758,000 Pennsylvania voters

[Miss Informed]

Am I in the right line to vote for Romney?

You betcha!

[flockofseagulls104]

However, as you have mentioned, Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the majority of voter fraud, which occurs with absentee/mail-in ballots. However, if we tried to restrict those forms of voting more, you can rest assured that the Democrats would scram holy hell about those efforts, too.

No, what you can rest assured is that Republicans won't try to curb any "abuses" unless they have a disproportionate effect against voters who primarily vote Democratic.

Of course not. All conservatives and republicans (they are the same to you) are just evil to the core, aren't we?

[Sistine Fanny]

Pennsylvania recently passed a Voter ID law. The primary (but not the only) form of ID to be used for voting is a driver's license. Just one problem. According to new estimates from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, approximately 758,000 registered voters don't have one. That's 9.2% of all registered voters in the Commonwealth. When the bill was being considered, the Secretary claimed that 99% of registered voters already have a license. To quote Dick Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, that estimate now appears to be "inoperative."

It will surprise no one that the problem is concentrated in urban areas. Fully 18% of registered voters in Philadelphia don't have a driver's license.

The law has been challenged as violating the state constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to reach and decide the case before November. --Bob

You've written this rather craftily. Just because 9.2% of registered voters don't have a driver's license doesn't mean that 9.2% of registered voters don't have a government issued ID. I'd wager that the vast majority of those 9.2% have a government issued ID.

Don't you have to show ID to register to vote in the first place? Even if you don't, it would seem that somebody who would bother to go to the trouble of registering and then actually dragging ass over to the polls and voting would be the type who would have gone down to the DMV at some point and got a government ID.

[Sistine Fanny]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Unless you're in front of Judge Judy....

While I do think that Bob can, and often is, as posturing and disingenuous as anybody else in the Political Posters Club here, I've also always thought that he at least actually puts some thought into what he writes, rather than just foaming at the mouth or going all cut and paste crazy.

But really, Bob?

...lack of detection (in a setting where there are participants who are highly motivated to detect fraud) is certainly evidence that it is rare.

Were you even paying attention to what you were writing? That's ridiculous. You're a lawyer, right? Isn't one of the first things you learn is that you can't prove a negative?

Lack of detection can mean that it's difficult to detect. But it doesn't "certainly" mean anything, much less something as extreme as "rare". Unless you're defining rare like eBay sellers do when they're trying to sell some rare artifact that already has three pages of listings....

And, just out of curiousity, what types of perfectly good forms of ID are Democrats more likely to carry than Republicans? I've given it about .4840833 minutes of thought and, outside of their "I'm a Democrat!" membership card, I really can't think of anything offical and really nothing at all that doesn't devolve into stereotypes.

God, now I feel like flock, demanding proof of everything everybody says, but I really am curious to know what you think is a perfectly good form of ID that people of a particular political party would dig on more than others......

[Bob78164]

And, just out of curiousity, what types of perfectly good forms of ID are Democrats more likely to carry than Republicans? I've given it about .4840833 minutes of thought and, outside of their "I'm a Democrat!" membership card, I really can't think of anything offical and really nothing at all that doesn't devolve into stereotypes.

God, now I feel like flock, demanding proof of everything everybody says, but I really am curious to know what you think is a perfectly good form of ID that people of a particular political party would dig on more than others......

In Pennsylvania, many student IDs are not accepted. In Texas, state employee IDs are not accepted. Both groups skew Democratic. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Unless you're in front of Judge Judy....

While I do think that Bob can, and often is, as posturing and disingenuous as anybody else in the Political Posters Club here, I've also always thought that he at least actually puts some thought into what he writes, rather than just foaming at the mouth or going all cut and paste crazy.

But really, Bob?

...lack of detection (in a setting where there are participants who are highly motivated to detect fraud) is certainly evidence that it is rare.

Were you even paying attention to what you were writing? That's ridiculous. You're a lawyer, right? Isn't one of the first things you learn is that you can't prove a negative?

Lack of detection can mean that it's difficult to detect. But it doesn't "certainly" mean anything, much less something as extreme as "rare". Unless you're defining rare like eBay sellers do when they're trying to sell some rare artifact that already has three pages of listings....

I didn't say it's proof. I said it's evidence. As you point out, I can't prove that it never ever happens.

But if you're looking for it, it's not hard to detect. I'd be willing to bet that the same fraud-detection algorithms banks use to detect suspicious transactions could be used to identify suspicious voters. Then send someone out to interview the real voter and ask them if they voted. Given the amount of money that gets thrown into campaigns, I'd be astonished if no one has ever undertaken this exercise. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

However, as you have mentioned, Voter ID laws do nothing to prevent the majority of voter fraud, which occurs with absentee/mail-in ballots. However, if we tried to restrict those forms of voting more, you can rest assured that the Democrats would scram holy hell about those efforts, too.

No, what you can rest assured is that Republicans won't try to curb any "abuses" unless they have a disproportionate effect against voters who primarily vote Democratic.

Of course not. All conservatives and republicans (they are the same to you) are just evil to the core, aren't we?

Evil, no. Frequently misinformed and given to faulty logic, yes.

[mellytu74]

In listing what he saw as the accomplishments of the Assembly, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) stated, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

It has never been about voter fraud. It's been about disenfranchising people. Period.

The legal challenge to the law has a good chance of winning because Mr. Turzai and his honesty. Or his big mouth, depending on how you view this.

Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections
47,000 UFO sightings
441 Americans killed by lightning
13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation

As far as the simplicity of getting an ID...

Have you ever tried to get a birth certificate for a senior citizen? A new ID for a senior citizen?

I have, for TLAF. It isn't simple.

While getting the ID from PennDOT for voting purposes may be free, getting the birth certificate is not.

Because so many of the older voters without IDs had home births, the research takes time. Mispelled names, wrong locations, etc. VitaCheck (the company hired by PA to do the work) takes its time.

When TLAF moved from PA to NJ, she needed a new ID. Her PA DL had expired (by a month - she had thrown out the renewals because "I don't drive anymore."), so she needed to go through the whole process.

Turns out - the birth certificate itself isn't sufficient. I had to bring her marriage license - because her birth name and current name aren't the same - haven't been since 1949.

The process is the same here - when she got the new PA ID after moving back - they specifically said, had it not been valid, she would have needed something to confirm the name change.

Two years to get the ID might help. The time to work through the process. Weyoun's suggestion of several different acceptable forms of ID is terrific.

[TheCalvinator24]

In listing what he saw as the accomplishments of the Assembly, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) stated, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

It has never been about voter fraud. It's been about disenfranchising people. Period.

Even given Turzai's extremely poor choice of words, this is not the only valid conclusion that can be drawn from them. It is quite possible, likely even, that Turzai meant that the Voter ID bill would make it far more difficult and therefore less likely that people who are not qualified won't vote.

[mrkelley23]

In listing what he saw as the accomplishments of the Assembly, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) stated, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

It has never been about voter fraud. It's been about disenfranchising people. Period.

Even given Turzai's extremely poor choice of words, this is not the only valid conclusion that can be drawn from them. It is quite possible, likely even, that Turzai meant that the Voter ID bill would make it far more difficult and therefore less likely that people who are not qualified won't vote.

I know you didn't mean it that way, Cal, but the statement above struck me as something Southern voters would have said about Jim Crow laws.

[TheCalvinator24]

In listing what he saw as the accomplishments of the Assembly, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) stated, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

It has never been about voter fraud. It's been about disenfranchising people. Period.

Even given Turzai's extremely poor choice of words, this is not the only valid conclusion that can be drawn from them. It is quite possible, likely even, that Turzai meant that the Voter ID bill would make it far more difficult and therefore less likely that people who are not qualified won't vote.

I know you didn't mean it that way, Cal, but the statement above struck me as something Southern voters would have said about Jim Crow laws.

Did I really need to add the words "under the law" after "not qualified" in order not to evoke such a ludicrous comparison?

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

[Beebs52]

While there may be people who want to disenfranchise voters by virtue of a voter ID law, those on the left are ignoring the absolute likelihood that there are those who want to enfranchise those who are not legitimate. If you deny that you're ignorant.

We had to show a photo ID today to get a renewal on our cellphone contract. I'm sorry, it isn't that hard to acquire one. If you know older folks who are unable to get to wherever to get one, then get them there. The percentages of legitimate folks who are without voter ID, I would wager, are way less than those whom are foci for the Democratic Party to really get enrolled.

I find it offensive that people think someone in the Republican Party or anything other than the Democratic Party are supporting it to disallow legitimate voters to vote. That's why my disdain has grown.

[silverscreenselect]

We had to show a photo ID today to get a renewal on our cellphone contract. I'm sorry, it isn't that hard to acquire one.

Of course: (A) your cellphone contract is with a private company and they can generally choose in what manner to do business (or not to do business) with you. Back in the good old days, I always used to show ID to cash a check. Now our bank requires people to provide a thumbprint if they don't have an account; and (B) having a cellphone contract or a cellphone contract renewal is not a constitutional right, as conservatives love to point out over and over again. The right to vote is. Laws that can restrict consitutional rights are properly held to tighter scrutiny than other laws.

[Beebs52]

We had to show a photo ID today to get a renewal on our cellphone contract. I'm sorry, it isn't that hard to acquire one.

Of course: (A) your cellphone contract is with a private company and they can generally choose in what manner to do business (or not to do business) with you. Back in the good old days, I always used to show ID to cash a check. Now our bank requires people to provide a thumbprint if they don't have an account; and (B) having a cellphone contract or a cellphone contract renewal is not a constitutional right, as conservatives love to point out over and over again. The right to vote is. Laws that can restrict consitutional rights are properly held to tighter scrutiny than other laws.

A voter ID is not a restriction against a constitutional right. If that were the case, then proof of residence or birth or citizenship would qualify as well. What's the beef with a photo ID? In order to acquire a birth certificate, if one doesn't have it, one has to pay a fee; if one has a utility bill to prove residence, one has paid a utility bill, which is a fee. Are you calling those poll taxes?

[mrkelley23]

Even given Turzai's extremely poor choice of words, this is not the only valid conclusion that can be drawn from them. It is quite possible, likely even, that Turzai meant that the Voter ID bill would make it far more difficult and therefore less likely that people who are not qualified won't vote.

I know you didn't mean it that way, Cal, but the statement above struck me as something Southern voters would have said about Jim Crow laws.

Did I really need to add the words "under the law" after "not qualified" in order not to evoke such a ludicrous comparison?

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

Adding "under the law" would not keep from evoking the comparison, ludicrous or not, since the Jim Crow laws were just that -- laws duly passed by a legislature. I do not compare the current push for voter ID laws to Jim Crow, but I did think pointing out the similarity of response might prompt a thoughtful person like you to pause and, if not re-evaluate, at least add another layer of evaluation to your analysis. I don't think requiring ID is unreasonable as long as A) a reasonable amount of time is allowed (see melly's story about TLAF) and B) sufficient types of ID are allowed to be used. Indiana currently has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, but we started almost ten years ago. And we have had very few problems, at least so far, with people complaining of disenfranchisement. And considering that Barack Obama actually carried Indiana, with that voter ID law already in place, it's hard to complain that it's costing the Democratic party.

[Beebs52]

I stand corrected for Texas. I just filled out an application for a voter registration in Texas. I did not complete it since I'm not willing to perjure myself. Also, it was an "informal application."

All it required was a name, address, fake last four letters of a Social Security Number and not checking that I've got a TX drivers license. If I'd completed it, I'd be good to go.

But, there's this: A voter who has not been issued a driver’s license or social security number may register to vote, but such voter must submit proof of identification when presenting himself/herself for voting or with his/her mail-in ballots, if voting by mail. These voters’ names are flagged on the official voter registration list with the annotation of “ID.” The “ID” notation instructs the poll worker to request a proper form of identification from these voters when they present themselves for voting. Acceptable identification includes:

a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;
a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;
a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;
United States citizenship papers issued to the person;
a United States passport issued to the person;
official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;
a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Again, some "fees" necessary to procure these.

[silverscreenselect]

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

And the overwhelming majority of those supporting overreaching legislation like the Patriot Act do so because of a legitimate desire to be safe from terrorism.

This is pure marketing from the Republican party which a lot of people have bought into. Create a "need," namely to avoid voter fraud, and then people will accept the solution without really looking into whether there ever was a need in the first place or whether the "solution," which is invariably chosen by Republican legislators, is the best way to meet whatever actual need there might have been or whether, instead, it acts to disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters.

If there is such a need to prevent voter fraud, then why haven't any of these states taken steps to clamp down on ID requirements for absentee voting, which presents an even greater possibility for voter fraud (but which disproportionately favors Republican candidates).

[Weyoun]

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

And the overwhelming majority of those supporting overreaching legislation like the Patriot Act do so because of a legitimate desire to be safe from terrorism.

This is pure marketing from the Republican party which a lot of people have bought into. Create a "need," namely to avoid voter fraud, and then people will accept the solution without really looking into whether there ever was a need in the first place or whether the "solution," which is invariably chosen by Republican legislators, is the best way to meet whatever actual need there might have been or whether, instead, it acts to disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters.

If there is such a need to prevent voter fraud, then why haven't any of these states taken steps to clamp down on ID requirements for absentee voting, which presents an even greater possibility for voter fraud (but which disproportionately favors Republican candidates).

The "need" is that we need uncontroversial elections. How many elections in the last decade plus (including a presidential election if memory serves) end in a bunch of pissing on each other over ballots that are or are not legitimate, going through the rolls to see who can vote, and what not? Did this happen twenty years ago? I don't think it did.

This is an embarrassment. These fights cost millions and make our democracy look bad.

Crazy idea - let's have an electronic voting system. Let's make IDs readily available, because really you should have an ID anyway, and require those IDs to vote. It can be any of a number of IDs, but it needs to be government issued. Chances are, if you don't drive, you need government services for something, so the opportunity for acquiring the ID is there. Then, have a sufficient number of voting precincts. Tighten the standards on absentee ballots, which are just begging to be targets of fraud.

Canada knows the results of its parliamentary elections, countrywide, in 3 hours. I know, it's a smaller country, less given to differences because it's not quite the same federal system, but REALLY.

I'm tired of these pissy election fights. If you want to vote, you should be able to vote. If you want to vote, have an ID. And when you vote, it gets counted quickly and accurately. This is one of those "are we trying to run an actual civilization?" questions here, or are we just joking around with our attempts at running a government. And the thing is, both parties are to blame. Republicans are fine screwing over college kids and poor folk because it helps them win elections. Democrats are fine letting any ol' shit that sticks to the wall counting as a vote because they think that will favor them.

THAT'S the need.

[mellytu74]

I am with Weyoun here.

National IDs with a two-year period to get everything together.

1) Stop lying to people.

"You just need your birth certificate" to get an ID is a lie. You need a birth certificate AND a marriage license, if you are a woman who uses her married name.

And God help you if you've gone by several names in your life. Make sure you've got the divorce papers or death certificates, too. (A true story from one of TLAF floor mates, I swear on Marietta's rosary beads).

It isn't that people need papers to get the ID. Fine. I agree with that. It's being misled that it's a simple process when it is not.

It's that they are being told by the state they only need their birth certificates. And that PennDot will waive the ID fee if it's just for voting.

2) Beebs, if utility bills were accepted to get IDs, that would be great. Except they aren't. Would that they were. They are secondary verification at best here, when acceptable at all.

3) Most PA student IDs do not have expiration dates. The PA bill specifies that the student IDs must have expiration dates.

Consider that the VAST majority of the students in the state are from Penn State, Pitt, Lincoln, Temple and the former state teacher college system (Cheyney, West Chester, Edinboro, Slippery Rock, etc.).

Since every one of those schools is state-related, is anyone naive enough to think that the expired/unexpired specification from the state legislature was unintentional?

sss is right - absentee ballots are ripe for fraud and tend to favor the Republican candidate (at least around here). So, the solution has to work both ways.

Mr. K is right - a sufficient number of acceptable IDs. Military IDs are not allowed? Really, PA legislature, really?

Weyoun is right - it makes us look bad.

[Weyoun]

What I don't get is that it makes so much sense to have things standardized. The civil libertarian in me cringes a little, but is it so tough to have a picture on file with the government? Some way you can be tracked over time, in a database, so when you appear to get a license renewed, you don't have to have twelve different papers with you establishing you were born, married, etc? So if you disappeared, or show up drunk at the ER, there may be some way to sorta figure out what your story is? And then you are "checked off" so someone else can't just claim to be you when they try to get a credit card or what have you? Some way to trace your existence as a taxpayer over time? For crying out loud, Augustus apparently knew enough about Mary and Joseph's background that they needed to get to Bethlehem to be taxed, and that was 2000 years ago.

I do think college students need an alternate ID system, in part because my ID is kinda crappy and I am convinced that it could be easily forged (for example there is no birthdate on it, things like that - just my photo, my first and last name, a Pitt number which is meaningless to anyone outside of Pitt, and an ad for PNC bank). Also, at Pitt at least they do make you renew it every year (and this has been the case since I've been there). It's a huge pain in the butt because if you let the card lapse one day and try to use it on the bus, the driver will take it and cut it up like you were trying to pass off a stolen credit card (another reason I hate Pittsburgh bus drivers and am pretty much full time driving at this point). Point is, I think there needs to be a way for college kids to get a legitimate ID that doesn't expire every year. So, uh... someone should get on that.

[mellytu74]

Edited to erase most of the post. I was venting.

I stand corrected on one thing.

Military IDs are accepted in PA. It's another state (Michigan? Wisconsin?) where they are not. Can residents shed light on this? Danke.

I think that is absurd that military ID would not be acceptable.

But, mea maxima culpa, as we say in the old country.

[Bob Juch]

Texas's similar law goes to court this week: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas ... 691501.php

[TheConfessor]

Military IDs are accepted in PA. It's another state (Michigan? Wisconsin?) where they are not. Can residents shed light on this? Danke.

I think that is absurd that military ID would not be acceptable.

Acceptable for what? Not everyone in the military is eligible to vote. Some are not U.S. citizens. But I agree that a military I.D. should be good enough as proof of identity at the polls, if you've already registered with some other documentation.

[Bob Juch]

In Texas:

Critics note that the law recognises gun permits as a legitimate form of identification but not student cards issued by the state.

The justice department estimates that there are 600,000 people registered to vote in Texas whose names are not on driving licence or state identification databases.

[TheCalvinator24]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/id-law ... 13382.html