Surprise! Voter ID laws reduce turnout

[TheCalvinator24]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

[Bob Juch]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

How much evidence did the Defendants produce that the law was necessary?

[flockofseagulls104]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

How much evidence did the Defendants produce that the law was necessary?

Just wondering, is this the same court or related to the court that is involved in persecuting (I'm sorry, prosecuting) Tom Delay and Rick Perry? I have no idea.....

[TheCalvinator24]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

How much evidence did the Defendants produce that the law was necessary?

You really don't understand how the law works, do you?

[Estonut]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

How much evidence did the Defendants produce that the law was necessary?

You really don't understand how the law works, do you?

That's never hindered him from commenting on anything...

[silverscreenselect]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

How much evidence did the Defendants produce that the law was necessary?

You really don't understand how the law works, do you?

Of course. The opinion of your unnamed sources is more valid that the findings of fact issued by a United States federal judge after a fact intensive nine-day trial. Plus, the section of the decision based on the fact that the Texas law amounted to a poll tax would not require a showing of actual disenfranchisement.

And, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, in issuing the stay, the Fifth Circuit did not comment on the facts either or the likelihood of prevailing on the facts (as appeals courts normally do when they issue a stay to prevent legally or factually dubious rulings from going into effect pending full review).

[silverscreenselect]

The District Court Judge's "Finding of Fact" would more accurately be called "Opinions I Hold for which No Evidence was actually produced at the trial."

Yes, I am relying on the reports of others, as I was not present, nor have I read the transcript.

However, reports from those who were present for the entire trial indicated that Plaintiffs produced ZERO evidence of a single person in Texas who was or would be disenfranchised by the law.

As I suspected, a minor amount of research disproved this:

In a video deposition, Mississippi-born Sammie Louise Bates, who came to Texas via Chicago in 2011, talked about how she cast a provisional ballot in 2013 because all she had was her Illinois identification card, which she used to buy insurance and open a bank account in Texas and get a library card.

Bates said she couldn’t get her birth certificate from Mississippi in time for the election to get a photo ID that was acceptable, because of the cost: $42.

“I had to put $42 where it was doing the most good,” Bates said. “We couldn’t eat the birth certificate, and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.”

Beaumont Deputy Fire Chief Calvin Carrier testified about the obstacles his father, an Army paratrooper who served during the Korean War, still has to get proper photo ID to vote.

His father Floyd Carrier’s birth certificate had the wrong name, date of birth and race listed. His father still lacks a proper photo ID to vote.

“He stated to me he couldn’t believe that after serving his country in the war, all the Social Security he’s paid working his entire life, he was denied the right to vote for a simple card,” Carrier said.

When someone whose eligibility to vote is in question does actually show up to vote, they cast a provisional ballot, and a determination on the final eligibility is only made after the election, if the results are close enough to warrant taking the time to make a ruling. Also, the judge in this case allowed both sides to present testimony by out-of-court witnesses.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/02/ ... onal-test/

[jarnon]

When someone whose eligibility to vote is in question does actually show up to vote, they cast a provisional ballot, and a determination on the final eligibility is only made after the election, if the results are close enough to warrant taking the time to make a ruling.

In this age of selfies, voters without proper ID could be photographed. If the election is close enough, they could then show up days later with some acceptable ID, not necessarily with a picture. But such a sensible idea will never become law, because it doesn't serve either side's partisan interests.

[BackInTex]

“I had to put $42 where it was doing the most good,” Bates said. “We couldn’t eat the birth certificate, and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.”

Well, isn't that some of the best coached and scripted commentary around?

[flockofseagulls104]

“I had to put $42 where it was doing the most good,” Bates said. “We couldn’t eat the birth certificate, and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.”

Well, isn't that some of the best coached and scripted commentary around?

Don't be so judgemental, now. This person is proof that millions, possibly billions, of people will be disenfranchized by a voter ID law. So we can't try and prevent fraud because of this person's problem. The solution is simple.

Spoiler

Birth certificates must be printed on edible paper.

[silverscreenselect]

“I had to put $42 where it was doing the most good,” Bates said. “We couldn’t eat the birth certificate, and we couldn’t pay rent with the birth certificate.”

Well, isn't that some of the best coached and scripted commentary around?

And where was the explanation from the Texas state officials about the reasoning for the law? I can't pick holes in it the same way you've so cleverly done here for the simple reason that they offered no explanations for their actions.

[silverscreenselect]

This person is proof that millions, possibly billions, of people will be disenfranchized by a voter ID law.

The proof that larger numbers were affected is in the statistics that showed that about 600,000 voters were disenfranchised, a disproportionate number of them minority voters. Cal made the rather spurious claim that no specific individual claimed to have been disenfranchised based on his unnamed "expert" sources, and I spent about two minutes researching to refute that.

[TheCalvinator24]

This person is proof that millions, possibly billions, of people will be disenfranchized by a voter ID law.

The proof that larger numbers were affected is in the statistics that showed that about 600,000 voters were disenfranchised, a disproportionate number of them minority voters. Cal made the rather spurious claim that no specific individual claimed to have been disenfranchised based on his unnamed "expert" sources, and I spent about two minutes researching to refute that.

Except, your evidence does not refute my claim at all. These two people either started too late or just weren't willing to expend the rather minimal effort needed to get a valid ID.

I actually haven't made my mind up on the Poll Tax issue, but I find the disenfranchisement argument to be a load of hogwash.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The cost of certified a Mississippi birth certificate ordered by mail is $15.00

[BackInTex]

The cost of certified a Mississippi birth certificate ordered by mail is $15.00

That must be for the edible version. The inedible version must be $42.

[silverscreenselect]

Except, your evidence does not refute my claim at all. These two people either started too late or just weren't willing to expend the rather minimal effort needed to get a valid ID.

No, your opinion of the facts differs from that of the District Court Judge whose responsibility it is to determine how much "minimal" effort is required to get an ID and whether that's reasonable or not. The fact that 600,000 people were disenfranchised indicates that the efforts that would have been required to get ID were far more than minimal in a number of cases, and that the selection of which forms of ID to accept had a racially disparate impact.

[TheCalvinator24]

fact

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[silverscreenselect]

fact

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The facts were what was found by the judge in this case, not your opinion of the evidence presented. I got the facts from Justice Ginsburg's dissent that quoted findings of fact from the trial court transcript. You then said no evidence had been presented that anyone had been disenfranchised. I then presented evidence taken from the newspaper account (admittedly not from the transcript which I don't have) that indicated at least two people had been disenfranchised (and there was plenty of statistical evidence on which to base a finding that a lot more had been disenfranchised). You then said that in your opinion, they hadn't made the "minimal" effort needed to obtain the identification. Obviously, the judge didn't hold that same opinion as based on the findings of fact, which weighed the various evidence presented.

I think that sums it up.

[flockofseagulls104]

fact

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The facts were what was found by the judge in this case, not your opinion of the evidence presented. I got the facts from Justice Ginsburg's dissent that quoted findings of fact from the trial court transcript. You then said no evidence had been presented that anyone had been disenfranchised. I then presented evidence taken from the newspaper account (admittedly not from the transcript which I don't have) that indicated at least two people had been disenfranchised (and there was plenty of statistical evidence on which to base a finding that a lot more had been disenfranchised). You then said that in your opinion, they hadn't made the "minimal" effort needed to obtain the identification. Obviously, the judge didn't hold that same opinion as based on the findings of fact, which weighed the various evidence presented.

I think that sums it up.

Google "Jim Moynihan". Notice, at least at this time, that only certain news sources are reporting it. So does that mean it really didn't happen?

Suppose it did happen, but the 'main stream' media sources accepted by the left decide it's not worth reporting. Does that come into play when evaluating the seriousness of the problem with the voting system?

If it happened the other way, do you think other news sources would think it's more newsworthy?
[added]
Do you think those who may or may not have had their votes changed and may or may not have noticed it can be classified as having been 'disenfranchised'?

Be honest.

[Bob Juch]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The facts were what was found by the judge in this case, not your opinion of the evidence presented. I got the facts from Justice Ginsburg's dissent that quoted findings of fact from the trial court transcript. You then said no evidence had been presented that anyone had been disenfranchised. I then presented evidence taken from the newspaper account (admittedly not from the transcript which I don't have) that indicated at least two people had been disenfranchised (and there was plenty of statistical evidence on which to base a finding that a lot more had been disenfranchised). You then said that in your opinion, they hadn't made the "minimal" effort needed to obtain the identification. Obviously, the judge didn't hold that same opinion as based on the findings of fact, which weighed the various evidence presented.

I think that sums it up.

Google "Jim Moynihan". Notice, at least at this time, that only certain news sources are reporting it. So does that mean it really didn't happen?

Suppose it did happen, but the 'main stream' media sources accepted by the left decide it's not worth reporting. Does that come into play when evaluating the seriousness of the problem with the voting system?

If it happened the other way, do you think other news sources would think it's more newsworthy?
[added]
Do you think those who may or may not have had their votes changed and may or may not have noticed it can be classified as having been 'disenfranchised'?

Be honest.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

That's a problem with touch screens. It can go either way.

[flockofseagulls104]

The facts were what was found by the judge in this case, not your opinion of the evidence presented. I got the facts from Justice Ginsburg's dissent that quoted findings of fact from the trial court transcript. You then said no evidence had been presented that anyone had been disenfranchised. I then presented evidence taken from the newspaper account (admittedly not from the transcript which I don't have) that indicated at least two people had been disenfranchised (and there was plenty of statistical evidence on which to base a finding that a lot more had been disenfranchised). You then said that in your opinion, they hadn't made the "minimal" effort needed to obtain the identification. Obviously, the judge didn't hold that same opinion as based on the findings of fact, which weighed the various evidence presented.

I think that sums it up.

Google "Jim Moynihan". Notice, at least at this time, that only certain news sources are reporting it. So does that mean it really didn't happen?

Suppose it did happen, but the 'main stream' media sources accepted by the left decide it's not worth reporting. Does that come into play when evaluating the seriousness of the problem with the voting system?

If it happened the other way, do you think other news sources would think it's more newsworthy?
[added]
Do you think those who may or may not have had their votes changed and may or may not have noticed it can be classified as having been 'disenfranchised'?

Be honest.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

That's a problem with touch screens. It can go either way.

Of course. No problem here, move along.

If it was improperly calibrated the other way, we'd have a new topic posted here on the bored by BJ. Because it fits his narrative.

The problem is the main stream media is controlled by BJs.

[flockofseagulls104]

Oh.. Sometimes he can't help himself and actually says something that's truthful...

"During an interview with Al Sharpton on his "Keeping It Real," radio show President Barack Obama said voter ID laws do not stop African-Americans from voting which is in stark contraindication to the many cases being pursued by his Justice Department that argue regularly many of the laws are a veiled attempt to diminish African-American turnout.
Obama said, "Keep in mind most of these laws are not preventing the the overwelimgly majority of folks who don't vote from voting. Most people do have and ID. Most people do have a drivers license. Most people can get to the polls."
"But the bottom line is, if less then half of our folks vote, these laws aren't preventing the other half from not voting," he added."

(I am just quoting from a report. I did not listen to the whole exchange.)

[flockofseagulls104]

Just one more alleged problem with the voting system....I heard about this while listening to Rush Limbaugh, so it is, of course, probably made up. George Stephanopolus would never pick this story to report, so it could not possibly be true. .

According to a letter from a lawyer for the State of North Carolina to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a speaker at a recent NAACP conference in North Carolina urged audience members to mislead the NAACP’s own members into believing they do not need to register to vote in advance, or that they do not need to vote at their assigned polling place. Why? The letter alleges: To create confusion and animosity during the upcoming mid-term elections in North Carolina, and to use the evidence of that confusion in the ongoing litigation between Eric Holder’s Justice Department and North Carolina and to show that North Carolina’s election integrity laws are discriminatory. From the letter:

It is also our understanding that during the [NAACP conference], Rev. Barber urged those in attendance to take unregistered voters to vote during the Early Voting period and to engage in get-out-the vote activities that included transporting registered voters to vote in precincts in which they are not assigned to vote on Election Day, or words to that effect. The stated purpose for these activities, as I understand it, was to gather evidence for and thereby enhance plaintiffs prospects of success in the litigation involving [North Carolina’s Election Integrity Laws].

Judicial Watch has been actively involved in this sprawling North Carolina election litigation for the past two years. Judicial Watch has filed two amicus briefs in this case, one in 2013 and one in 2014, supporting North Carolina and election integrity. On both occasions, we were joined in our brief by our partner the Allied Educational Foundation and by local political activist Christina Merrill. We also gave oral arguments and submitted an expert witness report to the trial court explaining that no one is harmed by these election integrity laws, but rather, these laws prevent fraud and ensure all Americans are confident that election results are fair and honest.

I don't have the time or energy to research if this is true or not. This would never happen? Would it?

[jarnon]

Come on, Flock, a letter from a lawyer, quoted by Rush Limbaugh? Your post is downright Juchian.

[flockofseagulls104]

Come on, Flock, a letter from a lawyer, quoted by Rush Limbaugh? Your post is downright Juchian.

If it shed bad light on conservatives, we all know he would post it here. And if he did, he would do what you just did to any contradictory argument to his narrative. Only God could contradict any assertions made by the left. Come to think of it, probably not. They would claim God had a religious agenda.