• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
[ ... ]
Your first example requires equating the sky being blue to requiring ID to vote being racism; thinking people largely reject that.
No, RNC apologists largely reject that. While there is some intersect between the set of "thinking people" and "RNC apologists", it is quite small ... and ever-dwindling.

Most thinking people recognize that it is a statistical fact that minorities are disproportionately impacted by these voter suppression laws. That may not be a convenient fact for those who support these laws for non-racist reasons, but it is nonetheless the truth.

More to the point -- the point you've again dodged -- is your suggestion that because "the left" calls out racism on this specific issue, it is therefore true that the left calls racism on every issue. It is a specious, purely partisan claim, which was my point not only in the simple example I offered above, but also in my first reply to you on the topic. It was yet another example of one of your useless noise posts as opposed to the useful contributions you make when you're not so cranky.


If we are to accept that requiring ID is racism, then literally nothing could be allowed to have ID requirements, any more than one can put up a "whites only" sign in one's business, because race-based discrimination is not legal in commerce, housing, education . . .
I don't want to derail this further by going into this in the depth it deserves. Suffice it say that some "effective" discrimination is allowed if that is not the intent and if the requirement meets otherwise legitimate purposes. To offer just one example, SCOTUS ruled in the Indiana voter ID case that although the law did, in fact, disproportionately impact some, that was acceptable in that specific case since it was small, it was not the intent, and it did not rise to the level that justified federal override in state issues. In short, it is sometimes OK to have policies whose effect is discriminatory as long as that is not the intent and is not a significant effect.


Edit: To be clear, this is my lay understanding of how it works. If you are really interested in more info, I'd suggest taking it up with one of our legal experts like DVC.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,154
3,848
126
Maybe the poor democratic voters (wanna be voters) need to get with the program and get an ID to block the Republican grandois plans.

they have been told for how long that they will need one.
Interesting that the lady leading the Dem fight in PA had no problem going and getting an Id this past week with no issues.

Seems like the Dems want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
I guess when you advocate treason against the United States by supporting voter suppression you would want to call any resistance to your efforts a mole hill. Otherwise, one might have to notice what a treasonous scumbag position one supports. The attempt to keep people from voting who are citizens is a filthy position to take, something that can only be supported by lying immoral dirt bags.
-------------

Electoral reform measures that some say are really suppression efforts in disguise, are popping up across the United States in statewide voter ID laws or Republican-led voter roll purges that some say are targeted against the Democrat-leaning voters.

Reports and experts consistently claim that the voter ID laws and registration regulations as well as voter purges based on Hispanic surnames are going to disproportionately affect youth, seniors, low-income voters, Latinos and African Americans—all voter blocs that consistently vote Democrat. Most of the harshest measures are in states with Republican-led legislatures.

Plenty of theatrics and much misinformation has flowed from Republican and Democratic propaganda machines, but what are the facts to support their claims?

Since 2011, legislation has been passed or other actions taken to change voter registration regulations in 17 states. All except West Virginia, Minnesota, Rhode Island and North Carolina have Republican governors.

VOXXI has been bringing you a summary of the efforts and counter efforts going on in different states in this all important election year, which many experts say is going to see one of the closest presidential races in decades.

Monday of last week, we took a look at measures in Florida and Georgia. Tuesday of last week, we got a briefing on proposals and changes in Mississippi and both North and South Carolina. Earlier yesterday we focused on six states: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia. Late yesterday, we look at Wisconsin, Minnesota and Kansas and today, we end the series with reaction to and expert reviews of these laws.

Based on the number of voter ID laws and registration regulations, voter roll purges and other such “electoral reform” measures have multiplied, one would think there was an epidemic of voting fraud that states are eager to combat.

Recently released data, however, show extremely few cases of fraudulent voting recorded since 2000.

Critics say it is no coincidence that these state bills have been passed in key swing states that happen to have mostly Republican leadership. They have elements that require tedious action, money and wasting time by potential voters, mostly affecting targeted ethnic, racial, socioeconomic and age-specific demographics. The intent is largely to skew the presidential outcome in November toward the Republicans. These efforts represent oppressive and despotic behavior which many politicians who write claim to abhor.

At least five of the new voter ID laws directly follow the model legislation formulated by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC receives 98 percent of its funding from corporations and is firmly attached to conservative dictates. It has also been responsible for anti-immigration legislation passed by various states as well as Florida’s concealed weapon law.

Members of Congress and civil rights advocates have slammed this coordinated plan by Republicans and have rejected a frequent argument made by supporters of voter ID laws: photo ID is required for plenty of everyday activities, why not voting?

“You wanna know something? Getting a video from Blockbuster is not a constitutional right. Getting liquor from the liquor store is not a constitutional right,” said Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.).

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) contends that these laws are “an obvious Republican attempt to subvert our vote in 2012 and to hurt the President of the United States’ chance of reelection, which is the entire goal of the Republican House—to defeat Barack Obama even if they take down the United States economy while they do it.”

Most of the laws being contested in these states are simple photo ID requirements to vote which, according to the DOJ and many advocacy groups, are racially discriminatory. According to Justice, “Hispanic voters are 46.5% more likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack an ID.”

Proponents of voter IDs assert that this large discrepancy is diluted when one fully appraises the figures: 6.3 percent of registered Hispanics don’t have a driver’s license, versus 4.3 percent of non-Hispanics. This two percentage point difference allows statistical magicians to claim a “46.5 percent” discrepancy and, thus, distort the rhetoric.

A more accurate way of stating the data is: a non-Hispanic registered voter is only 2 percent more likely than a Hispanic voter to have an ID.

These laws simply require citizens to prove who they are if they want to cast a ballot using photo IDs that most citizens already have. Many states will provide them free of charge. And in states like Texas, where Hispanics make up nearly 40 percent of the population, political leaders argue it would be prudent to protect against rampant voter fraud. Before these laws, ANYONE (regardless of citizenship status or if you already voted) could present to a voting booth and simply vote.

People of color are not negatively affected by these laws.

For documentation, one can cite Georgia’s experience with photo ID requirements. The DOJ pre-cleared Georgia’s law in 2005, during the Bush Administration, declaring that it was not discriminatory (although it’s virtually identical to Texas’s law which Obama’s DOJ is blocking now).

Non-white voters in Georgia have increased dramatically since the law’s implementation in 2004. According to official figures from the Georgia Secretary of State, Hispanic voter turnout increased 140 percent from 2004 to 2008. The turnout of black voters increased 42 percent during the same period. In the 2010 mid-term election, Hispanic voter turnout increased 66.5 percent from 2006, while the turnout of black voters increased 44.7 percent. By contrast, the turnout of white voters increased 8 percent in 2008 and 11.7 percent in 2010.

Despite this encouraging empirical data, a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and the NAACP claiming that discrimination is demonstrable in Georgia once the laborious task needed to obtain IDs is taken into account.

For example, in a suit lodged by the ACLU and the NAACP against Pennsylvania’s voter ID requirement, the lead plaintiff is Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old who has voted since 1960. She will be barred from voting in the upcoming election because she does not have an acceptable ID and is unable to obtain a birth certificate from the state, which is necessary to obtain an ID.

A Pennsylvania state court judge on Aug. 15 ruled against the ACLU and NAACP, thus allowing the law to go into effect. Appeals of this decision are pending.

Voter suppression

For some individuals, such as people of color, the poor, the elderly and college students, these requirements are oppressively restrictive and disenfranchise their voting rights.

It is easy for many people with financial means who drive and work to question why individuals cannot simply obtain an ID. But driving a car and working are not constitutional requirements for satisfying one’s right to vote.

Felony disenfranchisement laws originated in the late 1800s to keep newly freed slaves from voting. The echo of those laws resonates today.

Kentucky, Iowa, Florida and Virginia require an extensive review process, including governor’s approval, to allow ex-felons to reintegrate into society and exercise their right to vote.

Republican Gov. Terry Branstad made Iowa the most difficult state in the nation for ex-felons to vote when he signed Executive Order 70 on his first day in office in November 2010. His order reversed a policy started under Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack which permitted felons automatically to regain their voting rights upon discharge from state supervision.

Executive Order 70 also goes against nationwide trends making it easier for ex-felons to vote, which started in 1996, according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The report says that 38 states allow most ex-felons to regain their voting rights automatically once they complete their sentences.

Maine and Vermont never took away voting rights. They allow felons to vote while in prison. Other states make ex-felons wait a certain amount of time before becoming eligible.

Iowa’s policy mandates an array of laborious and trivial criteria that felons must satisfy in order to re-establish their voting rights. These include a 31-question application that asks for information such as the address of the judge.

The review can take up to six months.

Eight thousand felons in Iowa have completed their prison sentences or have been released from community supervision, but fewer than a dozen have submitted the paperwork for reinstatement of their voting rights. Branstad’s office has denied a handful of others because of incomplete forms or unpaid court costs.

“Wow—that seems pretty low,’’ said Rita Bettis, lobbyist for ACLU Iowa, which has posted a how-to guide online to help ex-felons through a process that has confused even some seasoned election officials.

One ex-felon applicant complained: “They make the process just about impossible.” I hired a lawyer to navigate it for me and I still got rejected. Isn’t that amazing?”

Iowa is probably the most difficult state for an ex-felon to vote.

Voter ID in Florida

Florida is a close second. Felony disenfranchisement laws in the Sunshine State may be the biggest success of all the recent Republican efforts to restrict turnout. Nearly one million voters will be disenfranchised and prohibited from voting in Florida. It is probably no coincidence that these targeted individuals tend to vote Democrat.

According to The Sentencing Project, a national non-profit organization engaged in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues, the United States contains 5 percent of the world’s population, but has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners (2.3 million persons jailed). It is estimated that 5.85 million Americans will be unable to vote in this year’s presidential elections because of their criminal history.

African American disenfranchisement rates are very high. In three states—Florida (23 percent), Kentucky (22 percent), and Virginia (20 percent)—more than one in five African Americans are disenfranchised, according to the Sentencing Project.

In the case of Florida, Desmond Meade of the nonprofit Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, notes that if African-American former felons “were able to vote, Florida would no longer be a swing state.”

In the 1970s and 1980s the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of prohibiting ex-felons from voting twice, determining that denying felons the right to vote is an “affirmative sanction” allowable under the 14th Amendment. The court later struck down a provision of the 1901 Alabama Constitution because it reflected “purposeful racial discrimination.”

According to the American Constitution Society (ACS), these rulings allow states to disenfranchise their citizens so long as the laws don’t have a discriminatory intent. ACS notes that, while black men make up 36 percent of the disenfranchised ex-felon population, they are only 6 percent of the general population.

“While today’s felony disenfranchisement laws are racially neutral,” the ACS states, “many are inherited from an underlying legacy of racist voting restrictions.”


Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/voter-id-laws-integrity-suppression/#ixzz26wqEOiBO
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You obviously do not know what is required in such a court case. The state is not required to prove why the law is needed - those opposed to it must prove why it is not needed. Your idiotic demand that the state do something it is not required to do is soundly laughed at. HA HA!
Wait, a troll knows about the law? Don't think so. Link to proof that any elections have been affected by illegal voting please? Your history of bigotry, and lying don't help your case, nor making the many ASSumptions you make up.

So link real evidence (you know, like the proof we posted that showed you lied about WMD) that shows voter fraud has changed an election result. Because Penn is legally admitting that they haven't seen it, nor to they think it will happen, and they also admit the law (if upheld) won't change anything.

Since voter fraud according to the state of Penn isn't a problem, why are they doing it? Answer that. Facts please, not your made up reality.


Florida is not Pennsylvania. Do all libs have problems understanding basic policial boundaries, or are we just "blessed" with an over abundance your kind here?
Well, I can't help it is you are ignorant. FL is another state doing a very similar voter ID law, and here is a GOP chair admitting that it is for discrimination, not for voter fraud. The dots are really big, and close together. Even you should be able to connect them.

I've provided evidence that shows that multiple states don't have any reason to think there is voter fraud, and that multiple states have GOP'ers claiming it is for discrimination, not for voter fraud. That wasn't so hard to figure out, even for a troll like you now was it?

So, links to proof that these guys are all lying? Other then your worthless claim I mean.

BTW, man up and honor your bet and leave. You didn't have to bet, but you did. Take the consequences and leave. Or admit you lied.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Fraud has been proven to exist.

Until you catch them; how can it be proven?

The liberals like to use the catch fact. This is similar to the verification of an ant problem.
Everyone you see; many more are hiding.

Are the liberals so worried about losing votes because they were illegal or that a person will not want to value their vote enough to abide by the law.

They cite all these statistics about # people that do not have ID; yet they have not provide statistics about how many people that voted in 2008 or 2010 did not have an ID.

They key is people that vote vs people that are eligible to vote not having an ID.

That is the statistic that I want to see. How many people would be turned away this year that voted previously.
And how many of those could not have obtained the required ID within a years period of time if not brainwashed into thinking that it was not needed.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I do not wait for you, stalker.


Well, I can't help it is you are ignorant. FL is another state doing a very similar voter ID law, and here is a GOP chair admitting that it is for discrimination, not for voter fraud. The dots are really big, and close together. Even you should be able to connect them.
You still think Florida is Pennsylvania, and therefor things that happen in Florida mean they happen in Pennsylvania. Interesting.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,698
12,021
136
Fraud has been proven to exist.

Until you catch them; how can it be proven?

The liberals like to use the catch fact. This is similar to the verification of an ant problem.
Everyone you see; many more are hiding.

Are the liberals so worried about losing votes because they were illegal or that a person will not want to value their vote enough to abide by the law.

They cite all these statistics about # people that do not have ID; yet they have not provide statistics about how many people that voted in 2008 or 2010 did not have an ID.

They key is people that vote vs people that are eligible to vote not having an ID.

That is the statistic that I want to see. How many people would be turned away this year that voted previously.
And how many of those could not have obtained the required ID within a years period of time if not brainwashed into thinking that it was not needed.
Any law that would cause more harm then remedy is just a bad law. More people would be disenfranchised then people stopped comitting voter impersonation (current voter fraud definition)

Also imagine the United States sinking under its on weight passing a law for everything that "might" happen.

If this is done properly it would take 1-2 years to impliment with some sort of national standard set. Not each state carving out its own requirements to fit their agenda.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Any law that would cause more harm then remedy is just a bad law. More people would be disenfranchised then people stopped comitting voter impersonation (current voter fraud definition)

Also imagine the United States sinking under its on weight passing a law for everything that "might" happen.

If this is done properly it would take 1-2 years to impliment with some sort of national standard set. Not each state carving out its own requirements to fit their agenda.
What harm is it doing. Nothing prevents a person from getting the ID.
There is proof that people are voting illegally.

I am asking for the anti-ID crowd to put up an actual number of those that voted without having an ID in the last two elections cycles.

Then of those; how many will not vote if they had to provide an ID.


That is the key stat - not the what if scenario that is pulled out of research groups that estimate numbers of people.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Any law that would cause more harm then remedy is just a bad law. More people would be disenfranchised then people stopped comitting voter impersonation (current voter fraud definition)
So you restrict voter fraud to only one definition. So under your definition an illegal immigrant voting, which could be prevented with photo ID, would not be voter fraud?

And you are assuming that a person being disenfranchised by refusing to take simple steps to be eligible is equally bad as voter fraud.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
What harm is it doing. Nothing prevents a person from getting the ID.
There is proof that people are voting illegally.
[sarcasm] "What harm is it doing?" Nothing prevents wanna be gun owners from getting a background check [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I do not wait for you, stalker.
You know, making up names doesn't make it true. Criminal accusations can be libel you know.


You still think Florida is Pennsylvania, and therefor things that happen in Florida mean they happen in Pennsylvania. Interesting.
Wow, intentional ignorance from our #1 troll. Pointing out two separate states doing the same thing, and both for the same wrong reasons.

Like I said, Two big dots, small distance between them. Connect them.

GOP in multiple states are trying the same thing, use the cover of voter fraud to discriminate against people voting Dem. Simple enough for a troll to figure out.

So once again, you got any proof, are you just going to troll on with false accusations?
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Fraud has been proven to exist.

Until you catch them; how can it be proven?
Murder has been proven to exist.

Prove you aren't a murderer. I mean, we don't know for sure until you prove your innocence. We need to investigate you just to make sure, you don't mind do you?

See the problem?

You would disenfranchise thousands or tens of thousands people, just "in case" there is fraud? Really?

As I pointed out, Penn admits that this law won't affect anything at all. They admit there is no evidence of fraud, and that they have no belief that fraud will occur during the upcoming election either.

So why are they doing this again? They can't find anything wrong to begin with, so why the law?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Murder has been proven to exist.

Prove you aren't a murderer. I mean, we don't know for sure until you prove your innocence. We need to investigate you just to make sure, you don't mind do you?

See the problem?

You would disenfranchise thousands or tens of thousands people, just "in case" there is fraud? Really?

As I pointed out, Penn admits that this law won't affect anything at all. They admit there is no evidence of fraud, and that they have no belief that fraud will occur during the upcoming election either.

So why are they doing this again? They can't find anything wrong to begin with, so why the law?
Again I ask - where is the numbers to back up the guess at disenfranchising.

How many voters do not have the proper ID.
Of those how many will be unable to get the proper ID.


Those are the only numbers that count.

Studies show that x people do not have IDs.
Those studies do not indicate how many actually voted.
Those studies also do not indicate how many would not vote because of ID.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You know, making up names doesn't make it true. Criminal accusations can be libel you know.
Both are correct, and also quite irrlevant. Odd that you would mention irrelevant things, but then you are an odd person.




Wow, intentional ignorance from our #1 troll. Pointing out two separate states doing the same thing, and both for the same wrong reasons.

Like I said, Two big dots, small distance between them. Connect them.
There is roughtly 1,000 miles between Florida and Pennsylvania. You flunked geography class, didn't you? Here, look at the eastern side of the US. Florida is at the bottom, Pennsylvania is touches Canada via the chimney.



So once again, you got any proof, are you just going to troll on with false accusations?
Lots of proof that Florida and Pennsylvania are not only not the same place, but are rather far apart from each other. I posted the map as the final nail in your coffin.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Why is it that every time one is opposed to anything a Liberal wants they are labeled a racist?

Wanting everyone that wants to vote and is legal to vote, to vote is not racist. It's being an American.
One of the two dissenting judges (both of whom both strongly felt that the law should be overturned immediately, not sent back to the lower court) disagrees with you and had this to say about American values (bolding mine):

I was elected by the people of our Commonwealth, by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others, as was every single Justice on this esteemed Court. I cannot now be a party to the potential disenfranchisement of even one otherwise qualified elector, including potentially many elderly and possibly disabled veterans who fought for the rights of every American to exercise their fundamental American right to vote. While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, But is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
One of the two dissenting judges (both of whom both strongly felt that the law should be overturned immediately, not sent back to the lower court) disagrees with you and had this to say about American values (bolding mine):
There were only three judges. How could two be dissenting against the law and want it overturned and not sent back. :confused:
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
There were only three judges. How could two be dissenting against the law and want it overturned and not sent back. :confused:
It help to read. From the link in the OP:

In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.

The court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."
And if you read a little more, you'll find that the ruling almost forces the lower court to issue an injunction against the law:

The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."

If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced ... that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth&#8217;s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,698
12,021
136
So you restrict voter fraud to only one definition. So under your definition an illegal immigrant voting, which could be prevented with photo ID, would not be voter fraud?

And you are assuming that a person being disenfranchised by refusing to take simple steps to be eligible is equally bad as voter fraud.
An illegal voting would still have to impersonate a legal voter to vote, but I would include them in the definition.

Where are you statistics on convicted cases of voter fraud?

Is it your contention these laws are being enacted to maintain integrity of the vote?

Really its just to effectively stop Democrats from voting. BTW in PA Mike Turzi a GOP leader in the state admitted they passed the laws for the purpose of getting Romney elected.

You lose more votes from mishandling after voting then fraud. Why not tackle that?

I don't have a problem with ID but there needs to be national standards to ensure all portions of the electorate are treated equitablly. This includes ID requirements and how laws are executed.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No one has bothered to answer my question (or if they did, it was lost in the flow), so I will repost it:

How many months should someone need to get a photo ID?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,978
14,133
136
No one has bothered to answer my question (or if they did, it was lost in the flow), so I will repost it:

How many months should someone need to get a photo ID?
Assumes facts not in evidence, that picture ID is necessary to prevent a problem not found to be statistically significant. It's a non sequiter.

First, document the need. Next, show how the measure will accommodate 100% of eligible citizens.

Neither criteria has been fulfilled, nor likely will they ever be.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Jhhnn, my question does none of that. There are many people who say there is not enough time to get a photo ID. That may be a legitimate complaint. The question is directed at that.

How many months do you personally think are needed to obtain a photo ID?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
It help to read. From the link in the OP:



And if you read a little more, you'll find that the ruling almost forces the lower court to issue an injunction against the law:
I had read in a local paper that it was a 3 judge panel. That is why I questioned your two dissenter number. Apologize for the confusion there.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
For the antiVoter IDs

Can anyone provide the actual stats of how many voted in the past two national elections that did not have an ID.

I am not looking for estimates on how many people might not have one (this one is a FUD claim); but how many voted that did not have one.

And then how many that voted would refuse to vote because they could not want to get an ID?

That is the disenfranchised number; not the number that do not have an ID.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,978
14,133
136
Jhhnn, my question does none of that. There are many people who say there is not enough time to get a photo ID. That may be a legitimate complaint. The question is directed at that.

How many months do you personally think are needed to obtain a photo ID?
Yes, your question assumes all of that, and suffers from illegitimacy as a result.

Start at the beginning. People must be required to show picture ID to vote because ...

100% of eligible citizens will be able & willing to comply in a reasonable fashion because ...

Once those things are established, and they likely never will be, then your question would be pertinent.

How much time is not enough time to obtain hurricane insurance in Oklahoma? To prepare for a snowstorm in Key West? To guard against home invasion by Bigfoot in Oregon?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY