Debating Crawford and Voter ID:
PENNumbra, the on-line supplement of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, has posted a debate between Bradley Smith and Ed Foley on voter ID requirements. Later this term, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a constitutional challenge to Indiana's particularly stringent voter ID requirement.
Translation: How dare anyone interfere with the Democratic Party's tradition of having the dead, the non-existent, the multi-time and the non-eligible voter cast votes for Democrat candidates
I live in Indiana, so the cases are being watched closely. Personally, showing my driver's license at the polling station was no big deal. I also had to show ID this morning when I picked up a package at the local UPS facility, and when I rented a DVD at the video store the other day (they don't issue membership cards). No big annoyance there, either.
The fact that IDs are required to fly and do many other things in life (upon which he hinges his argument) does nothing to address the legitimate argument that requiring IDs to vote will actually prevent real, live, non-fraudulent American citizens from voting. He admits as much in granting standing and then utterly fails to explain why that problem is outweighed by the as-yet unproven problem of fraudulent voting.
I don't feel that way, but it seems to me that this is the crux of the argument I have seen time and time again in these cases.
Can you provide cites of the bad things that challengers did in Ohio? I seem to recall many dire predictions, but I don't recall any documented instances of interfering with voters, etc. I recall a few complaints, and I also recall articles noting that the challengers helped out at busy polling places.
What did I miss?
Thanks.
bal
I live in Indiana and I recall that in the '06 election the (uber-Democrat)congresswoman who represents Indianapolis was initially denied access to the ballot because she only presented her Congressional ID which is not good enough. (she went home and got proper ID).
But I do not believe that she is a Plaintiff.
My perusal of the opinions leads me to think that the issue is what level of scrutiny the statute deserves. If the law is a serious burden on the franchise, then strict scrutiny applies but if no serious burden, then its a rational basis.
Fixed it for you.
As amusing as the "fix it for you" gambit is (though sadly overused), if you read the opinion you would see that Posner accepts without debate that some voters will be prevented from voting. Do you really believe that there is not one voter out there who might want to vote and be unable because he lacks ID? Or was that noted judicial activist Posner granting standing just for the hell of it?
How many?
Really, how many people in this day and age have no ID?
Maybe there are still some "mountain men" living on elk-jerky and bartering the hides for more bullets, but how many urban poor (or suburban poor, or even rural-but-not-within-a-designated-national-forest poor for that matter) don't have enough ID to claim welfare, food stamps or social security? To rent a trailer or apartment? To buy liquor?
"He admits as much in granting standing and then utterly fails to explain why that problem is outweighed by the as-yet unproven problem of fraudulent voting."
The existence of instances of voter fraud are far better documented than instances of ID-less americans.
I wonder what their identification requirements are like. Anyone here ever voted in G8 nation other than the US? How did it work?
Anyone else think we should pick up the "purple ink on the finger" thing they did in Iraq?
Why does that matter? The issue of whether a citizen has standing to challenge an act that restricts his or her right to vote isn't affected by the number of people who don't have standing.
My only point is that Posner does not adequately explain why one problem outweighs the other. He seems to employ a numerical balancing, even though there are no real numbers to support either side of the argument.
The voter ID law does nothing to prevent fraudulent absentee-by-mail ballots from being cast because you don't have to show ID to apply for one.
Are you referring to Julia Carson?
Unless her 'Congressional ID' was like the ID badges we have to wear at work and only had her name and picture, it should have been sufficient.
From the Indiana SecState's photo ID page:
If I tried to vote using my 'TJ Maxx Evansville Distribution Center' ID, I'd fully expect to be stopped. :)
As for the law itself, I'm all for it but think it needs to be extended to cover (need to apply in person and show ID to get one) absentee balloting as well.
I think it's plausible that there is, but given the current state of the US economy it's equally plausible that there isn't - someone so alienated from society that he has no ID doesn't strike me as a likely voter.
I also know that in 2000, Kansa City, MO had something like a 105% turnout - 5% more ballots turned in than they had registered voters. So voter fraud does exist, and every false vote dilutes the franchise of the population as a whole about as much as the loss of one legitimate vote.
I also know that many people who would like to vote don't get to because they have a family emergency on Tuesday, or the line at the poll is too long, or the city screwed up and lost their registration.... No system is perfect.
Now it becomes a balancing act: Which is a greater threat to the system - voter fraud or "disenfranchising" those who not only don't have either a driver's license or a state liquor ID but also can't be bothered to get one? (If there's a genuine "can't afford" that's another story, but I'm only counting "couldn't afford the fee," not "couldn't afford the bus fare (how do they go food shopping?)" or "didn't know about the requirement because they're 'economically disadvantaged' and therefore can't be expected to know and follow the law.")
As a resident of Missouri and knowing that "Kansas City" lies within four separate counties, I can say that your statement is utterly false without doing one keystroke of research.
I totally agree and I also agree that voting laws do not all warrant strict scrutiny. Given imperfections, the debate is whether to err on the side of allowing people to vote and accepting some fraud or blocking some from voting and accepting that some will by disenfranchised.
It's a close question. I just wish Posner had handled it better.
So, both the existence of the problem being solved and the existence of the people being harmed by the solution are assumed but not proven.
My only point is that Posner does not adequately explain why one problem outweighs the other. He seems to employ a numerical balancing, even though there are no real numbers to support either side of the argument.
If I had to guess, I'd say that since the participants in voter fraud by definition want to keep it hidden the existence of a thousand instances of undetected voter fraud is far easier to believe in than the existence of even a half-dozen people who wanted to vote, couldn't because they lacked ID, and not even one of them raised a stink about it.
It's very strange to be in a case where the Brennan Center is one of the good guys and Brad Smith is on the side of evil. Posner's briliant, but he's not right 100% of the time. He's quite seriously wrong in this case.
Curious: those of us who didn't get to vote are not plaintifffs because the suit was filed when the bill was passed and no elections had yet taken place.
I would be happy to file a suit if any of the lawyers here would like to represent me.
I followed your link and read this:
So you have ID and don't think you should have to show it.
This is different from the claim that some people are losing the right to vote because they have no ID.
Next please.
I find it very difficult to accept that there is anyone who wants to vote who could not obtain a valid ID. The cost of an ID is so nominal as to be insignificant, especially when one considers that an ID is required frequently in everyday life. Subsidize it for the extremely poor if necessary. But don't try to tell me that getting an ID is a substantial burden.
It's not a cost issue (the IN law allows for free non-driver IDs). The issue is that it requires a series of documents -- including a birth certificate or passport plus other photo ID -- just to get the ID. Believe what you want, but there are a lot of people in society who cannot produce the documentation required to get a state-issued ID.
Most importantly, Posner was willing to accept that at least one person would be blocked from voting.
I think your analysis is probably how the Court is going to come out, but up until now the Court has never said that the burden is measured statewide rather than individually. The specific language from Anderson/Burdick is:
Nothing in that test indicates to me that you add up all the individual burdens to assess whether it is severe overall. It seems pretty clearly focused on the individual burden.
Point taken. I agree that the Court will probably come out that way, if only because calling a burden "severe" based on the complete prevention of one person from voting would be absurd and contrary to other cases (which do not come easily to mind). I think the overall point is that any election law could have the effect of completely preventing some person from voting, and yet the courts have found very few election laws impose a "severe" burden.
And I believe that the vast majority of them are not eligible to vote. The lack of an ID requirement to vote is designed to encourage vote fraud.
Yeah, a lot of illegal aliens fit that description pretty well, and I don't want them voting - and not just because they'd probably vote Democrat.
Please link to some study, newspaper article, or other documented evidence of the existence of at least one US-born citizen fitting who tried to get ID, was unable to either provide necessary documentation, was also unable get an exception made for his special circumstances to allow other forms of evidence (e.g. neighborhood folks testifying that he's been living under that same bridge since his momma threw him out to be raised by coyotes), and was thus unable to vote.
No more sincere assertion - just one documented example of someone who deserves to be allowed to vote and was prevented because through no fault of their own they can't supply a birth certificate is all I ask. So far the existence of such people is purely theoretical.
The existence of illegal aliens is not theoretical.
Tarheel, I'm glad you agree that it's not a cost issue since that eliminates the 24th Amendment as a point of debate. I wasn't sure whether Indiana allowed for free ID's, though I assumed they probably did.
But the existence of illegals attempting to vote is totally theoretical. Indeed it is ridiculous. Dead people voting in Chicago? Maybe. Illegals voting in Indianapolis? Doubt it.
Since Posner agreed that some legitimate voters would be blocked from voting, the burden is not on me to produce further evidence. Where is your evidence, aside from righteous indignation, of actual voter fraud in Indiana? If you have some, send it to the state, because it said there was none in its own briefs.
The cases of the Democratic Machine in Chicago under Daley filling up buses with winos to take from poll to poll, with a ward worker at the front of the bus handing out new sets of voter registration cards at each stop, are fairly well documented. Indeed, if it weren't for the massive numbers of fraudulent votes in Cook County in 1960, it's highly probable that Nixon would have succeeded Eisenhower, and poor old Tricky Dick probably wouldn't have grown so paranoid in his later turn in the Oval Office if the Daley Machine hadn't stolen that election.
So that would leave only the people who have ID and forget it that day at the last minute. But is that of constitutional weight?
I'm curious on what basis you say this. There is ample reason to believe that corrupt politicians have tried to abuse the system to gain or retain power throughout history. If there is a loophole or weakness to exploit someone will try to take advantage of it. I find it hard to believe that there aren't some illegal aliens voting in this country given how easy it would probably be to do so.
Now it might be that the actual numbers are small. The frequency in Indiana would probably be much less than in Texas or California. But to say that the possibility is ridiculous...I find that mind-boggling.
The security claims made in support of a photo ID requirement are greatly exaggerated.
Anyone who plans to always use a driver's license as a voter ID should hope that driver's licenses will be made valid for life. Switching to a state-issued photo ID to replace a driver's license is not, in some states at least, as easy or as dignity-friendly as many think.
Have you heard of the forthcoming legislative proposal that all pregnant women be forced to subject the fetus to digitally-recorded ultrasound imaging (until such time that an invasive photographic procedure is perfected), and that no baby shall be permitted to be born without a photo ID? Just kidding, for now.
As to how many of them could get an ID if they put forth the effort, presumably the answer is "most of them."
I have seen polititians encouraging illegals to vote.
There might be a basis for upholding some photo ID, even government issued, without the Ind. and expiration requirements.
Having said that, though, I am uneasy about a law that burdens a fundamental right (and voting is pretty fundamental) without any evidence [and in this case there is none] that there is a problem wrt in-person voting fraud.
The difference between this law and firearm ID laws is that there is a huge amount of evidence that persons who are not allowed to obtain firearms legally do, in fact, attempt to obtain firearms and, in many many cases, succeed in doing so.
Then why is the proper question not, "Is this 'effort' an undue burden on a fundamental right"
Especially since the justice department has only managed to convict 86 people of this in 5 years?
I'll use the number quoted above. Someone stated the Missouri Secretary of state found 200,000 people might be denied the ability to vote for lack of ID.
let's assume these people come out to vote at half the national average because of whatever condition that makes it ulnikely to have ID. that means about 50,000 of them will still attempt to vote in a presidential election. Let's cut that in half again, 25,000 people.
Even if all 86 of those voter fraud cases were in one state, and let's even assume it's 100% beyond what they can catch. we've got 25,000 citizens deprived of a fundamental right vs 172 potentially fraudulent votes.
The answer to this ought to be clear. But for some reason it's not.
Especially considering options for provisional ballots of all sorts. I know, I had my ballot in the 2004 election canceled because I'd changed apartments between my last registration and voting, they didn't have me listed properly so I filled out a provisional ballot, and thee weeks later I got a nice letter from the secretary of state telling me "sorry but your vote didn't count"
If they can check up on me living in a different apartment, they can probably determine if someone's a convict or using false ID pretty easily.
two arguments regarding voter registration.
1. Voter registration is free everwhere as far as I'm aware. acquiring a government issued photo ID costs money or requires going through a special waiver process in most places.
This is actually why I'm much more ambivalent about the crawford case itself, because it allows voters to file a provisional ballot on the filing of an affidavit that they are too poor to afford an ID, which as far as I'm concerned negates most of the potential problems.
2. Unless we're going to revert to some sort of bizarre purple ink system, some sort of system to prevent voter fraud and organize elections is necessary, and if we're going to do both local and national elections at the same time, a voter registration system is a method of doing both.
Properly structured voter ID acts arent' much of a burden beyond registration, but when I see claims calling for the enaction of new laws where there's scant evidence and a substantial second motive, I become more than a little skeptical.
The other arguments are plainly silly as the solutions would require an affirmative act on the part of the government rather than merely refraining from placing a burden.
Why does that matter? The issue of whether a citizen has standing to challenge an act that restricts his or her right to vote isn't affected by the number of people who don't have standing.
Hmmm.... so why does a person desiring to purchase a firearm have to produce proper, goverment issued, picture ID, yet one wanting to cast a vote does not? In fact, the gun purchaser has to sign a statement, a falsity being a federal felony, as to his/her status. And to have a background check (which if it doesn't determine all falsiities, at least spots prior illegal entries). Why should the right to vote be subject to far more lax standards?
Well, as I discussed in my post above, one reason is that there is substantial, actual evidence that people prohibited from possessing firearms really do try and purchase them illegally. Because there is an actual problem, a burden narrowly tailored to alleviate the problem is constitutional. It's where there is no evidence of a problem that the burden becomes problematic.
The second problem is that voters only have an 8-12 hour window to vote. If there is a problem with your ID when purchasing a gun, you can take care of it and come back the next day. On the other hand, if there is a problem with your ID when voting, you can't come back the next day and vote again.
No, we've got 25,000 people who have to get a voter ID before they can vote.
Alek:I've registered and voted in two states, and have never seen a voter card.
could it possibly be because republicans disproportionately vote by absentee ballots, while democrats vote more heavily in person? i think the answer is yes, especially since most claims of heavy voter fraud comes from republicans.
I don't see it necessary to prove voter fraud in order to take steps aimed at preventing it. And anyone too lazy to get an ID shouldn't be voting anyways.
Except for the time a Plaintiff's lawyer tried to argue in a Motion to Dismiss Hearing (for discovery abuse and lying on responses about 4 fraud arrests) that the interrogatory "Have you ever been arrested, charged with, or convicted of a crime" was vague because no reasonable person could understand that pleading guilty to a crime without a trial requires a yes answer to that question. (Of course, the case was dismissed. The judge told the attorney that if really believed that nonsense then it was tiem for him to find another career, as law is clearly not your area).
In 2004, my license was lost or stolen. I went to get a replacement, which is usually simple and $5, but was told I needed a birth certificate. To get a birth certificate, I was told I needed a driver's license. I was stuck that way for a year. I was denied a hearing (a procedural due process violation.) In the end, I hired a lawyer to apply for my birth certificate for me. Two months and $10 later I had my birth certificate. So I go back to BMV, $20, and they give me a license with the name on the birth certificate, which is different from my actual legal name, so that took another trip downtown and a day of negotiating with the BMV lawyers and they finally gave me my license back. Total price tag around $600 plus my time. My right to vote should not depend on BMV having its act together. 60% of people who go to the BMV to get a license or ID are turned away. Not only do I have a right to vote, I have a right to participate in an election in which my neighbors, the ones who are registered voters and have vested rights under the state constitution, also get to vote. Putting the BMV goons in charge of who does or doesn't get to vote is not a workable system.
There might be an actual problem with illegal aliens voting in Indiana. The solution is to check the voter registration list against a database of who is a citizen. The state will charge me $5,000 for a copy of the voter registration list, which I will be happy to give you a copy of (if you pay the $5K). I don't have access to a list of who is a citizen or not. Is there some way we can (legally) check that? I'm all for preventing actual voter fraud. Not letting me vote is voter fraud, and I'm not going to stand for it.
I would have to guess that the reason it is easier to find those who have bought guns illegally is because there is an actual physical and transparent transaction that occurs. The person illegally buys the weapon and there is a record of the transaction with the gun dealer and the buyer has the weapon. When voting there is no record of the vote tying it to a particular person and to do so would not be right. The only way to verify this would be to follow an illegal voter into the polling place and see that they've voted.
I personally have no problem with showing an ID to vote. Does someone have to steal your car before you would lock your door? In the same way, you shouldn't wait until someone fraudulently voted before instituting measures to ensure that never happened. Safeguards should be in place to make sure that every vote is legal and properly counted.
Anonymous Reader
Great analogy.
The mere possibility, coupled with the knowledge that a lot of people do what they shouldn't do when they think they can get away with it, should be enough to justify the precaution.
"Burdening" is not the same as "disenfranchising."
If there really are mountain men and street people who really,really want to vote and are being prevented from doing so by this law then I admit there is a problem of someone's rights being violated. So far the number of such cases actually produced is 0.
If there are people who are eligible for a state liquor ID and who kinda want to vote, but aren't quite motived enough schlep themselves down to the DMV and actually get the thing, that's not someone having their civil rights violated.
Reducing the prevalance of undetected voter fraud is an important government interest. Avoiding ever creating any inconvenience for the lazy and unmotivated is not.
And if it turns out that lazy and unmotivated voters are disproportionately Democrats ... too bad.
The standard in the Supreme Court is burdening, not disenfranchising. You may not like it, but that's the law (for now).
Anonymous Reader- Gee, so maybe then we should treat all fundamental rights exactly the same, and completely divorce ourself from reality while we're at it. Just because infringing on both rights (should) get strict scrutiny under the constitution, doesn't mean that a restriction on guns thus justifies a restriction on voting. Obviously, the fact that people shoot each other each and every day justifies some greater regulation of guns. Meanwhile, people on this blog apparently think its okay to infringe on voting rights because of totally unsubstantiated voter fraud.
There's no evidence whatsoever that there are ALOT of people committing voter fraud. . .
There are, however, ALOT of illegals in this country, and ALOT of them know that if they can get access to our ballots they can help to shape their futures in this country. Do we have to catch them in the act before we realize this is a danger to the integrity of our electoral system? What "evidence" will satisfy you? Do we have to have arrests and prosecutions and sentences before we acknowledge the danger? I happen to think that the right to vote should be limited to people who are in this country legally. I get the strong sense a lot of people believe just the opposite.
Except that you're pulling the number 100% out of thin air, relying on the reader to think "100% is a pretty big percentage, so it sounds reasonable". For all you know they could only be catching 1 out of 10000, which would be 9999900% beyond, not 100% beyond.
I think it's pretty laughable that you think illegal aliens are going to risk incarceration and deportation to vote.
Sorry, but I don't regard it as particularly funny. They risk their lives to come here. They risk their right to stay here when they get illegal papers to work. Is it riskier to vote than to get a driver's license in New York? If so, why was Spitzer pushing that ill-conceived proposal? I know that fraud is bad and don't need "evidence" to convince me that it is.
"Is it riskier to vote than to get a driver's license in New York?" I'm a little confused about the analogy here, what does an illegal alien getting a driver's license have to do with voter fraud? Not to mention one act is illegal and the other would be legal under Spitzer's plan, so it seems quite apparent that the illegal activity (voting) would be riskier.
"I know that fraud is bad and don't need "evidence" to convince me that it is." That's completely nonresponsive to my argument, I'm referring to evidence of voter fraud, not evidence that fraud is bad. I'll try to use smaller sentences so you don't get confused. This evidence is required, to show that IDs are narrowly tailored to prevent voter fraud while not unduly burdening our right to vote. If there's no active voter fraud, then we're creating a burden on the right to vote without any significant justification. That's pretty clearly unconstitutional.
By this reasoning, we shouldn't require registration either, since it's possible for voter registration bureaucrats to mess up your registration just like license bureaucrats messed up your license.
While we're speculatin', anybody else think long lines at non-random polling places skews the voting process?
Pluribus, check out the total voter turnout in south Texas congressional districts and the south Bronx (NY-16), compared to the northern plains states and upstate New York. National compilation here
First it was people being "disenfranchised" by their total inability to get the necessary ID. But despite assurances like Believe what you want, but there are a lot of people in society who cannot produce the documentation required to get a state-issued ID nobody has been able to actually produce such a person.
Then it was "burdening", accompanied by the absurd declaration the voter fraud never really happens.
Now we're down to "skews".
Apparently anything that makes it harder for Democrats to win is a civil-rights emergency.
Since Posner has already accepted that people will be severely burdened by the law, I am not sure why you are still tilting at that particular windmill.
I'm just mocking you.
Well, I'm off to see if I can subvert democracy by finding some blacks, Mexicans, or "mountain men" with enough gumption to try and vote. Y'all have fun now.
Anyone remember the old Sesame Street game "One of these things is not like the others"?
Do you mean the intimidation of illegal aliens with the threat of deportation if they're caught voting illegally? Personally I consider that a feature not a bug.
I take it you've heard of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"? illegal aliens have been in this country for quite a long time now. it's not like a 30 million of them rushed over the border since the 06 elections. you'd think that, given your rhetoric, we should have tons of evidence linking illegal aliens to voter fraud. But there is little to none. The most logical conclusion isn't "there doing it, we just can't see it"; it's "our current system is effective at stopping them."
now contrast this with absentee voter fraud which republicans completely ignore and has been proven to occur (see my post above).
Ralph, that was my first post.
Oh yeah, where did the word "intimidation" come from all of a sudden?
Ralph, I typed it in with my keyboard.
blacks, Mexicans, or "mountain men" "One of these things is not like the others"?
Oh, you're one of them. Never mind.
I'm a little confused about the analogy here, what does an illegal alien getting a driver's license have to do with voter fraud? Not to mention one act is illegal and the other would be legal under Spitzer's plan, so it seems quite apparent that the illegal activity (voting) would be riskier.
I'm sorry you're confused. Both would entail the danger of discovery and deportation. That's risk.
Adam:
I'll try to use smaller sentences so you don't get confused.
Thanks but, but no thanks. As you admit, you are the one who is confused.
Fraudulent voting is a problem, by definition. I don't need "evidence" to prove that bank theft is a problem. It is a problem, by definition.
If you're still confused, skip the smaller sentences. Just look up "fraudulent" in the dictionary.
Anonymous Reader
Point taken, but regrettably off topic.
We're discussing actual legislation to impose barriers to voting, not criminal corruption by election officials belonging to the controlling political party.
We're discussing actual legislation to impose barriers to voting. . .
You may be, but if so, it's off topic. The rest of us are discussing actual legislation to prevent fraudulent voting.
Let me try to stick to debating whether speculative things are problems.
Somebody: Fraudulent voting is a problem, by definition. I don't need "evidence" to prove that bank theft is a problem. It is a problem, by definition. Similarly, I don't need "evidence" to prove that theft of human livers by space aliens is a problem. It is a problem, by definition.
Somebody: Fraudulent voting is a problem, by definition. I don't need "evidence" to prove that bank theft is a problem. It is a problem, by definition. Similarly, I don't need "evidence" to prove that theft of human livers by space aliens is a problem. It is a problem, by definition.
Very funny. Do you do a stand up routine?
I suppose it is your position that illegal immigrants in the US are no more numerous than space aliens, and that those illegal aliens are no more motivated to vote in American elections than space aliens are to steal human livers?
You are a real comedian! Your insight is precious.
Anonymous Reader- Fraud needs to be a compelling need before we burden the right to vote. We've already taken steps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, voter fraud is a crime last time I checked.
Pluribus -"Fraudulent voting is a problem, by definition." No, Fraudulent voting is a crime, by definition. A problem refers to a situation that has actually occured and needs to be corrected, so if there is no occurances of fraudulent voting, then in fact it is not a problem. Also, you might want to actually read the debate if you don't think the issue is about voter IDs burdening the right to vote.
How then does it happen that noncitizens do turn up as registered to vote? This recent OpinionJournal piece by John Fund claims, among other things, that the Justice Dept. discovered eight of the 19 9/11 hijackers to be registered to vote. Given that the only benefit of registering to vote is actually voting, and that the hijackers would presumably have been more anxious to avoid getting noticed than would Joe Noncitizen, what do those numbers suggest about the general noncitizen population?
Note that once you're illicitly registered, voter fraud is a piece of cake. At least here (CA), all you have to do to vote is walk into your polling place, sign the voter roll next to your name, and go into a voting booth. No ID of any description necessary.
The problem is that you're confused about the nature of voting. It's not the ability to scribble some names on a piece of paper (or fill in dots, or punch out chads) that's the actual right; it's the ability to choose one's government. Thus, fraudulent votes are exactly as much of a burden on voting as turning people away from the polls are, because each prevents one from doing that. (Your intended vote for, e.g., Clinton has exactly the same worth in terms of determinng the outcome -- none -- if (a) I keep you from casting it, or (b) I allow you to cast it, but cast a fake vote for Giuliani at the same time.)
So there's no reason to privilege casting votes over not casting fraudulent votes.
Michelle, if you're worried about illicit registration, then how is voter ID going to help? Where I live, you just give your address, and then give your name. No ID, no signature. Yeah, sure, someone could cheat, but I've never heard of it, and people where I live do have the ability, among neighbors, to detect some of that if it were happening. We do have contested races but there doesn't seem to be a problem with the votes. I've seen problems in the counting, but that's another issue.
David Nieporent,
You weren't arguing with me, but I pretty much agree if you're saying the iniquity of one rejected eligible voter equals that of one fraudulent ineligible voter. Are we good so far? My own sense is that the two pools are fairly small and of similar size. If the question is whether requiring photo ID will reduce the latter more than it increases the former, well, I tend to doubt it, but I'm not sure.
Sorry to have given offense. The article I linked came up when I was Googling for information on the number of noncitizens on the voter rolls. If I had found a systematic study of the question, I would have used that, but I didn't. Possibly because (as Fund claims, at least) "federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records."
So the 9/11 hijackers item seemed a suggestive datum, at least. Stipulated, obviously, that they aren't exactly representative of "people here without proper papers." But I repeat that there's no advantage to registering to vote except the voting privilege itself, so why would anyone do this who didn't plan to vote? Obviously these eight noncitizens did, and it seems unlikely that they're the only ones. Someone mentioned another, a Mexican national, way upthread.
And how would photo ID help with the fraudulent registration problem? Well, if it's limited to state-issued ID unobtainable w/o proof of citizenship, that seems pretty obvious.
So the question should properly be: How do we reliably verify U.S. citizenship? [hint: an apartment utility bill, or a Wal-Mart photo-ID, are completely inadequate.] Corollary question: What should the punishment be to decisively deter illegal voting?
I think any illegals that make a habit of lawbreaking are probably relatively quickly caught and are furthermore not the type of people that take a particular interest in the election process. The rest of illegal aliens are probably generally law abiding (aside from illegally sneaking in to the country of course), as they generally only break the law in the first place to find a profitable job, and as further breaches of the law is likely to endanger this prospect, they probably refrain from doing so. I just can't find that an individual alien has any interest in trying to subvert the electorial process, where's the reward? One vote towards getting a elected official that is possibly more sympathetic to them? Seriously?
"You're distaste for laziness is a pretty poor argument for hindering the right to vote. Maybe next you'd like to include a reading test before voting as well..."
Ah, yes. Insinuation of racism. Poll tax comment next, no doubt. Very good.
Oh, Pluribus, you're supposed to either admit that your argument that it's a "problem" was lacking, or make up a different distinction.
No, I'm not "supposed" to do anything. You have a right to participate in this argument, but not to frame its terms.
If something doesn't happen, it isn't a problem, in normal life.
So far, we have had no terrorist attack with a dirty bomb. So it "isn't a problem," I guess. Let's not even think about it, much less pass laws that make it harder to carry out such an attack.
No need to get sore.
If I'm sore, it's fromt laughing at your analogy to space aliens. Please clarify if your argument is (a) that the theft of human livers by space aliens is legal, (b) that it should be legal, or (c) that a law making it illegal would unduly burden a fundamental constitutional right. This might help to explain why this analogy is apposite to the current discussion.
Still laughing.
When foreign citizens illegally vote in U.S. elections, do you think they are voting to tax themselves in order to benefit legitimate American citizens???
Hell, no. They vote to put the tax payments of American workers into their thieving foreign pockets. That is their illegal and unethical "reward." And it's being pushed by anti-American groups like La Raza. Do you think La Raza has our best interest at heart?
Too bad illegal voting is fine with you, and the other supporters of illegal voting.
This brief made interesting reading. The county, which is a defendant in the case, basically agrees that the voter ID rules don't work and aren't needed, and that strict scrutiny should apply. I've never seen a case like this where the defendant urges the court to overturn their victory below.
Also, is their any credible example of an election being stolen by voters being deprived of their votes? There is certainly a ton of examples on elections being stolen (or at least strongly questioned) by votes that were not legitimately cast (Landslide Lyndon's mysterious ballot box, Illinois in 1960, more voters at one address in Seattle last year than the margin of victory, etc., etc.)
Yes, but it's catch and release around here.
And falsifying Social Security Cards and driving without a license or insurance, and getting public services they are not entitled to . . .
One of who? People who don't think non-citizens should vote? (Or did you say Mexicans when you meant to say Mexican-Americans?)
Anyway, my challenge to you is not to find people from the above or any other demographics who own no ID. It's to find me someone who owns no ID and somehow managed to register to vote without getting any ID in the process.
Smokey- "They vote to put the tax payments of American workers into their thieving foreign pockets." Maybe you're alittle confused, but last time I checked elections were for chosing legislatures and other government officials, not voting on taxing or not taxing oneself. And how did you reach the conclusion that La Raza is anti-american? Also, why are you linking to some racist website called wehategringos.com? Is really supposed to provide support for your argument? You should probably realize that all you're really doing is showing the ugly racist undercurrent behind this kooky illegal aliens are stealing elections theory.
Everyone votes in their own best interest. That is why it is, and must be, illegal for non-citizens to vote. And the penalties for illegal voting by foreign entities should be comparable to the penalties given to thieves.
So, when can I expect to receive your unvoted ballot?
I'd happily - and very easily - deconstruct and demolish what passes for your 'arguments,' since they consist almost completely of ad hominem name-calling [eg, I'm 'hopeless,' 'reprehensible,' 'confused,' 'republican,' morally bankrupt, 'clueless,' etc]. Heck, your accusation that I'm a Republican also has zero merit [I'm not], but it's right in line with, and just as accurate as the rest of your name-calling.
However, as easy as it is to refute each of those weak arguments, it would be unfair of me to match wits with an unarmed adversary [who can't even keep his numbered points in order; for example, most folks would say that "3" comes after "4"].
Anyway, my question upthread was never answered:
How do we reliably verify U.S. citizenship?
That is the central question.
For instance, it was originally proposed in California's Motor Voter legislation that Absentee Ballot Requests were going to be included in, among other things, bags of potato chips[!]. No citizenship verification necessary - just an affidavit signed by the illegal voter [who is already a law breaker; an affidavit isn't any big deal to a scofflaw, and besides, who's to say who actually signed the Absentee Ballot request to be sent to Mr Jose Gonzalez? Or to Mr Osama bin Laden, for that matter?
It is so very easy to illegally vote in the U.S., and there are so many millions of illegals [34 million at last count - but who really knows?], that in close races it is doubtful that honest American citizens got the candidate they legally and legitimately elected [google Bob Dornan just for starters].
Even more to the point, there were newspaper articles documenting voting by certain French nationals, who had requested and received Absentee Ballots sent to them in France prior to the 2004 presidential election; nothing whatever was done about it [but if you're in the military, it's probable that your vote will be discarded for various illegitimate reasons, such as the postmark or the APO address].
Voting by illegals is happeneing more and more in every election. Too bad some misguided folks think that is not a major problem.