Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About

[windowdressing]

Read more @: Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About | Mother Jones

Like we already didnt know what this was about. Its about time they actually confess what this fraud called "Voter ID Laws" are about... Voter suppression..

but let's not forget this one from PA ...

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

 

[CanadaJohn]

During the Bush administration, there was immense discussion over a national ID. The DHS Secretary at that time flatly stated that DHS has no legal purview to do it. The subsequent DHS Secretary also reiterated legal jurisdiction. No other agency, as far as I know (including Social Security), wanted to step up to the plate or could claim it could do so. Next, cost was an enormous burden. The expected costs for the IDs, to the individual taxpayer, was to exceed that of a passport (which is incredibly beyond cost of any state ID), in large part, due to the necessary security features of the card.

Well, I'm confused - I thought it was claimed that several states do this for under $10, now it's an "enormous" cost burden. Maybe a little best practices research is in order.

And I didn't suggest the federal government run it and control it, which may have legal implications in your system, but that they simply fund it - if the feds can fund improvements to voting machines for various states, why couldn't they fund voter ID initiatives in various states?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

but let's not forget this one from PA ...
This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

What specifically was said that supports this?

 

[sangha]

Well, I'm confused - I thought it was claimed that several states do this for under $10, now it's an "enormous" cost burden. Maybe a little best practices research is in order.

The thing is, all of those states require "proof of identity" in order to get an ID.

I'm sure that even you can see the problem there

 

[windowdressing]

What specifically was said that supports this?

Paul, if you want to join these sleazebags in trying to clean up what he said, knock yourself out ... just count me out ... but you may want to post something on the extensive voter fraud this was designed to correct ... and while you're at it, do it for NC too ... this is going to backfire on you guys, you know that, right? ...

 

[sawdust]

Here is the problem. On the surface it seems irrational to oppose voter ID etc. When you look deeper however these changes primarily impact poor and minority voters who also happen to be democrats. There are documented confessions of GOP members admitting that this is their actual intent. It is part of their strategy. Think about it, if Obama targeted poor and minority voters to help assure a win doesn't it make sense that the opposing party would do something to minimize their voice when and where they can? If the GOP intentions truly so noble and all they are really interested in is minimizing voter fraud why not find a way that does not have these impacts?

In addition, voter fraud actually occurs in such tiny numbers it seems odd that members of a party that profess to be so concerned with spending would push programs that are very expensive in response to so few actual cases.

You need an id to drive, buy cigarettes, buy beer and cash a check. I actually think it's pretty racist to think that poor black democrats are so incompetent that they can't get an Id. The fact is they are as capable as anyone and there is no need to be condescending. Every state issues id cards which don't grant driving privileges so not having a car is not an excuse.

In addition, I live in Florida. Remember the Bush Gore election? Tell me again about small numbers.

What policy would you suggest that replaces proving who you say you are when you vote?

The fact is that it's illegal to vote more than once and it's illegal to vote using a different identity than your own. Any attempt to circumvent the law when voting should be punished and often is. This conversation reminds me of one that I had with someone who espoused open borders. I told him that I had heard terrorists were gaining access across our southern border and asked how he proposed to stop that. He said only let the good guys in. I then asked him how we would know who was good if we didn't check. The blank stupid expression on his face ended our conversation. This is the same issue. You can't insure every vote is legal unless you check.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Paul, if you want to join these sleazebags in trying to clean up what he said, knock yourself out ... just count me out ... but you may want to post something on the extensive voter fraud this was designed to correct ... and while you're at it, do it for NC too ... this is going to backfire on you guys, you know that, right? ...

No, I'd rather you explain your post in relation to the thread's subject...

 

[Fiddytree]

Well, I'm confused - I thought it was claimed that several states do this for under $10, now it's an "enormous" cost burden. Maybe a little best practices research is in order.

And I didn't suggest the federal government run it and control it, which may have legal implications in your system, but that they simply fund it - if the feds can fund improvements to voting machines for various states, why couldn't they fund voter ID initiatives in various states?

Costs can vary, and proposals can vary. The REAL ID act had state production and funding, but federal regulations and no federal funding. What I am stating is that it is not a matter of simply saying "go." It's a pretty large change. If you want to be able to pump out that many IDs, that many more people are going to come to the DMV, that many more cards are going to have to have a rigorous design (many designs to simplify vulnerabilities) for security purposes (since we hinge an ID on being the secure voting scheme, along with ID security in general), that much more staff has to be hired, individuals without proper identification documentation get to spend a much longer process getting verified, etc etc. All told, that particular proposal was actually going to cost $11 billion at the time, and with substantial infrastructural problems.

Edit: Excuse me. Correction. Unfunded federal mandate.

 

[windowdressing]

No, I'd rather you explain your post in relation to the thread's subject...

What are you now, a moderator Paul? I responded to a specific post, but just for you, I went back and read the thread subject and my post doesn't need explanation in light of it ... you just don't like what he said since it makes denying that it's voter suppression much harder for you ... but this is silly anyway Paul .. in the end, it's not even a matter of whether it is or is not voter suppression ... it's a matter of whether it is perceived as voter suppression, and by what groups ... in the long run it's going to hurt your side Paul ... remember I predicted that, and if I'm wrong, I'll join your and Jack's bad predictions club ...

 

[CanadaJohn]

Costs can vary, and proposals can vary. The REAL ID act had state production, but federal regulations and federal funding. What I am stating is that it is not a matter of simply saying "go." It's a pretty large change. If you want to be able to pump out that many IDs, that many more people are going to come to the DMV, that many more cards are going to have to have a rigorous design (many designs to simplify vulnerabilities) for security purposes (since we hinge an ID on being the secure voting scheme, along with ID security in general), that much more staff has to be hired, individuals without proper identification documentation get to spend a much longer process getting verified, etc etc. All told, that particular proposal was actually going to cost $11 billion at the time, and with substantial infrastructural problems.

Well, we all know anytime government costs out something it's bound to have enormous amounts of abuse and pork in it. But that said, why doesn't the federal government become proactive and offer a set, per citizen, amount for states to access if they want to institute some voter ID provisions? I find it remarkable that your country seems adverse to verifying that a person has a legal right to vote and having them identify themselves to do so.

Here in Canada, as an example, most people are registered to vote through their income tax forms submitted each year - there's a provision allowing Revenue Canada to transfer your information to Elections Canada which collects the data and shares it will all entities that conduct and administer elections at all levels. When an election comes up for any office and whenever, you simply get a voting card in the mail telling you where to go and when. Easy-peasy. Everyone of voting age is required to file an income tax return, even if they have no income, so nobody, theoretically is left out except those who wish to break the law and we don't need them voting anyway.

 

[Fiddytree]

Well, we all know anytime government costs out something it's bound to have enormous amounts of abuse and pork in it.

Or without "abuse and pork" it will still cost a lot of money for either the individual voter or for the tax payer. Again, amounts can greatly vary, and there is no doubt a less expensive means to provide secure, federally-approved ID, but it still costs us something big one way or the other.

But that said, why doesn't the federal government become proactive and offer a set, per citizen, amount for states to access if they want to institute some voter ID provisions?

Depends on how wide you want that net of federally subsidized (or fully subsidized) IDs, along with an information campaign. With a small net, it will cost. With a large net, it will cost a whole lot more. At the state level, such subsidies for the poor already cost the state 4-5+ million dollars per state (reaching as high as $11 million).

I find it remarkable that your country seems adverse to verifying that a person has a legal right to vote and having them identify themselves to do so.

Here in Canada, as an example, most people are registered to vote through their income tax forms submitted each year - there's a provision allowing Revenue Canada to transfer your information to Elections Canada which collects the data and shares it will all entities that conduct and administer elections at all levels. When an election comes up for any office and whenever, you simply get a voting card in the mail telling you where to go and when. Easy-peasy. Everyone of voting age is required to file an income tax return, even if they have no income, so nobody, theoretically is left out except those who wish to break the law and we don't need them voting anyway.

Perhaps. What I am curious about is how much that program cost and currently costs your government to implement. Would we in the United States consider filing an income tax return in order to vote an undue burden?

For a lot of this, we can simply ask the pragmatic question: is it worth the cost and change? My answer is far less in the affirmative, because I see no large problem to solve to begin with, and the large amount of money needed is being wasted on a phantom enemy.

 

[Woodman909]

There are documented confessions of GOP members admitting that this is their actual intent. .

Where is your proof?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Where is your proof?

Good luck...

 

[CanadaJohn]

Or without "abuse and pork" it will still cost a lot of money for either the individual voter or for the tax payer. Again, amounts can greatly vary, and there is no doubt a less expensive means to provide secure, federally-approved ID, but it still costs us something big one way or the other.



Depends on how wide you want that net of federally subsidized (or fully subsidized) IDs, along with an information campaign. With a small net, it will cost. With a large net, it will cost a whole lot more. At the state level, such subsidies for the poor already cost the state 4-5+ million dollars per state (reaching as high as $11 million).



Perhaps. What I am curious about is how much that program cost and currently costs your government to implement. Would we in the United States consider filing an income tax return in order to vote an undue burden?

For a lot of this, we can simply ask the pragmatic question: is it worth the cost and change? My answer is far less in the affirmative, because I see no large problem to solve to begin with, and the large amount of money needed is being wasted on a phantom enemy.

I have to tell you that from what I've seen of your elections the past couple of decades, I wouldn't be saying there are no large problems. A national election doesn't go by in your country without many references to long line-ups, even though bare majorities of eligible voters actually vote and there's dozens of complaints about people being unable to vote or at the wrong polling station or running out of ballots or unable to register, etc. etc. Here in Canada I hear none of that on our election nights - the most we hear about is some polling station opening late because the polling station supervisor slept in.

Perhaps I'm just different that most Americans and most Canadians are different as well. We seem to have zero problem with registering to vote through our tax returns, zero problem with presenting a driver's license or other ID with our voting card when we vote or more ID if we need to register at the polling station, and for those who don't have the usual ID like a driver's license, we have government issued health cards and other photo ID cards that we pay to get because they benefit us as citizens and they are convenient ways to prove who we are.

 

[Fiddytree]

I have to tell you that from what I've seen of your elections the past couple of decades, I wouldn't be saying there are no large problems. A national election doesn't go by in your country without many references to long line-ups, even though bare majorities of eligible voters actually vote and there's dozens of complaints about people being unable to vote or at the wrong polling station or running out of ballots or unable to register, etc. etc. Here in Canada I hear none of that on our election nights - the most we hear about is some polling station opening late because the polling station supervisor slept in.

Perhaps I'm just different that most Americans and most Canadians are different as well. We seem to have zero problem with registering to vote through our tax returns, zero problem with presenting a driver's license or other ID with our voting card when we vote or more ID if we need to register at the polling station, and for those who don't have the usual ID like a driver's license, we have government issued health cards and other photo ID cards that we pay to get because they benefit us as citizens and they are convenient ways to prove who we are.

Perhaps, but I am also thinking like a North Dakotan. It wasn't until the Tea Party started to infect this area that anyone in the state gave a damn about voter ID. We sure went by fine without voter registration and ID requirements. No stolen election alerts, no conspiracy theories involving cemeteries, out-of-staters, or whatever else. But now, we gotta join the rest of the country's idiotic campaign to "restore security" to the American election. :roll:

 

[CanadaJohn]

Perhaps, but I am also thinking like a North Dakotan. It wasn't until the Tea Party started to infect this area that anyone in the state gave a damn about voter ID. We sure went by fine without voter registration and ID requirements.

That's fair - perhaps it's a problem some places and not others and a "federal" solution isn't necessary. I consider the integrity of our voting system to be one of the most important, if not the most important, administrative function of our bureaucracy and I'm prepared to have significant tax dollars expended on it to make sure it's secure and my vote counts no more or no less than any other person's.

 

[polgara]

I have to tell you that from what I've seen of your elections the past couple of decades, I wouldn't be saying there are no large problems. A national election doesn't go by in your country without many references to long line-ups, even though bare majorities of eligible voters actually vote and there's dozens of complaints about people being unable to vote or at the wrong polling station or running out of ballots or unable to register, etc. etc. Here in Canada I hear none of that on our election nights - the most we hear about is some polling station opening late because the polling station supervisor slept in.

Perhaps I'm just different that most Americans and most Canadians are different as well. We seem to have zero problem with registering to vote through our tax returns, zero problem with presenting a driver's license or other ID with our voting card when we vote or more ID if we need to register at the polling station, and for those who don't have the usual ID like a driver's license, we have government issued health cards and other photo ID cards that we pay to get because they benefit us as citizens and they are convenient ways to prove who we are.

CJ, no one has explained why having some form of ID in order to vote is such a monumental problem for some. That does make me wonder why, since having to produce an ID is practically a must these days for everything.

 

[Fiddytree]

I'm prepared to have significant tax dollars expended on it to make sure it's secure and my vote counts no more or no less than any other person's.

I would too, had it been actually been repeatedly demonstrated that a significant problem in fact exists. Right now it's just a messianic plot at best, with arguably sinister designs at worst.

 

[Fiddytree]

CJ, no one has explained why having some form of ID in order to vote is such a monumental problem for some. That does make me wonder why, since having to produce an ID is practically a must these days for everything.

What could be more convincing than evaluating the extent of the problem needing to be solved and comparing that with the cost of the measures that were either proposed or implemented?

 

[opendebate]

Where is your proof?

Well, here's one for you.

The former Florida GOP Chairman (Jim Greer) said,

“There’s no doubt that what the Republican led legislature in Florida and Governor Scott are trying to do is make sure the Republican party has an advantage in this upcoming election by reducing early voting and putting roadblocks up for potential voters, Latinos, African Americans to register and then to exercise their right to vote. There’s no doubt. I was in the room. It’s part of the strategy..."

Oh wait then there's Mike Turzai and Robert Gleason ( Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman) admitting that voter ID laws helped cut Obamas margin of victory.

 

[Dooble]

Read more @: Conservatives Are Finally Admitting What Voter Suppression Laws Are All About | Mother Jones

Like we already didnt know what this was about. Its about time they actually confess what this fraud called "Voter ID Laws" are about... Voter suppression..

Better that than illegal voter invitations. Times are tough, Comrade; in this case, it's better to take the lesser (voter id laws) of two evils.

 

[polgara]

What could be more convincing than evaluating the extent of the problem needing to be solved and comparing that with the cost of the measures that were either proposed or implemented?

Good evening, Fiddytree. :2wave:

Good point! But how many people 18 years of age or older are there who have no ID of any kind? They don't drive, drink, read library books, see a doctor, have a bank account, have a job, have a credit card, attend college, etc? If our government has money to spend on other countries' problems around the globe, why can't they provide an ID to those few who need one to vote? They're making a mountain out of a molehill for reasons other than what we are being told, IMO. :thumbdown:

 

[Fiddytree]

Good evening, Fiddytree. :2wave:

Good point! But how many people 18 years of age or older are there who have no ID of any kind? They don't drive, drink, read library books, see a doctor, have a bank account, have a job, have a credit card, attend college, etc? If our government has money to spend on other countries' problems around the globe, why can't they provide an ID to those few who need one to vote? They're making a mountain out of a molehill for reasons other than what we are being told, IMO. :thumbdown:

My point was probably the opposite of what you came away with. What simply ought to be is different from what is reality. These measures cost a great deal of money, often take a large bureaucratic effort, expend political capital as well as become inundated with legal fees defending their constitutionality in order to protect against illegal activity that is, as far as we actually know, incredibly rare and inconsequential in the long run. When you're talking about solutions costing several million dollars per year, you need to start asking some hard questions.

 

[polgara]

My point was probably the opposite of what you came away with. What simply ought to be is different from what is reality. These measures cost a great deal of money, often take a large bureaucratic effort, expend political capital as well as become inundated with legal fees defending their constitutionality in order to protect against illegal activity that is, as far as we actually know, incredibly rare and inconsequential in the long run. When you're talking about solutions costing several million dollars per year, you need to start asking some hard questions.

:agree: So why all the fuss about voter fraud? It certainly doesn't help matters when the MSM carries stories about a few who brag that they voted multiple times, does it? :doh:

 

[Captain Adverse]

How do you function without ID? I hardly leave my house (I am servant to cats) and I must pull out my DL at least once a day. I'm curious how you manage around that. Do you pay all cash for everything?

Nope. Sometimes I use my bank debit card. Since only I know the pin number no other ID is necessary. Of course I don't spend my money on frivolous things, and prefer to save up if I intend to buy anything expensive. In fact, the last car I bought new I paid cash.

Now if you depend on checks and credit cards...who's problem is that?