Indiana voter ID laws upheld

[EvilMonkey]

However, you are still getting the system you want, where they find excuse after excuse to turn away voters who just happen to be African American, poor, and so on.

Sure, bang that drum some more. ID required to vote, poor and minorities hit hardest! The sun shines bright! The poor and minorities hit hardest! Hey, here is an idea, smoke 2 less packs of cigarettes for a week and get off your ass and get a state ID. Maybe buy some shoes at Payless one time instead of the $300 Air Jordans and get an ID. If you are a poor minority who is obviously not working, go to the DMV on a weekday morning and get that ID when the lines are the shortest.

 

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pb...381/1006/NEWS01

The new statewide database of registered voters contains as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and as many as 2,600 of them have cast votes from the grave, according to a Poughkeepsie Journal computer-assisted analysis.

 

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Four people have been indicted on charges of voter fraud in Kansas City, officials said Wednesday.....Last month, ACORN claimed to have processed more than 35,000 voter registration applications in Kansas City since the summer

That's alot of potentially fraudulent votes there, in just one city by one group.

 

http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=171

8/11/06, Washington, DC –ACORN’s recent run-in with the Franklin County elections board for allegedly turning in falsified voter registration cards is only the latest in a long-standing pattern of dubious elections practices. ACORN employees have been accused of submitting bogus voter registration cards and forging signatures on ballot initiatives in 12 states since 2004.

Oh gee, the same group at it in 12 states! How many dead and non-existant people have they signed up?!?!

 

And it goes both ways.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...ly-in-utah.html

Election fixing charges fly in Utah county

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Voting appears to be very popular in Daggett County, Utah.

Daggett County has registered 947 voters for Tuesday's election. According to the most recent Census figures, that's four more than the county's population in 2005.

A spokesman for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says complaints of vote-stuffing in the county are being investigated. Democrats suspect County Clerk Vickie McKee is letting outsiders swell the Daggett County registration rolls to give Republicans an advantage. The Democrats also say the father of a Republican deputy running for sheriff has 14 adults registered at his household. McKee hasn't responded to messages from The Associated Press.

Wow, maybe a few pregnant moms signed up thier youngin's early, eh?

[EvilMonkey]

Exactly, either way someone is going to find something wrong with this. I think that State Identification should not be required to vote, I would just like to have some document with the name of the voter on it. This also raises a question to me about the homeless. How do they vote? I'm sure the vast majority of homeless don't vote, but if they wanted to, where do they get registered without an address and such? Just kinda popped into my mind there.

Actually, in most cities, homeless people can list a shelter as their address for voting purposes and to receive mail. Assuming they are not one of the crazy-homeless who refuse to go to shelters, or that there are shelters where they happen to be.

[Texsox]

Then you and I will forever disagree on this because I in no way see having to identify yourself in order to vote as in any way denying someone the right to vote. You have the right of free speech, but it has been upheald time and again that it is not an unlimited right, there are rules and restrictions. Same with voting. You have to register, and you have to prove who the hell you are, both things that are not very hard to do. if you are too lazy to do that, oh well.

 

So just having a birth certificate, social security card, utility bills, and a matching signature isn't enough to identify anyone. Wow, how did democracy work before cameras? Now you will require that every person registers with the state and has their photo taken. Shall we fingerprint too while we are at it? How about a little tattoo?

 

And brain dead liberal? I guess you forgot the rules that you just agreed to follow.

[EvilMonkey]

So just having a birth certificate, social security card, utility bills, and a matching signature isn't enough to identify anyone. Wow, how did democracy work before cameras? Now you will require that every person registers with the state and has their photo taken. Shall we fingerprint too while we are at it? How about a little tattoo?

 

And brain dead liberal? I guess you forgot the rules that you just agreed to follow.

I didn't call Balta a brain deal liberal. Are you denying that there are brain dead liberals out there? I know that there are brain dead conservatives out there somewhere.

[Texsox]

I didn't call Balta a brain deal liberal. Are you denying that there are brain dead liberals out there? I know that there are brain dead conservatives out there somewhere.

 

I did not say you did call him one, feeling guilty? LOL Once they are brain dead, they cease to be liberal or conservative. I do know the phrase is used to insult people.

 

We are getting closer and closer to a national ID card. Pictures, fingerprints, DNA samples, all kept on a nice government data base which will never get hacked or used against us. With a rf chip embedded in the card, and requiring everyone to keep on themselves at all times, the government can protect us.

[kjshoe04]

Actually, in most cities, homeless people can list a shelter as their address for voting purposes and to receive mail. Assuming they are not one of the crazy-homeless who refuse to go to shelters, or that there are shelters where they happen to be.

Yeah, I actually did know that, it just kind popped in my head while I was posting. Thanks for the info.

[mr_genius]

However, you are still getting the system you want, where they find excuse after excuse to turn away voters who just happen to be African American, poor, and so on.

 

oh, so now African Americans are too stupid to get an ID?

 

wow, thats really racist Balta

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, the sarcasm and snark in this thread is getting a bit much. Can we tone it down a bit?

 

I personally have no problem with the ID requirement, as long as ID's are available to the poor free of charge. You can't charge for a right - that is a poll tax. As for disabled people and what not, a good guideline should be that whatever level of ease already exists for voting, should exist for getting an ID. You'll never line that up perfectly, but it you are reasonably close, then that should be fine.

 

[mreye]

My DL is Indiana is good for 6 years. 6 YEARS! All this talk about the logistics of taking an entire retirement community to the DMV is moot. As bad as it sounds, how many of them will make it that long in the home and even when they do it's a single trip per person per 6 years.

 

I think an ID card, as opposed to DL is good for longer.

[Texsox]

Interesting that the GOP folks here want *more* government intervention in our lives. They want every US voter to head to a government agency to be photographed.

 

Everyone pull out their photo ID and see how close they resemble the picture. Now imagine that election judge denying you the opportunity to vote because you gained/lost weight, grew/shaved a beard, changed hair styles, went bald, had a weave etc. You walk in with the birth certificate, utility bills, signatures match exactly, but the election judge decides that picture doesn't match you. And it is really going to be fun when one precinct has the majority of problems. If that area is predominately one party, I can already hear the cries of bias.

 

Now imagine longer lines to vote while people fumble for their IDs, clerks stare intently at the pictures to see if they match.

 

But perhaps Indiana does have corruption on such a widespread basis they need this. I wonder how many elections have been decided by fraud in Indiana.

[EvilMonkey]

Interesting that the GOP folks here want *more* government intervention in our lives. They want every US voter to head to a government agency to be photographed.

 

Everyone pull out their photo ID and see how close they resemble the picture. Now imagine that election judge denying you the opportunity to vote because you gained/lost weight, grew/shaved a beard, changed hair styles, went bald, had a weave etc. You walk in with the birth certificate, utility bills, signatures match exactly, but the election judge decides that picture doesn't match you. And it is really going to be fun when one precinct has the majority of problems. If that area is predominately one party, I can already hear the cries of bias.

 

Now imagine longer lines to vote while people fumble for their IDs, clerks stare intently at the pictures to see if they match.

 

But perhaps Indiana does have corruption on such a widespread basis they need this. I wonder how many elections have been decided by fraud in Indiana.

Provisional ballots.

[Texsox]

Provisional ballots.

 

That only get counted if it "matters". Works for me as long as it is *your* ballot that doesn't matter

 

And how will they check absentee ballots? Why should there be less stringent requirements for those? Almost all of the fraud allegations here concern absentee ballots, not in person. And having photo ID will not stop the "paid to vote" fraud.

[BigSqwert]

Hey, here is an idea, smoke 2 less packs of cigarettes for a week and get off your ass and get a state ID. Maybe buy some shoes at Payless one time instead of the $300 Air Jordans and get an ID.

I didn't realize that the only people who couldn't afford an ID were smokers with nice shoes.

[EvilMonkey]

That only get counted if it "matters". Works for me as long as it is *your* ballot that doesn't matter

 

And how will they check absentee ballots? Why should there be less stringent requirements for those? Almost all of the fraud allegations here concern absentee ballots, not in person. And having photo ID will not stop the "paid to vote" fraud.

Oh gee, this idea won't solve EVERYTHING, so I guess it is better to have nothing at all. Snark aside, it sounds like you are saying that since it doesn't address everything, it is no good. Absentee ballots are a different matter, so address it with a different law. As for the selling of votes, we have laws against that, but not sure what else you CAN do. Suggestions?

Edited April 29, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

Oh gee, this idea won't solve EVERYTHING, so I guess it is better to have nothing at all. Snark aside, it sounds like you are saying that since it doesn't address everything, it is no good. Absentee ballots are a different matter, so address it with a different law. As for the selling of votes, we have laws against that, but not sure what else you CAN do. Suggestions?

 

That's the part that I don't get. The law is intended to help fix the electoral system. It isn't supposed to fix it all by itself, but that isn't its intent. I don't know why improving our electoral system is such a bad thing? People sure seemed to think it was important 8 years ago. For myself, if it improves it, I am for it.

[Balta1701]

That's the part that I don't get. The law is intended to help fix the electoral system. It isn't supposed to fix it all by itself, but that isn't its intent. I don't know why improving our electoral system is such a bad thing? People sure seemed to think it was important 8 years ago. For myself, if it improves it, I am for it.

My issue with that statement is fairly simple...how does making it harder for people to vote, by doing something that has been shown conclusively does wind up disenfranchising thousands of voters in states where it is deployed, fix the system?

 

In the decision that the Supreme Court rendered, in an effort to explain why this provision was necessary, Justice Stevens came up with 3 examples of voter fraud to try to show that it does happen. The 3 cases he came up with were a ballot-box stuffing scheme done by Boss Tweed (1800's), a case in Washington State where 1 man was involved in voting a couple times, and a fraudulent voting scheme in East Chicago...but that scheme involved absentee balloting and the Court acknowledges that this proposal would do nothing to prevent that sort of fraud.

[southsider2k5]

My issue with that statement is fairly simple...how does making it harder for people to vote, by doing something that has been shown conclusively does wind up disenfranchising thousands of voters in states where it is deployed, fix the system?

 

In the decision that the Supreme Court rendered, in an effort to explain why this provision was necessary, Justice Stevens came up with 3 examples of voter fraud to try to show that it does happen. The 3 cases he came up with were a ballot-box stuffing scheme done by Boss Tweed (1800's), a case in Washington State where 1 man was involved in voting a couple times, and a fraudulent voting scheme in East Chicago...but that scheme involved absentee balloting and the Court acknowledges that this proposal would do nothing to prevent that sort of fraud.

 

If its all about ease, why have polling places? Why not just let everyone vote over the internet? If fraud isn't a problem why waste money have poll workers asking people who they are? If we trust everyone, just let me go in and stuff a ballot in the box. Think how many people we are disenfranchising by making them put down the remote control and go somewhere? Think how many people don't vote because they have to stand in a line at the polling places? Damn, I'll bet if we got rid of polling places and election officials, we could add huge numbers of voters! How disenfranshising is all of that stuff?

 

Again, if there are other problems, fix the other problems. These aren't mutually exclusive. The notion that this doesn't solve everything, or has a narrow focus, so it is worthless, is just ridiculous. Its a copout. We have laws all over the country for a very few people, that doesn't mean they aren't needed. Hell, how many people get charged with beastiality in a year? Should we get rid of those laws because of their narrow focus? How about corporate fraud? There aren't that many people who do it, so we don't need laws against it, right?

 

Seriously the arguements are just silly IMO.

[Balta1701]

If its all about ease, why have polling places? Why not just let everyone vote over the internet? If fraud isn't a problem why waste money have poll workers asking people who they are? If we trust everyone, just let me go in and stuff a ballot in the box. Think how many people we are disenfranchising by making them put down the remote control and go somewhere? Think how many people don't vote because they have to stand in a line at the polling places? Damn, I'll bet if we got rid of polling places and election officials, we could add huge numbers of voters! How disenfranshising is all of that stuff?

 

Again, if there are other problems, fix the other problems. These aren't mutually exclusive. The notion that this doesn't solve everything, or has a narrow focus, so it is worthless, is just ridiculous. Its a copout. We have laws all over the country for a very few people, that doesn't mean they aren't needed. Hell, how many people get charged with beastiality in a year? Should we get rid of those laws because of their narrow focus? How about corporate fraud? There aren't that many people who do it, so we don't need laws against it, right?

 

Seriously the arguements are just silly IMO.

Ok, then let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

The folks who say this law is necessary are arguing that it is necessary to prevent some limited incidence of voter fraud, and it is a worthy sacrifice to disenfranchise a significantly larger number of people than commit the fraud in the process. The arguments in reply have been that it's not that much of an undue burden, that there are plenty of other things that disenfranchise people, and so on.

 

Therefore, I contend that it follows logically from these claims that absentee balloting should be banned. It will disenfranchise people, yes. But you have already said that does not bother you if certain groups are disenfranchised because they are unable to be polled for various reasons, such as not having a valid ID at the time of voting. Considering the factors involved, I claim that absentee ballot fraud is far more likely than the double-voting fraud that you're concerned about, and in fact exacerbates the problem. Absentee ballots make vote buying much more likely as it puts the ballots and the keys to them in people's hands and allows for verification of a vote. It enables mistakes and more fraud because it makes it impossible to determine who actually filled out a ballot, and it is impossible to guarantee chain of possession from the time that the ballot is mailed out until it is returned (And hence, you can never guarantee that the person who's ID you checked is the person actually voting). I can even point to an example in the state of Indiana of fraud happening entirely because of the existence of absentee ballots.

 

Based on your standard, where you are willing to impose a barrier that will disenfranchise a larger group to prevent a smaller amount of fraud, I contend it follows naturally that you should oppose absentee balloting by following the exact same logic.

[EvilMonkey]

Ok, then let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

The folks who say this law is necessary are arguing that it is necessary to prevent some limited incidence of voter fraud, and it is a worthy sacrifice to disenfranchise a significantly larger number of people than commit the fraud in the process. The arguments in reply have been that it's not that much of an undue burden, that there are plenty of other things that disenfranchise people, and so on.

 

Therefore, I contend that it follows logically from these claims that absentee balloting should be banned. It will disenfranchise people, yes. But you have already said that does not bother you if certain groups are disenfranchised because they are unable to be polled for various reasons, such as not having a valid ID at the time of voting. Considering the factors involved, I claim that absentee ballot fraud is far more likely than the double-voting fraud that you're concerned about, and in fact exacerbates the problem. Absentee ballots make vote buying much more likely as it puts the ballots and the keys to them in people's hands and allows for verification of a vote. It enables mistakes and more fraud because it makes it impossible to determine who actually filled out a ballot, and it is impossible to guarantee chain of possession from the time that the ballot is mailed out until it is returned (And hence, you can never guarantee that the person who's ID you checked is the person actually voting). I can even point to an example in the state of Indiana of fraud happening entirely because of the existence of absentee ballots.

 

Based on your standard, where you are willing to impose a barrier that will disenfranchise a larger group to prevent a smaller amount of fraud, I contend it follows naturally that you should oppose absentee balloting by following the exact same logic.

You assume that everyone currently without an ID will suddenly be unable to get one. If they are UNWILLING to get one, then they are disenfranchising themselves. As for the number that will really be UNABLE to get one, I think that will be a very small number indeed. There are groups, charities, and more partisan groups that are more than willing to help people register to vote, I am sure there will be efforts made to help those truely in need of an ID get one. I would wager that a vast majority of those who need an ID, and really want to vote, would get one. There seems to be this concept that spending an hour or two of your life once every 6+ years to get an ID is somehow an excessive burden to many (poor and minorities hit hardest!). That's bull. And quit lumping absentee balloting with THIS issue. Different problems.

[southsider2k5]

Ok, then let's take your argument to its logical conclusion.

 

The folks who say this law is necessary are arguing that it is necessary to prevent some limited incidence of voter fraud, and it is a worthy sacrifice to disenfranchise a significantly larger number of people than commit the fraud in the process. The arguments in reply have been that it's not that much of an undue burden, that there are plenty of other things that disenfranchise people, and so on.

 

Therefore, I contend that it follows logically from these claims that absentee balloting should be banned. It will disenfranchise people, yes. But you have already said that does not bother you if certain groups are disenfranchised because they are unable to be polled for various reasons, such as not having a valid ID at the time of voting. Considering the factors involved, I claim that absentee ballot fraud is far more likely than the double-voting fraud that you're concerned about, and in fact exacerbates the problem. Absentee ballots make vote buying much more likely as it puts the ballots and the keys to them in people's hands and allows for verification of a vote. It enables mistakes and more fraud because it makes it impossible to determine who actually filled out a ballot, and it is impossible to guarantee chain of possession from the time that the ballot is mailed out until it is returned (And hence, you can never guarantee that the person who's ID you checked is the person actually voting). I can even point to an example in the state of Indiana of fraud happening entirely because of the existence of absentee ballots.

 

Based on your standard, where you are willing to impose a barrier that will disenfranchise a larger group to prevent a smaller amount of fraud, I contend it follows naturally that you should oppose absentee balloting by following the exact same logic.

 

Then by your logic you should be campaigning to ban all polling places and making it absolutely easy as possible to vote (I imagine the government contacting every single person in the country to ask their vote would be the easist thing?) , and getting rid of all forms of security, because they all disenfranchise people.

[Texsox]

Then by your logic you should be campaigning to ban all polling places and making it absolutely easy as possible to vote (I imagine the government contacting every single person in the country to ask their vote would be the easist thing?) , and getting rid of all forms of security, because they all disenfranchise people.

 

I think the trend has been towards making the process simpler, which I agree with. Polling places near people's homes, early voting options, machines that are less confusing and faster. So if we could make it as easy as answering the phone or logging into a site, I can't see where that would be a bad thing.

 

As far as security, it becomes where we draw the line. Currently they match signatures and check off when you vote. That seems to have worked for a long time. Certainly fingerprints and DNA testing would be far more secure, but I would think that no one would take that seriously.

 

I see long lines, and voters being denied because they do not look like their old picture. The longer lines can be countered by more machines. and who doesn't like a bigger government program :-)

[Texsox]

You assume that everyone currently without an ID will suddenly be unable to get one. If they are UNWILLING to get one, then they are disenfranchising themselves. As for the number that will really be UNABLE to get one, I think that will be a very small number indeed. There are groups, charities, and more partisan groups that are more than willing to help people register to vote, I am sure there will be efforts made to help those truely in need of an ID get one. I would wager that a vast majority of those who need an ID, and really want to vote, would get one. There seems to be this concept that spending an hour or two of your life once every 6+ years to get an ID is somehow an excessive burden to many (poor and minorities hit hardest!). That's bull. And quit lumping absentee balloting with THIS issue. Different problems.

 

You are assuming the only people not voting because of this will be those without picture ID. I worry more that some voters with a photo ID will not tolerate the longer lines and possible denial if their picture doesn't match. How much time off do you allow your employees to go vote?

 

And doesn't it seem a little silly to put a bandaid on a minor cut while the person is having a heart attack? This is all about access to the ballot, and absentee ballots and in person should be treated the same, both votes will count the same.

[EvilMonkey]

You are assuming the only people not voting because of this will be those without picture ID. I worry more that some voters with a photo ID will not tolerate the longer lines and possible denial if their picture doesn't match. How much time off do you allow your employees to go vote?

 

And doesn't it seem a little silly to put a bandaid on a minor cut while the person is having a heart attack? This is all about access to the ballot, and absentee ballots and in person should be treated the same, both votes will count the same.

Polls here are open at like 6am and go until 7 at night or later. PLus with the early voting here, people have weeks to vote. Your long lines excuse is simply not a reality. And like I said earlier, if someone sees a wait time of 10 or 15 minutes and feels 'inconvenienced' enough to not vote because of it, f*** 'em. Don't vote then. You obviously don't care enough about the freedoms won for you by countless others before you to wait for 15 minutes and excercise your right, a right that many people die to get and die to protect. Go ahead, go home and watch that Seinfeld rerun, if that is what is really important. And before you go all off crying about the single mom who had 4 kids with her and stuff, I know that there are always exceptions. Oh, my peeps get an hour (PAID) if they need it, but they usually just come in late and do it before work.

[NorthSideSox72]

Polls here are open at like 6am and go until 7 at night or later. PLus with the early voting here, people have weeks to vote. Your long lines excuse is simply not a reality. And like I said earlier, if someone sees a wait time of 10 or 15 minutes and feels 'inconvenienced' enough to not vote because of it, f*** 'em. Don't vote then. You obviously don't care enough about the freedoms won for you by countless others before you to wait for 15 minutes and excercise your right, a right that many people die to get and die to protect. Go ahead, go home and watch that Seinfeld rerun, if that is what is really important. And before you go all off crying about the single mom who had 4 kids with her and stuff, I know that there are always exceptions. Oh, my peeps get an hour (PAID) if they need it, but they usually just come in late and do it before work.

I'm going to have to agree with Alpha here. With early voting and long hours, there is no reason not to vote for the 99% of the population that is not bedridden.

 

[Texsox]

f*** 'em.

Nice speech. You managed to very well sum up brain dead conservatives attitudes towards voters.