Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sends Democrats Scrambling
The number of Pennsylvania voters without required photo IDs exceeds Obama's 2008 margin of victory.
Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law “scares the shit out of” the state’s Democratic leadership.
TPM (“In Pa., Voter ID Law Already Changing The Electoral Landscape“):
Hundreds of thousands of potential voters here were left scrambling in the wake of Pennsylvania’s voter ID law — enough to prompt speculation as to whether the law could change the outcome of the election in November.
But one thing is clear: The law is already having a dramatic effect on how the election is being waged.
Democrats and their allies, who vehemently oppose the voter ID legislation, are still pinning their hopes on legal challenges to the law. But if the law survives, political organizers in Pennsylvania will have to alter their outreach plans to include identifying, contacting and getting proper identifications for thousands of voters.
“It scares the shit out of us,” Yuri Beckelman, campaign communications director for the AFL-CIO of Pennsylvania, said of the number of voters potentially affected. The union and several other allied groups are forming a statewide coalition aimed at “education and mobilization” around the voter ID law requirements.
The estimated 750,000 voters who do not have state-issued IDs in Pennsylvania surpasses President Obama’s margin of victory in 2008. Many of the voters without ID are in poor and minority communities — typically blocs that vote Democratic. Democrats’ worst fears appeared to be confirmed when the Republican leader of the state House, who helped shepherd the legislation onto the books, recently boasted that it will “allow” Mitt Romney win the Keystone State.
Democrats now have to make sure voters are aware of the law, know whether they comply, know how to meet the requirements if they don’t already — and do it all before Election Day. This could be a steep climb. Only one of five voters approached by TPM at Obama’s Pittsburgh rally Friday knew the law existed.
Let’s stipulate the TPM, while impeccably fair, is strongly sympathetic to the Democratic Party. They’re reporting here the fears of Democrats, who naturally have an incentive to create hysteria among their base about the topic, and even that is based on thin evidence. After all, the fear is based on the fact that we just don’t know who doesn’t have ID.
Republicans would naturally counter that Pennsylvania’s new law has received widespread coverage–presumably especially in Pennsylvania–and that there’s plenty of time for those who want to vote to procure a state-issued ID card.
That said, it’s undeniable that it’s much harder for very low income hourly workers to take several hours out of their day to get to a DMV or other state office and wait around to get a photo ID. Further, given that they presumably already exist in some sort of quasi-underground economy that permits them to get by on a daily basis without photo ID, they’re incredibly unlikely to do so in order to facilitate taking a couple hours out of their day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November to vote. And, of course, these marginal voters are disproportionately likely to vote Democrat.
My inclination in years past was: Tough noogies. Really, people, how hard is it to get an ID? Most, if not all, states require people to register to vote. So, why not knock out the ID requirement at the same time? And who the hell doesn’t have an ID, anyway? We check people’s ID card for everything from taking an airplane ride to cashing a check to getting into an R-rated (er, NC-17) movie. Surely, it’s not unreasonable to ask them to show one to ensure our elections are above-board.
While that remains my visceral reaction, there’s a slight problem with it: there’s essentially no evidence that significant numbers of people are engaging in the sort of voter fraud that would be preventable by requiring photo identification. Which means that we’re essentially disenfranchising large numbers of people to prevent something we’re pretty sure isn’t happening. Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.
If I had similar apathy about ID plans, the numbers crushed it.
“The estimated 750,000 voters who do not have state-issued IDs” is a large number. If it’s very large in comparison to fraudsters, that’s enough to make the plan ill-conceived.
I don’t like a plan that mobilizes close to a million people to go get new government IDs, and I’m surprised than anyone would. American values and all that.
There’s no end to the mischief you can get up to with these sorts of laws:
-how about shuttering DMV or ID center hours in high-D areas, or at least reducing their hours: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm
-http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/mississippi-voter-id-law-presents-catch-22-for-would-be-voters/
I have no problem in theory with voter ID laws. But there’s little evidence that these laws are about anything other than putting up extra hurdles for Democratic voters. In some states, like Texas, they even include special exceptions to the ID requirement for traditionally Republican constituencies.
That’s not just problematic: that’s a nation-wide movement on the Republican side that’s astoundingly cynical, vile, and anti-democratic, small d.
At issue is the fact that these laws aren’t about fraud at all. No bones about it, this islike the poll taxes of yore, targeted against voters of a particular party.
SEE! I told you it would work!
If we are going to have a “your papers please” society they should at least be very easy to get and free.
I don’t have to show my id to vote – not yet. I would not really mind. I have to have a card to check out a library book and to get into the swim club, so it is not a big deal.
“Vote early and often”
The GOP has been pretty explicit about their motivation.
“About a week ago, Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania’s House Majority Leader, made a startling confession. Boasting about the state’s new voter-ID law, which was ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, Turzai bragged that the law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”
Voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID is exceedingly rare. Voter fraud is mostly done by election officials. I am a PA resident. I am planning on raising a fuss when they ask for my ID.
Steve
@Ron Beasley:
That’s one of my thoughts was well … if we were a society that wanted a National ID, we should do that.
Not wanting a National ID, but wanting a Voter ID, is a contradiction.
“And who the hell doesn’t have an ID, anyway? We check people’s ID card for everything from taking an airplane ride to cashing a check to getting into an R-rated (er, NC-17) movie.”
I disagree with the assertion so often made that photo ID is required on anything resembling a regular basis. My travels in the past year have been confined to the Northeast US, so I’ve used train or car. I don’t write checks, everything is paid with cash or card. I’m sufficiently old that I’m not asked for ID to purchase alcohol or get into a movie. I drive reasonably, and don’t get pulled over.
I don’t think I’ve pulled my license out of my wallet once in the past year. If I was asked to show it for some reason, I’d have to shuffle through the stack of miscellany in my wallet to even find it.
So, yes, to people of a certain economic status, the notion of not having a photo ID seems odd, but, really, it’s not needed to live life. If it were, there would be no identity theft.
James,
Another source (The Philadelphia Inquirer) on the figure, which represents over 9% of the Pennsylvania electorate.
As steve’s quote shows, this isn’t about voter fraud. It’s about electoral fraud — turning a state from blue to red through underhanded means. As many of us predicted when this was first proposed.
The GOP has been doing his for a while now.
If you have problem getting people to vote for your candidate just make sure that enough people aren’t able to vote for the other candidate…
@EMRVentures:
The only time I need to use my ID is with credit card purchases as the Asian markets … I’m not sure if I’m being racially profiled or not
ya we don’t voter I.D.I like having my vote stole by some crackhead dragged to the polls and given a handwritten rent note to register with….
What don’t guys get about massive democrat voter fraud?
What a joke….
On the more serious side, as with all such ideas, it sounds great in theory but the devil is in the details.
Also:
Republicans are no longer interested in democracy. They “stole” the election of 2000 (hard to see Bush v. Gore in any other light) and were soon talking of a “Permanent Republican Majority”. That tells the tale right there. How does one get to a “Permanent Republican Majority” without rigging elections? Especially when the evolving demographics of our country so favor the Democratic Party?
The Republicans should do a little evolving of their own, and win elections on the issues that concern minority voters, but I am afraid that is impossible. The reason is they by and large hate minority voters. I look at their actions and can come to no other conclusion. That goes for blacks, hispanics, gays, muslims, and even women to some extent.
They know they can’t win fair and square. Their only choice is to rig elections. Everything from gerrymandering (see Texas) to marginalizing certain voters (see ID laws) to purging voters from the rolls under specious conditions (see Florida).
They have given us the economy of a banana republic, and now they want to give us the elections of a banana republic. And they just might succeed.
It worked really well back in 2000 too:
Obviously both Gore and Edwards would have been impeached after allowing 9/11 to happen, so I guess it would have been President Hastert instead of President Bush…
Sounds to me like this is where real community organizing is required. This can be turned around but it needs lots of publicity, getting people to the right offices and getting the cards issued. This as well as challenging the law in court. Instead of super PAC money going to those crap ads get it to the organizers.
@PJ:
Doh…
Lieberman 2000.
Edwards 2004.
Gore would have been impeached.
Lieberman would have changed party.
@G.A.: Thanx GA. Starting my Sunday with a laugh!
@G.A.:
Do you have any evidence of massive voter fraud?
There’s lots of evidence of voter disenfranchising.
@G.A.:
We think it is fiction. That shapes our outlook, definitely.
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/161607645.html
Keep spreading the narrative….It all most of you are good at….
@PJ:
Ah, but you can see from the votes that such evidence is “unhelpful.”
Ya I know I was…
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/editorial_pa_voter_id_law_dese.html
According to this article, as many as 99% of voters in Pennsyslvania may have the proper ID to vote. The 750,000 figure cited does not include those who have other acceptable forms of ID, such as student and military IDs and passports.
Also, I don’t see how asking for an ID prior to voting is a very high hurdle to overcome. In order to take advantage of most significant governmental activities, a form of identification is a requirement.
This article is amazing. The figures the left is using are hysterically exaggerated, as is the difficulty of getting an ID and the consequences of not having one. In PA a nursing home ID (just something simple- essentially vouching for a person being a resident) qualifies, for instance. The media is everywhere talking about it, and in any close election the people who cast provisional ballots because they did not bring an ID would be contacted and identified so their votes would count. Look into things, a bit, people!
via Balloon Juice, Reince Priebus:
Gee, where have I heard that kind of rhetoric before? Oh yeah, George Wallace.
Reince isn’t quite in the same class as old George, but give him time, he’s still learning!
@john personna: Strictly speaking, asking for photo ID when using a credit card is a violation of the Visa and Mastercard merchant agreements, unless the cardholder indicates the desire to be asked for ID on the signature line on the back — instead of signing it, you write “Ask for photo ID” or something similar. As far as they are concerned, possession of the card is sufficient.
Pretty stunning when you think about it, since it encourages fraud, but since Visa and MC have everything set up so that the cost of fraud falls almost solely on the merchant, they and their bank issuers have nothing to lose. The reason small merchants ask for ID is that they want to prevent getting defrauded by stolen cards, but they’re too small-fry to attract attention from Visa and MC.
@G.A.:
False.
Even if it was true, I thought you would give us evidence of massive voter fraud…
No.
I do not accept the premise of “Really, people, how hard is it to get an ID?”
Because it is not a question of difficulty.
It is a question of constitutionality.
It is the 24th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Bottom line: I must not have to pay to vote.
We have this, because the South tried to game the rights of Americans and limit voting.
Our Democratic Republic had to step in and put an end to that.
Now, we have this happening, again.
Want to fix the problem?
Here’s an idea – Make us a real democracy, and make voting mandatory (like Brazil)
Here’s another – Create a national ID, provided free to every American Citizen. Make it easy to get at any library or shopping mall or public building. Make it easy to “grandfather” senior citizens or home born individuals that may not have documentation.
Is that going to happen?
No.
Because it’s not about ensuring the voting rights of Americans.
It’s about preventing Americans from voting.
James, how can any conservative that sees what is happening say to themselves “I, for one, welcome our new Jim Crow overlords!” ?
Unless… it’s no longer about rights or freedom… it’s just about winning.
Why not just say: “Really, people, how hard is it to get a free speech?”
S H A M E !!!
None of the stuff GA cited would have been affected by having a voter ID. If there was fraud, it was done by the election officials. If you care about voter fraud, stop them.
“Look into things, a bit, people!”
Many of us have. SOme of us have read books on the topic and looked into the claims of voter fraud by conservatives. What you do not find, is fraud that would be affected by having an ID. Election officials is where you find the problem, Absentee ballots are where you find a lot of the dead people voting. Voter ID is a solution looking fora problem. FInd the fraud, prove it exists, and I will support having IDs.
Steve
The Pennsylvania Law shows how this whole Voter ID issue isn’t really about preventing fraud. Pennsylvania already required you to bring a voter registration card and some form of identification (which could include various forms of non-photo ID like a social security card) the first time you voted at a particular polling station, at which point the voter was required to sign a pre-printed voter’s list of everyone at that station who had been issued a voter registration card. In subsequent elections your identity was confirmed by making you sign the pre-printed list again and matching your signature to the one already in the voter roll.
If someone was able to get themselves onto the list frauduently under that system, it’s unlikely they’d have any trouble getting a fake Pennsylvania ID card made. This is purely about invconveniencing people.
No you mean you want me to install common sense and reason into your mind.If I had that ability it would have been done long ago:).
Republican voter suppression efforts are succeeding.
No voter fraud problem existed, so the GOP ahead on it.
C’mon dude!!!!
lol, don’t even slightly alter the talking points for the illusion of originality then..
@JusttheFacts:
Two things, it’s really hard to ignore this smoking gun:
I mean, a blind eye is one thing, but stuffing one’s ears is another.
Second, on this:
That is just Carol Aichele’s estimate. I don’t know why it would be true. How many of us have Photo IDs other than our driver’s license? I’ve got a passport, but I’d say they go along with driver’s licenses most of the time. Photo IDs are going to cluster. People who have them probably have more than one, and people without them don’t.
@EMRVentures:
That’s interesting. I don’t really mind showing my ID with my credit card though. The credit card certainly identifies me, so nothing is lost.
@OzarkHillbilly:
After the 2008 election, there were just as many Democrats talking about the “permanent Democratic majority”. Everytime either party ends up control both the Presidency and the Congress, they tend to let it go to their heads and start making ridiculous predictions of future success. That doesn’t mean puffery should be confused for conspiracy.
@PJ: “vote early and often”
@G.A.: HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAHAA heeeheeehee he….
2 in one morning GA… Double thanx!!
The idea of you installing something you completely lack….. You’re a card GA.
@Stormy Dragon: True enuf Stormy, but the GOP backed their words up with actions (follow the links provided).
@Racehorse: “ fantasize early and often”
Regardless of any “common sense” of these laws, Voter fraud doesn’t happen. Rather, it happens so rarely that its a problem that doesn’t need fixing.
For the record, in the 20 years that I’ve been voting at my regular polling place, I’ve never been asked to show photo-identification. The routine is this: they ask my name, confirm my address from their register, and have me sign the register next to my name and address. Again … I’ve never been asked to provide photo-identification.
In the absence of any evidence of voter fraud, the GOP just figured they could easily suppress Democratic voter turn out with this legislation. It’s that simple.
Aww I love it when GA tries to defend his ideas with scant evidence. It’s fun to watch. Tell me, GA, if even half of the blog post you cited is true, how will a voter ID law prevent any of that?
James, I’m glad to see your evolution on this issue.
The plan fact is that (G.A.’s quoting of a blog post excepted) there has never been any findings of any type of voter fraud of the type that the GOP claims that Voter ID laws would prevent. If there had been any credible studies or findings of voter fraud the GOP would make sure that every person in America new about it.
Between 2000 and 2010, 13 people were convicted of voter fraud. 13! And most of that time the DOJ was led by a Republican.
If “‘voter fraud” and “election integrity” were true concerns of the GOP, you think that they would also scrutinize absentee ballots, which are a heck of a lot easier to manipulate than showing up at a polling place and pretending to be someone else. Of course, more absentee voters tend to vote for the GOP. It must be a coincidence, right?
@Jay_Dubbs: If election integrity was a priority, we’d have a national voting database that each polling place could immediately check the voter against and that would prevent double voting. And we’d also have federal voting standards.
The argument of “how do these people get by without an ID” is silliness. ID’s get lost and expire, and people who don’t engage in conspicuous consumption can get by just fine. Heck, I’m upper middle class and the only times I ever show my ID are when I order a cocktail, get on a plane or rent a car. I have an ATM card and direct deposit, so I never show ID at the bank, the neighborhood liquor store clerks know me and don’t ID me anymore. And I don’t get pulled over but once every 10 years.
If I were poorer than I am now, travel and restaurants would be the first things I cut back. If I did, I could probably go years without showing my ID, which would also put it at a low priority to replace.
For people at or near the poverty line (as James said) it makes a lot of sense why they wouldn’t have an ID. Why spend time and money that you don’t have on something that you don’t really need for anything?
hmm, it is true.And if you can’t figure out how to check a ID to an address or a signature to in the case of a recall where some one sings….sigh…
It will also help with the stupid same day registration we have in this state. WE need to change that crap too.
Herc, you seem to think that I am under the delusion that providing evidence to liberal progressives would help or persuade in some way? LOL…
I know for a fact that you folks can only ignore and attack facts. I am a witness.
And to those who vote me down for saying that my vote was stole multiple time…stay ignorant and hypocritical my friends.
The democrats are counting on you.
Tom I love you bro but I am not the one who claims to be an atheist yet hates God with a passion and goes out of his way to prove it like most others on this site.
I am sitting here listing to C.S.Lewis on audio book and reading what are considered to be comments of reason on this site and the contrast is, well …lol…..
I have cleaning re potting to do so peace…
I hope the children of the PA republicans die.
I agree that I appreciate evolution in James’ thinking on this issue, but I can’t overstate how distressing it is that this “Tough noogies” attitude is common among Republicans. Voting is a fundamental right. And yet, it appears that a majority of Republicans are all to willing to set up and support road blocks that will prevent the exercise of that right.
Given the complete lack of evidence of any significant level of voter fraud and the thousands of people who risk wrongful disenfranchisement as a result of these laws, “problematic” seems like a significant understatement.
I have video of G.A. voting 17 times on June 5th and if not for fear of reprisals from the Walker administration I would present this evidence of fraud to the proper authorities.
@EMRVentures: When I ride Amtrak on the NE corridor, I’m asked for a photo ID. Several times, in fact: Before I can get on the platform at Union Station in DC, 30th St. Station in Philly, and Penn Station in NYC. I’m asked again on board the train, when the conductor comes to check tickets.
@Liberal Cap: Requiring an ID card is not a poll tax. The IDs are available for free. What cost there is, is confined to whatever minimal expense is involved in getting to the issuing office.
Florida has requested* photo ID following massive voter fraud in the 1997 election in Miami of Mayor Suarez. The corruption was so blatant that it was overturned by the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals.
I’m not persuaded that because voter fraud claimed as a low-frequency crime it should be ignored. We have sobriety checkpoints, don’t we? Most of the drivers passing through these checkpoints aren’t drunk; a few are. Stopping the few drunk drivers is seen as worthwhile. These checkpoints, if conducted correctly are constitutional [See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz].
Is safeguarding voting from fraud less important than protecting drivers from drunk drivers? One affects, what? a dozen families at most while the other can affect the entire country.
*If government-issued photo ID is not available, there are options. These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials.
John Burgess,
“These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials.”
Some other photo ID’s are permitted, but not many. Especially egregious is not permitting student ID’s to be used, even with photos. Utility bills and leases, and other items which do not have a photo won’t help.
Nor will casting a provisional ballot, as in order to make it count, you then need to show up with the photo ID to the courthouse.
“Is safeguarding voting from fraud less important than protecting drivers from drunk drivers?”
If there were fraud on any significant scale, I would understand this attitude. On the other hand, since there is effectively none, in spite of it being a priority for US Attorneys under the prior administration, the loss of citizens’ rights to vote is far more significant.
@John Burgess:
Interesting, because that link you gave points out that the fraud involved absentee ballots and the judge’s solution was to throw out all absentee ballots and keep the “in-person” votes. In Florida, you don’t need to provide a photocopy of your ID with an absentee ballot if you’re already on the voter rolls.
The main weak point in our voting process is not “in person” vote fraud, which is relatively slow and time-consuming. The weak point is the people who manage the election machinery (i.e. those who process ballot boxes, count votes, have access to the voting machines, etc). I would love to see the same enthusiasm for voter id applied to securing the rest of the voting process, such as making voting machines less hackable, better transparency wrt procedures, etc. But, I’m not expecting that to happen for various reasons, one of them being that doing so doesn’t provide the obvious partisan benefit that requiring voter ID does.
@John Burgess:
So, it’s free, except not… That is your arguement?
No.
If you are telling me that I must have something in order to vote, and that something has a cost, then in effect it is a poll tax.
That is why courts keep overturning these laws.
To paraphrase Sojourner Truth: Free is free. Ain’t nothin else is.
Make it free, and make it easy, or quit making it difficult for millions of Americans to vote.
As Americans, as patriots, as constitutionalists, we should aspire to make it easier for Americans to vote.
Not less so.
If we wanted less voice in government, we would have remained monarchists.
@John Burgess:
I am not a big fan of checkpoints, but to engage your comparison I would not that 1 drunk driver can cause more harm by several orders of magnitude than can one fraudulent vote. So if we are doing pure cost/benefit the checkpoint make more sense than picture ID laws for voting.
Further, the cost of slowing down at the checkpoint is actually lower than the cost associated with having to acquire an ID, especially for hourly wage workers who might have to lose a substantial amount of time at work (and hence a real cost in wages).
Like others, I have no problem with the notion of voter ID in theory, but if we are going to do it, it needs to be a free, universal ID. Because the bottom line is quite clearly this: the affluent and powerful have IDs. If you are well educated, have a good job, etc., this is a non-issue to you and therefore easy to go the “tough noogies” route (indeed, I once had that general attitude until i thought about a) the actual evidence of fraud, and b) the very real disenfranchisement issues).
I think that voting is as fundamental a right as any that we have and therefore engaging in policy that selectively disenfranchises specific segments of the population is quite problematic from my point of view. It is doubly so when, as James rightly notes, the party pushing the policies is not the party adversely effected.
the fears of Democrats, who naturally have an incentive to create hysteria among their base about the topic, and even that is based on thin evidence.
Obviously, the quoting feature screwed up there!
@John Burgess:
Oh… and using Michigan in an example may not be the best tactic.
As Michigan’s REPUBLICAN governor just vetoed the GOP drafted Voter ID law there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-usa-michigan-voterid-idUSBRE8621CG20120703
.
So… just to try to get this clear:
The false analogies of drunk driving, using a credit card, writing a check, or buying booze do not apply.
They are NOT constitutionally protected rights.
Voting IS !
Simple as that.
.
.
grrrr… why do “conservatives” have such a problem with the rights and freedoms in the constitution?
@John Burgess:
No they aren’t. Pennsylvania charges $13.50 to acquire or renew a non-driver identification card.
As it has been stated here several times – voting is a constitutional right.
Airplane rides, cashing checks, getting into movies are all not constitutional rights. You’re comparing apples to orangutans.
Ask yourself this: Can you think of one other constitutional right that should be inhibited based on the sole practice of not having an I.D.?
Speech, press, religion, due process, etc… All of which do not just fly out the window just because you don’t have an I.D.
Cheers.
HA HA HA HA
TPM is working as hard to cover Holder’s ass as The Daily Caller is working to pound it.
@Stormy Dragon: And don’t forget the expense of geting a certified copy of your birth certificate and if you are a married woman you need a certified copy of your marriage license as well.
Ahh, but like you wrote, “tough noogies”, right? I mean, who really cares about democracy anyway…
Of course, Democrats don’t want to disenfranchise large groups of voters to achieve that majority, unlike Republicans…
That would make too much sense, what with the 10th Amendment, state’s rights, and all of that…
Let us not forget that this is the same state where Republicans wanted to change how electoral votes are dispersed so as to help the Republican presidential nominee…no one should be shocked by any of this…
Once again another civic minded wizard has come up with the bright idea of forcing US Citizens to vote in elections.
“They do it in Brazil!” is the cry. We should do it here.
Of course no one ever wants to talk about enforcement. Either Lib Cap wants to check me to see if I have voted or he wants someone else to do it. Most likely the Federal Election Police.
This will be Federal Legislation of course. It will have to be to coerce all 50 States to throw citizens in jail for not voting and refusing to pay the fine.
This is not about freedom it is about control.
“But you can go the the polls and not mark the ballot if you don’t like the candidates.” they declare.
So the law demands forced voting but advocates say go to the polls and violate the statute by not voting.
How does this command respect for the law?
As for Brazil, maybe we should emulate their drunk driving laws too.
“…drivers caught with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.2 grams of alcohol per liter of blood (or .02 BAC level) – the equivalent to a can of beer or a glass of wine – must pay a $600 fine and have their right to drive suspended for a year.”
Sounds like a great idea to me.
http://gobrazil.about.com/od/gettingaroundbrazil/a/drylaw.htm
Then there is the issue of religious freedom.
“We as Jehovah’s witness absolutely do not vote and it doesn’t matter which kingdom hall in the world you go to there are absolutely no deviations in what we believe. We are united in the same line of thought.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_Jehovah's_Witnesses_believe_in_voting#ixzz204EZJP1I
Are we going to exempt certain sects yet force others to the polls or are we going to fill the jails with International Bible Students for practicing the tenents of their faith?
I don’t know which is worse, citizens who want to force me to vote or be punished or citizens who want me to carry a National ID card or be punished.
Looks like Lib Cap is a double bogey!
@Moosebreath: You’re simply wrong.
Student ID suffices, as does public assistance ID.
@Stormy Dragon: No it doesn’t. The PennDOT Voter ID is free. Or so claims the Commonwealth.
@Lib Cap: You’re not free to redefine words when they suit you. A poll tax is a poll tax, not any inconvenience you might find taxing or in the least bit onerous. The USSC has already declared that Voter IDs are not, in themselves, unconstitutional. They don’t say that about poll taxes and I think at least they know the difference.
Indiana Voter ID requirement is constitutional, says the Supreme Court. See Crawford v Marion County Election Board
Also, the Michigan DOT v. Sitz case was resolved by the Supreme Court, not a Michigan governor. Makes a difference, you know.
You seem to be having issues with what the law of the land actually is, rather than what you’d like it to be.
@Steven L. Taylor: As far as I can tell, the states requiring ID have been bending over backwards to make it easier to obtain. They’ve reduced the cost to zero for the ID itself; they maintain weekend and evening or extended hours in the issuing offices. Now, that may very well not be the case in all states, but it is here in FL.
I think there’s a fair role for political parties to be engaged in helping people get their IDs in the same manner as they help them get to the polls on election day. I know I receive requests to volunteer as a driver every election… from both parties.
@PogueMahone: Have you tried recently to buy a firearm (2nd Amendment guarantee!) without a photo ID? Didn’t think so.
Or, how about defending yourself in a court? 6th Amendment there. Sure, you can try to be anonymous in the defendant’s chair, but it doesn’t work very well.
@John Burgess:
Which is pretty much how states have always done it, if I’m not mistaken. Now in many states that is no longer enough, evidently.
@John Burgess: “…the states requiring ID have been bending over backwards to make it easier to obtain.”
Not requiring Official State Issued Identification Papers would be the easiest.
@John Burgess:
John,
Seriously… Do you only read the parts that make you happy and ignore the rest?
Yes. It is a poll tax. Paying for an ID is a poll tax.
The link that YOU provided that somehow should make me think different (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29 ) specifically states the following:
So… from the link that YOU provided… What does the Supreme Court say about Poll Taxes?
It appears that they may just be against them.
Now… If you did want to prove your case (and let me do so, since you appear somewhat challanged) you may wish to have provided this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
Now, in that one, the USSC did uphold the Voter ID law, but ** GASP ** … The Indiana law provided free (totally free) ID’s… AND made allowances for exceptions.
Waddaya know! Just like one of the suggestions that I had stated earlier!!!
So: I don’t make up words. I uses logic. And the constitution. It is specifically that Amendment, the 24th, on which I base my arguement.
The 24th is the Amendmenton which Voter ID’s are often struck down.
So, no, I am not able to redefine words. I have no need to, when you make my arguement for me.
If you require me to pay or purchase something as a necessity to vote, it is a poll tax.
Don’t agree? Fine.
However it does not give you the right to redefine history or the constitution.
Go yell at some clouds instead.
@ernieyeball:
Ernie,
You and John somehow seem to be hung up on alcohol related issues.
I don’t know why you and he think that laws about alcohol somehow relate to the constitutional protected right of voting.
Somehow, you need to make that more clear… unless you somehow correlate the 21st amendment to voting….. I don’t know.
John: This is why I slammed your use of Michigan law related to drunk driving… as it had NOTHING to do with VOTING.
And instead said something on topic… oh, something related to voting, the Voting ID laws and Michigan… was my example of the very conservative governor striking down Voter ID laws.
(See: on subject, timely… NOT a non sequitur.)
Finally, Ernie… I mention Brazil as an example.
If Brazil can find a way to encourage participation in the electoral process… are you suggesting that our phenomenal American Exceptionalism ® cannot find a way to expand voter participation?
From what I see, If we continue to go the way of the GOP, we’ll head back to white landed aristocracy getting a say in government… but few others.
@ernieyeball:
Ernie,
For this, thanks for making my point.
For whatever reason (religious, conspiracy theorist, etc) some folks in the USA are just absolutely opposed to a Gov’t ID.
And… as a result, except for passports, ID’s will likely remain a “states right” issue.
Now, if you arge FOR a ID for a Federal Election, but argue AGAINST a Federal issued ID… well, that is your boggle.
(Honestly, it amuses the rest of us)
So: to make wackadoodles like you happy… Let’s try this very slight modification of my first statement…
“Create a STATE ISSUED ID, WITH RULES CONSISTANT FROM STATE-TO-STATE, provided free to every American Citizen. Make it easy to get at any library or shopping mall or public building. Make it easy to “grandfather” senior citizens or home born individuals that may not have documentation.”
I would be totally OK with that. Make it so!
If we are all willing to pay the cost of elections, then let’s make that comittment to pay for those ID’s.
However, unless that happens, then the rest of the crap is total jibberish.
Ex: Mississippi states that said you need a picture ID, suggests that those that do not have one get a copy of their birth certificiate. However teh folks that oversee the birth certificate have a requirement to request a picture ID to get that certificate.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/06/511716/to-get-voter-id-mississippi-voters-need-birth-certificate-to-get-birth-certificate-they-need-id/?mobile=nc
See any problem there?
Now… let’s look at the REAL VOTER FRAUD: In Florida, the governor can sighn a law and block nearly one million potential voters… http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/felon-disenfranchisement-florida-vote-obama
If Voter Fraud is an attempt to swing an election… Then what say you to that?
@John Burgess:
“*If government-issued photo ID is not available, there are options. These include other photo ID, utilities bills, leases, etc. that show both name and address. Even without these, one can cast a provisional vote that is later verified by election officials. “
Ah, it’s just too simple of an explanation, John. You see, the matter of voter ID requires drama and an aura of deception attached to it. Never mind, how many places require such ID to travel, to bank, to do any number of basic functions in life. It has nothing to do with “Where are your papers, please,” but rather assures others of your identity in order to perform an important function or task. Why isn’t voting deemed as important as getting on a plane or cashing a check?
@jan:
Jan,
The constitution is a pretty big deal.
In america’s history, Voting (a right grated to us by our formation of a government) is a pretty big deal
Voting IS a constitutional right.
…However, it is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.
…is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.
…is not a requirement of the constitution, nor a right defined there within.
Now, if you are thinking: “why would anyone want to threaten my rights?” or “why should I be concerned of anyone else’s rights?”… then you do everyone who has fought tyranny and oppression since the Magna Cara a great disservice.
While many in the USA may not have a memory politic or a sense of history, in fact history does have a memory.
If looks poorly upon those who work to oppress freedom.
@Lib Cap: You offered up Brazil as an example of “they do it in Brazil (force people to vote) so why don’t we do it here.”
If the rational for legislation in the United States is “they do it in other countries” then why not use that same rational for drunk driving laws or anything else for that matter.
So forced, mandatory voting is “a way to encourage participation in the electoral process” is it?
Just what is the punishment going to be for citizens who do not submit to your political coersion…er encouragement?
Apparently in Brazil you lose the right to vote. If you embrace this punishment doesn’t this run counter to your idea of forcing…oops…encouraging universal participation?
And again I ask how you will deal with religious sects that refuse to vote as it would violate the tenants of their faith? Taking away their voting rights would not be a punishment and I doubt the courts would uphold fines or imprisonment for practicing their religion.
I think your National ID Card is pretty ugly too. Not to mention repugnant to democracy.
@jan:
It’s more important getting on a plane or cashing a check.
It’s so important that people should never be disfranchised.
But Republicans only care about enacting Voter ID laws.
They don’t care about informing people about the laws.
They don’t care about making it easy and free to get a Voter ID.
I wonder why. (Actually, I don’t, it’s rather obvious why.)
@PJ:
…
@John Burgess:
And… when talking about Florida… you are OK, with Student ID’s.
HOWEVER… If you were a Wisconsonite, and a loyal badger, then your Student ID gets you buppkiss.
And that would make YOU simply wrong.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/judge_halts_wisconsins_toughest-in-the-nation_voter_id_law.html
Luckally, a judges injunction
stoppedpostponed that disenfranchisement.So, in Wisconsin, not just an ID, not just a picture ID, but a recent (less than two year issued) non expired ID.
Like Jan said:
Jan, you couldn’t have said it better if you were Gov.Walker himself !
Lib Cap sez:
Where did I do that?
That’s cute. But it is also an Ad hominem attack.
Kinda like when the Federal Government “encouraged” the States to lower speed limits to 55 or lose Federal Highway Funds. You know, political blackmail.
I’m having a hard time keeping track of your contradictions.
Lib Cap. You still have not addressed the issue of citizens refusing to vote because of religious belief. How will you resolve this issue?
@ernieyeball:
I’m not a proponent of compulsory voting, but they could use blank votes, or they could be excluded from it based on their religious beliefs.
@ernieyeball:
Easy !
For Federal elections, just go with what is stated as a requirement in the constitution: US Citizenship.
Anything other than that is crap.
As for local election, I don’t care what the local politburo chooses to do in your town… that’s your problem.
But when local folks mess with laws in an attempt to sway a federal election, buddy, you’re on my turf now. (well… on the electoral colledge’s turf, anyways…)
Admittedly, this makes my two suggestions crap as well. I’ll grant you that.
However, that is a liberal fault: Trying to find a way to make work an unconstitutional idea suggested by conservatives.
(Sidebar: That would likely explain ACA/ “Obamacare”, right?)
So, as far as I’m concerned, I am ecstatic when I hear that a religious fanatic chooses not to voite.
(disclaimer: “religious fanatic” defined as anyone not of your own faith. Unless you are atheist, then it applies to all those invisible sky pal believing folks)
M’kay?
@ernieyeball:
Me too!
Ernie: Don’t be like Mitt !!! Pick a position and try to stick with it, OK?
Yes, I did say:
From what I gleaned from your previous comments:
a) You are for an ID, and
b) You are against a federal ID.
Have I got that right?
But then….
So, now, no consistent state ID’s either…
M’kay…
Ernie: Do you even believe in having a right to vote at all?
Because If I need an ID, but you don’t support a federal ID, or a consistent state ID… if I just draw one on cardboard as a “sovereign citizzen”, will THAT work?
In which case… we may as well go back to no ID again.
Finally:
Yes. Absolutely. Granted…. but if the shoe fits…
What is that?
@John Burgess:
Well it’s $13.50, so claims the other part of the Commonwealth:
http://www.dot33.state.pa.us/fees/index.shtml
@Lib Cap: I have made no comments anywhere ever in support of any kind of ID. You need to read my posts again.
Right to vote: yes. Compulsory, mandatory, forced voting: no.
http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/why-i-asked-for-a-recount-what-we-learned-and-why-you-should-care
@ernieyeball:
Then, in fact, we are in agreement !
* Mandatory Voter ID’s as a requirement to vote – no.
* Right to vote (supported broadly) – yes.
* “forced” voting – no.
OK.. We’re good!
My apologies for the wacadoodlely remark.
Sincerely!
I have always said that America is a Democratic Republic, which has seemed to me that those that give a fark get off their butts and get active.
Those that don’t… well, then they are free to live under the tyranny of those that chose to vote.
However, intentionally taking actions to prevent an American form being able to legally vote… an abomination.
Those that pass laws to intentionally prevent Americas from voting should be the First Ones Up Against The Wall When The Revolution Comes.
@ernieyeball:
Voting for none of the candidates.
Or they can make their vote invalid.
Vote for every candidate.
Etc.
Or, as I wrote, let them be excluded based on their religious beliefs.
Problem solved.
Not that I’m in favor of compulsory voting, but what you’re arguing about can be easily solved.
John Burgess,
“Moosebreath: You’re simply wrong.
Student ID suffices, as does public assistance ID.”
And, as Lib Cap says,
“And… when talking about Florida… you are OK, with Student ID’s.
HOWEVER… If you were a Wisconsonite, and a loyal badger, then your Student ID gets you buppkiss.”
And, since the topic of this thread is Pennsylvania’s laws, a student ID will only get you bupkes, as well.
@Moosebreath: One has to go state to state, of course, but there has been a movement to take student IDs off the table in many states on the presumption that students are transient and should only be allowed to vote at home.
All this raises the problem that not all citizens have the same access to the ballot box across states, which is troublesome in and of itself.
I’m not confused at all…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ljxpyH4dnA
@PJ: “…but what you’re arguing about can be easily solved.”
Maybe.
If all it takes when the Federal Election Police asks an American why they did not vote is to reply “It is contrary to my religious beliefs.” then OK, maybe it is easily solved.
However I gotta’ think it won’t stop there. You know…anyone can say that.
It’s a good bet citizens will somehow have to prove their religious tenents prohibit voting.
Maybe your name will have to be on an official, government sanctioned, Church membership list.
Or how about an Official Religion ID Card. Yeah, that would do it.
Of course all these draconian measures could be avoided if, as you support, there is no forced voting to begin with.
@ernieyeball:
You may have overlooked my previous comment:
OK?
I, for one, oppose mandatory ID laws IF they are associated with any cost to citizens OR if there is no way to accommodate special cases.
However, IF they choose to open a can of worms… THEN it likely goes to those two routes.
And… you saw my own admitted opinion of both of those ideas: Crap.
OK… G’night all !!
@jan:
Just curious, do you have a direct answer to the Turzai quote?
Here’s a guy who thinks his bill stacked the deck for his candidate.
Should we just pretend he never said that? Is it an inconvenient truth?
Yes. And speaking of things that didn’t happen, let’s recall that McCain said this:
As WP said:
I think McCain’s statement is remarkable, because the speaker was not just Rush or Sean or Bill, but the candidate himself. A supposed ‘moderate.’ And the claim he made, using extreme language, was so out of proportion to the underlying reality (since “evidence of fraudulent voting is scant”).
And four years later, the GOP is still doing that same despicable shit: trying “to stir up unfounded suspicions of massive voter fraud.”
Let me try this a different way:1+1=2.
@Ron Beasley:
Sums it up. In Canada you need to show ID to vote (doesn’t have to be picture ID though), but its not a problem because the gov’t makes it very easy to get such ID – a health card (public health of course) for instance is fine, and everyone has one of those for free.
Having to pay for such ID is basically putting a fee on voting. If nothing else, the gov’t should give out free voter’s cards if you’re going to have this requirement, and make it trivial (as in easy to get to locations, where you show up, get the ID, and are out in say a quarter of an hour) to get.
Do it that way, and I haven’t a problem – anyone who couldn’t be bothered to spend 15 minutes probably isn’t interested in voting anyway. Without that, and its obviously just a way to disenfranchise people.
It’s unfortunate that that ID bill in Michigan was vetoed. I suspect this Nov. in and around Detroit the machine Democrat operation will be dragging corpses from cemeteries to the ballot booths. Seriously. Literally.
In any event, what’s sort of funny about Democrat high dudgeon mode about voter ID laws — in the vein of a dark comedy farce — is that they’ve managed to convince even educated, even reasonable people (or at least semi-reasonable) that these laws actually might disenfranchise people. Here’s a newsflash from the real world: Virtually everybody eligible to vote already has valid IDs.
If you’re Joe minimum wage casual per diem worker you already have ID because either you drive around looking for per diem jobs (you need a driver’s license) or because at some point recently you’ve filed for unemployment (you needed an ID). If you’re Sally Section 8 Housing you already have an ID because otherwise you’d not have gotten that housing. If you’re Mike SSI recipient you already have ID because otherwise you’d not have received SSI benefits. If you’re on Social Security benefits you already have ID because otherwise you’d not have received those benefits. Same for food stamps. Same for SDI benefits. Medicare. Medicaid. So on, so forth. Shit, the number of people eligible to vote without existing IDs is so small it’s ridiculous. If you actually believe that 750,000 figure for PA then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. For those people who could vote but who really are without IDs, well, hello, these sorts of laws provide free solutions. As in free IDs.
ID laws are a no brainer. Unless of course we’re willing to tolerate elections being tainted by systemic fraud. Unless we’re OK with the U.S. being a third-world banana republic.
Tsar Nicholas,
“Here’s a newsflash from the real world: Virtually everybody eligible to vote already has valid IDs.”
Only for definitions of “virtually everybody” which exclude 9.2% of eligible Pennsylvanians (as shown above).
Steven Taylor,
“but there has been a movement to take student IDs off the table in many states on the presumption that students are transient and should only be allowed to vote at home.”
Yes, that is exactly my point. Pennsylvania has done so already.
@G.A.:
I see it this way:
GOP + No Voter Fraud = Voter Suppression Legislation
Here’s the thing that confuses me: I’m from Pa. I remember having to show ID, even to the folks I essentially grew up with.
Not entirely sure what I’m missing here …
@EMRVentures:
I don’t know where you shop, but any time I use a credit card for a purchase over a certain amount ($25 to $50 depending on the particular merchant), I’m asked to show ID to verify the card is mine. It’s been that way for a long time, in the effort to prevent fraudulent purchases on credit cards.
My daughter’s debit card was fraudulently duplicated last year and someone used it to rack up over $700 in purchases at a mall in North Carolina. All the purchase amounts were relatively minor, so the thief most likely wasn’t asked to show ID. Luckily, my daughter is one of those people that checks her account balance every single morning, so the bank was able to cancel the card before any more damage was done. Wells Fargo (bless them) didn’t hold her responsible for any of the charges.
In the age of identity theft, I wish everyone had to show picture ID any time they used a credit or debit card to make a purchase, no matter how nominal the amount.
@Moderate Mom:
I’m not sure where you shop either. I purchased both a new refrigerator and a flat screen TV separately over the holiday season, at major appliance stores, for over $1000 each I was not asked for identification. It just does not happen very often that I am asked for photo-ID when I pay for transactions with either credit or debit cards.
Point one: We keep hearing the left whine about disenfranchisement especially among minorities, the poor, and the elderly. Yet, elderly voters consistently vote Republican. Senior citizens were the only age cohort that favored McCain in 2008 and Romney has a 14 point lead among voters 70+. Explain to me how Republicans are going to steal an election by disenfranchising Romney voters.
Point two: Voter id laws are popular! Whether you believe photo id laws are necessary or not, the voters want them. In most polls, 75% of the electorate favors photo id laws. Smart politicians respond when 3 out of 4 Americans agree on something. I’m not sure what Democrats do.
Point three: This idea that there hasn’t been enough election fraud to justify photo id is ludicrous. There is substantial evidence that election fraud in Chicago tipped the 1960 Presidential election in Kennedy’s favor. Whether that is true or not, a significant number of Americans believe it to be so, and it will probably be debated for all time. Wouldn’t we be better off with a system that made stealing elections less likely and inspired more confidence.
Legal, institutionalized segregation was popular as well. That did not make it right.
“Whether that is true or not, a significant number of Americans believe it to be so, and it will probably be debated for all time. Wouldn’t we be better off with a system that made stealing elections less likely and inspired more confidence.”
Another great way to avoid the perception of stealing elections — just don’t have any, and instead proclaim that we have decided to keep Republicans in office perpetually. The differences between my proposal and voter ID laws is not as great as they appear.
I see you this way:Kool Aid +talking point=Liberal.
@ernieyeball:
As a Republican, I’m not very familiar with legal, institutionalized segregation. As we all know, it’s the Democrats who have the proud history of slavery, segregation, and racism.
@Septimius:
Nice repetition of a popular talking point, that an actual examination of history makes far more complicated.
Yes, the Democratic party was tied in with slavery, segregation, and racism. HOWEVER… the tale of the tape shows a marked transition/inflection point that took place in the lead up to — and into — the civil rights movement, in which there was a gradual shift — especially in the South — from racists and segrationists leaving the democratic party (and most of them ended up in the Republican party).
Yes, it is entirely true that the majority of Southern Democrats voted against the civil rights act. However it’s also true that ALL Southern Republicans voted against the act.
And if you look nationally, in all other regions there was a greater percentage of support for the Civil Rights act by DEMOCRATS
And since that time, there is ample evidence to demonstrate how conservative media has repeatedly blown the race whistle… over and over again. So pretending that somehow Democrats are still segregationists or that Republicans have any modern higher moral ground in this is pure crap.
@Moderate Mom:
Your single account does not — in any way — stand as anything more than a single anecdotal data point.
Where I live — mid sized metropolitan area — I rarely if ever get asked to show photo id… which is ironic as on the back of all of my cards, in big black sharpie, I have written “PLEASE CHECK PHOTO ID.” In fact, I typically go out of my way to thank cashiers who actually check.
In part that’s because most of the time, I’m the one swiping my card through the machine… not the cashier. But even in those cases where I swipe, and the cashier has to take my card, they rarely check.
And, in fact, the same thing typically happens on trips out of the area… including at restaurants, where the bill is typically well over the amounts you mentioned, and where the server takes the card with them to run.
My point is, don’t make the mistake of assuming that your experience which having your photo ID constantly checked in necessarily the norm anywhere else. For example, it could be the case that there is a local/state law that is requiring it.
Strom Thurmond
Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964. as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act…
http://jezebel.com/5861262/republicans-in-north-carolina-want-to-re+segregate-their-state-and-kick-women-out-of-office
http://www.salon.com/2010/05/20/rand_paul_maddow_segregation_open2010/
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/05/03/a-republican-candidate-supports-racial-segregation-of-whites-and-blacks/
@Septimius:
As a Republican, you willfully and typically ignore racial history since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in order to reach your sub-prime conclusions.
Since 1964, when white working class voters in the South changed their affiliation from Democratic to Republican, the GOP has been the party of race resentment and racism.
So we need to base our voter laws on what the Daley Machine may have done in Chicago over 50 years ago…there’s some great logic there…
Uh huh, and almost 40% of Americans believe in haunted houses…when do we start local chapters of Ghostbusters because a significant number of Americans believe in such things…
@al-Ameda:
For 100 years, the Democratic Party made a home for Southern segregationists. To equate Republican opposition to affirmative action or support for photo id laws with the institutional racism perpetrated by Democrats in the Jim Crow South is beneath contempt.
@mattb:
And if you look nationally, in all other regions there was a greater percentage of support for the Civil Rights act by DEMOCRATS
Yeah. We’ll just ignore the fact that an entire region of the country that was dominated by racist Democrats almost uniformly voted against the Civil Rights Act. You’re an absolute joke.
@An Interested Party:
So we need to base our voter laws on what the Daley Machine may have done in Chicago over 50 years ago…there’s some great logic there…
No, moron. We need to base our voter laws on the fact that it’s very possible (and, as many people believe has already happened) that a corrupt political machine in one city could potentially steal a presidential election through voter fraud. We need to base our voter laws on trying to prevent that from ever happening or ever happening again.
@Septimius: Trying to hide behind what the Daley Machine did over 50 years ago is such a convenient way to try to negate how demographics are slowly but surely hurting Republicans…but keep telling us you’re only worried about the integrity of votes…maybe some moron will buy that…
“For 100 years, the Democratic Party made a home for Southern segregationists.”
And when the Democrats kicked them out, Republicans not merely welcomed them with open arms, but based their entire electoral strategy upon them.
@Moosebreath:
When exactly did the Democrats kick out the racists?
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-03-04/politics/byrd.slur_1_byrd-race-relations-phrase-dates?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
@Septimius:
So, you still ignore race history since 1964? That’s a you problem, not my problem. Did I equate current GOP opposition to affirmative action with racism by pre-1964 Southern Democrats? No, of course not.
Is the GOP trying to suppress the Democratic voter turn out with photo-ID requirements? Of course it is.
@Septimius:
Ummm no. I just called it out. In fact I posted the numbers.
I believe it’s you that is then ignoring what happened after that vote… Both the fact that most of those Democrats then crossed the isle and joined the Republican party (in part out of overall protest and in part from the entire “Southern Strategy”).
And that since that vote the South has shifted from being reliably Democrat to reliably Republican. All those racists had to end up somewhere…
@EMRVentures: I have to question your status as an “ordinary” citizen if you have not had to produce your ID at least 2-3 times per week. Because of ID theft (as you mentioned) more and more retail stores, hotels, etc ask to see ID when you use a credit card. Simialrly, zero tolerance laws have me handing over my ID to the 19 year old clerk to prove that my grey hair is not a ploy to allow me to buy alchohol.
I acknowledge the possiblity that you are not misrepresenting your situation – in fact, I will speicifically state that I accept your statement at face value. its just that it cannot apply to 99% of the population.
@mattb: After the major civil rights acts were put into place, the south continued to vote Dem for everything except the presidency and it was not Nixon’s enforcement of school desegregation or implementation of the first federal affirmative action plan that allowed him to carry a few of the southern states in 68. They voted against him in 1960 (JFK carried TX, LA, GA, NC, SC, AR, AL. MS – was that because of his support of segregation – snark off) and 8 years later, they voted for Wallace in five of the old confederate states and TX went to Humphrey. Nixon’s success in 72 had much more to do with the horrible ineptness of McGovern and – again – the racist meme is ridiculous, If it was racist motivation that carried Nixon in MS, why did they vote for hime in NY, CT, etc
Let’s face it, the Democratic Party is the party of sanctioned racism in this country even today. Segregation is most prevalent in this country in Democratic enclaves like Philly, Chicago, NY, Detroit, etc. (read em and weep http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/americas-10-most-segregated-cities_n_845092.html#s261062&title=1_Detroit_Michigan)
@<a href="#comment-1@PogueMahone: 550693″>mattb:
Which is why it requires careful protection.
it is not acceptable that PA does not provide ID at no charge – I acknowledge that and support an appropriate change in the law. However, the “there is no voter fraud” meme is laughable. forbid traffic officers to ask for drivers licenses and watch the incidents of driving without a license plummet. I live in one of the worst machine politics cities in America (Chicago) and everyone – no matter their affiliation – finds this claim to be ridiculous. A clean election in Illinois would lead to the immediate transfer of 20 electoral college votes to Romney.
@rrdrrd:
You’ve got those Talking Points down.
@Septimius:
There you go again, ignoring the electoral political history of the country since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. You guys are shameless.
@rrdrrd: Again, it’s funny how you seem to come up with a number of ways to excuse the broader electoral trends that have been going on since the rise of the Civil Rights movement, including the overall shifts that have gone on in the South since the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
I also note it interesting how you conviently stop with Nixon’s 72 election (not to mention an outright dismissal of any possibility that the “Southern Strategy” actually worked). I guess history stopped at ’72.
Look I’m not arguing that the Dems are saints. But this trend towards collectively ignoring the fact that since the Civil Rights act (if not before) there has been a general trend for Republicans to that the “white” side on the vast majority of race issues, with the shrillest voices often emerging from Right Wing Media.
I am NOT saying that all Republicans are racist (or that there are no racist Dems). But the continual denial that Republicans are somehow above stoking race politics to appeal to an increasingly aging white base is the height of self denial.
A few things relevant to the subject of the GOP and racism:
Link.
And this:
It is is official, my vote has been stole…Thanks liberals…you could not have done it with out you.