freeman3 wrote:The burden of proof is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I would argue that given that voting is one of our most sacred rights the burden of proof is on your side to show that there significant levels of fraud that would justify impairing it's exercise.

As far as other countries using photo I'd, our country is a bit more sensitive to government impinging on our civil liberties than most. That is why the Billl of Rights was passed, out of a concern that an overly powerful central government does not trample individual rights.

Here, solely in the interests of partisan gain, you want to make it more difficult to vote.

You have no evidence--NO EVIDENCE--that the current voting system that does not require ID helps Democrats; while it is plainly obvious that the people who don't have ID are more likely to vote for Democrats.

Just because Republican leaders put out a sham cover story that voter ID laws are about fraud doesn't mean that I or any reasonable person has to buy it.

They got together and decided that they needed to reduce the number of Democrats who vote.

Not only have passed voter ID laws, but they passed laws getting rid of early voting, same day registration and voting, they have done nothing to reduce long lines at voting booths in minority communities, and tried to make it harder for those with a criminal history to vote. All of these steps are connected attempts to impair the right to vote for partisan gain.

freeman3 wrote:I need proof that Republicans decided as a strategy to pass voter ID laws? So it was just coincidence that voter ID laws were passed by Republican Legislatures in several states after the 2010 elections. That was all just a coincidence..

What level of fraud is acceptable? What level of voter suppression is acceptable to you?

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll anticipate and answer your question: no "voter suppression" is acceptable. However, with ample notice, ample access and a low pain threshold (cost), ID laws don't "suppress" anyone--unless they "self-suppress."

If getting an ID is to onerous, then what about buying groceries? Do they just pop up in your house? Nope, you have to go get them. Frequently.

So, why is a once every 4-10 year requirement for ID so "suppressive?" Does the travel "burden" of going to the grocery stop people from eating?

Your side only wants the option to commit fraud. Disprove it.

If a voter ID law costs 160,000 votes then I would accept that you need fraud in the thousands (or even tens of thousand of votes) to justify suppressing such votes. But that is not the way to look at it. First, you assess as to whether there is more than a few votes cast fraudulently (anything more than 1/100 of one percent, say--that is a hundred votes out of a million). If you find this level of fraud, the answer is not go to voter ID which will cause far more losses in valid votes then voter fraud.

Once you establish a sufficiently high level of fraud, you can randomly audit voters to make sure votes are not cast fraudulently, you can review voter lists to make sure they are accurate and up to date, and you can enforce criminal statutes against voting fraudulently And, remember, voter iD laws will not necessarily curb fraud (people can use fake IDS, people staffing voting booths can let people in to vote, etc.) And if you are really concerned about fraud when you pass voter iD laws, you take steps to ensure easier access to voting (same day registration, easier registration, early voting, etc.).

it is unacceptable to put in voter ID laws to curb far more votes than the handful of fraudulent votes that have been established. If you want a comprehensive reform, when you put in voter you need to make sure that is counter-balanced by provisions making it easier to vote. As it currently stands, the intent of these voter ID laws is to benefit Republicans.

freeman3 wrote:What military suppression of the vote are you talking about? http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ballots/2/
Give me some evidence of what you are talking about and then I can respond.

There were a number of overseas ballots missing postmarks or filled out in such a way that they were invalid under Florida law. A poll worker filled out the missing information on some absentee ballot applications; the Democrats moved to have the returned ballots thrown out because of this.[citation needed] These disputes added to the mass of litigation between parties to influence the counting of ballots.[citation needed] The largest group of disputed overseas ballots were military ballots.[citation needed] On November 19, 2000, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press and said that election officials should give the "benefit of the doubt" to military voters rather than disqualifying any overseas ballots that lacked required postmarks or witness signatures. Up until that point, the Democrats had pursued a strategy of persuading counties to strictly enforce those requirements disqualifying illegal ballots and reducing votes from overseas, which were predominantly cast for Bush.

Last week, however, the Pentagon's inspector general reported that attempts to locate and contact IVAO offices at overseas military installations failed about half the time.

"Results were clear. Our attempts to contact IVAOs failed about 50% of the time," the inspector general reported. "We concluded the Services had not established all the IVAOs as intended by the MOVE Act because, among other issues, the funding was not available."

The estimated cost of establishing functioning IVAOs at all overseas military bases not in combat zones is estimated at between $15 million and $20 million a year. We wasted $530 million on Solyndra but can't afford a relative pittance to ensure our soldiers are not disenfranchised.

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%. We need to encourage military voting and make it easier.

Is there a method in the administration's madness, a reason it doesn't want to make it easier for soldiers to vote? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that John McCain won 54% of the military vote in 2008 or that a May 2012 Gallup poll showed Mitt Romney pulling 58% to President Obama's paltry 34%.

The law also requires that states mail absentee ballots to their servicemen 45 days before an election so there's enough time to return and count them. The Department of Justice can file suit to ensure compliance but in 2010 was content to grant failing states waivers. As a result, about one-third of overseas troops who wanted to vote in 2010 couldn't, according to testimony at a House committee hearing in February.

The administration showed its true appreciation for military service when on July 17 the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in that swing state to strike down part of a state law governing voting by members of the military that gives them three extra days to cast their ballots. The Democrats objected that it discriminated against nonmilitary voters.

The National Defense Committee, a veterans organization, notes that "for each of the last three years, the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the president and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote."

However, implementation of the act has been spotty, with only 15 states having fully implemented it. In California, only 15 of its 58 counties failed to comply with the law, resulting in military absentee ballots not being counted as they were received too late. Yet, 90 percent of absentee ballots sent to American civilians living abroad are returned and counted, compared to 2/3rds of absentee ballots mailed by overseas military personnel.[2] In a report by the Overseas Vote Foundation released in January 2013, 21.6 percent of military voters did not receive their ballots, and 13.8 percent of military voters tried to vote but couldn't

Sassenach wrote:This argument gets more stupid every time it comes up. Voter ID laws are justifiable on their merits but are also largely a waste of time, fighting a problem that doesn't really exist to any meaningful degree (or which at least doesn't seem to be backed up with much in the way of evidence). I'm quite willing to believe that Republicans are bringing these laws in cynically to benefit them in elections (with a view to voter suppression in other words), and I guess that's a bad thing, but there again is it really so hard to apply for an ID ?

I honestly don't understand why this is such a hot issue here.

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, the Administration that assures us they know how to refine healthcare for all Americans, can't seem to implement voting protections for servicemen overseas--after four years in office.

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%. We need to encourage military voting and make it easier.