"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[Fern]

No, it wasn't "reasoning." The judge documented the evidence that demonstrated that - at most - 2 possible instances of voter-impersonation fraud occur in Wisconsin every year. And further documented with evidence that the effort required to obtain an ID card (which included the personal testimony of 7 voters explaining why they were unable to obtain ID cards) would deter a significant fraction of the 300,000 Blacks and Latino voters lacking ID cards from voting in each election.

There are FACTS, not opinions. Tens of thousands of votes blocked vs 1 or 2 fraudulent votes prevented.

But you, in your heart, somehow know that Wisconsin's voter ID law is good. Please tell us why. And back up your argument with something more than just your beliefs and opinions.

Those are not facts and nothing was documented.

In the instances of people complaining about duplicative voting all we see is easy dismissal by claiming clerical error. They have done exactly zip in proving clerical error.

The judge's claim that Hispanic and Black voters will be burdened is presented as nothing more than his opinion.

Fern

 

[Fern]

We have the inevitable return to the false premise that belief in significant "voter fraud" is something greater than a firm belief in the existence of Bigfoot.

Confronted with the circular nature of their reasoning, True Believers just keep circling.

The circular reasoning is on your side. If we have no method of proving such fraud, which we don't, then claiming the lack of proof means it doesn't exist is as circular as it gets.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

Good luck completing an I-9 with no proof of your identity.

It is quite possible to complete an I-9 without the type of identification required by the voting ID laws. In addition most elderly are no longer trying to fill out I-9 forms.

There is no guaranteed right to vote without proving your identity.

You are merely prohibited from restricting voting based on sex, race, poll tax, or age < 18.

Restrictions on voting are fine. For example requiring you to register before voting or requiring residence in a state for a period of time.

By your logic there would be nothing constitutionally illegal about adding any number of restrictions on voting. Like proving you don't have any tattoos could be added a restriction. You'd be wrong there too.

 

[fskimospy]

Those are not facts and nothing was documented.

In the instances of people complaining about duplicative voting all we see is easy dismissal by claiming clerical error. They have done exactly zip in proving clerical error.

What are you talking about? The determination of clerical error leading to a recording of duplicate voting was evidence entered into trial by the assistand district attorney charged with investigating the matter.

To quote the ruling:

The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot. Tr. 2056–57. However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book.

As for that part and the rest of your post I again highly recommend you read the ruling. It has a lot of the same things in it that people have been telling voter ID proponents for years, but in this case it directly addresses both the arguments and evidence that voter ID proponents could put together and demolishes them.

 

[fskimospy]

The circular reasoning is on your side. If we have no method of proving such fraud, which we don't, then claiming the lack of proof means it doesn't exist is as circular as it gets.

Fern

This is additionally addressed in the ruling, and is also false. I know for a fact that I've covered this exact topic with you many times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I would recommend reading pages 13-16. Try to do so with an objective mind.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wisconsin-voterID-ruling.pdf

 

[nehalem256]

Those are not facts and nothing was documented.

In the instances of people complaining about duplicative voting all we see is easy dismissal by claiming clerical error. They have done exactly zip in proving clerical error.

The judge's claim that Hispanic and Black voters will be burdened is presented as nothing more than his opinion.

Fern

The circular reasoning is on your side. If we have no method of proving such fraud, which we don't, then claiming the lack of proof means it doesn't exist is as circular as it gets.

Fern

My favorite part is how they are sure that voter fraud can be shown after the fact from the voter log despite the claimed massive clerical errors in said voter log

 

[Fern]

What are you talking about? The determination of clerical error leading to a recording of duplicate voting was evidence entered into trial by the assistand district attorney charged with investigating the matter.

To quote the ruling:

The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot. Tr. 2056–57. However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book.

As for that part and the rest of your post I again highly recommend you read the ruling. It has a lot of the same things in it that people have been telling voter ID proponents for years, but in this case it directly addresses both the arguments and evidence that voter ID proponents could put together and demolishes them.

The italicized portion above that you have quoted as 'proof' in no way qualifies as proof of any sort. It is merely an assertion.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This is additionally addressed in the ruling, and is also false. I know for a fact that I've covered this exact topic with you many times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I would recommend reading pages 13-16. Try to do so with an objective mind.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wisconsin-voterID-ruling.pdf

Yes and IIRC correctly you always state that if such voter fraud existed we would have examples of people showing up to vote only to find that they have been marked as already voting. Well, here are the examples you've asked for. Dismissing such as clerical error is wholly unpersuasive.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The italicized portion above that you have quoted as 'proof' in no way qualifies as proof of any sort. It is merely an assertion.

Fern

Your definition of "proof" is inconsistent with US law, so either you have a problem or our entire court system has a problem. It is direct testimony by an individual with direct knowledge and professional responsibility over the concept at issue. I'm unaware of a court in the land that would treat that as 'merely an assertion'. Can you provide some backup for this?

It boggles the mind that you guys are so far down the rabbit hole that testimony saying they are clerical errors by the very people who personally investigated the issue is insufficient to say they were clerical errors. It's hard for me to imagine any proof you would accept at this point, which means it has become an article of faith.

 

[nehalem256]

It is quite possible to complete an I-9 without the type of identification required by the voting ID laws. In addition most elderly are no longer trying to fill out I-9 forms.

That isn't what I was addressing. I was addressing the claim that obtaining photo ID was burdensome because someone could completely lack all forms of evidence of their identity.

By your logic there would be nothing constitutionally illegal about adding any number of restrictions on voting. Like proving you don't have any tattoos could be added a restriction. You'd be wrong there too.

Please point out where in the constitution such a stupid law would be prohibited? Perhaps the poll tax one if the government didn't offer free tattooing

The history of our country shows the restrictions on voting are clearly constitutional.

 

[Fern]

You do realize there are already checks in place to look for in person voter fraud and they have made in person voter fraud virtually non existent.
-snip-

No. I can't find any such checks. Why don't you spell them out for us?

Fern

 

[emperus]

What's even more comical. States are expanding mail in ballots while claiming there is in person impersonation fraud.

From the ruling

From these sources, Minnite was able to identify only one case of voter-impersonation fraud. Tr. 1036–42. And the single case of voter impersonation fraud did not involve in-person voter impersonation. Rather, that case involved a man who applied for and cast his recently deceased wife’s absentee ballot.​

7 Tr. 1041​

​

​

​

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and IIRC correctly you always state that if such voter fraud existed we would have examples of people showing up to vote only to find that they have been marked as already voting. Well, here are the examples you've asked for. Dismissing such as clerical error is wholly unpersuasive.

Fern

As I said in my other post, if you think the results of the district attorney's investigation into the matter doesn't count as proving it was a clerical error I don't know what would be.

Why you think that district attorney verified clerical mistakes would be evidence of in person voter fraud is baffling.

 

[fskimospy]

No. I can't find any such checks. Why don't you spell them out for us?

Fern

We already have, the presence of multiple votes under the same person's name. These effectively do not exist. This is also in the ruling.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes and IIRC correctly you always state that if such voter fraud existed we would have examples of people showing up to vote only to find that they have been marked as already voting. Well, here are the examples you've asked for. Dismissing such as clerical error is wholly unpersuasive.

Fern

so, the defense's star only witness gets on the stand, says that of the few identified potential cases of voter impersonation that his office has found, his office determined that 80-90% had "innocent explanations," and the others are "unexplained," we're not supposed to believe him that they're clerical error?

so, the guy that did the investigation says it's at least 80% clerical error, but we're supposed to assume that not only is the remaining percentage sinister, but also the 80%?

 

[glenn1]

This is additionally addressed in the ruling, and is also false. I know for a fact that I've covered this exact topic with you many times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I would recommend reading pages 13-16. Try to do so with an objective mind.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wisconsin-voterID-ruling.pdf

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for sincere beliefs if your side spent as much time trying to get people IDs who didn't have them as you do simply fighting voter ID laws. Since you don't it's completely reasonable for an objective mind to conclude that you are simply favoring a position that you think will benefit your side.

 

[thraashman]

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for sincere beliefs if your side spent as much time trying to get people IDs who didn't have them as you do simply fighting voter ID laws. Since you don't it's completely reasonable for an objective mind to conclude that you are simply favoring a position that you think will benefit your side.

Do you seriously believe for a moment that if Democrats tried passing laws that would fund state issued and funded identification that Republicans wouldn't fight the funding of that at every step?

 

[fskimospy]

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for sincere beliefs if your side spent as much time trying to get people IDs who didn't have them as you do simply fighting voter ID laws. Since you don't it's completely reasonable for an objective mind to conclude that you are simply favoring a position that you think will benefit your side.

Actually there are plenty of groups that work to help voters comply with ID requirements. Where did you get the idea there weren't?

Regardless, if you're looking to restrict a right it is up to you to prove that there's a good reason to do so. Thus far no good reason has been supplied. I consistently find it strange that conservatives are for requiring people to get government sanctioned papers in order to exercise their rights in this case. That's not very conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you seriously believe for a moment that if Democrats tried passing laws that would fund state issued and funded identification that Republicans wouldn't fight the funding of that at every step?

Interesting thing is that conservatives are VERY against a national ID card.

 

[glenn1]

Actually there are plenty of groups that work to help voters comply with ID requirements. Where did you get the idea there weren't?

Regardless, if you're looking to restrict a right it is up to you to prove that there's a good reason to do so. Thus far no good reason has been supplied. I consistently find it strange that conservatives are for requiring people to get government sanctioned papers in order to exercise their rights in this case. That's not very conservative.

The good reason is basic, elementary level due diligence of validating the identity of potential voters. It would be fittingly ironic if your side starting losing elections to fraud of this very type. If it's not a problem as you said, would you be opposed if Republicans passed a law removing all penalties for committing this type of voter fraud?

 

[Fern]

Do you seriously believe for a moment that if Democrats tried passing laws that would fund state issued and funded identification that Republicans wouldn't fight the funding of that at every step?

My state (NC) has done this. It's the Obama admin that is suing them.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

The good reason is basic, elementary level due diligence of validating the identity of potential voters. It would be fittingly ironic if your side starting losing elections to fraud of this very type. If it's not a problem as you said, would you be opposed if Republicans passed a law removing all penalties for committing this type of voter fraud?

something is not an issue, potentially because of the penalties involved (as the judge said, you'd have to be insane to risk 3 years in jail to cast an additional vote), so let's just go ahead and roll back those penalties and invite the behavior?

did you really just write that?

 

[glenn1]

something is not an issue, potentially because of the penalties involved (as the judge said, you'd have to be insane to risk 3 years in jail to cast an additional vote), so let's just go ahead and roll back those penalties and invite the behavior?

did you really just write that?

It's basically unenforceable now, so who cares?

 

[thraashman]

My state (NC) has done this. It's the Obama admin that is suing them.

Fern

North Carolina is trying to implement a restrictive voter id law and being sued over it. There is nothing I can find of an effort to fund getting people IDs. I've found articles that talk about the NC law that reference Virginia not being sued because it funds those voter IDs. And in fact in NC state issued public assistance IDs are NOT valid for their voter ID laws. If you have additional information I would love to read more.

 

[Fern]

Your definition of "proof" is inconsistent with US law, so either you have a problem or our entire court system has a problem. It is direct testimony by an individual with direct knowledge and professional responsibility over the concept at issue. I'm unaware of a court in the land that would treat that as 'merely an assertion'. Can you provide some backup for this?

It boggles the mind that you guys are so far down the rabbit hole that testimony saying they are clerical errors by the very people who personally investigated the issue is insufficient to say they were clerical errors. It's hard for me to imagine any proof you would accept at this point, which means it has become an article of faith.

The standards of proof that I am familiar with are those of the accounting profession. An assertion that cannot be independently verified is not considered proof.

The article of faith in question here is the acceptance of an unconfirmed assertion as proof. That is, indeed, faith.

The simple fact is we no have no voting system worth a damn. Our voter rolls are substantially F'd up. This is not even debatable. And, IMO, that's the starting point. If those cannot be trusted, and we know that they cannot, everything which flows from that is suspect and nothing provable by any reasonable definition of the word.

Fern