Tweet
I got a couple curious letters accusing me of misinforming in my story yesterday about the voter suppression bill being readied in Wisconsin, and how it will be operative for the recalls. It seems that the Wisconsin State Journal, which first reported on this, now leads on the article linked in my story with a huge caveat:
Voters would be asked for a photo ID in the upcoming recall elections but would still be allowed to vote without one. They would then be informed that a photo ID would be mandatory beginning with the spring 2012 Primary.
Now this is a brand-new lede to the story. It wasn’t there when I wrote on the details yesterday afternoon. Here, in fact, is the lede on the article as it was forwarded to me by a source:
Amended voter ID bill would take effect before recall elections
CLAY BARBOUR | Posted: Monday, May 9, 2011 6:41 pm
Voters taking part in the upcoming recall elections would need photo identification, if the latest version of the controversial voter ID bill becomes law.
That’s how it read Monday night. Sometime between Monday night and Tuesday, the story changed.
Now this is actually fairly common, to see rewrites in a story from the first time it appears on the Web to press time. But this amounts to a negation of the entire story. If voters will simply get asked for photo ID for the recalls but allowed to vote anyway, then the urgency of passage is merely a function of Wisconsin Republicans getting the most possible right-wing bills into circulation before losing the state Senate. Because the Wisconsin State Journal has now lost credibility with me, I sought other sources, including the bill text, before determining that the photo ID provisions of the bill would not be operative for the recalls.
However, that doesn’t mean that other election laws wouldn’t change for the recall.
It also requires that voters live at their current address for 28 days, instead of 10, prior to an election. That change would take effect immediately after the bill is signed, meaning before any recall elections this summer. Six Republicans and three Democrats in the Senate — including four Republicans on the budget committee — are facing potential recalls.
It was important for the longer residency requirement to be in place before the recall elections, (Republican Sen. Joe) Leibham said.
That piece would definitely be operative before the recall. Other provisions, which would lower early voting down to two weeks from 30 days, and end straight party-line voting, would probably take effect afterwards.
There had to be a reason why Rep. Jennifer Shilling, running in the recall against Sen. Dan Kapanke, accused Republicans of rushing the bill because of “pending elections.” Indeed there are parts that would change the rules for the recalls. And furthermore, with the hoopla over photo ID in Wisconsin, even if it’s not in effect, people may have the impression that they need the ID, both before voting and even during it, if the election officials will indeed ask for ID. This has the potential to cause a lot of confusion at the polls.
Meanwhile, at least four recall petitions against Republican Senators have been verified, so we will absolutely see recalls in Wisconsin this summer. What the voting rules will be for those recalls is still up in the air, pending the voter suppression bill in the legislature.
Notwithstanding the Wisconsin State Journal blowing the story from the start, I hope this makes more sense to everyone.
133 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thanks so much David.
Again I fail to see how requiring voters to show a photo ID is some nefarious “vote suppression” tactic. Does it create some small burden on potential voters? Well, yes. But there does have to be a balance between imposing burdens on the voters, and ensuring a fair election.
It does depend on whether “are allowed to vote anyway”, even in the absence of the ID this new state law requires, means a straight up vote or casting a provisional ballot that is counted only in limited circumstances.
Stole it fair and square. Incidents of actual voter fraud are nil. Incidents of election fraud are not.
A raft of state laws, overwhelmingly initiated by, wait for it, Republican controlled legislatures, have been proposed to deal with a non-existent crisis in voter fraud. Tim Griffin, a once and future Karl Rove acolyte, made a career out of pushing them. Their documented effects are to depress voter turnout, often among poor Democratic voting minorities, the young and the elderly, not to decrease the incidence of something that is not a problem.
this is how it will play out in the recall. mass confusion as to whether you need to show ID to vote, many told they can not vote without it, all blamed on confusion and not understanding new rules, and computers will help rig the rest
The problem is, even if they are “allowed” to vote, it will most likely be on provisional ballots. Ballots which can be discarded immediately without any kind of audit or examination.
And I’ve got to be honest here, I have no problem ending straight ticket voting. None whatever.
reply to general pudding @ 2
If you want a fair election then get rid of electronic voting machines.
One would think that would be the kind of detail this newspaper would report correctly.
You were informed, in the last thread on this subject, as to why these laws are always designed to impose an undue burden on primarily Democratic-leaning voters and thus are intended for the purpose of (and succeed in) depressing Democratic voter turnout.
Repeating the untruths in a different thread won’t make them any more true.
You were also informed that these laws do nothing to insure fair elections and would be completely ineffective at their purported purpose of preventing a non-existent problem of voter fraud.
This is made vivid by the handful of known voter fraud cases that, for some reason, always seem to involve right wing politicians and media personalities…
Straight question; Are you paid to post here because if you are you won’t change anybodys mind here.
Republican gaming of the electoral process started before Katherine Harris in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio. State troopers in certain Southern states have been known to line the highways on voting day. And yes, the Dems, mythically in Chicago and NYC, have engaged in questionable voting practices too. But today’s GOP reigns supreme.
It devotes a considerable number of researchers to that task every year. For more than a decade, it has focused on local and state elections, on the belief that they affect national elections and because they control the machinery of voting for all elections.
Imposing tighter time limits on early voting, requiring that they be on card stock of an unusual weight, generating confusing ballots, keeping essential voting records on an ancient personal PC are a few recent official games. Unofficial ones include broadcasting flyers in poorer or immigrant parts of towns, announcing an incorrect date for the election or indicating that certain kinds of ID will be required that are not, in fact, required by state laws.
Election fraud
Scrollin, scrollin, scrollin
though they keep on trollin
keep those browsers rollin
scroll by
Don’t try to understand ‘em
Just ignore, scorn and pan them
Soon their frustration will be high
Let ‘em go
Keep ‘em out
They don’t know
Anything about
What we’re sayin’
scroll byyyyyyy
The problem with statistics on voter fraud is that the issue only ever arises in very very close elections, which are relatively rare, and even then, the issue is only ever pursued if the DA or AG in charge has a political motivation to do so. (If you’re a Republican AG and a Republican just won the Governor’s race in a squeaker, you are much less likely to actively pursue voter fraud cases in that election than if you were a Democrat AG.) So the truth of the matter is, more likely, that we don’t really know how pervasive of a problem voter fraud really is because nobody cares if there were 100 or even 10,000 fraudulent votes if the winner won in a landslide.
You claim that Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voter turnout. That may be true, but I submit that a much more likely explanation, which doesn’t rely on crassly base motives, is about guaranteeing the integrity of elections, especially very close ones, with a photo ID requirement that is only a tiny additional burden on the voter, especially considering in how many other instances in our daily lives that a photo ID is required for identification.
You need a job. :<)
Yep. :(
Well, people here seem intent on believing that Republicans just have bad motivations. Tell me then: if you were to design a voter identity verification system from scratch, how would you do it? Would you NOT use photo IDs?
joe, a rigid mindset is no good either.
GeneralPudding might change my mind… if they could scrounge up something to argue with besides easily debunked GOP talking points.
And for the easily offended:
Whether GeneralPudding is aware of it or not those arguments are literally GOP talking points straight out of Karl Rove’s talking points memos.
Love it!
On the topic of the post, Indiana has a picture ID law. When it started, some elderly nuns were turned away because they had no photo IDs, not being drivers. It made a stink. And since I’m in a university town, it makes a difference for students, too.
That’s because most Republicans have bad motivations.
Lee Atwater had and Karl Rove has the best of intentions; like all God’s creatures, they just fail(-ed) to live up to them sometimes, but not out of malice and not for lack of trying. Every lawyer and daddy is another Atticus Finch, not Bob Ewell, and ratfuck is what rodents do when they make love, it’s not what Republican operatives do to steal elections.
Your Pythonesque insistence on looking on the bright side of life seems disconnected with fairly well known realities of political life over the last few decades, behavior that probably hasn’t changed much since Julius Caesar.
You’re in good company.
zapkitty, I read your response there – you are confusing the issue between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Yes, local election officials are typically in charge of registering new voters, and that’s appropriate IMO. The photo ID requirement is for people actually showing up to vote on election day.
Now that is just an attempt at guilt by association. I don’t read Karl Rove’s talking points or anything like that. Quite frankly I don’t even really like the guy. But if Karl Rove were to say that diet and exercise were to help me lose weight, I’d agree with him. Wouldn’t you?
Well, earl, maybe it’s because I don’t view Republicans, or Democrats either, as fire-breathing monsters intent on destroying America. I think that there’s a legitimate motivation for most things that both sides try to accomplish.
No, the motivation is to win, by any means necessary. Wanting to win isn’t necessarily “bad” or “evil,” however, lying and cheating to win is. Funny how a Regressive legislator in FL openly stated he wanted to make it more difficult for people to vote at the polls.
You don’t own a firearm, do you.
Voter fraud that is essentially non-existent, and easily detectable and punishable before and after the fact. Election fraud is neither. The latter is managed by those attempting to affect voters before they vote and by those in control of the voting process itself.
So the gloves are off, eh? At this point you are defining your very own reality in classic winger style.
The simple, easily-verified fact is that ever since the GOP brought this strategy forward from the Jim Crow era they’ve not been able to produce evidence of even a minor outbreak of voter fraud… much less the massive epidemics their draconian (and ineffective) laws are predicated on.
Talk about thread hijacking. This is getting boring, just as it did yesterday. Think that’s the desired intention. Derail the conversation in a more “reasonable” way, but then a ton of spurious rightwing talking points are magically infested in the comments. Voila! Mission accomplished.
It’s not as if rightwing talking points are not readily & incessantly available 24/7/365 in the corporate-owned rightwing media, now the right is pushing them on blogs like this. I DO “get” what’s going on, despite the seemingly intelligent and reasonable tone.
And so: on it goes….
False equivalence is the hobgoblin of pundits and mainstream newsreaders, not informed observers of modern electoral politics.
SouthernDragon, honest question: would you be okay with a “vote suppression tactic” if it helped Democrats win?
I seem to recall a compelling scene in Twelve Angry Men, involving Ed Begley’s character and eleven other jurors. It’s a model that might prove useful here.
The results on the election, though, are irreversible.
What are you smoking?
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?
Read Ron Paul about Wall Street/the Fed. I don’t agree about moving back to the gold standard, but it’s ground zero for “socializing,” risk/loss onto the taxpayers.
Both parties have caved to unregulated monopolies and oligopolies, who want to privatize profits, while they socialize risk/losses.
Do you like child-labor?
This was in Electrical Engineering Times in February? Apple reveals Chinese child-labor at suppliers
General, can you tell me what the force protection requirements are for our troops in the Middle East? What about troop-to-task ratios? Was Reagan wrong about “nation-building?” Does it suddenly work?
No way will anyone here (‘cepting a troll) change their minds.
Quite. And attempting to engage is useless, as was proven yesterday when you gave example after example after example of rightwing mis-behavior, but you were still “exhorted” to try to “walk a mile” in a conservative’s shoes to “understand” their delicate sensibilities. Spare me. Load of baloney & a ton of strawman arguments & an even bigger load of rightwing talking points direct from Rush Limbaugh’s jaws to this blog. No thanks.
Margaret… I left a message for you in another thread that you might not have seen…
Have you thought of working in a gym? Your own health transformation should certainly make you qualified for something like that.
I’m not SouthernDragon but I can honestly say unequivocally absolutely not. Ever hear that two wrongs don’t make a right?
Your question is spurious and intentionally dishonest. I am not southerndragon, but my answer is a resounding: NO.
This is bogus, and you know it. This is not the so-called “honest” conversation that you claim that you wish to have.
Google on GOP voter caging.
If there was any voter fraud, they’d be prosecuting it.
They’re pushing the costs they now incur for voter caging onto the taxpayers.
I’m pretty sure that he would not be.
Why don’t you go post your stuff somewhere else where it might be appreciated? It certainly is not appreciated here and you won’t be changing any minds, either.
whaddaya drinkin, my friend? owe ya one (albeit it’s like shooting fish in a barrel with this sock puppet)
x2
No, local election people are the people best equipped to deal with actual occurrences of voter fraud and haven’t required photo ID to do it… which is good as photo ID is worthless insofar as preventing actual voter fraud is concerned.
… and, again, has repeatedly been proven worthless for preventing actual voter fraud.
Okay, I didn’t ask the question of SouthernDragon thinking that he would answer yes. Fine – you would not agree. That is great. So my real question is, why do you think Republicans would agree with a “voter suppression tactic” even if they thought it would benefit Republicans?
No.
I’m neither a Democrat nor a neoliberal. I’m a Wobbly.
Nope. I’ve never worked in a gym and though I’ve gotten myself into shape, a gym is much more likely to hire an out of shape person with credentials than an in shape one without. I know this because I once tried to volunteer as a drug rehab counselor and was denied. Despite the fact that I had quit crystal meth, powder and crack cocaine, alcohol and tobacco notwithstanding because I wasn’t degreed. And that was for an unpaid volunteer gig. I guarantee that I’m much more likely to get people to stop using the dope than some sheepskin bearer but personal experience is apparently not relevant to the PTB. If I see any gym ads, I’ll apply though. Thanks for the suggestion. :)
Because they do it frequently. Hence, Republicans must agree with voter suppression tactics. If they didn’t agree with it, then why would they do it. Numerous examples have already been provided throughout the thread.
See my 26.
This will be my last response to you. Not into circular arguments.
The assumption is there are any, for which there is no or scant evidence, unlike a plethora of incidents of election fraud.
The real issue for this thread is the confusion over what the voting requirements will be for voting in Wisconsin, for these special elections and for later general elections. The progressive interest is in turning out Republican state legislatures who are attempting to gut middle class job and benefits protections in order to promote a corporatist agenda, who consider the sale of state assets to anyone whom the governor elects, on any terms, to be competent stewardship.
And with all the attention it is giving to narrowing access to voters, I hope the legislature devotes a moment or two to exerting greater oversight over county election officials who use outdated personal computers to store official voting records, who maintain inadequate physical and virtual security over county computers, and who have a pattern of refusing to fix glaring problems.
Because so many of them have stated exactly that.
Hear! Hear! I’ve been bending my own rules. I’m done as well.
Better make it a coca cola. I’ve got job hunting to do today.
Thank you. Tim Griffin’s motto, “Unleash Hell,” was intended to unleash General Maximus’ legions onto Democratic voters through voter suppression tactics. I think he wore Brooks Brothers, too. His was not the cry of a zealous but fair advocate for his party. For a commentator to say that criticism of the party that employs many such people is unfair because that commentator doesn’t share those views or attitudes is, at best, special pleading.
LMAO! I either need to pay attention to Kuroneko or put on some shoes. Those teeth are vicious!
Done! Best of luck with the job hunting. The suggestion re the gym is good; might as well try it. Speak up about what you’ve done in terms of your personal improvements, etc. Worth a shot.
Too bad re the drug rehab situation. I have known programs that did use “ex” drug users – sometimes as volunteers, sometimes paid – mainly bc they had gone thru the whole experience and had managed to move on from their addictions successfully. I’m sorry that you were not chosen for something like that, as I think your experiences would be very valuable. You might want to try again with a different group, but up to you.
Best! Cheers!
I take it then that you are unaware that various GOP strategists have stated (in moments of candor) that from their empirical experience the lower the turnout on election day the better GOP chances are?
If they’re found to later benefit Democrats, hypocrisy and differential enforcement being what they are, GOP’ers like Griffin will hold hearings and scream about partisan abuse. Issa’s a good example of that in another context.
Quite agree. Perhaps individuals truly do not agree with certain tactics that are definitely *employed* by political parties. Fine; say as much & mean it. But to use your *alleged* personal morals/values/ethics/opinions as if these apply to the political party structure overall is bogus.
Google Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy. Don’t attempt to state that the R party isn’t deliberately engaging in fluffing up bigotry. It’s been one of the R’s raison d’etre’s for quite a while now.
Same goes for voter suppression tactics.
Boooogus.
But here is the circular argument part. You are calling a photo-ID requirement a “vote suppression tactic” and so when Republicans advocate for a photo-ID requirement, you conclude “well, then they must be in favor of suppressing the vote!” But the problem is that your premise is wrong. Instead I tend to believe that both Republicans and Democrats are pretty much agreed on the issue that intentional vote suppression is wrong, and the real issue here is where to strike the balance between placing burdens on the voter vs. ensuring a fair election. It needlessly polarizes the debate when one side accuses the other of having bad, evil motives.
The thing about addiction is simple. It’s not an exercise of will. It’s a matter of recognizing, (or getting others to recognize), where they are going and asking your/themselves, “do you really want to live like that”? If the answer is an honest “no”, then addiction is easy to beat. It doesn’t make it more pleasant and it doesn’t make the cravings any less but if one can keep that in mind, it can be beaten. If the answer is “I don’t care” or an equivocal “no”, then you’re going to keep right on using, no matter what. Intervention is bullshit as is any other method that tries to force or shame somebody into quitting.
Yep. In Issa’s case, facts don’t matter except as how they can be distorted to support his “Democrats are evil” theory du jour. Generally speaking, Democrats suck and Republicans are evil.
zapkitty, yes, I know that higher voter turnout tends to favor Democrats. But that does not necessarily follow that Republicans deliberately employ vote suppression strategies. YES there have been some instances of it, but not as a general strategy, and not when it comes to things like photo IDs. After all, wouldn’t the converse argument apply – if Democrats benefit from high turnout, wouldn’t Democrats have a strong motivation to just flood the polls with all sorts of potential voters, eligible or not? Does that mean Democrats are in favor of deliberate voter fraud strategies? Of course not.
Progressives? Progressives?
Yet again the GOP does something that will blow up in their faces!
the average GOP voter is very dumb and poor, now!
been to a tea party rally lately
do you think all the tea party people have IDs? probably not.
When some of the tea party crowd is not allowed to vote, watch out! all hell is going to break loose on the GOP side.
the Dummying down of the USA had a huge impact on the right.
we progressives view GOPers as being rich, a lot of GOP voters are very dumb, and very poor!
the GOP un-like the Dems can’t afford to cut some of their voters out of the process, the GOP has very limited voting pool to pull from.
Progressives need to make sure that the Dumb GOPers know that their cousins are making it hard for them to vote.
Shorter GeneralPudding: My mind is made up so quit trying to confuse w=me with your actual facts
Yes and when Obama won in 2008, my Tea Party sibling *insisted* to me that Obama only won by something ridiculous – like 1250 votes. And kept claiming that there was voter fraud & suppression by Democrats. Of course, that was just the Kochs paying to rile up the base for a range of reasons, which is another story.
I wouldn’t claim that D’s *never* engage in such tactics bc I simply don’t know. As you pointed out much earlier, there are apocryphal stories about the JFK election & D voter fraud in Chicago (maybe) and/or stories about D voter fraud in NYC (maybe). If so, I don’t personally agree with that.
But the preponderance of voter suppression has always been on the conservative side of the street, and there are verifiable factual sources to prove it. Not to forget that part of the *reason* why conservatives hired known fabulist, Andrew Breitbart, to make one of phoney & highly edited videos falsely accusing ACORN of a lot of bogus stuff was to get ACORN shut down. What did ACORN do? One thing was to enable and assist minority voters – who tend to vote Democratic – both to register to vote and to assist them to get the polls. Despite lying rumors, ACORN was very scrupulous in how they registered voters.
Yet: Voila! ACORN is defunded based on *conservative* lies.
IMO, this sock puppet is here to push out rightwing talking points on this blog. It’s just another way to get rightwing info into all outlets, as if the 24/7/365 corporate-owned media wasn’t enough. Just saying…
For an interesting look at voter fraud:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=978188
It is a long article. It talks about the normative issues related to voter fraud as well as the difficulty of attempting to understand the scope of the issue. From the article:
I hear you, but I’ve lived with heroin addicts in my past. They kept telling me that they *wanted* to quit but then would back-slide. I get the issues involved, but sometimes interventions can be useful, if they don’t use shaming tactics. Shame is never a good idea, but I have seen interventions where those involved were at wits’ end and really just wanted to help out.
That said, I do get what you’re saying and am very glad that you came through all of that. A very good thing.
I don’t agree that either party has the “good” of the “small people” in mind anymore. The R’s have never particularly had the “good” of the average citizen at the forefront. The D’s have been johnny-come-latelies in terms of *abandoning* the average citizen, in order to suck at the corporate/MIC tit.
Attempting to claim some kind of “good intention” on the part of either party is where any argument falls apart for me.
I’m done for the day having circular discussions with you. All the best.
Bogus, indeed. As is the claim, now oft repeated, that we really live in a high school civics class world of well-intentioned, not ambitious and power-obsessed political operatives.
Even Harper Lee gave the perfect Atticus Finch dysfunctional neighbors and the ability to spin a white lie like a silkworm. And she knew that no one would believe her story if she allowed Finch the power to persuade a 1920′s southern white jury not to convict Tom Robinson. His sure and certain end, regardless of his guilt, was that he would be lynched or shot while trying to escape for the crime of being kindly to a poor white girl.
The kindest inference from that comment is that it is an example of hopeless naivete. The literature on GOP voter suppression campaigns is exhaustive. As I and others have acknowledged, the Dems are not blameless either, but the modern Republican Party, as defined by Atwater and Rove, is built on such tactics.
Again and again you state, with no basis in fact and no supporting evidence, that photo IDs stop the (vanishingly small) problem of voter fraud.
Why do you insist on repeating this misinformation when it has been repeatedly proven that it is simply does not work.. for the stated purpose, that is?
And since it doesn’t work for preventing voter fraud why do you think that the GOP insists on doing it regardless of its ineffectiveness?
Yeah, crackheads are the same way. I once knew a nurse that got involved with that. She lost everything and even did significant jail time. When she got out, she immediately went back to using it. A few months later she saw me and begged me to tell her “how” to quit. I told her she had quit already but went right back to it and then I told her that if she didn’t want to live like that, she’d use her current stash, throw the stem away and go about putting her life back together. If she didn’t mind living like that, then she should use her current stash and go find another rock. I moved right after that so I never found out what happened to her.
Sure! The “Permanent Republican majority” was a (hopeful) expression of that.
As regards vote fraud, little reminder about the IN Sec. Of State’s grand jury indictment:
Guess what party affiliation…
http://www.wthr.com/story/14181585/indiana-secretary-of-state-indicted
Your source is a staunch, anti-abortion Republican who clerked for two staunch, anti-abortion Republican judges. He graduated from staunchly Christian Hillsdale College (as well as Chicago and Yale). I would not expect his views to be overly critical of Republican policies or practices. His claims that the paucity of information makes it difficult to evaluate the prevalence of voter fraud, on its face, is unobjectionable.
Until proving a negative becomes possible, I will assume that the absence of data or reasonable inferences from that data does not establish a problem that need occupy the minds, pocketbooks and legislative agendas of so many Republican legislators. Occam’s Razor would suggest that partisan benefit would explain their obsession, not a pressing need to avert rampant, democracy threatening voting crimes.
spoilsport… was gonna hit pudding with that and three other similar cites when they tried to claim that the winger photo ID BS somehow stops voter fraud… :)
Got the complete set? Trade you two Coulters for a Huntsman…
You might make even clearer that it is the current, sitting Republican Sec’y of State in Indiana who has just been indicted on those felony counts.
Plus, there’s one eensy-teensy little thing that is often overlooked in voter requirement arguments:
Generally, making it easier to vote favors more democracy, not less.
Why people argue for less democracy in the form of ever more restrictions, but claim to cherish democracy, is for them to explain.
Exactly. Many of us commenting here spend a LOT of time examining and being very critical of Democratic pols. In no way, do I live in some fantasy-land of black/white thinking that D=good & R=bad. Most of us find the Ds equally as venal, corrupt, crooked, etc, as any R these days, if not worse.
Anyone claiming that politicians are all out there to “act in the interests of the publics’ good” is either totally out of touch, completely naive, lives under a rock, and/or a big fat LIAR.
Which is why I’ll be redundant but state for the record that I believe the intention is push an unending steady stream of rightwing talking points onto this blog. Duly noted that this paricular sock puppet probably is intelligent, writes well & persuasively, which is more than can be said for some other conservatives who blog here regularly.
Which is why my GOP-radar is on high alert. Do. not. trust. the. intentions. There’s nothing much that’s “innocent” about this alleged “conversations.” And far far far too many typical rightwing talking points pushed out, while pretending not to realize that.
Bah Humbug!
And your source is a tenured professor at a Jesuit university, which speaks highly of his raw intellect, but says nothing about his politics beyond suggesting that, like his views on abortion, they are conservative.
Yeah, you tried. It’s all you can do. Drugs are tough to overcome. Hope that lady is ok, but glad that you are. That’s really good!
And that would be current GOP presidential hopeful flavor of the month Mitch Daniels’ Sec’y of State, the one that Daniels has already suggested “step down”, at least until his trial is over. What’s that they say about a stopped clock?
A very partisan AG in Wisconsin named Van Hollen spent two years trying to prove that voter fraud is “widespread” in WI. To date, out of 3 MILLION votes, he’s found 19 questionable votes, and half of those were cast by felons who were using their real names and real addresses, so a voter ID bill would have done absolutely zip to prevent them from voting. And the Republicans are the ones who keep claiming that our state is in a budget crisis, yet they’re willing to spend millions on implementing this bill. It’s pretty clear that their motives are disingenuous.
I’ve never understood that either, especially as voter fraud, as opposed to election fraud, is bloody easy to find out about and punish, though its incidence is not common enough to affect election outcomes. Why bother or expose yourself to the risk for such a low-probability effect on an election?
Election fraud, on the other hand, and voter intimidation and suppression can work wonders, which would explain Karl Rove’s keen interest in its possibilities. A hundred votes here, a hundred votes there, and in a close race, the math is suddenly completely different.
A reason one might not like making voting more accessible is that one does not who the marginal extra voters are or who they vote for.
Sorry, your Earlship, but that’s been proven to be BS… by the GOP themselves.
That particular author carefully omits the very telling point that wherever the GOP is in any position of power in any district they immediately begin scouring the records of election officials looking for anything that can be remotely interpreted as “voter fraud”… and then attempting to prosecute to the max regardless of circumstances. And they have always turned up little or nothing.
So then they try to make something from nothing.
And all too often the result in court ends up like this: “Your honor, my probation officer said I could vote in that particular election but he was wrong. He swore to this in his testimony and yet you have directed the jury to find me guilty… and I still do not understand why the prosecution is seeking the death penalty for me?”
That is, literally, the best the GOP can do when actively seeking out voter fraud while in positions of authority.
No, voter fraud was never the issue.
People who tend to vote Democratic are the issue.
Thanks for the reminder about Van Hollen & the bogus voter fraud. That reminded me a lot of the ginned up conservative freak out over ACORN, which was fomented for years by the likes of Rush Limbaugh – such a clearly non-partisan “entertainer” /s. Which culminated in some rightwing org hiring known fabulist Andrew Breitbart to “frame” ACORN with clearly edited videos that twisted & completely distorted & lied about one incident with ACORN in Baltimore. Yet, lo & behold, Congress’ defunding of ACORN was based mainly on the Breitbart LIE-video, which is still touted by conservatives to this day as absolute *proof* of voter “fraud” on the Democratic side.
Exactly. Which gets back to Margaret’s earlier reminder about the “Permanent Republican Majority” meme of not so long ago… widely touted and widely pushed by the corp media as the “reality” of citizens vote. Except… not so much…
Here’s a few ways requiring ID is “voter suppression”.
In rural areas, anyone in a nursing home, who may no longer have a valid ID because they no longer drive, but still has all their faculties and have voted all their lives, will have to find a way to go, perhaps, miles
away to apply for an ID just to vote. If they are lucky enough to live in a state that may provide free voting ID, transportation to get that ID will not be provided. Nevermind that a whole lot of people will not have the proper documentation (birth certificate, marriage certificates etc) that they will need to prove their identity. God help them if any of it has to be obtained from another state.
In my city, we have a high number of homeless veteran’s who routinely move from shelter to shelter in an effort to survive. What address should these people who served this country to protect the right to vote (among other things) put on their ID to guarentee they actually get it?
We also have a large number of college students, in transitional housing. These kids, have out of state driver’s licenses that they are not changing because they don’t intend to settle here. How about them? Do they lose the right to vote because they don’t have a photo ID with a current address on it?
How about people with disabilities?
Presenting ID in order to vote is truly nothing more than an effort to turn one of the true “rights” we all can actually claim no matter what our situation, into a “privelege”.
Frankly, I think it’s shameful and about as un-American as anything I’ve ever seen in my long life because it strips away the very foundation of this country.
We have allowed ourselves collectively to go from people who used to discuss things and try to sway opposing views to a people who only shout about what we believe and we are reaping the rewards of the loss of civility IMHO.
As I said, we don’t really know the extent of the problem of voter fraud. I agree that it is probably not an overwhelming epidemic, but I think it is probably higher than has been reported simply because it is only pursued in a very small number of cases where it might actually make a difference in the outcome of an election.
There is also a deterrent element to having strong enforcement mechanism. If there is no verification procedure at all then it is an invitation to fraud. Furthermore there is also the issue of having a voting system that is perceived to be robust even if it doesn’t contribute much to actual security. Voters should have trust in the voting systems in place.
I repeat: if you were to design a voter identity verification system from the ground up, why WOULDN’T you use photo ID’s, given that photo ID’s are more or less standard verification items at virtually every other venue where identity verification is required?
It has not been “proven” not to work and of course, as you well know, one cannot prove a negative.
For the reasons I cited above: to cut down on voter fraud that might exist, to deter would-be fraudsters, and to create a system of elections that has the trust of the voters.
Perhaps HBGary just upgraded its software. Regardless, the collective nature of the comments is not simply discordant with views here, not a bad thing, but consistently impervious to awkward facts and reasoned counter-arguments.
We’ve already spent too much energy not discussing WI and other areas where corporatists are notorious for taking the reins of government to promote narrow ends that harm ordinary citizens.
My argument was that GOP voter fraud efforts were not what they claim to be on their face, that they were almost certainly were pursued for partisan gain, not to avert voting crimes. I also attempted in a discreet way to suggest the potential that his source might be biased or innately reluctant to question, as an article of faith, the facial claims of the GOP’s leadership about the purposes of their “anti-voter fraud” efforts.
To Gen Pudding,
I’m not sure if you’re serious about your statement because the answer is so obvious, but assuming that you really don’t understand the reasoning behind the requirement, here goes.
The people who don’t have government photo id’s, which means driver’s licenses, are those too poor to own a car, the elderly, minorities, and in general, groups that tend to vote for the Democratic party. The idea is to reduce Democratic turnout. That this is the deliberate strategy is obvious because the rationale for requiring photo ID’s, that they prevent voter fraud, has never been shown to occur. The actual voting fraud that DOES occur is caused by those in power through arbitrarily removing people from the voter rolls without informing them (Florida under Jeb Bush), allocating the number of voting machines according to likely voting patterns of the precinct (Ohio in 2004), and fiddling with the software running the voting machines (Florida in 2004).
Dude’s a thread hijacker. Let it go.
Moving on.
Thank you for your compliment, but you are being overly paranoid about my intentions. I don’t work for any political party or political outfit at all. I’m not really here to change anyone’s political position, I realize that it is not possible here. My real intentions here are threefold:
(1) To have a real dialogue over topics I find interesting with people who might actually challenge my opinion
(2) To learn something about other points of view and to deepen my own knowledge about my own point of view
(3) To be an example of a right-leaning person who isn’t an idiot, moron, hillbilly, Bible-thumper, or fire-breathing monster, like so many of the stereotypes that are out there.
That’s it.
Republicans never care about voter fraud which occurs through absentee ballots – because absentees favor Republicans.
If there is a epidemic of voter fraud, shouldn’t they increase restrictions on it? Yet no Republican ever does.
And PuddingShit’s article proves nothing of what he says – common for a conservative.
Not true. If you make it easier for the ineligible to vote, you reduce democracy by diluting or canceling out the votes of the voters who are eligible.
For starters: I wouldn’t use electronic voting machines designed to be manipulated.
I would use paper ballots and hand count immediately.
I would insist on Green, Conservative and Democrat Socialist party participation at GAB and Boards of Election to break the tit for tat behavior of our 2 party control. Certainly third party representation would make election accountability less partisan than the bi-partisan process now. I would hire additional staff to do the poll workers final duties of the day.
Of course not. When you register to vote you are given a card with your address that you sign. When you vote, you present your card and the registrar checks your signature with what you sign on the register at the voting site and whether your address is within the precinct. It has worked well for years.
The only requirements for voting are age (18) and citizenship (US). Other than that, how can you claim that further restrictions somehow make democracy better? Your comment makes no sense except in an autocracy, not a democracy. I strongly suspect that you would bring back the poll tax, arbitrary literary requirements for minorities, and prohibition of female suffrage.
And I do realize that photo ID’s will be a burden for some. What I’m arguing for is that there has to be a balance between access to voting and having a secure and trustworthy voting system. If there are no voter identity verification systems at all, then the entire process of voting becomes a mockery and holding elections becomes pointless. And of course if the barrier to voting is too high, then the election results are not representative of likely voters and the democratic spirit is compromised. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue with this, would they? But most of the discussion on this article has focused on trying to discern the ‘true motivation’ of Republicans in wanting stricter voter identity verification systems.
And I do believe that absentee voting should be more heavily scrutinized as well. However, it is a different situation with absentee voting because if an absentee ballot is found to be fraudulent, one can, in principle, remove the ballot before it is counted and therefore eliminate the potential harm that it may represent. That cannot happen with in-person voting because all ballots are anonymous.
Challenge: find and link to one US House of Representatives, Senator or State Governor race where the outcome was determined by fraudulent intent on the part of individual voters in the last 25 years.
Such a race’s results then would have been overturned, naturally.
I’ll wait……
Those are the broad requirements, yes, but it is more nuanced than that – the potential voter has to be registered in the correct district and has to not have been convicted of a felony (in some places), and I think these two requirements are what occupy most of the concern about voter fraud.
I don’t think you understood kitty’s response at all. She never mentioned registration fraud. The only identified voter fraud has been by republican administrations, primarily in Florida and Ohio.
General Pudding (By the way that is a stupid name, reminds me of Puddinghead): You say “…the real issue here is where to strike the balance between placing burdens on the voter vs. ensuring a fair election.” Yes, but since the real problem is in the election procedure not the voters, the balance of reform efforts should be on the side of the System changes.
BTW, Ask that Coulter woman about voter fraud.
Exactly. Thread hijacking to promote bogus rightwing talking points. Need to scroll & ignore in the future and stick to the topic at hand. Duly noted.
I doubt that there has been one. But even if there haven’t been any, that does not mean we shouldn’t have strong voter identity verification systems. For starters one must have trust in the voting system so that would-be voters aren’t discouraged from voting because they think the system itself is unreliable. In addition strong verification systems deter would-be fraudsters, in the same way that surveillance cameras deter petty theft.
General Pudding is a character from a Thomas Pynchon book. That is why I chose the name. Plus it is somewhat absurd, yes. But then again so are Pynchon’s writings.
But I get the distinct impression here that most will object to voter identity verification systems pushed by Republicans because of mistrust over Republicans’ intentions, even if the idea is a good one. That seems somewhat sad in my view.
Because when you have someone for whom power outweighs all other factors, and for whom rules and laws are for wimps who don’t understand the reality of politics (Tom Delay comes to mind as does Karl Rove), then they have absolutely no qualms about screwing with elections they would otherwise lose.
Finally, after 112 comments, someone willing to answer my question on how to design a voter identity verification system from scratch!
That seems odd to me that you would insist on the very old-fashioned paper ballot method. Is there something inherently wrong with using electronic devices? We use ATMs to get cash, and we have to input PIN numbers as our identity verification (that along with security cameras). We sign documents online using electronic signatures and electronic verifications of identity. Why not use these types of systems for voting?
How can you state with a straight face that the party that brought voter caging to a fine art, that distributes voting machines to precincts based on their past voting records rather than the number of voters registered, that arbitrarily removes people from the voter rolls based on their addresses, and that sends out robocalls and flyers with false poll information is somehow opposed to voter suppression?
Because they can be manipulated a lot easier than a hard copy. Just look at how criminal gangs are using fake ATM’s to access people’s identities.
Why do you think that the arbitrary restrictions that you mention in any way improve democracy?
where do these IDs come from? how much do they cost? its an enormous burden on many people, who cant miss a day of work or who dont have transportation to the f-ing MVA to get their fascist ID cards. Its a burdern mostly on people the republicans dont want voting. If you “dont see” that this is an illegitimate burden its because you agree with them or, you just dont see very well.
Anyone remember the original StarTrek episode starring Melvin Belli as the Gorgan?
So are you arguing against the concept of voting precincts itself? I don’t understand your query. The idea behind voting precincts is to create a systematic smooth way to conduct an election, and to ensure that each person votes only once. I do kinda like that idea.
It seems obvious that you hadn’t caught up yet with the comments when you posted this so to reiterate: the GOP’s failed witch hunts have themselves proven that voter fraud is not a problem.
To deter what? Something that’s been proven to not be a problem?
And if the de facto effect of the photo ID mechanism is not to deter voter fraud (it can’t) but is instead to deter Democratic-leaning voters (it does)… then that would mean that the law is just the Bush doctrine as applied to elections, right?
The assertion that there is currently no verification at the polls sans photo ID is a winger meme and not based in reality.
I’ll go further: the meme that voter verification is not possible without photo ID is a lie.
Election officials have had verification mechanisms in place at the polls for centuries, updated as needed.
Then we have failed from the get-go: Diebold does not a robust voting system make.
As for the topic at hand: since photo IDs do not stop voter fraud then you’d be saying that you want to disenfranchise voters simply to stage some meaningless security theater… in order to reassure those same voters?
Given the unending GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters the real problem would seem to be that the GOP does not trust the democratic process.
Is that what they’re doing in WI now? In an election year to boot…
For the same reason that photo IDs don’t work to stop voter fraud. The problems that the concept of photo ID is meant to solve simply aren’t the type of problems involved with voter fraud. They are two different sets of issues entirely.
Errrrrrrrrrrrr…… as i said above you obviously need to catch up on the comments upthread that prove exactly that… and you also need to brush up on your logic while you’re at it :)
The statement that “the real reason for photo ID is to stop voter fraud” is an assertion and it is one that can be falsified. And it has been falsified. Repeatedly. The latest example being the IN Secretary of State indicted for voter fraud in the state with the toughest photo ID law in the nation.
The photo ID law didn’t catch him… election officials did.
… but photo ID does not help with voter fraud.
I.E. severely punishing all innocent voters for something that almost nobody does.
The flaws in our electoral systems are many… and photo ID addresses none of them.
But… perhaps the people would trust the system more if the GOP would stop trying to keep them from voting.
Ah, that would explain a lot, GeneralPudding, or may I call you Ernest? Rather like a Japanese bureaucracy attached to MITI giving itself the motto, Deus ex Machina when dealing with lowly foreign investors. Yours would be a perfect screen name for an HBGary troll, whatever its true purposes.
Brigadier Pudding, as in the good Dr. Who’s Brigadier, except Pudding was a different kettle of fish with a peculiar, one might say offal, taste in food and drink. Shades of the “excremental sublime”.
In Pynchon’s surreal Gravity’s Rainbow, the Brigadier is a bit of a Cheshire Cat. He has “delusions about his own importance” and “an intense desire for sadomasochism”. His death might make Rick Santorum swoon. He dies from E. coli poisoning after having eaten, in a bout of sexual ecstasy, the feces of his dominatrix. Unable to let go himself, he haunts the place afterwards.
Before entering the spirit world, in his first command, during World War I, he took 40 yards of No Man’s Land at a cost of 70% dead and wounded. During the novel, he commands a beastly English governmental organization called the White Visitation. Its obscure responsibilities during World War II involve “manipulation and control”.
Some critics have described Gravity’s Rainbow as “utterly incomprehensible and unreadable”. It’s nice to know our loyal opposition has a modicum of self-awareness and a revealing sense of humour.
I don’t like the constant highjacking, without forward movement of the conversation, period. I do like FDL attracts more highjackers because that means we are rubbing the wrong people the right way.
Zapkitty laid it out in black and white and further repeating of failed talking points is the definition of highjacking a thread.
1. There will never be any system that is 100% free of fraud. I think we can both agree on that point. HOWEVER, to the extent that fraud increases, it has three detrimental effects: (1) it corrupts the result of an election, (2) it weakens trust in the system and (3) it invites other would-be fraudsters to commit fraud. All three weaken democracy overall because they turn elections into a sham. So there must be SOME voter identity verification system in place, whether or not it includes photo ID’s. (I never claimed that photo ID’s are absolutely essential, by the way.)
2. There will always be someone for which the barrier to voting, no matter how low it may be, will be too high. Again I don’t think this is a particularly controversial observation. That is unfortunate but there really isn’t much we can do about it, except work to keep the barrier as low as reasonably possible. But the barrier can’t be SO low that fraud becomes rampant. (See #1.) So I am absolutely all in favor of getting as many eligible voters to the polls as possible. But I am not in favor of lowering the barrier to the point where voter fraud becomes a real problem.
3. In these comments there have been a lot of assertions that claim “photo ID’s have been proven to be worthless for stopping voter fraud” or some such but virtually no evidence provided. Which isn’t surprising because even the experts have agreed that there isn’t much reliable data out there about the extent of the voter fraud problem or the best strategies for confronting it. (See the introduction to the Flanders article I cited above.) Saying the absence of prosecutions for voter fraud ‘proves’ that voter fraud doesn’t occur is not a valid conclusion; it would be like saying the lack of convictions for jaywalking ‘proves’ it doesn’t occur. Blitzgal @ 86 mentioned Van Hollen in Wisconsin; I’m not extremely familiar with what he did, but if he really did only find a handful of voter fraud cases, then it does not necessarily ‘prove’ that voter fraud doesn’t occur in Wisconsin.
4. The case of the Indiana Secretary of State is rather incidental to this discussion over photo ID’s, because nobody claims that photo ID’s are the only way to stop voter fraud. So when you write:
your conclusion does not falsify the assertion. It is certainly possible to commit voter fraud even with a tough photo ID requirement and that is apparently what this Secretary of State has done. Again, see #1 about there being no such thing as a completely fraud-free system.
5. I did not claim that there was currently NO security at the polls.
6. Furthermore it cannot be stated with any certainty that photo ID does not deter would-be fraudsters from committing fraud. Do you have any references for this claim?
7. As for “meaningless security theater”: I don’t think poll security should be meaningless, but it does need to exist. Again there has to be a balance. If one questionably eligible voter is turned away, but the security systems inherent in the process encourage 2 other would-be voters to cast a vote, then it is a overall net positive. Would you agree?
8. And I take exception to the idea that requiring photo ID would be “severely punishing all innocent voters” since photo ID is a de facto identity verification system RIGHT NOW for a whole host of activities that we conduct on a daily basis. It’s not like the government would be requiring voters to pass a test, or fill out a 10-page detailed questionnaire or anything. It is the exact same piece of ID that people use to fly on a plane, cash a check, buy alcohol, use a credit card at the store, etc. It’s not necessary to overdramatize the photo ID proposal.
9. But the bottom line appears to be that you have started with the conclusion in mind, i.e., that Republicans want to suppress the vote, and then have worked backwards to ‘prove’ that photo ID’s are worthless at stopping voter fraud, so therefore you ‘conclude’ darkly that there must be this other, hidden, nefarious evil motive involved…. I think I have made plenty of legitimate, non-nefarious points as to why a strong voter identity verification system should be present. They aren’t mutually exclusive, either – it’s perfectly consistent to believe that Republicans are corrupt jerks and yet also to believe that vote security should be tightened.
Moving on.
See comment #122. Reread and avoid clicking that Reply button.
Thanks.
Touché! A direct hit. And the Children Shall Lead… indeed!
Also an insightful comment. Never read the book but have an idea of what it’s about (albeit with Pynchon… well…). Nice summary. And interesting in this context – eh?
I agree.
See comment #125.
Thanks.
So, double-checking, there is no way to actually stop the WI GOP in this? No way to stop them from punishing voters for the crime of not voting GOP?
And even if the Dems retake the WI Senate there would still be no way to get sane legislation through the system in order to undue the damage before it fully takes effect?
We’ll just have to wait and see what happens when the bill hits the Senate. If they’re smart the Regressives will put it off but nobody’s ever accused them of being smart.
If the Dems gain a majority in the WI Senate through the recalls about the only thing they can do is stop further Regressive tactics in their tracks. A recall of Walker next year is iffy and even if they pulled it off there’s still the WI House to deal with and WI voters will have to wait until Nov 2012 to change that.
Hey, I don’t want to defend General Pudding, but there have been instances of voter fraud. I’m old enough to remember the questionable votes in WVA and Chicago during JFK’s narrow victory in 1960. What’s that famous old Chicago saying? — “Vote early, and often.” Chicago is known for the days when dead people voted. Chicago and New Jersey were (are) famous for local political operatives relying on “street money” to ensure “turnout”.
In my own small community there has been some hanky-panky in the past. About 15 years ago our City Clerk at the time got suspicious so he used some of his discretionary funds to hire a retired guy to verify the voter rolls. Out of about 22,000 registered voters, he found nearly 1,800 who were illegally on the rolls. Some had moved (as much as eight years ago), others were long since deceased, and amazingly 22 people lived in one apartment. Which was really, really amazing because that “apartment” was actually one of those private mail boxes. More importantly, something like 400 of those ineligible voters had cast ballots in the last election, with some closely contested local issues and races.
I also read awhile back that the AG of Minnesota or Wisconsin had brought a case against a number of university students who voted both at their school address and at their home address in the 2008 presidential election.
This is not to say that voter fraud is nearly as important as election fraud, but I think we do ourselves a disservice with blanket claims that voter fraud just doesn’t exist.
The story from your home town could not have happened without the facilitation or overt negligence and incompetence of the entire bi-partisan staff of election officials- in other words electoral fraud. How far did the researcher take the investigation? The signature books would have reflected something phoey. Signature books are open to I would like to see the record on that…
It is meaningful that the Kennedy election in Chicago is always brought up …and how long ago was that?
Actually, Kelly, I don’t think that’s true. As I recall (vaguely), the standard for proving voter fraud tends to be high and courts tend to defer to the elective body’s determination whether or not to seat the “winner”.