From the Book of Dirty Tricks
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, August 21, 2023 08:00
VIEWED: 3400
PAGE 1 of 5
Anyone catch this nationwide move?Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06mon1.html
GOP Making it Much Harder for Young, Urban, and Poor to Vote
One of the most promising recent trends in expanding political participation has been allowing people to vote in the weeks before Election Day, either in person or by mail. Early voting, which enables people to skip long lines and vote at more convenient times, has been increasingly popular over the last 15 years. It skyrocketed to a third of the vote in 2008, rising particularly in the South and among black voters supporting Barack Obama.
And that, of course, is why Republican lawmakers are trying desperately to cut it back. Two states in the South have already reduced early-voting periods, and lawmakers in others are considering doing so. It is the latest element of a well-coordinated effort by Republican state legislators across the country to disenfranchise voters who tend to support Democrats, particularly minorities and young people.
The biggest part of that effort, imposing cumbersome requirements that voters have a government ID, has been painted as a response to voter fraud, an essentially nonexistent problem. But Republican lawmakers also have taken a good look at voting patterns, realized that early voting might have played a role in Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory, and now want to reduce that possibility in 2012.
Mr. Obama won North Carolina, for example, by less than 15,000 votes. That state has had early voting since 2000, and in 2008, more ballots were cast before Election Day than on it. Mr. Obama won those early votes by a comfortable margin. So it is no coincidence that the North Carolina House passed a measure — along party lines — that would cut the early voting period by a week, reducing it to a week and a half before the election. The Senate is preparing a similar bill.
Republicans said the measure would save money, a claim as phony as saying widespread fraud necessitates ID cards. The North Carolina elections board, and many county boards, said it would actually cost more money, because they would have to open more voting sites and have less flexibility allocating staff members. Black lawmakers called it what it is: a modern whiff of Jim Crow.
One of the biggest jumps was in Georgia, where, over the objections of several black lawmakers, the Republican-dominated Legislature passed a bill in April that would cut back in-person early voting to 21 days, from 45 days. Florida just cut its early voting period to eight days, from 14. Florida also eliminated the Sunday before Election Day as an early-voting day; election experts note that will eliminate the practice of many African-Americans of voting directly after going to church.
Outside the region, the Republican-dominated Legislature in Ohio, a perennial battleground state, is about to restrict early voting, a move that Democrats say amounts to voter suppression and discrimination.
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia now allow some form of early voting, a relic from the days when everyone seemed to agree that more voters were better for democracy. Republicans have recently decided that a larger electorate can hurt them. Quote:
Kansas’ Republican Secretary of State is pushing for new laws to stop what is essentially nonexistent “voter fraud.” These laws would just happen to also make it much harder for younger, more urban, and poor individuals to register and vote. These are groups that tend to vote more often for Democrats. With Republicans now in full control of the state’s government, it is very likely we will see some version of these laws passed.
Under Kobach’s proposal, Kansans would have to show a passport, birth certificate or other proof of citizenship when registering to vote. They then would have to show a government photo ID — driver’s license, passport or state university ID — at the polls.
The Republican party clearly has no problem changing the rules to help ce
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just out of curiosity, do you think people should be able to register to vote without any proof as to who they are?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're not going to like my answer. I don't think it's nearly as big a deal or as serious a problem as we're told, or that it would change any big election, whereas voter SUPPRESSION is a very serious problem, if we are truly a Democracy as we claim.
First off, REGISTRATION FRAUD (as you put it) is different from VOTER FRAUD; of the first, there's always some on both sides, but it doesn't add up to VOTER FRAUD. VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD is when ficticious people are registered, usually by low-paid registrants who get paid by the piece. Certainly there must be ways people can use registration fraud to vote fraudulently, but it's not easy.
VOTER FRAUD is what happens at the polls. For instance, VOTER FRAUD would be registering in two counties and voting in both; or sending in your absentee ballot and also voting at a booth on election day.
People registering to vote does not equate to voter fraud. You'll have to show me that voter fraud truly is as serious an issue as voter SUPPRESSION before we could debate it. I know where you're going, but I happen to believe that the number of people who are willing to go out and try to vote fraudulently (and manage to avoid the existing safeguards to do so successfully) is never going to shape an election, while history has shown that voter SUPPRESSION has damaged our elections many times.
So I'll ask you in return: do you think the following is more or less harmful to our DEMOCRATIC system of voting?Quote:
It has become a rallying cry for some to claim that we need to do more to prevent “voter fraud”. According to those chanting this disturbing chorus, elections are being influenced and sometimes determined, by people who are ineligible to cast a ballot impersonating eligible voters.
To be sure, the NAACP sees disenfranchising, disturbing instances of “voter fraud” every election cycle. However, the fraud that we witness is different. Every day, we hear of deceptive practices, misinformation and lies that are used to keep registered, legitimate voters away from the polls or to support candidates whom they might not otherwise vote for. Sadly, we also still find ourselves fighting attempts by election officials to disenfranchise the people in communities we represent.
It is our experience that voter impersonation, which has resulted in passing numerous laws, proposed laws, and court cases, is actually quite rare. Nationwide, between 2002 and 2006, when a crackdown on voter fraud was one of the U.S. Department of Justice’s top priorities and when more than 400 million votes were cast, an average of only 30 federal cases per year were prosecuted.
Regardless of the questionable prevalence of this type of voter fraud, several states have passed troubling photo identification requirements. Sadly, rather than addressing voter fraud, however, the true effect of these laws is to disenfranchise the estimated 20 million Americans who have not purchased government-issued photo IDs. And it should come as no surprise that a disproportionate number of these people are racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly and low-income Americans.
Yet examples of genuine, malicious voter fraud continue to plague us. In Virginia, registered voters received recorded calls stating that they could vote by telephone, by pressing a number for the candidate of their choice. The call ended by fraudulently stating that they had now voted, and did not need to go to the polls.
In 2006 in Orange County, California,14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn’t say that immigrants who are citizens have the right to vote.
In addition to these unscrupulous tactics, the NAACP has seen a dramatic increase in which people have registered to vote, believing or having been told that they have done everything correctly, only to be turned away from the voting booth on Election Day because they have been erro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're not going to like my answer.
Nope. Because you avoided answering.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Further to that: Wikipedia lists the following as various forms of ELECTORAL FRAUD, which is real voter fraud, not just registration fraud. I'm not going to bother cleaning it up, and maybe it's something we should discuss. Or not.[uote]Quote:
Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is the drawing of electorate boundaries in order to produce a particular result. Typically, electorates will be organized so that one group of people (for example poor people or a particular ethnic or religious group) is concentrated into a small number of electorates. This means that parties favoured by that group will win by a large majority in those electorates, but lose more narrowly in a larger number of electorates. This may result in one party gaining the most votes overall but still losing the election.
Manipulation of demography
In many cases it is possible for authorities to artificially control the composition of an electorate in order to produce a foregone result. One way of doing this is to move a large number of voters into the electorate prior to an election, for example by temporarily assigning them land or lodging them in flophouses.[3][4] Many countries prevent this with rules stipulating that a voter must have lived in an electorate for a minimum period (for example, six months) in order to be eligible to vote there. However, such laws can themselves be used for demographic manipulation as they tend to disenfranchise those with no fixed address, such as the homeless, travellers, students (studying full time away from home) and some casual workers.
Disenfranchisement
The composition of an electorate may also be altered by disenfranchising some types of people, rendering them unable to vote. In some cases this may be done at a legislative level, for example by passing a law banning convicted felons, recent immigrants or members of a particular ethnic or religious group from voting, or by instituting a literacy or other test which members of some groups are more likely to fail. Since this is done by lawmakers, it cannot be election fraud, but may subvert the purposes of democracy. This is especially so if members of the disenfranchised group were particularly likely to vote a certain way.
In some cases voters may be invalidly disenfranchised, which is true electoral fraud. For example a legitimate voter may be 'accidentally' removed from the electoral roll, making it difficult or impossible for them to vote. Corrupt election officials may misuse voting regulations such as a literacy test or requirement for proof of identity or address in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible for their targets to cast a vote. If such practices discriminate against a religious or ethnic group, they may so distort the political process that the political order becomes grossly unrepresentative, as in the post-Reconstruction or Jim Crow era until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote. For example, requiring people to vote within their electorate may disenfranchise serving military personnel, prison inmates, students, hospital patients or anyone else who cannot return to their homes. Polling can be set for inconvenient days such as midweek or on Holy Days (example: Sabbath or other holy days of a religious group whose teachings determine that voting is a prohibited on such a day) in order to make voting difficult for those studying or working away from home. Communities may also be effectively disenfranchised if polling places are not provided within reasonable proximity (rural communities are especially vulnerable to this) or situated in areas perceived by some voters as unsafe.
Intimidation
Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I answered your question because of the question I 'sussed was behind it. My answer was that I have no problem with people being able to register to vote without any proof as to who they are because I don’t think it would ever affect any election seriously, it's how most states do it now and I see no danger serious enough to change it. But I'll be specific, in which case, I expect you will be fair and specific in answering my previous question.
Given that I registered to vote, as most people did in California before on-line registration came into being, by getting a registration form from the post office and sending it in, I was not required to show a photo ID, passport, birth certificate or anything. It’s still that way, but now you can do it on line as well:Quote:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
Fill Out A Voter Registration Form Now
Simply step through the screens and fill in the information requested on the form. Then print it, sign it, and mail it directly to the county elections office address that is pre-printed on the form. If you have any questions, you may contact the Elections Division.
Pick Up A Voter Registration Form
You can pick up a voter registration form at your county elections office, library, or U.S. Post Office. It is important that your voter registration form be filled out completely and be postmarked or hand-delivered to your county elections office at least 15 days before the election.
Ergo, no, I have no problem with not needing a passport, photo ID, driver’s license, birth certificate, etc., in order to register to vote. It's more or less that way in most states. If someone wants to turn that into a snark about California, be careful, because we’re not alone (this will be messy 'cuz I'm just copying them verbatum from websites):Quote:
Ohio:
Voter Registration Form (or change of name or address)
Download in PDF
Request a form(s) be sent to you
Voter Registration Form Instructions Brochure - Required by ORC (pdf)
Absentee Voting / Vote by Mail
Download an Absentee Ballot Request Form (pdf)
Absentee Voting / Vote by Mail Instructions
Military Absentee Voter Registration, Ballot Request and Help Desk Services
Overseas Absentee Voter Registration, Ballot Request and Help Desk ServicesQuote:
Wisconsin (currently):
The federal "Help American Vote Act of 2002" requires any person registering to vote to supply his or her Wisconsin Department of Transportation-issued driver's license number. Electors who have not been issued a Wisconsin driver's license must provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number OR their Wisconsin state ID card number. If the elector does not have a current, valid Wisconsin driver’s license, Wisconsin state ID card, or Social Security Number, the applicant may indicate this by filling in the appropriate circle on the registration form. (Box 2 on GAB-131)
Anyone wishing to vote in the state of Wisconsin has three options to register:
1. BY MAIL: Download the Application for Voter Registration (GAB-131), complete the form and mail it into the municipal clerk's office. Find your Wisconsin Municipal Clerk here. The application must be postmarked no later than the 20th day (3rd Wednesday) before the election. (For the Spring Primary, that date is Wednesday, January 26, 2011, and for the Spring Election that date is Wednesday, March 16, 2011.)
PLEASE NOTE: State and federal law now requires that any first-time voter submitting a registration application by mail provide a copy of an acceptable identifying document that provides proof of residence. (A “first-time voter” is an individual who has not voted in an election in Wisconsin.) Acceptable forms of proof of residence are outlined below. Please note that first-time voters registering by mail may not use a residential lease as proof of residence. The copy of the form of proof of residence must be included when sub
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My last post was to you, Geezer; I made my usual mistake of just "reply"ing to the last poster, and since you hadn't responded, that was me. Mea culpa.
I've been on too long, so am getting off for tonight. I hope you come back at some point and continue the debate.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
This is a concerted effort on the part of REPUBLICAN governors and legislators to do only one thing--in my probably partisan opinion they've got the others down pretty well.
And partisan Republicans probably think that motor-voter, early voting, no need of I.D. for registering/voting, etc. are part of a concerted effort on the part of DEMOCRATIC governors and legislators to do only one thing. You see disenfranchisement, they see keeping illegals from stuffing the ballot box for Democrats.
Reasonably neutral sources note that there's not really very much voter fraud from either side, but it's just too good for rousing the partisans and using as an excuse if you lose.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm glad to know you're one of those reasonable voters, I thought you were aiming to go after me.
Reasonably neutral sources note that there's not really very much voter fraud from either side, but it's just too good for rousing the partisans and using as an excuse if you lose.
I see what you're saying, essentially that in their opinion it's been wrong all along and they want to correct it. I don't agree, vehemently, but I can see that perspective. If I had the time and inclination, I would look up how long such procedures have been in place, but I'll accept that it's probably a very different country now than it was then (when we WELCOMED immigrants), but I maintain that these new laws do more to keep young, poor and minority CITIZENS from voting than they will keep any "ballot stuffing" from happening.
Out of curiosity, how do YOU feel about it? And do you really believe those legislators/governors doing it are actually doing it to keep illegals from voting (since, as you said, most reasonable people agree that it's not a big problem), or are you saying they're doing it to appeal to their core constituency? I would find it abhorrent that they would do things which prevent citizens from voting for purely political reasons. Which includes doing it to weigh the ballot box in their favor, which I believe is the purpose, so I still call it a dirty trick. I agree it's a partisan selling-point for either side, but that doesn't change the reality of the effect it will have.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm waiting for one of the state supreme courts to come out and say the obvious: if you require people to have a valid photo ID (driver's license, passport, etc.), and your state government charges any money for those things, you have in effect enacted a poll tax. You're charging people to vote, making it a privilege, not a right. And an enterprising judge would rule that if you're going to require such things, you also are required to provide them, free of charge, to every citizen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME