New Voter ID Laws And The 2012 Elections
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-11/new-voter-id-laws-and-2012-elections
Last week county election officials in Florida said they would stop looking for possible ineligible voters because the data base they were using was outdated and inaccurate. The U.S. Department of Justice also had ordered the state to stop the purge on the grounds that it was taking place within 90 days of an election. State leaders in Florida have vowed to find another way to remove ineligible voters from their rolls. The skirmish in the state of Florida is just one of many elsewhere around the country: Last year new voter ID measures were introduced in thirty-four states and they passed in four. Four other states tightened existing ID rules. Please join us to talk about ongoing partisan battles over voter rights.
Guests
Wendy Weiser
director, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Hans Von Spakovsky
senior legal fellow, Heritage Foundation and manager of Civil Justice Reform Initiative
Doug Chapin
director, Electionline.org at the University of Minnesota
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Only one of those examples is valid for the data set analyzed. It appears that the election fraud that you referenced in Indiana, was done by elected officials, a whole different type of fraud. It doesn't appear that the "reforms" that you are advocating would have prevented this type of fraud.
The analysis I presented, only is applicable to Indiana elections as I only have data for Indiana elections. All the other examples you have given are irrelevant without pertinent data and similar analysis of that data.
Mike Sergeant,
Someone made the point that it is election fraud that is the potential problem, not voter fraud. In general, I take the point. But that is not to say that voter fraud doesn't matter or is so small that it doesn't matter, which is what I hear coming from the left; it's a "non-problem" or a "solution in search of a problem". What the article shows is that some elections are very, very close and voter fraud - when the vote is sufficiently contentious - can make the difference.
Heh,
OldBrit pontificated: "REPUBLICANS are a dwindling minority"
Uhhh.....what exactly points to this fantasy conclusion? The 2010 House of Representatives butt-whipping the DEMOCRATS took?
All the state governor races in 2010 that turned from Dem to Republican?
The recent Republican recall win in Wisconsin, after the drama and millions the dems and their familiars the unions poured in to the race, only to lose by 7 points?
The democrats better hope the Republicans don't dwindle anymore, else the democrats won't hold ANY office.
OldDude, the Internet is the left's worst enemy, and the taxpayer knows that democrats are an expensive, corrupt habit.
Smoot, great reply and better than I could have done.
I once had somebody on a mb proclaim that "we are a left-leaning country"! I laughed and I laughed! This was the same person who said that SS would never run out of money because the Treasury would just print more!
Brilliant!
ecgberht,
So far I have only proposals to prevent voter fraud. Picture ID's do not fight what happened in Indiana.
I don't deny that these races COULD have been decided by voter fraud. However, please not that the 800 I presented, are based assumptions that IF Indiana only caught 0.01% of the voters committing fraud over the 150+ years of Indiana history, you would have the 7 confirmed fraudulent voters that are on the record. A 0.01% efficiency is really low, even for a government agency.
Rick Evans wrote:
"I don't have to show an i.d. for direct deposit and don't have to show it to the camera at the bank ATM. Nor does the cashier or self check out ask me for i.d. if I pay with cash, credit or debit.
If I pull out my driver's license once a year it's because I did something stupid with my car while a cop was watching. It's been years since having to do that. "
------------------------------------
When your credit/debit cards are stolen, I'm sure you will wish a cashier asked for the thief's photo ID before they charge your cards.
Since you manage to pull out your photo ID to identify yourself to a cop, you have no problem doing so for a polling station official, yes?
After all, by your own estimation, that would constitute the second time all year you would be asked to produce a photo ID. How dare these folks require you to go through this hassle twice a year!
All I can say Mike is that IN is not the only state in the union. LibVet, who I understand it's not up to you to defend, brought up the IN law. But he also said this:
"A voter must have a secure ID card with photo and special safeguards. To get the card requires an especially long list of identity verifications which are checked arbitrarily by untrained (but even more strict) clerks.......... Original Social Security card, certified birth certificate, utility bills dated within the last 60 days and addressed to the same address as the other documents, a letter or other form of communication on paper from either state or federal government dated within the last 60 days and addressed to the same address. Having a recently used US passport is helpful but not of special note."
That's simply false. ONE or perhaps two of those might be required - the implication was that they are ALL required which is utter nonsense. I need to show a valid address to get my annual pass to our community center pool. I don't think it's unreasonable to show that to get a voter id card.
Marcus,
Rick Evans also said this, "WRONG. There's no need to show a photo ID to open an online brokerage or bank account. SS# yes, photo ID, NO."
Which is untrue no matter how big the capital letters are. It depends on the brokerage house. I recently opened a new account and had to fax a copy of my DL to do it. When you walk into the hospital to get medical care these days you have to show an ID. That's to prevent insurance fraud. Which is more important; insurance fraud, or voter fraud?
Not defending anyone, I simply was using his data. One can only assume that he can defend himself.
My point in all of this is that the evidence is that the laws currently on the books for registering to vote are adequate to prevent the majority of election fraud. Additional laws are unnecessary and are a waste of time when there is so much more that needs to be done.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
'Only one of those examples is valid for the data set analyzed. It appears that the election fraud that you referenced in Indiana, was done by elected officials, a whole different type of fraud. It doesn't appear that the "reforms" that you are advocating would have prevented this type of fraud."
This is what you said, now you want to twist it to something else.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"Let me present it to you with out all the "Liberal" math. 800 votes is not going to change the outcome of any election, including Bush v. Gore.'
Go to the web site and see how badly you lost.
It seems that the states first need to put in place and manage proactively those on the roles. My father passed away last November and he is still on the voter roles. The county clerk changed his address to mine via the Post Office, but even though his death was recorded in November, it has not made it to the county clerk and he is still registered. We have called both the county clerk and New Mexico Secretary of State and everyone says it will be taken care via Social Security death notices or via the funeral home. No one seems to know how to remove him. We have now sent a certified death certificate to the state to try and get him removed. In the mean time, he is on the rolls and someone could exercise his vote. It should not be a difficult process to remove deceased people from the rolls and alleviate much of the potential problem.
aivlys, my condolences on the loss of your father. I recommend, however that he vote for Romney.
I'd like to know if there are any statistics which identify actually fraudulent voters versus voter role "errors". How many of the inappropriately identified voters on the roles actually are voting?
Also, in this recession, states such as Florida are under huge financial strain. What is the sense in using the seriously restricted state funds to "cleanse" data bases at this time? It would certainly appear to be a political activity.
ecgberht asks, "Which is more important; insurance fraud, or voter fraud?"
That's easy. Insurance fraud is rampant, costing the public billions of dollars each year. Voter fraud, especially the kind that a voter id would prevent, is as rare as Sasquatch. (Actually, there seem to be more sightings of Sasquatch each year.) Obviously, it's always more important to address fraud that actually exists. In this case, that's insurance fraud.
Jim978,
From a philosophical point of view, I would argue differently. Insurance fraud is just money. A big problem to be sure, and from a practical standpoint should be better addressed. Voter fraud puts our democracy at risk - whether it is fraud in a Presidential election or for dog catcher.
To say that "It's always more important to address fraud that actually exists" implies that voter fraud doesn't, which isn't true, or that it doesn't matter, which is also not true.
ecgberht,
The type of voter fraud that a voter id would prevent is extremely rare. After five years, the George W. Bush Justice Department brought charges in just 120 cases (that's charges, not convictions). Almost all involved the incorrect filing of registration forms or confusion about eligibility rules. Not one involved voter impersonation.
Whatever voter impersonation fraud (if any) may exist, it clearly represents a tiny fraction of one percent of all votes cast. That's too few to affect the outcome of more than a very tiny handful of elections. Bad weather on election day probably impacts more close elections than voter impersonation fraud.
Absentee ballot fraud or election official misconduct, on the other hand, is real and has been documented over and over. Regardless, our democracy survives. I think history proves that our democracy is not nearly as fragile as some would like us believe.
The one area of voter fraud that hasn't been mentioned is the continued use of proprietary software on "authorized voting machines." It's easier to steal elections via software in the machines, easy to hack wireless routers, unsecure phone lines and software at central HQs as well local offices.
Then there's the problem of state issued IDs that are not accepted. EBT cards, drivers licenses, state university IDs, etc. that are tied to computer records - EBT cards also used for welfare payments, Medicaid ID & food stamps & are often tied to fingerprints taken before the cards are issued.
There's still the problem that all eligible votes are not counted - absentee, provisional whether they affect the final result or not.
It's time for universal registration & election commissions that are completely neutral ala in the EU. "Bipartisan" is not enough. Add in not enough voting machines in large districts, etc. that came up in 2000 & every election since. We have to stop the large scale gaming - caging, etc. to protect every eligible voter's right to vote.
Jim978,
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply. You make some fair points.
"Whatever voter impersonation fraud (if any) may exist"
That's not the only reason for a voter ID. Essentially, a lax system is a system that invites fraud. And, again, in a country as sharply divided as ours, it becomes a real issue.
"After five years, the George W. Bush Justice Department brought charges in just 120 cases (that's charges, not convictions). "
Should include the whole context, Jim. "About 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year. [that's almost a 3/4 conviction rate] Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show". Entire article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all
The article goes on to say that fraud HAS changed the outcome of some small, local elections, and after that, it's just a matter of scale.
"Absentee ballot fraud or election official misconduct, on the other hand, is real "
Absolutely true. Mostly difficult to prove. I think it was at play in the Coleman case, but could never be proved.
"Regardless, our democracy survives. I think history proves that our democracy is not nearly as fragile as some would like us believe."
Fragile? No. Bent so as to become unrecognizable? We're getting there.
I know the show is long over, but I want to let you know that as a Florida voter for over 20 years and a voter for 40 years, I just received my absentee ballot voter letter from my supervisor of elections basically wanting me to reregister to vote and give them my signature again because I have voted absentee many times. Mind you, I just voted in April against a tax referendum that was added to the Replican Primary ballot to keep not so right leaning voters not to vote. But, as I always do in every election from dog catcher up, I went in personally to vote 2 MONTHS AGO and now they are asking me to fill out a new voter registration form even thought I signed to get my ballot for this referendum vote. If this is not voter suppression I do not know what is. Totally ridiculous!
Arkus Duntov wrote:
Dawn Castle wrote:
Whoops! Double post, sorry.
"Triple post but who's counting. Whats with you people anyway. I put plenty of facts up there and all I get in return is made up garbage and hyperbole. Face it you can't handle the truth and you offer nothing except insults"
I second that. Honey Dawn, I believe that you are mistaken.
Arkus,
The point of my post was that the list of documents that a particular (untrained, suspicious, arbitrary, conservative) clerk in Indiana might insist on is nearly two pages long and the voter won't really know what is required in his/her instance until he/she shows up at the BMV.
You conservatives clamor for reduced simplicity and fewer regulations. Funny how that only applies selectively in your case. I maintain that a state that's been around since 1816 and only has 7 confirmed cases of voter "fraud" needs this new requirement like a frog needs a bicycle.
And YOU know that!
An excellent show which to me detailed the need for proper information management - putting aside any political aspects. One of the presenters referred to "election geeks", that are people who have detailed knowledge of how various voter lists and records can be correlated and ultimately improve the overall data quality.
Very good to see the technical issues touched up,
Ian
http://ijosblog.blogspot.fi/2012/06/information-engineers-wanted.html
LibVet wrote: "The point of my post was that the list of documents that a particular (untrained, suspicious, arbitrary, conservative) clerk in Indiana might insist on is nearly two pages long and the voter won't really know what is required in his/her instance until he/she shows up at the BMV."
This would probably take place at the DMV, they seem to process drivers licenses in a professional way. Seems your exaggerating to make the point.
LibVet wrote:"You conservatives clamor for reduced simplicity and fewer regulations. Funny how that only applies selectively in your case. I maintain that a state that's been around since 1816 and only has 7 confirmed cases of voter "fraud" needs this new requirement like a frog needs a bicycle."
I do not know and cannot find the criteria to find voter fraud, how hard are they trying, no one ever asked me to confirm my vote or anyone else that I know.
The bottom line is voter suppression is no more a problem than voter fraud. By the opinion poles I have seen most do not have a problem with an I.D. requirement, I think I have said it at least three times, securing the integrity of our electoral system is important, voter I.D. laws would certainly go a long way to do just that, again most agree.
A majority of Democrats (52 percent), independents (72 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) supported voter ID laws as necessary.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75300.html#ixzz1xa9s5i8D
"Lets just cut to the chase, a form of the above is what conservatives in the US would like to see brought back. Only allow wealthy white people to vote. They will continuously fight until they can get as close as possible to that goal, all the while denying that that is they are trying to do."
Cut to the chase? Yeah, lets, NC_TOm.
One shred of evidence that that is the objective.
I will say though, that there was logic to the original plan that only property owners could vote. Property owners have a vested interest in well-run efficient government and a successful society that maintains property values, etc. We have something less than that today. What is the vested interest of someone who has no home and no job and whom the government supports? Answer: only himself.
Would I recommend a return to 1776? Not at this point, but I see the logic in it. Study history, NC_TOm. It will improve your ability to think and reason.
ecgberht, Thank you for unknowingly confirming what I said by providing the evidence...
NC-TOm wrote:
"Thank you for unknowingly confirming what I said by providing the evidence"
Gonna have to do better than that, Tom. If you think you can show me chapter and verse of how I did that, have at it. Just a brief paragraph will do. All I did was try to explain to you WHY the founders set things up the way they did. I concluded by saying I would NOT recommend returning to that. If you think that provides the evidence to confirm what you said, you are delusional.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for this, "One shred of evidence that [only allowing wealthy white people to vote] is the objective".
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
In Florida, where I have already been voting for several years, I received a letter saying my signature might not be good anymore. I am a Democrat. I was immediately suspicious. I went the same day to reregister. I asked to see the signature they had on file it was a scrawled one signed on glass when I applied for my drivers licence. They said it didn't match a more recent signature, which happened to be a quickly signed petition for someone to run for office, a Democrat, obviously. I'm a cynic. How come they didn't question my signature on file before this if every time I voted my signature didn't look like the scrawled drivers bureau signature on glass? I may not sign any more petitions in this state, because they may not let me vote, on election day saying my signature on some petition or other doesn't match what they have on file. It's just a new form of the Jim Crow game, except I'm not a minority, (unless being a Democrat in a currently Republican run state counts.) I'm furious. I don't like living in the 19th century.
dim wrote:
" I may not sign any more petitions in this state, because they may not let me vote, on election day saying my signature on some petition or other doesn't match what they have on file."
OK.
"It's just a new form of the Jim Crow game, except I'm not a minority, (unless being a Democrat in a currently Republican run state counts.) I'm furious. I don't like living in the 19th century."
That is so much nonsense and you know it.
Hey dim, all you have to do is wait until they put that chip in your hand or in your forhead. Then there will be no question about identifying you when you vote - in fact, it will be the very least of your problems.