The GOP war on voting

[nathanm]

Funny how it's spin when a Republican lets slip his intentions and makes no attempt to clarify his remarks, yet it's fair game to take Obama's words out of context to try to portray him as a Kenyan muslim socialist. ("But..But..," he stammered, "Obama actually is a Kenyan muslim socialist, so it's OK!")

How's that new independent thing working out for you?

[Red Arrow]

How can you prove or disprove voter fraud when no ID is required?  I have always wondered why NO ID was required.  My parents worked the polls for many years.  They obviously knew me when I came to vote.  What about a new person to the precinct that nobody knows?  I think they should be required to present some kind of ID.  It is discrimination to require some and not all to present proof of identity.  I will agree that for voting that ID should be without cost to the voter.

[Red Arrow]

I'm going to have to ask if "you guys" against voter ID believe there should be ANY requirements to vote in the USA.  Nathan has said he believes convicted felons serving their sentence should be allowed to vote. How about undocumented aliens (not the space type)?  How about tourists?  Should someone who nominally lives in Kansas be allowed to vote in a local Oklahoma election?  These are (to me) obvious exaggerations but I am beginning to believe some of you really don't care who votes.

[Conan71]

Funny how it's spin when a Republican lets slip his intentions and makes no attempt to clarify his remarks, yet it's fair game to take Obama's words out of context to try to portray him as a Kenyan muslim socialist. ("But..But..," he stammered, "Obama actually is a Kenyan muslim socialist, so it's OK!")

How's that new independent thing working out for you?

And finally the ad hominem.  That's rare for you.

Sorry if my viewpoint offends some people, but I was brought up by very patriotic parents who taught me that voting is a very sacred privilege we enjoy as Americans and it's a serious responsibility.  Voter fraud is very much well-documented throughout the history of this country.  Claiming it's minor because it's not always caught and prosecuted is like pretending the cost of shoplifting isn't included in the price of the items you buy at the store.  

And yes, my father was a Democrat as well as a district court judge, whom I believe would have agreed the sanctity of voting is secured by only properly-qualified voters (as defined by state law) being allowed to vote.  

Facts are facts, two of the states which enacted what are considered the most restrictive voting laws experienced increased minority participation at the polls in the 2008 election.  You can try to assign an increase in population to the phenomena, yet Indiana was one of the states losing jobs at a rapid pace in 2008.  I seriously doubt that was a state people were flocking to unless they were anxious to get on the unemployment rolls.  But, if you wish to work such an angle, how many people make it one of their first priorities to register to vote when they relocate to a new state or even to a new voting precinct.

Speaking of which, you do realize that continuing to vote in your old district after you've moved to a new district is voter fraud, right?  Votes for Tulsa City Council have been thrown out before for multiple people voting in a district they no longer live in.  Being registered to vote in more than one municipality or state is also an example of voter fraud.

As well, the 795,000 "disenfranchised voters" in Pennsylvania is proven to be an over-blown statistic.  I think it's really disgusting the media goes for the most inflammatory estimates to create controversy and increase readership, listenership, or viewership rather than simply digging a little deeper and reporting the real facts.

If Republican governors really believe such laws help secure republican victories, they would do well to read the stats and realize potential voter loss is equal on both sides with voter ID laws.

It's truly sad that the Democrat party has you convinced they can't win elections easily without people who can't "prove" they have the right to vote.  They can mobilize the same machine they use to get people to the polls to get them IDs if that's what's required.  Quit making something as simple as getting a photo ID sound like such an onerous task, it's a truly condescending attitude toward minorities, the elderly, and the poor.

[nathanm]

And finally the ad hominem.  That's rare for you.

It was a serious question. I'm asking you why you're carrying water for the Republicans on this issue. Why is it so gosh darn important right now when it hasn't been for the last 40 years? Or even the last 20 years? Where were you guys when many states purchased electronic voting machines that have no paper trail whatsoever and have little to no security?

Sorry if my viewpoint offends some people, but I was brought up by very patriotic parents who taught me that voting is a very sacred privilege we enjoy as Americans and it's a serious responsibility.  Voter fraud is very much well-documented throughout the history of this country.  Claiming it's minor because it's not always caught and prosecuted is like pretending the cost of shoplifting isn't included in the price of the items you buy at the store.  

If you can't point to a specific instance, you're just operating on conjecture.

And yes, my father was a Democrat as well as a district court judge, whom I believe would have agreed the sanctity of voting is secured by only properly-qualified voters (as defined by state law) being allowed to vote.  

Nice argument from authority.

I also agree that only qualified voters should vote. I disagree that photo ID is necessary as a means to that end. I would be less cynical about the project if common forms of non-government issued ID and/or non-photo ID were being allowed by most of the states that have passed voter ID laws. That in and of itself makes it clear to me what the actual motivation of these laws is, regardless of the high-minded rhetoric that may be used in their defense.

Facts are facts, two of the states which enacted what are considered the most restrictive voting laws experienced increased minority participation at the polls in the 2008 election.  You can try to assign an increase in population to the phenomena, yet Indiana was one of the states losing jobs at a rapid pace in 2008.

You may want to consider the historical circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. People were unusually motivated. I don't like making policy based on exceptional circumstances.

Speaking of which, you do realize that continuing to vote in your old district after you've moved to a new district is voter fraud, right?  

Yes, I understand that. This is a problem that could be easily mitigated using modern technology. Having people vote only in their home precinct is completely ridiculous and further suppresses turnout. There are these wonderful things called computers. We should use them more, given a voter verified paper ballot coming out of them. It would be trivial to allow instant reregistration for people who moved and to allow them to vote at any precinct in the county (or state, if we got really big ideas in our head).

Being registered to vote in more than one municipality or state is also an example of voter fraud.

Not AFAIK. Voting in more than one municipality or state is an example of voter fraud. I don't really care if people are registered in 5,000 places because they move a lot. I care that they vote only once for the elections in which they are eligible voters.

As well, the 795,000 "disenfranchised voters" in Pennsylvania is proven to be an over-blown statistic.  I think it's really disgusting the media goes for the most inflammatory estimates to create controversy and increase readership, listenership, or viewership rather than simply digging a little deeper and reporting the real facts.

Didn't that number come from PennDOT (or whoever issues photo IDs there?).

It's truly sad that the Democrat party has you convinced they can't win elections easily without people who can't "prove" they have the right to vote.  They can mobilize the same machine they use to get people to the polls to get them IDs if that's what's required.  Quit making something as simple as getting a photo ID sound like such an onerous task, it's a truly condescending attitude toward minorities, the elderly, and the poor.

If you think that I care about the right to vote because the Democrats happen to be talking about it, you have severely misunderestimated me.

Edited to add: Also, what of the sad sack that loses his photo ID on the way to the polling station? love 'em? I really don't like my right to vote being subject to providing a certain object blessed by authority. It sorta negates the whole 'right' thing and turns it into a privilege. Much like air travel these days. I'm not too keen on airport security, as you might imagine.

[Teatownclown]

Crownan, I am getting an insight now into your personality and have come to the conclusion your rightieness stems from rejection of your father's political stances.

Saturdaze comix:

[TeeDub]

I don't remember voting on it or any of my representatives asking my opinion.

If you didn't vote on it it was your own fault..  It was a state ballot question.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Voter_Identification_Measure,_State_Question_746_%282010%29

[Red Arrow]

If you can't point to a specific instance, you're just operating on conjecture.

If you don't get a ticket for not fully stopping at a stop sign, does that mean you actually came to a full stop?  Of course it is difficult to prove voter fraud when there is no requirement to prove who you are when voting.  You too are operating on conjecture regarding the extent of voter fraud.  To deny voter fraud exists is irresponsible.  Whether or not it is significant is the question.

That in and of itself makes it clear to me what the actual motivation of these laws is, regardless of the high-minded rhetoric that may be used in their defense.

I consider the fight against voter ID to be mostly high-minded rhetoric.  There are a few glitches that need to be worked out for a very small portion of the populace.

Having people vote only in their home precinct is completely ridiculous and further suppresses turnout.

You may wish to rethink or reword that regarding local elections.  I am not certain that your qualifiers guarantee that voting in a different precinct would get you the ballot from your precinct.  Instant reregistration could open a can of worms.  Say I didn't like something the City of Tulsa was going to do.  Could I rent an apartment or even a motel room for a short term, reregister as a COT resident, vote, and then return to suburbia?  With what you propose, it wouldn't be that difficult.  Could I go to California, vote out of my home precinct and help get rid of Nancy Pelosi?

Edited to add: Also, what of the sad sack that loses his photo ID on the way to the polling station? love 'em? I really don't like my right to vote being subject to providing a certain object blessed by authority. It sorta negates the whole 'right' thing and turns it into a privilege. Much like air travel these days. I'm not too keen on airport security, as you might imagine.

If you want to do the hyperbole thing, how about the guy who plans to get to the poll about 1/2 hour before closing but gets stuck in traffic, has a flat tire, the bus he is riding on is late or has mechanical problems, gets mugged and tied to a tree,  gets in a car accident and gets rushed to the hospital and so on.

Airport security has taken ALL the fun out of going somewhere by airline.  Except for the blowing up airliners and hijacking thing, the only reason to have your name on a ticket is to notify your next of kin after an accident and keeping you and your luggage together.  Pretty soon, you will need a photo ID to ride on Tulsa Transit.  Actually you do need a MTTA ID to qualify for certain discounts, or was that SEPTA from Philadelphia.  I occasionally look on the SEPTA web site to see how the trolleys are doing.  Maybe a MTTA photo ID would qualify as a government issued ID for voting.

[Red Arrow]

If you didn't vote on it it was your own fault..  It was a state ballot question.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_Voter_Identification_Measure,_State_Question_746_%282010%29

Must be that oldtimers thing.   

[Red Arrow]

CONANSBURRIED!

see, even a comic strip can out smarts Conan.

Of course we all know that Gary Trudeau is a well known conservative who champions all the Tea Party causes.  Well, maybe not.

[AquaMan]

Must be that oldtimers thing.   

Honestly, don't remember it. I'll have to ask the wife (aqua'sbrain).

I'm sure I was astounded by the results.

[Red Arrow]

I can't say for other states but it appears that you don't really need to have any ID to vote in OK.

The form does not appear to require any independent verification of your identity. You only have to sign and mail it in.  You will get a free voter ID card which will be permitted as ID at the poll.  Pretty easy really.
http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/vrform.pdf

[nathanm]

If you don't get a ticket for not fully stopping at a stop sign, does that mean you actually came to a full stop?  Of course it is difficult to prove voter fraud when there is no requirement to prove who you are when voting.  You too are operating on conjecture regarding the extent of voter fraud.  To deny voter fraud exists is irresponsible.  Whether or not it is significant is the question.

I didn't deny it exists, that would be stupid. However, it mostly doesn't include things that voter ID supposedly fixes. If you look at what the AGs of the several states are saying, absentee ballots are a bigger problem. (not a very big one, mind you, but still where much of the fraud comes from) I still don't support getting rid of them.

I consider the fight against voter ID to be mostly high-minded rhetoric.  There are a few glitches that need to be worked out for a very small portion of the populace.

Small proportion, perhaps, not a small portion. It's millions of people who are affected by this smile.

You may wish to rethink or reword that regarding local elections.  I am not certain that your qualifiers guarantee that voting in a different precinct would get you the ballot from your precinct.  Instant reregistration could open a can of worms.  Say I didn't like something the City of Tulsa was going to do.  Could I rent an apartment or even a motel room for a short term, reregister as a COT resident, vote, and then return to suburbia?  With what you propose, it wouldn't be that difficult.  Could I go to California, vote out of my home precinct and help get rid of Nancy Pelosi?

If you stay long enough to be a resident, sure, you should be able to vote. In general, that's a multi-prong test that's far too complicated to get into here. The point was that there's no reason why somebody who works Tulsa and lives in Broken Arrow should have to schlep themselves back to BA to vote. If you happened to be a bus rider, you'd be completely out of luck. (unless the schedule has changed since last I looked)

If you want to do the hyperbole thing, how about the guy who plans to get to the poll about 1/2 hour before closing but gets stuck in traffic, has a flat tire, the bus he is riding on is late or has mechanical problems, gets mugged and tied to a tree,  gets in a car accident and gets rushed to the hospital and so on.

The reason I picked that one is that I had a friend manage to lose her passport somewhere between Tulsa and Dublin a couple of months ago. (they still let her in) It happens. This is one of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of early voting, which is another thing certain states have decided to reduce or eliminate. If you go to vote a week early and find that you're missing whatever papers, you at least still have a chance of getting it sorted out before you lose out on the chance to vote.

Airport security has taken ALL the fun out of going somewhere by airline.  Except for the blowing up airliners and hijacking thing, the only reason to have your name on a ticket is to notify your next of kin after an accident and keeping you and your luggage together.  Pretty soon, you will need a photo ID to ride on Tulsa Transit.  Actually you do need a MTTA ID to qualify for certain discounts, or was that SEPTA from Philadelphia.  I occasionally look on the SEPTA web site to see how the trolleys are doing.  Maybe a MTTA photo ID would qualify as a government issued ID for voting.

You don't have to tell me. It's beyond ridiculous at this point. They're focused on movie plots and not real threats, unfortunately. As far as an MTTA ID counting, in most states that have passed voter ID laws it wouldn't. As I mentioned before, the restriction to certain blessed forms of photo ID is one of the big reasons I find it hard to not be completely cynical about this. Here in Oklahoma, the ridiculous part is that an expired ID isn't acceptable. What difference does it make what the date printed on its face is? It makes no difference, it's just another bucking hoop that the dim bulbs in our legislature think we should have to jump through to exercise our right to vote.

Here's the other thing about the ballot measure here in Oklahoma. It would be completely illegitimate in a sane society. People's right to vote should not be up for a vote any more than the rights of minorities should be up for a vote.

[Red Arrow]

Small proportion, perhaps, not a small portion. It's millions of people who are affected by this smile.

You have some data?  Millions out of 300 million.  That's a small percentage.  They need to be accommodated but it's still a small percentage.

If you stay long enough to be a resident, sure, you should be able to vote. In general, that's a multi-prong test that's far too complicated to get into here. The point was that there's no reason why somebody who works Tulsa and lives in Broken Arrow should have to schlep themselves back to BA to vote. If you happened to be a bus rider, you'd be completely out of luck. (unless the schedule has changed since last I looked)

Oklahoma has a law that requires your employer to allow you time to vote.  Details may be too complicated to get into here.

The reason I picked that one is that I had a friend manage to lose her passport somewhere between Tulsa and Dublin a couple of months ago. (they still let her in) It happens. This is one of the reasons I'm a strong supporter of early voting, which is another thing certain states have decided to reduce or eliminate. If you go to vote a week early and find that you're missing whatever papers, you at least still have a chance of getting it sorted out before you lose out on the chance to vote.

Again we get back to whether or not the voter bears any responsibility to exercise the right to vote.  I say they do.  You evidently believe otherwise.  I believe in early and absentee voting since schedules can change.  How early do you think people should be able to vote?  A month?  Two or three months?  How about now for the presidential election.  Oops, we don't have official candidates until the conventions.

As far as an MTTA ID counting, in most states that have passed voter ID laws it wouldn't. As I mentioned before, the restriction to certain blessed forms of photo ID is one of the big reasons I find it hard to not be completely cynical about this. Here in Oklahoma, the ridiculous part is that an expired ID isn't acceptable. What difference does it make what the date printed on its face is? It makes no difference, it's just another bucking hoop that the dim bulbs in our legislature think we should have to jump through to exercise our right to vote.

Your voter registration ID doesn't have an expiration date. Other states may have some legitimate problems but as far as Oklahoma is concerned, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Here's the other thing about the ballot measure here in Oklahoma. It would be completely illegitimate in a sane society.

What is there about sending in a registration by mail with no other ID that gets you a voter ID card that is acceptable in lieu of a photo ID that you find illegitimate?  The first class mail stamp?  It would cost you more to go to register in person.   The only conclusion I can come to from your posts is that no registration should be required.  Should anyone should be able to vote whether they are a citizen or not?

People's right to vote should not be up for a vote any more than the rights of minorities should be up for a vote.

Read the ballot, the people's right to vote is not affected by the Oklahoma law.

[nathanm]

Oklahoma has a law that requires your employer to allow you time to vote.  Details may be too complicated to get into here.

You try getting to Broken Arrow and back on a bus in two hours. Besides, having a law is no good if it's routinely ignored. Arkansas requires the same thing, but people who work by the hour often believe they will be retaliated against, on the rare occasion they even know they have that right. (I've had these conversations with people before)

Regardless, what purpose does the restriction serve? There isn't one. Since it makes it less convenient to vote and doesn't serve any real purpose, I don't really grasp the problem with allowing people to vote in any precinct (with their home precinct's ballot, of course!). Of all the things we spend money on as a people, elections are probably one of the things with the most intrinsic value, so I don't mind if it costs a bit more. It wouldn't actually cost more, of course. There are already many voting sites around here that have more than one precinct. It's terribly annoying to see one room empty, with the poll workers all sitting around chatting while the other has a 20 minute queue. It's completely unnecessary.

Again we get back to whether or not the voter bears any responsibility to exercise the right to vote.  I say they do.  You evidently believe otherwise.

I'm not sure how you get that. Obviously I believe they bear the responsibility of casting their ballot if they would like to have their vote counted. I think it should be made easier to do so and not harder. We already have one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world.

Also, I'm not sure what responsibility has to do with anything. I take it you've never misplaced your keys? (or been mugged) Or are you some irresponsible fool who doesn't deserve the franchise? What's next, we have to give ourselves forty lashes to show our commitment to the enterprise before we're allowed into the precinct?

Your voter registration ID doesn't have an expiration date. Other states may have some legitimate problems but as far as Oklahoma is concerned, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Odd that you'd think I'm limiting my comments to Oklahoma's specific implementation of the law given how I've repeatedly mentioned other states.

What is there about sending in a registration by mail with no other ID that gets you a voter ID card that is acceptable in lieu of a photo ID that you find illegitimate?  The first class mail stamp?  It would cost you more to go to register in person.   The only conclusion I can come to from your posts is that no registration should be required.  Should anyone should be able to vote whether they are a citizen or not?

For one, if you register by mail, photo ID is required the first time you vote. You can thank the 2002 federal Congress for that. As far as eligibility is concerned, that's up to the individual states. If Florida wants to allow Cubans to vote in their elections, they are perfectly free to do so. If Oklahoma wants to let any member of an Oklahoma tribe vote no matter where they live, that would also be legal. I don't have a problem with the franchise being restricted to citizens. Nor would I have a problem with it being extended to any legal resident that has reached the age of majority. I'm not really into the idea of opening it up to literally everyone on the planet who wants to have a say but doesn't even live here.

You're right on one count, though. I don't think advance registration is necessary. Plenty of states have same day registration and seem to get along fine.

Read the ballot, the people's right to vote is not affected by the Oklahoma law.

The gun lobby would likely reject your narrow view of what constitutes having your right affected. But again, I wasn't restricting my comments solely to Oklahoma.