Supreme Court Hears Voter ID Case
The Supreme Court hearing argument yesterday in the Indiana voter ID case. The transcript is here.
I haven’t read it, but the consensus appears to be that the law will be upheld, although it sounds like Justice Kennedy has concerns about the burdens on those who have no IDs.
Dahlia Lithwick sums up the liberal position on the issue neatly:
The real problem with Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is that the whole case is a dance of the seven veils. By which I mean that voter-identification laws are phony ways to solve pretend problems, while today’s challenge to those laws is thin on evidence of real voters who’ve suffered real harms. A chimera doing battle with a fantasy. Oh, goody.
According to Dahlia, there’s no real evidence that there is a big problem with voter fraud — but, there’s also no real evidence that there is a big problem with genuine voters being inconvenienced by voter ID laws. Of course, to Dahlia (and most liberals), the mere possibility of the latter (the law deterring voters) is enough to be very concerned about, while the possibility of voter fraud is essentially something to mock.
Simon at Stubborn Facts points out how neatly Justice Ginsburg falls for phony assumptions underlying the liberal point of view — namely, the position that anyone who showed up to vote without an ID must have been a genuine voter who was disenfranchised by the law:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: … Now, there is something in the briefs that happened after this case was instituted, but we know from Marion County that there were 34 people who were not able to have a vote counted. And of those 34, only two ended up qualifying after the fact. So, we know that in that one particular county, most of the people who were unable to satisfy the requirement initially ended up not satisfying it.
Is that — I mean that’s not hypothetical. That’s real. But it does give you some confirmation that it isn’t mere speculation that there are going to be many people who will not — whose vote will not count.
MR. FISHER: With respect, Your Honor, for all we know, those may have been fraudulent ballots. It may well be the case that all 32 did not show up to validate their votes are fraudulent.
Simon says:
So there’s at least two important false assumptions being bandied around in this case: that a person is disenfranchised merely by being unable to meet the requirements to vote rather than being unable to meet the requirements to vote and wanting to vote, and that any evidence of people being unable to produce ID to support provisional ballots are indicative that the voter ID law is disenfranchising legitimate voters rather than preventing fraudulent votes.
See also Simon’s post here.
Al Gore said every vote must be counted and every vote must count. But if the voter is not legally eligible to vote, I don’t want the vote to count.
Voter fraud is not some chimerical phantom that never occurs in America; look at the Nixon-JFK election if you have any doubt about how significant it can be. The fact that we don’t have concrete proof that it’s a huge problem doesn’t mean it isn’t.
P.S. Let me throw some mud in the eyes of my conservative friends now. As far as I know, we don’t have any evidence that Diebold machines have disenfranchised voters in actual elections. But I have seen evidence that concerns me about the potential that they could be misused on a wide scale. (At least in September 2006, they could be opened with a hotel minibar key.) Is this potential something to be concerned about? I say that it is.
But it’s interesting. I am concerned about getting it right regardless of who benefits. I feel lonely on that score. The issue of Diebold machines, like that of voter ID laws, tends to end up as a partisan issue — with Republicans worried about voters without IDs but blissfully untroubled by Diebold machines — and Democrats terrified that someone might have to work a little to get an ID and concerned about Diebold, but not caring a whit about the fact that people are showing up to vote who shouldn’t be.
It’s all about politics, folks. And it shouldn’t be. Every vote should not count. Every legal vote should count.
John Fund refutes the notion that there’s no evidence of voter fraud in an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110011102.
Tim K (7e41e8) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:19 amIt gets worse…
One of those poster children used to knock down this law is registered in two states.
QandO.net has a great post about it.
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:21 amThe GA law that was FINALLY approved recently provides for free ID’s for the indigent, yet the left still opposes the idea. If you can get free ID’s I simply can’t understand what the burden is to the voter.
Dr T (69c4b2) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:29 amI’ve always found it interesting that Louisiana, with all the problems here on bad politicians and bad laws, has never had problems with voting machines, and we have a voter ID law. You show the proper ID at registration, and after that, you just show the voter registration card or your state ID. State ID’s are free for any non-driver of voting age, if you ask for it.
And, we’ve had electronic voting for several years, with no complaints.
reff (bff229) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:31 ami am in general agreement with dahlia: i don’t believe that any major election has ever been turned by aliens who weren’t entitled to vote, but i and all the people i know have drivers licenses in our wallets/purses. here in oregon we vote by mail; i have never been asked to put a photocopy of my id in the mail.
the integrity of the voting machines is a much greater concern. i suspect that diebold may have turned ohio in 2004; i know that diebold’s chairman pledged in writing to do so. the major voting machine companies all use proprietary software – the source code is a company secret that can’t be revealed to ordinary stiffs like me and patterico. i believe it’s a matter of constitutional dimension that voting machines use open source software that we stiffs can get a look at. i would like to see a voter in a state that uses voting machines take this issue to the supreme court – anybody out there care enough to do this?
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:32 amADA, Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California won a close election where the margin of victory was less than the number of fraudulent registrations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:35 amI always wondered if the people terrified of Diebold voting machines ever use ATMs.
Techie (ed20d9) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:36 amscott jacobs: a lot of law-abiding people are registered in two states. when i moved to oregon in 2001, i didn’t tell the registrar in sonoma county, california about it; i assume that my old address still received election material for a few cycles. maybe you can make me a poster boy for some kind of issue.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:40 amIOW, toss Ann Coulter in the slammer and throw away the key.
I’m down with that.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:43 amI am more than willing to make a compromise with the left – we get rid of all diebold and other touch screen voting machines and return to paper ballots, in return for real voter i.d. laws in all of the states. I for one would like a valid, trustworthy process and I think both concerns are valid.
Some say that fraudulent votes don’t turn elections. How does anyone know that? We know there is “some” fraudulent voting. I don’t think anyone can claim that there is none. So, if an election is decided by, say, 100 votes out of 5 million cast, who is to say that 150 fraudulent votes did not turn the election?
I agree that it is unlikely that fraudulent votes affect the outcome when one candidate wins by several thousand or more votes. But when elections are close, which many have been in the last several elections, then fraudulent votes (either people voting more than once, illegal aliens voting, people voting in multiple states, dead people voting, etc.) could indeed be the difference.
And, I think people get caught up in this only being a problem in presidential elections. This is an issue in every election, from city council to president. And many of those other elections are often very close – where a few hundred fraudulent votes can make the difference.
So, a mocking condescention that fraudulent votes don’t matter seems to me to defy rationality.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:44 amTechie,
ATMs have security measures that far outweigh the sloppy methods of Diebold & co. For starters, you can’t open them with a hotel minibar key. And there is a paper trail.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:47 amspqr: rep. vern buchanan of florida won a close election (369 vote margin) where, according to the voting machines, 17,000 people in one county failed to vote for anybody for congress.
techie: banking doesn’t have quite the same constitutional dimension voting does. why are you people afraid to show us the source code, what are you hiding?
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:54 amRight, because no “stiffs” would try to hack the software.
I think it’s funny that (in my state, at least) it was the Democrats who in the wake of the 2000 election pushed for electronic voting. Now in the wake of the 2004 election, it’s the Dems complaining that the electronic voting was rigged.
Tell me, ADA, what evidence do you have that Diebold rigged the 2004 vote? Their president supported Bush, but all the quotes I read from him spoke of using legal means. Do you have any evidence that he was using illegal means?
Steverino (e00589) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:59 amThere’s a paper trail to electronic voting in my state. You can see (but not touch or alter) the paper record of your vote before casting.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:01 amI’d ask where David got his comment from, but I’ve long since stopped wondering where the hell that dope comes up with anything…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:03 amThe same groups against the photo ID law were against internet voting for US troops serving overseas. The NY Times had a big editorial about how allowing military members to vote while serving overseas is subject to fraud and abuse. Considering that each vote would have been through a secure website registered to each members social security number, fraud and abuse was likely to be minimal. Pressure from democrats got the plan scuttled. In other words, US troops, more than willing to show ID to anyone who asks, are having their votes supressed by the same group that are saying showing a photo ID supresses vots.
Karen (5b153d) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:04 amSupport the troops, but supress their votes.
thank you, steverino, for exhibiting the common fallacy that proprietary software is more secure than open source software. open source receives much greater peer review. hacks and exploits can be demonstrated and the loopholes closed prior to the election.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:04 amFrom the League of Women Voters own website, their #1 objective:
Opposing ID and documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements in the voting and registration processes;
A supposed “objective, non-partisan organization” has decided its mission it to override the US Consitution, and permit non-citizens to vote in our federal elections. It is disgusting that this organization is allowed to use “women” in its title. Can I sue?
Karen (5b153d) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:22 amThank you, ada, for using a strawman. I didn’t say that one was more secure than another. But open source presents its own problems, which you glibly ignore. Some hacks and exploits might be revealed prior to the election, but others may not.
Tell me: what qualifications do voting machines in your state go through? I’ll draw a parallel to slot machines, which are all pure software now. (Even the stepper games, since the mechanical reels are controlled completely by software.) The source is proprietary, but it is delivered for review to the local gaming control board by the slot developer. The GCB performs qual testing over and above what the developer has done. That’s a good enough standard of openness and testing for devices that handle great deals of money; something similar would be just fine for a voting machine.
And you didn’t answer my question about Diebold. Do you have any real evidence about either the company or its president?
Steverino (e00589) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:24 amkaren, can you tell me where in the constitution it requires id and documentary proof-of-citizenship in the voting and registration processes, as opposed to undocumented citizenship itself? even if you can’t, your comment still has an awesome ninny/strawman mojo.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:28 amada,
You don’t think anyone would use the open nature of the code to hack the machines?
Patterico (b5cb54) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:31 amSorry, I don’t work in computers. You’ll have to ask them.
Techie (ed20d9) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:44 am“The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast.” – Karl Rove, OpEd WSJ
Considering the razor thin margins in recent elections, I think we need a tamper-proof ID card. All my life, I have had a military ID and I have also had a passports since I was three.
In case no one has noticed, your driver’s license has become relatively standard – Photo, ID#, DOB, name & address, description, signature, bar codes, biometrics.
What is the problem?
arch (9c9346) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:44 amsteverino, we don’t have voting machines in oregon, we have vote-by-mail. anybody who gets an oregon drivers license is automatically registered to vote at the address on the license, we get our ballots in the mail and mail them back.
your comparison of elections to slot machines may have been unwittingly self-revelatory. when i (rarely) go into a casino, i’m there to have a good time and cheerfully acknowledge in advance that i might blow the whole night’s gambling budget in short order. anybody who thinks they can play slots and come out with more money than they started with is a fool. all casinos need is the perception of fairness in playing and people will come in, and the gaming control people can be trusted to provide this, further incentivized by their tax handle.
for an election, i want a little bit more than just a perception of fairness. it’s a whole diferent thing: the constitution says i have the right to vote, but is silent on whether i have the right to play fair slot machines. for votes to be fully meaningful, there must be a transparent sequence between the act of casting a vote and the official announcement of the results. you say
open source presents its own problems, which you glibly ignore…
what are those problems, steverino? do linux and firefox present unique, specific security problems to which windows and explorer are immune? tell us what they are! for extra comedy credit, tell us just how more secure microsoft’s systems are over open source.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:50 amThe Constitution specifically limits federal voting to citizens. (15,19,24,26) It also says you must be 18. Should we allow 10 year olds to register and be forbidden from asking them for ID at the polls? It is not REQUIRED, but states should be allowed to demand the condition set forth in the US Constitution be met before registering. As we saw yesterday at the Supreme Court, the poster child of the left-wing anti ID argument was registered to vote in 2 states, and did so to commit tax fraud. She signed forms swearing she wasn’t a voter in Indiana so she could get a voter card in Florida as a way to claim homestead exemption available only to residents. She then voted in Indiana. SHe was a plaintiff, but when she was shown to be a perjurer and possibly committed a felony, she claims confusion. She wanted to vote in Indiana but was prevented because she had an out of state license. Why? Because she was registered to vote in Florida. Most federal elections coincide with local elections based on your address. Isn’t voting based on where citizens reside for a majority of the year the fairest way to have an election? I find it hard to understand the argument of those against making it easier for overseas military to vote but allowing anyone to vote without ID, residency requirements, etc.
Karen (5b153d) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:51 amPatterico, the fact that the code is open means that the “hacking”, or any holes available to “hacking”, would also be open.
I'm Geekier (25af5f) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:57 amOver the years, I have voted in 7 different states. All required photo ID except NY. Many times I voted on a military base, so it might have been a local issue. Currently, my state requires prior registration and photo ID at the polls. You sign your name swearing who you are next to your name on the voter registration list. You fill out a paper ballot in a booth, then submit it to a poll worker and watch you vote tabulation. Your paper ballot is saved in a pile. It works well. I know for my county, African-American turnout often exceeds white voter turnout.
Karen (5b153d) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:57 amyou don’t think anyone would use the open nature of the code to hack the machines?
i think the open code is inherently more secure, because people a whole lot smarter than i am have looked at it and sussed out its vulnerabilities. in voting as well as cryptography, the strongest and most respected algorithms are the ones that have been published by their authors, daring the world to find a flaw. only the keys are supposed to be secret.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:58 amKaren, there is no constitutional right to vote in Federal elections. There may be Federal laws on the privilage of voting in elections, but not in the Constitution.
If there is, please show it to us here.
reff (bff229) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:12 amA) optical scan paper ballots – all precinct ballots counted within 15 minutes of poll closing – great paper trail.
B) Requirement of photo ID – minimal inconvience – those too poor or indigent to get free govt photo ID generally are not in main stream of society so most if not all dont vote anyway – non issue.
C) voter fraud – difficult to catch and prosecute – may be minor in some local’s
joe - dallas (138e46) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:12 amAs ADA states, open source voting software means that the software is transparent – so there can be no credible assertion that the manufacturer has the ability to manipulate elections. Charges currently being made without any basis and without any real credible methodology but if the software was open, it would be simpler to refute such.
Open source is not inherently more susceptible to hacking as decades of experience in operating systems has shown.
Security of the election systems comes from secure processes, verifiable software, and transparency. Security by obscurity has been shown to be a fraud.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:12 ambruce schneier blogs about this issue in detail, he’s frequently good reading.
assistant devil's advocate (8627a7) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:17 amada #5- I would personally be more worried about LEGAL people who vote more than once, especially in states where an ID is not required to register, allowing for mulitple registrations, than I would be for illegals to register.
As for your Oregon law: did you have to show ID to register? Do you have to maintain the same address by law? When you change addresses, do you have to prove your new address? None of these requirements are intrusive or restrictive, are they?
reff (bff229) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:22 amTo vote here in central IL, I show up, sign my name, and take my ballot.
That’s it.
I’ve registered with an old State ID card, and just said “I moved” and tell them my address.
Air-tight system we got here.
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:24 amYet, the dead still vote in Chicago, and you need more ID to cash a check than to vote. What don’t you idiots get or is it that you reserve the right to stuff the ballotbox to ensure that you win?
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/10/2008 @ 10:06 amWow. You apparently missed the sarcasm inherent in “air tight system”.
What I described was in no way, shape, or form “airtight”.
And considering that the dead pretty much vote 100% democrat, I don’t think accusing me of reserving the right to make them vote is all that accurate.
Next time, try reading first…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 10:21 amI like Bruce and agree with him (and Patterico) on the subject of electronic voting machines needing to be secure and auditable.
Unfortunately — unless he’s recently changed his mind — Bruce doesn’t seem to agree with me and Patterico that there’s a problem with our voting system that would be cured by positively identifying the folks who are trying to cast a ballot. We’ve had a few bloggish discussions on the subject. 🙂
Bill Roper (0283e2) — 1/10/2008 @ 10:36 amScott #15,
Ann Coulter was registered to vote in a different precinct from the one in which she resides. Still the same state and county, I don’t remember whether the same municipality or electoral district. There was no double registration and no double voting. The case went nowhere.
Home is where the heart is. You can be registered to vote in a three-bedroom walk-up, in the ethnic neighborhood you lived in for the past fiftten years, and still own, while actually staying in a 28th floor Lake Shore luxury apartment overlooking the yacht club. (That was me.) Just as long as you don’t double register.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 11:00 amI figured it was something like that NK.
And that sounds like a lovely place on Lake Shore. Still have it/use it?
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 11:22 amNo. I’m a suburbanite now. And I changed my registration to our village.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 11:43 amDamn. That place would rock. Darn you. 😛
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 11:55 amWell, I think I was about your age then. I could watch Cub games in Wrigley field from my west window and class races in the harbor from my east window. Now I like my deer, foxes, possums and raccoons.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 12:04 pmThe source is proprietary, but it is delivered for review to the local gaming control board by the slot developer.
The voting machine companies did nothing of the sort until forced to.
Whaddya know, the code was crap (MS Access!?!?) and insecure on its face, with deliberate and obvious back doors. When examined, their certifications are revoked in one state after another.
Andrew J. Lazarus (f429ea) — 1/10/2008 @ 12:05 pmDamn old people. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/10/2008 @ 12:09 pmNotice how the same liberals who oppose voter ID laws love absentee ballots. They are also the same ones who think morality is relative, and that the ends justify the means.
Boiled down, liberals support election fraud.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/10/2008 @ 12:44 pmIf a Diebold machine can be opened with a minibar key, why is it that this is an opporunity for the right? Seems like those on the left are also able to obtain minibar keys.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/10/2008 @ 12:58 pmBoiled down, liberals support election fraud.
Think liberals plastered neighborhoods with these 2002 election-eve flyers in Baltimore?:
Republicans writing tougher voter ID laws allow passports, for reasons I’ll never understand. The poor and elderly are less likely to have a current U.S. passport. And they provide no address to confirm or refute, so an elector could vote in an old precinct repeatedly after moving a hundred miles away. For decades, theoretically.
steve (1613df) — 1/10/2008 @ 1:48 pmDamn old people.
Fair enough. Dan Rostenkowski was my Congressman where I was registered and Sidney Yates where I was staying. Nothing much to choose between either.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 1:50 pmKevin, because of Democrats’ fondness for baseless accusation and conspiracy theories.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 2:23 pmSteve, you are confusing the registration requirement with the identification at polling day requirement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 2:24 pm“…because of Democrats’ fondness for baseless accusation and conspiracy theories.”
The baseless accusations are of voter fraud. As to the accusations of republican political thuggery and the voter fraud “issue” the data is plentiful.
blah (d5c037) — 1/10/2008 @ 2:32 pmBradley Schlozman, Hans von Spakovsky, the whole US Attorney mess.
blah (d5c037) — 1/10/2008 @ 2:36 pmetc. etc.
blah, if you say its plentiful, then based on your past performance it would be nonexistant. Your record of ignorance on the topics you opine upon is nearly 100%.
We’ve already seen plenty of evidence of fraudulent voter registrations associated with Democratic voter registration drives like ACORN. But you have nothing to substantiate the Democratic conspiracy theories about 2004.
And once again, you do an irrelevant drive by link. You continue to waste others’ time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 2:55 pmSteve, you are confusing the registration requirement with the identification at polling day requirement.
No, I’m not.
One usually is required to submit proof of domicile at registration.
States with newly-passed Voter ID laws allow passports at polling stations, which list no address.
steve (1613df) — 1/10/2008 @ 3:15 pmEven poor people need ID to go to check cashing places. They need one to get into federal buildings to deal with medicare and social security. They need one to get a bank account, and if not that, a majority of us “poor” have a car, and it takes ID to drive.
Anyone too infirm or stupid to get an ID is probably not voting anyway. And to allow massive fraud which can invalidate a majority of voters in order to protect what, less than 1% of the population? That is so stupid that it isn’t believable. The only logical answer for opposing voter ID laws is if you support voter fraud, and think your side can do it better.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/10/2008 @ 3:29 pmExactly, steve, you are confusing registration with proof of identity at polling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 3:34 pmThis imposition of unwarranted bureaucratic burdens came about spontaneously and systematically.
The Court should strike some compromise.
The prospect of 80-year-olds who aren’t drivers and have no license being made to stand in line at the courthouse to re-authorize a voting privilege they’ve had since World War II is iniquitous.
steve (1613df) — 1/10/2008 @ 3:46 pmExactly, steve, you are confusing registration with proof of identity at polling.
A passport – insufficient for registration – is accepted polling stations in states with newly passed, Republican-written Voter ID laws.
steve (1613df) — 1/10/2008 @ 3:52 pmThe talk about voter ID is kind of funny since anyone can be challenged for any reason. My 98-year-old mother was not allowed to vote in the 1996 election. The polling place was in her apartment building, where she had lived for 33 years. However, it was in Jesse Jackson Jr’s district and she was probably the only Republican in the building. She was challenged and, since there were no Republican poll watchers, the challenge was upheld. We’re talking Chicago here, where the Resurrection is proven to be true every fourth year on election day.
Mike K (86bddb) — 1/10/2008 @ 4:20 pmSteve, seriously. It’s like you’re trying to not get it.
They require ID at the polling place to prove you are who you are claiming to be. If you prove that, you must live at the address supplied when you registered.
Get it? You have to prove where you live when you register, but just who you are when you vote.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/10/2008 @ 4:29 pmYou have to prove where you live when you register, but just who you are when you vote.
Not having to prove you still live in the same place where you registered invites fraud, with passports providing no address to confirm or refute. An elector could vote in an old precinct repeatedly after moving a hundred miles away.
steve (943078) — 1/10/2008 @ 4:35 pmBut not vote where they live now… That’s fine. Still just one vote.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/10/2008 @ 6:24 pmIf what happened to the 98-year grandmother is true, then the people who disenfranchised her ought to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Law (62ca0c) — 1/10/2008 @ 6:28 pmIf what happened to the 98-year grandmother is true, then the people who disenfranchised her ought to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
I disagree. There should be an upper age limit to voting just like there is a lower age limit. Sixty-five sounds about right to me.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 6:52 pmIf you are so easily disenfranchised by the need to get a state ID every 5 years or so, I’m not entirely sure one could convincingly argue that you have the attention-span to cast an intelligent, informed vote on any subject.
I had to get a new ID because mine had expired. Dropped off at the DMV, dad went across the street to the market to get some stuff. I took showed my old ID and my Voter’s registration card, paid my $10, and within 5 minutes was having my picture taken for my new ID. Less than 5 minutes after that, I had my freshly made ID.
So all told, less than 15 minutes, and ten bucks.
I work part time (though lately I’ve been getting 40 hour weeks due to winter break), and am a student paying his own tuition and book fees, in addition to 95% of all my bills (room and board, however, are freely provided, but I consider this offset by school costs). What I’m trying to say is that the ten bucks was not a hardship, nor was the time it took to get it done.
If you can’t keep it together long enough to acomplish that sort of feat, should you even HAVE a voice in how the country is run?
As an amusing aside, in IL you can register to vote while at the DMV. Recall what my second bit of ID was – my voter registration card. Lady at the desk asked me after a few keystrokes “would you like to register to vote?”
My pithy reply was “If I register again, do I get to vote twice?” At that point she started to laugh as it dawned on her what I’d just finished showing her. Apparently asking every person who comes to the counter that question makes it a habit. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:12 pm“… having to prove you still live in the same place where you registered …”
And, if you were serious about voting fraudulently, you would save that old drivers’ license (tell DMV you lost it when you go in to get a new one at the new address – of course, here in CA a change of address is noted on your license with a sticker on the back). Even if they change the number on the license, the vote board people don’t have that info. All they know is that you have a license issued to you at the address that you are registered to vote at.
And, why did we not see the same amount of concern regarding the mechanical voting machines that the old-time political-bosses controlled in the big Eastern Cities? Those machines were not just easy to manipulate, they invited it.
I find it humourous that the biggest stink in the past two Presidential Elections was by the Democrats in counties that they controlled: Palm Beach in FL, and the Greater Cleveland area in OH. And, here in CA, we have been using punch-cards since the late 60’s and there was never a problem.
I sincerely believe the problems we saw in the recent elections were because, even though the dominant party in those areas thought they had the fix in, the result didn’t agree with the plan.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:22 pmnk, if that were the law, ok, but it’s not. Actually, I wouldn’t care if they got the death penalty for it.
Law (62ca0c) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:28 pmLaw, you seem to not be following the issue. She disenfranchised herself by changing her residence to Florida, getting a Florida drivers license, and claiming a resident’s homestead tax exemption in Florida.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:30 pmThat’s fine. Still just one vote.
It’s still fraud. You can move six times, “forget” to re-register, and bring a passport to your old precinct to vote. You’d avoid jury duty, in most states. A military ID also lists no address. It’s a bit silly to stipulate an elderly non-driver cannot bring her current utility bill with matching address and be allowed to vote, while a passport-holder who resides well beyond the precinct isn’t challenged. It would be like arguing hypothetical vote fraud matters most in consideration of the least mobile among us.
Shouldn’t a database cross-reference tax filings with voter registration rolls to monitor working people who, in point of fact, change addresses more often?
steve (1613df) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:32 pmIs the elderly voter showing a photo ID, like we’re saying she should have to?
Why are you actively ignoring the salient points of the discussion here?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:38 pmConsidering that every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote … maybe we should have the death penalty for voter fraud? No!!! That would be grossly disproportionate to the crime. But requiring valid ID? With two years advance notice? Pretty proportionate in my opinion.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:42 pmSteve,
What on earth are you talking about? Are you even registered to vote? Have you ever voted? Because it sure does not sound like you know how it works.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:45 pmIn California one can get a state photo ID without getting a driving license. Are we that unique?
Why no, we’re not. Here’s how to get an Indiana state ID card.
So, will you lot all stop talking about old people who don’t drive?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:53 pmJess to ‘splain. There’s a grace period, kind of, for people who move. If you cannot register within the registration period of the jurisdiction you moved to, you are both obligated and entitled to to vote in the jurisdiction in which you are already registered, either in person or by absentee ballot.
nk (dda711) — 1/10/2008 @ 7:55 pmIn California one can get a state photo ID without getting a driving license. Are we that unique?
No.
You can get one here in Minnesota too.
My 81-year-old mother moved here with my father in 1950, never has held a driver’s license, yet still has managed to cast legal votes in every election the past 58 years.
So what is the problem?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:10 pmKevin, I’m not sure who’s said you had to have a DL to get a state ID…
I think they are trying to use the old biddy in the “how could she ever get to the place to GET the ID” way, to which I counter “How would she ever get to the polling place?”
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:15 pm#76 – playing devil’s advocate, she doesnt have to get to the polling place she can request an absentee ballot.
chas (d7c0b2) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:29 pmThere’s another gaping hole in the ‘alleged Ann Coulter voter fraud story. When you come to vote,in Broward and I assume Palm Beach County you have to present a photo I.D. The address
narciso (d671ab) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:48 pmhas to match what’s in the voter rolls, otherwise
there are calls to headquarters, until they determine you’re status. If there is any controversy they issue you a provisional ballot; which may or may not be counted; depending on the
circumstances. That’s why there was no case, despite the pressure of the Democratic
establishment on the West Palm Beach D.A.
to go ahead. I would be much more confident of the
whistleblowers, if they could actually show that the system could be hacked off site, Instead of a situation where the tester is granted direct access to the voting equipment.
#75 – When did Minnesota adopt a Voter ID law?
http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/13489471.html
steve (fb9ed5) — 1/10/2008 @ 8:54 pmPhoto IDs are a nice first step, but I still think we need to bring back the literacy tests. You should have to prove basic competency to read and understand English in order to register to vote. If they’re good enough for citizenship, why not for voting?
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 1/10/2008 @ 9:39 pmUnless it was a military vote.
Election 2000: How the military vote was suppressed
Dan Kauffman (b31cae) — 1/11/2008 @ 6:21 amAnd now Kos is advising dems to vot for Romney in Michigan to keep him in the race and fragment the GOP. To vote in the other guy’s primary is fraud in spirit, and we know Dems do this a lot. (Certainly every 4 years in NH for McCain).
You cannot have lived in the US for 10 years as an adult and not know that democrats oppose ID laws because they support fraud.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:10 amMartin: I’m a liberal. I’m *very dubious* about absentee balloting. I think it serves a useful purpose, especially for military personnel and people who will be oversees on business on election day, but I also think it has a terrible potential for abuse. (On the other hand, if I lived in a precinct which used electronic voting machines without a paper trail, I would *always* vote absentee in order to generate the paper trail for my vote).
I’m also uncomfortable in principle with voter ID requirements, unless the ID is free. If the state can charge you $6 to get a voter ID, where do you draw the line? Would it be ok to charge $600 for a voter ID? What principles should a court use to differentiate between the meaningless $6 charge and the outrageous $600 charge?
Make the voter ID free, and I’m fine with a voter ID requirement. As long as you have to pay for it, though, I have a problem with it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:38 amThe courts have made clear that voters must be able to get an ID for free under voter ID laws. (Poll tax amendment.) As far as I’m concerned, the implementation of voter ID for non-drivers is significant. Where are the offices to obtain the ID? What hours do they keep? Will there be an attempt to bring ID to the elderly who don’t tend to go far from home?
When the sponsor of Georgia’s ID law said it would get blacks off the rolls because they only vote when paid, I started to wonder if most of the pro-ID argument about farud isn’t pretextual, based on a fear of fraud that isn’t documented not because it’s undetectable under current law (e.g., what are the fraud rates detected under random signature match programs?) but because it doesn’t for all practical purposes exist. (Got any fresh evidence, Martin?)
As for why absentee ballot fraud isn’t targeted, it’s because absentee votes lean GOP.
[Aside to Taltos: like a lot of facially reasonable laws, literacy tests for voting came into bad reputation when applied by racists. In particular, pre-Voting Rights Act, the grading for black applicants to vote in the South was much stricter than for whites. Of course, the fact that the same class that perpetrated this disenfranchisement plan also loves Voter ID is pure coincidence.]
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:51 amAJL, in California at least, it’s not clear that absentee votes lean GOP. This was true 8-10 years ago, but recent numbers make it an unclear picture. (It helps that OTOO 1/3 of the votes in California are absentee).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:58 amWhat we should do to ensure that there is no voter fraud is stamp every citizen’s forehead, scan that stamp as you vote and match it against a national database of voters.
The government would promise, on their honor, not to use those stamps for any other purpose, so we’d be safe.
That would work, wouldn’t it?
steve (3727b6) — 1/11/2008 @ 3:11 pmAbsentee voting is an invitation to fraud, and should only be allowed in supervised situations such as military personnel.
Regarding delivery of an ID to people, if you are so bedridden that you cannot go get an ID, then screw it, you are too bedridden to vote. Every citizen has the right to vote, but if you have a personal problem, that should not mean that the taxpayer has to kiss your ass.
martin (02a441) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:13 pmHunh? Can you explain the connection to me?
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 1/11/2008 @ 5:28 pm#75 – When did Minnesota adopt a Voter ID law?
Where did I say that we do, steve?
I’ll clarify:
You still need a photo ID to register; when my mother arrived here and each time she has moved, she has had a photo ID while never having had a driver’s license.
The step to a Voter ID law wouldn’t inconveinence her in the least.
By the way, my mother is a black from South Carolina, a life-long Democrat that intends to vote for Hillary is she is the Democrat nominee, yet disagrees with Keith Ellison over the requiring of photo IDs as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/11/2008 @ 6:17 pmAs far as I’m concerned, the implementation of voter ID for non-drivers is significant. Where are the offices to obtain the ID?
How about the same places you get a driver’s license?
What hours do they keep?
Already established, same hours as present with all state offices.
Will there be an attempt to bring ID to the elderly who don’t tend to go far from home?
Andrew, my 81-year-old mother does not tend to go far from home, has never held a driver’s license, yet still has a photo ID. She got it done, what’s everyone else’s excuse?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/11/2008 @ 6:29 pm“Lazy” would be my guess, with “Legally Unable” coming in at a close second
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/11/2008 @ 7:16 pmThat may not work out so well. People applying for DLs usually have access to a car. After all, they need to pass a road test.
The decision in the Georgia case said that there wasn’t a single DMV office inside Atlanta city limits, and that the nearest office was a two-hour-plus bus ride (each way) from some Atlanta neighborhoods. Google says that’s not so; I don’t know if it’s a new office or the State failed to refute an incorrect claim.
It does certainly seem likely to make voting harder for some people than others, doesn’t it. Is that a bug or a feature? Instead of DMV, why not at the Public Library? Lots of those.
If I may be blunt, you guys seem to assume everyone lives the way you do.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7fa402) — 1/11/2008 @ 10:09 pmNo Democrat will ever admit that requiring ID to vote is anything other than a Republican plot. To do so would deprive them of their constitutional right to steal elections. I can never find it in the Constitution but my Democratic friends assure me its there.
It is almost beyond doubt that Kennedy stole the 1960 Presidential election and it is beyond all doubt that the Democrats stole the 2004 Washington Governor’s election. The attempt by Gore and Co. to steal Florida in 2000 by suppressing military votes and “finding” votes in Counties controlled by Democrats came very close to adding 2000 to the list. I’m sure sure there have hundreds, if not thousands of close elections stolen over the years. From the time Thomas Jefferson sold his soul to AAron Burr for a the votes of the urban mob, through bosses like Tweed and Daley, to the present day, the Democratic Party has always rejected any attempt for accountability or responsibility.
For what it’s worth, I request a paper ballot. I don’t trust voting machines. Haven’t since I read what Tammany Hall did with them in New York.
Ken Hahn (7742d5) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:34 pmKen Hahn – 93
You’re far too pessimistic, Ken. In Nevada, the Democrats are insisting on photo ID for all voters.
Only for their caucus, of course, but that makes sense. Since there is no way that voting fraud in their caucus could steal it from a Republican, why should the Democrats be interested in allowing fraud?
Yes, far too pessimistic, and not nearly cynical enough.
GaryC (a47434) — 1/17/2008 @ 4:16 am