The MSM covering it and accurately pointing fingers. But they won’t, fear of being accused of bias, which the GOP knows full well and leverages to their advantage over and over and over.
Like the efforts to teach Creationism in schools?
Mississippi is the latest US state to see a bill introduced that would protect teachers who injected bogus information into science classes. …
…What is unusual in this case is that the lawmaker behind the bill is being very upfront about his purposes. “I just don’t want my teachers punished in any form or fashion for bringing creationism into the debate," Representative Mark Formby told The Clarion-Ledger. "Lots of us believe in creationism.” The bill he introduced would protect teachers from any disciplinary actions triggered by their discussion of it into the classroom.
There is a pattern of the GOP trying to skirt the law to achieve Conservative objectives blocked by the law. Here’s more on the pattern of suppressing the vote for electoral gain. Here’s the 2013 article about Voter ID linked earlier here:
Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged as much with a defense of North Carolina’s new voting law, which has been criticized for its restrictions on access, among other things. Here’s Schlafly:
“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’…
…Schlafly, it should be noted, isn’t the first Republican to confess the true reason for voter-identification laws. Among friendly audiences, they can’t seem to help it.
Last spring, for example, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” That summer, at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, former Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund conceded that Democrats had a point about the GOP’s focus on voter ID, as opposed to those measures—such as absentee balloting—that are vulnerable to tampering. “I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he said.
After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked.
The “Truth” you are looking for comes directly out of the GOP members writing and supporting the bills. There’s nothing emotional about it, it’s all objective. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Takes a deep breath and dives into the thread before he comes to his sense because why not?
Well, there is Reynolds v. Sims, unless you specifically mean enumerated right…
a) Courts get technical issues wrong all the time, hence why fuckery like “bite mark analysis” are allowed in criminal trials (and sometimes they realize they done fucked up, like Judge Posner); and, b) Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes.
I am sure this will be rejected because of the source.
But this video and article suggest that voter fraud is common among NH campaign workers, at least for Bernie Sanders (but I doubt it change for the other campaigns.)
"We once had 50 voters use the administrative office of a local college as their legal address in New Hampshire,” he recounted. “They were clearly out-of-state campaign workers voting.”
Let see 50 votes/college times a few colleges and you have enough to put Rubio in 3rd place.
Yeah, the National review, a true paper of record.
I think my snark didn’t come across as intended.
I was inviting russelmz00 to witness the gap between emotional truth and objective truth when he asked “What will it take for people to believe that the gop is doing this on purpose against vulnerable democrats (mostly minorities)?”
Strollen’s emotional truth is that the GOP is the champion of fairness and rule of law, so that’s the root cause of all this Voter ID stuff that just so happens to target minority and other majority-Democratic populations, piles and piles of primary-source evidence be damned.
I mean, yeah, it’s transparently obvious to those of us in the reality-based community. Unfortunately we seem to only make up about 30% of the country.
All of these examples are problems with voter registration, not voter identification. Requiring a passport or other photo ID doesn’t make any difference if the real issue is that someone is not technically eligible to vote.
Well, technically a voter ID system actually would catch those people, as they wouldn’t have ID’s that matched their registration.
No current or proposed voter ID system would catch these people.
Example:
“What’s your name?”
“John Smith”
“Prove it”
“Here’s my passport, which is valid voter ID in any state.”
“Ok, checks out. That is indeed your name. Thank God for voter ID. Now, I see that US passports never list your address. So where do you live, John Smith?”
“Uhh… 300 Main St [the administrative office of a local college]”
“Ok, that’s District 3. Here’s your ballot.”
Just like everybody’s driver’s license matches their current address? Provisional ballots are designed for these cases.
Actually, provisional ballots are not necessary when the address on your driver’s license is out of date. The address on the ID is irrelevant. The only purpose of photo ID is to verify your name on election day, to make sure you are the person who is already in the system as eligible to vote.
Your address and eligibility to vote are verified during voter registration, which can be accomplished with bank statements, utility bills, etc. Registration often occurs before election day, and if there are any issues regarding eligibility than a provisional ballot is used.
“Here’s my passport, which is valid voter ID in any state.”
A US passport actually isn’t valid voter ID in all states.
However, I believe that your point here is important, in that it highlights that whatever ID ends up being used for such a system really does need to have the correct information, otherwise it’s not going to achieve the stated goals.
It seems like ideally, you would need identification, in either one or two parts, which proved both your identity and your address. So, either a photo ID that had both, or a photo ID combined with some other proof of address, like maybe a utility bill or something.
Seriously? Which states don’t accept a US passport?
Incidentally, a military ID is also valid voter ID everywhere I checked, and it doesn’t show your address either.
It seems like ideally, you would need identification, in either one or two parts, which proved both your identity and your address. So, either a photo ID that had both, or a photo ID combined with some other proof of address, like maybe a utility bill or something.
I don’t think a photo ID will ever confirm your eligibility to vote, at least in the foreseeable future.
Eligibility to vote isn’t a one-time thing. It needs to be repeated for every election, and in fact the reason you need to provide your address is to match it to an election for which you are eligible. But election boundaries are fluid - your address might make you eligible to vote on X,Y,Z, in 2016 and A,B,C in 2018. The only way to put that information on your photo ID would be to reprint your photo ID every election, which is not practical.
That’s precisely why voter registration is a separate step, and that’s why once you’re registered you get a registration card valid for the upcoming election. Every error documented in Strollen’s post occurred at this step, and that’s why he didn’t really prove anything regarding the need for photo ID.
Why do you need to validate address and eligibility at voting time if that’s already done at registration time? Chain of trust.
Well, I guess in the case they were talking about in NH, it wasn’t validated at registration time.
If we believe O’Keefe, then in NH the poll workers made errors during validation.
It’s true that one way to prevent errors is to force everyone to do things twice. I wonder how you would feel if we adopted similar redundancy everywhere in government:
“Sometimes business permits are granted improperly, so everyone must go through the process twice.”
“Sometimes gun permits are granted improperly, so after you receive one you must resubmit your application.”
“Sometimes tax errors are not detected immediately, all taxpayers should redo their 1040 and send it to the IRS in August for secondary review”
Better safe than sorry, right?
What about homeless people?
Depending on jurisdiction, homeless people can either describe where they most often “reside”, i.e. the park on 1st and Main, or they can provide the address for the organization (if any) that receives their mail.
The same goes for people living out of an RV.
You are correct and I didn’t claim it did. It is two-step verification process, the registration process establish that you are eligible to vote in a particular district.
The photo id establish you are who you say you are. Although in the case of campaign workers, showing them an out of state drivers license, and not being sure of your address, should have a least triggered them being given a provisional ballot, and the poll workers should have made that clear. New Hampshire is one of 6 states that alllow election day registration. The other 44 states encourage registration when you get your license, obtain food stamps, or other social services.
The Democratic argue that Photo ID isn’t needed because election fraud doesn’t occur. I’d say this video raises questions about the truth of that claim.
Nobody is claiming that it has never ever occurred ever. Everyone reasonable is claiming that voter fraud at an individual level is such an unlikely thing and there’s no evidence that it’s an actual problem, so there’s no rational reason for the recent twin push towards making government issued photo IDs harder to get for the poor and requiring them to vote.