Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration

[werepossum]

SNIP

SNIP
As far as your logic, it is simply flawed. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying a gun simply because one can also kill with a knife or a golf club. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying alcohol simply because a minor can have an adult buy alcohol for him. Yet you are pretending that because a particular law does not close down every possible avenue of voter fraud, it is invalid. In our entire legal system, laws which block one possible way to do something bad without blocking every possible way to do that something bad are the rule, not the exception, and in pretending otherwise you are, again, either an idiot or fundamentally dishonest. There are valid short-term non-partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (difficulty with providing the required number of people with ID in the remaining time) and valid long-term partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (disproportionately affects Democrat voters), but the ability to commit voter fraud through absentee ballots is not reasonable for either.

And this is another straw man. Nobody made the claim you are arguing against. Also, calling someone fundamentally dishonest while intentionally misrepresenting their argument is kind of poor form.

The claim is twofold. One, it goes to the motives of the people pushing the laws given that they are ineffective in actually accomplishing the stated goals of the Republicans because they are going after the absolute least effective form of voter fraud that barely even exists and just so happens to have an enormous deleterious effect on their political opponents. Second, and more pressingly, pointing out it has an absolutely minimal impact on fraudulent voting while having an enormous negative impact on legitimate voting is a reason to oppose it and pointing out other, more prevalent, more effective methods of voter fraud exist is an important mark against the effectiveness.
SNIP

Ahem:

SNIP
The non sequitur simply means literally "does not follow", that the premises of an argument do not lead to the conclusion of the argument, or, at least, do not lead only there. Applied to this case specifically, two problems immediately emerge. First, the argument itself doesn't work because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you don't need an ID to vote absentee which is how people actually interested in voter fraud would do it short of just flat out replacing the card in the voting machine which is way more effective anyway.
SNIP

You're basically making the claim that it's okay for your side to commit widespread voter fraud because it's not the most effective way to commit voter fraud, at the same time you're fighting against laws that would actually make it possible to identify to what level this kind of voter fraud exists. We absolutely know that Step 1, registering imaginary people, exists. We don't know if Step 2, imaginary people voting, is a problem because we have virtually no way of catching these imaginary people. You are asking us to accept on faith that absentee voting is a much more effective way of committing voter fraud. Is it? For absentee voter fraud one must have an address; the ballots are mailed out for each election. That address is a vulnerability during every election cycle. Registering an imaginary person, and then voting for that person, does not require that one have a valid address at all. Thereafter, as long as no identification is required, there is no way short of being recognized that one can possibly be caught.

Minnesota for instance had over 6,000 same-day registrations returned as "No such person/no such address" in the 2008 Senate election stolen with a mere three hundred duplicate ballots. Where then is your evidence to prove fraudulent absentee voting is an even bigger problem? In absentee voting, one must have a valid address to receive the ballot. In election-day voting without ID requirements, one simply shows up, registers, and votes. No fuss, no muss, and if you're not from the area virtually no risk of being caught. The fraudulent voter will be flagged for the NEXT election cycle when his voter verification card bounces, but without ID requirements he can simply re-register and vote as someone new. Worse, as long as one has any valid address to receive the initial registration packets, the fraudulent voter will never be detected. Again, very little risk since those at the valid address can simply say they don't know why their address appears on someone else's voter registration card. That's quite a bit more difficult to claim if the imaginary person's absentee ballots have been mailed to one's home for years.

Your distinction that supporting ID for purchasing a gun is not analogous to supporting voter ID rests solely on your claim that committing voter fraud by registering and voting in person is not as effective as committing voter fraud by absentee ballot. That is simply not supportable.

Attaching a label to someone's argument is not the same as invalidating that argument, by the way.

 

[Jhhnn]

Minnesota for instance had over 6,000 same-day registrations returned as "No such person/no such address" in the 2008 Senate election stolen with a mere three hundred duplicate ballots.

Link?

 

[Jhhnn]

You're basically making the claim that it's okay for your side to commit widespread voter fraud because it's not the most effective way to commit voter fraud

That's a completely unsupportable accusation. Why do you discredit yourself like that?

 

[werepossum]

Link?

Not like this is a secret, dude.

http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/533121.html

http://wewantvoterid.com/documents/2012_PVC_Report_Final.pdf

http://oakdale.patch.com/blog_posts/voter-id-impersonation-does-exist

http://www.examiner.com/article/exposing-explosive-photo-id-testimony

From the last:

Much has been written about Photo ID by people who oppose Photo ID. Even more has been written by those who advocate for it. One bit of testimony from last week's hearing in the Minnesota House of Representatives cuts through all the clutter. Here's the transcript of that brief exchange:

RICK SMITHSON: We had an incident. I live in a small town of about 900 people and we had -- I'm not sure. I called one of the city council members to ask him. It was between 10 and 13 people came into the same day registration table. And by the way, I election judge all the time so I've seen situations like this, not necessarily exactly like this but very similar ones.

On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They had all claimed that the local laundromat address as their residence. When we challenged it, we called the State Auditors Office and we were told that there was nothing we could do about it. We were told that we couldn't interfere with their right to vote but we could make note of it.

That's how strong our election laws are. When I went through election judge training, I was told that if somebody wanted to vote, there was really nothing I could do. There's nothing you can do to stop people from voting 3 or 4 times. You can only report it after the fact.

That's explosive testimony but that isn't the only explosive testimony from the hearing. Here's the transcript of a brief exchange between Rep. Mike Beard and Minnesota SecState Mark Ritchie:

REP. BEARD : So then, that does give me a little pause because we literally had between 700 and 800 people walk up that day claiming to live in the precinct, many of them showing their citizenship card because they were new citizens, all excited to vote. But the ones that did not, the ones that got vouched for, saying trust me, I live here, they were just mingled in with the rest of the ballots in the chute. Is that what I'm understanding?

SECSTATE RITCHIE: Madam Chair, Rep. Beard, yes, that's right.

What these testimonies show is that Minnesota's election system is shaky at best. First, it's troubling that we don't use provisional ballots. That would clear up alot of difficulties. Second, we shouldn't put election judges in the position of deciding whether a person is eligible or not. Implementing Photo ID means implementing provisional balloting because it shifts the responsibility from the election judge to the voter. Voters should prove they're eligible to vote at that specific precinct.

Third, the DFL hasn't shown that straightforward election laws that require Photo ID to vote prevents people to vote. Their argument has been that Photo ID is expensive and burdensome.

Voting is a right. That doesn't mean it doesn't come with responsibilities for the voter.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

There is no way anyone in their right mind can argue that voter ID laws were enacted by Republican legislatures for any other reason than to suppress the minority vote.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is no way anyone in their right mind can argue that voter ID laws were enacted by Republican legislatures for any other reason than to suppress the minority vote.

And the is no reason that the so called targets can not get the ID needed, knowing in advance that it will be needed.

Fraud exists, this is one way of combating it.

The liberals ate willing to allow as many cases of fraud as possible rather than work to ensure the integrity of the election.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not like this is a secret, dude.

http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/533121.html

http://wewantvoterid.com/documents/2012_PVC_Report_Final.pdf

http://oakdale.patch.com/blog_posts/voter-id-impersonation-does-exist

http://www.examiner.com/article/exposing-explosive-photo-id-testimony

From the last:

None of those links prove fraud in the slightest, and are universally from right wing organizations or individuals having an axe to grind. None of them indicate which way unverified voters actually voted, either.

You don't suppose that the post office could screw up wrt 1.1% of the cards sent out to election day registrants, do you? That's what 6000 out of 542,000 election day registrants amounts to... 6000 is .02% of all votes cast

If all this were something other than faux outrage, where's the outrage from Minnesota's county attorneys, who are responsible for investigating possible fraud?

Requirements for Minnesota's same day registration here-

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

Basically, photo ID + proof of address, or affirmation by an already registered voter or residential facility employee.

Contrived faux outrage is faux outrage.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

It takes only a tiny bit of intelligence to realize that it's impossible under our system of government to prove that voter fraud has changed an election. Accepting that you cannot see this, I'll explain.

1. Under even the most stringent of voter identification schemes, one's registration is not tied to one's vote.
2. Given the above, it is impossible to demonstrate that election fraud, even when uncovered, in the form of illegal voters has changed an election. The very most one could ever prove is that the numbers are sufficient to have changed an election. One can not prove that, say, illegal aliens voted for the party that wants to give them citizenship and free goodies over the party that wants to hold them to the law, or that convicted felons voted for the party that says they are the true victims rather than the party that wants to lock them up for their crimes.

The left has a voting scheme conducive to voting fraud that's almost impossible to prove that voting fraud and now demands as a condition to ensuring that the law is followed that we not only prove that fraud exists but that it changed an election.

So you want to disenfranchise millions of people with no proof, got it.

Glad to see you admit that there is no proof. You do realize our justice system is found on proof, and not "thoughts" right?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Still waiting on cybrtroll to follow the rules and post links to evidence of voter fraud changing an election. What is it no, the 5th time he has refused to answer?

 

[abaez]

Doesn't matter. Law struck down. All citizens are now able to vote with no issues.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Doesn't matter. Law struck down. All citizens are now able to vote with no issues.

Law was not struck down.

The implementation was delayed because the state was determined unable to be able to supply the IDs in a timely fashion needed for the current elections.
If was not delayed because of the original complaint on disenfranchising.

The law is deemed in effect for next year

 

[werepossum]

None of those links prove fraud in the slightest, and are universally from right wing organizations or individuals having an axe to grind. None of them indicate which way unverified voters actually voted, either.

You don't suppose that the post office could screw up wrt 1.1% of the cards sent out to election day registrants, do you? That's what 6000 out of 542,000 election day registrants amounts to... 6000 is .02% of all votes cast

If all this were something other than faux outrage, where's the outrage from Minnesota's county attorneys, who are responsible for investigating possible fraud?

Requirements for Minnesota's same day registration here-

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

Basically, photo ID + proof of address, or affirmation by an already registered voter or residential facility employee.

Contrived faux outrage is faux outrage.

There were 36,000 packets returned undeliverable; 6,000 are those which were investigated and could not be put to any other explanation than fraud. But please don't let that stop you from driving that bar even deeper into the ground in your quest for left wing power at any price.

So you want to disenfranchise millions of people with no proof, got it.

Glad to see you admit that there is no proof. You do realize our justice system is found on proof, and not "thoughts" right?

No one is on trial, and there is no requirement for proof of violation to make a law. Nor should there be.

Law was not struck down.

The implementation was delayed because the state was determined unable to be able to supply the IDs in a timely fashion needed for the current elections.
If was not delayed because of the original complaint on disenfranchising.

The law is deemed in effect for next year

I'd bet good money this law is never implemented. Obama is probably going to be re-elected and he and Holder are going to be going after these kinds of laws tooth and nail. When the next election cycle rolls around another lawsuit will be filed, the same people will have no photo ID and will be unable to get photo ID in the time remaining, and the law will be delayed once again if it hasn't already been set aside. Roughly half the country support a party which requires the votes of people not legally qualified to vote to retain their grasp on power.