The most important thing you need to know about the voter ID issue

[phrodeau]

obama loves slaves! he's busy turning the middle class into the new slave class


buying the election, one slave at a time!

You let slaves vote? Then you have to live with the consequences.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Also from Hasen's book, and reassuring -- from Chapter 6, "Deus ex Machina": He acknowledges that the DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines do have all kinds of security-holes a hacker could exploit, and some have in tests; but he dismisses for lack of actual evidence claims of any conspiracy to rig "black box voting" results through hacking, viruses, or hidden software.

As we will see, some critics have raised valid concerns. But others have moved in to the realm of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. The paranoia began with the statement by former Diebold president Walden O'Dell in a fund-raising letter that he would "deliver" Ohio's electoral votes for President Bush in his 2004 reelection battle. O'Dell was writing to raise funds for Bush, not to signal that the fix was in. If the Diebold machines really had a secret code in them to flip Democratic votes for Republicans, O'Dell would hardly have been so rash as to advertise it in a letter sent to hundreds of people asking for funds for Bush. It was a stupid letter for someone in his position to send, but it was never any proof that Diebold machines were rigged. Even Brad Friedman, one of the most ardent foes of Diebold and the use of electronic voting equipment, had to concede that "it hasn't been shown that Diebold has actually thrown any elections." That hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from throwing around allegations of stolen elections.

The fringe left's equivalent to the Fraudulent Fraud Squad is out there making unsubstantiated claims . . . but drawing far less attention than the squad. Among the machine conspiracy theorists, there is a tremendous distrust of the voting machines and a belief, not backed up by any valid scientific proof I have seen, that the companies are involved in a conspiracy to manipulate election results to help Republicans. So far, fewer Democrats seem to buy into the right-wing conspiracy on voting machines than Republicans who buy into the left-wing voter fraud conspiracy, but that could change with the next election controversy.

Let's be clear: There is no more proof of a vast Republican conspiracy to steal elections through hidden software in voting machines than there is proof of a vast Democratic conspiracy to steal elections through voter impersonation fraud.

What's really going on with the voting machines? The story should by now be familiar: Hanlon's razor. Incompetence, not criminality.

Of course, OTOH . . . as with "voter fraud" . . . the believers can always respond with, "That's just exactly what you'd expect if you make something nearly impossible to detect: no one gets caught doing it."

 

[KingOrfeo]

At the end of the book, Hasen proposes his solutions:

We need nonpartisan, professional election administration at the federal, state and local levels, with more power in the hands of the federal government than state government and power power in the hands of the states than the localities. Neutral election officials, whose allegiance is not to a political party or candidate but to a fair election system, should be the norm.

<snip>

"Let a thousand flowers bloom" should not be the model for how we run our elections. We should follow the path of other mature democracies. A nonpartisan election czar or panel of three should run our national elections, with political insulation and a long term of service. The czar should impose uniformity, competence, and discipline on the election process.

If used on a national scale, the president would make the nomination subject to a two-thirds or three-fourths confirmation vote by both houses of Congress. The large supermajority requirement would ensure that the person picked is a consensus candidate who cannot be easily manipulated by political forces. The election czar (or committee) should have the power to impose uniform standards on federal elections. Ideally, a voter should be able to walk into any polling place, anywhere in the country, and see the same voting equipment and the same ballot format. Election boards with balanced representation from both parties should have the power to monitor operations conducted by the nonpartisan official, with ample protection for either party to call for grand jury investigations if there are allegations of partisanship or incompetence.

<snip>

There should be uniform standards for how to deal with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Election laws should be updated so that the rules are clear and established in advance. States should conduct periodic election law audits to ensure that laws are up to date, clear, and match current voting technology. Uniformity not only minimizes the grounds for a potential postelection contest but benefits all voters by ensuring a fair process.

The registration rolls should be uniform as well. The federal government should be in the business of registering all voters, paying all costs associated with registration and voter verification. Registration should begin when someone graduates from high school (or drops out), and voter registration should follow citizens wherever they go with a unique voter identification number (which would differ from a Social Security number). The government should provide a voter identification card to each voter, but voters lacking identification would have the choice of using a thumprint or other means too verify their identity.

Votging machine hardware and software should have government approval. The source code and hardware should undergo rigtorous independent testing and full disclosure to government officials before rollout and implementation. Manufacturers should not be able to frustrate efforts to improve security by claiming that the source code is proprietary.

Forget everything you just read. None of it is going to happen. Despite the Florida debacle, states have not moved toward greater non-partisan election administration. Florida did get rid of its partisan elected secretary of state. But now the position is appointed by the governor, without the supermajority confirmation requirement that would keep the office apolitical. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see much benefit in giving up the chance to have one of their own as the state's chief election officer.

More generally, the Voting Wars have shown the parties the virtue of manipulating election rules for their advantage. The parties have a vested interest in keeping some partisan control. And local election officials fight for power against state officials, while both fight against federal control. There's no strong lobby for change. The window for change following 2000 closed quickly with the half-measure of the Help America Vote Act.

Nor is there support for mandatory, government-paid national voter registration with a voter identification -- much less with biometric information like a fingerprint. When I first proposed such a system, in 2005, I managed the nearly impossible feat of uniting the two political parties around an idea. Unfortunately, they were united in opposition. Republicans oppose federal control, oppose another government program, and oppose government control on principle. Democrats oppose voter identification requirements, even if the government pays for it and goes out and registers voters, even though a large majority of the public supports such identification. Civil libertarians don't like the government having your thumbprint. Barring a much worse meltdown than 2000, nationalizing our elections won't happen in our lifetime.

Is he right? Is there nothing We the People can do to override both parties' vested interests?

 

[jeninflorida]

in the name of the obama, dead people have the right to vote!

long live the welfare regime empire

 

[KingOrfeo]

Federal judge nixes Wisconsin voter-ID law.

A federal judge in Milwaukee struck down Wisconsin’s voter identification law Tuesday, saying a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sided with opponents of the law, who argued that low-income and minority voters aren’t as likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them. Adelman said the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Adelman’s decision invalidates Wisconsin’s law and could set a precedent for similar legal challenges in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere. At least 14 states require voters to show photo ID, and legislation in dozens of other states includes proposals to either introduce new voter ID laws or strengthen existing ones. Just last week, an Arkansas judge struck down that state’s voter ID law; it is being appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Wisconsin’s Republican-led Legislature passed the photo ID requirement in 2011, scoring a long-sought GOP priority. Former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, had vetoed a similar requirement three times between 2002 and 2005.

This not long after a state-level judge struck down Arkansas' voter-ID law.

A Circuit Court judge has resoundingly rejected Arkansas’ new photo ID restrictions on voting, declaring the law to be “null and void” and in violation of the state’s constitutional right to vote.

Last year, after Republicans took over the Arkansas statehouse for the first time since Reconstruction, they passed an onerous photo ID restriction law for voting. The Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed the new restrictions, but that veto was subsequently overridden by the Republican Legislature.

Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Davis Fox’ two-page Summary Judgement [PDF] finds in favor of plaintiffs in the case, the Pulaski County Election Commission and against both the defendant, the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners, as well as the Republican Party of Arkansas, which intervened on behalf of the Board of Election.

In his Thursday ruling, Fox found the law to be “unconstitutional in that it violates Articles 3, Section 1 and Article 3, Section 2 of the Arkansas Constitution.”

 

[snugglestruggle]

Everytime I go to my bank I have to show my drivers license. Buy something with my credit card..Show my DL . So I don't understand why this is such a big deal?

If someone doesn't care enough to bring their Voter registration card and DL (or legal ID from DMV) Fuck'em, tough shit asshole, You don't get to vote. Maybe next time you'll remember what to do. I'm tired of stupid people making the line long then hold it up while they make excuses.

I don't care if the person is a lefty,a righty or an illegal. This shit where we make exceptions for everything only encourages laziness,fraud and stupidity.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Everytime I go to my bank I have to show my drivers license. Buy something with my credit card..Show my DL . So I don't understand why this is such a big deal?

If someone doesn't care enough to bring their Voter registration card and DL (or legal ID from DMV) Fuck'em, tough shit asshole, You don't get to vote. Maybe next time you'll remember what to do. I'm tired of stupid people making the line long then hold it up while they make excuses.

I don't care if the person is a lefty,a righty or an illegal. This shit where we make exceptions for everything only encourages laziness,fraud and stupidity.

Banking is not a cornerstone of democracy, voting is.

No one should be denied the right to vote because they lack the necessary papers.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Banking is not a cornerstone of democracy, voting is.

No one should be denied the right to vote because they lack the necessary papers.

It also carries with it a responsibility. If voting is important to them they should make sure they can vote by bringing their voter ID card and their DL/ ID.

If not go home , get it and come back. If you miss out, tough shit, learn your lesson and don't repeat the error. That's not denying anyone their right , it's called complying with the rules governing voting.

 

[garbage can]

Banking is not a cornerstone of democracy, voting is.

No one should be denied the right to vote because they lack the necessary papers.

Showing an ID is just asking if one has the right to vote.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Everytime I go to my bank I have to show my drivers license. Buy something with my credit card..Show my DL .

That is because you are dealing with money. Different game entirely.

And I've never been asked to show my DL when using a credit card.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Showing an ID is just asking if one has the right to vote.

But many have the right and lack the ID.

 

[bra_man69]

Banking is not a cornerstone of democracy, voting is.

No one should be denied the right to vote because they lack the necessary papers.

There's not a right to vote fat fuck.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Showing an ID is just asking if one has the right to vote.

That's what registration is for. If you're name's not on the list you don't get to vote.

 

[garbage can]

That's what registration is for. If you're name's not on the list you don't get to vote.

That's how it is in my state, my name is checked off.

 

[Bry1313]

There's not a right to vote fat fuck.

And you just failed your citizenship test.

 

[garbage can]

And you just failed your citizenship test.

Does the citizenship test require an ID?

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's how it is in my state, my name is checked off.

That's how it is in my state, my name is checked off and I have to sign it. And I have to go to the appropriate voting area. And if I WANTED to commit voter fraud it would be a lot less risky to simply walk up and down the block on mail day taking everybody's absentee ballots and sending them all in. No ID necessary.

 

[JohnnySavage]

There's not a right to vote fat fuck.

AMENDMENT XV - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XIX - The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XXIV - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XXVI - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote...

 

[garbage can]

AMENDMENT XV - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XIX - The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XXIV - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote...

AMENDMENT XXVI - Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote...

It's not the right that's been questioned, it's citizens.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's not the right that's been questioned, it's citizens.

If you're name is on the list you're a citizen. That's not even what's being debated. What's being claimed is that people (possibly non-citizens) are impersonated citizens.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's not the right that's been questioned, it's citizens.

Reread the OP.

 

[richard_daily]

So this guy never heard of Chicago?

Speaking of fraud!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Dazzle1]

. . . is that using "voter fraud" to steal an election is virtually impossible.

From The Voting Wars, by Richard Hasen:

did the author address the MN Senate race, where ACORN was found to have engaged invoter fraud?

 

[garbage can]

did the author address the MN Senate race, where ACORN was found to have engaged invoter fraud?

I seem to remember that after about the 3rd recount, Franken found some votes in the trunk of his car,