78 thoughts on “Voter ID”

  1. That post has no link to more information so I might misunderstand the context.

    I live in a European country which always has had democratic elections, since more than a thousand years. On election day even ID which are formally invalid because of being broken or outdated, are accepted to identify the voter. There is no voting fraud at any level which could’ve affected the outcome of any national election, that is for sure. It isn’t difficult to count votes in a fair and verifiable way. Simple ideas already in operation here and there in the world solve that task completely.

    1. “There is no voting fraud at any level which could’ve affected the outcome of any national election, that is for sure. ”

      Sure about that eh?

      1. Police patrols to crack down on vote fraud: Officers to be stationed in areas deemed to be at risk of rigging – 14 May 2014 – [London] Daily Mail
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2628693/Police-patrols-crack-vote-fraud-Officers-stationed-areas-deemed-risk-rigging.htm

        First online election in France tarnished by reports of fraud – The Verge – 2 Jun 2013
        http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/2/4389944/france-first-online-election-fraud-paris-mayoral-primary

        …

        Nah, there is NEVER any voter fraud in Europe … keep dreaming.

    2. I’m not sure we can scale the voting system of Iceland to that of the US. There’s far more opportunity for mischief, higher stakes, and a more corrupt society.

      2. Yes, plus being so much smaller its more likely folks to recognize someone who doesn’t belong in their district as least in terms of voting, especially the older voters.

  2. The racial arguments made by the Justice Department should not be tolerated, and I’m happy the court did not accept them.

  3. A researcher found just 31 possible examples of voter impersonation at the polls out of a billion votes cast.

    Voter ID: it’s the homeopathy of anti-fraud measures.

    1. And no one ever answers, why do I need to show ID to buy alcohol or a gun, but I don’t need to show ID to vote?

      Voting eventually determines how government guns are used, so voting is much more dangererous than any of those other things.

      1. INdeed all those objections that Jim recites ad nauseum and without logical basis coudl be asked regarding the action you mention (buying alcohol, guns, getting on an airplane etc). Yet look at the HOWLS you’ll get from the mindless Left (which means pretty much all of them) if I suggest that no ID is needed to buy a gun.

      2. And no one ever answers, why do I need to show ID to buy alcohol or a gun, but I don’t need to show ID to vote?

        Because showing ID to buy alcohol or a gun addresses serious problems, and showing ID to vote doesn’t.

        1. “Because showing ID to buy alcohol or a gun addresses serious problems, and showing ID to vote doesn’t.”

          Because youa re only worried about voter fraud if the republicans do it. When your team engages in rampant extensive voter fraud – and they have – it’s not a serious problem to you.

        2. Voting fraud is a serious problem, even if there is only one fraudulent vote. Quit thinking in terms of tribes and groups and think in individual terms. You voted and were counted. Someone else lied and had their vote counted. Your vote was stolen from you.

          That’s a serious problem because I was defrauded.

          Your damn straight showing ID to vote addresses a serious problem, more so than alcohol or guns.

          1. That’s a serious problem because I was defrauded.

            So even if it makes no difference to the outcome of the election, it’s a serious problem because of the way it makes you feel? And you want to pass a law affecting millions of people in order to protect your feelings?

            I think that would be a poor justification for a law even if it did work, and the research is that it doesn’t: voters in states with strict voter id laws don’t feel any better about the integrity of elections than voters elsewhere.

          2. It’s not about “feelings” or any such arbitrary standard.

            Fraudulent votes are fraud whether or not the outcome changes in any particular election.

            Acolhol and guns are personal use items, and I have to present ID to prove who I am to get those. Voting eventually determines government policy, meaning how government goons will use their guns against me, so yes someone should present the same level of proof to determine who they are for voting as for those personal use items.

    2. You seem to have trouble understanding what voter ID does for you.

      The article you cite says:

      “Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of election fraud, including “registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn’t live, voting more than once in the same election, and providing false information to election officials,” according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin’s ID law would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.”

      If I have a voter ID card that has my name, address and a picture, why would that NOT stop voting where I don’t live?

      If my voter ID card that has my name, address and a picture, is used to register, how does that NOT stop me registering where I don’t live?

      If I have a voter ID card that has my name, address and a picture, how would that NOT prevent me from giving false information as to where I live and therefore what precinct I can vote in?

      2. If I have a voter ID card that has my name, address and a picture, why would that NOT stop voting where I don’t live?

        The poll workers check your ID to confirm your name, not your address (otherwise they’d have to turn away anyone who’d moved since they got their ID).

        If my voter ID card that has my name, address and a picture, is used to register, how does that NOT stop me registering where I don’t live?

        When you register to vote you have to show documents to prove residency (e.g. a utility bill). This guy evidently had such documents. Voter ID laws don’t affect registration.

        According to the indictment, here’s how the guy broke the law:

        • On May 23, Monroe allegedly cast an in-person absentee ballot in Milwaukee using his mother’s old Milwaukee address.

        • On May 31, the Shorewood Clerk’s Office received an absentee ballot in Benjamin Monroe’s name — which Benjamin later denied filling out. (Investigators said they later found Robert Monroe’s DNA on the absentee envelope.)

        • On June 2, the Shorewood Clerk’s Office received an absentee ballot in the name of Grant Mueller, the son of Robert Monroe’s girlfriend — which Mueller later denied filling out. (Investigators said they later found Robert Monroe’s DNA on the absentee envelope.)

        • On June 5, election day, Robert Monroe voted under his own name in Shorewood.

        • The same day, Monroe voted under his own name in Milwaukee.

        A voter ID law would only affect the last two incidents: he’d have to show a photo ID to prove that he was in fact Robert Monroe. But of course he was Robert Monroe, so that wouldn’t have stopped him.

        But he was caught, without a voter ID law, because records showed that his son had voted twice. When investigators interviewed his son, he denied having cast the absentee ballot. From there they were able to make a case against the father.

        1. Don’t know how things work in your state, but here in California it’s been required for decades that your driver’s license show your current address. CA driver’s licenses used to be made of a soft material that could be written on with pen. I handled a couple of moves by just writing my new address on the back of my license. Eventually CA moved to a hard plastic driver’s license material with embedded hologram, watermarking, etc. You still have to have your current address on the thing, but now you have to put a sticker of some kind on the back to write it on. We don’t have any voter ID requirement (blue state) but if we did, the poll workers could easily check addresses as well as names.

          1. the poll workers could easily check addresses as well as names.

            What good would that do? The criminal can put a sticker on his license, write a phony address on it, and use that to vote in a second precinct. Voter ID laws don’t stop someone from voting as himself in two different places.

    3. The researcher makes various arguments using logical fallacies and absurd qualifiers.

      So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents

      Thus he hasn’t finished.

      If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list

      His list is comprehensive to him, perhaps a few others, but already people have found known causes of voter fraud missing from the list. So it is not inclusive.

      In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID.

      He makes an assumption that those 3000 votes would have been legitimate had proper ID been provided. That assumption is based upon his opinion based on his flawed research, which specifically excludes the probability that an event of rejecting votes due to lack of IDs is absolutely not an attempt at voter fraud. This is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      There’s plenty more to laugh at from the supposed researcher.

      1. but already people have found known causes of voter fraud missing from the list

        How many? I hope they’ve passed them along, so he can update his list.

        1. They probably have, but as I noted, his personal bias seems to be excluding examples. When a person claims to be a researcher, yet has that much of a closed mind, I see no reason to waste anytime on him.

          2. I already pointed out his own reference. That’s 3,000 examples he is aware.

            But just looking for voter fraud convictions, here’s a report of 113 convictions for voter fraud in Minnesota written by researchers. 1,099 felons voted in that election, and the difference in the race was just 312 votes. Maybe the “researcher” put it in his list, but if so, he must have considered it one case despite the 113 convictions.

            That brings a tally up to 4,099 incidents.

          3. I already pointed out his own reference. That’s 3,000 examples he is aware.

            Those are 3,000 cases where people were turned away because they did not have ID. We don’t know that any of them were claiming to be anyone but themselves. When the TSA confiscates 3,000 4 oz shampoo bottles that doesn’t prove that it’s stopped 3,000 terrorist attacks.

            But just looking for voter fraud convictions

            We’re not just looking for voter fraud, we’re looking for instances of voter fraud that would have been stopped by a photo id requirement at the polls. The 113 convictions in Minnesota were of felons who voted — as themselves — despite being technically ineligible. They weren’t pretending to be anyone else, so a photo id requirement wouldn’t have made any difference.

            Again, do you have any examples of people who tried to impersonate someone else at the polls, that aren’t already counted in the researcher’s 31 cases? If this was a common practice there would be thousands and thousands of documented instances.

          4. Jim, the report I provided explains the problem with your BS question. If you can’t prove who the voter was, because they didn’t provide ID, then you can’t prove they were impersonating anyone. But you’ve claimed over and over that there is no such thing is voter fraud. Now that you can’t make that claim without being called a liar, you narrowed the definition of what is voter fraud and then claim because your new definition is smaller there is no problem. You did the same nonsense in the last discussion regarding CPI, even after I pointed out that the BPP was higher.

            Also in the report I linked, it notes 3,000 cases of irregularity with mail in ballots in which the state could not confirm the validity of the voter. That’s 3,000 out of 38,0000. That’s a problem that should be resolved.

          5. But you’ve claimed over and over that there is no such thing is voter fraud.

            No, I’ve claimed that in-person voter impersonation, the one and only sort of voter fraud addressed by photo id laws, is vanishingly rare. As in, 31-possible-cases-out-of- a- billion-ballots rare. If you think there are more cases than that, then offer examples.

            Also in the report I linked, it notes 3,000 cases of irregularity with mail in ballots

            Requiring voters to show photo id when they vote in person will do absolutely nothing to fix irregularities with mail in ballots.

    4. TTV found millions of people registered to vote in more than one state. You claim voter ID won’t solve any fraud problems, so what are the Democrats going or willing to do to address voter fraud?

      People are open to other solutions but Democrats are not putting anything forward, only attack any attempt to stop illegal behavior that benefits Democrats. We seem to be seeing that a lot from the Democrats in the age of Obama.

      1. Do nothing Democrat Senate is all they are, so Governors are going to have to work with the own state legislators to do what Democrats won’t do.

      2. TTV found millions of people registered to vote in more than one state.

        They found millions of names registered to vote in more than one state. That doesn’t prove anything. Millions of people have common names, and millions of people move between states every year. It would be surprising if you didn’t find millions of names in common between the voting rolls of multiple states.

        what are the Democrats going or willing to do to address voter fraud?

        To start with, they aren’t wasting time and money on non-solutions to non-problems.

        illegal behavior that benefits Democrats

        There’s just as much reason to believe that in-person voter impersonation benefits Republicans as to believe it benefits Democrats, and in any case it doesn’t benefit either one enough to make any difference.

        1. Jim’s 1st answer: “I can’t hear you, lalalalala”
          Jim’s 2nd answer: “I didn’t hear of any problem”
          Jim’2 3rd answer: “You’re right that voter ID works to protect all parties, but it solves a problem I never heard of”

        2. They didn’t find millions of name matches, they found tens of thousands of name and birthdate matches. Pretty conclusive I’d say. All voter registrations require a birthdate as voting. like driving, is an activity for which there are minimum age laws.

          1. Pretty conclusive I’d say.

            Not really, due to the Birthdate Problem. If you have a common name in a country as big as ours, it is likely that there is someone else with the same name and the same birthdate.

            And aside from birthday collisions, Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State who heads up Interstate Crosscheck, has admitted that “nearly all” matches are the result of people moving between states.

            Between 2008 and 2010 Interstate Crosscheck only found a total of 25 cases of possible double-voting, and it isn’t clear that any of those cases actually panned out.

            And, of course, a photo id requirement wouldn’t stop you from voting as yourself in two places.

          2. Your birthday problem is itself a fraud Jim. Having the same birthday isn’t the issue which is a high probability for only 365 days (let’s not ref the same name issue which further invalidate this birthday problem.) We are also talking about the same year which is not a x out of 365 issue. Or that you have an entirely different probability when you say any two matching verses matching a specific person.

          3. We are also talking about the same year which is not a x out of 365 issue

            Of course — read the paper for all the details. For example, just looking at New Jersey, they found over 400 registered voters named “Robert Smith”. With a group that large you’d statistically expect to find five cases of duplicate birth dates, including the year (assuming that all of them are between 18 and 82, so you’re only looking at 65 different years). The fact that first names tend to come into and out of fashion means that the odds of a birth year collision may be even higher (because the “Madison”s won’t be randomly distributed across the age range, they’ll be clumped into the periods when that name was more popular).

            The paper also points out that a lot of voter registration data is incomplete. Out of the 5 million or so voter registration records they examined, almost a million did not have a birth date at all. Others had impossible dates (e.g. in the 1700s, or in the future), or dates that were missing the day-of-the-month, or the day and the month. All of those problems can generate false “duplicates”.

          4. Out of the 5 million or so voter registration records they examined, almost a million did not have a birth date at all.

            If a registration has no birthdate or an impossible birthdate it shouldn’t be regarded as valid. I can see where Illinois might have a problem with following such a rule as I bet there a lot of really old birthdates among their notoriously large graveyard electorate.

    5. Now, Jim, I thought we’d really made some progress a week or so ago. As I recall, there were at least a few anti-fraud measures of which you approved. But you’re still against proving who you are when it’s time to vote? Wouldn’t you be upset if one of the Koch brothers showed up in your precinct, said he was you, and voted straight-ticket Republican?

      For my part I believe state-issued ID should be free for citizens resident in a state. So the “poor people can’t afford it” argument wouldn’t hold. Does that help? If not, methinks you doth protest too much.

      1. Wouldn’t you be upset if one of the Koch brothers showed up in your precinct, said he was you, and voted straight-ticket Republican?

        I would love that, because it would be very embarrassing for one of the Koch brothers to go to jail for vote fraud. I’m a regular voter, and sometime volunteer at the polls in my town, where I’ve lived for decades and know lots of people. The Koch brother would immediately be recognized, and arrested.

        Which is a perfect illustration of why in-person voter impersonation doesn’t work, especially on the scale it would take to swing an election. If you try to pass yourself off as someone else you have a lot to lose — your freedom — and very, very little to gain. The risks are unpredictable — you don’t know if the person checking in voters might be a bowling buddy of the person you are trying to impersonate, or if your victim might have voted already, or might be five minutes behind you. If everything goes right and you get away with it you’ve only cast one vote, which won’t make a difference. To make a difference you have to cast thousands of votes, and the odds will catch up with you long before you manage that.

        What happened to conservatives believing “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? How does it advance liberty to write laws placing new requirements on citizens to make a show of trying to solve a non-existent problem?

    6. True the Vote found tens of thousands of people registered in two or more states at once. Voter ID is no panacea as it is ineffective against absentee vote fraud and same-day “motor-voter” registration fraud, but it’s a start. Mandated annual cleanups to purge the dead and voter roll reconciliations at the national level to purge double-registrants are needed too. I expect the Democrats to fight tooth and nail against all such measures, though they’ll have to invent some excuse other than the “them nig-ruhs is too dumb to get them one-a them there ID’s” refrain they’ve been relying on lately. Data mining imposes no “burden” on black people.

      1. True the Vote found tens of thousands of people registered in two or more states at once.

        It isn’t news that people move between states. That doesn’t indicate fraud.

        Voter ID is no panacea as it is ineffective against absentee vote fraud and same-day “motor-voter” registration fraud, but it’s a start.

        Something that is completely ineffective at addressing a problem is not “a start”. It’s dropping your keys in one place, and looking for them in another, because the light is better.

        Gun rights activists are rightly annoyed when, say, a mass shooting carried out with a handgun bought at a licensed dealer leads to calls for restrictions on AR-15s and private sales. But when the subject is voting rights some of those same people fall into the same knee-jerk non-sequitur response: some felons voted as themselves in Minnesota? Let’s force everyone to show photo ID!

  4. I need to show two pieces of official ID, one with picture, every time I vote here, as do everyone else in Canada. Really, it’s no trouble.

    1. Also up here in Canada, we mark paper ballots with an X. Ballots are counted under the supervision of scrutineers from all parties. Ballots that haven’t been scrutineered are not counted; there’s no “discovering” a box full of ballots in the trunk of someone’s car. Full results are available the next day.

      Of course, we want honest elections up here. The fact that the Democrats fight so hard against honest elections speaks volumes.

      1. Counting ballots without a proper chain of custody, which seems to happen every major election here in the US, reeks of fraud.

  5. I never thought voter fraud was a serious issue — until I saw how bitterly opposed to any voter identification one party was. If they’re fighting this hard, I have to suspect there’s a reason for it. As long as I have to show ID to board a plane, or to visit my elected representatives in their offices, then I (and others) should have to show ID to vote.

    1. If they’re fighting this hard, I have to suspect there’s a reason for it.

      Of course there is. That party has millions of voters who don’t have up to date photo id. Of course they don’t want to put a new obstacle between those voters and the polls — any obstacle, no matter how trivial, reduces the odds that a person will actually vote. And of course the other party very much wants to put new obstacles between those voters and the polls. It isn’t about stopping in-person voter impersonation fraud, because that’s virtually non-existent; it’s about leveraging the public’s concern over voter fraud in general into laws that have the effect of discouraging voter turnout.

      1. So, because they don’t take the responsibility to get up-to-date photo IDs, we should take them at their word? You think even a little civic duty is necessary to vote? Those same people drink alcohol, so why not let them have it without an ID?

        1. I get alcohol without id all the time; I can’t remember the last time I showed id. Do you think there should be a law that everyone show id every time they buy beer? What problem would that solve?

          1. Silly response. My point, that you obviously missed, is that we require ID for many things. Why not for voting?

            Jim is certainly the artful dodger when it comes to debate.

          2. “Why not?” is a poor rationale for new regulations. Why not require a photo id for buying beer? Why not require a photo id for buying gas? Why not require a photo id for everything?

      2. I agree Jim. Ya wouldn’t want to stop foreigners from voting in our elections… would ya? In AZ, illegals march for the right to vote so they can legitimize the fact that they already vote here.

        1. Voter ID has nothing to do with stopping foreigners from voting. A foreigner who’s managed to illegally register to vote doesn’t need to impersonate anyone else at the polls, he can vote as himself.

          1. Why? Voter turnout is higher in Australia, so it’s even more obvious there when someone tries to vote as someone else. And what would be the point of taking that risk for one vote?

          2. Why? How many from New Guinea or New Zealand or the Philippines are voting (illegally) in Australian elections? “Oh yeah, name’s Jack Smith, I live on 123 Madeup Street, Perth”.

          4. So you have to positively identify yourself as a citizen, either a driver’s license or a passport. This is what the Democrats are fighting against when they fight voter ID laws. Does this need to be spelled out further?

          5. This is what the Democrats are fighting against when they fight voter ID laws. Does this need to be spelled out further?

            No, that isn’t what Democrats are fighting against. Democrats are fighting against adding a new requirement to show photo ID when you show up to vote. They aren’t fighting against the requirement (that already exists everywhere) that you prove eligibility to vote in order to register to vote in the first place.

  7. “Counting ballots without a proper chain of custody, which seems to happen every major election here in the US, reeks of fraud.”

    That’s the point, exactly. Elections are stolen “on the back end” in the counting rooms, not at the front end of persons misrepresenting who they are. The front end is too inefficient, and all of this voter ID thing is barking up the wrong tree.

    1. Well except that you should be able to validate those back end mysteriously found stackls of democrat votes (Al Franken) via cross referening to registration and voter action.

  8. “For my part I believe state-issued ID should be free for citizens resident in a state. So the “poor people can’t afford it” argument wouldn’t hold. Does that help? If not, methinks you doth protest too much.”

    A certain Governor in a particular Midwestern state didn’t seem to agree with you. If there were certain restrictions or “hoops to jump through” to get a free state-issued ID that was valid for voting would that change your position.

    If faculty, staff, and students held a state-issued ID (i.e., an identity card for a public university subject to regulations of the state police as it says on the back) and that ID was pointedly not accepted in voting, would you agree that it was you who was protesting too much?

    So yes, if a valid voter credential were issued by a state, free to whoever was eligible to vote, I could support the voter ID, it does help. If this is not the case, does it help that you in backing my position to oppose the voter ID requirement.

    1. I’ve no knowledge of the “certain governor of certain midwestern state.” Clearly some sort of Eeeevilll Republican… Or perhaps just stupid. Either way, I can’t comment further without some details.

      In my view, this is more or less an equal protection argument (derided though the Supremes were for using that in Bush v. Gore). I insist that my vote counts. When fraudulent voting happens, whether in my own precinct, my county, or state, or nation, my vote doesn’t count.

      Cries of “yes it does, yes it does!” will fall on deaf ears. When my friend laughs and says his vote will cancel mine out, that’s democracy. When a fraudulent vote, one either manufactured in a counting room, or by an ineligible person voting, cancels mine out, that’s a crime. And because it undermines the basic premises on which this nation was founded, it should be a severely punished crime.

      1. it should be a severely punished crime.

        It is — it’s a felony, with possible jail time. You’d have to be pretty stupid to take that risk just to cast an extra vote.

    2. It’s hard for me to see this issue as one where liberals aren’t in conflict with reality. Getting a photo ID is no big deal; everyone needs one and everyone has one. If they don’t, many states that require voter ID give them out completely free. The Democratic Party opposes all such laws on principle, no matter how silly that seems. I can see no principle involved except fair election. They call it racism, and an attempt to keeps blacks from voting. It’s hard for me to see people who have that attitude as not being entirely out of touch with reality.
      As for “studies” that there is no voter fraud, all studies that I have seen are silly. After the fact, it is generally impossible to catch or even identify: someone voted under a certain name, we don’t know who it was, and that’s all there is. As a result, I can’t even claim that there is rampant voter fraud; I have no idea and neither do the ones who make the claims.

      1. After the fact, it is generally impossible to catch or even identify: someone voted under a certain name, we don’t know who it was, and that’s all there is.

        If the actual voter tries to vote, the poll workers know immediately that there was a mistake or a crime. Those incidents are investigated. If there were hundreds or thousands of people voting under other people’s names, there would be lots of those incidents — but there aren’t. There just aren’t many people stupid enough to risk jail for an extra vote.

    3. “A certain Governor in a particular Midwestern state didn’t seem to agree with you. If there were certain restrictions or “hoops to jump through” to get a free state-issued ID that was valid for voting would that change your position.”

      Surely your forgot to add the pixie dust.

      Democrats are making every effort to get driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. “Hoops” don’t seem to be much of a problem for a person who just entered the US illegally with only the clothes on their backs and not a penny to their names.

      The whole notion of denying the vote because of the cost of getting a voter ID card is complete nonsense.

  9. So, if even persons here illegally and not eligible to vote can get the needed photo ID, what does the photo ID requirement accomplish?

    What is the deal with the pixie dust? Maybe the NC voter ID law met the civil rights objections by providing for a free ID card and was upheld whereas this particular Midwestern state is playing fast and loose with this, hence its voter ID law is still tied up in the courts? I can let you know Tuesday if I had to flash a driver’s licence. And we can talk about pixie dust?

    1. Well, start with a pixie. Then get a pixie grinder. Insert pixie, set grinder to “dust”…

  10. So this administration doubles down on newly-passed state laws over voter ID because it is sure that republicans are chasing windmills. However, it does nothing about an actually illegal law in Colorado and Washington on marijuana.

    This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. A Federalist would allow the states to do as they wish. A fascist clamps down on states that disagrees with his ideology.

    Jim, why don’t you allow the states to do as they wish? If it really is a non-issue, it certainly won’t hurt.

  11. I think this is the link: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/08/08/breaking-federal-court-smacks-down-eric-holders-attack-on-nc-voter-id/

    Here is an important point:

    A federal court today smacked down the Holder Justice Department and refused to enjoin (block) North Carolina’s voter ID law, curtailment of costly early voting and end of fraud-infested same day registration. This means the state’s voter ID law will be in place for the midterm congressional (and Senate) elections in November.

    In other words, it does aim to address issues brought up by Jim.

Comments are closed.