ID?

      The last time I got my plates renewed, I had to show ID before the clerk would take my check. Why might it be a bad idea to take a check from someone without an ID?

      1. Leaving aside the public/private distinction for a moment, do you think it is a good idea for banks to cash checks without requiring ID?

        Non-sequitor. Cashing checks is not a right. Neither is doing business with a bank in any way shape or form. A voluntary commercial transaction is nowhere near the same as a right you have as a citizen.

        Rights are fucking sacred. If you want to deny someone their right to vote, than the burden of proof should fall on the one trying to deny, not force the rights-holder to prove they have the right every time they want to exercise their right.

        If they are registered, and the signature matches then you let them vote unless you have some evidence of shenanigans. There is no reason to force someone to have to get a picture ID in order to exercise their right.

        We haven’t had picture ID requirements for how many years in how many states, yet our republic hasn’t fallen and our elections have not been questioned and the amount of voter fraud is insignificant and trivial. And this is after how many years of giving potential fraudsters time to plot and plan ways to manipulate the vote.

        It’s a “solution” in search of a problem.

        1. “There is no reason to force someone to have to get a picture ID in order to exercise their right.”

          If you want too purge people more likely to vote a way you don’t want, then of course there is a reason.

          For libertarians, this isn’t a great abuse of political power with fascist overtones, which is strange because normally they say *everything* politicians do is a great abuse of political power with fascist overtones.

          I think it has something to do with the fact that more time- and/or money-consuming processes for being able to vote hurts non-whites and the poor, and libertarians hate these people because they vote for sustained welfare expenditures.

          1. For libertarians, this isn’t a great abuse of political power with fascist overtones, which is strange because normally they say *everything* politicians do is a great abuse of political power with fascist overtones.

            No it’s more typical of the libertarian “It’s easy for me, so it must be easy for everyone”, which is a variation of the typical “I got mine, now fuck you, Jack” libertarian dogma.
            It’s pretty funny how on this issue the “libertarians” all of a sudden support forcing people having state issued ID in order to exercise their right.

            Ill tell you what, I would agree with voter ID laws when :

            The ID card is FREE for everyone (not just those who can’t afford it). As is the copy of the birth certificate that will be required to get the ID.

            The ID facility is open in the evenings and on weekends when people who work need.

            And there are a enough facilities in every county in the US to service the people who would need id, and an easy way to get there without owning your own vehicle of having to borrow someones.

            And assistance is provided by the state to help the illiterate, and low-IQ people, etc to properly fill out all the forms.

            Until then, it’s a non-starter.

            Better one hundred fraudulent votes (which isnt really happening) then one person being denied their right to vote. (Just like better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail)

            1. Every fraudulent vote effectively robs a legitimate voter from the other side of their right to vote, CT. Fuck that.

            2. How bout this: every time someone comes in to the voting booth without ID and votes Dem, they call up a Republican to come in and vote again.

              Has anyone had their right to vote denied?

            3. Tell you what, Statist and Chicago, if you cunts and your ilk will agree to keep the federal government within its Constitutional limits, then we will agree to allow anyone who walks in off the street to vote as many times as they like. I’m assuming you would not agree to this, since it’s no fun to rig elections when the results don’t allow you to loop and plunder at will.

              1. “Tell you what, Statist and Chicago, if you cunts and your ilk will agree to keep the federal government within its Constitutional limits”

                Sure thing, now let’s try to define the constitutional limits once and for all, and let’s make sure YOU have nothing to do with that delineation.

                1. Hey, think people will have to leave the house, drive, use gas and time to buy health insurance?

                  1. All that stuff should be paid for, too, Brutus. Otherwise, having to pay rent, car insurance, and buying gas all equal “poll taxes”.

                2. There’s this nifty thing called the Constitution, with supporting documents called the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. That might be a good place to start.

                  Asshole.

        2. Not only do you want to deny voters their sacred right by making them register on some government database, you expect voters to have a signature now? So illiterate voters will now have to go out and take expensive writing lessons before they can vote?

          1. Oh no, perish the thought. Democratic operatives will be happy to help these illiterates vote, just like they were happy to help Hispanic voters in PA vote years ago, showing them which levers to pull and chads to punch. So much so that a judge invalidated the election of the Democrat and installed the Republican in his place.

        3. If they are registered, and the signature matches then you let them vote unless you have some evidence of shenanigans. There is no reason to force someone to have to get a picture ID in order to exercise their right.

          It’s easy to fake the signature. All you do is have the same person sign the registration card as who casts the ballot.

          It’s a lot harder to make fake IDs for every person you are falsely registering.

        4. Full stop. The right to engage in a commercial transaction is WAAAAAAAAAAAY more crucial than the right to pick the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left.

          And why is the registration requirement (which is MUCH more burdensome than the ID requirement) okey-dokey with you folks?

          1. Full stop. The right to engage in a commercial transaction is WAAAAAAAAAAAY more crucial than the right to pick the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left.

            Maybe to a cynical libertarian, but to me, rights are more crucial than voluntary transactions.

            And why is the registration requirement (which is MUCH more burdensome than the ID requirement) okey-dokey with you folks?

            Well I was talking about voter ID laws.

            But since you asked, I support same day registration like many states do, as well as IRV (Instant Run-off voting)

            1. Yes, only cynics could value voluntary transactions over Statist Idol.

              1. Hey, we get to choose Coke or Pepsi, ONCE, EVERY FOUR YEARS.

                And then we have to drink nothing but Coke or Pepsi for the next four years, so I guess we’re free.

                Being able to decide whether to drink Coke or Pepsi, every day, multiple times a day ain’t got nothin on that!

                1. Actually, for many people that live in the real world rather than in a retarded libertarian miasma of cynicism and self-compassion, it’s the difference between drinking water without dangerous pollutants or drinking water so polluted it can catch on fire.

                  I know libertarians think all non-libertarians are filthy non-people that all deserve to be rounded up and shot by Kim-Jong Un, but for some strange reason a vast majority of Americans still think the choice between two non-libertarians is worth defending. Don’t project your own mania onto the general populace, tinfoiler.

                  1. I know libertarians think all non-libertarians are filthy non-people that all deserve to be rounded up and shot by Kim-Jong Un, but for some strange reason a vast majority of Americans still think the choice between two non-libertarians is worth defending. Don’t project your own mania onto the general populace, tinfoiler.

                    ^^THIS^^ is some top-notch performance art, people. Tony, shrike and Mary, take note.

                    1. Sloop, who do you think you’re talking to? Mary was the big one to pull out ‘libertarians somehow = North Korea or Khmer Rouge’, projecting her own totalitarian lusts on us.

                    2. Oh, this is Mary? I thought she was posting as “Stelio Kontos” today.

                      I’m so confused…

                    3. Oh, this is Mary? I thought she was posting as “Stelio Kontos” today.

                      No, this other one is a short, bitter, little man.

            2. The belief that consenting adults do not have a right to freely engage in voluntary transactions has led to untold misery, including prison, for thousands of people.

              One of the main methods of stripping this right has been, and remains, the ballot box.

              Sorry, I’m not going to cry over this. On the list of injustices in the country, this one isn’t even on the first page. Let me know when people start being jailed for trying to vote legitimately.

              1. The belief that consenting adults do not have a right to freely engage in voluntary transactions has led to untold misery, including prison, for thousands of people.

                I believe you are off by, oh, about six orders of magnitude.

                1. Good point, Hazel. I was thinking just about the US.

                  1. You’re still off by at least three orders of magnitude.

                    1. “ilthy non-people that all deserve to be rounded up and shot by Kim-Jong Un, who was a vicious leftist totalitarian thug

                      FIFY’d. No charge.

          2. Good point Tulpa.

        5. Voting is not an absolute right either, at least in the entire history of this country. Your ability to vote can be legally denied for any reason not prohibited in the state or federal constitutions. For example, the 19th amendment didn’t give women the right to vote; it just said that you can’t be denied a vote because of your gender.

        6. “Rights are fucking sacred. If you want to deny someone their right to vote, than the burden of proof should fall on the one trying to deny, not force the rights-holder to prove they have the right every time they want to exercise their right.”

          Casting a fake vote basically cancels out someone’s vote, so failing to reasonably secure the integrity of elections seems just as wrong. And if we’re going by the standard of one person disenfranchised being unacceptable, then one person casting a fraudulent ballot is equally unacceptable.

          Besides which, voting is really more of a collective right than an individual one. Denying a single person their right to life, or a fair trial, or to marry the person of their choosing, or own a gun, or whatever affects them in a very material way. Denying a single person their right to vote (or negating it through fraud) typically doesn’t mean shit — you have to do that in numbers large enough to sway an election for it to matter. Especially given that both being too strict and being too lax cheat people (and The People) of their say, it seems more prudent to focus on the big picture, on the integrity of the election as a whole.

        7. Non-sequitor. Cashing checks is not a right.

          I didn’t say cashing checks is a right, but that strawman won’t be getting up any time soon. There’s a reason banks require ID. What do you think that reason is?

          If you want to deny someone their right to vote…

          Way to beg the question. There is no right to vote illegally.

          If they are registered, and the signature matches then you let them vote unless you have some evidence of shenanigans.

          Which goes to the point of the article, really. A falsified registration is a problem, isn’t it?

          1. I’m not sure why you would have to show your ID to cash a check. They want to make sure you’re the person the check is made out to? Perhaps they’re worried they about customer reactions in case some customers’ stolen checks were cashed? Might be civil liability then, or there could be some state or federal legislation to it, I’m not really sure.

            1. If you put it in an account and it turns out the check was BS, they can just return the funds. If they give you cash, they’re SOL.

        8. Non-sequitor. Cashing checks is not a right.

          He didn’t say it was a right. He asked if it was a good idea.

    2. Ya. Plainly it is un-libertarian to prove you are eligible to vote, and you are who you say you are before voting.

      Only Team Red could be for that.

      And also, it is long known plank of Team Blue that you should not have to show photo-id for anything. That’s why they always fight so hard against Social Security. But Team Red just won’t let fade away.

      1. And also, it is long known plank of Team Blue that you should not have to show photo-id for anything.

        They are also against requiring people to prove they are carrying their health insurance cards before paying taxes …

        And they’re also against making people prove they have the right to work before getting a job …

        And they’re also against making people prove they have the proper permits before renovating a house…

        And they’re also again making people prove they have the correct occupational license before opening a business…

        the Democrats are completely consistent on this. This whole think about supporting people’s right to vote without having to prove they are who they say they are is totally consistent.

        1. Oh yeah, and that whole thing about card check … totally NOT something the Democrats support.

          Who would want to disenfranchise non-union members?

  4. lol, those folks are pretty funny sometimes lol.

    http://www.Big-Anon.tk

  5. “There’s not a whole lot of evidence that fraud at the polling place is a significant issue, at least not to a degree to justify a state law.”

    How could there be? The point of fighting ID is to foreclose evidence.

    1. How about you pony up some evidence before you enact a de facto disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people? Does that horrible consequence not seem like it needs to be rather strongly justified?

      1. First, you pony up osme evidence that it will be a disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people.

        Be sure to explain why someone who can manage to register to vote can’t manage to get a photo ID. Because, if putting any barrier between anyone and the ballot box is disenfranchisement, then why aren’t you attacking the bureaucratic hassle of registration?

        Then, we can talk about whether its a good policy.

        1. Be sure to explain why someone who can manage to register to vote can’t manage to get a photo ID.

          Easy. He’s a vampire.

        2. “Be sure to explain why someone who can manage to register to vote can’t manage to get a photo ID.”

          Registration is free, requires less bureaucracy. Plus, some people are registered already but are rendered ineligible by requirements of new ID.

          False equivalence, again.

          1. Plus, some people are registered already but are rendered ineligible by requirements of new ID.

            Yes, illegal aliens and perpetrators of fraud. They can vote in Somalia.

            1. No, they are made ineligible because they don’t have the new ID, which they are eligible to get, they just haven’t jumped through the republican hoops. And since there is no fraud in federal elections, the hoops are dubious and could only be defended by someone that despises democracy, especially if it allows for the voting in favor of welfare expenditures.

              1. How about we have same-day registration WITH a photo-ID, for everyone?

                Would that make you happy?

                1. “How about we have same-day registration WITH a photo-ID, for everyone?

                  Would that make you happy?”

                  Republicans are not interested in that solution, but yes, I am at first glance in agreement even if there is no voter fraud in federal elections that really justifies the solution.

                  I appreciate that you are not being insane.

                  1. She appreciates you not being anything other than a partisan hack, monkey man.

              2. You still haven’t explained what keeps them from getting an ID in the first place. I can tell you, getting an ID is a lot less hassle than voter registration. And I AM one of those poor voters, so don’t try that “friend of the disenfranchised” crap on me.

          2. I would totally support making getting a State ID free.

            There. Problem solved.

            1. There is a reason why they are fighting this tooth and nail.

        3. First, you pony up osme evidence that it will be a disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people.

          No, how about the people that want to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their rights prove that there is a real problem.

          Then we can discuss if any solution is warranted.

          Why should someone have to show ID? It hasn’t been that way for how many years, but now all of a sudden it’s so essential?

          The people agitating for change are the ones who need to prove a change is necessary. Put up or shut up.

          Lots of people don’t have IDs for whatever reason. They don’t need to justify their reasons to you. You need to justify to them why they need ID.

          1. Why should someone have to show ID?

            So they can prove they actually are the person who is eligible to vote, and vote only once.
            Duh.

            You have to be either severely obtuse or shamelessly disingenuous not to get this.

            1. So they can prove they actually are the person who is eligible to vote, and vote only once.

              I’ve never once had to show ID and those problems haven’t occurred.

              All I have to do is sign the signature card, and I get my ballot. I can not vote again. If my signature doesn’t match then they could question me.

              There are ways to validate your identity without showing a photo ID.

              My CC company does it all the time when I call in for service. THey even let me pay for stuff with a plastic card and they forbid merchants who accept that form of payment from requiring an ID. They simply make me sign it and match the signature every time I use it.

              1. And as we know, credit card fraud is unheard of.

              2. If my signature doesn’t match then they could question me.

                They could question you. But will they actually? How do they pick those people who man the voting booths anyway?

                1. THey even let me pay for stuff with a plastic card and they forbid merchants who accept that form of payment from requiring an ID. They simply make me sign it and match the signature every time I use it.

                  You obviously havn’t read this story:
                  http://forum.bodybuilding.com/…..631page=1

                2. THey even let me pay for stuff with a plastic card and they forbid merchants who accept that form of payment from requiring an ID. They simply make me sign it and match the signature every time I use it.

                  You must have missed the viral article about the guy who drew a penis as his signature. He got away with fake signatures on his credit card for six months before the machine rejected a drawing of a penis.

              3. THey even let me pay for stuff with a plastic card and they forbid merchants who accept that form of payment from requiring an ID. They simply make me sign it and match the signature every time I use it.

                You obviously havn’t read this story.
                http://forum.bodybuilding.com/…..631page=1

          2. The registration requirement disenfranchises way more people than the ID requirement does.

            Not to mention the ballot access laws, which you seem curiously irreligious about compared to the right to vote early and often.

            1. So we should increase disenfranchisement? I think voting should be made as easily accessible as possible, so whatever barriers that are currently in place should be discarded if unnecessary.

              You are advocating for the largest restrictions on voting rights. Libertarianism is sure fucking pick-and -choosy about what it wants government bureaucrats breathing down our necks about.

              1. “Liberalism sure isn’t fucking pick-and -choosy about what it wants government bureaucrats breathing down our necks about.”

                FIFY’d. No charge.

          3. ChiTom, you’re betraying the liberal concept of voting. That the ability to pull a lever or check a box is the most sacred right we have, and all that matters is that we can exercise that activity, even if its influence on the outcome is diluted by fraudulent votes.

            Me? I consider a vote diluted to be a vote denied. Apologies if my cynical utilitarianism disrupts your Statist Idol mystique.

        4. Here you go.

          “These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”

          Your turn!

          Why are you in favor of government agents asking for papers in order to exercise a basic right? Are you a libertarian or aren’t you?

          1. “These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”

            They could also eliminate wide-spread voter fraud.

          2. Firstly, the restrictions also to predominantly affect fraudulent votes.

            Secondly, the article lumps in changes to laws regarding ex-felons, which is an entirely separate issue, and one which I am more amenable to considering as like unto, say, a literacy test (particularly given the ample evidence of discrimination in the system that establishes that status).

      2. “How about you pony up some evidence before you enact a de facto disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people?”

        Spoiler: libertarians want these people to get disenfranchised and their talk about fraud is prevarication. They think the people getting disenfranchised want to vote for welfare, which means they are not “proper” Americans and humans and that any method not obviously illegal is perfectly acceptable as long as it leads to these untermenschen not getting to vote.

        The PPACA now being legal is a slippery slope towards tyranny, but trying to use all legal or quasi-legal opportunities to enact virtual poll taxes and anti-voting bureaucracy targeting the poor or non-white is perfectly acceptable to libertarians. The republicans supply some voter-fraud excuses and scary stories that allow the libertarians to swallow all this with a complacent, fascist smile on their faces.

        1. So you’re in favor of eliminating voter registration.

          1. “virtual poll taxes”

            Learn to use terms correctly, you stupid cunt.

            1. Photo ID individual mandate fee, then. Sorry good sir, won’t happen again.

              1. Gotta have one, unfortunately. And not just for voting.

                We may, one day, live in a world where such things are not necessary – for anything, including voting. But that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

                1. And it still isn’t a poll tax.

          2. Only if it costs money, dear little republican parrot.

            1. Of course, registration doesn’t cost a penny. That’s kind of the point.

              I expect that if some republican were to engineer an excuse to charge a fee for registration, libertarians would probably repeat said excuse as well.

              1. Unions want to get rid of the secret ballot. You okay with that, shitheel?

                1. You will have to explain how that topic is equivalent to this current one.

                  Libertarians want to get rid of the right to unionize, so I believe unions have every reason to fight tooth and nail no matter what libertarians say.

                  1. So, it’s okay if unions want to force voters to show how they voted?

                    Of course you’d say that, being the good little shitheel you are.

                    1. “So, it’s okay if unions want to force voters to show how they voted?”

                      You could always get another job, but there is only *one* sort of federal election. That’s the distinction here – if you want to work, you don’t have to join a union workplace, but if you want to vote then there are no states with transparent ballots and some with opaque ones.

                    2. Way to say, in essence, “unions can do whatever they want to by way of fucking with people”.

                    3. FIFY that’s exactly what you believe employers should be able to do.

                      Modern antiunion legislation is about removing the right of employers and workers to negotiate certain things. Your response to anyone bitching about workplace conditions is for them to go work somewhere else. Same idea with worker rights contracts.

                    4. No, I’m specifically saying union members should get to decide how any portion of their dues are spent on politics – IF at all.

                      Would you be okay with a Jehovah’s Witness being forced to participate in politics? Would you be okay with Democrat union members being forced to pony up to GOP moneybaggers? Or vice-versa? (actually, you’d probably like that one.)

                      Well?

                  2. Libertarians want to get rid of the right to unionize

                    Only when their job is to use force on people (ie working for the state). Otherwise, go be in whatever union you want to be in.

                    1. AND when unions don’t let every member opt out of having their dues spent on political activities.

                    2. Well, if you don’t like where the union spends money, you can leave the union. That gets into the problem of closed-shop states and laws that force you to join a union if you want to do a certain type of work.

                    3. Sorry, Juice, but unions should offer every member the opt-out option when it comes to how dues are spent.

                    4. Why? Does any other type of putatively voluntary organization do the same?

                    5. I don’t know, Juice, but it’s MY money, and I should get to decide how it is spent on politics.

              2. Of course, registration doesn’t cost a penny. That’s kind of the point.

                Aren’t voter ID cards free?

                1. Actually, we’re against forcing people to join unions in the first place, but do tell us some more pro-Democrat bullshit, “apparently”.

                  1. No one is forced to join a union. They join a workplace where they know union dues will be collected, and this is to prevent the free-riding problem.

                    Besides, union dues are used to get you higher wages, so it is in your rational self-interest to pay them voluntarily.

                    1. Wrong and wrong you stupid cunt.

                    2. Not unless everyone forced to pay dues, can decide how any portion of them are spent on political activity.

                      I, for instance, wouldn’t even want MY dues to go to MY party – I’ll spend what I want, where I want, thank you very goddamn much.

                      Now who’s against freedom, shitheel?

                    3. “Now who’s against freedom, shitheel?”

                      The one who wants to make the government allow him to join any kind of work he wants without having to enter voluntary agreements? Again, no one is forcing you to join the workplace in question, so why do you want the government to dictate what conditions you enter into – shouldn’t you and the workplace representatives handle that like adults?

                    4. Again, no one is forcing you to join the workplace in question

                      That sounds a lot like “no one is forcing you to stay in this country. Why don’t you move to Somalia?”

                    5. No, shitheel, I should get to decide how ANY portion of MY dues are spent.

                      But you have a problem with that. I wonder why.

                    6. No one is forced to join a union.

                      Apparently Democrats are totally ok with Card Check. Go figure.

                    7. They don’t want Ordinary Citizens to have to show ID, but they *do* want union members to show their ballots after they vote.

                      The ‘tard is strong in Team Blue.

                    8. The ‘tard is strong in Team Blue.

                      I don’t think ‘tard’ is the right word for it.

                    9. They join a workplace where they know union dues will be collected, and this is to prevent the free-riding problem.

                      One time I did some adjunct teaching. I was asked if I wanted to do it. I said yes. I was paid the trifling amount that is paid for such work. After about three weeks of doing it, I unexpectedly get a letter in the mail from SEIU saying that I owed them money and that I need to either join them and pay dues or pay them a fee. No one ever brought up SEIU before I accepted the very part time very temp position. I just threw all of their letters in the trash and never paid them a dime. I guess I’m a scab and a free rider, eh?

                    10. How the fuck does SEIU get dues from teachers??

                    11. It’s a university. I had no idea until well after I started the little adjunct position that every non-tenured instructor at the university was required to join SEIU (or pay them a fee almost equal to the dues). No one ever brought it up until I got the not-so-nicely worded letter in the mail. The letter basically said, “We have an agreement with the university. You are supposed to pay us. Begin paying us now.” If it had been more like “How would you like to join our fabulous union?” I might have thought about it.

                    12. You don’t get to whine about workplace conditions people! Workers doing so are told to go find someplace else to work. You do the same and stop being hypocrites.

                    13. So, unions get to say “fuck you, that’s why” when they spend dues money without regard to the political leanings of those who worked hard to pay said dues.

  6. Of course there’s massive fraud at the polling sites. John McCain would have won 75% – 25% if it wasn’t for ACORN. /redstate

    1. Now THAT’s a strawman.

      Fallacy pedants, take note.

      1. Saying there is any voter fraud in federal elections is as deceitful as saying there is double-digit fraud in them, actually.

        1. Saying there is *no* voter fraud is as deceitful as anything you’ve ever posted, shitheel.

          1. No sure, there could be some fraud. Could have been some WMDs in Iraq as well.

            1. Oh, there were WMDs there at some point; even some of your fellow travelers have admitted that.

              But then, your Team DID vote to invade Iraq, gullible fucks they were.

              1. “But then, your Team DID vote to invade Iraq, gullible fucks they were.”

                Except for a certain president.

                1. Your Team got talked into it. Which makes them gullible fucks.

                2. You mean that guy who wasn’t a senator yet and had no ability to “vote” for invading a paper bag? That guy?

                  God damn you are an idiot.

    2. Of course there’s massive fraud at the polling sites. John McCain would have won 75% – 25% if it wasn’t for ACORN.

      ACORN was doing God’s work.

      1. In some of America’s toughest neighborhoods.

  7. There’s not a whole lot of evidence that fraud at the polling place is a significant issue, at least not to a degree to justify a state law.

    What evidence would there be if it were a significant issue? Who’s in a position to complain if someone votes who’s not supposed to be able to do so?

    Requiring ID to vote is just common sense. Whether there’s evidence of voter fraud is irrelevant.

    1. How much should the photo ID cost? How long should it take to receive it and how complicated does the process have to be?

      I mean, you could hypothetically force people to spend a hundo and fill out twenty forms in as many offices on as many days in order to get a voting-eligible ID.

      Should sort out the people who don’t “really” care about voting, right?

      1. …which none of the laws in question do. Most pay for IDs for poor people.

      2. $3 a year.

        Within two weeks.

        As complicated as the paperwork for getting a drivers license.

        1. So what you are saying is as the slippery slope only exists when you libertarians say it does?

          And, of course, the people saying they don’t understand what the big deal is probably don’t work two jobs, have kids and can afford to spend dollars here and there without careful planning.

          It’s one thing to expect the poor to look real carefully at their spending, another to expect them to spend their precious free time and money on being allowed to vote in the greatest country on earth in the year 2012. Fucking glibertarian retard.

          1. Look, I get this is “talking to a brick wall” territory but here goes:

            I’ve worked two jobs. I’ve worked two jobs while going to college full time. I’ve done fucking asbestos abatement at night and worked picking up trash in parking lots and as a bricklayer’s assistant during the day. You want to know a shitty job? Putting tar on roofs in Texas in the fucking summer.

            I have kids. I monitor every fucking penny we spend in two different programs because neither one does everything I need.

            I don’t expect the poor, or anyone else, to do anything I didn’t. You have to show ID to cash a fucking check or buy beer, you can goddamned well show ID to register and vote. Fucking emotion-driven retard.

            1. “you can goddamned well show ID to register and vote.”

              Oh dear, here comes the personal anecdotes. Listen, Foghorn Leghorn, this wouldn’t be an issue if the ID republicans want to force people to show was either ubiquitous or so easy to get that the costs and time involved were negligible even for losers like you.

              Just because you don’t value democracy and enjoy the idea of a republican governor forcing you to spend time and/or money getting a new kind of ID in order to vote, doesn’t mean other poor people have fascist tendencies, you whiny, self-compassionate redneck.

              Since there is no shown occurrence of voter fraud, there is no legitimate reason to create time-consuming or fee-related processes for newfangled ideas that are gonna show them there ACORN fellas what for. And your obedient yapping in favor of this ID when hearing the “Voter fraud!” dog-whistle is pretty fucking un-American, pardner.

              1. “dog-whistle”

                Ah, one of those terms used by leftists when anyone suggests a voter should prove who they are before they vote.

                1. When there is no documented voter fraud in federal elections then, yes, “Voter fraud!” is nothing but a scary signal for paranoid white people. Like libertarians.

                  And again, every state already has registration and identification, and there is no documentation of federal voter fraud, meaning that the current demands are already functioning. This is libertarians abandoning their default mistrust of politicians because they and republicans happen to hate the same people – poor and mostly non-white voters who support welfare expenditures. That’s how easy it is to get a libertarian to side with the government.

                  1. no documented voter fraud in federal elections

                    Yes, there is.

              2. this wouldn’t be an issue if the ID republicans want to force people to show was either ubiquitous or so easy to get that the costs and time involved were negligible even for losers like you.

                If we made state photo IDs free would that satisfy you?

                1. Team Blue is against even that, Hazel.

                  1. Indeed, their position on this issue is so comprehensible, that it could not possibly arouse the slightest suspiscion.

                2. “If we made state photo IDs free would that satisfy you?”

                  Sure thing – democrats have never won a federal election using fraud and this would not change a thing.

                  1. If they’ve never resorted to fraud and this will not change a thing, why are you so against it? Are you afraid the veil of secrecy will slip, or are you finally taking a stand against a financially wasteful government program that costs around 1/100th of the money dumped into Solyndra. If it’s the latter, I would be happy to point out a lot of other wasteful government programs for you to rail against.

                  2. Sure they haven’t, shitheel.

                    1. That was for the statist, sloop. 😉

                  3. No, shitheel, you’d be against it if the IDs were not only free, but came with free money as well.

                    IOW, paying people to vote. For Democrats.

                    Which is basically what happens now.

          2. Wow… can’t afford to pony up for an ID they are going to need anyway?

            My drivers’ license cost about forty bucks for an six-year span. A non-drivers ID card is eleven dollars/six-year span.

            IOW, it costs maybe two dollars a year to have an ID.

            Whoop-de-fuck.

            1. And of course, there still is no voter fraud, so you are again standing with a politician against American individuals that want to exercise their rights. Funny how the libertarian instincts to mistrust politicians and their talking points dissipate when it’s non-white welfare recipients who are a majority of the people in the government’s gun-sights.

              1. *yawn*

                1. So, are you saying there are *no* white welfare recipients?

                  1. So, are you saying you first yawned dismissively at what I read but then felt compelled to respond anyway?

                    1. I took pity and threw you some red meat to gnaw on. I’ve been known to be generous, even to shitheels like yourself who can’t use words like “apartheid” and “racism” and “poll tax” properly.

                    2. Oh, and answer the question, shitheel.

                    3. Segregation, apartheid, it’s the same shit and the perpetrators should all have been put in mass graves with large markers to teach future generations. As a libertarian, your hatred of bigots should compel you to agree.

                    4. I do hate bigots. Tony, for instance.

                      I also hate morons who gin up specious racial-based arguments to score points for Team Blue.

                    5. And yet you try to white-wash modifications to election laws designed to disproportionately affect certain ethnic groups because they vote a way you don’t like.

                      Again, this pathetic attempt to hold the fig leaf of “Voter fraud!” up for the republicans is still very transparent.

                      I am not even saying you are doing it because the targeted people are mainly non-white – just because you despise democracy and think pursuing the libertarian agenda justifies defending fascist tactics with fascist talking points (“It’s so cheap and easy to get the ID anyway!”, “Voter fraud could totally be a problem even though there is no documentation of it! Republicans say so!”)

                    6. “It’s so cheap and easy to get the ID anyway!” =/= “fascist talking point”, shitheel.

                      Look up the word “fascist”. While you’re at it, look up a few other words.

                    7. “Voting the way I don’t like” isn’t the problem… it’s the ones who aren’t supposed to be voting in the first place.

                      Like non-citizens, for instance.

                      This isn’t about welfare cases voting… it’s about making sure every vote is legit.

                      For some reason, you don’t want that.

                    8. Sure it is – after realizing they can’t prove there is any fraud and that they could make it easier and quicker to get people registered and identified in a satisfying manner, they try to make this virtual poll tax seem small in a relative sense.

                    9. It isn’t a poll tax. That would be a charge specifically to vote.

                      Reading comprehension. How do it work?

      3. I mean, you could hypothetically force people to spend a hundo and fill out twenty forms in as many offices on as many days in order to get a voting-eligible ID.

        A $100 and twenty forms for a government issued ID?

        Son, you still stuck on stupid.

      4. fill out twenty forms in as many offices on as many days

        Are you talking about someone trying to run a business?

      5. “How much should the photo ID cost?”

        The time it takes to get it. It’s not like voting itself doesn’t require traveling somewhere and standing in line. I would imagine that absentee ballots are already subject to heightened scrutiny, so I doubt they would need any changes there.

        1. “The time it takes to get it.”

          Alright, if we agree that the new ID combats (non-existent) voter fraud, then of course some effort will be required of an individual to get it. Problem is, then, that this new process can be made into a tiresome, time-consuming obstacle that imposes disproportionate costs on people that don’t have much spare time. It can be used as a tool by politicians against people they don’t like.

          As such, it is odd to see so many libertarians eagerly trying to give politicians this tool, even if there is no voter fraud in federal elections. It is possibly because they also dislike the people this tool will be used against – poor and non-whites that vote for welfare expenditures.

          1. When a state starts abusing the voter ID laws, then you can sue to prevent enforcement. That’s not happening in any of these cases.

          2. “poor and non-whites that vote for welfare expenditures because they are bribed into voting for more welfare expenditures by Team Blue.”

            FIFY’d. No charge, shitheel.

            1. “LIBERAL WELFARE PLANTATION!”

              That’s another shot for me, thanks.

              1. Oddly enough, you got it right, though the all-caps was unnecessary.

                But do tell us how voters are not enticed by the state dangling the welfare carrot to vote for Democrats.

          3. Problem is, then, that this new process can be made into a tiresome, time-consuming obstacle that imposes disproportionate costs on people that don’t have much spare time. It can be used as a tool by politicians against people they don’t like.

            And you’re against things like this.

          4. Provided that free voting IDs are available from the same place, and through the same process, that people get IDs like driver’s licenses, that doesn’t hold up — everyone has to deal with it, and it’s a burden on everyone, so it isn’t discriminatory. You can say that the poor man values $10 more than the rich, but they both value their time. If anything, hassle and wait times are a tax that discriminates against the rich and employed.

          5. If they are on welfare, wouldn’t they have the time?

    2. “Somebody voting who is not supposed to be able to do so” is a registration issue, not a poll ID issue, which is what I’m trying to get at here.

      1. That’s fine, but all that does it push the issue to earlier in the process. And it is still a poll ID issue even if you make the voter registration card an ID or something.

    3. Who’s in a position to complain if someone votes who’s not supposed to be able to do so?

      Exactly. I’m not a fucking US citizen. How the hell am I supposed to know if someone is voting in my name?

      Is an illegal alien going to make a fuss if someone registers their name and then votes as them? Is a dead person? Is a felon? How the fuck would they find out?

  8. The Voting Rights Act is nothing but a continued imposition of Reconstruction upon the denizens of Dixie. Bring back the literacy test.

  9. “Yeah, well, at least your name isn’t Michael Bolton.”

  10. I’m all for anything that diminishes the sanctity and the perceived value of voting.

    And the more people that are disenfranchised the better.

    1. If passing a strict civics test was a prerequisite for voting we’d be living in a Constittionalist minarchy half way to Libertopia.

  11. There will be no justice for voters until the VRA is equitably enforced. The simple fact that some states have to jump through federal hoops and others don’t in order to enforce voting standards and requirements means the law is inherently unjust and should be overturned.

    I’m sorry, but “a history of” is hardly an objective measurement that would require different standards of behavior be enforced on state governments by what can only be considered a partisan (of either stripe) federal DOJ.

    No way should it pass constitutional muster.

    1. What I love is this rememberance of “history” where the northern states never, NOT EVER, tried to suborn the voting process or make it harder for blacks and immigrants to participate.

      News flash Statist and Tony: Your liberal elite forefathers were just as bad as the rich white southern plantation owners.

  12. Presumably any party-organized voter fraud would happen after the various identify checks, once ballots have been anonymized. For instance, when boxes of ballots are “discovered” late in the count, bringing a candidate to win from behind.

    Still, rates of voter participation are quite low in the U.S., and polling often attempts to discover who is a “likely voter” and who is not (plus, there are coma patients and invalids, etc.). If the rate of actually catching a fraudulent vote is low to begin with, then having a pretty accurate list of likely non-voters would let you get away with a great deal of vote fraud while making it seem like it was a fairly minor problem.

    Should be noted that state attempts to trim voter rolls are also being opposed by DOJ.

    1. Vote early and often.

  13. I am completely in favor of voter ID laws.

    Why? Because I don’t want someone casting a vote under my name, that they illegally registered for me, without my knowledge.

    You see, I am one of many people who has never registered to vote, mainly because I am not a US citizen. But that would not stop a large number of unscrupulous people from checking the US Citizen box and mailing in the form anyway. I have also moved a lot and lived in 5 different states at various points, which means they can probably cast a ballot in my name in five states and maybe a few different districts, just by producing some bullshit piece of junkmail – such as a credit card offer, with my name on it, that is still getting sent to an old address.

    Because I have never registered to vote myself, I am never going to know if someone else has registered my name and is voting under it. And I don’t want some asshole, Democrat OR Republican aiding their party to steal an election by using my name.

    I’m frankly aghast that anyone can seriously argue with a straight face that having to prove that you are who you claim you are in order to vote is too much of an imposition to request of people.

    Yes they should require photo IDs to vote. If I had my way you would have a retinal scan or a finger print ID before you got into the booth.

    1. That goes for dead people too. How would you feel about someone registering under your stanchly Democratic Grandpas name and then after his death, waltzing in and voting Republican under it?

      1. I would not give even one tiny fuck.

        1. Obviously, you hated your grandfather, at least enough not to respect his wishes.

          Maybe you should go piss on his grave while you’re at it.

      2. Again though, these are problems in the registration process, not in the voting process. Voter ID wouldn’t fix this problem. They could just register as you or them in the first place.

        1. How are they going to get an ID that has Hazel Meade’s name on it?

        2. How would it not fix the problem?

          because it’s so fucking easy to get a fake ID for every person you falsely register, really?

          1. Actually getting a fake ID on the black market isn’t that difficult, but it is expensive if you’re doing it in numbers large enough to sway an election.

            1. Expensive, and likely to attract attention.

          2. If you’re going to go through the effort to defraud an election, I can’t imagine the need to purchase fake IDs are going to serve as much of a deterrent.

            1. Because purchasing 1000 fake IDs is something that the average guy that makes fake IDs is going to do for you without any qualms. If your willing to rig an election, youre also probably willing to bury the evidence. I would run the other way.

              Anyways it’s not as easy to make a fake ID as it used to be. There are a lot more security feature these days.

            2. The point is there’s not much effort required under current systems. It’s like stealing Big Macs from a chubby.

            3. I would think it would at least double the difficulty, expense, and risk, at a minimum. In all likelihood, it would increase it by more than that.

              It’s sort of backwards thinking anyway — if you’re ethically inclined to do so, then whether or not you’re going to go through the effort to defraud an election depends on the amount of effort, expense, and risk involved.

    2. Not only are you not a US citizen, you’re fiction!

  14. Difference is that they are trying to make driver’s licenses invalid.

    [citation required]

    I noticed he/she glossed right over that request, which is at the heart of his/her argument against an ID requirement. I’m still waiting, asshole.

    1. I misread that bit – it’s renewal of or new licenses that often require more hassle, paperwork and/or fees.

      1. There should be no extra hassle to get a DL, but voting should require showing an ID.

      2. I misread that bit

        I notice you didn’t go out of your way to correct that mistake on here, but were willing to let it perpetuate as a talking point. That’s pretty disingenuous, asshole.

        – it’s renewal of or new licenses that often require more hassle, paperwork and/or fees.

        Again, citation required.

        Your entire argument is based on innuendo and suppositions that cannot be supported with facts. Acting on emotion is no way to make a valid argument. But you’re a Team Blue hack, so asking for that is out of the question.

        1. The issue here is that the new photo IDs – be they DLs adhering to the new standards or some other ID – can’t be renewed without fees or new paperwork in some cases.

          1. Name me a state where ID’s can be renewed without a fee or new paperwork.

            1. That’s not how our short friend from Lowell argues, Ken. Moving the goalposts is his specialty.

  15. I don’t think voter fraud has been a huge problem, but requiring some ID is just common sense and it’s dead easy to have some form of ID. Anybody who thinks this will somehow exclude a bunch of negroes from voting is a delusional retard. The registration fix ups seem to be more important still.

    1. There’s at least one delusional retard here, Cyto. There’s one just one post up from yours, for instance.

    2. I always thought that voter fraud concerns were overblown too.

      The fact that so many people with a lot of govt money and power to lose are fighting these laws makes me think otherwise.

      1. The fact that so many people with a lot of govt money and power to lose are fighting these laws makes me think otherwise.

        THIS^1000

        1. Another good point by Tulpa.

  16. I don’t think voter fraud has been a huge problem, but requiring some ID is just common sense and it’s dead easy to have some form of ID

    I agree. And since it’s so easy, why not have everybody in the nation have ID?

    1. Very different. The govt has a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud by any means necessary. They have no need to stop people for their papers on the street.

      1. The Security State complex is playing you guys like a harp from Hell with this voter ID stuff.

        They have no need to stop people for their papers on the street.

        Of course they have no need when they can track you with the RFID chip placed in your card.

        1. Really HM? ID can mean anything by the way as long as there’s a picture your name and a signature. No need to fornicate the shark.

      2. Everyone 18 and above has the right to vote, thus an ID requirement would imply a national ID program. The apotheosis of the libertarian horror show.

        You can either be a Republican footsoldier doing their bidding in supporting disenfranchisement of likely Democratic voters, or you can have the tiniest mote of principle and be a libertarian. As I said, this issue clearly separates the real libertarians from the GOP pretenders.

        Not that libertarians have demonstrated much concern for the relevance of empirical facts in other areas.

        1. Ah, now I see the point of the fanatical opposition to voter ID. It’s another way the left can tell themselves they are The Defenders of The Disenfranchised. A regular bunch of Davids. Also, racism.

          1. It’s not our fault you’re pretending to be ignorant of the motives behind these laws.

            And if you actually do believe there’s a problem that needs to be solved by government bureaucrats and government papers, then you’re both ignorant and not a libertarian.

            1. Imaginary racists under your bed =/= hidden motives of others Toney.

              The good news is that showing some form of of ID-any form-means no (government) bureaucrats involved, so that shitty line won’t cut it either.

              1. He can’t comprehend the dictionary definition of “racism”, Cyto. How do you expect him to give honest commentary?

        2. “Everyone 18 and above has the right to vote”

          At issue would be in which state/country and how many times.

          Further, democracy is not a natural right. It is a statist system whereby 51% of the populace rules the rest (better than all others that have been tried, true). But those 51% have the power to violate real natural rights. So don’t conflate democracy with libertarianism, they are different things.

        3. Never mind that many of those “disenfranchised” here in Texas are conservative, at least socially. But keep barking up that tree Tony.

    2. Nobody’s saying they all have to carry the same form of ID.

      I’m happy with anything that has a photo on it and a couple of anti-fraud features.

      You know, something that your older brother couldn’t make with Photoshop and a laminator in the basement.

      1. Nobody’s saying they all have to carry the same form of ID.

        Really?

        1. FTA: “As of April 2, 2008, all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions.[4] As of October 2009, 25 states have approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program, and with President Obama’s selection of Janet Napolitano (a prominent critic of the program) to head the Department of Homeland Security, the future of the law remains uncertain,[5] and bills have been introduced into Congress to amend or repeal it.[6] The most recent of these, dubbed PASS ID, would eliminate many of the more burdensome technological requirements but still require states to meet federal standards in order to have their ID cards accepted by federal agencies.”

          REAL ID was one law that none of the Blue states liked with Bush was in the WH and none of the Red states like when Obama is in the WH. It will never stand up to constitutional scrutiny either. I only hope it is not repealed, but it goes to the Supreme Court and the idea of a national ID is killed off for good.

          1. It will never stand up to constitutional scrutiny either.

            I’m not as optimistic as you. While 9/11 and all things related have already got the ‘terror moms’ on board, this vote fraud meme seems to be a calculated move to get the Breitbart-reading, so-called “NASCAR dad” demographic.

            1. I don’t really see the slippery slope here — these efforts are taking place at the state and local level, and are being opposed by the feds. I’m pretty sure that, if anything, state and local pols who support these laws would be suspicious that REAL ID would facilitate vote fraud somehow. I mean, I guess some argument could be made that could advance that agenda, but I can’t imagine one that actually makes sense.

              Granted, none of this does — I agree with Scott that the sort of fraud that ID laws would prevent is the least effective sort for actually stealing elections without getting caught. At the same time, with some hard rules in place to prevent abuse of ID laws, it’s hard to see what Democrats are getting so worked up over, which makes you question their motivations.

          2. Based off of the decisions by SCOTUS these past years, I’m not so hopeful that they would kill national ID for good.

        2. I’m talking about voter ID laws. Nobody is saying that voters should only be allowed to use a national ID.

          Heck if they used a credit card that had their photograph on it, I’d be happy with that.

          1. Hazel, I’d like to introduce you to the concept of the “slippery slope“.

            1. Oh cripes. Not everything is the tip of the wedge. And Hazel makes it pretty clear this ‘calculated move’ seems to have failed pretty hard in its goal of getting people on board.

  17. Like most other ID requirements, this strikes at the basis of the American premise of individual decency and integrity. Yes, bad people can abuse the system, but by giving in to the urge to police everything, we give up on the American experiment.

    No to ID to purchase a weapon
    No to ID to open a bank account
    No to ID to get on a plane
    No to ID to vote!

    C’mon folks, this is supposed to be a liberatian group, but you’re calling for “government issued ID’s”?

    1. No, some of us are in favor of showing ID to vote.

      BTW, you are going to need ID to open that bank account whether the government’s involved or not.

    2. Who said anything about “government issued”?

      Any proof of identification that is reasonably secure should work. A valid credit card with a photo on it would satisfy me.

      It just has to be something that isn’t easy to fake, which is generally recognized as proof of identity in the market.

      When you cash a check at a bank, do they take a piece of old mail as proof of identity?
      If a bank wouldn’t take it, why should the guy at a voter registration booth?

      1. Definitely not a national ID, L13.

        Only a statist would want that.

    3. One of these things is not like the other…

      Seriously, if you’re going to use “elections have consequences” to fuck with me, you need to at least make an effort to convince me you didn’t rig the election. Because if that’s the only justification you got, and you break it, you’re left with “because I can”. That’s what’s known as the moral low ground. That’s the place where governments are perceived by a large chunk of the population as lacking legitimacy, which leads to all kinds of fun, especially when that government forgot that you always disarm before oppressing. Can’t get overeager and do it in the wrong order.

  18. Know where you really see registration fraud? In states with party enrollment, to fradulate primaries.

    Like that word? Worthy of the Kingfish!

  19. Groups like ACORN win, not by impersonating real persons who are not in their party, but by putting unqualified persons (such as aliens) and nonexistent persons on the voter rolls, thus getting the ability to cast votes in their name.

    These tactics will not be “found out” by victims of impersonation showing up to vote. But ID *will* stop them, at least unless the fraudsters can bear the expense of a fake ID card for each unqualified or nonexistent voter.

    1. This is pretty much the key rebuttal to Scott’s article — it’s probably true that registration fraud is the primary source of fraud, and that it needs to be fought. But no such effort will be 100% reliable, and ID requirements will combat both forms of fraud, beyond whatever registration checks are added.

      Voting IDs should be “free”, but that only means the recipient of a legitimate ID doesn’t pay the state for services rendered. Actually creating the ID still costs money, and anyone manufacturing fraudulent IDs isn’t likely to be as generous as the state. You can’t actually stop fraud, but you can make it so that people trying to cheat have to deal with a lot more expense and effort than people going through legitimate channels. Since the important thing (contra ChicagoTom) is that fraud doesn’t alter the outcome of elections, high confidence in the correctness in the outcome is more important than absolute perfection.

  20. Every state and I mean every state requires residents to have a Photo ID as a condition of residency once you have reached majority age.
    Furthermore, the argument that elderly/disabled folks are disenfranchised sounds bad on the face of it until you realize that you are REQUIRED to have a photo ID to receive: social security Insurance, medicaid/medicare and Disability.
    I don’t think it is too onerous a task to ask that someone show that they are who they say they are before being allowed to be counted in our vote seeing as they are REQUIRED to posses an ID in the first place.
    Also to the author of this piece suggesting that voter fraud on a Federal level is negligible to non-existent has either just emerged from a cave in Afghanistan or is insane. Chicago has a long long history of rigging elections; local, state and Federal.
    ACORN actively registered and straight up brought un-registered people all of whom were not qualified to have a vote to polling places in 2008 and that is well documented.
    Yes, voter fraud is rampant and these measure provide some small measure of protection that at the very least the person who is registered is the person voting.
    (though I do agree that the process of registration to begin with needs reform as well)

    1. Also to the author of this piece suggesting that voter fraud on a Federal level is negligible to non-existent has either just emerged from a cave in Afghanistan or is insane.

      I think you’re misunderstanding him; he was arguing that fraud involving impersonating legitimate voters seemed to be rare, not that registration fraud was rare. That said, IDs target both types of fraud to some extent.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.