Fight against so-called voter "fraud" unwittingly targets legitimate voters.

[Guynemer]

The problem is that people pushing these laws are not weighing the costs with the benefits. There are vanishingly few ineligible votes, but the result of these laws will likely be the loss of a higher number of eligible votes. I do not doubt that the majority of the people pushing these laws think they are doing the right thing for the right reason; however, to deny that there are others who are doing so simply to gain a political advantage for their party is willfully blind.

[Felch]

By the way, Montana, Colorado, Alabama, both Dakotas, Indiana, Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Missouri all passed voter ID laws during the Bush administration. So no, this isn't about having a black president, this is a matter of states having the right to govern themselves and structure their own elections.

[Wezil]

A lot less than the GOP states I'd imagine given that allow people to use things like gym ID's and student cards as ID.

If there are "millions" nationwide that don't have, and just can't get proper ID, then surely some must be in RI.

And the second question? What was the rate of voter fraud in RI that needed to be addressed?

If A > B then for consistency sake I would expect you to be screaming about this.

[Felch]

I.E. the integrity of the electoral process. Which to you doesn't seem to include not driving perfectly legitimate voters out of the voting booth.

Legitimate voters should have no problem getting paperwork. If they have problems, then that's because government bureaucrats are worthless.

The problem is that people pushing these laws are not weighing the costs with the benefits. There are vanishingly few ineligible votes, but the result of these laws will likely be the loss of a higher number of eligible votes. I do not doubt that the majority of the people pushing these laws think they are doing the right thing for the right reason; however, to deny that there are others who are doing so simply to gain a political advantage for their party is willfully blind.

We have no idea how many ineligible votes there are. How could we possibly know, when polling officials aren't allowed to ask for ID?

Even in Pennsylvania, the most recent state to pass ID laws, voters have had since March to get their paperwork in order. That's nearly eight months between the bill being passed and the general election (the primary was exempted from the ID requirement). Responsible adults should be able to collect their free ID card at some point over the course of eight months.

Are there partisan hacks who are manipulating laws for their own advantage? Yeah, of course. But the existence of partisan hacks should not deter us from passing and enforcing sensible laws that protect our electoral process.

[Guynemer]

If we want to "protect our electoral process", Voter ID laws would be far, far away from the #1 issue, Felch.

[kentonio]

If there are "millions" nationwide that don't have, and just can't get proper ID, then surely some must be in RI.

You'd imagine so, but the 'millions' people usually speak of are millions who don't have drivers licences or the often very short list of alternative ID's many states allow. It's still not ideal, but at least its a bit less hardcore.

And the second question? What was the rate of voter fraud in RI that needed to be addressed?

Haven't got the foggiest, miniscule I'd imagine like everywhere else.

If A > B then for consistency sake I would expect you to be screaming about this.

I'm not particularly impressed by it, but as the people its likely to affect are going to Dem voters, it's not like we can accuse them of doing it to try and tip the vote in their favour. They're also allowing a lot more forms of ID.

[Felch]

If we want to "protect our electoral process", Voter ID laws would be far, far away from the #1 issue, Felch.

I absolutely agree. Let's end gerrymandering with objective redistricting rules. Let's move away from our first past the post voting system. But let's also take reasonable precautions against voter fraud. We shouldn't wait for elections to be lost to fraud before we start dealing with it.

[Guynemer]

We're already losing elections to the other issues you mentioned, and others. Non-eligible voters is a fart in a tornado.

[MrFun]

And you're okay with voter fraud as long as the Democrats win elections.

Just like pro-gun fanatics are okay with an occasional mass shooting to preserve right to bear arms.

[MrFun]

The problem is that people pushing these laws are not weighing the costs with the benefits. There are vanishingly few ineligible votes, but the result of these laws will likely be the loss of a higher number of eligible votes. I do not doubt that the majority of the people pushing these laws think they are doing the right thing for the right reason; however, to deny that there are others who are doing so simply to gain a political advantage for their party is willfully blind.

QFT - these laws will hinder legitimate voters

[regexcellent]

Don't derail this thread into a gun rights one.

[Felch]

Just like pro-gun fanatics are okay with an occasional mass shooting to preserve right to bear arms.

I believe that the right to bear arms is fundamental. But I have no problem with showing an ID when I buy a gun. It's a reasonable request.

[Zevico]

The Advancement Project, a left-wing civil rights advocacy group, is coming out with a new study that claims that 10 million Hispanic voters will be disenfranchised in the upcoming election because of supposedly “discriminatory voting policies” such as “noncitizen voter purges,” “proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration,” and “restrictive” voter ID laws in 23 states.
This is an absurd claim for which there is no evidence whatsoever and simply more propaganda by a radical organization that opposes all efforts to improve the integrity of the election process.
The Advancement Project and other civil rights organizations are upset because states such as Texas and Virginia have obtained access to the Social Security master index of the deceased and are removing dead voters from their registration rolls. Other states, such as Florida and Colorado, are also starting to access Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records—although Florida had to sue the Obama Administration to force access—as well as checking their own DMV records, in order to find noncitizens who have illegally registered and voted.
That is also the kind of “purge” that the Advancement Project objects to, because it claims such measures “disproportionately impact voter registration and participation by Latino citizens.” Well, it is a fact that according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the majority of illegal aliens (and legal noncitizens present in the United States) are Hispanic. So when states remove noncitizens who have committed a felony under federal law by registering to vote, a majority of them may very well be Hispanic. But that is no reason to prevent states from removing all ineligible noncitizens from the registration rolls. Contrary to the Advancement Project’s claim, the only “effect” it will have on the 2012 presidential election is to prevent illegal voters from casting illegitimate ballots.
Groups like the Advancement Project claim that these databases have errors that will lead to individuals being mistakenly removed. It is certainly true that there are no perfect information databases. But the Social Security and DHS databases are the most accurate databases with information on deaths nationwide and on noncitizens present in the United States. (The Supreme Court found in a recent decision that the E-Verify system used by DHS had a 0.03 percent error rate, primarily due to misspelled names.)
There may be a very small percentage of errors caused by mismatches in data comparisons. However, none of these states remove anyone without first sending them written notice, giving each registered voter the time and opportunity to correct the problem. Even if the voter ignores the notice, the voter will still be able to cast a provisional ballot even if his name has been removed from the registration roll. That vote will be counted when the voter makes local election officials aware of any mistake that may have occurred. It makes no sense to say that states should ignore 99.7 percent of the information they get from these databases on ineligible voters because 0.3 percent may be errors—especially when those errors will not prevent anyone from voting.
The Advancement Project claims that new laws that require proof of citizenship are discriminatory and will somehow prevent U.S. citizens from voting. Yet the U.S. Justice Department agreed that the Georgia’s law is not discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act, and the law has now been in effect for two years with no effect on Hispanic voters.
The Advancement Project also claims that new voter ID laws implemented by states such as Kansas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia are “discriminatory” and will prevent millions of Hispanics from voting. This is the same organization that, as PJ Media showed in an undercover video, requires a photo ID for entrance to its own office in Washington.
The actual turnout in states like Georgia demonstrates that this claim is also completely false. The official, certified election returns in Georgia show that in 2008—the first year that the state’s voter ID law was in place (it requires a government-issued photo ID)—the turnout of Hispanic voters went up a startling 140 percent over 2004. Similarly, in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, Hispanic turnout went up a dramatic 66.5 percent over the prior midterm election in 2006, when there was no photo ID law in effect. This increase in turnout outpaced the growth of the Hispanic population in Georgia, which the U.S. Census reports grew 96.1 percent from 2000 to 2010.
The claim that this amounts to voter suppression is ridiculous. Voter suppression and voter intimidation are serious violations of the Voting Rights Act (unless you are a member of the New Black Panther Party, at least according to the Justice Department). It happens so rarely that the U.S. Justice Department has had only a handful of cases in the almost 50-year history of the act. Again, there is simply no basis for any claim that there will be mass voter suppression and intimidation in the November election that will affect large numbers of Hispanic (or other voters).
The Advancement Project seems to want the dead and noncitizens to remain registered for the November election. Its latest “report” is just another attempt to use false claims, unsupported projections, and fear mongering to influence the media with a false narrative and intimidate states from doing what they should be doing—maintaining accurate voter registration rolls and doing everything they can to protect the integrity and security of the registration and voting process.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/24/advancement-project-advances-its-fraud-agenda/

By way of response to Strangelove's piece.

[DaShi]

So you're okay with illegal votes being cast?

I'd rather have a insignificant amount of illegal votes cast than cause a significant amount of legal votes to not be cast.

Until the evidence points the other way, I can't support stringent voter requirement laws.

[MrFun]

I'd rather have a insignificant amount of illegal votes cast than cause a significant amount of legal votes to not be cast.

Until the evidence points the other way, I can't support stringent voter requirement laws.