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

[Wezil]

Where have you posted them?

Kentonio - post 39

Also, you change your stance more than Ben:

I want an anecdote to convince me.

No, now I want evidence and facts.

You said you wanted facts. We have facts (see above since you missed Ken's post).

And yes, I want to hear a real story that is persuasive.

[Wezil]

Ah, the Ben approach. Very popular in this discussion.

*sigh*

Your argument is failing so you have moved on to step two of your MO?

Let's keep the name calling out of it.

[DaShi]

Kentonio - post 39

Yes, those facts indicate that voter fraud is quite rare, especially when compared to those who will lose their right to vote. These facts are contrary to your argument (unless you're Ben...).

[kentonio]

No, I appreciate studies and all but I am really curious to hear a real story of a real voter (has voted in past and wanted to in future) that will not be able to vote next time out. I want to hear the circumstances that lead to such a situation because I really am finding it hard to believe this is an onerous requirement.

This woman will now be able to vote, but does this count as onerous enough?

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Pennsylvania's tough new voter identification law has received the state-issued photo ID card necessary to vote, despite saying she'd been rejected for years because she lacked appropriate documentation to receive the card.

Viviette Applewhite, who recalled marching for voting rights in 1960 with Martin Luther King Jr., was issued the temporary card on Thursday, the same day lawyers for her and others opposing the law appealed a judge's refusal to halt the law from taking effect in the Nov. 6 presidential election.

Applewhite, 93, had trouble meeting the state's documentation requirements to get a photo ID. For one thing, she did not have a Social Security card after it was stolen with her purse some years ago, she has said. Plus, she was adopted early in life, making the name on her birth certificate different from that on her other paperwork, and she did not have a record of the adoption.

Applewhite received her identification card after riding two public-transit buses to a Department of Transportation licensing office and presenting a clerk with her Medicare card from the 1990s, a state document listing her name and Social Security number in her own handwriting, and proof of her Philadelphia address, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

None of the documents, however, linked her birth certificate name of Viviette Virene Brooks to Viviette Applewhite.

PennDOT's licensing bureau director Janet Dolan said Friday that clerks are able to make exceptions to the document requirements and work with applicants.

For instance, she said, PennDOT clerks are able to confirm somebody's Social Security number with the Social Security Administration if they're able to somehow show that the number belongs to them. But Dolan could not explain why Applewhite had been rejected before, saying she did not know what kind of documentation the woman had brought with her previously.

Still, PennDot's official guidelines say a Social Security card is a must to get a photo ID, and a PennDot employee answering the agency's voter ID hotline Thursday said the card is required.

Applewhite's lawyers said she has been attempting to obtain a PennDOT-issued ID card for years.

"You just have to keep trying," Applewhite said. "Don't give up."

Penda Hair, a co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Advancement Project, a civil liberties group providing some of the lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging the voter ID law, was dubious of PennDOT's decision to grant the identification card. But the Inquirer reported that the clerk who issued the card did not appear to notice that Applewhite was a central figure in the legal challenge.

[DaShi]

*sigh*

Your argument is failing so you have moved on to step two of your MO?

Let's keep the name calling out of it.

No, you are clearly using the same tactics as Ben. Not responding to the point of the post, but instead picking out one little thing you hope that you can "win" on. You will be called out on this.

[Wezil]

This woman will now be able to vote, but does this count as onerous enough?

Thank you.

Too onerous obviously but I do note:

PennDOT's licensing bureau director Janet Dolan said Friday that clerks are able to make exceptions to the document requirements and work with applicants.

For instance, she said, PennDOT clerks are able to confirm somebody's Social Security number with the Social Security Administration if they're able to somehow show that the number belongs to them. But Dolan could not explain why Applewhite had been rejected before, saying she did not know what kind of documentation the woman had brought with her previously.

I'd argue of course that this would be an extremely rare case (that did ultimately work out). As rare perhaps has voter fraud?

[Wezil]

No, you are clearly using the same tactics as Ben. Not responding to the point of the post, but instead picking out one little thing you hope that you can "win" on. You will be called out on this.

I gave you a chance....you did it again.

Bye.

[DaShi]

Voter IDs are not a simple fix to voter fraud either. There are a myriad of other costs and considerations when this requirement is added:

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

A fiscal note prepared in conjunction with aproposed photo ID law in Missouri estimated a cost of $6 million for the first year in which the law was to be in effect, followed by recurring costs of approximately $4 million per year.
When Indianaestimated the costs of its photo ID law, it found that, to provide more than 168,000 IDs to voters,the “[t]otal production costs, including man-power, transaction time and manufacturing” was in excess of $1.3 million, with an additional revenue loss of nearly $2.2 million.
That estimateapparently did not include a variety of necessary costs, including the costs of training and votereducation and outreach. A fiscal note assessing an ID bill in Minnesota estimated at least $250,000for the manufacturing costs of providing free ID at only 90 locations across the state, the costs of onetraining conference for county auditors, and some administrative costs.
The estimate includedneither the costs of outreach and education, nor any of the significant costs that would be borne by local governments.
The note estimated an additional cost of $536,000 per election if each precincthired just one additional election judge. While a few million dollars a year may not sound like a lot, that sum is a significant fraction of states’total election administration budgets. Missouri, for example, spent about $10.5 million in its 2009fiscal year; a photo ID requirement would have increased the state’s election administrationspending by more than 50%, according to the state’s own estimate. Indiana’s Elections Divisionspent about $3.4 million in its 2009–2010 fiscal year,
which is roughly equal to the state’s estimatedcosts for photo ID from 2008 to 2010. States are unlikely to receive sufficient federal assistance tomeet these costs.
In Wisconsin, a nonpartisan association of local election officials expressedconcerns about a photo ID bill, in significant part because of the fiscal impact of photo IDrequirements on local municipalities and state agencies.
And in Iowa, an association of localelection officials made up of Republicans and Democrats cited the cost of photo ID laws in publicly registering its opposition to an Iowa photo ID bill.

[DaShi]

I gave you a chance....you did it again.

Bye.

Not surprised given your untenable position.

[Wezil]

DaShi

Emperor
This message is hidden because DaShi is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list


I will not be called Ben.

[DaShi]

Then don't behave like him. Normally, you're quite reasonable. I don't know why you resorted to his tactics here.

[Hauldren Collider]

DaShi

Emperor
This message is hidden because DaShi is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list


I will not be called Ben.

I think this is very reasonable.

[DaShi]

See? Even HC agrees with you.

[Felch]

You're personal feelings about photo IDs still don't change the fact that requiring photo IDs to vote disenfranchises specific groups of people.

Also, I can't see the connection with desiring more freedoms (as you claim you want), yet wanting everyone to have to carry around a photo ID. What's the point of a photo ID other than to apply an often needless restriction on people? They can be faked easily enough that people who want to abuse the system can and will do it, and those who are honest will be more likely to be harmed or inconvenienced by it.

I'm only being inconsistent with your caricature of my views. I never said that people should "have to carry around a photo ID." I observed that IDs are a part of daily life for most adults, and it's reasonable to expect people to have them. I have no problem with people leaving their photo ID at home in a coffee can, along with their birth certificate and everything else. Pull it out when you know you're going to need it. But honestly representing other people's views has never been your forte, has it?

It's appropriate for governments to regulate how elections are conducted and to ensure that people who are voting are who they say they are. Asking people to identify themselves before receiving a ballot is a reasonable request. If some people refuse to get IDs and are disenfranchised, I don't care.

If photo IDs can be easily faked, and if people who want to abuse the system and and will do it, then why should we ever use them for anything? Why do I need an ID to buy a gun, fly on a plane, ride Amtrak, buy cold medicine, buy alcohol, or rent a car? Maybe because they're not easily faked, and maybe because the people who abuse the system are usually caught and punished quite quickly.

[Felch]

No, you are clearly using the same tactics as Ben. Not responding to the point of the post, but instead picking out one little thing you hope that you can "win" on. You will be called out on this.

Anybody who disagrees with DaShi, or expects him to provide any even a single example of this disenfranchisement, is resorting to BK levels of dishonesty.

Fact, dozens of people were convicted of voting crimes between 2002 and 2005. This is in spite of the fact that it is almost impossible to prove voter fraud, since nobody needs to show photo ID to get a ballot. How would anybody get caught? You could just as well say that lynching wasn't a problem during Jim Crow, because only a tiny number of people were ever convicted.