Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Photo ID Requirement
[Guest post by DRJ]
The New York Times notes today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo IDs before they can vote:
“The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.
In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny.
The ruling, coming just eight days before the Indiana primary and at the height of a presidential election campaign, upheld rulings by a Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had thrown out challenges to the 2005 law.”
Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, ruled that the petitioners failed to meet the heavy burden of showing the law was unconstitutional on its face, leaving open the door to a future complaint by a voter who could show his rights were violated by the law.
The opinion “brushed aside” complaints that the law benefits Republicans, noting that the law “should not be disregarded” even though it may be motivated by partisan interests. In addition, Justice Stevens’ opinion reportedly acknowledged notorious instances of voter fraud in American history.
Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito concurred in the opinion but went even further:
“Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”
Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented on the basis that the law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”
I hope Texas and other states adopt similar laws post haste.
— DRJ
Texas might, but I suspect that Illinois won’t do shit…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:08 pm“In addition, Justice Stevens’ opinion reportedly acknowledged notorious instances of voter fraud in American history.”
He noted, “The record contains no record of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana….” Then he pointed to Boss Tweed in 1868, and said that there are “scattered instances” of that fraud nowadays. Truly a valid interest.
stef (394243) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:18 pmYep, stef, preventing fraud is a valid interest. Only correct thing I ‘ve seen you write in a long time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:19 pmWith Stevens writing for the majority, it would be very difficult (impossible) for the NYT to attack this ruling.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:23 pmSome people are going to spend a lot of couch time with their analysts working through this.
It seems to me that there’s an easy way to get around the “problem” of some registered voters not having a photographic identification; have the voter registrars maintain registration rolls with photographs of the registered voters!
Dana R Pico (556f76) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:33 pmAfter all, Dana, the DMV has that nifty digital camera right there. 🙂
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/28/2008 @ 4:50 pmThe state of Indiana has made provision for those without picture i.d. Its tough to see where a burden exists. What more do they want?
“Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity. “
Where I vote, one just gives their name, points to it on the open-for-all-to-see rolls, and signs. What about the potential burden of potential fraud? It would be so easy.
Dana (6506e6) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:04 pmStevens is a good judge. And Roberts is finding that his goal, to create the biggest majorities possible, may not be all so easy. Prima Donnas do not sing in chorus.
nk (1f1707) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:22 pmRoberts is getting the majorities, though, NK. The groupings change and there may be concurrences, but he usually manages a 6-man plurality with only the three amigos dissenting.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/28/2008 @ 5:37 pmThe problem is states that really need this kind of law, like Washington and Wisconsin, will never pass one.
Bill M (f498ad) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:22 pmWISH TV in Indianapolis interviewed a Democrat party official on their noon news today who said the party was going to look for a disenfranchised voter and refile the suit.
Hazy (d671ab) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:25 pmI have to show my id to rent a video for god’s sake, why shouldn’t we have to show id to vote. I am bitter and clinging to my gun and religion!!!
Kellie from Gainesville (5244ec) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:27 pmHope that works better than the last disenfranchised voter they found … the one fraudulently claiming residence in two states.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:27 pmAt times we do things right here in Indiana. You are welcome.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/28/2008 @ 6:46 pm“At times we do things right here in Indiana. You are welcome.”
Yeah, the massage parlors are on the Indiana side of the Illinois border on the highways, but so are the fireworks stores.
It’s mixed messages dude.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/28/2008 @ 7:03 pmFYI
The U.S. Supreme Court now posts decisions on line the same day as they are issued.
This case is at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
slo (1d7c03) — 4/28/2008 @ 7:12 pmI would think that those states that will be obstinate about requiring ID for voting, might be opening themselves up for an Equal Protection suit in a Federal Election, by allowing the potential for fraud to dilute the votes of valid electors.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/28/2008 @ 7:28 pmA common sense decision from the Supremes! I live next door in Illinois and I expect the Cubs will win the World Series before they pass a photo ID law here. Far too many dead Democrats vote in elections in my state.
Cheeseball (27f799) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:17 pmTexas Lt. Gov. Dewhurst “looks forward to passing such a measure when the legislature meets again next year.” Post haste, sir.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/28/2008 @ 9:08 pmI don’t understand using a passport to confirm voter identity. Even a medium-sized city might have three or four duly qualified “William E. Johnson” electors. Any of them could present his passport at multiple precincts and never be challenged, having no street address to compare.
steve (606637) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:25 am“I have to show my id to rent a video for god’s sake, why shouldn’t we have to show id to vote. I am bitter and clinging to my gun and religion!!!”
They can tax your video rentals, but not your voting. Shocking, isnt it?
stef (cf11de) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:14 amCheeseball wrote:
Many people think that black voters constitute the most loyal demographic for the Democrats, giving them some 90% of their votes, when, in reality, blacks are second; deceased voters give Democrats nearly 100% of their votes.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:24 amHazy wrote:
Wouldn’t it be simpler for the party, when it finds said disenfranchised voter, to help him obtain the proper identification to vote? that, after all, would solve their problem with potentially disenfranchised voters, while still addressing the problem of potential vote fraud — assuming, of course, that they want the latter problem addressed.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:27 amThey can tax your video rentals, but not your voting. Shocking, isnt it?
Nice how alphie tries to make the idea of identifying yourself out to be some form of poll tax.
Dana – You are an idealistic one, aren’t you?
JD (75f5c3) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:29 amQuite disingenuous of you, stef. They tax sales of any kind.
Here’s another analogy: just like voting, I have the Constitutional right to own a gun, but I must produce ID to buy a gun.
I’m not proposing background checks for voting, mind you, but there’s no defensible argument against proving you are who you claim to be when you vote.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:55 am#20:
Lemme see now, the picture in the passport matches, and the utility bill you got in your hand corresponds to the address on the voter roll.
Boy, that’s a tough one.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:57 amA valid United States passport, by itself, constitutes acceptable documentation for an ICE Form I-9, to determine eligibility to work in the US; if you have only a driver’s license as a photo ID, you need a Social Security card to go along with it. A passport is always an acceptable document of identity within the United States, for a government purpose.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:14 am#27 Dana R Pico:
There are legitimate state interests that a passport is not acceptable as identification for: ie, residency.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:23 amShocking indeed, but a predictable result of the 24th Amendment, which we all know says:
Or something like that.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:47 amAlphie/stef, lord of non sequiturs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:57 am#29 Xrlq: Dang, wish you had been around to hep’ them FF fellers when they was drafting all that high history class stuff.
I might o’ got better grades!
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:05 amWhat a freakin’ surprise, stef doesn’t understand!
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:15 am#31: Duh, makes a little more sense as “…high school history class stuff.”
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:50 amLemme see now, the picture in the passport matches, and the utility bill you got in your hand corresponds to the address on the voter roll.
The passport replaces the utility bill in Voter ID states.
It has no address.
steve (606637) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:55 am#34:
As stated in #28,
There is no requirement for any state to accept a passport as a sole means of identification if it doesn’t meet the objective of accurately identifying the individual for the purpose that his identity need be established.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:03 amAccepting a passport over a utility bill is part of the Voter ID effort. It undermines the fraud prevention rationale when ballots can be handed out without address verification.
A 90-year-old probably showed her birth certificate when she registered decades ago. Now, with no passport and unable to drive, she has to find her way back to the state office and prove residency with utility and tax bills. Many will just say “to hell with it.”
steve (606637) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:31 amGet ready for an increase in absentee ballot requests in Indianna. The Dems will not be denied their voter fraud opportunities.
Pigilito (5d4652) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:45 amSteve, I’m amused by the idea that it is too much trouble to go to an office to do voter registration, but not too much trouble to go to a precinct to vote.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:47 amSteve, I’m amused by the idea that it is too much trouble to go to an office to do voter registration, but not too much trouble to go to a precinct to vote.
They have these vans, you know.
And they’re already registered.
steve (606637) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:49 amI remember Voter Registrars coming door-to-door to register voters.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:54 amWhat, people don’t walk anymore?
There always seem to be an oversupply of VR’s at the super-market; perhaps they need to diversify their efforts?
“Steve, I’m amused by the idea that it is too much trouble to go to an office to do voter registration, but not too much trouble to go to a precinct to vote.”
I do believe you can register by mail. The opinion discussed how there are many more places to vote than places to get ID. Meaning, it is easier to do the latter but not the former. Of course, it is necessary to do the latter, and an addition to do the former. So even if easier, it is still an extra step.
stef (f35d9f) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:06 amAre you kidding? Every High School does a registration drive, every college and community college, every library and DMV and major local, state, and federal building almost does VR…
If getting to one of those places is a hardship, then so is going to cast your vote to begin with…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:12 am“Every High School does a registration drive, every college and community college, every library and DMV and major local, state, and federal building almost does VR…”
I’m with you. Registering is enough.
stef (861715) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:27 am#36:
Are you attempting to argue that you are in favor of measures to prevent voting fraud?
And this is a problem, why exactly?
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:42 amI’m with you. Registering is enough.
alphie has been in rare form the last couple days.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:46 amsteve,
This old granny you speak of has to produce a photo id to write her checks at the grocery store or at her pharmacy to get her schedule Rx’s. It is not the hardship you are trying to drum up hysteria for.
Only people who support Democrat Vote Fraud and Ballot Box stuffing are against Photo Id to vote.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/29/2008 @ 10:55 am“And this is a problem, why exactly?”
Because it infringes on voting rights to place burdens which frustrate people such that they do not vote.
“This old granny you speak of has to produce a photo id to write her checks at the grocery store or at her pharmacy to get her schedule Rx’s.”
Or she pays with cash and id’s herself with other forms. Do you really disbelieve the idea that there are people without ID?
stef (665bbf) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:27 amBut it doesn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms when IDs are required to purchase a firearm?
Steverino (e00589) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:42 am“But it doesn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms when IDs are required to purchase a firearm?”
Not as the 2nd and 24th amendments are currently understood. One of the cases cited by the court found it unconstitutional to require a voter to pay 1.50 (in 1968) to register. I think the current understanding of the second amendment allows us to charge even more than that for gun purchases.
stef (2591a6) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:56 amSteverino wrote: But it doesn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms when IDs are required to purchase a firearm?
As they say on Family Feud: “GOOD ANSWER! GOOD ANSWER!”
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 4/29/2008 @ 11:57 amCertainly alphie has the usual logic deficit.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:00 pmSPQR wrote: Certainly alphie has the usual logic deficit.
I don’t mind people being ridiculous. Being ridiculous and vulgar like you know who gets tiresome.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:08 pmThe price of a good has nothing to do with requiring ID in order to own it. Your answers get ever more disingenuous.
Steverino (e00589) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:10 pmAddress verification of voters who are least likely to enjoy mobility and travel abroad is not what motivated this drive. It is, however, the effect.
No one wants illegals showing up with a stolen electric bill to vote. But I don’t want the elderly – who have not missed an election in their adult lives – to undergo separate address verification that conveniently sidesteps the passport holder.
We already vote privately by computer–we just visit a public place to do so. What will be lost when we all vote from remote terminals instead of at the local polling place?
steve (eb0904) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:19 pmAlphie/Stef #43:
I take it that as long as Alphie/Stef is registered to vote, you have no problem with me showing up at the polls and voting as you? Cool.
Alphie/Stef #49:
Gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about taxes per se while the Twenty-Fourth does, while neither says word one about requiring someone to produce an ID? Nah, couldn’t be that.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:34 pm“The price of a good has nothing to do with requiring ID in order to own it.”
If getting ID or sidestepping the ID requirement is a burden it increases the cost of getting that good. Maybe in actual price (1.50 being an unconstitutional example) or by causing individuals some other burden, like a religious objection to picture ID.
But the basic idea is that increasing the burden of having a firearm is ok in ways that increasing the burden of voting is not.
stef (665bbf) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:37 pm#54:
And clue me in, what “drive” is this?
Let me talk to you about this bridge I have that runs over to Brooklyn.
I don’t believe that passport holders should be exempt from address verification…but I suspect that isn’t what you mean here, is it?
Voter identification verification.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:40 pm“I take it that as long as Alphie/Stef is registered to vote, you have no problem with me showing up at the polls and voting as you? Cool.”
Are you a lawyer? That would be a crime, and I suspect may get you disbarred for dishonesty. You’d wish your problems were just with me.
stef (6e6b68) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:43 pmJust so everyone knows, from the Indiana DMV site:
A state ID costs $13.
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:49 pmIf you are over 65 or disabled, it costs $10.
If you provide documentation of your inability to pay $13 or $10, it is free. Said documentation is your filling out a form stating you are unable to pay and signing your name at the bottom.
Ah, but there’s the rub… How would you prove it?
It isn’t like he had to show ID or anything…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:59 pmAre you a lawyer? That would be a crime, and I suspect may get you disbarred for dishonesty. You’d wish your problems were just with me.
No, I’m a homeless person whom my local precinct captain buys a bottle of Ripple for and drives me from precinct to precinct to vote. And one of the guys I’ll be voting for will be the local Democrat prosecutor.
nk (1f1707) — 4/29/2008 @ 12:59 pmAnd clue me in, what “drive” is this?
What else would you call legislatures enacting nearly a identical solution in search of a problem? And without noting whether the same groups that truck elderly and poor voters to the polls on Election Day would be able to do the same to get people their IDs? Elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate have a singular burden.
Paranoia guides bad policy for specific purposes – in this case to suppress the vote.
steve (eb0904) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:01 pmYep, steve, the only motivation is to suppress the vote. That anyone might want to actually increase confidence in the integrity of the election process just can’t be true.
And it isn’t paranoid, given events in recent years such as in Washington state, with tainted elections. Not to mention voter registration corruption like ACORN.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:06 pmYes, because doing anything to prevent voter fraud is bad, Steve. righto…
Mind if I vote in your place next election?
Are you THAT unaware as to what you can use to get a state ID? I mean, seriously…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:09 pm“Ah, but there’s the rub… How would you prove it?”
If jail and disbarment are at issue, hopefully with more evidence than it takes to convince the supreme court that this is a problem.
stef (2b5cca) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:10 pm#63:
Oh, my goodness! Those meanie legislators whose only goal is to disenfranchise voters have all that time on their hands to ignore real problems and make some up instead?
Got a newsflash for ya’ pal. Vote fraud is a demonstrated problem in a number of jurisdictions, and those of us who might be or might have been disenfranchised by it aren’t trying to rectify the problem by disenfranchising others.
The two sentences following in your post don’t make sense, in that they are unreadable, so I am not going to try to devine what you meant in order to respond to them.
However, this I will:
You don’t specify whose “paranoia” concerns you, but it is true that paranoia can drive poor public policy (witness Soviet Russia under Stalin and China under Mao for concrete examples). But since there isn’t any drive in this country “to suppress the vote,” you are seeking out problems in search of your “solution.”
And sorry, reduced ability as a result of age isn’t a discrimination by others, it’s just a fact of life that you too, will eventually have to deal with.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:31 pmThe two sentences following in your post don’t make sense, in that they are unreadable, so I am not going to try to devine what you meant in order to respond to them.
See if you can “devine” this:
It’s illogical to argue the address verification loophole for passport holders is trivial, at the same time arguing the bigger hurdle placed on a state’s most immobile *registered* voter is also trivial.
steve (83d1fe) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:49 pmI’ll ask again… How are you going to PROVE he did it?? How will you prove he voted in your place?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 1:59 pm“How are you going to PROVE he did it?? How will you prove he voted in your place?”
With witnesses.
But you really think X would commit voter fraud? I doubt it. And not just because he admitted on here.
Are there reported cases of people showing up at the polls and finding that someone already voted in their name? You’d think that would have made it into the opinion along with boss tweed in 1868.
stef (2b5cca) — 4/29/2008 @ 2:07 pmNo, I don’t think he would. He was pointing out the insane ease with which he COULD…
And yes, there ARE reported cases, but while we have in the past linked the stories, you have refused to believe they exist…
I’m sorry voting means so little to you that you are unwilling to make sure the people casting the ballot are who they say they are, and should actually BE voting…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 4/29/2008 @ 2:13 pm#68:
It’s also not logical to imply that anybody here is arguing that a verification loophole for passport holders would be trivial. Seems pretty obvious that I think that passport holders should be subject to such scrutiny, since I’ve noted that states can legitimately require additional information from individuals in addition to their passport for certain requirements, and voting is certainly one of those legitimate requirements.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/29/2008 @ 2:57 pmI was thinking about past instances of voter fraud, particularly the 1960 Presidential election wherein JFK won Illinois’ electoral votes with allegation of wide-spread voter fraud. Nixon, unlike the goracle, didn’t fight the results. I’ve read that their were also problems big time in Texas, but haven’t checked that out. I don’t doubt that LBJ had plenty of power in that regard.
Spending many years in Philly area, I am also well aware of dems ability to have dead people voting en masse. And here in s. fla. how the helpful lib operative “assist” the voting of the elderly voters in nursing homes.
Law of unintended consequences? Suppose dems didn’t cheat their way to a victory in ’60? Nixon is President eight years earlier. What becomes of Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis, the JFK assassination, stirrings of Vietnam war and our assassination of Viet leaders around that time?
Maybe no Watergate or at least NO Jimmy Carter in ’76? No American hostages taken in Iran? No?
Comic strip Monty has the space- time continuum disturbed. Monty is now a high level Republican strategist and as a result Al Gore is elected in ’00 and ’04 and actually solves AGW.
So how will the various options play out historically- Hillary, Obama, McCain?
madmax333 (1166a1) — 4/29/2008 @ 3:39 pmVoter Fraud…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/29/2008 @ 4:05 pmIIRC, over 4500 voters were found to be registered in both NY and FL in 2004 – now that is a violation. Never did find out how many of them voted in both jurisdictions.
Because of FL property-tax rules, it is very beneficial to be a FL “resident” for tax purposes; the question is, why would you want to continue being a NY resident too (are car registrations cheaper there)?
“IIRC, over 4500 voters were found to be registered in both NY and FL in 2004 – now that is a violation.”
I’ve registered in every state I ever lived in. I doubt they all perfectly clean up their voter rolls.
stef (b7ee98) — 4/29/2008 @ 4:56 pmSo we are clear here, stef/alphie and steve are arguing in favor of legal voters being disenfranchised.
JD (5f0e11) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:29 pmNo, JD, they are arguing in favor of easier voter fraud by Democrats.
Oops, you are right. Same thing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 5:35 pmDoesn’t just one fraudulent vote that is opposite my vote disenfranchise my vote? What about my right to have my vote counted?
Tanny O'Haley (54659c) — 4/29/2008 @ 6:20 pmOK, after reading the Harper case I just had an Emily Littella moment. That case struck down state poll taxes on equal protection grounds. It did not implicate the 24th Amendment, except maybe in the sense of begging the question of why Congress and the states had bothered enacting one if the Fourteenth Amendment compelled the same result anyway.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:18 pmMaybe because Equal Protection of the Law does not mean what the Supreme Court thinks it means? That it means refusal to enforce a law to the detriment of a despised minority and not failure to enact a law for a (Supreme Court created) special group?
nk (1f1707) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:31 pm*enact a law for the benefit of*
nk (1f1707) — 4/29/2008 @ 7:33 pmGlenn linked to this piece about the Democrat caucuses in Texas that tells us that Democrats think requiring photo ID is just fine. When its to their benefit.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 8:37 pmLike that’s any kind of surprise…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:20 pmNow Scott, I was shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:22 pmEveryone should get a Photo ID when they register. If they lose it, they have to re-apply in person. No absentee ballots, no e-voting, no provisional ballots. No registrar accepts passports, utility bills, student IDs or Social Security cards. You haul your bony ass to the polling place before closing and get handed a ballot when your voter card is scanned. Disability, illness or being out of town are not valid excuses. The only exception: active-duty military.
And keep national elections on Tuesdays after the harvest. As an agrarian society, most of us travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote. If elections were moved to Monday, people would need to begin travel on Sunday and they’d miss church.
steve (0e23c8) — 4/29/2008 @ 9:47 pmWait, what ? There are whole states where you can vote without showing ID ? All you’d have to do is get names on the rolls and have people show up and vote those names. My god, that’s appalling. These states help elect Federal officials ?
Michael Llaneza (925c0c) — 4/30/2008 @ 12:57 am“Everyone should get a Photo ID when they register”
Even those with religious objections to photo id?
“Disability, illness or being out of town are not valid excuses. The only exception: active-duty military.”
I’ve never understood this hostility towards government gaining the consent of the governed.
stef (1d4dfc) — 4/30/2008 @ 4:51 amThe issue, stef, is thatwe’d rather see only the people who SHOUDL be voting, vote…
Unlike, you know… The dead…
When that happens, it make it hard to argue that the governed had much of a say…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/30/2008 @ 4:59 am“The issue, stef, is thatwe’d rather see only the people who SHOUDL be voting, vote…”
The disabled, those who are out of town, in college, those who are on vacation, on business trips, in the hospital, those who have religious objections to photo ID, all those people SHOULD be voting. Maybe it is not hostility to these people voting, it is just ignorance.
stef (87fe55) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:06 amHuh… Wasn’t aware that steve’s pronouncement was law.
Here I thought there were still absentee ballots, a huge number of places to cast your vote, and plenty of warning for those for whom travel is in their future to exercise some option to cast their vote…
Name me one group that has a religious objection to photo ID that participates in out elections.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:19 am#88 Scott Jacobs:
What alphie fails to realize is that in this country, the citizens aren’t “governed,” but instead the government exists solely at our pleasure.
And attempts at subjecting us to being “governed” generally tend to raise the ire of the citizens.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:21 am“Name me one group that has a religious objection to photo ID that participates in out elections.”
I suspect pretty much all religious groups participate in our elections. Objection to photo ID’s has come from people like the Amish and Mennonite. Have you heard of any others who you imagine dont participate in our elections?
stef (87fe55) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:34 amstef, you are an idiot, or a slave to the party of the government, by the government, and only for the government. You are taking a TINY minority of disfunctional people and making them the rule, instead of an exception.
Oh, stef, I don’t know what illegal pharmacy you frequent, but you have to prove yourself with ID in Iowa.
PCD (5c49b0) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:44 amWho, conveniently enough, also have religious objections to voting. Once you limit the discussion to those who do have religious objections to being photographed but don’t have religious objections to participating in civic life generally, you end up with a very small group indeed. They’ll need to be accommodated somehow on a case-by-case basis, but they are not an excuse to abolish photo ID requirements for the rest of us, as you seem to be implying.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/30/2008 @ 5:54 am“You are taking a TINY minority of disfunctional people and making them the rule, instead of an exception.”
The amish are dysfunctional?
“Who, conveniently enough, also have religious objections to voting.”
That is convenient, but it is still their right. And I do see examples of discussion of Mennonnite voting. I have also heard of Muslim objections to photo ID, or to the removal of veils which you think people would be asked to do when they show up to vote.
“They’ll need to be accommodated somehow on a case-by-case basis, but they are not an excuse to abolish photo ID requirements for the rest of us, as you seem to be implying.”
Again with you imputing policies to me. Someone above said “everyone should get ID” and I asked, “even those with religious objections”? To you this implies abolishing requirements for the rest of us.
stef (57aa5a) — 4/30/2008 @ 6:30 amIt shouldn’t be a problem to reveal their face to another woman. And, as I’ve heard so many times, Islam does not require a woman to cover her face. That’s cultural, not religious, and the cultures that require it don’t allow women to vote anyway, so that shouldn’t present a conflict at the ballot box.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/30/2008 @ 6:48 am“That’s cultural, not religious, and the cultures that require it don’t allow women to vote anyway, so that shouldn’t present a conflict at the ballot box.”
I’m not so sure we’ll have such a neat match, just like I’m not so sure we have such a neat match with the Mennonites voting.
But it seems that at least we can agree that not all people should have to show voter ID and have that ID be checked against their looks by the poll worker/bouncer.
stef (dfd808) — 4/30/2008 @ 6:58 amUh, no. Not sure where you got that idea, and the SCOTUS, which gets the final word in such matters, does not agree.
Pablo (99243e) — 4/30/2008 @ 7:10 am“Not sure where you got that idea, and the SCOTUS, which gets the final word in such matters, does not agree.”
IIRC, their final word was open to an as applied challenge.
stef (665bbf) — 4/30/2008 @ 7:22 amstef – Did you actually read the SCOTUS decision or are you bloviating for the sake of bloviating?
If you read it, it seems tough to argue that a case which was dismissed through summary judgement twice before reaching the Supreme Court because the plaintiffs could not present any documented evidence of a significant additional burden on a class of voters of obraining a photo ID for in person voting.
The Supremes affirmed. The interests of the state in ensuring the integrity of elections and public confidence in the election process outweighed any insignificant and unmeasurable burdens on an unquantifiable number of voters of obtaining a photo ID purely for the purposes of in person voting.
What you are arguing for is to undermine the integrity of elections and public confidence in the election process with your position.
I believe that is your position and the position of the Democratic party.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/30/2008 @ 7:58 amstef – Your chances of making a better argument against the Indiana law than the petitioners in thew SCOTUS case on this blog are facially ludicrous. I don’t know why you keep spinning the same old indefensible and undocumentable crap.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:02 amBut it seems that at least we can agree that not all people should have to show voter ID and have that ID be checked against their looks by the poll worker/bouncer.
Wrong, again. SHOCKA!
JD (75f5c3) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:03 amdaleyrocks – alphie/stef does not care about the integrity of the vote. It just wants free and unfettered voting for anyone, wherever and whenever they want. It is arguing things like poll taxes, and inconvenience to obtain something as simple as a free state ID. It shows the simplicity, and mendoucheity of its thinking.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:10 amJD – Is that a left brain or a right brain thing, or more likely a no brain thing?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:14 amDaleyquacks:
Where’s my beer? You’re supposed to bring me a beer!
DW 5000 (e072de) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:29 amDW5000 – Just go back to calling people racists.
daleyrocks – Neither, but that was funny. It is willful and intentional.
JD (75f5c3) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:37 amSW 30 – Juicebox is more your speed, junior. Call you momma. She’s upstairs.
Another mensa member from the left drops in for a visit. We are truly blessed.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/30/2008 @ 9:08 amStephie/Alf 95:
Actually, no, it doesn’t. This comment by Stef 21, however, does:
As does this comment by Stef 43:
And this quote by Stef #47:
Then there’s this comment by Stef #56:
Gee, I don’t know how any reader could possibly have concluded that you oppose photo ID requirements for voting generally, rather than merely advocating special accommodations for the few who have bona fide religious objections to being photographed. Maybe if you could get all those other Stefs to post under different names it would be easier for the rest of us to keep your respective positions clear.
Xrlq (b71926) — 4/30/2008 @ 9:28 am“stef – Did you actually read the SCOTUS decision or are you bloviating for the sake of bloviating?”
Parts. And some of the commentary on scotusblog. Like this: “But I disagree with those who suggest that the Crawford shuts the courthouse door entirely, even to discrete groups of voters who can demonstrate that a nondiscriminatory election regulation imposes a disproportion impact on their groups.”
“Wrong, again. SHOCKA!”
You do realize that the Indiana law allows for exceptions, allows for the idea that not all people should have to show ID to vote.
stef (5bea53) — 4/30/2008 @ 9:57 am“You do realize that the Indiana law allows for exceptions, allows for the idea that not all people should have to show ID to vote.”
stef – Apart from filling out a provisional ballot and proving identification later, which part of the law allows that elections should not have integrity as you are arguing above.
What exceptions are specifically allowed?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/30/2008 @ 10:08 amStef, provide for us your examples of how avoiding the photo ID can be done and still provide reasonable and quick (as reasonable and quick as a state photo ID) that will provide voter fraud security as reasonable and successful as state issued photo ID can do.
We await your suggestions…
reff (bff229) — 4/30/2008 @ 10:21 am#108 Xrlq: The “And this is a problem, why exactly?” comment was mine, actually, back at #44; and referred to the fact the some elderly individuals will choose not to vote due to the infirmities of age…something that got lost in translation to whatever planetoid alphie/stef is currently orbiting, and something that the elderly have a right to do rather than being hounded for their votes.
I’m still amused that alphie/stef hasn’t realized that it was its komeraden in politik steve attempting sarcasm when he said “Everyone should get a Photo ID when they register.” at #85.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 4/30/2008 @ 10:46 amAlso, “substantial” doesn’t mean 10 people…
It means hundreds, if not thousands of people, not a teeny-tiny group of 3 who will likely purposefully act in ways to make getting the ID harder than it needs to be.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/30/2008 @ 12:04 pm“Stef, provide for us your examples of how avoiding the photo ID can be done and still provide reasonable and quick (as reasonable and quick as a state photo ID”
The exemptions are here:
http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/exempt.html
But the point is if there is no reasonable and quick alternative, then we shouldn’t be imposing those burdens on individuals who do not have ID.
stef (af3616) — 4/30/2008 @ 12:30 pmStef, an excellent response, and it meets all of the necessary requirements that will protect the public against voter fraud…
Yet, your answer is so very much harder than just getting an ID and voting, so, it is not as quick, and places an even harder requirement on those who want to avoid the photo ID.
So, are you still opposed to the SCOTUS decision??? If so, please defend your points…
reff (59b2ad) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:09 pmAnd, I see where I have misinterpreted your response, and you are opposed to “burdens” on individuals who do not have ID…so, I guess you oppose the SCOTUS decision…
So, give us your options…show us how fraud can be avoided without the burdens…
You can’t, can you???
And, since the Indiana Democrat Party can’t do it either, what exactly are you complaining about, anyway???
reff (59b2ad) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:12 pmNo one really ever knows what the hell alphie/stef is talking about.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:19 pmBut, she needs to try to make a point, at least more than the three members of the SCOTUS that agree with her…not that they are any smarter than she it….
reff (59b2ad) — 4/30/2008 @ 8:29 pm“So, are you still opposed to the SCOTUS decision?”
I think it places a burden. Individuals without ID can simply affirm at their place of voting, rather than having to make another trip on another workday to a courthouse far from where they voted. That is a burden unjustified by the record shown.
“So, give us your options…show us how fraud can be avoided without the burdens…”
The record shows Indiana is avoiding fraud. But one way to avoid it which Indiana is not doing, and in fact it argued for the ID because Indiana was not doing it, is keeping their voter rolls in good shape. And not Katherine Harris good shape.
stef (7ae49a) — 5/1/2008 @ 5:05 am119, stef, ever the Democrat stooge. Did you ever stop to hear yourself being an idiot? Harris kept the voting rolls cleaner than Daley’s Chicago, and for your information, than the Democrat vote registrars in Iowa. Come to Dubuque, I’ll show you Democrat vote fraud. Oh, the penalty for you is that you get a swift kick in the brains for each fraud vote I show you.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/1/2008 @ 6:09 amI do not really want to engage in debate silly little people I just want to be reflexively contrarian and ramble on throwing random barbs along the way I make no actual points except when I assert my opinion as fact and I am much smarterer than the Supreme Court except when they talk about abortion then they are right on target
The ghost of stef (75f5c3) — 5/1/2008 @ 6:32 am“The record shows Indiana is avoiding fraud. But one way to avoid it which Indiana is not doing, and in fact it argued for the ID because Indiana was not doing it, is keeping their voter rolls in good shape. And not Katherine Harris good shape.”
Stef – The courts were as impressed with these arguments as everyone on this thread. Go figure.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 6:48 amStef, everytime I hear of purging of voter rolls, I also hear Democrat pols screaming about supressing voters/turnout. Could it be possible Indiana was not purging rolls because the Demos there run the voter registration system???
You couldn’t answer the question….
Thankfully, the SCOTUS sees the best option, the one with the least burden (all someone has to do is go get an ID???) and, more importantly, they finally allowed for “reasonable” rules to be put in place to protect the sanctity of the vote….
And, you have a problem???
reff (bff229) — 5/1/2008 @ 6:57 amThat was the most honest thing I’ve ever hear Stef say… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/1/2008 @ 6:59 am“Stef, everytime I hear of purging of voter rolls, I also hear Democrat pols screaming about supressing voters/turnout.”
Well if its done Katherine Harris style — were people with conviction dates in the future are taken out — it certainly is that. But now you have an example of how I don’t take the democrat position.
stef (48e229) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:08 am125, stef, in your juvenile attempts to demonize Katherine Harris, you are admitting that Democrats in the same position across the country are keeping the dead, the no longer residents, and fraudulent registrations on the rolls under the Sore Loserman mantra, “Count every vote!”.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:16 am“125, stef, in your juvenile attempts to demonize Katherine Harris,”
She removed from the voter rolls people with conviction dates in the future. In one county she even tried to remove the elections supervisor! That ain’t juvenile, and that ain’t me demonizing her. Thats all her doing.
We can ask whether this is election fraud. But instead, lets just say that the state can take responsibility for its voter rolls without doing it Katherine Harris style. But maybe that is too much to ask, and instead the cost of prevention of yet unseen Indiana fraud will be payed by voters.
stef (1bb625) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:37 amalgore would be the President today and this country would not be mired in this illegal war of choice that BushCo has subjected the world to and Katherine Harris had bad makeup and is a criminal.
The ghost of stef (75f5c3) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:40 amYou do realize that means they have been convicted, but not yet sentenced, right?
So they were, in fact, felons, and shouldn’t have been voting…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:44 am“She removed from the voter rolls people with conviction dates in the future. In one county she even tried to remove the elections supervisor!”
Of course you have citations for this don’t you stef?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:45 amWe can ask whether this is election fraud.
We can also ask if unicorns and fairies are real.
and instead the cost of prevention of yet unseen Indiana fraud will be payed by voters.
And this cost, of which you speak? What is it? Hint – they are free, you mendoucheous twit.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:50 amstef, you don’t believe in democracy when you allow vote fraud. You don’t have any evidence that fraud is being prevented in Indiana or elsewhere. You hate KH, but when Democrats are put in your face you are silent. That in and of itself invalidates ALL your arguments.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:57 am“You do realize that means they have been convicted, but not yet sentenced, right?”
One was scrubbed during the 2000 election for a conviction reported as being in 2007. How you think this means “they have been convicted but not sentenced,” I don’t know.
“Of course you have citations for this don’t you stef?”
You don’t remember?
http://rangevoting.org/PalastFlaFelons.html
“And this cost, of which you speak? What is it? Hint – they are free, you mendoucheous twit.”
For one, it is not ‘free’ if you have religious objections. It costs you your religious views.
“You hate KH”
I don’t hate her, just her work. We can let her work speak for itself. And I think we can all agree that this is not how you clean voter rolls.
stef (b03400) — 5/1/2008 @ 8:09 amOf course, you have my beer, don’t you, daley’scocks? Get me my beer and stop wasting bandwidth!
DW 5000 (e072de) — 5/1/2008 @ 8:10 amStef, if a person is not legally allowed to vote on November 1, why is it wrong to take their name off the rolls on October 31st?
If the supervisor was not legally allowed to vote, why would taking his name off be wrong?
Finally, go back to your post #114, where provisional posts are allowed, and find out that the same/similar rules apply in Florida, and see if someone was denied their legitimate privilage to vote. Since I believe the courts already in Florida ruled that this DID NOT HAPPEN, I’m wondering why you’re using that argument….
er..
ah…
Sorry all…I’m digressing again…
Mty apologies….
reff (bff229) — 5/1/2008 @ 10:13 am#128….
And, the Statue of Liberty would be wearing a veil….covering the tablets as well as her face….
Wonder about Her ankles…
Oh…
ah…
Damn…doing it again….got to work on that “digressing” thing….
reff (bff229) — 5/1/2008 @ 10:15 am“Stef, if a person is not legally allowed to vote on November 1, why is it wrong to take their name off the rolls on October 31st?”
If in 2000 you have a record that says someone is a convicted felon with a conviction date in the future, say, 2007, then perhaps it is not correct to take that person off the voter rolls based on that “conviction.”
“If the supervisor was not legally allowed to vote, why would taking his name off be wrong?”
The point is that the supervisor WAS legally allowed to vote.
stef (2685af) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:08 amStef, your first explanation is a joke….did you actually type that, or is someone holding a gun to your head??? Please show us the example that meets your standard from that year, and not some completely stupid analogy you’ve made up today….
Your second is covered by the provisional voter rules in Florida. Was he denied his vote???
No…
Next….
reff (bff229) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:29 amStef…your first example is so completely stupid that I think someone is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to make things up…
Is your example a fact from then, or did you just give us a completely ridiculous analogy in some foolish attempt to defend your point.
That did not happen in Florida, did it? No, it didn’t, so, why go there? Can’t you defend your own points without showing no intelligence at all…
Damn…did it again…
Digressing….no, stef, I won’t apologize to you…
Second, did the supervisor vote? Yes. How? Under the process of provisional votes? By appealing the decision to remove his name??? The process is in place, an no one doubts that names get removed that shouldn’t…that’s why we have appeals and provisional vote rules….
Now, give us some answer that actually meets the question something close to half way…
Oh, wait…
Yes, I know….
You can’t, can you???
reff (bff229) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:33 am“Is your example a fact from then,”
Its an example from the felon exclusion list that Katherine Harris was using. Its at the link I provided.
And yes, it is completely ridiculous and completely stupid. Thats why I say that cleaning up voter rolls should not be done Katherine Harris style.
“Second, did the supervisor vote? Yes. How? Under the process of provisional votes? By appealing the decision to remove his name?”
The supervisor refused clean the voter rolls, refused to use the entire list of names because she knew it had errors in it. So I’m guessing she voted like normal.
“Now, give us some answer that actually meets the question something close to half way…”
I gave you facts, and you just don’t believe them. So there’s really no more to do, is there?
stef (6df5eb) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:38 amreff, don’t confuse stef’s strawmen with her clouds of obfuscation and baseless, juvenile demonization.
stef, made up an example that would tend to prove her right, except she has all her facts wrong.
stef is one of a select group of people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote or to own a computer.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:39 am“stef, made up an example that would tend to prove her right, except she has all her facts wrong.”
Its right there, in #133.
http://rangevoting.org/PalastFlaFelons.html
stef (860987) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:54 amPCD – stef’s vote cancels yours out.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/1/2008 @ 11:57 am#143 JD: I am so glad to see that you’ve taken on the role of bringing sunshine and lightness into the lives of the rest of us! And you’re so good at it too! 😉
/How’s the wee ‘un doing?
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:15 pm//Getting any sleep?
Has anyone looked up stef’s source, rangevoting? It is a crackpot site!
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:17 pmStef, since that report was dated march, 2002, it’s obvious to me that the 2007 dates were typos. Now, I agree that the entries should have been investigated and clarified before removing the voter from the rolls, but to say that they were removing people convicted in the future is a bit disingenuous.
Steverino (e00589) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:31 pmStef, only a “bit” disingenuous? That’s a first.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:33 pm“but to say that they were removing people convicted in the future is a bit disingenuous.”
I meant to highlight that the list was unreliable. Clearly you can’t remove someone if your records show them being convicted 7 years from now. And if you do? Then sure, go ahead and say they removed people based on future convictions. Because thats what it is. Its idiotic, but just shows that when voter lists are cleaned up, they shouldn’t be done Katherine Harris style.
stef (8bb588) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:37 pmYou know it’s a shame, all of those people working in the FL SecState office, and not one of them was allowed to do anything without the direct supervision of Harris. You would think that they would do things better than that; but then, everyone knows she is just an authoritarian neo-Nazi, isn’t she?
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:41 pmEW1 – 3 weeks old yesterday, and getting prettier by the minute. She takes after her mother. We sleep alot, 3 hours at a time.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/1/2008 @ 12:43 pm#150 JD:
“Sleeping like a baby!” 🙂
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/1/2008 @ 1:01 pmThank goodness for that! If she took after you, she’d probably make a pretty homely-looking woman. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/1/2008 @ 1:09 pmSo that Fl. election supervisor who refused to take KH’s list let ineligible voter go ahead and vote while knowing that they were ineligible. Nicely done.
Those inadvertant FL. errors sound like they hardly made a dent in the new democratic voters Clinton and Gore created down there by deliberately speeding up the naturalization process in the years preceeding the election, but let’s not digress.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 2:50 pmDW 30 – What are you doing here? Isn’t it nap time?
Didn’t your mother get you your juice box? You know it’s illegal for minors to drink alcohol.
How about a pudding cup! Or a brain, seems like you need one of those.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 2:53 pm“So that Fl. election supervisor who refused to take KH’s list let ineligible voter go ahead and vote while knowing that they were ineligible.”
If she didn’t trust the list its hard to argue she knew they were ineligible.
“Those inadvertant FL. errors sound like they hardly made a dent in the new democratic voters Clinton and Gore created down there by deliberately speeding up the naturalization process in the years preceeding the election, but let’s not digress.”
I’ve heard this sort of complaint before. Odd that people get mad that citizens get approved speedily, or that when faced with increased applications immigration authorities devote more resources to naturalizing US citizens.
stef (4891b1) — 5/1/2008 @ 3:01 pmOdd that people get mad that citizens get approved speedily, or that when faced with increased applications immigration authorities devote more resources to naturalizing US citizens.
Not odd stef when its being done transparently to stack an election as it was done prior to 2000.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 3:09 pm“Not odd stef when its being done transparently to stack an election as it was done prior to 2000.”
Say more. How transparently is the government doing its job of efficiently processing new americans?
stef (7ca4a3) — 5/1/2008 @ 7:17 pmStef – It was a continuation of an import-a-vote program called Citizenship USA that Gore spearheaded prior to the 1996 election when that administration politicized the INS. It was nor efficiency – it was bypassing procedures to get voters (many with criminal records, no background checks performed). An independent audit of the program by KPMG was pretty damning. It was concentrated in key electoral states like Florida, Illinois, Texas, New York, and New Jersey. You really need to know how your folks try to suvert the system before accusing others of wrong doing.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/1/2008 @ 8:04 pmStef, you are really going to pretend not to have heard of that? Sheesh.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/1/2008 @ 8:08 pm“Stef, you are really going to pretend not to have heard of that? Sheesh.”
I’ve heard accussations. But I’ve also heard that there were incredible increases in citizenship applications due to rises in immigration (and also, of course, the timing after the 86 amnesty) that mean it makes sense that there were increased applicants and therefore increased approvals. But lets see the KPMG audit. I gave a link. Who else got one?
Of course, the supreme court might always just say that there being a partisan reason for it isn’t a problem, so long as we don’t have an unneeded burden on fundamental rights.
stef (732fa4) — 5/2/2008 @ 4:35 amFolks – I used to think that Levi was one of the more irritating partisan hacks around, but at least he is willing to make a point, vile as it may be.
stef/alphtard on the other hand, is a disingenuous little partisan hack. He/she/it could not care less whether or not algore politicized a naturalization program to get votes. That is fair. ID – UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!! Her mendoucheity knows no bounds.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:41 am“It was a continuation of an import-a-vote program called Citizenship USA ”
Wikipedia marks it as [citation needed]. Perhaps you can contribute one to them.
stef (eadcd7) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:23 amHere’s what the inspector general had to say:
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0007/conclusions.htm
“As detailed earlier in our report, we found that CUSA was neither created nor executed for reasons relating to increasing the number of persons who would be eligible to vote in November 1996.”
But it does look like they put performance goals on the INS that it was incapable of handling as an organization. Too bad. I’ve always thought that in focusing on our immigration problem, we should find legal solutions. Reducing backlogs and increasing pathways of legal immigration are part of that.
stef (8bb588) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:37 amstef – You leave out all the good parts of the report – like the evidence relating to goals of completion before the election, election being a motivation, etc. They just didn’t want to pin it as the primary motivation. Why can’t you even honestly excerpt a document?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:49 amWikipedia marks it as [citation needed]. Perhaps you can contribute one to them
Perhaps you can do it as well as anybody else.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:52 am“- You leave out all the good parts of the report – like the evidence relating to goals of completion before the election …”
Instead I just go for the conclusion which weighs all the evidence. Imagine that. But since you’re familiar with the report I would like to take a look at the parts you want to highlight for me. Link away.
Its a neat report. Thanks for highlighting the issue to me. I don’t find it so shocking that people would want their citizenship in time for an election — it is one of, if not THE, key benefit of being a citizen over having a green card.
stef (dfd808) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:59 amOPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE !!!!eleventy1! PICTURE IDENTIFICATION IS A POLL TAX !!!!!!!!!eleventy1! Women, elderly, minorities, and children hardest hit.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/2/2008 @ 7:12 amMy monitor is flashing – stef, I think it is your giant blinking neon HYPOCRISY sign coming through the internet.
Imagine that – Memos by the particpants involved in the CUSA program showing pressure and motivation to complete goals prior to the election because the new citizens are presumed to vote democratic, but no conclusion of politicization of the process because naturalization is the legitimate function of the INS.
Nicely done.
INDIANA voter ID law – Stef ignores the conclusion of the authorities because it is inconvenient for her.
GIANT BLINKING NEON HYPOCRISY SIGN
thanks stef.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 7:28 am“Imagine that – Memos by the particpants involved in the CUSA program showing pressure and motivation to complete goals prior to the election because the new citizens are presumed to vote democratic,”
I went and looked at the Inspector General’s report, found the conclusion and gave you a link. And then I asked you to give me a link. But instead I get all caps eleventy type shit that JD thinks is funny.
stef (861715) — 5/2/2008 @ 7:43 amThat would be your problem, not mine stef.
Keep telling yourself it was all above board if it helps.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 7:48 am“Keep telling yourself it was all above board if it helps.”
The problem is that you’re going to think its inappropriate if its the normal sort of president responding to the concerns of an interest group. But in the end, I’m not so concerned with the fact that people become citizens faster and in time to participate in our polity. And then there is the inspector general telling me one thing, in a report I link to, and you telling me another, but without really pointing to it.
But i do like how this is a nice perfect storm of wingnuttia: immigrants, citizenzhip, clinton, hispanics, democrats and voting.
stef (ec92aa) — 5/2/2008 @ 8:06 amstef, you are the biggest wingnut here.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/2/2008 @ 8:46 amI understand stef – If I don’t point to it, it doesn’t exist.
Denial is strong in you.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 12:42 pmdaleycocks, you never want to back your stuff up with links. You demand links often enough, but scoff at those who demand it of you–talk about your big blinking “Hypocrisy” signs! I’ve given up expecting you to prove your contentions, but I haven’t given up expecting that beer. Get me a beer.
DW 5000 (e072de) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:12 pm“I understand stef – If I don’t point to it, it doesn’t exist.”
Its not that it doesn’t exist, I’m quite sure you don’t make shit up. Its that it’s unhelpful when all I have to go on is your explanation and assertion. Your telling me that I (and the inspector general) are ignoring some evidence which you know about but don’t share doesn’t help at all.
There’s really not much wiggle room in the discussion when the debate is between the assertions of some anonymous uncited source on the internet and an inspector general’s report.
stef (87fe55) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:22 pmSW 30 – Good Day to you. Who let you out of the Greenwald swamps? Isn’t it scary out here?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:29 pmStef – I don’t know why it’s difficult for you to find material in reports you’ve already linked. Check out section D and surrounding sections to get to the good parts. Just because I didn’t point to it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but you can deny it if it helps, as I said earlier.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0007/whitehouse.htm#_Toc489261263
I particularly liked the fact that the OIG did not speak to Harold Ickes about his role in CUSA and he was intimately involved. In fact a number of Clintonites declined to speak with the OIG on the issue, which sounds like a familiar pattern regarding that frequently investigated group. Harold Ickes, you will recall, is a particularly odious character.
“Of course, as Commissioner Meissner told the OIG, the White House is not a “monolith” and it contains a number of officials whose agendas differ. Panetta told the OIG that he never discussed the issue of the naturalization backlog with Ickes, whose role he said was primarily, but not exclusively, to manage the White House campaign effort. Ickes’ involvement in addressing the naturalization backlog, however, indicates that there were discussions about the White House’s role in CUSA that Panetta may not have been privy to. Consequently, it follows that varying or mixed motives concerning the involvement of NPR in CUSA may have existed in the minds of different White House officials.
The evidence certainly does not support the contention that CUSA was created for narrow partisan gain. Nor does it support a claim that the White House and NPR hijacked the program to bend it toward such an electoral gain. The record does show, however, that particularly in response to calls by community groups and other concerned parties, White House officials were quite aware of the electoral dimensions of the naturalization backlog.”
“However, several former White House employees declined our request for an interview, including former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, former Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel,444 and former staff members John Emerson, Aracelli Ruano, and Jennifer O’Connor.”
The OIG founds a bunch of things that smelled fishy and the national media agreed.
“We found several pieces of evidence showing that the White House was aware of and interested in the connection between naturalization, voting, and the 1996 election. The evidence includes:
· The September 26, 1995, memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, drafted by Gerri Ratliff, to Kevin O’Keefe at the White House. The memorandum discussed INS naturalization initiatives and included a page entitled “Talking Points Re Voter Registration” that discussed INS’ limited role in facilitating voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. The memorandum noted that due to INS’ limited resources, it would have to rely on partnerships with other organizations to expand voter registration opportunities.
A 1-page cover letter dated September 28, 1995, from O’Keefe to Ickes forwarding Ratliff’s memorandum. The cover letter included two paragraphs on voter registration, including the statement that “the pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters.”
Statements that INS employees in New York said Lyons made specifically referencing the November 1996 election.
Farbrother’s March 28, 1996, e-mail to the Vice President noting that INS was not going to be able to “produce a million new citizens before election day.”
Kamarck’s April 4, 1996, memorandum to the Vice President stating that “[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters.”
We also found evidence that more specifically refers to, or could be interpreted as referring to, the potential benefit to the Democratic Party of naturalizing a million new citizens in FY 1996.503
The March 13, 1996, O’Keefe memorandum to Ickes discussing that Skinny Sheahan, “our best field organizer,” was trying to figure out how to handle voter registration at a large naturalization ceremony in Chicago.
A conversation between Farbrother and Kamarck in which, according to Farbrother, Kamarck spoke of the President’s desire to involve NPR because of his belief that the large number of people in California waiting for naturalization represented likely votes for him in the 1996 election.
The memorandum written for Ickes by Stephen Warnath of the DPC expressing the Hispanic Caucus’ prospective view that “faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election.”
The letters written by Daniel Solis and Father Vega to various White House officials that included comments about how enhanced naturalization efforts could increase the number of potential Democratic voters in the 1996 election.504 ”
Good thing that stuff doesn’t exist unless somebody points it out.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:08 pmHere are a couple of contemporary news stories from lefty news sources confirming how fishy the whole deal smelled:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/01/gore.immigration.ap/index.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02EED9103DF932A3575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
These don’t exist either.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:11 pmDRJ – A little help from the comment filter please.
Thanks
[Lots of comments have ended up in the filter in the past week, even mine. I’m not sure why it’s happening but I’ll check it as often as I can. — DRJ]
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:13 pm“Stef – I don’t know why it’s difficult for you to find material in reports you’ve already linked. ”
I sent you the conclusion. Which weighed all that evidence. You told me I was ignoring evidence. So I assumed that meant there was something else.
Like the part you quote says, people being aware of an electoral dimension is different than people having a partisan motivation. Of course the electoral effect is obvious.
“Here are a couple of contemporary news stories from lefty news sources confirming how fishy the whole deal smelled:”
hah. lefty sources. Nice. Looks like they’re just reporting on the IG report though.
There is evidence that the INS was given performance goals it couldn’t handle, but, like the article you send me to says:
“The report said there is no evidence that the 1996 presidential election motivated the crash program, but at least one official in Gore’s government-reinvention office told investigators he felt pressure to have the backlog erased in time for the new citizens to vote in November.”
But again, you’re going to find this improper and I wont. To me, its democrats being responsive to an important interest group for them. That an attempt to ameliorate a ridiculous backlog. But a plan to rig the election? Good luck.
stef (dfd808) — 5/3/2008 @ 9:00 amIt’s that giant flashing neon hypocrisy sign stef. You turn it off when it’s convenient for you.
Plain for all to see.
Why did I know it was a waste of my time to point out the sections of the report I knew you were ignoring – Ickes involvement and refusal to cooperate with the investigation along with Rahm?
Because of your HYPOCRISY!!!!!Eleventy!!!
Your predictibility!!!!11!1!
Now about that SCOTUS decision that shows no evidence of disenfranchisement, stef, still sticking to your guns?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/3/2008 @ 10:07 am“Why did I know it was a waste of my time to point out the sections of the report I knew you were ignoring ”
I didn’t ignore them, its there.I’m fine with the IG report. It just doesn’t say what you think. but hte problem is that things i think aren’t such a big deal — lots of new legal citizens — are a problem for some.
“Now about that SCOTUS decision that shows no evidence of disenfranchisement, stef, still sticking to your guns?”
Saw all that fraud in 1868.
stef (b8a4bf) — 5/3/2008 @ 10:17 amThe whole agree to disagree thing is out of the question in this conversation. If you think that the SCOTUS decision is wrong, you do so because you think it will frustrate your side’s attempts at election fraud. No intelligent person can have an honest reason for opposition to showing an ID to vote.
martin (cd5d90) — 5/3/2008 @ 10:29 amStef – Here is the OIG’s lead in paragraph on there conclusion section to the White House invovlement in the program:
Conclusion
In the end, we are unable to make any conclusive determination whether White House officials sought to use the CUSA program as a means of increasing Democratic turnout in the 1996 general election. It is certainly true that the prospect of an impending general election was present in the thinking of a number of White House officials who pressed INS to accelerate its naturalization efforts. But that in itself is not necessarily indicative of any improper partisan motivation. The right to vote is, of course, a significant benefit of citizenship, and the opportunity to vote in a presidential election may, for many potential citizens, be the most important reason to seek citizenship.
You overstate your certainty in your wording given the actual body of the report, but I would expect no less.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/3/2008 @ 10:36 amIt is amusing to see Stef’s hypocrisy and shifting standards of proof.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/3/2008 @ 10:40 am“You overstate your certainty in your wording given the actual body of the report, but I would expect no less.”
My certainty? I quote the report. Youre the one that called it an “import a vote program” to clear backlogs.
stef (1bb625) — 5/3/2008 @ 11:44 am