In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
On March 20 2015 11:41 Wolfstan wrote: Yeah I've posted I don't understand why it's an issue at all and why there is such vehement opposition on both sides. Seems like both issues could be summed up as modernize the voting process(with ID) and reduce voting times with ID and piggybacking the registration info with another government branch(I would support using the IRS database).
There is opposition to voter id laws which discriminate among voters, make it more expensive/difficult to vote and reduce voter turnout. There is also opposition to other measures which make it less easy to vote in general (see Florida).
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it. I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those. Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
You knew what I meant. This wasn't on the Republican national talking point list until people on the left started opposing it.
As an example, Wisconsin's law was put on hold by the Supreme Court because they said it was reinstated too close to the election. That's a clear case of judges actually causing the delays.
On March 20 2015 08:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote: [quote]
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
Most of the ID laws end up being upheld, more or less.
We've talked about this before and it was pointed out (I think it was from a GAO analysis) that out of ~10 studies, 5 found a significant decrease in voting across all groups, 4 found no significant decrease, and one found an increase. In particular, in a few states there was a decrease in black turnout but no decrease in Hispanic or Asian turnout.
If the Republicans were trying to suppress people they could do a hell of a better job.
In states like Pa, which is mentioned below, valid ID possession is almost incidental between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Only a few states have had significant court challenges, and some of them are still in limbo, like Texas. Arkansas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head where it really was struck down (by the state Court).
In Indiana (where this issue really became big) the law was upheld, and iirc, there was actually in increase in turnout among all groups after the law was passed.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
Whether efforts to suppress the vote are effective or not doesn't have much bearing on the clear intent. Also whether they were talking about their national strategy or not didn't mean it wasn't coordinated.
Also none of that really addresses the other crap around voter suppression that was stuffed into the "voter ID laws" or written separately.
For instance, what does taking away an early voting weekend have to do with voter ID?
It's only clear to you and others who already believe that Republicans are out to get people. If it doesn't affect the results, then why would I be in favor of it instead of opposing it?
I assume you know the real reason that there are fewer days, I'm not going to take the bait.
On March 20 2015 11:07 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 10:59 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base. If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
I do know the real reason. Even the BS reason doesn't have anything to do with Voter ID...? If you're thinking costs are the reason for the shift in voting times you are ignoring that Voter ID (a solution to a problem we don't have) isn't free either.
If you asked the people waiting in line for hours to vote whether they want a law requiring an ID to resolve a problem they aren't having and money budgeted to make it happen OR..... Getting additional voting resources so they weren't in line for hours (like their whiter more well-off neighbor districts) I think it's pretty obvious they would choose not having to wait in line.
However if you asked Republican lawmakers whether they would rather spend time and resources on needless Voter ID laws or making sure people don't have to wait hours to vote, they overwhelmingly and obviously chose Voter ID.
The intention and the results were/are to marginalize some peoples rights/participation. A thread seen running through many issues.
No. But I've learned you won't be convinced otherwise. Just don't ask questions when you think you already have the answer. It's really annoying.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect compared to white voters without an ID.
Perhaps people want voter ID laws because they make sense. Even a large % of minorities support the idea, and I doubt even you would contend that their motivation is to discriminate.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason put forward for these voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false. Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't. I think the Texas law will ultimately be upheld in more or less the same form, then we'll see.
And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not. There can be bad laws, but I don't think they are intended to have political outcomes. That judge in Texas used a whole bunch of "this COULD happen!"
That's all there really is to say until the Texas case (and others) are finally settled.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the Republican House Majority Leader who championed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above. Here's also another interesting study on the racial bias of lawmakers supporting voter id laws: link.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say! You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
I have things to accomplish, so I think that's it for now.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
[quote]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
On March 20 2015 11:07 kwizach wrote: [quote] The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
On March 20 2015 11:07 kwizach wrote: [quote] The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal, a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
I am well aware of the what the claims are. We aren't discussing long lines, I think you are the one missing out here.
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base.
Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
On March 20 2015 11:27 Introvert wrote: But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
On March 20 2015 11:58 kwizach wrote: [quote] Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
[quote]
[quote] Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
[quote] This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
I am well aware of the what the claims are. We aren't discussing long lines, I think you are the one missing out here.
On March 20 2015 11:58 kwizach wrote: [quote] Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
[quote]
[quote] Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
[quote] This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
The turnout didn't go down as much because people knew they were being attacked, and they stood up for themselves. They waited in unconscionably long lines that were directly contributed to by unnecessary ID laws, they found transportation and funds for ID, they made runs for supplies to sustain in those lines, etc... Despite the laws and the best efforts of Republicans turnout was only moderately impacted.
Using that as an argument about how the laws negative impacts weren't that bad and their poor results indicate that wasn't their intention is just absurd. As well as just wrong, as has been pointed out several times.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
I am well aware of the what the claims are. We aren't discussing long lines, I think you are the one missing out here.
On March 20 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:41 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:43 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:23 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:13 Introvert wrote: [quote]
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
The turnout didn't go down as much because people knew they were being attacked, and they stood up for themselves. They waited in unconscionably long lines that were directly contributed to by unnecessary ID laws, they found transportation and funds for ID, they made runs for supplies to sustain in those lines, etc... Despite the laws and the best efforts of Republicans turnout was only moderately impacted.
Using that as an argument about how the laws negative impacts weren't that bad and their poor results indicate that wasn't their intention is just absurd. As well as just wrong, as has been pointed out several times.
We aren't talking about long lines? Do you understand this?
On March 20 2015 12:23 kwizach wrote: [quote] This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
I am well aware of the what the claims are. We aren't discussing long lines, I think you are the one missing out here.
On March 20 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:41 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:43 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:23 kwizach wrote: [quote] This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
The turnout didn't go down as much because people knew they were being attacked, and they stood up for themselves. They waited in unconscionably long lines that were directly contributed to by unnecessary ID laws, they found transportation and funds for ID, they made runs for supplies to sustain in those lines, etc... Despite the laws and the best efforts of Republicans turnout was only moderately impacted.
Using that as an argument about how the laws negative impacts weren't that bad and their poor results indicate that wasn't their intention is just absurd. As well as just wrong, as has been pointed out several times.
We aren't talking about long lines? Do you understand this?
Yeah, ignoring them is part of the problem (beyond this conversation too). Do you understand?
GH, I thought you said that the long voter lines was because of not enough voting machines and poll workers. Now it's because of ID laws? I'm not trying to pick a side in this debate here but I want to understand your thinking and why it's changed now.
edit: Maybe I just missed it but you haven't brought up ID laws as a reason for long lines in any of the numerous times you brought up long voter lines.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances. Ignorance is a bad defense.
Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Arguing over turnout is missing the point when the same laws led to several hour long lines. This is just silly. Kwi's totally right about you not having a clue what the actual impacts of these laws were on the people they targeted.
I am well aware of the what the claims are. We aren't discussing long lines, I think you are the one missing out here.
On March 20 2015 14:12 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 13:41 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:43 kwizach wrote:
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: [quote]
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself.
In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
The turnout didn't go down as much because people knew they were being attacked, and they stood up for themselves. They waited in unconscionably long lines that were directly contributed to by unnecessary ID laws, they found transportation and funds for ID, they made runs for supplies to sustain in those lines, etc... Despite the laws and the best efforts of Republicans turnout was only moderately impacted.
Using that as an argument about how the laws negative impacts weren't that bad and their poor results indicate that wasn't their intention is just absurd. As well as just wrong, as has been pointed out several times.
We aren't talking about long lines? Do you understand this?
Yeah, ignoring them is part of the problem (beyond this conversation too). Do you understand?
I already told you that I'm not going to discuss it with someone who disingenuously asks questions to which he thinks he already has the answer. I've had that happen enough times, no more. I ignore things when I'm pretty sure that they will end with some declaration of racist or bigoted intent. Especially when they begin with questions set up as bait.
On March 20 2015 11:58 kwizach wrote: [quote] Except it is clearly the intent, as you could for example pretty clearly see from the comment of the lawmaker in the video. For a more detailed look at a specific case, I advise you to read the opinion of the Federal District Judge which judged the case of a recent Texas voter id law. She concluded, after analyzing in detail the evidence available:
[quote]
[quote] Except voter turnout reduction does happen because of some voter id laws. It's right there in the GAO report I referenced earlier, as well as in the opinion I just linked above. You'll see in the opinion: "The Court finds that approximately 608,470 registered voters in Texas lack proper SB 14 ID.", and that it meant that "4.5% of voters are potentially disenfranchised". Likewise, the GAO report found that the turnout was reduced due to voter id laws in Kansas and Tennessee by "an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee". If you take into account the combined effect of voter id laws around the country, then no, you'll see I'm not in the realm of hyperbole.
[quote] This issue of voter fraud should be low on the list of anyone's concerns, because it is a non-existent problem. What does exist and what should be high on anyone's list of concerns is voter turnout reduction because of voter id laws.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
I asked the question a few posts ago, under the form "Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?" (also, see here for an explanation of "all other things being equal").
If you agree that if a law's only effect is to reduce the number of voters it is a bad law, can you please explain to me what is gained from the kind of strict voter id laws we're talking about here, especially those who were passed in states which already had voter id laws, only more flexible with regards to the means of obtaining an id? Remember that nothing is actually gained on the "voter fraud" front, given that it is established the problem virtually does not exist.
On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote: And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself. In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
Many of them do not make it free or "at least very cheap", especially if you take into account the time that needs to be invested into the procedure to get them. If every potential voter received his free ID in the mail or could simply receive it when registering to vote, then yes, this would not be a problem. That's usually simply not the case for the kind of voting laws we're talking about.
On March 20 2015 14:39 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: GH, I thought you said that the long voter lines was because of not enough voting machines and poll workers. Now it's because of ID laws? I'm not trying to pick a side in this debate here but I want to understand your thinking and why it's changed now.
edit: Maybe I just missed it but you haven't brought up ID laws as a reason for long lines in any of the numerous times you brought up long voter lines.
Several of the "ID" laws had parts that cut/changed voting opportunities. One of several aspects that resulted in longer lines. Which is one of the reasons strictly talking about turnout like Intro is, is completely missing a huge part of the issue.
One could use the same "well it didn't work" reasoning Intro was using to defend the intentions of things like literacy tests if people somehow passed them. It's ridiculous on it's face, and just wrong.
You found one quack, congratz. His argument didn't even make sense, considering how close the ID ownership rates were for the state of PA.
Yes, there is a reduction, but its impact is debatable and it doesn't change the results at all. That's my point. If the goal was suppress people and win elections because of it, then these ID laws are failures.
I looked through the Texas ruling, lots of "could have" type arguments. That case isn't even finished yet. You have to really be reaching to point to 600k people without figuring out how many of them had any intention of voting in the first place. If you don't plan on voting, then I don't care of the law prevents you anyway. What I want to know is many people who planned on voting couldn't. So no, not millions.
The actual effect is marginal. 33 states have some form of ID laws. The vast majority of them don't even get a complaint. Only one that I can find was actually struck down by a court. The others that are challenged are still in the system.
Moreover, there are other factors because not every groups equally effected. Some minority groups see no difference in terms of effect than white voters without an ID.
This post is essentially you dismissing the factual evidence which contradicts your view and proves you wrong. You're free to do that, but the evidence that you're wrong remains.
1. The intent is there (to reduce voter turnout among specific populations voting for Democrats). 2. The results are there (reduction in voter turnout - and btw the 600k potentially disenfranchised in Texas were registered voters, so that number doesn't even count people who were not registered yet but may have wanted to register). 3. The very reason for the voter id laws is an imagined problem which does not actually exist (voter fraud is non-existent).
I'm not arguing against every voter id law, I'm arguing about id laws pushed in recent years which have (and are designed to have) negative effects on voter turnout and make it more difficult for many people to exercise their right to vote. Not only do they have the potential to turn elections (in Texas, the court found that "the number of voters potentially disenfranchised by SB 14 is significant in comparison to the number of registered voters in Texas"), but even if they didn't, preventing people from voting is something that should be opposed period.
I'm hardly dismissing anything factual, what I am dismissing is your explanation of the rationale, which is that the goal is suppression. That's simply false.
No, it is factually true. It certainly was for the lawmaker who helped passed the PA voter id law, as can be clearly seen from the video. And the Texas opinion written by the judge who struck down their voter id law explains in great detail why they reached this conclusion:
This Court concludes that the evidence in the record demonstrates that proponents of SB 14 within the 82nd Texas legislature were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate. As such, SB 14 violates the VRA as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
You, on the other hand, dismiss this evidence. You are ignoring the facts, period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: Moreover I reject the idea that these laws actually lead to such things. I don't debate that overall turnout can be lowered. If the intent was to influence elections, then these laws would actually lead to that result. But they don't, and I daresay they won't.
You have no evidence to claim that they don't. None. Meanwhile, the Court ruled that the amount of disenfranchised registered voters from the law was significant with regards to the total number of voters, and elections in which such laws have an effect can also include local elections in which margins of victories are much smaller than state-wide presidential elections. And a reduction in voter turnout is, again, a factual and documented effect of some of these laws. Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: And if you can take the time to vote, you can take the time to get an ID to vote, espeically when the costs are either small or non-existent.
Your personal opinion on what is or isn't a big cost is of no interest whatsoever, especially since you have no clue of what some of the obstacles be for the people affected may be. What matters is the systemic impact on voters. That system impact can clearly be voter turnout reduction. That is a negative impact. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:33 Introvert wrote: If you want to continue asserting that the purpose is malicious, go ahead. But it's not.
The facts disagree with you, as documented above.
They don't have a (significant) impact, or at least you have no evidence that they do. At most you can claim that it could. Man, that's easy to say!
The impact is documented: it is often voter turnout reduction. This is a fact. There is plenty of evidence supporting that fact.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: You rely so much on one judges opinion about ONE law in ONE state to declare the entity of support for these recent laws as politically motivated.
The same pattern is valid in plenty of other cases. You can for example read this opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner with regards to a Wisconsin voter id law. He concludes:
"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
Circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that the intent behind many of these voter id laws has indeed been to suppress voter turnout among populations that tend to vote for Democrats. And the video of the Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader rejoicing that they passed the voter id law "which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" is just icing on the cake.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: I would go back to the GAO. 5 studies say it affects turnout, 4 say it doesn't (significantly), 1 says increase. None say it flips elections one way or the other. Therefore, my contention the entire time that it doesn't change elections. While you have one Texas judge claiming it could. ok. Key word here: significantly.
The studies were not about whether reduction in voter turnout affected election results, so of course they didn't say anything about that. In any case, the point is that there is obviously the potential for close/very close elections to have a different outcome because of voter id laws, precisely because of the fact that voter turnout is reduced for specific groups which tend to favor one side over the other. All voters are not affected equally. It is therefore false to claim that it "cannot happen". Of course it can, based on how elections work. We know that it can happen, and the fact that there isn't any research that I know of about specific cases where it might or might not have happened certainly doesn't mean that it never happened. All we know is that it can have an impact on very close races.
I'd like to point out again, however, that a reduction in voter turnout matters in itself, not only if it flips an election at a given point. The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy, and anything that has a negative impact on voter turnout and makes it more difficult to vote (for no reason) - and potentially leads some of the affected people to give up on the process of voting and of engaging in politics on the longer term - should be viewed negatively. Period.
On March 20 2015 12:56 Introvert wrote: We make these trade-offs with lots of things. If you decide that's it too much work in the TWO YEARS in between elections to get an ID, then I don't know what to tell you.
Again, I do not care what you have to say about whether or not it's too much work. The fact is that some people are clearly sufficiently impacted to not go vote or to see their votes cast out because of the new ID laws (often because the government has not communicated the new rules well enough for the people affected to even know about them). That is a fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not new requirements are "too much work" is IRRELEVANT.
The bolded part is the crux of the matter. Too say that anything that lowers turnout is wrong is quite the statement, and you I don't think you could get many to agree with you (certainly not the Supreme Court). In fact, most people support ID laws, which will probably stop some people from voting. But apparently most Americans think that's a fine trade. I think these laws have so little impact on that front that the trade-off is worth it. Simple as that.
Like I said in the sentence you bolded, there is no actual reason for strict voter id laws that make it more difficult to vote to exist if the objective is to address voter fraud. Indeed, voter fraud does not exist on any meaningful scale. So saying, like you do, that "the trade-off is worth it", is profoundly ignorant, given that there is no trade-off. There is nothing to be gained on the "voter fraud" front, because there is virtually no voter fraud to begin with. So it's not a trade-off at all, it's purely a loss on the side of voter turnout. There is nothing gained on the other side of the balance in these situations of reduced voter turnout.
Having a reduction in voter turnout ranging from 1.5% to 3.5% is not "some people", it's a lot of people.
I'll ask you again the question you keep dodging: do you think that all other things being equal a lower voter turnout is a good thing?
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: If you think you are an informed citizen and you don't even know that you now need an ID to vote, then you aren't an informed citizen, anyway. The Texas law was passed in 2011, first in effect 2014. That's a long time, and the fault in that case lies with the voter in almost all circumstances.
First, there have been many instances of government officials providing insufficient or outright false information to voters with regards to the contents of new voter id laws (see for example in Arkansas). Second, several of these laws were enacted in recent years right before elections, which is why many courts suspended their application. Third, I do not care about your opinion on what constitutes an informed voter - the point is that if these laws reduce voter turnout, for various reasons, that is a clearly negative consequence.
On March 20 2015 13:53 Introvert wrote: Though I would like to point out I am in favor of making these ID free, which would eliminate a lot of the supposed financial hardship associated with acquisition.
Many of these laws do not make these ID free, which is precisely one of the points.
I haven't dodged jack-all, you haven't asked me this question. All things being equal? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm going to say no. If the only effect of the law was to reduce to number of voters, then I would say that it was a bad law. Pretty easy question, really.
I asked the question a few posts ago, under the form "Are you in favor of reducing voter turnout?" (also, see here for an explanation of "all other things being equal").
If you agree that if a law's only effect is to reduce the number of voters it is a bad law, can you please explain to me what is gained from the kind of strict voter id laws we're talking about here, especially those who were passed in states which already had voter id laws, only more flexible with regards to the means of obtaining an id? Remember that nothing is actually gained on the "voter fraud" front, given that it is established the problem virtually does not exist.
On March 20 2015 14:19 Introvert wrote: And any law that doesn't make it free (like many of them do) or at least very cheap, I do have an issue with that. Also, the state doing a bad job at informing voters is bad, but I don't think it speaks to the merit of the law itself. In my ideal world, for what it's worth, driver's licenses would be valid. Anyone without one could get another ID from the state at no charge. And all changes to voter laws would be implemented in the election cycle following the upcoming one. So if the law was passed in 2011, it would not go into effect until 2014.
Many of them do not make it free or "at least very cheap", especially if you take into account the time that needs to be invested into the procedure to get them. If every potential voter received his free ID in the mail or could simply receive it when registering to vote, then yes, this would not be a problem. That's usually simply not the case for the kind of voting laws we're talking about.
Cute. I know what the phrase "all things being equal" means but I wasn't sure how you were applying it here.
First, I'm not convinced that there is no fraud. Perhaps not enough to change the result of an election, but that is apparently not a useful criterion to consider. I think it's quite hard to track down. Second, I think these laws are good as preventative measures. That, combined with my disbelief that these laws will result in "millions" of people being unable to vote, means it's easy to support them. In 99% of cases I put the blame on either the state for not informing the citizens, or the citizens who plan on voting put don't plan on getting an ID. Again, with there being, say, 4 years between passage and implementation, that is more than enough time.
So the short and simple is: I don't think voter ID hampers voting significantly enough to offset the prevention of fraud. For most of these laws, that's been the conclusion of the Courts as well. There really isn't significant hardship. I'm waiting on stats from Texas, but from what I've read lower turnout has to do with non-competitive races more than ID laws. If I thought there was literally no ID fraud then I wouldn't support these laws. Easy.
My goal here is not to defend every ID law, but to contend that racism, suppression, etc. is not the reason for these laws. Just like I don't assume that the average Democrat supports illegal immigration and amnesty to grow the Democrat party. I know it's harder to give your opponents credit for having a legitimate concern than it is to call them names, but we can do the hard stuff around here.
Edit: To make my point, it's entirely possible (I suppose) that the law does cause some undue burden. One judge says yes, but the final decision remains to be seen. I haven't read up on Arkansas, but if that law actually was causing some suppression (which I would still assume was not the purpose) then I oppose that too. I simply don;t think these laws carry all the negative side effects that are being claimed.
Oh, and I keep up with the news. I don't need the sources you already linked.
Hence my initial position where I don't think ID is a big concern.
EPT
