Eric Holder say Texas ID Law will disinfranchise minorities

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20120710/US.Holder.Voting.Rights/?cid=hero_media

Seems like our wonderful AG is at it again.

 

For the life of me I cannot fathom how this effects minorities. Are minorities not allowed to have ID's? Basically, all this noise from Holder is to protect the illegal aliens who are committing voter fraud. I think it should be standard across the country to provide a photo ID at the voting polls. If I have to provide a photo ID to cash a check, buy a 12 pack of beer, buy ammo, etc., I damn sure should have to show it for something as important to vote.

 

I read this recently and found it pretty interesting:



Summary
* Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
* Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
* Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
* Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
* Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud. Although there are a few scattered instances of real voter fraud, many of the vivid anecdotes cited in accounts of voter fraud have been proven false or vastly overstated. In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free.

Many of the inaccurate claims result from lists of voters compared to other lists - of deceased individuals, persons with felony convictions, voters in other states, etc. These attempts to match information often yield predictable errors. In Florida in 2000, a list of purged voters later became notorious when it was discovered that the “matching” process captured eligible voters with names similar to - but decidedly different from - the names of persons with felony convictions, sometimes in other states entirely. A 2005 attempt to identify supposed double voters in New Jersey mistakenly accused people with similar names but whose middle names or suffixes were clearly different, such as “J.T. Kearns, Jr.” and “J.T. Kearns, Sr.,” of being the same person. Even when names and birthdates match across lists, that does not mean there was voter fraud. Elementary statistics students are often surprised to learn that it is more likely than not that among just 23 individuals, two will share a birthday. Similar statistics show that for most reasonably common names, it is extremely likely that at least two people with the same name in a state will share the same date of birth. The ostensible “matches” may not represent the same person at all.

Other allegations of fraudulent voting often turn out to be the result of common clerical errors, incomplete information, or faulty assumptions. Most allegations of voter fraud simply evaporate when more rigorous analysis is conducted.

Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct. It is extremely rare for individuals to vote multiple times, vote as someone else, or vote despite knowing that they are ineligible. These rare occurrences, however, are often conflated with other forms of election irregularities or misconduct, under the misleading and overbroad label of “voter fraud.u201D Some of these other irregularities result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters, such20as confusion as to whether a particular person is actually eligible to vote. Some irregularities result from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies. And some involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These more common forms of misconduct are simply not addressed by the supposed “anti-fraud” measures generally proposed.

Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda. Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote - a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens. But the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. Therefore, it suits those who prefer photo ID as a policy to lump as much misconduct in with “voter fraud” as possible, to create the impression that the problem is far more significant than it actually is. Moreover, to the extent photo ID is suggested as a solution to the perception that voter fraud occurs, it behooves those who prefer photo ID to reinforce the unsubstantiated perception that voter fraud exists.

Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action. Researchers, reporters, public figures, and policymakers confronted with claims of potential fraud should carefully examine these claims before calling for action. Do the claims depend on matching information from one list to another? Is the matching process accurate? Does a match indicate an illegal vote, or is there a more plausible explanation? Is corroborating evidence available? If there actually appears to be a problem, can it be addressed by existing practices, or is a new solution necessary? If so, will the solution proposed - usually either a mass purge or photo identification - really solve the problem? Is the solution sufficiently burdensome that it becomes a greater problem than the problem itself? These basic questions are crucially important to evaluating claims of voter fraud, but are all too often unasked and unanswered.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

 

A six year old article, but nevertheless, this does not give the FED to infringe upon state rights. Much like the ruling of the Arizona immigration laws. If Texas wants to ask for photo ID when voting then what is the big deal? When I lived there I would have had no problem with it whatsoever. It took me a total of 25 min. to get my photo ID processed to be sent to me in the mail. I guess that is cause I'm not a minority.....

 

Is the right to vote a state right?

If there is no fraud then why the need for these laws?

 

Minorities are too stupid to get a state id. (not my thinking... but the libs)

If you don't think there is voter fraud, you've never lived in Illinois.

 

Just offering an opinion from the other side. I know thats not a popular thing to do on this forum. I hope I don't get banned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-gops-crime-against-voters/2012/07/09/gJQAopcCZW_story.html

 

Senior citizens are not stupid but they will likely have a harder time than minorities.

I have never lived in Ill. How many people are charged/arrested each year in Ill. for vote fraud?

 

C'mon, Vito. That guy is a liberal so his opinion doesn't count. You can only post the valid opinions you get from faux news.

 

Like that matters when making claims.

 

'GOP's Crimes Against Voters"
Hahahahahaa..... hyperbole much??

That article is another great example of a pandering to the 'minorities are helpless' mindset.

I also like the apples to id comparison. "Most of the voters without driver’s licenses live in urban areas — which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live." Hmm, that's also where people don't need to own cars. The question is, do they have a state photo id? The kind they'd need to cash a check, or do a hundred brazillion other things you need a photo id for. If they don't have one... they should get one. It's a good idea to have one so they don't get disenfranchised from all these other services. These 'outraged' libs should be helping these helpless folks get an id... if they really cared about disenfranchisement. (In IL you can't even buy good drain cleaner or cold medicine without a state issued photo id)

 

Baloney Bruce.

It's easy to get a state id. I bet there are very few seniors without a state id.

Very few people are prosecuted. For one, we don't have an id requirement to vote, two... it's just how it is. It benefits the Chicago Machine out here (it's part of the Chicago Machine) so there's no pressure to fix the fix.

 

Baloney?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/15/445047/pennsylvania-voter-id/

With a stroke of a pen, hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians were potentially disenfranchised last night. Gov. Tom Corbett (R) signed into law HB 934, which requires all Pennsylvanians to show a certain form of photo ID in order to be allowed to vote, after the Republican-controlled state legislature approved the bill this week. It will have a disastrous impact on the 700,000 Pennsylvanians who currently lack photo ID, half of whom are senior citizens. With the new voter ID law in place, they would not be permitted to cast a vote in the November general election. (In 2008, a watershed Democratic year, Barack Obama only won the state by 600,000 votes.)

The Montgomery News details which forms of photo ID are acceptable under the new law:

A valid ID would include a driver’s license, military ID, passport, and ID card from state-accredited colleges and universities and state-licensed care facilities. Pennsylvania residents who attend college out-of-state could not use their student IDs to vote.
​

Not all student IDs are considered acceptable, however. Only student IDs with expiration dates are permissible; those that lack them will not be accepted at the polls.

The law, which will be in effect for November’s presidential election, makes Pennsylvania the ninth state since 2008 to pass a strict voter ID law. A number of other states, like Michigan and Louisiana, request a photo ID at the polls, but unlike strict voter ID states, they still allow people who lack photo ID to vote once they sign an affidavit affirming their identity. In Pennsylvania, those who show up without photo ID will be allowed to vote on a provisional ballot, but it will only be counted if they present acceptable photo ID within the next six days.

Voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina were recently blocked by the Justice Department because of their biased effect on minorities. Those two states have a history of discrimination and must get federal clearance for any changes to their elections under the Voting Rights Act. Pennsylvania, however, is not subject to the Voting Rights Act and does not need preclearance from the Justice Department.

Though voter fraud is as non-existent in Pennsylvania as it is elsewhere in the nation, Republicans in the Keystone State have nevertheless used fraud as justification to enact a law that could bar hundreds of thousands, predominantly minorities and the elderly, from the ballot box.

Salami?

 

Bruce, if I use your reasoning that voter fraud is infrequent so it shouldn't require and ID, then I shouldn't need one to fly because "flying fraud" or bombing of planes by fraudulent flyers is also infrequent. Quit infringing on my rights when I fly!!! It's hard for me to get an ID, you know?

What's funny is that it is required to show an ID to vote early in IL., but not on election day. Weird....

 

There is no "right to fly" or drive or drink alcohol but, if I am not mistaken there is a right to vote.

 

Bruce, if it is too difficult for a senior to get out and get an ID then I'm guessing it is difficult for them to vote as well. Lord forbid we make you prove that it is you who is indeed voting with you name.

 

I have been told that there is rampant voter fraud in IL. Maybe that is why.

 

I'll see your cut and paste and raise you.
Contrary to breathless media reports, there’s no reason to believe over 750,000 Pennsylvanians will be turned away from polling places in November as a result of new voter ID protections.
Upon closer inspection, such reporting is much ado about nothing. If anything, it makes a stronger case for reforming the voting process to protect against identity fraud at the polls.
What the Pennsylvania Departments of State and Transportation did was compare the registered voter list with the driver’s license list. It determined that there are over three-quarters of a million more people on the voter list.

The headlines and lead paragraphs lead one to believe that each of the names on the list represents a legitimate Pennsylvania voter who is not going to be able to vote in November. Slate’s Dave Weigel called it “an apocalypse to watch out for.” A Philadelphia Inquirer report asserts the disparity indicates the new law is “putting … voting rights at risk.”

It’s only past these shocking leads that one learns that other forms of ID are acceptable. Provisional ballots are available. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the names on the list may not even be eligible voters.
As Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele has explained: “This comparison takes into account only voters with PennDOT IDs, and does not include voters who may have any of the other various acceptable forms of ID.”

Under Pennsylvania’s new ballot protection rules, other acceptable forms of identification at the polls besides a driver’s license include military IDs, school IDs from accredited Pennsylvania colleges and universities, passports, government ID badges and identification issued by Pennsylvania care facilities.


Care facilities include nursing homes, assisted living residences and other places serving the elderly, a demographic that opponents of voter security measures claim are disproportionally affected. This law defuses that, since facilities have flexibility in creating sufficient ID — as long as it contains a photo, the person’s name, the facility’s name and an expiration date after Election Day.
To run with this report as proof of mass disfranchisement by the new voter protection law is just plain wrong. Plenty of people don’t have a driver’s license. My wife was one of them until the age of 30 because — until then — she lived in a metropolitan area or on a college campus and had no need to drive. But she always had government-issued identification, because an ID is integral to everyday things such as banking, traveling and voting.
Critics of the state’s new voter ID law don’t mention that those 750,000+ Pennsylvania voters without licenses will be mailed a letter from state officials explaining the new ballot security law, what IDs are acceptable and where a free one can be obtained if they need one.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/10/m...r-id-criticism-in-pennsylvania/#ixzz20FNYdqe3

 

Why the big push for voter ID now? Why not 20 years ago? 10 years ago? Oh wait, this started 10 years ago because there was rampant voter fraud in the elections. It's just so hard to catch these fraudulant voters without a picture ID though.

 

I could see your raise and raise you back with Florida's BS but really, what's the point?