Does your state require a photo ID to vote? Don't vote!

[TSTR]

fuck all you guys when the inevitable downfall of american society comes i'm going to live with jvalentine in his militia bunker and play resident evil like a motherfucking boss

[marurun]

False and false. They arent trying to get lower voter turnout. They are just trying to make sure those voting are who they say they are and lawfully able to vote.

That's what they say, but the numbers don't bear it out. Fraud rates in voting are incredibly low in the US, at least of the sort ID laws would prevent. But ID laws reduce voter turnout measurably (especially among minorities and the poor). Voter ID laws remove far more legitimate voters from the voting pool than they do reduce fraudulent votes.

Here's an analysis of some voter reforms in Kansas and Tennessee performed by the GAO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... 000-votes/

Now, if voter ID laws allowed for a broad range of alternate identification, such as utility bills or letters from the government addressed to the recipient, I might be a little more forgiving. If your information was good enough to register to vote, it should be good enough to exercise your vote. Voter ID laws should serve only to positively identify the voter, but they are usually crafted to be more narrow than serving that simple end, thus the usual lack of alternate identification methods.

Here's another article covering the actual cost of getting a proper state photo ID and the effect on voter turnout:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic ... t-20141008

[prfsnl_gmr]

I did not read Judge Posners report. I won't read his blogs or any of his rulings. While he's certainly bright (many are), he is a defeatist and at times in my opinion, a very dangerous person and I think the post below...

Judge Posner is a brilliant, conservative jurist, and even he recognizes the perniciousness of Wisconsin's law.

...is the first time he's been called conservative in 20 years.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but he is probably more of a "libertarian" than a "conservative" in the modern sense.

False and false. They arent trying to get lower voter turnout. They are just trying to make sure those voting are who they say they are and lawfully able to vote.

The North Carolina state legislature recently enacted some laws making it more onerous to vote. (They implemented an ID requirement, shortened the early voting period, required ballots cast in the wrong precincts to be struck, etc.) When it passed the law, the Republican's legislature's real intent was very, very clear to people in North Carolina. Since there have never been any reported instances of in-person voter fraud in North Carolina and since the legislature admitted that the cost of the early voting period is negligible, the intent was clearly to keep Democratic voters - who tend to vote early and are more likely to relocate between election cycles - from casting votes. Thankfully, parts of the law were recently struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[ninjainspandex]

Now, if voter ID laws allowed for a broad range of alternate identification, such as utility bills or letters from the government addressed to the recipient

except those do not have photos on it, if you didn't like your neighbor you could simply steal his cable bill and make him vote for your guy.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Now, if voter ID laws allowed for a broad range of alternate identification, such as utility bills or letters from the government addressed to the recipient

except those do not have photos on it, if you didn't like your neighbor you could simply steal his cable bill and make him vote for your guy.

That'd show him!

Seriously, why would any one ever do this? In-person voter identification fraud is illegal, and no one is arguing it should not be. Nonetheless, the idea that someone would take someone else's ID and stand in line - possibly for hours - to cast a single fraudulent vote in an election in which millions of votes are cast is pretty ludicrous. The punishment for getting caught is severe, and the reward is negligible at best. It would be like risking years in prison to steal a penny...

[ninjainspandex]

is it incredibly stupid and pointless? yes, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shor ... 22221.html

[prfsnl_gmr]

is it incredibly stupid and pointless? yes, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shor ... 22221.html

Notably, a photo ID probably would not have hindered this man from committing voting fraud since all of the ballots allegedly cast in other people's names were absentee ballots. (From the article, it appears that the in-person ballots were cast in the accused's name, and the accused actually used his photo IDs from different jurisdictions to cast them.)

[ninjainspandex]

is it incredibly stupid and pointless? yes, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shor ... 22221.html

Notably, a photo ID probably would not have hindered this man from committing voting fraud since all of the ballots allegedly cast in other people's names were absentee ballots. (From the article, it appears that the in-person ballots were cast in the accused's name, and the accused actually used his photo IDs from different jurisdictions to cast them.)

So what your saying is that we need to have people show ID to absentee vote then?

[Ack]

The North Carolina state legislature recently enacted some laws making it more onerous to vote. (They implemented an ID requirement, shortened the early voting period, required ballots cast in the wrong precincts to be struck, etc.) When it passed the law, the Republican's legislature's real intent was very, very clear to people in North Carolina. Since there have never been any reported instances of in-person voter fraud in North Carolina and since the legislature admitted that the cost of the early voting period is negligible, the intent was clearly to keep Democratic voters - who tend to vote early and are more likely to relocate between election cycles - from casting votes. Thankfully, parts of the law were recently struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Admittedly this is also part of the usual back and forth between the parties. The Democrats heavily favor granting undocumented citizens their citizenship because most are likely to vote in their favor. And both parties support redistricting repeatedly to give them an edge during elections.

That said, I thought the Civil Rights Act required any of these sorts of changes in Southern States be subjected to federal oversight before they are cleared.

[prfsnl_gmr]

That said, I thought the Civil Rights Act required any of these sorts of changes in Southern States be subjected to federal oversight before they are cleared.

Not anymore!