Illegals Voted in San Antonio
Commenter Mike K. provides this link to a very disturbing story about voting in Bexar County, Texas, where San Antonio is located:
Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bexar County in recent years and dozens of them have actually cast ballots, canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens, 1200 WOAI news will report Thursday morning.
Figures obtained by 1200 WOAI news shows 303 illegals successfully registered to vote, and at least 41 cast ballots in various elections.
Oh well. I’m sure that happens only in Bexar County, Texas — and not anywhere else in the country.
And I’m sure they caught every such instance where it happened.
Teaser: this ties in nicely with a project that DRJ has been helping me with over the past few weeks. I have been too busy to complete it, and I don’t want to say more about it, but I think you’ll find the results interesting once they are compiled.
[…] Then again, illegals already vote in some cities. What’s the big deal? digg_url = […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Amnesty fallout: A permanent Democratic majority? (d4224a) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:16 amAccording to the article itself, we are talking about a whopping 41 illegal votes, cast over several elections.
But even that number may be high, because of the methods used to determine who is “illegal”. (I have the exact same name, even middle name, as someone to whom I am not related.) The method mentioned in the article is cross-checking against people who fill out jury duty waivers that they are not citizens, showing that the voter registration is wrong and the jury duty waiver is correct.
Forty-one!?
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:42 amThe absurdity in the story is that Bexar relied, and will continue to rely “under [tee-hee, snicker, giggle] penalty of perjury”, on the applicant’s representation that he is a U.S. citizen. Where is the requirement of a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization?
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:00 amANY illegal vote is BAD. What, do you have some magic threshhold, Andy, where it leaves the realm of “who gives a fuck” to “something must be done NOW to stop them!”?
Well, I suppose for you it would be when they start voting republican… THAT would be intollerab;e for you, wouldn’t it?
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:07 amI would not deny the problem of illegal voting, but think that a solution does not lend itself easily, especially given the jankiness, partisanship, and error-prone-ness of various state and local bureacracies.
The real issue is that the existence of the problem doesn’t justify just any corrective action. Any remedy must not infringe on legitimate voters’ exercise of their voting rights. Many people think photo IDs are a must, but I would respond that many proponents of this assume that anyone who doesn’t get it together to have their ID in hand on election day does not deserve to vote. I say that’s a dangerous and wrong assumption. The remedy has to be narrowly tailored, which is to say it has to accomodate the lowest common denominator of the American voter. And that’s fairly low. Remember that this isn;t about the “right” to drive, take out library books, or cash a check. This is a fundamental right under the constitution. I’m sure some people will continue to scoff at what that means.
On a practical level, a photo ID requirement could work if it had alternative ways to prove identity. What do you have to show to get the photo ID in the first place? Whatever THAT is, allow people to bring it to the polls instead of the ID itself.
Obviously I am not in favor of illegal voting, but realistically, choices have to be made that will balance inclusion of legal voters versus of exclusion of illegal ones. Our system is designed to suffer the inclusion of a few illegal votes far more than the exclusion of a few legal ones.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:25 amIt’s harder (and easier to prosecute) to get a fake ID (isn’t it a felony?) than it is to illegally register to vote.
While voting might be a fundamental right, states and the federal government have the absolute duty to make sure the people voting a) are who they say they are and b) should be voting in the first place.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:31 amScott:
Really? Can you cite something for that “absolute duty”? I admit it’s part of their function, like the state has the function of prosecuting crimes. But does the state have an “absolute duty” to convict and punish all violations of criminal law within their jurisdiction? If so, then prosecutorial discretion is out the window. Then you could sue or impeach your elected officials on the basis that they failed to prosecute a noise violator on your block.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:38 amAlso, Scott, it’s harder to recite Hamlet from memory than it is to illegally register to vote. That doesn’t make it an acceptable substitute for the current requirement.
I would add that even fundamental rights are not absolute. The courts allow them to be regulated for compelling reasons through the use of narrowly tailored minimally restrictive regulations. I’m not sure “absolute” has any place in the discussion, except as a red herring.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:41 amOK, biwah. Let’s just let people vote as many times as they want, where ever they want. Why have any rules governing voting, if we’re not going to bother with the most basic idea of making sure voters are actually entitled to vote?
Rob Crawford (240cf9) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:26 amstraw argument AND red herring.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:34 amIllegal voters voting to sustain the plantation’s permanent underclass is about the same as Open Border advocates marching in the streets on behalf legalizing illegal workers for the Global Corporatists.
syn (7faf4d) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:53 amIf you make enforcement of voting laws anything less than absolute, you leave it WIDE open to abuse by the party in power (Washington state is a good example, re the absentee ballots).
While there are degrees and shades of ciminal behavior, and some bad acts that aren’t criminal (shooting someone is wrong, shooting a guy to save the life of someone else is not wrong, you get the idea), there is only one reason someone would not want to make 100% certain that people voting are supposed to be voting: they believe they will benifit from the illegal votes.
There is no other rational reason for NOT barring illegal/impropper votes.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:08 am“This is a fundamental right under the constitution.”
Since when?
“Our system is designed to suffer the inclusion of a few illegal votes far more than the exclusion of a few legal ones.”
That’s a bold assertion. Can you back it up? Considering that more than half of all eligible voters exclude themselves on any given election, a better statement is that our system is designed around a class of “electors” who care enough to go to the trouble to vote and letting some poachers dilute their votes is the worst evil that can befall the system.
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:36 amScott: I see. You’re citing yourself as the source for your earlier statement. Hey, I like convenience too!
You fail to take into acccount the competing interests and values at work here, so your statements don’t add up to a real analysis or a coherent argument. Voter fraud: problem (real) . Voter disenfranchisement: also a problem (also real). Can you hold these two concepts in your mind simultaneously?
Every regulation has unintended consequences, and some consequences are expressly abhorrent to the constitution. By your logic, every 2nd Amendment supporter wants to see children murdered, and we should probably do away with defendants’ right to trial – it just gets guilty people off.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:38 amI usually work the polls in my town whenever there is an election in Texas. Here is my experience the very first time I worked the polls:
A group of non-English speaking men (around 10) came into the polls. I could not speak their language so I asked a Democratic poll worker to help. They told her they had been told to come to City Hall (where the poll was) to vote. We got their names and they were nowhere on my list of registered voters. I had her ask their addresses and they didn’t know. I ask for I.D. They didn’t have any. I had the other poll worker tell them “I’m sorry, but you are probably registered in another district” and for her to inform them they could not vote at that location.
The other poll worker started raising hell with me and saying we should allow them to vote anyway and she would “help” them with the ballot which in my district, was in English only. So I called the district and asked for procedure. I was told to give the men a “provisional” ballot and let them vote. I know damn well the other poll worker helped them “pick” the candidates which is against the law.
I filed a complaint with the voter registrar’s office against the poll worker. But those men were allowed to vote.
I notified the people counting the provision ballots about the 10 ballots. They were compared against state registered voter rolls and they were not listed on any roll.
This is not an uncommon event in Texas. During the marches last year in Dallas, illegals were being signed up under the MotorVoter laws where all you do is check a box saying you are legal to vote. No proof was being required.
If you go to Blockbuster to open an account and rent a movie, you have to provide them with a photo I.D. Not so in Texas:
http://www.texasinsider.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=77
You can register to vote using a paycheck stub, student I.D. (remember, Texas provides in-state tuition for illegals), utility bill or a library card.
retire05 (01c1ad) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:45 amTry that at Blockbuster and wait to be told “forget it”. What it all boils down to is a movie is more valuable than a vote.
I would LOVE to see the logic-process you used to infer that from my statement… Simple LOVE to see it…
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:46 amDemocrats have now completely turned their backs on labor, in favor of fraudulent voters and the businesses that attract and exploit illegals. This is not a sudden thing; it’s been headed in this direction for 30 years.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:52 amnk:
WHA? You’re generally knowledgeable about the law. Voting is a fundamental right under the Equal Protection clause, 14th Amendment. Therefore, any law restricting voting is subject to strict scrutiny.
Katherine Harris falsely purging elgibile voters was far worse. Vote dilution from illegal voters is measurable but infinitessimal compared to actually denying eligible voters their right to vote. Also, one was an illegal governmental act, and the other is the illegal actions of various private individuals. The former is generally more concerning, wouldn’t you agree?
Illegal voting exists and is a problem. It not “the worst evil that can befall the system.” (LOL) People have to claim it is the ultimate evil to wipe out any consideration of the downsides of regulation. I am for rational, narrowly tailored ID requirement, but at the end of the day you have to accept that there is not entirely airtight system that still leaves people’s fundamental rights intact. Our constitution sets certain priorities, and honoring those priorities requires compromise.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:54 amWell Scott, if as you claim it is the government’s “absolute duty” to eliminate illegal voting, by definition that means that there can be no limitation on the pursuit of that interest, even to protect individual rights. That’s what “absolute” means.
That same logic leads me to conclude that if all guns were confiscated, we would get closer to our “absolute” goal of eliminating school shootings. If we did away with criminal trials, we would eliminate that contingent of guilty parties who get acquitted at trial. Adverse consequences be damned, of course.
Even if there were still occasional shootings, and even if criminals shook free of the system in other ways, it would still be justifiable. Just like even though photo IDs won’t end voter fraud, it’s still a good cause, therefore we must do it. That’s how an absolutist, e.g. you, thinks.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:01 amYes, Scott. Andrew has a threshold in which if it doesn’t support his narrative, it doesn’t count.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:03 amIs there an individual right to vote illegally that I’m not aware of? What rights are violated by a vigorous opposition to and defense from illegal voting?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:04 amPablo:
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:08 amThe rights of those elgible voters who would vote but for whatever regulation is put in place. And it’s not the opposition per se. It’s the actual regulation/restriction. This is not a theoretical debate.
retire05:
What it all boils down to is a movie is more valuable than a vote.
More plausibly, it boils down to the fact that a vote is more important. A person suffers little harm in being denied a movie, and in any case no constitutional rights are implicated. In being disenfranchised, a person is eliminated from the democratic process and denied one of the few constitutional rights deemed fundamental, essentially “inaienable” and directly traceable to the Declaration of Independence.
I have to say it: people are pretty darn obtuse about this. What is it that makes it so damn hard to understand the value of the right to vote? It is, to use a four letter word, an entitlement – one of the few that is guaranteed by the constitution, even if you’re poor, dumb, lazy, minority, out of town, or a Democrat.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:26 amThe rights of those elgible voters who would vote but for whatever regulation is put in place.
The government has the duty to provide the opportunity for every eligible voter to vote, whether they do so or not due to their opinions on the regulations in place is irrelevant.
Taltos (c99804) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:31 amTaltos:
That’s what I said. “eligible voters who would vote but for…” Try reading it again.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:33 ambiwah, #18:
Ahem, no. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant the right to vote to former slaves, to women, to poor people or to citizens over the age of eighteen. That’s why the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments were enacted.
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:43 amWe could always implement a national voter ID card. Put a photo on it, a retinal scan, and a right thumb print. Encrypt all the data on the card with a nice hefty RSA key. Tie it into a federal database. When you apply for the card you provide reasonable proof of citizenship at a specific location if it checks out you get your card. When you go to vote you stick your card in the machine, it scans your eye and your thumbprint, if they match it “unlocks” your card number allowing you to vote.
A secure system that doesn’t prevent any legal voter from voting. Somehow I don’t think biwah would go for it though.
Taltos (c99804) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:43 amnk,
What is your point? I referred to what the 14th Amendment guarantees now (in light of the other amendments and current case law) – and my statement was correct.
Any more irrelevant nits to pick?
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:46 amTaltos:
You don’t know what I would go for. I have made it quite clear that reasonable ID requirements are on the table IMO.
However good your idea sounds, it is pie in the sky according to most of the experts who have considered the national ID issue – for technical as much as for political reasons, though both are daunting.
Anyway, it is indeed a good idea in theory, but I invite you to do a little research into it. For better or worse, it ain’t going to happen anytime soon. Hence my point about this being what we can do, not about what platitudes you might feel like tossing out.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:50 amI find it hard to believe some of the bullshit here. Voting is an entitlement for those ENTITLED to vote. Those willing to tolerate a little voter fraud should admit they also tolerate a little graft and a little corruption in our government because that is what you automatically get. No one has a right to support the dilution of MY vote because it is just a small dilution.
tmac (0c909a) — 5/18/2007 @ 10:50 amAgree tmac.
I also don’t get bi’s thought process here…
Polls aren’t open 24 hours, thus some don’t vote. The have to GO vote, thus some done. You have to register, so some don’t vote.
Just because someone is too fucking lazy to get a fucking ID doesn’t mean that making photo ID a requirement it holding them back. THEY hold themselves back. If they can legally obtain ID, then there is nothing preventing them from voting. It is the choice of the person to NOT see to it that they meet the requirements.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:13 amtmac:
At least several thousand people purged from the Florida voter rolls in 2000 were entitled to vote. If you can tolerate that, you shouldn’t object to a .0001% dilution of your vote, right?
That’s a devil’s advocate position. I don’t like either one, but declaring what we will or won’t tolerate is kind of like Bush declaring that “defeat is unacceptable.” You might draw some polite applause, but watch out for the person who dares to ask how you’re going to make it happen.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:16 amCould somebody tell me when our rights as citizens of the US became the rights of ANYONE who happens by? Citizenship is not a right to people not citizens of this country. Choosing which laws to follow (I won’t follow the immigration laws, but I will follow the medicare and Welfare laws..)is not an option!
Paul from Fl (ae01cb) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:18 amYou come to this country to be a citizen in two ways
1) your born here.
2) You legally arrive and follow the process in place for citizenship.
Everyone else has broken the law and does not have the right to vote in the elections of this country nor do they have the right to stay here and argue about it!
Go home first, question the policies in this country second.
All these other issues are for people who are seeking:
a) a new politcal power base or,
b)a new lower paid workforce or,
c) are trying to commit some sort of criminal attack on the citizens of this country.
“The immigration question” has one sorry,painful and simple answer. Go Home, come back the right way. Obey the law. It doesn’t need to break up your family. Take them with you, it’ll provide a tremendous impetus to come back the right way, VOTE LEGALLY and stay here as a citizen.
Yeeeeesh!
“Any more irrelevant nits to pick?”
Just this one. You are throwing around legal terms without knowing what you are talking about. “Fundamental right” has a certain meaning in the law. So does “equal protection”. What invidious discrimination against which protected class are ID requirements for voting?
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:23 amWell, there’s the homeless guy who would vote but for not having a home…
so the government should buy him a home
there’s the single mom who would vote but for she can’t take her kids with her to the polls …
so the government should provide free child care on demand
And I could go on with a list of so-called “obstacles to voting” food, shelter, clothing, why only one day, why on a week day,
hell, why does anyone need to go to a poll or take all the bother of mailing an absentee ballot?
Actually, I think voting should be made harder … with accompanying social stigmation of those too lazy or incompetent to vote.
Darleen (eb120d) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:34 amnk:
Any law restricting a fundamental right is per se suspect. It doesn’t have to target any protected class.
Any law targeting a protected class is also suspect, but that is a separate issue. Perhaps you should look it up.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:34 amI think voting should be made harder
Good to know.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:36 amI did. Educate yourself, too.
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:38 amScott:
Just because someone is too fucking lazy to get a fucking ID doesn’t mean that making photo ID a requirement it holding them back.
That’s the most sense you’ve made all day IMO, and I’ll respect that. Laziness will be one factor, but there are other reasons that people won’t have IDs on election day, and those people will be more likely to be young, elderly, or poor.
My argument is that there has to be a workaround for voters who show up without IDs, not that we should keep things as lax as they are. So we disagree somewhat, but I think that when it comes to a solution we might not be all that far apart. You would have to relinquish your absolutism and zero-tolerance bluster, but that always happens when it comes down to getting things done in practice.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:41 amI think biwah has a good point. Do 41 cases of illegal gun sales (e.g., to felons) mean we should pass a law prohibiting private gun sales? How about more draconian digital rights management? One way to stop illegal aliens from voting would be canceling elections.
The seriousness of the problem has to be balanced off against the costs of the alleged remedy. Forty-one votes, if that’s really the total, is a trivial number. Moreover, nothing is stopping the prosecution and conviction of those 41, if indeed they are guilty.
In most cases, it’s liberals who react to the inability to eliminate a problem completely (e.g., gun crimes) with a few laws by passing more laws. But in this case, where the new laws can be shaped to eliminate legitimate Democratic voters, the dynamic is curiously different.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:42 amIn most cases, it’s liberals who react to the inability to eliminate a problem completely (e.g., gun crimes) with a few laws by passing more laws.
I’ll second that. I have found liberals to be just as stubborn on the issues that happen to get their hackles up. At those times, try pointing out to them who might be a casualty of their pet policy. From every vested interest springs hypocrisy.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:46 amThe spam filter ate my link. Probably for the best. If you care, you can Google Purcell v. Gonzalez and Dunn v. Blumstein for the Supreme Court’s analysis of voter cases.
nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:52 amnk: Summarize? I am not lazy, just getting pressed for time this afternoon.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 11:56 amnever mind nk.
Purcell:
Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction. (i.e. never decided the constitutional issue)
Dunn:
Held: The durational residence requirements are violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as they are not necessary to further a compelling state interest.
I would note that the Court acknowledged that voting restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny, a point which you disputed earlier.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 12:00 pmNo, it means we should enforce the laws regarding illegal guns sales.
The act is already illegal, which should be patently obvious. Other measures that help to ensure sales are conducted legally are another matter. The analogy is a strawman.
What laws are proposed that would prevent Democrats from voting?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/18/2007 @ 12:35 pmNo, it means we should enforce the laws regarding illegal guns sales.
So, apropos of elections, we don’t need new laws, we should enforce the existing laws regarding illegal aliens’ voting.
Well, that was easy.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:19 pmActually, I think voting should be made harder … with accompanying social stigmation of those too lazy or incompetent to vote.
We could always go with the Australian system of compulsory voting. Though I imagine we’d need stiffer penalties.
Taltos (c99804) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:23 pmIt seems to me that all of the examples here focus on the malfeasance or misfeasance of electoral/poll workers. If the poll worker in retire05’s case had followed the rules, those men would not have had the chance to cast a provisional ballot. Same as what happened in Washington.
The problem with photo ID–besides the civil liberties issues involved in the federal government being able to track every single citizen, which is Taltos’ solution–is that it is not necessarily a light burden. A homeless person can’t get one if a stable home address is required. Getting a DL can require people to take substantial time off from their job. And the documentation is not necessarily easy either.
Here’s the list, and consider exactly how many of these a person living below or near the poverty line is actually likely to keep around the house:
[the listing comes from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles website]
One of the following (3) documents:
1. Original or certified United States birth certificate, including territories and District of Columbia; or
2. Valid United States passport; or
3. Certificate of Naturalization
4. Effective April 10, 2002, United States Military ID cards with an officer rank will be accepted as proof of citizenship only; however, not as proof of primary identification.
5. NOTE: Proof of citizenship or legal presence may be required for renewal, duplicate or replacement licenses. Please come prepared to present one of the above identification documents as proof of citizenship or legal presence.
And a secondary document, which substantiates the primary document, is required. Document may include, but is not limited to, the original or certified copy of one of the following:
1. School record stating date of birth, which must contain the registrar’s signature.
kishnevi (7a9e8b) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:26 pm2. Transcript of the birth record filed with a public officer charged with the duty of recording certificates.
3. Baptism certificate, which shows date of birth and the place of baptism.
4. An insurance policy on the customer’s life which has been in force for at least two years and has the month, day and year of birth.
5. United States military or military dependent identification card.
* Effective April 10, 2002, United States Military ID cards with an officer rank will be accepted as proof of citizenship only; however, not as proof of primary identification.
6. Florida or out-of-state driver license, valid or expired.
7. Florida license record or identification card record.
8. Selective Service Registration (Draft Card).
9. Florida Vehicle Registration certificate (HSMV 83399, owner’s copy) obtained from the tax collector’s office where the customer’s vehicle was registered, Florida, or out-of-state registration certificate, if name and date of birth are shown.
10. Florida and out-of-state non-driver identification cards (state issued).
11. Receipt copy of your last Florida driver license issuance.
12. Immigration form I-571.
13. Federal form DD-214 (military record).
14. Marriage certificate.
15. Court order, which includes legal name.
16. A Florida voter registration card, which was issued at least 3 months previously.
17. Personal identification by an examiner or by a person well known to the examiner.
18. Social Security Card.
19. Family bible record or birth announcement in baby book.
20. Parent consent form of minor.
21. Out-of-country driver license or identification card, government issued
Pablo, according to biwah, those democrats who would be prevented from voting would be the young (stupid), elderly (feeble-minded), and poor (bought via entitlements)…
biwah, elections happen once a year, and the ones we care about here and now are those involving elections to positions in the federal government (POTUS and Congress). That’s every 2 and/or 4 years. States can do whatever they want about govenor/state house/senate elections. I really don’t care about those. I care about making sure ONLY those who are by law eligible to vote are the ones doing the voting.
Two or 4 years to get a photo ID.
If you are THAT lazy/incompentent such that you can’t get a damned photo ID in 2 or 4 years, your vote likely won’t be all that of an informed one.
Andrew, the only “legitimate” voters we want to stop are the ones who aren’t actually legit. Illegals don’t, I’m sorry to say, get to fucking vote for member of government to a country they snuck the fuck into.
I wish everyone who could vote did vote. However there is a LARGE body of voters who just don’t. They sit back, and do jack shit come election day.
Their choice, however.
“We need to make sure we help those who show up without their ID…”
Bullshit.
If someone shows up to vote without their ID, then tough shit. You knew you needed it before you showed up, why the fuck didn’t you bring it? Your stupidity doesn’t buy you a pass. Being an idiot doesn’t grant you special handling. Bring your fucking ID.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:28 pmHere’s what I think:
The country was better off when you had to be free, male, over 21 and a property owner to vote.
Anybody who has more income from the government in the form of entitlement payments should not be able to vote. Those people (and only those people) that pay the bills should have any say in elections.
wwp (de62a9) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:52 pmCareful, wwp.
Don’t want the real issue to see the light of day.
Code words only, please.
alphie (015011) — 5/18/2007 @ 1:55 pmbiwah, I say that’s a dangerous and wrong assumption. The remedy has to be narrowly tailored, which is to say it has to accomodate the lowest common denominator of the American voter. And that’s fairly low. Remember that this isn;t about the “right” to drive, take out library books, or cash a check. This is a fundamental right under the constitution.
and, I would add that even fundamental rights are not absolute. The courts allow them to be regulated for compelling reasons through the use of narrowly tailored minimally restrictive regulations. I’m not sure “absolute” has any place in the discussion, except as a red herring.
I would argue that requiring proof of one’s identification at the polling place is a “minimally restrictive regulation” required of anyone who desires to execute their “fundamental right under the constitution” to vote. Since the vast majority of the population has some form of picture ID, that is the starting point. For those few who do not, it would not be at all difficult for the states to provide the means to obtain such, even if that meant that those people, e.g., elderly and those confined by medical condition, might have to receive a visit from an official “voting facilitator” to evaluate their proof of citizenship, take their picture, and provide them with an ID on the spot.
Even those voting absentee should be required to produce some form of identification by mail if necessary to ensure they are who they claim to be. Additionally, AJL, I have seen a fair amount of evidence that large numbers of “snow birds” from New England, also registered to vote in Florida. Unfortunately, there is currently no national data base to cross check these illegitimate and illegal second registrations.
AJL, In most cases, it’s liberals who react to the inability to eliminate a problem completely (e.g., gun crimes) with a few laws by passing more laws. But in this case, where the new laws can be shaped to eliminate legitimate Democratic voters, the dynamic is curiously different.
Careful, that door swings both ways. You could have just as easily opined that “…in this case, where no laws should be shaped to eliminate illegitimate Democratic voters, the dynamic is curiously different.”
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 5/18/2007 @ 2:19 pmScott and wwp:
What took you so long? I know feigning concerned neutrality all the time can be hard on a fella.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 2:22 pmHarry Arthur,
I think you’d get more disagreement overall from some of the other people here than you’d get from me, witness the progression of the comments. Obviously the inevitable problems with the administration of the ID program would raise all new issues to fret over, but done right it could work and pass constitutional muster.
biwah (2dcf66) — 5/18/2007 @ 2:26 pmOver here in the oldest Commonwealth it used to be, and probably still is, the case that someone walking around after dark without identification or visible means of support (two bucks or some such) could get run in on a vagrancy charge. It was/is? one of those vestigial laws; still on the books but not usually enforced.
Are there not, in most states, requirements for adult citizens to be in possesion of valid identification? If so, why the difficulty with ID’s to vote?
Not sarcing, not snarking, seriously interested.
Uncle Pinky (6546ec) — 5/18/2007 @ 2:49 pmCalifornia’s vagrancy/ID law got tossed as unconstitutional in the early 1980s. Interestingly enough, I knew the plaintiff, who used to hang around chess tournaments in the hope of boosting some books or equipment. In his defense, he was surely well enough known to the constabulary already that the demand for ID was pretextual.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 5/18/2007 @ 3:36 pmYou don’t read well, do you Andrew? Because I said:
Or, perhaps you’re just inherently dishonest.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/18/2007 @ 3:40 pmExcuse me? What?
The fuck are you implying, asshole?
Ignoring your apparent implication that I’m a racist. I’d like to comment on wwp’s comment.
The reason the ‘landed gentry’ were the original voting block was because they were most likely the only educated (able to read) part of the population, and were the most likely to possess some basic level of understanding of the issues of the day.
wwp suggests that those for whom the majority of their income is derived from goverment entitlements should not vote, and he has a point. When your primary income stems from handouts, you are unlikely to vote out those people who wants to increase your handout, regardless of the ethical/moral failings that person might display.
DiFi ran a committee and as such funnled over a billion dollars (via government contracts) into a company run/owned by her husband. That is an obvious conflict of interest, and the same holds for those who live off the government teet. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and are unlikely to act in the best interest of the country when you vote. You will vote for whoever you think will give you the most money the next go ’round.
The truly vast majority of this country has no idea what is going on. They are at best a mass of people of basic intelligence who can’t be bothered to so much as flip by C-SPAN, let alone spend any sort of time checking on the issues of the day.
I would wager that if you stood outside a polling place and asked every person to pick from a photo line-up the last 3 presidents (in order), and the current Prez Canidates, their party, and their running mates, you’d be disgusted at the number of people who are unable to do all of those things.
But since you’ll never get an IQ test or a demonstration of basic political understanding, the absolute best I can hope for is the people who vote actually be able to vote, and NOT be doing something illegal in the casting of their ballot.
I know I’m hoping for a lot here, but I would really just like to see illegal immigrants prevented from voting (by definition they don’t care one bit about the Law of the Land, so why should they be allowed to vote), and that people who otherwise shouldn’t vote (felons, the dead, those who have ALREADY voted) don’t vote either.
The easiest way to acomplish that is to make the person get a picture ID, and show it when they go vote. If you don’t get a photo ID, you have shown that you don’t care enough about the process to partake of it. It’s sad, but it’s a choice.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/18/2007 @ 3:48 pmWe have a photo ID right now. It’s called a passport and it is now required for anyone (legally) coming across the border from Mexico (or Canada). I realize that stupidity has never been a bar to voting in this country, even voting two or three times. We now have a situation where political elites are bidding for the favor of people who do not speak English, who do not read any language, and who have no marketable skill except manual labor. If we had no welfare system as was the case in the 19th and early 20th century, I would be less concerned. Now we have estimates that amnesty for illegal aliens will cost 2.5 TRILLION dollars in entitlement programs that are already bankrupt. Maybe if Congress had to depend on Social Security for their pensions, things might be different.
Mike K (86bddb) — 5/18/2007 @ 4:41 pmWon’t adding 12 million workers to the tax rolls help Social Security, Mike?
alphie (015011) — 5/18/2007 @ 5:37 pmKatherine Harris falsely purging elgibile voters was far worse.
Nevermind what actually happened, let’s stick to the disparaging rumors. (It’s not worth getting into with you, since you’re obviously not up on what happened, but suffice it to say, any “false purges” were not soley the failure of Harris – they required the local county to actually strike, and the voter to ignore multiple warning letters. All that aside, ignore it, and we’ll let your ignorant slander stand.)
Vote dilution from illegal voters is measurable but infinitessimal compared to actually denying eligible voters their right to vote.
Except it’s the exact. same. thing.
Period. Full stop. If it’s not OK if someone is removed from the rolls incorrectly – then it should be equally not OK for that vote to be negated by a false voter.
That false/illegal voter just negated someone legitimate’s vote.
That’s why I’ve got a problem with it. No matter how small (and in my experience, it’s nowhere near “infinitessimal”) – it disenfranschises a legal, correct voter, and denies that person their (as you say) fundamental right.
No, every election is not perfect, by definition, there will be a margin of error. (the 2000 Presidental Election is a case in point, when Florida was inside the margin of error.)
However, the investigation into how many voters are fraudulent is staggeringly lax, hardly enough for me to believe that it’s not a big enough problem. Stefan Sharkansky has provided a huge amount of evidence that King County has a massive problem. But according to the official declaration, there isn’t a big problem. My personal anectdotal experience would indicate that there is a far bigger problem than the official figures.
Acknowledging that the plural of anectdote is not data: I’ve seen too much evidence of too many people fraudulantly registered to believe it’s small fraction of the voters.
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 5:46 pmWow Mike K. That’s a really big number, I’m sure it’s super-duper accurate and stuff.
And what is the cost, direct and long-term, of kicking them all out? Oh yeah, that’s impossible. Unless we (a) make all citizens get a passport, and then (b) deport anyone who doesn’t have a passport. I’m a genius!
biwah (983aaf) — 5/18/2007 @ 5:47 pmU-J: “Katherine Harris” was shorthand for the Katherine Harris-ordered purging of felons undertaken and roundly screwed up by the individual counties. I have funny notions about accountability, please disregard them. And they were purged, so what’s your point? Is it a critical distinction whether it was Antonia or Jose that negated your legitimate vote?
biwah (983aaf) — 5/18/2007 @ 5:52 pmNot when many of them are already paying in under stolen numbers.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:09 pmBiwah:
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explaination. So, in a similar vein, if, for instance, we now use “biwah” as shorthand for “someone commenting in gross error, ignorance, or not in good faith”, you’re OK with that?
Katherine Harris-ordered purging of felons undertaken and roundly screwed up by the individual counties.
How dare she actually attempt do her job. (Or worse, expect competence in anyone else involved. I guess she should have just taken over and done their jobs for them, and you’d be happier.)
I have funny notions about accountability, please disregard them.
They are pretty funny, since you don’t seem to ascribe accountability correctly.
But you’ve ignored the issue at hand – leaving aside the whole Harris slur – how is incorrectly removing a legitimate voter from the rolls (and then failing to correctly follow the procedures set up for such an accident) any different from allowing a illegitimate voter to vote?
How can you have such rancor for one event yet be so dismissive of the other?
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:16 pmWon’t adding 12 million workers to the tax rolls help Social Security, Mike?
Not once 24 million start making claims against it.
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:17 pmJust curious: When the south-west reverts to Mexico, or becomes an independent Aztlan, what will all the Lefties have to say about Mexican voting regulations? And, BTW, what are the voting requirements under Shariah? Is voter fraud punished by amputation? Beheading? We might want to check it out.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:21 pmAnd for all you concerned civil-libertarians in this discussion: Please remember that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And, the proscriptions contained within the Constitution have to be balanced with the Unalienable Rights of the Declaration of Independence.
Finally: Would you please extract your head from your ass!
I guess I don’t get your point, Pablo. Voting when you aren’t a citizen is already a crime. Buying a gun when you are a felon is already a crime. There are measures in place to inhibit illegal voting, like the required signature at the polling place, and to inhibit illegal gun sales, e.g. the waiting period for guns. Nevertheless, some people commit these crimes anyway, leaving aside for the moment just how many. We could reduce this number of crimes by requiring Photo ID for voting, and by totally prohibiting purchases of guns. I doubt if you support a total prohibition of gun sales (leaving the Constitution out of it for the moment), which I think proves that you can’t just make an argument that any measure that reduces voter fraud must be a good idea. Now, if you were trying to say something else that made sense, what exactly was it?
Unix-Jedi: Which job was Katherine Harris doing? Secretary of State or Chair of the Florida Bush Campaign? She was both and some of us suspect a conflict of interest.
Harry Arthur: Forty years ago I asked my Dad just what was wrong with “separate but equal”, and he explained to me that the whole point of “separate but equal” was “separate and inequal”. It took a little while to understand that. (I now see the same thing in “voluntary[!] school prayer”.) The reason none of the harder-to-vote “conservatives” on this thread are suggesting convenient ways to supply Photo ID to the poor, elderly, and disabled is that removing this large number of pro-Democratic voters from the rolls is much more important to them than the small (tiny, it appears) number of illegal aliens.
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:33 pmAJL:
Suspecting a conflict of interest is one thing. (I think it was in extremely bad taste and a poor judgment to be in both positions.)
It certainly wasn’t good from appearance’s sake. But the after-the-fact recriminations from biwah (shorthand, remember?) and insults do detract from the actual problems. In all fairness, Harris was blamed for a lot of the problems she had nothing to do with (such as W. Palm Beach Co.)
But all of that still avoids the substance of the argument: If it is so intolerable to remove someone incorrectly, just the one!, why is it not worthy of the exact same consideration when fraudulant voters/votes are discussed?
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:47 pmU-J:
I get the mathematical argument about disenfranchisement. There are two different ways of looking at it and I was silent about your view because I don’t really dispute it. That is, I get it. However, I don’t share it – I have a hard time viewing an illegal voter “out there” as removing your voting power at a 1:1 ratio because the impact on the whole is on a 1:100000 scale or something like that. Say you get caught up in an accidental purge, though. Your vote is gone, worth 0 instead of the 0.999% of the value it would have otherwise had (accounting for the vote dilution from illegals).
As for Katherine Harris, I think you are way out there to defend the woman. In essence you said “Yes it appears improper, but…” WHA? You bet your ass it appears improper. It is improper and the woman does not get a pass when her orders lead to false purges of thousands of likely democratic voters. I’m not going to get any more righteous than that, but your Tony Snow impersonation is not winning any converts here.
“Her only flaw was that she trusted too much.” LOL.
And as I’ve indicated, I am not a fan of illegal voting and believe that (a) anecdotal info regarding voter fraud does have some truth to it, but ALSO that (b) the GOP has made a boogeyman of the illegal voter to shoehorn some restrictive laws into the books. I will admit that I am a bit more wary of the latter because to be blunt it is a bigger problem. I’ve made the case for that on this thread, so please scroll up and have a look before you ask me WTF am I talking about etc.
biwah (983aaf) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:25 pmWhat restrictive laws?
Who do you know that has been stopped from voting?
Who that yu have heard of has been stopped from voting??
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:30 pmScott,
Do germs exist? Have you seen one in person? is the world round? Did you personally sail around it?
I only know the voting habits of a half dozen people, and I will admit, nay confess, that none of them had any trouble registering and voting. But though I don’t live in Florida, etc. things that happen in places that I don’t live, to people whom I don’t know, affect me. And though I haven’t experienced your idiocy in the flesh, I know it to be true. Unless it’s just an act. I hope it is.
I would also add (again) that disenfranchisement by the government, whether through voter purges or ID requirements and the like, is more concerning to me than disenfranchisement through dilution by outlying third parties. Let’s see – government electoral crime from the inside, or individuals committing electoral crime from the outside. Which is more dangerous on the whole?
Again, the system can tolerate an ID system. But as AJL implies, it has to be made easy. You want to punish people for being young, old, ignorant, or lazy, cutting them out of the elections is not the way to do it. In fact, it’s illegal. Cue constitution, case law, etc.
biwah (983aaf) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:42 pmScott, who do you know who is an illegal alien who has voted? (Goose. Gander.)
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:54 pmoh yeah, duh. thanks AJL.
biwah (983aaf) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:56 pmSlate has an article today on why US Atty Iglesias was sacked. It wasn’t that he didn’t investigate the plague of voter fraud. It was that he investigated the hell out of it and couldn’t find anyone to prosecute.
And to think we’re saying this fraud stuff is pretextual!
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:12 pmbiwah:
As for Katherine Harris, I think you are way out there to defend the woman.
Obviously. But as opposed to you, who first accused Harris, then backed off of the accusation (calling it a “shorthand”)? Well, do you stand by it or not? You’re aware that it was her job to provide a list of felons to be removed from the lists of voters, and that she and her office were not the ones who conducted the “purges”. Some counties didn’t purge, others did.
Given the known facts of the case, always a handy thing to know, your attack (that you may or may not be standing behind) isn’t quite so accurate.
It is improper
Just so we’re clear for the future, do you consider only members of the elections/Sec State of State and Local governments to have an improper conflict of interest when they participate in a campaign, or any elected office?
her orders lead to false purges of thousands of likely democratic voters
You already admitted that’s not the case. Are you a Harris apologist, as well?
Say you get caught up in an accidental purge, though. Your vote is gone, worth 0 instead of the 0.999% of the value it would have otherwise had (accounting for the vote dilution from illegals).
My vote actually more preserved with the purge. (Presuming I vote against what the illegimate voters would desire). Your math is incorrect. Since there’s no telling which is the illegimate vote – it counts just as a legitimate one does.
0 = 0. An illegal vote counters a legal vote. If you’re setting the bar at “no error is acceptable to disenfranshise legal votes”, then you’ve got a insurmountable logical conflict to deal with.
But, if I’ve been purged, there are procedures for dealing with that – as someone has already mentioned they were used in their experience. In the event of a close race/recount, the validity of the purge is examinable. (The people who I knew who were “purged” in Florida were, in fact purged correctly, but they didn’t know that they were ineligible, since they’d been voting for years without a problem. (Two side notes, one was a immediate family member, and said person had been registered as a Republican prior to the “purge”). The hype and hysteria hid the fact that a lot of the purges were not as erroneous as first reported. (Not to say there weren’t errors – there certainly were. Just not as many as you’d have us believe, and not the fault of a single person, which you admit.))
Once you’ve placed an illegimate ballot in the same box as a legitimate – that’s done. There’s a voter who’s vote has been lost.
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:15 pmI also asked “Who that yu have heard of has been stopped from voting??”
So using that as a baseline, I extend your retardation, AJL, and answer with the following:
I have heard of at least 41, in just one town in Texas…
Really, are you even fucking aware of where you are?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:15 pmHmmmm… Seems to be eating my reply to AJL…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:25 pmWell, I’d also asked the question “Who that yu have heard of has been stopped from voting??”
Using that as a baseline, I extend your retardation (“Scott, who do you know who is an illegal alien who has voted? (Goose. Gander.)“) and arrive at “Scott, what illegal aliens have you heard of that voted?“.
For that question, I have the following response:
I know of at least 41 in just one small town in Texas.
Seriously, are you even aware of your surroundings?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:25 pmAJL:
I don’t know NM. So I can’t comment on how their system is set up.
But: Despite thorough investigations of about 100 instances of alleged voter fraud, however, the FBI and Iglesias’ office found not a single case they could prosecute.
That doesn’t surprise me. How are you going to verify who voted illegally if you don’t know who they are?
That’s part of what is the (to me) staggering logic leap you’re making: If someone comes in anonymously, votes with a secret ballot, and then leaves, the fact we cannot track them down later and charge them with voting illegally means that no crime was committed.
While we’re not verifying who is voting, it’s useless to cite [the lack of] later investigations and prosecutions as an reliable metric as to the magnitude of illegitimate voting.
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:27 pmA secure system that doesn’t prevent any legal voter from voting. Somehow I don’t think biwah would go for it though.
A national ID? I don’t think Reagan would go for it.
chris (b706cb) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:39 pmThe reason none of the harder-to-vote “conservatives” on this thread are suggesting convenient ways to supply Photo ID to the poor, elderly, and disabled is that removing this large number of pro-Democratic voters from the rolls is much more important to them than the small (tiny, it appears) number of illegal aliens.
I don’t care about the method, I care about the result. They could set up a freaking 1-800-dial-an-ID for all I care so long as they are valid (ie. the person getting proves they’re a citizen) and the rules requiring ID are enforced.
Taltos (c99804) — 5/18/2007 @ 8:57 pmThe point, Andrew, is that you don’t outlaw an activity completely because some do it illegally. At most, you place measure into effect that help make it more difficult to to that activity illegally.
Do you really think that signing a piece of paper is an obstacle? My signature is not verified when I vote, nor is my citizenship. How does that inhibit illegal voting?
The analogy has gone from strawman to absurd strawman. Nice job, Andy.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/19/2007 @ 3:53 amMr. Lazarus,
Many thanks for responding to my query. Was the tossing of the California vagrancy law as unconstitutional a State Constitution matter or a Federal one? I am but an egg, but bringing a constitution into this seems fairly important and I would like more info, as California law has divorced itself from the rest of the land. As to pretextual enforcement: why so? If the law is being enforced even though the defendant is well known to the enforcers, how is this pretext. If you are pulled over for speeding and are not in physical possesion of your license, do you not get a charge because the officer has seen you around?
Once again, I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass,but I have a monster hang-over, a night I wish hadn”t happened and some evidence to dispose of, so if you could clear that up for me I would really be appreciative.
Uncle Pinky (6546ec) — 5/19/2007 @ 6:52 amPablo, I am still missing what makes my argument a straw man. Yours is conclusory.
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/19/2007 @ 7:08 amU-J:
Your insistence on defending Harris (and trying to score some kind of rhetorical point on me in the process) is as remarkable for its wrongness as it is for its irrelevance. We’ve talked about Harris – now I believe it is your turn to answer the relevant issue – how you weigh the respective harms of the government disenfranchising legitimate voters versus noneligibile voters casting votes. Before you accuse me of dodging the issue yet again, reread #70 (for starters). I don’t favor either but find the first to be the more serious evil. Partly because one illegal vote does not deny your vote, as I have explained, and partly for other reasons that I’ve explained.
And back to Harris for a moment, (A) it was her duty to see that the laws were carried out and that the election was fairly administered. The power to delegate is not absolution from responsibility. And (B), heading up a political campaign in the state where you are responsible for administering fair elections is a conflict, not some trivial P.R. problem. And finally, (C) the purging problem was public by mid-May at the latest. That’s actual knowledge, not some elaborate theory of agency. It didn’t get taken care of by the official whose duty it was to take care of such things. The thing speaks for itself.
And please, harp on my use of the word “shorthand” one more time, jackass. It really drives home just how right you are.
biwah (983aaf) — 5/19/2007 @ 10:18 amIt’s the fact that it has no substantive relation to the discussion at hand. You raise a problem that doesn’t parallel the topic at hand in support of your insistence on not dealing with a problem we’re discussing, and you compare the two in a way that simply doesn’t jive, as I have previously noted. Thus, strawman.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:03 amAnd to extend your logic, Andrew, we could reduce the number of crimes by exterminating every living soul. So there.
Idiotic, ain’t it?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:05 amOn the contrary, I think it parallels it strongly. I submit that you feel it doesn’t because then your suggestions about voting are revealed as absurd. Here a Republican admits that the point is to reduce legitimate Democratic votes with reference to a basically non-existent “problem”. I also note that the link is from Texas, suggesting that the exposé of the 41 votes has been coordinated to drum up outrage about this dangerous (snicker) conspiracy.
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:19 amScott, I did not understand you were asking biwah to cite a mere newspaper article about people unable to vote. I interpreted your statement about “who do you know” as requesting a reply naming a personal acquaintance.
Now that I’m clear on your standards… we can not, of course, give you the number of people who couldn’t vote because of the Georgia Voter ID law, because its implementation was enjoined. According to the decision [p. 18, warning fat pdf file], over 100,000 Georgia voters possess neither a Georgia Drivers License nor a Georgia Photo ID, plus 180,000 more whose drivers licenses had expired, been suspended, or been revoked. So that’s my 280,000, supplied by the Georgia government in what I would take as an admission against interest, versus your 41, none of whom have had a chance to defend themselves. Just to show I’m trying to be fair, Georgia is not quite 100 times as populous as San Antonio. Correcting for this still leaves you 275,900 behind. For those, I’d like the individual names.
Andrew J. Lazarus (0d40b6) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:37 amThat’s a “might be”, AJL.
I was asking for a “has happened”, based on his assertation that we have “restrictive voting laws”.
He was speaking in the present tense. He was talking about “now”.
Perhaps you could do the same for this, eh?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:48 amAlso, I have a revoked DL.
Guess what: I went and got myself a State ID.
Those who don’t have a photo ID can GET one, assuming they are entitled to one. You know… Assuming they are legal…
GA has a LOT of illegals, so we can’t assume automatically that those “registered voters” you cite are supposed to be registered in the first place.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 5/19/2007 @ 11:50 amYou fail to grasp class-bias subtleties in the GA situation. The proposed ID law would have exempted absentee ballots from the same rigors and yet that’s where most reported fraud occurred. Also, they would permit anyone to vote presenting a valid (or even expired) U.S. passport, which lists no local address at all. You could move to Oregon and still come back and vote in Georgia. It wasn’t about citizenship, it was about demographic nepotism.
steve (315d72) — 5/19/2007 @ 12:25 pmIf you start informing people about a photo ID requirement a month before the election, as happened in Georgia, I would enjoin it too. The Court’s order, linked by Andrew in #89, is a very good summary of the law but you have to read it all the way through. As the courts keep pointing out, there is no bright line test. It’s a sliding scale between the state’s compelling interest and the right to vote. Whether photo ID requirements unduly burden the right to vote will depend on the facts of each case.
nk (a074d4) — 5/19/2007 @ 12:38 pmpicking up from nk…if the law fails to address a significant variation of the basic problem (i.e. absentee-related fraud), that will detract from the state’s case on both the state’s interest and narrowly tailored prongs. I haven’t read the decision yet, but plan to.
Scott:
He was speaking in the present tense. He was talking about “now”.
What I actually said:
the GOP has made a boogeyman of the illegal voter to shoehorn some restrictive laws into the books
The boogeyman portion has happened/is underway, the goal of which is restrictive laws, not specific to past, present, or future. I was conveying that the laws themselves are largely prospective, hence this conversation and others like it.
I know that refraining from strawmen is probably beyond your abilities, so I’ll just ask that you save yourself the effort of arguing with grammatical strawmen.
biwah (983aaf) — 5/19/2007 @ 1:06 pmAnd please, harp on my use of the word “shorthand” one more time, jackass. It really drives home just how right you are.
It does. So I shall. Get defensive much?
You made a statement, then partially backpedelled, and now you’re just flailing. Insulting me for pointing out your “shorthand” (That now you’re saying isn’t what you actually meant..) wasn’t a good example… Yes, I believe it does say something substantiative.
Your insistence on defending Harris
I’d prefer to stick to defending the facts of the case, and leaving the personal attacks aside. You want to score points by invoking the arch-evil Harris as a verbal talisman, ignoring the actual problems that occurred, who was responsible, and the systemic error it’s a perfect example of.
now I believe it is your turn to answer the relevant issue – how you weigh the respective harms of the government disenfranchising legitimate voters versus noneligibile voters casting votes.
Which I have done.
But taking your apparent problems with reading comprehension into account, I’ll repeat: I consider the harms to be equal.
but find the first to be the more serious evil. Partly because one illegal vote does not deny your vote, as I have explained,
Using math that you made up. I’ve told you what my weighting is, and how I come to that conclusion. It’s quite simple. Any illegitmate vote negates a legitimate vote. Just as your erroneous purge would negate one vote.
1 = 1.
I went into a large amount of detail about which I found more palatable and why. A provisional ballot issued to someone purged erroneously has the possibility to be counted.
But you cannot validate, count, or calculate the harm if illegitimate voters have cast ballots. Which is the biggest problem with trying to figure how many votes were “legitimate” after the fact – there is no way to tell.
The power to delegate is not absolution from responsibility.
Harris didn’t have the power to delegate. You keep digging in on this, and like I tried to say at the start, it’s not worth getting into with you, you don’t know or care about the federalism inherent in the electoral process. Or how the “purge” was conducted and carried out. Thus, arguing it further is fruitless and a waste of time.
And (B), heading up a political campaign in the state where you are responsible for administering fair elections is a conflict, not some trivial P.R. problem.
But you didn’t answer my question. “ do you consider only members of the elections/Sec State of State and Local governments to have an improper conflict of interest when they participate in a campaign, or any elected office?
Unix-Jedi (b18156) — 5/19/2007 @ 1:18 pmHere a Republican admits that the point is to reduce legitimate Democratic votes with reference to a basically non-existent “problem”.
1.) That’s a single guy’s opinion.
2.) I notice they don’t actually quote what he said.
3.) RE: the case cited, they said there was no intentional fraud found. Intent is irrelevant, every ilegal ballot cast dilutes every legal one.
4.) The story says that the margin of victory narrowed, so that means that ilegal ballots were cast.
5.) If you implement ID requirements those unintentionaly fruadulent votes vanish because the ineligible voters don’t get to cast their ballots.
Taltos (c99804) — 5/19/2007 @ 1:30 pmWell, Scott, it’s hard for me to supply data about the past effects of laws that courts continue to throw out before they come into force. Since their reasoning about the hypothetical results appears to agree with mine, I don’t see why you’re so insistent on the point.
I agree with nk; there is no bright line rule here. The Georgia law did nothing to reduce absentee ballot fraud (thanks for reminding me, Steve) while making voting more difficult for at least tens of thousands of legitimate voters. It seems as if even Taltos and I share some common ground, for the first time in any thread, because if there really were a 1-800-get my voting id procedure, then I’d say the ID was not so burdensome and requiring it would be OK.
Why is it that Republican legislators are never suggesting programs that would bring photo ID to the poor and other easily disenfranchised? Because, you see, disenfranchising them is the point!
Andrew J. Lazarus (2d10b2) — 5/19/2007 @ 2:04 pmGee thanks, Carnac.
Where are the Democrat initiatives to provide verified ID to the poor and other easily disenfranchised? Because, you see, allowing illegal votes to be cast is the point!
This game is so easy a child could play it.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/19/2007 @ 6:26 pm748 more non-citizen votes counted here, AJL.here
stoo (7f3ef1) — 5/19/2007 @ 7:27 pmIn this July 2004 post, Michelle Malkin noted that non-citizens can vote in 6 Maryland cities and in Amherst and Cambridge, Mass.
Our own Liberal Avenger apparently posted a comment in that thread (#9) and it’s quite clever.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 5/19/2007 @ 7:52 pm“Won’t adding 12 million workers to the tax rolls help Social Security, Mike?
Comment by alphie ”
I’m on a trip and don’t have internet access all the time so haven’t replied. Sorry.
My point, which maybe I didn’t make clearly, is that the vast majority of illegals who are coming in now are fit only for manual labor and most do not have a work life past 50. The workers comp claims they file are what I see all day. I see laborers with second grade educations who are 30 years old and have back pain that prevents working. They will eventually have disability awarded on a permanent basis. If an amnesty makes them legal, they will be filing SSI claims at age 40.
I am in favor of legal immigration. There are Europeans fleeing the Islamic transformation of their countries who cannot get visas to come here and work. They are lined up to go to Canada and Australia. Especially in Holland. There are Asians who want to come here and who are highly motivated to get educated and be productive. Read about Mark Steyn’s adventures with the immigration bureaucracy. What we get instead are millions of peasants who have no education and who will be filing claims on our disability systems by the age of 40.
As far as deporting people is concerned; about a third of the recent (past 10 years) illegals are going back and forth to Mexico and they do not see themselves as Americans. Building a fence and enforcing the border will cause many of them to stay in Mexico. It will increase the transaction costs to them and reduce the incentive for them to come here for poor wages. Those who have established a family here and have businesses and careers, I have no problem with amnesty for them. BUT we have to get control of the border first.
As an aside, the birth rate in Mexico is dropping and the pressure for emigration may be falling. What is happening is that they are coming here to work but keeping residence in Mexico. They still bring all the social pathology for as long as they stay, however. That includes alcoholism and drunk driving plus crime and gangs.
Mike K (db63d6) — 5/20/2007 @ 5:34 amThe votes of all illegal aliens should be declaired invaled
krazy kagu (656fec) — 5/20/2007 @ 8:50 pmI stumbled across this discussion after visiting http://www.felonvotingprocon.org. I appreciate your debate here, but I think there are many important points missing. Personally, I wonder why some folks get so fired up over felons and illegals voting. Don’t we have a much bigger problem in that most people with no voting restrictions are still not voting. How can democracy work if only a minority votes?
Tommy Flanagan (d91698) — 5/21/2007 @ 9:00 amLots of people like to beat up on Katherine Harris based on the reporting of the shrill leftist Greg Palast, who screams as loudly as he can time and time again that Harris violated a court order in the process of scrubbing ineligible voters from the database in Florida. I have yet to read how Palast addresses the fact that the court whose order she allegedly violated never nailed her on it either before the 2000 election or after she became world famous in its aftermath.
At the very least, if this were a legitimate charge, the Donkeys — who at the time took Bush and to court during the recount, and have in the following six years accused Bush, Cheney, Rove of dozens of crimes (and have yet to get an indictment), would have gone after Harris with something stronger than “She wears too much makeup” or “I’ll bet they’re implants.”
L.N. Smithee (368297) — 5/22/2007 @ 1:08 pm