Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Voter Suppression 101: How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans..
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 9:47:41 AM4/9/12
to
From Alternet:
By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
Abraham White, Center for American Progress
Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
© 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
Talk about turning back the clock! At its best, America has utilized the
federal legislative process to augment voting rights. Constitutional
amendments such as the 12th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th have
steadily improved the system by which our elections take place while
expanding the pool of Americans eligible to participate. Yet in 2011,
more than 30 state legislatures considered legislation to make it harder
for citizens to vote, with over a dozen of those states succeeding in
passing these bills. Anti-voting legislation appears to be continuing
unabated so far in 2012.
Unfortunately, the rapid spread of these proposals in states as
different as Florida and Wisconsin is not occurring by accident.
Instead, many of these laws are being drafted and spread through
corporate-backed entities such as the American Legislative Exchange
Council, or ALEC, as uncovered in a previous Center for American
Progress investigative report. Detailed in that report, ALEC charges
corporations such as Koch Industries Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and The
Coca-Cola Co. a fee and gives them access to members of state
legislatures. Under ALEC's auspices, legislators, corporate
representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model
legislation. As ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR, this system
is especially effective because "you have legislators who will ask
questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under
the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters."
The investigative report included for the first time a leaked copy of
ALEC's model Voter ID legislation, which was approved by the ALEC board
of directors in late 2009. This model legislation prohibited certain
forms of identification, such as student IDs, and has been cited as the
legislative model from groups ranging from Tea Party organizations to
legislators proposing the actual legislation such as Wisconsin's Voter
ID proposal from Republican state Rep. Stone and Republican state Sen.
Joe Leibham.
Registering the poor "to vote is like handing out burglary tools to
criminals." --Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum
Similar legislation had been proposed during the early 2000s in states
such as Missouri, but the legislation frequently failed to be passed.
Seeking new avenues, the George W. Bush administration prioritized the
conviction of voter fraud to the point where two U.S. attorneys were
allegedly fired in 2004 for failing to pursue electoral fraud cases at
the level required by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. In fact,
three years after first prioritizing election fraud in 2002, Ashcroft's
efforts had produced only 95 defendants charged with election-fraud,
compared to 80,424 criminal cases concluded in a given year.
These efforts were dismal in terms of effectiveness and convictions, but
news reports from 2007 pointed out that simply "pursuing an
investigation can be just as effective as a conviction in providing that
ammunition and creating an impression with the public that some sort of
electoral reform is necessary."
With this groundwork laid, ALEC today is spearheading these efforts
anew. These new anti-voting laws are being challenged legally by a
variety of nonpartisan organizations ranging from Rock the Vote to the
League of Women Voters to the Public Interest Research Group.
Additionally, the Department of Justice is reviewing some of the new
state laws for possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, which
freezes changes in election practices or procedures in nine southern
states due to their history of voter suppression in the past.
This issue brief focuses on both the current status of various
anti-voter measures throughout our country as well as the legal
challenges they face. Readers will learn how conservatives want to
return to past practices of voter suppression to preserve their
political power, and looks at several instances where progressives are
fighting back successfully.
Registration restrictions
Let's begin with voter registration restrictions. In a handful of
states, legislators aren't just making it more difficult to vote;
they're making it more difficult for citizens even to register in the
first place. Lawmakers in half a dozen states made a variety of changes
to the registration process in 2011. These include limiting when
citizens can register, restricting who is permitted to help them, and
implementing tougher bureaucratic requirements to register.
Nowhere has the war on registration been more controversial than the
state of Maine. Since 1973, Mainers have been permitted to register to
vote at the ballot box. For nearly 40 years, the system worked smoothly
-- separate lines for registering and voting are used to prevent
congestion -- and just two instances of voter fraud were found in the
entire span.
Nevertheless, when an unusually conservative group of lawmakers took
over both statehouse chambers and the governorship in 2010, one of their
primary orders of business was to repeal the state's law permitting
citizens to register on Election Day. Fortunately, in the ensuing weeks
citizens of the state rallied to collect tens of thousands of signatures
and force a vote on the matter. In November 2011, 61 percent of Mainers
rebuked the legislature and voted to restore Election Day registration
in their state.
"I don't want everybody to vote." --Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul
Weyrich
Alas, voting rights proponents in other states have not been as
successful. In Florida and Texas, for example, lawmakers succeeded in
placing onerous new restrictions on nonprofit organizations that help
register new voters. Voter registration drives by groups such as the
League of Women Voters have been a staple of our democracy for years,
helping thousands of citizens to register, regardless of their political
affiliation.
In the Sunshine State, however, those may now be a thing of the past.
Last July, the League of Women Voters announced it would no longer
operate in Florida because of new anti-voter legislation -- including
complicated new filing requirements and a mandate to submit completed
registration forms within 48 hours of completion or face a hefty fine --
made it nearly impossible for them to continue their work.
The Lone Star State also placed unnecessary new requirements on groups
and individuals interested in helping register others. Texas lawmakers
in May passed legislation requiring that people who help register
voters, known as volunteer deputy registrars, must also be eligible
Texas voters themselves. The new law has a number of unintended
consequences. For instance, legal permanent residents who are in the
process of obtaining their citizenship would be barred from learning the
political process by helping register others. Many such immigrants are
currently employed as deputy registrars; this new law would likely
result in their firing.
What's more, disabled Texans who are considered full guardians of the
state and ineligible to vote would be shut out as well. One disabled
gentleman had carried voter registration forms in his wheelchair for
years, eager to register others for a democratic process he himself
could not participate in. Under the new law, it would be illegal for him
to continue registering new voters. As of February 2012, Texas's new law
remains not in effect while the Justice Department determines whether it
complies with the Voting Rights Act.
Kansas, Alabama, and Tennessee took a slightly different route,
augmenting the required documentation necessary to register to vote.
Each passed laws requiring residents to prove their citizenship before
registering, either by presenting a birth certificate or passport. Less
than a third of Americans currently own a passport, and citizens who
don't have access to their birth certificate would be forced to pay for
one in order to vote -- an almost certain violation of the 24th
Amendment's ban on poll taxes. The problem is not small; at least 7
percent of Americans don't have easy access to a birth certificate or
similar citizenship document.
Arizona and Georgia also passed similar legislation prior to 2011. The
Justice Department is currently reviewing Georgia and Alabama's changes
for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and Arizona's law is being
challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Residency restrictions
Another avenue where conservatives are proposing to limit voting rights
is tightening the residency requirements. The intended effect of these
measures is to make it difficult, if not impossible, for out-of-state
college students to vote where they attend school.
In Maine, young voters are being targeted even more brazenly. In
September 2011 Maine's secretary of state sent a threatening letter to
hundreds of college students who were legally registered to vote in the
state, implying that many of them were in violation of election law and
suggesting they correct this by unregistering in Maine. The list of
college students targeted for this letter came directly from the Maine
Republican Party Chairman, underscoring just how partisan the voter
suppression effort in Maine has become. New Hampshire is now considering
stricter residency requirements for Granite State voters as well.
All of this is especially surprising given the Supreme Court's decision
in Symm v. United States, where it upheld a lower court decision
establishing that states cannot place obstacles unique to college
students between those students and their right to vote.
Limiting early voting
Following widespread voting problems in the 2000 election that had
nothing to do with voter fraud -- from extraordinarily long lines to
hanging chads -- many states moved to ease the burden on clerks and
citizens by allowing people to vote prior to Election Day. Ohio and
Florida were the epicenter of these problems, and both states moved to
prevent similar problems in the future by allowing early voting.
Among conservatives, then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a major proponent of
such reforms, calling them a "wonderful" way to "provide access to the
polls." As a result, over half of Sunshine State voters cast their
ballot before Election Day in 2008.
Yet three years later, lawmakers in the state moved to limit the
availability of early voting. In Florida voters had previously been
permitted two weeks of early voting prior to the election; lawmakers
rolled that back to eight days. Ohio lawmakers went even further,
reducing the state's early voting period from 35 days to just 11. Ari
Berman also notes in Rolling Stone that "both states banned voting on
the Sunday before the election -- a day when black churches historically
mobilize their constituents."
Other states have successfully rolled back their early voting periods as
well. Georgia reduced early voting from 45 to 21 days, Wisconsin
shortened their period by 16 days, West Virginia by five days, and
Tennessee by two.
In one bright spot, voting rights proponents in the Buckeye State are
fighting back against the new changes. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans
signed a petition to hold a referendum on the voting changes, suspending
the law until voters decide its fate in November 2012.
Voter ID laws
The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter ID legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister
(R-Augusta), told the Justice Department the bill would keep more
African Americans from voting, which was fine with her since "if there
are fewer black voters because of this bill, it will only be because
there is less opportunity for fraud."
The most common type of voter-related legislation in 2011 was the
mandate that individuals must show certain kinds of government-issued
photo ID at the polls before being allowed to vote. To date, Alabama,
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin have all passed such laws, and similar measures have been
proposed by 24 more.
But with more than 1 in 10 voters (over 21 million Americans) currently
lacking these photo IDs, it's clear that such laws could have a
disastrous effect. 20 Voter ID laws have the potential to exclude
millions of Americans, especially seniors, students, minorities, and
people in rural areas One example is Osceola, Wisconsin: A small town in
the northwestern part of the state with a population of under 3,000
people. The town is 30 minutes away from the nearest DMV offices and
both are rarely open.
Defenders of these laws claim they are necessary to prevent voter fraud.
In reality they are a solution in search of a problem. There's virtually
no such fraud in American elections -- and it's not even remotely close
to being the epidemic that some elected officials have made it out to
be. In the 2004 election, for example, about 3 million votes were cast
in Wisconsin -- only seven were declared invalid -- all of which were
cast by felons who had finished their sentences and didn't realize they
were still barred from voting. As a result, Wisconsin's overall fraud
rate came in at a whopping 0.00023 percent.
The only kind of voter fraud that is supposed to be prevented by these
laws is one voter impersonating another. Not only would impersonating
other voters one-by-one be an absurd strategy for stealing an entire
election, but the already-existing penalties -- five years in prison and
a $10,000 fine -- are doing an effective job at preventing such fraud.
Yet, while these laws would prevent few if any actual cases of voter
fraud, they could disenfranchise millions of ID-less voters. And they
are clearly illegal under longstanding voting rights law. The Voting
Rights Act not only forbids laws that are passed specifically to target
minority voters but also strikes down state laws that have a greater
impact on minority voters than on others. Because Voter ID laws
disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, they clearly fit within
the Voting Rights Act's prohibition.
Gaming the Electoral College
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett recently proposed changing the way his
state allocates electoral votes in a presidential election. Should his
proposal become law, it could alter the outcome in 2012 and
significantly increase the possibility that a candidate who loses the
popular vote in his state still receives more electoral votes overall.
Although the Constitution permits each state legislature to decide how
the winner of its electoral votes will be selected during a presidential
election, all but two of the states follow the same process -- whoever
wins the state as a whole receives all of that state's electoral votes.
The two remaining states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate one electoral
vote to the winner of each congressional district, plus two additional
votes to the overall winner of the state. Because these are both very
small states, however, their unusual process is unlikely to alter the
outcome of presidential elections.
The same cannot be said of Pennsylvania. As the nation's sixth most
populous state, Pennsylvania commands 20 electoral votes in the 2012
election. Gov. Corbett's proposal would allocate these votes according
to the Maine/Nebraska system, potentially swinging the election in the
process.
President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 percentage points in
2008, but if Pennsylvania had allocated votes in the same way as Maine
and Nebraska then he would have only earned only more electoral vote
from the state than his opponent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In 2012
President Obama could win the state as a whole and still lose twelve of
the state's twenty electoral votes due to Pennsylvania's heavily
gerrymandered districts. This is more than enough to change the result
of next year's election. Consider that after the Supreme Court awarded
Florida's electoral votes to George W. Bush after the 2000 presidential
election. Bush received only five more electoral votes in 2000 than his
opponent Al Gore, who won the majority of the national popular vote.
Gov. Corbett's plan risks absurd results where the overall winner of a
state's popular vote becomes the loser of its electoral vote. Worse, it
undermines the legitimacy of any president who takes office solely due
to Pennsylvania conservatives gaming the Electoral College. Although the
Pennsylvania plan is probably constitutional, it is no less an attack on
our democratic system of government. The winner of the 2012 presidential
election should be the person chosen by the American people, not by
arbitrary differences between various states' election laws.
For the moment, Gov. Corbett's proposal appears to be dead due to
infighting between the proposal's supporters and some of Pennsylvania's
members of Congress in Washington who fear it could cause more campaign
resources to be directed toward their districts. There is nothing
preventing its supporters from reviving it -- potentially even on the
eve of the election -- should the 2012 election appear close enough to
be swung by manipulating the Electoral College.
Moreover, at least one Wisconsin lawmaker has jumped upon this proposal,
creating the risk that it could spread to other states. If similar swing
states, such as Florida or Michigan, took up this plan, it could
fundamentally transform the next election into a contest to see who can
best game the system.
Voter suppression in personal terms
In a representative democracy, it is important to point to individuals
who would be prevented from exercising their right to vote due to these
efforts at targeted voter suppression. Here are some real-life examples
of the consequences of these voter suppression laws.
Ricky Tyrone Lewis
Ricky is a 58 year-old Marine Corps veteran. Despite the fact that he
was able to offer Wisconsin voting officials proof of his honorable
discharge from the Marines, Milwaukee County has been unable to find the
record of his birth that he needs in order to obtain a voter ID card.
Ruthelle Frank
Ruthelle is an 84 year-old former elected official who voted in every
election for the last 63 years, yet she will be unable to obtain a voter
ID unless she pays a fee to obtain a birth certificate from the
Wisconsin government -- despite the fact that the Constitution
explicitly forbids any voter from being charged a fee in order to vote.
Worse, because the attending physician at her birth misspelled her name
on her original birth certificate, she may need to pay hundreds of
dollars in court fees to petition the state judiciary to correct her
certificate before she can obtain a voter ID.
Paul Carroll
Paul is an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same
Ohio town for four decades. Yet when he attempted to vote in the recent
Ohio primary, he was told his photo ID from the Department of Veterans
Affairs was not good enough because it did not include his address.
Dorothy Cooper
Dorothy is a 96-year-old African-American woman who says she has voted
in every election but one since she became eligible to vote. Yet when
she attempted to obtain a voter ID she was turned away because she did
not have a copy of her marriage license. In a subsequent interview
Dorothy said that she didn't even have problems voting in Tennessee
"during Jim Crow days -- only now under Voter ID.
Thelma Mitchell
Thelma is a 93-year-old woman who cleaned the Tennessee Capitol for 30
years. She never received a birth certificate, however, because she was
delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918 and there was no record of her
birth. When she attempted to obtain a voter ID, she was turned away for
lack of a birth certificate by a clerk who suggested she could be an
illegal immigrant.
Virginia Lasater
Virginia is a 91-year-old woman who has been active in political
campaigns for 70 years Because of her advanced age, however, she is no
longer able to stand for extended periods of time. When she attempted to
obtain a voter ID, she was confronted with lines that stretched for
several hours and no place to sit while she waited -- forcing her to
abandon her effort to obtain an ID due to her physical constraints.
"Election Day registration leads to "the kids coming out of the schools
and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a
liberal. That's what kids do -- they don't have life experience, and
they just vote their feelings."
-New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien
Darwin Spinks
Darwin is an 86 year-old World War II veteran. He was told to pay a fee
before he could obtain a voter ID in Tennessee, despite the fact that
charging someone to vote is unconstitutional.
Rita Platt
Rita is a Wisconsin resident who was turned away from her attempt to
obtain a voter ID because she required either a birth certificate or a
passport to obtain one -- both of which can only be obtained if the
voter pays a fee. Worse, in Wisconsin, voters must fill out a misleading
form that suggests that they cannot obtain the birth certificate they
need to obtain a photo ID unless they already have a photo ID.
Jessica Cohen
Jessica is a Texas resident who lost her license and other
identification papers in a burglary. She now must also pay an
unconstitutional fee in order to obtain the birth certificate she needs
to obtain a new voter ID. Because Cohen lives in Texas, she will likely
be able to vote in 2012 because the Department of Justice blocked
Texas’s law under the Voting Rights Act -- although there is a high risk
that the Supreme Court’s conservatives will declare the Voting Rights
Act unconstitutional.
These nine voters are representative of the millions of voters who could
be deprived of their right to vote after exercising that right for, in
some cases, decades. Their problems will become more commonplace as
additional states continue to pass suppressive laws.
Conclusion
When speaking about this subject at the Campus Progress National
Conference in 2011, President Bill Clinton asked the young audience why
these laws making it harder to vote were all being proposed in such a
high rate and passed across the country. The answer, he said, was that
"They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010
electorate than the 2008 electorate."
Conservatives are scared because each cycle more young and minority
voters are entering voting age and their collective impact is growing
accordingly. In 2008 about 48 million Millennial generation voters --
those born between 1978 and 2000 -- were old enough to vote. By 2012,
that number will be 64 million, or 29 percent of all eligible voters.
According to analysis by the Center for American Progress, by 2020, when
all Millennial voters are of voting age, about 90 million of them will
be eligible to vote and will comprise around 40 percent of all eligible
American voters. This parallels changes in minority voters -- from 1988
to 2008 the percent of minority voters increased to 26 percent from 15
percent.
These young and minority voters are strongly progressive. They strongly
support progressive staples such as investing in renewable energy and
maintaining Social Security. This has translated into elections as well.
In 2008 both young voters and Hispanic voters delivered two-thirds of
their votes to President Obama.
Taken together, the growing influence of staunchly progressive voters
has conservatives scared to the point of extreme measures. Backed by
large corporate donors, they are looking for any proposal or law that
will help negate this change in voting demographics. While this is their
motivation, the right to vote is an American right that should be
protected by those of all political persuasions.
Right now, the protection of anti-voter suppression measures put in
place during the 1960s is preventing the enactment of the law in key
states. And in other states the laws will become ballot measures where
their outcome can be decided by the voters. In many states these laws
have already been passed and must be aggressively challenged through
legal and electoral measures to put our system of democratic elections
back on the right track.
--Comments?
By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
Abraham White, Center for American Progress
Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
© 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
Talk about turning back the clock! At its best, America has utilized the
federal legislative process to augment voting rights. Constitutional
amendments such as the 12th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th have
steadily improved the system by which our elections take place while
expanding the pool of Americans eligible to participate. Yet in 2011,
more than 30 state legislatures considered legislation to make it harder
for citizens to vote, with over a dozen of those states succeeding in
passing these bills. Anti-voting legislation appears to be continuing
unabated so far in 2012.
Unfortunately, the rapid spread of these proposals in states as
different as Florida and Wisconsin is not occurring by accident.
Instead, many of these laws are being drafted and spread through
corporate-backed entities such as the American Legislative Exchange
Council, or ALEC, as uncovered in a previous Center for American
Progress investigative report. Detailed in that report, ALEC charges
corporations such as Koch Industries Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and The
Coca-Cola Co. a fee and gives them access to members of state
legislatures. Under ALEC's auspices, legislators, corporate
representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model
legislation. As ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR, this system
is especially effective because "you have legislators who will ask
questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under
the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters."
The investigative report included for the first time a leaked copy of
ALEC's model Voter ID legislation, which was approved by the ALEC board
of directors in late 2009. This model legislation prohibited certain
forms of identification, such as student IDs, and has been cited as the
legislative model from groups ranging from Tea Party organizations to
legislators proposing the actual legislation such as Wisconsin's Voter
ID proposal from Republican state Rep. Stone and Republican state Sen.
Joe Leibham.
Registering the poor "to vote is like handing out burglary tools to
criminals." --Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum
Similar legislation had been proposed during the early 2000s in states
such as Missouri, but the legislation frequently failed to be passed.
Seeking new avenues, the George W. Bush administration prioritized the
conviction of voter fraud to the point where two U.S. attorneys were
allegedly fired in 2004 for failing to pursue electoral fraud cases at
the level required by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. In fact,
three years after first prioritizing election fraud in 2002, Ashcroft's
efforts had produced only 95 defendants charged with election-fraud,
compared to 80,424 criminal cases concluded in a given year.
These efforts were dismal in terms of effectiveness and convictions, but
news reports from 2007 pointed out that simply "pursuing an
investigation can be just as effective as a conviction in providing that
ammunition and creating an impression with the public that some sort of
electoral reform is necessary."
With this groundwork laid, ALEC today is spearheading these efforts
anew. These new anti-voting laws are being challenged legally by a
variety of nonpartisan organizations ranging from Rock the Vote to the
League of Women Voters to the Public Interest Research Group.
Additionally, the Department of Justice is reviewing some of the new
state laws for possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, which
freezes changes in election practices or procedures in nine southern
states due to their history of voter suppression in the past.
This issue brief focuses on both the current status of various
anti-voter measures throughout our country as well as the legal
challenges they face. Readers will learn how conservatives want to
return to past practices of voter suppression to preserve their
political power, and looks at several instances where progressives are
fighting back successfully.
Registration restrictions
Let's begin with voter registration restrictions. In a handful of
states, legislators aren't just making it more difficult to vote;
they're making it more difficult for citizens even to register in the
first place. Lawmakers in half a dozen states made a variety of changes
to the registration process in 2011. These include limiting when
citizens can register, restricting who is permitted to help them, and
implementing tougher bureaucratic requirements to register.
Nowhere has the war on registration been more controversial than the
state of Maine. Since 1973, Mainers have been permitted to register to
vote at the ballot box. For nearly 40 years, the system worked smoothly
-- separate lines for registering and voting are used to prevent
congestion -- and just two instances of voter fraud were found in the
entire span.
Nevertheless, when an unusually conservative group of lawmakers took
over both statehouse chambers and the governorship in 2010, one of their
primary orders of business was to repeal the state's law permitting
citizens to register on Election Day. Fortunately, in the ensuing weeks
citizens of the state rallied to collect tens of thousands of signatures
and force a vote on the matter. In November 2011, 61 percent of Mainers
rebuked the legislature and voted to restore Election Day registration
in their state.
"I don't want everybody to vote." --Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul
Weyrich
Alas, voting rights proponents in other states have not been as
successful. In Florida and Texas, for example, lawmakers succeeded in
placing onerous new restrictions on nonprofit organizations that help
register new voters. Voter registration drives by groups such as the
League of Women Voters have been a staple of our democracy for years,
helping thousands of citizens to register, regardless of their political
affiliation.
In the Sunshine State, however, those may now be a thing of the past.
Last July, the League of Women Voters announced it would no longer
operate in Florida because of new anti-voter legislation -- including
complicated new filing requirements and a mandate to submit completed
registration forms within 48 hours of completion or face a hefty fine --
made it nearly impossible for them to continue their work.
The Lone Star State also placed unnecessary new requirements on groups
and individuals interested in helping register others. Texas lawmakers
in May passed legislation requiring that people who help register
voters, known as volunteer deputy registrars, must also be eligible
Texas voters themselves. The new law has a number of unintended
consequences. For instance, legal permanent residents who are in the
process of obtaining their citizenship would be barred from learning the
political process by helping register others. Many such immigrants are
currently employed as deputy registrars; this new law would likely
result in their firing.
What's more, disabled Texans who are considered full guardians of the
state and ineligible to vote would be shut out as well. One disabled
gentleman had carried voter registration forms in his wheelchair for
years, eager to register others for a democratic process he himself
could not participate in. Under the new law, it would be illegal for him
to continue registering new voters. As of February 2012, Texas's new law
remains not in effect while the Justice Department determines whether it
complies with the Voting Rights Act.
Kansas, Alabama, and Tennessee took a slightly different route,
augmenting the required documentation necessary to register to vote.
Each passed laws requiring residents to prove their citizenship before
registering, either by presenting a birth certificate or passport. Less
than a third of Americans currently own a passport, and citizens who
don't have access to their birth certificate would be forced to pay for
one in order to vote -- an almost certain violation of the 24th
Amendment's ban on poll taxes. The problem is not small; at least 7
percent of Americans don't have easy access to a birth certificate or
similar citizenship document.
Arizona and Georgia also passed similar legislation prior to 2011. The
Justice Department is currently reviewing Georgia and Alabama's changes
for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and Arizona's law is being
challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Residency restrictions
Another avenue where conservatives are proposing to limit voting rights
is tightening the residency requirements. The intended effect of these
measures is to make it difficult, if not impossible, for out-of-state
college students to vote where they attend school.
In Maine, young voters are being targeted even more brazenly. In
September 2011 Maine's secretary of state sent a threatening letter to
hundreds of college students who were legally registered to vote in the
state, implying that many of them were in violation of election law and
suggesting they correct this by unregistering in Maine. The list of
college students targeted for this letter came directly from the Maine
Republican Party Chairman, underscoring just how partisan the voter
suppression effort in Maine has become. New Hampshire is now considering
stricter residency requirements for Granite State voters as well.
All of this is especially surprising given the Supreme Court's decision
in Symm v. United States, where it upheld a lower court decision
establishing that states cannot place obstacles unique to college
students between those students and their right to vote.
Limiting early voting
Following widespread voting problems in the 2000 election that had
nothing to do with voter fraud -- from extraordinarily long lines to
hanging chads -- many states moved to ease the burden on clerks and
citizens by allowing people to vote prior to Election Day. Ohio and
Florida were the epicenter of these problems, and both states moved to
prevent similar problems in the future by allowing early voting.
Among conservatives, then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a major proponent of
such reforms, calling them a "wonderful" way to "provide access to the
polls." As a result, over half of Sunshine State voters cast their
ballot before Election Day in 2008.
Yet three years later, lawmakers in the state moved to limit the
availability of early voting. In Florida voters had previously been
permitted two weeks of early voting prior to the election; lawmakers
rolled that back to eight days. Ohio lawmakers went even further,
reducing the state's early voting period from 35 days to just 11. Ari
Berman also notes in Rolling Stone that "both states banned voting on
the Sunday before the election -- a day when black churches historically
mobilize their constituents."
Other states have successfully rolled back their early voting periods as
well. Georgia reduced early voting from 45 to 21 days, Wisconsin
shortened their period by 16 days, West Virginia by five days, and
Tennessee by two.
In one bright spot, voting rights proponents in the Buckeye State are
fighting back against the new changes. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans
signed a petition to hold a referendum on the voting changes, suspending
the law until voters decide its fate in November 2012.
Voter ID laws
The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter ID legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister
(R-Augusta), told the Justice Department the bill would keep more
African Americans from voting, which was fine with her since "if there
are fewer black voters because of this bill, it will only be because
there is less opportunity for fraud."
The most common type of voter-related legislation in 2011 was the
mandate that individuals must show certain kinds of government-issued
photo ID at the polls before being allowed to vote. To date, Alabama,
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin have all passed such laws, and similar measures have been
proposed by 24 more.
But with more than 1 in 10 voters (over 21 million Americans) currently
lacking these photo IDs, it's clear that such laws could have a
disastrous effect. 20 Voter ID laws have the potential to exclude
millions of Americans, especially seniors, students, minorities, and
people in rural areas One example is Osceola, Wisconsin: A small town in
the northwestern part of the state with a population of under 3,000
people. The town is 30 minutes away from the nearest DMV offices and
both are rarely open.
Defenders of these laws claim they are necessary to prevent voter fraud.
In reality they are a solution in search of a problem. There's virtually
no such fraud in American elections -- and it's not even remotely close
to being the epidemic that some elected officials have made it out to
be. In the 2004 election, for example, about 3 million votes were cast
in Wisconsin -- only seven were declared invalid -- all of which were
cast by felons who had finished their sentences and didn't realize they
were still barred from voting. As a result, Wisconsin's overall fraud
rate came in at a whopping 0.00023 percent.
The only kind of voter fraud that is supposed to be prevented by these
laws is one voter impersonating another. Not only would impersonating
other voters one-by-one be an absurd strategy for stealing an entire
election, but the already-existing penalties -- five years in prison and
a $10,000 fine -- are doing an effective job at preventing such fraud.
Yet, while these laws would prevent few if any actual cases of voter
fraud, they could disenfranchise millions of ID-less voters. And they
are clearly illegal under longstanding voting rights law. The Voting
Rights Act not only forbids laws that are passed specifically to target
minority voters but also strikes down state laws that have a greater
impact on minority voters than on others. Because Voter ID laws
disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, they clearly fit within
the Voting Rights Act's prohibition.
Gaming the Electoral College
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett recently proposed changing the way his
state allocates electoral votes in a presidential election. Should his
proposal become law, it could alter the outcome in 2012 and
significantly increase the possibility that a candidate who loses the
popular vote in his state still receives more electoral votes overall.
Although the Constitution permits each state legislature to decide how
the winner of its electoral votes will be selected during a presidential
election, all but two of the states follow the same process -- whoever
wins the state as a whole receives all of that state's electoral votes.
The two remaining states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate one electoral
vote to the winner of each congressional district, plus two additional
votes to the overall winner of the state. Because these are both very
small states, however, their unusual process is unlikely to alter the
outcome of presidential elections.
The same cannot be said of Pennsylvania. As the nation's sixth most
populous state, Pennsylvania commands 20 electoral votes in the 2012
election. Gov. Corbett's proposal would allocate these votes according
to the Maine/Nebraska system, potentially swinging the election in the
process.
President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 percentage points in
2008, but if Pennsylvania had allocated votes in the same way as Maine
and Nebraska then he would have only earned only more electoral vote
from the state than his opponent Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In 2012
President Obama could win the state as a whole and still lose twelve of
the state's twenty electoral votes due to Pennsylvania's heavily
gerrymandered districts. This is more than enough to change the result
of next year's election. Consider that after the Supreme Court awarded
Florida's electoral votes to George W. Bush after the 2000 presidential
election. Bush received only five more electoral votes in 2000 than his
opponent Al Gore, who won the majority of the national popular vote.
Gov. Corbett's plan risks absurd results where the overall winner of a
state's popular vote becomes the loser of its electoral vote. Worse, it
undermines the legitimacy of any president who takes office solely due
to Pennsylvania conservatives gaming the Electoral College. Although the
Pennsylvania plan is probably constitutional, it is no less an attack on
our democratic system of government. The winner of the 2012 presidential
election should be the person chosen by the American people, not by
arbitrary differences between various states' election laws.
For the moment, Gov. Corbett's proposal appears to be dead due to
infighting between the proposal's supporters and some of Pennsylvania's
members of Congress in Washington who fear it could cause more campaign
resources to be directed toward their districts. There is nothing
preventing its supporters from reviving it -- potentially even on the
eve of the election -- should the 2012 election appear close enough to
be swung by manipulating the Electoral College.
Moreover, at least one Wisconsin lawmaker has jumped upon this proposal,
creating the risk that it could spread to other states. If similar swing
states, such as Florida or Michigan, took up this plan, it could
fundamentally transform the next election into a contest to see who can
best game the system.
Voter suppression in personal terms
In a representative democracy, it is important to point to individuals
who would be prevented from exercising their right to vote due to these
efforts at targeted voter suppression. Here are some real-life examples
of the consequences of these voter suppression laws.
Ricky Tyrone Lewis
Ricky is a 58 year-old Marine Corps veteran. Despite the fact that he
was able to offer Wisconsin voting officials proof of his honorable
discharge from the Marines, Milwaukee County has been unable to find the
record of his birth that he needs in order to obtain a voter ID card.
Ruthelle Frank
Ruthelle is an 84 year-old former elected official who voted in every
election for the last 63 years, yet she will be unable to obtain a voter
ID unless she pays a fee to obtain a birth certificate from the
Wisconsin government -- despite the fact that the Constitution
explicitly forbids any voter from being charged a fee in order to vote.
Worse, because the attending physician at her birth misspelled her name
on her original birth certificate, she may need to pay hundreds of
dollars in court fees to petition the state judiciary to correct her
certificate before she can obtain a voter ID.
Paul Carroll
Paul is an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same
Ohio town for four decades. Yet when he attempted to vote in the recent
Ohio primary, he was told his photo ID from the Department of Veterans
Affairs was not good enough because it did not include his address.
Dorothy Cooper
Dorothy is a 96-year-old African-American woman who says she has voted
in every election but one since she became eligible to vote. Yet when
she attempted to obtain a voter ID she was turned away because she did
not have a copy of her marriage license. In a subsequent interview
Dorothy said that she didn't even have problems voting in Tennessee
"during Jim Crow days -- only now under Voter ID.
Thelma Mitchell
Thelma is a 93-year-old woman who cleaned the Tennessee Capitol for 30
years. She never received a birth certificate, however, because she was
delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918 and there was no record of her
birth. When she attempted to obtain a voter ID, she was turned away for
lack of a birth certificate by a clerk who suggested she could be an
illegal immigrant.
Virginia Lasater
Virginia is a 91-year-old woman who has been active in political
campaigns for 70 years Because of her advanced age, however, she is no
longer able to stand for extended periods of time. When she attempted to
obtain a voter ID, she was confronted with lines that stretched for
several hours and no place to sit while she waited -- forcing her to
abandon her effort to obtain an ID due to her physical constraints.
"Election Day registration leads to "the kids coming out of the schools
and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a
liberal. That's what kids do -- they don't have life experience, and
they just vote their feelings."
-New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien
Darwin Spinks
Darwin is an 86 year-old World War II veteran. He was told to pay a fee
before he could obtain a voter ID in Tennessee, despite the fact that
charging someone to vote is unconstitutional.
Rita Platt
Rita is a Wisconsin resident who was turned away from her attempt to
obtain a voter ID because she required either a birth certificate or a
passport to obtain one -- both of which can only be obtained if the
voter pays a fee. Worse, in Wisconsin, voters must fill out a misleading
form that suggests that they cannot obtain the birth certificate they
need to obtain a photo ID unless they already have a photo ID.
Jessica Cohen
Jessica is a Texas resident who lost her license and other
identification papers in a burglary. She now must also pay an
unconstitutional fee in order to obtain the birth certificate she needs
to obtain a new voter ID. Because Cohen lives in Texas, she will likely
be able to vote in 2012 because the Department of Justice blocked
Texas’s law under the Voting Rights Act -- although there is a high risk
that the Supreme Court’s conservatives will declare the Voting Rights
Act unconstitutional.
These nine voters are representative of the millions of voters who could
be deprived of their right to vote after exercising that right for, in
some cases, decades. Their problems will become more commonplace as
additional states continue to pass suppressive laws.
Conclusion
When speaking about this subject at the Campus Progress National
Conference in 2011, President Bill Clinton asked the young audience why
these laws making it harder to vote were all being proposed in such a
high rate and passed across the country. The answer, he said, was that
"They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010
electorate than the 2008 electorate."
Conservatives are scared because each cycle more young and minority
voters are entering voting age and their collective impact is growing
accordingly. In 2008 about 48 million Millennial generation voters --
those born between 1978 and 2000 -- were old enough to vote. By 2012,
that number will be 64 million, or 29 percent of all eligible voters.
According to analysis by the Center for American Progress, by 2020, when
all Millennial voters are of voting age, about 90 million of them will
be eligible to vote and will comprise around 40 percent of all eligible
American voters. This parallels changes in minority voters -- from 1988
to 2008 the percent of minority voters increased to 26 percent from 15
percent.
These young and minority voters are strongly progressive. They strongly
support progressive staples such as investing in renewable energy and
maintaining Social Security. This has translated into elections as well.
In 2008 both young voters and Hispanic voters delivered two-thirds of
their votes to President Obama.
Taken together, the growing influence of staunchly progressive voters
has conservatives scared to the point of extreme measures. Backed by
large corporate donors, they are looking for any proposal or law that
will help negate this change in voting demographics. While this is their
motivation, the right to vote is an American right that should be
protected by those of all political persuasions.
Right now, the protection of anti-voter suppression measures put in
place during the 1960s is preventing the enactment of the law in key
states. And in other states the laws will become ballot measures where
their outcome can be decided by the voters. In many states these laws
have already been passed and must be aggressively challenged through
legal and electoral measures to put our system of democratic elections
back on the right track.
--Comments?
Tracey12
Apr 9, 2012, 10:03:15 AM4/9/12
to
The video that makes your post totally worthless:
Eric Holder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
Eric Holder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
wolfagain
Apr 9, 2012, 10:32:37 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The video that makes your post totally worthless:
>
> Eric Holder:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
video DESTROYS limp dick Obama and Holder lovers and their AGENDA to
> The video that makes your post totally worthless:
>
> Eric Holder:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
rig the election!!!!
Richard Steel
Apr 9, 2012, 10:35:16 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 6:47 am, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From Alternet:
>
> By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_...
> From Alternet:
>
> By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
> The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
Why We Need Voter-ID Laws Now
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
> The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
Voter fraud is a scandal, and the attorney general can’t look away
anymore.
By John Fund
Attorney General Eric Holder is a staunch opponent of laws requiring
voters to show photo ID at the polls to improve ballot security. He
calls them “unnecessary” and has blocked their implementation in Texas
and South Carolina, citing the fear they would discriminate against
minorities.
I wonder what Holder will think when he learns just how easy it was
for someone to be offered his ballot just by mentioning his name in a
Washington, D.C., polling place in Tuesday’s primaries.
Advertisement
Holder’s opposition to ID laws comes in spite of the Supreme Court’s
6–
3 decision in 2008, authored by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens,
that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement.
When groups sue to block photo-ID laws in court, they can’t seem to
produce real-world examples of people who have actually been denied
the right to vote. According to opinion polls, over 75 percent of
Americans — including majorities of Hispanics and African-Americans —
routinely support such laws.
One reason is that people know you can’t function in the modern world
without showing ID — you can’t cash a check, travel by plane or even
train, or rent a video without being asked for one. In fact, PJ Media
recently proved that you can’t even enter the Justice Department in
Washington without showing a photo ID. Average voters understand that
it’s only common sense to require ID because of how easy it is for
people to pretend they are someone else
Filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is on Tuesday
when he dispatched an assistant to the Nebraska Avenue polling place
in Washington where Attorney General Holder has been registered for
the last 29 years. O’Keefe specializes in the same use of hidden
cameras that was pioneered by the recently deceased Mike Wallace, who
used the technique to devastating effect in exposing fraud in Medicare
claims and consumer products on 60 Minutes. O’Keefe’s efforts helped
expose the fraud-prone voter-registration group ACORN with his video
stings, and has had great success demonstrating this year in New
Hampshire, Vermont, and Minnesota just how easy it is to obtain a
ballot by giving the name of a dead person who is still on the rolls.
Indeed, a new study by the Pew Research Center found at least 1.8
million dead people are still registered to vote. They aren’t likely
to complain if someone votes in their place.
In Washington, it was child’s play for O’Keefe to beat the system.
O’Keefe’s assistant used a hidden camera to document his encounter
with the election worker at Holder’s polling place:
Man: “Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?
Poll worker: “Let me see here.”
Man: Xxxx 50th Street.
Poll Worker: Let’s see, Holder, Hol-t-e-r, or Hold-d-e-r?
Man: H-o-l-d-e-r.
Poll Worker: D-e-r. Okay.
Man: That’s the name.
Poll Worker: I do. Xxxx 50th Street NW. Okay. [Puts check next to
name, indicating someone has shown up to vote.] Will you sign
there . . .
Man: I actually forgot my ID.
Poll Worker: You don’t need it; it’s all right.
Man: I left it in the car.
Poll Worker: As long as you’re in here, and you’re on our list and
that’s who you say you are, we’re okay.
Man: I would feel more comfortable if I go get my ID, is it all
right if I go get it?
Poll Worker: Sure, go ahead.
Man: I’ll be back faster than you can say furious!
Poll Worker: We’re not going anywhere.
Note that O’Keefe’s assistant never identified himself as Eric Holder,
so he was not illegally impersonating him.
Nor did he attempt to vote using the ballot that was offered him, or
even to accept it. O’Keefe has been accused by liberals of committing
voter fraud in his effort to expose just how slipshod the election
systems of various no-ID-required states are, but lawyers say his
methods avoid that issue. Moreover, he has only taped his encounters
with election officials in jurisdictions that allow videotaping
someone in public with only one party’s knowledge.
As for the D.C. Board of Elections, its loose practices are a matter
of record. Last year, a community activist uncovered the fact that
Andrea Pringle, the new deputy chief of staff to Washington, D.C.,
mayor Vincent Gray, had voted illegally in the district even though
she admitted to living in Maryland. She resigned in the face of the
criticism.
Nor is she the only example. State Senator Harold Metts of Rhode
Island got a photo-ID law put on the books in his state last year
after he was told by several constituents of a pattern of voter fraud
in his home town of Providence. Indeed, his own state representative
and her daughter had their votes stolen by someone voting in their
names in one election. “The old system was not set up to readily weed
out fraud, and it would be very hard to prove,” he told the Woonsocket
Patch newspaper. Metts, the state senate’s only African-American
member, says that he took a lot of heat from national Democrats for
getting the ID law approved by an overwhelmingly Democratic
legislature. But he says party loyalty only takes him so far. “It’s
time to stop crying wolf and make the voter-ID law work for those on
both sides of this issue who want to ensure the integrity of the
system, while guarding against disenfranchisement.”
Several of the state laws that require photo ID also make new
provisions to enhance security for absentee ballots, the tool of
choice for many fraudsters. Last year, Lessadolla Sowers, a member of
the NAACP’s Executive Committee in Tunica County, Miss., was sentenced
to five years in prison for fraudulently casting absentee ballots for
ten other people. “This crime cuts against the fabric of our free
society,” Judge Charles Webster said at the sentencing hearing.
Scandals such as that one helped convince 62 percent of Mississippi’s
voters to approve a photo-ID law last November. The measure passed in
a clear majority of counties that are majority-black. As with other ID
laws, a free state-issued photo ID is available to anyone who says
they can’t afford one.
But the groups opposing voter ID won’t let the facts get in their way.
James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking member in the House
Democratic leadership, compares voter-ID laws to “Jim Crow” provisions
that blocked people from voting in the last century, and said he is
“very, very anxious” that the Supreme Court “as it is presently
constituted” will support the new laws. But as previously noted, the
Supreme Court already has supported voter ID, with its opinion
authored by its most liberal member at the time.
Some criticism of voter-ID laws has morphed into intimidation. This
week, Color of Change, co-founded by former Obama special adviser Van
Jones, threatened a boycott against Coca-Cola and Walmart because they
financially supported the American Legislative Exchange Council, which
has helped state legislators draft some of the voter-ID laws. Within
hours, Coca-Cola resigned its membership in ALEC. So far Walmart is
holding out by arguing that ALEC is involved with dozens of issues,
many of them of direct concern to Walmart shareholders.
There is something surreal about the voter-ID issue. As James O’Keefe
demonstrates, it is comically easy to commit voter fraud in person,
and, unless someone confesses, it’s very difficult to ever detect.
With absentee balloting, there is a paper trail that makes it easier
to uncover fraud, making it a problem that even some critics of photo
ID will admit.
Other than hypotheticals, there are very few cases of legitimate
voters who were unable to have their vote counted because they lacked
ID. People who show up without photo ID at the polls are allowed to
cast a provisional ballot that is counted after proof of identity is
offered.
“From voter fraud to election chicanery of all kinds, America teeters
on the edge of scandal every November,” says Larry Sabato, the
director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and
author of a comprehensive survey of voter fraud called “Dirty Little
Secrets.” The fact that so many people want to thwart legitimate and
prudent efforts to improve ballot integrity has become a scandal in
its own right. Attorney General Holder is unlikely to agree with that,
but after what happened at his polling place last Tuesday, he should
at least understand that voter fraud itself is a scandal worth
investigating.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295431/why-we-need-voter-id-la...
— John Fund, a writer based in New York, is the author of Stealing
Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 11:20:49 AM4/9/12
to
On 04/09/2012 08:47 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> From Alternet:
>
> By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans/
>
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
>
> The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
No wonder you have such warped ideas, look where you get your information.
> From Alternet:
>
> By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_how_conservatives_are_conspiring_to_disenfranchise_millions_of_americans/
>
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
>
> The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
wy
Apr 9, 2012, 11:28:21 AM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 11:20 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 08:47 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From Alternet:
>
> > By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> > Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> > Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> > © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
> >http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154842/voter_suppression_101%3A_...
> On 04/09/2012 08:47 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From Alternet:
>
> > By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
> > Abraham White, Center for American Progress
> > Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
> > © 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
>
>
> >http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
> > The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> > legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> > barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> > period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> > the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> > to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> > efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> > such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> > possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> > citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> > in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> > to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
>
> No wonder you have such warped ideas, look where you get your information.
It's the left's equivalent of World Nut Daily and Drudge and the like
> >http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
>
> > The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
> > legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
> > barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
> > period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
> > the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
> > to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
> > efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
> > such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
> > possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
> > citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
> > in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
> > to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
>
> No wonder you have such warped ideas, look where you get your information.
for the right. If you discredit those sources, you have to discredit
yours as well because both are playing on the same off-mainstream, web
universe field. Otherwise, you're just not being very ... impartial.
And thus, not very credible.
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 11:40:00 AM4/9/12
to
try to have some ammo loaded next time, and not go off half-cocked..
--Otherwise, it leaves the impression you're appealing to a belief..
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 11:41:06 AM4/9/12
to
something from WND? Even more important, when is the last time I posted
something from WND without some sort of disclaimer?
Do you ever actually read what is posted?
wy
Apr 9, 2012, 11:43:27 AM4/9/12
to
like". Do you ever actually read what I post?
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 12:01:40 PM4/9/12
to
places such as WND.
B_v_M
Apr 9, 2012, 11:59:14 AM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 6:47 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> From Alternet:
>
> By
No thanks, you can feed on your lefty screeds by yourself.
> From Alternet:
>
> By
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120309/OPINION02/703099987&source=RSS
By DEROY MURDOCK
Published Mar 9, 2012 at 3:00 am (Updated Mar 8, 2012)
In order to stymie new and proposed requirements that voters present
photo identification at the polls, top Democrats cry rivers over those
who would become disenfranchised for lack of ID cards. If they really
cared about these people — of whom there may be millions — Democrats
would join Republicans to assure that these individuals received ID
cards for everyday use.
Instead, leading Democrats use vicious racial rhetoric to hammer those
who simply want voters to be who they say they are.
“Some people want to put their Confederate flags up again in Virginia,”
former NAACP director Benjamin Chavis hissed. At a Jan. 31 rally in
Richmond, Chavis accused state lawmakers of trying to “lynch democracy.”
Mayor Dwight C. Jones, a Democrat, added: “The fact that there's a
brother in the White House is just so unsettling to people.” According
to Rep. Barbara Lee, D–Calif., pro-photo ID Republicans are “turning the
clock back to the days of Jim Crow.” Last July, former President Bill
Clinton told Campus Progress' annual conclave in Washington, D.C.:
“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax
and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a
franchise that we see today.”
These divisive Democrats seem concerned about those without ID cards
only on Election Day. The other 364 days of the year, these men and
women are undocumented citizens. Absent photo ID, these disconnected
Americans do not participate fully in the American experience.
Those without photo ID cannot open bank accounts. They may not board
passenger jets. They are not supposed to ride Amtrak trains. They may
not purchase cough syrup containing ephedrine and other methamphetamine
precursors. In Illinois, they may not buy Drano. In fact, they may not
enter the Justice Department to denounce photo ID rules without first
showing a photo ID.
Race-baiting Democrats apparently couldn't care less about these
undocumented citizens. If they did, they would lead a common-sense
effort to provide photo ID cards to every American adult who needed one.
By displaying new ID cards on Election Day, these politically
enfranchised Americans would curb potential and actual ballot fraud and
boost confidence in the voting system.
Beyond Election Day, these freshly documented citizens would be socially
enfranchised. With photo ID cards, they could cash checks, fly, visit
government buildings, and do plenty more that documented citizens
accomplish daily.
B_v_M
Apr 9, 2012, 12:01:24 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 8:40 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> you're appealing to a belief..
You're scripted by the left. And always have been.
> you're appealing to a belief..
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 12:17:11 PM4/9/12
to
Sid9
Apr 9, 2012, 12:33:17 PM4/9/12
to
"B_v_M" <ber...@in1mind.invalid> wrote in message
news:jlv15e$4tq$7...@dont-email.me...
intrusion that would make Americans carry an internal passport or as it is
known now: Photo ID.
lsrlts
Apr 9, 2012, 12:34:40 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 8:43 AM, wy wrote:
> Do you ever actually read what I post?
>
I suspect that many do not, as you are widely known as a cheap canuck troll.
> Do you ever actually read what I post?
>
B_v_M
Apr 9, 2012, 12:35:27 PM4/9/12
to
B_v_M
Apr 9, 2012, 12:37:35 PM4/9/12
to
And he uses all the pseudo-academic patterned phraseology here.
But his rigorous scholarly examination seems limited to mathematics, not
social or political "science"..
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 12:54:45 PM4/9/12
to
Another point.
As I recall, one who applies for welfare assistance, "food stamps"
Medicaid and such, must also show a photo ID as part of the application
process, as must those who seek employment through the WIN job centers
and such. In fact, I believe that one of the ID requirements to prove to
a prospective employer that you are legally able to work in the USA, is
a photo ID.
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 1:00:34 PM4/9/12
to
field does not automatically transfer to critical thinking in other
fields. Kurt is a prime example if this.
David Hartung
Apr 9, 2012, 1:06:10 PM4/9/12
to
My guess is that most hard core libertarians would scream bloody murder
if you were to make them show positive ID to vote. Those of us who
believe in limited government(which is not the same thing as
libertarian) realize that one of the best ways to ensure that government
remains within its constitutional bounds is to ensure that those who
cast votes are actually registered voters, and that they are who they
claim to be.
What makes this discussion so very funny is that if Sid, or any of those
who are currently screaming about voter ID, were to see their man lose
because a bunch of people were shown to have "voted early and voted
often", they would be demanding some form of positive ID requirement.
Should anyone care to do the research, I am certain they would find that
one of the tactics used to bring about "Jim Crow" was the "vote early,
vote often" approach.
lsrlts
Apr 9, 2012, 3:41:44 PM4/9/12
to
> Another point.
>
> As I recall, one who applies for welfare assistance, "food stamps"
> Medicaid and such, must also show a photo ID as part of the application
> process, as must those who seek employment through the WIN job centers
> and such. In fact, I believe that one of the ID requirements to prove to
> a prospective employer that you are legally able to work in the USA, is
> a photo ID.
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 10:24:52 PM4/9/12
to
>> --Otherwise, it leaves the impression you're appealing to a belief..
>
>
> Remember those words the next time you sneer at someone for posting from
> places such as WND.
Indeed.. And I'll also remember this about WND..
> places such as WND.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=WorldNetDaily
"On September 20, 2000, WND published an article
http://www.wnd.com/2000/09/4260/
claiming that Clark Jones, a Tennessee car dealer and
fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had
interfered with a criminal investigation, had been
a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed
on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer," and
implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged
criminal activity. In 2001, Jones filed a lawsuit
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/graphics/wndlawsuitdocs/jonessuit.pdf
against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays;
the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson
and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones;
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/wndlawsuit.html
and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who
he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and
defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial
in March 2008,
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45693/
but on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential
out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones. A
settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the
lawsuit states in part:
"Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness
verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by
authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been
discovered that provides any verification that the statements
written were true.
"Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom
of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm
Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law
enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of
any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any
investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also
revealed that the sources named in the publications have
stated under oath that statements attributed to them in
the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted
by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were
taken out of context."
--Which one of many reasons to 'sneer' at WND as a source of "news"..
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 10:29:56 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 11:33 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> Used to be that Libertarians and Republicans opposed the government
> intrusion that would make Americans carry an internal passport or
> as it is known now: Photo ID.
Now that they've made their true ambitions known, I think it's
>
> Used to be that Libertarians and Republicans opposed the government
> intrusion that would make Americans carry an internal passport or
> as it is known now: Photo ID.
time for all good men to come to the aid of their country..
--And laugh these wannabe fascists out of the picture..
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 10:32:39 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 12:00 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> Academic training and expertise in one field does not automatically
> transfer to critical thinking in other fields
So, you're still jealous of the intellectual freedom from racial,
> Academic training and expertise in one field does not automatically
> transfer to critical thinking in other fields
religious and political bigotries of the past that higher education
has led our nation away from?
--Small wonder you try to downplay that fact, David..
Man_of_Mind
Apr 9, 2012, 10:36:03 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/9/2012 11:17 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> Yet he claim to be an intellectual.
As opposed to being "just a redneck with an opinion"?
> Yet he claim to be an intellectual.
And, again, you cowardly deleted the article and started your
fallacy arguments and personal attacks against someone else
who doesn't share your small-minded prejudices and fears..
From Alternet:
By Scott Keyes and Ian Millhiser and Tobin Van Ostern and
Abraham White, Center for American Progress
Posted on April 4, 2012, Printed on April 9, 2012
© 2012 Center for American Progress All rights reserved.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/voter_suppression.pdf
The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative
legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new
barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting
period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs
the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons
to enact these laws -- voter fraud is exceedingly rare -- in their
efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups,
such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as
possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all
citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights
in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South
to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
Slackjaw
Apr 9, 2012, 11:24:11 PM4/9/12
to
whether he knows what they actually mean or not.
--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---
Message has been deleted
B_v_M
Apr 10, 2012, 12:45:10 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 7:32 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> So, you're still jealous of the intellectual freedom from racial,
> religious and political bigotries of the past that higher education
> has led our nation away from?
The same "higher education" that embraced the eugenics movement?
> So, you're still jealous of the intellectual freedom from racial,
> religious and political bigotries of the past that higher education
> has led our nation away from?
B_v_M
Apr 10, 2012, 12:45:58 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 7:24 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> --Which one of many reasons to 'sneer'
And you do so love to sneer, berren..
> --Which one of many reasons to 'sneer'
Man_of_Mind
Apr 10, 2012, 1:02:05 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 10:24 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Hartung bravely blathered:
you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"
"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."
"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"
"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"
"You kow you really should stick to the childish name modification"
--*>chortle!<*
>
> David Hartung bravely blathered:
..
>> Which I have found to be common. Academic training and expertise in
>> one field does not automatically transfer to critical thinking in
>> other fields. Kurt is a prime example if this.
>
> I have noticed Kurt tries really hard to use multi-syllable words
Unlike yourself.. Of course, even simple words mess
>> Which I have found to be common. Academic training and expertise in
>> one field does not automatically transfer to critical thinking in
>> other fields. Kurt is a prime example if this.
>
> I have noticed Kurt tries really hard to use multi-syllable words
you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"
"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."
"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"
"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"
"You kow you really should stick to the childish name modification"
--*>chortle!<*
B_v_M
Apr 10, 2012, 1:31:58 AM4/10/12
to
On 4/9/2012 10:02 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
> Of course, even simple words mess
> you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
Back to the favored sp.flame, berren?
> Of course, even simple words mess
> you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
Slackjaw
Apr 10, 2012, 7:38:00 AM4/10/12
to
Message has been deleted
B_v_M
Apr 10, 2012, 12:26:13 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 4:38 AM, Slackjaw wrote:
> B_v_M wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/2012 10:02 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>> Of course, even simple words mess
>>> you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
>>
>> Back to the favored sp.flame, berren?
>
> It's all he has.
>
I see he's gone now, ftmp, to basic alternet and huffpoo trolls.
> B_v_M wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/2012 10:02 PM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>> Of course, even simple words mess
>>> you up, as can be seen by the next few examples..
>>
>> Back to the favored sp.flame, berren?
>
> It's all he has.
>
Not a lot of creative depth, for a so-called man of "Mind"..
Liberal Here
Apr 10, 2012, 3:59:32 PM4/10/12
to
conservatives like Bush 1/2, Cheney, Romney, Santorum, the Boner,
McConnell, etc. We see the tragedy you create and despire.
On a recent PBS documentary about the Ohio primary, a husband and
wife, who had opened an electrical construction company during Bush
1/2's reign of incompetence, said they had almost gone bankrupt but
under Obama's economic policies they were seeing their business become
profitable. Yet they were thinking of voting for the republican
candidate because of the party's promise of passing "family values"
legislation which they said they valued more than economic viability.
Message has been deleted
lsrlts
Apr 10, 2012, 4:49:10 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 12:59 PM, Liberal Here wrote:
> blissful reichtards
hateful libitards
> blissful reichtards
hateful libitards
Slackjaw
Apr 10, 2012, 7:41:07 PM4/10/12
to
Blagojevich, Ted Kennedy, etc.
> We see the tragedy you create and despire.
>
> On a recent PBS documentary about the Ohio primary, a husband and
> wife, who had opened an electrical construction company during Bush
> 1/2's reign of incompetence, said they had almost gone bankrupt but
> under Obama's economic policies they were seeing their business become
> profitable. Yet they were thinking of voting for the republican
> candidate because of the party's promise of passing "family values"
> legislation which they said they valued more than economic viability.
--
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
Man_of_Mind
Apr 10, 2012, 11:07:15 PM4/10/12
to
On 4/10/2012 3:46 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:26:13 -0700, bvd <bor...@rind.invalid> sniveled:
..
> Maybe he mis-spelled "hind"
>
> as in "Man of Hind"?
>
> BTW, I've lost track of who/which BVM is the real one (good guy)
I'm right here..
--Recall that email I sent ya's?
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:26:13 -0700, bvd <bor...@rind.invalid> sniveled:
..
> Maybe he mis-spelled "hind"
>
> as in "Man of Hind"?
>
> BTW, I've lost track of who/which BVM is the real one (good guy)
I'm right here..
--Recall that email I sent ya's?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
0 new messages