I'm Back

>> Tuesday, April 10, 2012

I'm back! I just moved from Fredericksburg, Virginia to Wichita, Kansas and am proud to announce Kansas was the very first state to institute voter I.D. Laws. We hope all other states will follow suit, and the Federal government does not cancel these states laws out by use of judicial activism.

42 comments:

sue hanes April 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM  

Mark - Good for Kansas - with the voter fraud
laws.

How do you like Kansas? When my husband was in the U.S.Army - we lived at Fort Levenworth for a year. Kansas City has great restaurants. I liked it there.

Also he was stationed at the Pentagon and we lived in Alexandria Va. - for three years. That was great - being so close to D.C. - and being able to go there - and avoid the tourists.

Also we lived just one mile from Mt. Vernon - what a wonderful place.

I hope all is going well with you.

Jim April 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM  

"Judicial Activism" won't be necessary. It will only be necessary to demonstrate that:

1. It places an unnecessary burden on large numbers of citizens.
2. This is done by design.
3. There is no rationale for such a law since there is no evidence of widespread voter impersonation, and such impersonation is a crime.

It's all about voter suppression

Craig April 10, 2012 at 10:26 PM  

Enjoy Wichita, Hit KC for BBQ (Gates) and Fried Chicken (Strouds), and Manhattan for college sports.

Here in the peoples republic of MN we'll (hopefully) be voting on an ID law soon.

Great video at 4Simpsons about voter fraud.

Marshall Art April 11, 2012 at 3:36 AM  

In response to Jim,

1. No it doesn't and it can't be proved that it does, especially given the FACT that almost every state in the union provides free IDs for those who "cannot afford them", which is a laugh, and that there is, for those who care to vote in mid-terms also, two whole freakin years to get up the at most $45 (only one state charges this much with almost every other charging half or less that amount), as well as find a way to get transport to whatever municipal facility is closest.

2. Since the purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a burden on anyone other than those who shouldn't be voting in our elections, this will never be proven.

3. The rationale is obvious and logical. No state or municipality is required to wait for crimes to become common, or even committed once, to enact legislation to outlaw the behavior.

The opposition to voter ID laws is all about the opposition allowing for the possibility of illegitimate votes being cast and counted for their candidates. It's about winning elections for those who oppose voter ID laws. For supporters of voter ID laws, its about securing the integrity of the process. The opposition acts as if the supporting side has no poor people, old people, crippled people or unregistered people that would want to vote for their candidates. The opposition are whiners and cheats.

Mark April 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM  

Craig, Gates is OK. I took my wife there in February (before we headed on down to Wichita to house hunt) just so she could hear the famous line "Hi, can I help you?", but next time you go to KC don't leave without sampling Oklahoma Joe's BBQ. It's the best I've ever had. Anywhere.

Mark April 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM  

I'm quite sure if someone wants to vote, he will find a way to secure an I.D. if he doesn't already have one. Where there's a will, there's a way. No one proves that old adage better than those with the entitlement addiction. How does someone on welfare manage to buy a new Cadillac? If they can do that, they can get a photo I.D>

ELAshley April 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM  

"How does someone on welfare manage to buy a new Cadillac? If they can do that, they can get a photo I.D."

That pretty much destroys the Left's argument against voter ID.

At the top of my street is a local community center. Just the other day I saw a billboard out front advertising the dates baseball registration will begin. One of the requirements? ...a birth certificate. To join a local baseball team you must prove your age with a birth certificate. But you can become president of the United States without ever having to show one? And when demands to see one grow strident (4 years after the fact) a blatant forgery will suffice?

There's something seriously wrong with a political party that has no desire to ensure the integrity of our election process. You can't even participate in the welfare system without some form of ID, but no such ID is required to vote for the man who will champion the continuation and/or expansion one's benefits?

The Left's argument against voter ID seeks only to perpetuate their crooked tricks and maneuvers to subvert the process, and secure their crooks' win.

Jim April 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM  

To join a local baseball team you must prove your age with a birth certificate.

There are undoubtedly more proved cases of fraud or attempted fraud in little league last year than the number proved cases of voter impersonation in the last 50 years.

But you can become president of the United States without ever having to show one? And when demands to see one grow strident (4 years after the fact) a blatant forgery will suffice?

ELla, you must be an even bigger idiot than Trader Rick.

The rationale is obvious and logical.

Indeed. Pass a law to prevent something for which there is no demonstrated threat much less proved occurrence that just so happens to have the biggest effect on the other party.

Let's pass a law that nobody can drive an automobile within 10 miles of a polling place on election day, because, you know, some driver could disenfranchise a voter by running them over.

That could happen. Really. It could.

Marshall Art April 12, 2012 at 12:00 AM  

Incredible! Jim dares suggest Eric or Trader Rick is an idiot after posting his last paragraph! The irony is that that last paragraph is no more ridiculous than his and other voter ID opponents' suggestion that anyone is disenfranchised by voter ID laws. I know, I know. There are some who are prevented from voting because of voter ID laws. But those are the ones the laws are put in place to restrict. No one who is legally entitled to vote is disenfranchised at all by voter ID laws. No one who is legally entitled to vote is prevented from voting because of voter ID laws.

But to suggest that it prevents crime that doesn't happen is foolishness of the kind for which only a lib like Jim can argue in favor. Craig referenced the video at Neil's blog, which shows someone proving the opportunity exists that one can vote fraudulently in the manner an ID law would help to prevent. And while it is true that should the actual citizen show up later, a provisional ballot would be given to him, what happens if he doesn't? In that case, the fraud would have cast a vote never intended to be cast by the legitimate voter and very possibly for a candidate the legitimate voter might not support. What's more, the fraud would have cast at least two votes, his own and the one he had stolen under fraudulent means. This scenario isn't provable unless election officials call everyone from whom a vote is supposedly cast to confirm that each person who supposedly voted actually did. In other words, how can this type of fraud otherwise be discovered unless the election official checking in the fraud personally knows the person the fraud is posing as?

Marshall Art April 12, 2012 at 12:16 AM  

Almost forgot about Jim's goofy link. None of it shows that the laws restricted voting by anyone in any manner. The implementation of a law requiring ID does NOT inhibit ANYONE from voting unless they fail to acquire the proper ID. You can't vote if you are not registered, thus, registration disenfranchises those who aren't or won't or can't register. One can't register to vote (in most, if not all states, as far as I know) without proving one's identity in some manner, thus, requiring proof to register disenfranchises someone. The whine is ridiculous.

What is it about libs that makes having identification so problematic? That is, other than the desire to do something illegal where proper identification would lead to arrest. Is it only young or crippled or elderly or Latino or black Democrats that have these difficulties? Does not the right wing have their young, crippled, elderly, Latino and black voters? The whine is ridiculous.

All opposition to voter ID laws do is protect those who intend to commit voter fraud. Jim wishes to protect the ability of these people to commit fraud. Most, if not all, instances of voter or registration fraud, and intimidation, come from the left.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 12, 2012 at 2:15 AM  

Voter ID laws are security theatre. Actions that look like they make use safer, but actually do nothing.

One man tried to hide explosives in his shoes on a plane, so forever after all flying Americans have to take their shoes off to be screened.

One time someone tried to mix chemicals to concoct an explosive, so forever after all flyers must be prevented from carrying more than 2 oz of liquid on a plane.

These knee-jerk reactions make those who live in fear feel safe. They also provide justification for that fear in the future, even though logically we know that these measures are over-reactions to rare events and unlikely to prevent future rare events.

IF there is a vast liberal conspiracy to pervert democratic elections. A conspiracy that has scotched conservative politicians for decades without being detected at all, then how will these voter ID laws shine sunshine on the crimes? Obviously such a well crafted criminal organization will be able to procure false ID's for it's members.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 12, 2012 at 2:26 AM  

"What's more, the fraud would have cast at least two votes, his own and the one he had stolen under fraudulent means."

So? Two votes don't swing almost any elections. To affect even the smallest local town council races you'd need at least dozens of people successfully double or triple voting, going from precinct to precinct (because poll workers will spot someone that comes in and votes twice). For any larger race the conspiracy factor increases exponentially.

And yet conservatives are insisting this sort of racket has been going on for decades and NO ONE, EVER has come forward as a whistle-blower, NO ONE EVER has been arrested in a conspiracy like this, but still you demand must have voter ID laws to stop this perfect hidden law-breaking.

As Spock would say, "Illogical!"

Mark April 12, 2012 at 7:12 AM  

Let's just tell it like it is:

Jim and Bent and the other Libs don't want voter I.D. Laws is because they want people to vote illegally. The reason they want people to vote illegally is because they believe it's the only way Democrats can get elected.

The Democrats agenda has become so radically Socialistic that even many Democrats can no longer support their own party. And, in Jim and Bents heart, they know that's a fact.

Mark April 12, 2012 at 7:15 AM  

Bent writes: "Actions that look like they make use safer, but actually do nothing."

So if they don't hurt, why are you so adamantly against them? Just show your ID before you vote and quit whining.

Marshall Art April 12, 2012 at 8:27 AM  

Really. The arguments against voter ID laws are much ado about nothing. The arguments for them are sound: protecting the integrity of the system. Ben and Jim would have us wait until an election is rocked by widespread abuses before we act. Serious and mature people think more deeply than that and seek to prevent problems from happening. I'm not all that concerned that the incidence of the type of fraud meant to be thwarted by these laws might be low. I'm concerned that they never happen. A simple step such as presenting proof of identity before voting will go a long way toward making sure it doesn't.

ELAshley April 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM  

Just as the Left says there's no evidence that widespread fraud exists in the election process, so too is there no evidence it doesn't exist-- Chicago still allows dead people to vote, after all. But let me be clear, I believe there IS evidence of voter fraud; it's the 'widespread' contention to which I refer here. And this: "So? Two votes don't swing almost any elections." True, but that's not the point. The point is it's illegal to cast more than one ballot in any one election.

If the Left doesn't balk at the thought of one person casting two votes, why should it balk at the breaking of any law? Why don't we let drunks drive 95 mph through a school zone? No one, after all, is going to be hurt by it, right? Maybe not, but there's always the risk someone will.

Why should the left balk at the Card Check measure which would destroy the secret ballot process in unionization? After all, no one should be able to vote for whatever or whomever they wish without fear of threat or intimidation. But this is all hyperbole... just like the left and their cries of "Disenfranchisement!" over the implementation of Voter ID laws.

What happens if the government actually implements Bush's signed 2005 Real ID law? Everyone will be forced to acquire a national ID card at the direct expense of individual states-- yet another unfunded mandate! Will democrats fight against this? Not likely. Will they oppose use of an implemented national ID for the purpose of proving one's identity at the ballot box? QUITE likely-- they are such hypocrites.

People vote illegally in this country during every election. The primary recipients of those illegal votes go to democrats. So why should Democrats care? They didn't care that more 340 votes during Al Franken's bogus election were cast by convicted felons. Those votes alone may well have been what put him over the top.

Finally, the Left cries aloud that a man casting two votes is no big deal... so what, two votes don't swing almost any elections... but that's not what they were screaming in '01. They wanted recount after recount after recount until they got the number they wanted (but never did, even after SCOTUS ended the madness). If they had discovered even one vote illegally cast FOR Bush they'd've been screaming for Voter ID laws... but only for republicans.

But here's their real hypocrisy: They don't want voter ID laws because most poor folk are going to vote Democrat, and they know it. But they'll routinely disqualify military absentee ballots (like they did in '01 in Florida) because they mostly vote Republican.

I'm not going to call Jim an idiot. But I will call him dishonest, both intellectually and otherwise... a liar, a thief by proxy, and either by deliberation or design, dangerously ignorant. He says we can't support our contentions? neither can he support his. I'd rather us err on the side of caution (let's make sure it remains illegal to drive 95 mph in a school zone... for everyone!), but the Left would rather manipulate the process (let's only make it illegal for drunks to drive recklessly through a school zone... or republicans! That's how ridiculous their objections are).

ELAshley April 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM  

Franken, by the way, won by only 312 votes... after all the recounts and court challenges. A later study showed that, as I stated above, more than 341 of the votes Franken received were cast by convicted felons.

Here's your link: Felons voting illegally may have...

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM  

Mark may in fact become a perfect example of these empty, expensive laws disenfranchising voters.

I don't know the specifics of the Kansas Voter ID law, but since all these laws are being distributed from the same people to state legislators it's highly likely Kansas's law is just like Texas's.

The Voter ID law in Texas not only requires voters to present photo ID, it also allows political monitors to challenge voters. These monitors can challenge voters for several reasons, including the ID's address not matching the voter registration address. When that happens the voter gets a provisional ballot and then must return to the supervisor of elections in three days with more proof of identity.

Mark better get his driver's license replaced to reflect his new address or he may have to jump through extra hoops to exercise his constitutional right to vote.

Now imagine who else these provisions will discourage from voting. College students, those who move frequently, people who can't take off work.

All of this is expensive and discourages voters without actually stopping the forms of election tampering that actually happen. When shady campaigns want to tamper with the vote, they don't hire tens or hundreds of conspirators, they bribe one or two poll workers to not count certain ballots, or to double count certain ballots. Or they send out notices to voters that the date of the election has been changed.

The only thing the proposed Voter ID laws will do is depress voting among traditional democratic voters...but maybe that's the point?

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM  

"Franken, by the way, won by only 312 votes"

But a Voter ID law wouldn't have stopped felons voting. Their names were on the poll list.

And you haven't suggested these false votes were part of an organized conspiracy to sway the election for Franken. In fact all you have is the number of maybe felons who voted. You can't know how those people actually cast their ballots.

ELAshley April 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM  

"...it also allows political monitors to challenge voters."

Every state has statutes that allow such.

Voter Challenge Statutes by State

But Ben is right, Mark. Get everything switched over as soon as possible. And since Kansas has already held it's primary, there's no need to admonish you for voting twice!

Mark April 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM  

"Mark better get his driver's license replaced to reflect his new address or he may have to jump through extra hoops to exercise his constitutional right to vote."

I intend to. That's a minor inconvenience, but it also allows me to cash a check, get a Library card, and almost all other things that require a valid driver's license or state ID card. I have been and I am proud to display my Photo ID for the privilege to vote.

Doing so gives me confidence to know that my vote will not be cancelled out by an illegal voter. And, that's the whole point of Voter ID laws.

Craig April 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM  

Mark,

I've done OK Joe's and it's good too. Just love the Gates sauce. You really do need to check out Stroud's though. Also, the WW1 museum is really well done.

Mark April 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM  

Craig, I used to live in KC. I've been to all those places, and yes, you're right. The WW1 museum is great!

Jim April 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM  

Holy crap! What, uh, crap!

Jim and Bent and the other Libs don't want voter I.D. Laws is because they want people to vote illegally.

Really stupid assertion. Unsupported and untrue.

The reason they want people to vote illegally is because they believe it's the only way Democrats can get elected.

Even more stupid. In fact it is you who believes the only way Democrats can get elected is through fraud.

The Democrats agenda has become so radically Socialistic that even many Democrats can no longer support their own party. And, in Jim and Bents heart, they know that's a fact.

Keep the santorum flowing, Mark.

No one who is legally entitled to vote is prevented from voting because of voter ID laws.

Prevented is not necessary. Discouraged or burdened qualifies. There is ample evidence of this.

You can't vote if you are not registered, thus, registration disenfranchises those who aren't or won't or can't register.

There are thousands of legally registered voters who don't have photo IDs.

All opposition to voter ID laws do is protect those who intend to commit voter fraud.

I repeat: Stupid, unsupported and false.

See next post for exposing the monumentally stupid.

Jim April 12, 2012 at 7:34 PM  

so too is there no evidence it doesn't exist.

This is as bad as logic gets. There is also no evidence that time travel doesn't exist. There is also no evidence that Martians don't live among us.

The point is it's illegal to cast more than one ballot in any one election.

Yes indeedy! There are already laws on the books against fraudulent voting. Stiff penalties, too! Jail and huge fines.

It's illegal to murder someone with a gun. It happens a lot more often than voter impersonation. Why don't we take away all the guns, because, you know, existing laws against murder aren't good enough? And uh, some people may think murder is worse than illegal voting.

So if it's good enough to have laws against murder on the books and not take away guns, why isn't it good enough to have laws against voter fraud on the books?

Why don't we let drunks drive 95 mph through a school zone?

Because we KNOW that doing that is HIGHLY likely to cause injury and death. It's a demonstrated fact.

Will democrats fight against this? Not likely.

Based on what?

People vote illegally in this country during every election.

1) You know this how?
2) Would an ID have stopped it?
3) Almost ALL illegal voting is either unintentional or other than voter impersonation.
4) Nine cases in 10 years.

The primary recipients of those illegal votes go to democrats.

No proof whatsoever of this. What is your source?

They didn't care that more 340 votes during Al Franken's bogus election were cast by convicted felons.

This crap again! In Minnesota, some felons can legally vote. And almost ALL of these felons would have had to have voted for Franken in order for them to have mattered.

but that's not what they were screaming in '01.

It was 2000, dummy.

They wanted recount after recount after recount until they got the number they wanted

This is false. They wanted A recount.

but never did This is not true. Counting under votes throughout the state would have put Gore over the top. Gore wasn't asking for that, though.

But they'll routinely disqualify military absentee ballots (like they did in '01 in Florida)

That's horse s**t!

He says we can't support our contentions? neither can he support his.

I have, you haven't. Your contention is that there is "no proof" something doesn't happen.

Marshall Art April 13, 2012 at 2:48 AM  

Jim,

That you are willing to allow fraudulent voting in order to win elections is not a stupid assertion considering you are objecting to a desire to insure the integrity of the process.

"Prevented is not necessary. Discouraged or burdened qualifies. There is ample evidence of this."

You've not provided any evidence thus far, nor have I seen anyone else do so. Boo-hoo stories of old people needing rides or no longer having legal IDs after their driving privileges are thwarted by their age does not qualify as a legitimate example. Voting at all is a burden to some. The list of candidates can be discouraging for others. Registration is a burden. One has to provide proof of residency, and then actually drive to where registration can take place. Boo-hoo. Keep searching and perhaps you can find a real reason why IDs should not be required.

"There are thousands of legally registered voters who don't have photo IDs."

Then there are thousands of legally registered voters who need to get one. It doesn't hurt, cost much or take much time. No burden.

"Yes indeedy! There are already laws on the books against fraudulent voting. Stiff penalties, too! Jail and huge fines."

And you dare call anyone here stupid! THIS requirement will make it harder for anyone to even try to cast a fraudulent vote. Arrests, trials, jail time and the cost of all of these will be less necessary, if necessary at all should all be required to prove their identity before casting a vote.

"4) Nine cases in 10 years."

This one's my favorite. That's, first of all, nine cases that your sources cite and even if totally accurate, account for only nine cases that were discovered. How many haven't been discovered and how can anyone put a number on it?

"Your contention is that there is "no proof" something doesn't happen."

No. Pay attention. Our contention is that this is a logical, sensible and no-brainer requirement that should already have been in place since legal IDs have been around for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the voting process. As you have no brain, I'm amazed you still don't grasp it.

Marshall Art April 13, 2012 at 2:51 AM  

But here's where we get a true measure of the "man" named Jim:

"Keep the santorum flowing, Mark."

What an incredible classy guy. What a true man of character and honor. What an asshole.

Mark April 13, 2012 at 6:47 AM  

"There are thousands of legally registered voters who don't have photo IDs."

You Libs continue to make that assertion, but you can't prove it. And, it's interesting to me that none of you bother to establish it as a fact.

The ridiculous notion that thousands of people don't have photo ID's is pure Liberal propaganda.

"In fact it is you who believes the only way Democrats can get elected is through fraud."

Correction: I KNOW the only way Democrats can be elected is through fraud. And, my next statement explains why I know it.

Jim April 13, 2012 at 6:19 PM  

That you are willing to allow fraudulent voting in order to win elections is not a stupid assertion considering you are objecting to a desire to insure the integrity of the process.

Who told you that? I am not at all willing to allow fraudulent voting for any reason. There is very little going on. We have laws against it. I fully support those laws. I support all law enforcement efforts to prosecute any voting crimes.

You've not provided any evidence thus far... yadda, yadda. I have provided examples in previous posts. There are statistics all over the place and Craigslist didn't pull their metrics out of their asses. See below for one great source. And we are NOT talking about registration. We are talking about presenting a photo ID at the polls. Many, many legally registered voters do NOT have a photo ID. My mother did not have one.

Keep searching and perhaps you can find a real reason why IDs should not be required.

Here's one. Because it does not affect all voters in the same way. If you wanted to make a law that was effective by say 2015 or have census takers provide photo IDs in 2020 or by other means make sure that all segments of the population were equally affected, I might consider that. There is no proof that this effort would lessen the number of fraudulent votes, but at least almost everybody would have a photo ID.

Then there are thousands of legally registered voters who need to get one. It doesn't hurt, cost much or take much time. No burden.

How do YOU know that "It doesn't...cost much or take much time"? The effort for you may be different than that for the disabled octogenarian living in the middle of the Denali region.

THIS requirement will make it harder for anyone to even try to cast a fraudulent vote.

Who is trying to cast a fraudulent vote who hasn't been caught?

Arrests, trials, jail time and the cost of all of these will be less necessary, if necessary at all should all be required to prove their identity before casting a vote.

Repeat: nine proved in 10 years. How much less necessary can you get?

How many haven't been discovered and how can anyone put a number on it?

How many Martians live among us?

Our contention is that this is a logical, sensible and no-brainer requirement that should already have been in place since legal IDs have been around for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the voting process.

This is a pretty much nonsensical statement. But I will counter with:

1) It is a VERY expensive effort for states to enact voter ID laws with little if any demonstrated benefit.
2) Until you make as much effort to make sure that EVERY precinct and polling place has enough voting machines to service all voters, you have no standing on voting integrity.
3) Until you provide assurance and the means that all legally registered voters have the same required documentation so that nobody is negatively impacted, your requirement is voter suppression. The burden of getting an ID should not be placed on a legally registered voter. You want to go to their house and get them one, be my guest.

And all that to provide that Martians...excuse me, that somebody doesn't impersonate another voter.

Jim April 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM  

As you have no brain, I'm amazed you still don't grasp it.

Quoi?

What an incredible classy guy. What a true man of character and honor. What an asshole.

Anybody who says, as Mark did, that Ben or I WANT people to vote illegally, that we believe that that is the only way Democrats can win, deserves what he gets.

You Libs continue to make that assertion, but you can't prove it. And, it's interesting to me that none of you bother to establish it as a fact.

According to the University of Wisconsin, percent of Wisconsin voting age adults without a drivers license is between 46% and 59% among minorities compared to 17% for whites. 93% of college students do not have drivers licenses. 177,399 adults 65 and older did not have a drivers license or state voter ID.

The ridiculous notion that thousands of people don't have photo ID's is pure Liberal propaganda.

See Wisconsin, above.

I KNOW the only way Democrats can be elected is through fraud. And, my next statement explains why I know it.

Can't WAIT to read it!

ELAshley April 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM  

Craigslist? Seriously? Is that where you're getting your "metrics"?

Be careful someone doesn't take you for a hooker and kill you.

Jim April 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM  

Catch up, ELla. I used the Cragslist info graphic as an overview of the entire issue. I have provided a link in my latest post to one of MANY studies citing actual figures of real and potential disenfranchisement.

Here's another detailed analysis state by state of voter suppression efforts and their impact.

And there's plenty more.

Jim April 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM  

And when will you produce "metrics" demonstrating that voter impersonation is rampant, coordinated, and has an impact worthy of suppressing the votes of hundreds of thousands if not millions of eligible citizens, not to mention millions of dollars in state expenses to implement?

Marshall Art April 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM  

It'll take some time to peruse your links, Jim, but so far, I've seen nothing that shows an undue burden by requiring IDs. The first link stated that to get an ID in some states requires a birth certificate which might cost up to a whole 45 freakin dollars!!!!! That changes everything!!!!!

How can 11% of the population not have proof of birth, when this and other forms of identification is so commonly required for so many things in this country? There is something quite fishy with your links to make this claim.

Or is it that only some of them lack such certifications? If this is the case, what of the rest? What is their excuse? Expense? I've already shown in past discussions on this topic that most states charge very little to acquire a state ID, with the most expensive being $45 and the next most being almost half that. So expense, especially given that one has two years between major elections to raise that steep amount, is hardly prohibitive. What's more, most, if not all states, provide for the hardship and already have the means by which those unable to raise that steep amount can still acquire an ID for free.

With all this in mind, you might be able to make the case of suppression if the cost of an ID was several hundred dollars, but not between $45 and FREE! The real myth is that the push for voter ID is to suppress the votes of some segment of society. This is crap and as IDs are required by so many various organizations and businesses, as well as for gaining employment, the only logical explanation for not having an ID is some shortcoming on the part of the individual who doesn't have one and won't get one.

ELAshley April 16, 2012 at 8:16 AM  

You've got a point there, Marshall. Just to get a legitimate job in this country you have to show a photo ID. This whole claim of voter suppression by the Left is bulls**t. The Left only wants to insure that anyone who wants to CAN cheat in an election. It's not about how many people have voted more than once in the past, it's about leaving the door open for those who WANT to commit fraud.

Marshall Art April 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM  

Indeed. But what's more, how many of that 11% would vote conservative? If the answer is close to "none of them", then doesn't that say something about the ethic of each side, that one side would take the process more seriously that it would do what it takes to enable one's self to engage? The right has its share of poor, minorities, elderly, disabled. Doesn't Jim and his kind believe that we'd want every possible conservative to vote, too? Yet, we tend to hold ourselves accountable to a greater degree than the left does.

But to match Jim's links, I offer this one. It contains various studies that contradict those of Jim's links. Here's a snippet of interest:

"In Indiana, which the U.S. Supreme Court said has the strictest voter ID law in the country, turnout in the Democratic presidential preference primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election when the photo ID law was not in effect—in fact, there were 862,000 more votes cast in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary. In the general election in November, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the nation. According to Census Bureau surveys, 59.2 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election compared to only 53.8 percent in 2004, an increase of over 5 percentage points.

The neighboring state of Illinois, with no photo ID requirement and President Obama’s home state, had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points—only half of Indiana’s increase. Turnout in the 2010 congressional election in Indiana was almost 1.75 million voters, an increase of more than 77,000 voters over the 2006 election. Indiana was one of the states with a “large and impressive” increase in black turnout in the 2010 election: “the black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout.”[36] In fact, the black share of the total vote went from only 7 percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010 (this in the state with the strictest voter ID law in the country)"


and

"Just as in the federal case in Georgia, the federal court in Indiana noted the complete inability of the plaintiffs in that case to produce anyone who would not be able to vote because of the photo ID law:

Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting pursuant to [the photo ID law] because of his or her inability to obtain the necessary photo identification. Similarly, Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence of any individual, registered or unregistered, who would have to obtain photo identification in order to vote, let alone anyone who would undergo any appreciable hardship to obtain photo identification in order to be qualified to vote."

Marshall Art April 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM  

and

"Finally, opponents of voter ID laws have charged that requiring an ID, even when it is free, [42] is a “poll tax” because of the incidental costs, such as possible travel to a registrar’s office or obtaining a birth certificate, that may be involved. Such a “poll tax” claim, for instance, was recently raised in Georgia. The federal court, however, dismissed this claim, agreeing with the Indiana federal court that:

[Such an argument] represents a dramatic overstatement of what fairly constitutes a “poll tax.” Thus, the imposition of tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax. Moreover, the cost of time and transportation cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same “costs” also result from voter registration and in-person voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax.[43]

Clearly, these absurd cries of “poll tax,” are simply another tactic in the increasingly desperate campaign against voter ID legislation."

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM  

The Democratic primary numbers from Indiana and Illinois can't easily be used to gauge the affect of the Voter ID laws, because primary races are so individual.

Certainly the Dem candidates were different between 2004(no Hillary, no Barack) and 2008. Did the two states have their 2008 primary on the same day?

The fact anti-VoterID advocates haven't produced a victim yet is no the slam-dunk you envision.

Those opposed to the so called Death Tax have yet to find one family owned American farm subject to inheritance taxes, yet still they push for repeal of all inheritance taxes.

It is a plain fact that lots of Americans don't have photoID. The elderly, the young, especially in urban areas are less likely to have photoID. They use public transportation, social security numbers for job applications, or utility bills.

Because you haven't lived that life your imagination fails to believe they exist. Foolishness.

These people are democratic constituencies and you know the hard-edges political operatives in every state capital were asking how they could shade these Voter ID laws to discourage these voters.

ELAshley April 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM  

"Those opposed to the so called Death Tax have yet to find one family owned American farm subject to inheritance taxes..."


"Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax."

BenT - the Unbeliever,  April 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM  

Same article: "The U.S. Agriculture Department does not track how many family farms are lost due to estate taxes, said James Ramey, director of the Ohio field office of the USDA’s National Agriculture Statistics Service.

Neither does the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. But Joe Cornely, the bureau’s spokesman, said Zehringer is "absolutely right" that the Ohio estate tax contributes to the decline in family farms. Sometimes a chunk of a farm is sold to pay federal and state estate taxes and, as a result, the farm is no longer commercially viable, Cornely said."


I was speaking of advocates to end the federal estate tax and still no examples of actual farm families selling out, just anecdotes and advocates saying "I know for sure"...without really knowing for sure.

On this issue conservatives again believe something without statistical proof. Whereas liberals have reality based numbers about people without ID's and arrests for voter fraud that contradict these unfounded beliefs.

ELAshley April 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM  

That's HARDLY anecdotal, Ben; especially considering the last few sentences of the article:

"As for the estate tax’s role in the decline, it’s difficult to say exactly how many family farms were lost for that reason. But Cornely, an authority on Ohio agriculture, said his[sic] is sure "some" of the loses would be due to taxes.

We rate the statement True."


That "We" in this last sentence refers to Politifact Ohio. Imagine that! This from a fact check site. But then, facts are only facts, if liberals say they are.

Liberals have yet (especially Jim) to offer ANY definitive proof that voter ID laws inhibit or otherwise discourage minority (or any other subset, for that matter; poor, black, Hispanic, what-have-you) voters from casting a vote.

I stand by what I said earlier:

"The Left only wants to insure that anyone who wants to CAN cheat in an election. It's not about how many people have voted more than once in the past, it's about leaving the door open for those who WANT to commit fraud."

And never mind the fact that anyone in this country who desires to apply for legitimate work must provide a photo ID. I mean, WORK is perhaps the most basic human right, right after Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! Without work men are miserable, unable to provide any luxuries that hard work can provide. But then, in this welfare state we misappropriately call America, this present government sees itself as being in the business of giving everyone what they could otherwise do for themselves if they'd only get out and work.

The Left wants a nation of sluggards. If everyone is on the dole no one will ever vote against the party that keeps them on the plantation. Democrats fought to keep slavery in the south... and lost. Now they're fighting to keep Americans on the new Leftist plantation... and winning, in no small part because of the insidious nature of the new plantation.

Jim April 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM  

Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax.

Good old Politifact. The conclusion of your link:

As for the estate tax’s role in the decline, it’s difficult to say exactly how many family farms were lost for that reason. But Cornely, an authority on Ohio agriculture, said his is sure "some" of the loses would be due to taxes.

"Some"?

Minority turnout was higher in 2008? What a surprise!

And never mind the fact that anyone in this country who desires to apply for legitimate work must provide a photo ID.

This is a fact? What is your source?

The Left wants a nation of sluggards. If everyone is on the dole no one will ever vote against the party that keeps them on the plantation. Democrats fought to keep slavery in the south... and lost. Now they're fighting to keep Americans on the new Leftist plantation... and winning, in no small part because of the insidious nature of the new plantation.

Holy shit!

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP