http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

With the DOJ promising to take the case against Texas concerning the strict photo ID requirements, it got me wondering. What other states have a strict voter ID law, and why did TX get singled out by Holder and the DOJ?

Idaho, South Dakota, Hawaii, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida and New Hampshire all require photo ID.

Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana and Kansas all have a specific ID needed to cast your ballot. Add Virginia and Arkansas to that lkist due to recent regulations.

We have discussed the ID pluses and minuses ad infinatum here. My question is why Texas?

bbauska wrote:http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

With the DOJ promising to take the case against Texas concerning the strict photo ID requirements, it got me wondering. What other states have a strict voter ID law, and why did TX get singled out by Holder and the DOJ?

Idaho, South Dakota, Hawaii, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida and New Hampshire all require photo ID.

Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana and Kansas all have a specific ID needed to cast your ballot. Add Virginia and Arkansas to that lkist due to recent regulations.

We have discussed the ID pluses and minuses ad infinatum here. My question is why Texas?

Holder said it was because a court held last year that there was racial animus in a redistricting plan.

That said, this is for political purposes. Holder wants to ignore the Constitution and punish Texas--if he can. Why? Because if they can turn Texas "blue," they'll never have to work to get a Democrat elected President--it will be automatic.

My guess: they'll help whoever sues Texas win in a lower court and get overturned by the USSC.

FOOs (Fans of Obama) don't want to admit it, but the President is plain enough: he will do what he wants, no matter what the Constitution says. This is just more of that.

Texas is 38 percent Hispanic--what state would you be more concerned that legal voters would not vote because of voter ID than Texas? And of course there are political reasons to fight these voter ID laws, the laws were passed for political reasons to lower the votes of groups that generally vote Democratic. And Texas, as DF notes, would make getting the presidency a whole lot easier for the Democrats.

freeman3 wrote:Texas is 38 percent Hispanic--what state would you be more concerned that legal voters would not vote because of voter ID than Texas? And of course there are political reasons to fight these voter ID laws, the laws were passed for political reasons to lower the votes of groups that generally vote Democratic. And Texas, as DF notes, would make getting the presidency a whole lot easier for the Democrats.

The issue for me is that no matter how easy a State makes it to get an ID card (one State even had a mobile unit to go to your neighborhood), Democrats deem it "too difficult."

Right. And, these same people drink no alcohol, operate no vehicles, buy no allergy medication, etc. ? Really?

freeman3 wrote:Texas is 38 percent Hispanic--what state would you be more concerned that legal voters would not vote because of voter ID than Texas? And of course there are political reasons to fight these voter ID laws, the laws were passed for political reasons to lower the votes of groups that generally vote Democratic. And Texas, as DF notes, would make getting the presidency a whole lot easier for the Democrats.

I don't care what state or what group it may benefit. If it is wrong it is wrong. It is wrong to pick one state over another...

Good point DF. Dems have no problem restricting rights to driving, drinking and buying certain cold medicines, they are behind requiring id for these things but when asked to prove who you are when voting, suddenly identification is an issue? We are allowed to vote, but we must know a vote is valid, allowing anyone to show up and vote as another person is wrong. Let's say I go to vote only to find someone has already voted as me!? While this has not happened to me, it would be incredibly easy to do. Know my name and address and simply sign in as me. I have purposely signed in vastly different ways, one time a script signature, another time in more block letters, another time left leaning, these people have never questioned why the signature did not even come close to matching what they have on file. Why is it so wrong to require proof of who you are? obtaining ID is not a big deal in the least and efforts to make it easier to get id only HELP these disadvantaged people, now they can get their cold medicine, now they can buy booze, now they can do all sorts of things that require id. This helps them, is the issue helping the unfortunate or is it one of trying to get a vote any way possible, even if illegal?

Voting is a fundamental right--driving and buying drugs are not. Since voting is fundamental any burden has to be justified. Evidence of significant fraud has not shown. And you have to be very naive (or blindly partisan) not to realize that the primary purpose is to reduce voter participation among groups that vote for Democrats. So you want to put restrictions that (1) we know will reduce turnout and (2) have not been shown to have any impact (because you have produced almost no evidence of fraud) If you're going to impair the exercise of a fundamental right then you need to come with a compelling government interest, which could be cutting down fraud but you need to prove that it exists first. It is not enough that you want to make sure that there is no fraud, you need to prove that there is significant fraud first.
And Brad I don't see anything wrong with the government prioritizing and selecting Texas as the state where it can do the most good. Government has limited resources and it makes sense Texas would be selected (there may be political reasons but there also apolitical reasons was selected.

wellll first off we do have voter fraud, of that their is no doubt. The degree of this fraud is almost certainly FAR higher than is reported or even known. To make the claim we have no problem is also blindly partisan is it not? To cheat is incredibly easy and any attempt to find or reduce such cheating is halted and called a ploy to prevent Democratic votes. So we know we have fraud, we know it's easy, we are aware it is almost certainly greater than we know, but we need to look the other way????

So what's wrong with requiring simple ID? Make ID easy to get a hold of and require that ID (that will in the end help these people in other ways) to be presented when voting. You can also make the claim that voter registration restricts one from voting. Heck, why not simply allow anyone to vote on a whim? Why require registration if this is such a vital right? If you want to increase lazy, know nothing morons to vote for your party, then why require registration ahead of time? If they can register is it not as simple to also require identification?

freeman3 wrote:Voting is a fundamental right--driving and buying drugs are not. Since voting is fundamental any burden has to be justified. Evidence of significant fraud has not shown.

I'm going to go a different route than Tom.

Your logic, freeman3, goes like this: there's no reason to show ID until we can prove voter fraud. Well, as Tom says, there has been voter fraud.

However, the bigger issue is: we can't know how much there is BECAUSE NO ID IS REQUIRED TO VOTE!

This is like claiming you can't prove murder without a body. You can, but people have to be willing to listen to the evidence. In this case, there have been many small cases of voter fraud, but what you really want us to do is prove what you prevent us from proving.

What would the voter fraud rate be with ID required?

Answer: a lot less than it is now.

You're perfectly willing to have other fundamental rights infringed: free speech, religion, ownership of guns, but voting is so sacrosanct that it is "wrong" to even verify eligibility?

And you have to be very naive (or blindly partisan) not to realize that the primary purpose is to reduce voter participation among groups that vote for Democrats.

You you have to be very naive (or blindly partisan) not to realize that the primary purpose of voter fraud is to increase votes for Democrats

So you want to put restrictions that (1) we know will reduce turnout and (2) have not been shown to have any impact (because you have produced almost no evidence of fraud)

1. Not proven, assumed by you.
2. False. Again, you are prohibiting its implementation and then saying there's no evidence it would have an effect. Can't you see that?

Why is having to show ID such a burden? Give a rational explanation for that and I'll support you. Until then, I'll just presume that you want Democrats

Refute this:

To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud.
More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide.
There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country.
More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.
Maryland affiliates of True The Vote uncovered cases of people registering and voting after their respective deaths.
This year, True The Vote uncovered more than 348,000 dead people on the rolls in 27 states.

California: 49,000
Florida: 30,000
Texas: 28,500
Michigan: 25,000
Illinois: 24,000

12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.
The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.
Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration.

Or this:

In its most recent study, the Pew Hispanic Center found that as many as 71 percent of Latino registered voters support the controversial law, which this year will be enforced for the first time in 11 states. Among all registered voters, the ID law, which requires voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot, is supported by 77 percent.

If you're going to impair the exercise of a fundamental right then you need to come with a compelling government interest, which could be cutting down fraud but you need to prove that it exists first. It is not enough that you want to make sure that there is no fraud, you need to prove that there is significant fraud first.

Why? Most countries have this. They think it's bizarre that we don't.

Fraud prevention should be a basic premise of our electoral system. Why wait until we have massive fraud?

Let me put it another way: if you thought the Republicans were involved in massive election fraud, would you support Voter ID? If Russians were flying in here and voting, would you support Voter ID? Why do we have to wait until an election is changed to require ID? Whose rights will be infringed? Can you prove it?

And Brad I don't see anything wrong with the government prioritizing and selecting Texas as the state where it can do the most good. Government has limited resources and it makes sense Texas would be selected (there may be political reasons but there also apolitical reasons was selected.

I think it's great because Texas will put a whuppin' on the DoJ.

freeman3 wrote:Voting is a fundamental right--driving and buying drugs are not. Since voting is fundamental any burden has to be justified. Evidence of significant fraud has not shown. And you have to be very naive (or blindly partisan) not to realize that the primary purpose is to reduce voter participation among groups that vote for Democrats. So you want to put restrictions that (1) we know will reduce turnout and (2) have not been shown to have any impact (because you have produced almost no evidence of fraud) If you're going to impair the exercise of a fundamental right then you need to come with a compelling government interest, which could be cutting down fraud but you need to prove that it exists first. It is not enough that you want to make sure that there is no fraud, you need to prove that there is significant fraud first.
And Brad I don't see anything wrong with the government prioritizing and selecting Texas as the state where it can do the most good. Government has limited resources and it makes sense Texas would be selected (there may be political reasons but there also apolitical reasons was selected.

I do see a problem with choosing Texas (certainly not for any positive reasons about Texas, I have been there and was not impressed!). To choose one state over another when the states are doing the same thing is to cost one state more than another. I see that discrimination as wrong. I thought the Federal Government needs to treat all states equally under the law. What if a state was told to no longer have slaves, but another state was allowed to retain them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Why no outrage over the way Canada does their voting? They require ID, the Netherlands, Germany, and so on? Where is the outrage in places like Indiana, why does the supreme court have no problem with requiring id? Seems like only the bleeding heart liberals have a problem to me.

And why is it a Republican "thing"? Republicans want fair elections, Democrats don't care about legality only in getting votes any way possible. Why isn't this a Democrat "thing"? Funny how liberals see only one angle and refuse to see any other viewpoint?

What you have shown DF is that there is sloppy record keeping not that there is actual fraud. Lack of proof of fraud means that Republicans, afraid of changing demographics, are trying to reduce the Democratic vote. Why haven't Republicans proposed methods of measuring the actual amount of fraud? Answer: they know any such study would reveal a de minimis amount of fraud.

freeman3 wrote:What you have shown DF is that there is sloppy record keeping not that there is actual fraud. Lack of proof of fraud means that Republicans, afraid of changing demographics, are trying to reduce the Democratic vote. Why haven't Republicans proposed methods of measuring the actual amount of fraud? Answer: they know any such study would reveal a de minimis amount of fraud.

Disappointing. Your response, that is.

Does that work in court? The other side gives evidence and you just give your opinion? Does that sway the jury?

46 States have had voter fraud convictions. Ever hear of Acorn?

Can you prove "a de minimis amount of" eligible voters not being able to vote because of ID requirements? Or, is that another one-way street?

Here is an estimate of 2 percent reduction in turn-out based on looking at such studies in total. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... laws/?_r=0
So take Texas for example. There were about eight million votes in Texas for president in the 2012 election. So 2 percent would total 160,000 votes. Contrast that with a handful of voter fraud cases.
So this is evidence, there is something I could take to the jury. 160,000 votes lost versus virtually zero provable instances of fraud.

freeman3 wrote:Here is an estimate of 2 percent reduction in turn-out based on looking at such studies in total. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... laws/?_r=0
So take Texas for example. There were about eight million votes in Texas for president in the 2012 election. So 2 percent would total 160,000 votes. Contrast that with a handful of voter fraud cases.
So this is evidence, there is something I could take to the jury. 160,000 votes lost versus virtually zero provable instances of fraud.

Let me make it easy for you. I'll use your source:

These concerns are perfectly logical — although it is also possible to exaggerate the effects that these laws might have. Academic studies suggest that they very probably reduce turnout, but not by more than a couple of percentage points. And although Democratic voters may be more affected by the laws, some Republican voters will be disenfranchised by them, too.

So, you've adduced zero actual evidence. Note "some some Republican voters will be disenfranchised by them, too," so it's not a straight political play.

They don't know. They're guessing.

Further, they fail to take into account efforts to get ID for all.

Let me ask you the real question: how much voter fraud is acceptable to you?

We know there is fraud. There have been many convictions of it. How much is acceptable in your opinion?

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.