Posner on Voter ID Laws
- Thread starter Mr. Blonde
- Start date
The idea that no one is out there trying to register voters iillegally or without ANY regard to the legality one way or another, is just flat wrong.
Who cares if 9% of voters in WI don't have the necessary ID needed to vote? The pertinent question is: how difficult would it be for them to obtain the necessary documents? If you aren't up to the task, especially given a little coaching/education, should you really be voting?
Who cares if 9% of voters in WI don't have the necessary ID needed to vote? The pertinent question is: how difficult would it be for them to obtain the necessary documents? If you aren't up to the task, especially given a little coaching/education, should you really be voting?
If you're too dumb to get an ID, you're too dumb to vote. If you're too lazy to get an ID, you're too lazy to vote. If you're too poor to get an ID, then have the government issue ID cards at no cost. There's a million things much less important than voting for which you need an ID. It's frankly a joke that this is even an issue.
I am always absolutely shocked and amazed when I discuss this topic with people. State elections, the state has the right to say who can or cannot vote and what the requirements are. But federal elections are a completely different matter. The COTUS is the authority in this issue. Most of you would be the first one to whale about loss of civil liberties if someone suggested that you have to register for a gun ID to own a gun, or if someone even breathed on your right to free speech. You have no issues with telling me that if I can prove I am a US citizen, 18 years of age, not a felon but I don't have a voter ID card I cannot cast my vote in a federal election?????
If you can prove you're a US citizen, 18 years of age, and not a felon you probably can put out less effort and obtain a voter ID card. Again, this issue is so unimportant and irrelevant in today's climate it's not even funny.
See this is the attitude I just do not get. The COTUS speaks to and addresses the right to vote more than any other "right." It is arguably the absolute most fundamental and core rigth we have as US citizens. Without the right to vote we lose everything else granted to us in the COTUS. If the was requiring that you go get a ID card to own a gun we all would screaming that the sky was falling, but the right to vote for our representation in the federal government is being infringed and you won't use the same measuring stick to protect it. How do you make the statement that the right of every citizen to vote no matter race, religion, gender, or wealth is an issue that is "so unimportant and irrelevant in today's climate it's not even funny?"
You've posted some asinine blatherings, but this ranks right up there. How exaclty are you going to prove you are a U.S. citizen, AND 18 years of age, AND not a felon?
The Constitution of the U.S. places restrictions on who can vote. A reasonable test to determine if you've cleared those hurdles is no infirngement upon anyone's rights. In fact, when people vote illegally it infringes upon every voters' rights.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the COTUS, yet there are ALREADY laws in states and municpalities which DO REQUIRE one to register their weapons and/or completely outlaw handguns (DC). So, are you saying that violates the COTUS, because states are doing it!!!
If you don't have to show an ID to vote you shouldn't have to have an absentee ballot notarized. It's the exact same thing.
Then how come the state didn't supply proof of in person voter fraud at trial? This law wouldn't necessarily stop someone who registered illegally anyway. Wisconsin will issue Driver's Licenses to non-US citizens.
I assume the process would be similar to what it is in Oklahoma. So, a person who most likely has an hourly job, and no car of their own will potentially have to get their birth certificate to use as their primary ID. That will cost them $15 and take at least a month. Then they will have to find another secondary identification. Then they will have to get down to a tag agent, in my hometown it is open 8:30-12 and 1-5:30. When they get there (probably foregoing their wages) they will have to pay $20 for the ID. So in addition to any money they lose from missing work, they could have to pay up to $35 in order to vote. The data submitted at trial for this case put the amount at between $75-$175. Using either number, you are significantly higher than the poll tax that has been outlawed.
As a matter of policy, why should we discourage people from taking an interest in the government of the country?
Because it is. I think you're making an argument out of something that's not there. Trumped up shit from both sides of the political spectrum is all this is imo. To me it's a non issue. Sorry.
I am going to try and respond to multiple people in this post, but Marshall please do me a favor and read this post carefully.
First, specifically to Marshall, I do not post that often on this board. I have tried to be pretty reasonable and back up my statements with facts and not be disrespectful of other people's opinions. I don't know what "blatherings" you are referring to, but if differing opinions are "blatherings" to you and are "asinine" then maybe a political discussion board is not the place for you. No skin of my back what you think of my opinions, just pointing out that with your statements you are behaving exactly the same as people that you rale against on this board and are not actually contributing to improving the behaviors on this board.
To deal with the actual subject at hand now. I can prove that I am an eligible voter the same way I do today without the need for a picture voter ID. The same way that I prove these things to get a job or other such things. It is in the powers of the state to establish polling procedures that do not violate the COTUS.
I do not think that the COTUS places restrictions on who can vote. In fact the COTUS specifically addresses the right to vote more times than any other right including free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The COTUS in fact mentions it more in REMOVING burdens and restrictions on who can vote such as race, religion, gender, and poll taxing. As I have said before, I think that the COTUS is a document that limits the power of the federal government to infringe god granted rights for its citizens and grants it specific powers to protect those rights. If you are going to require ANYONE to pay for a voter ID then that specifically is in violation of the COTUS rights with a poll tax.
As mentioned by someone else in this thread I do not think you can find one instance of someone being tried for and convicted of voter fraud. With this in mind, I do not think it necessary to introduce this added burden or obstacle to someone exercising their right to vote. I do not think that voter fraud has been proven to a point to overcome the questionable constitutionality of the Voter ID requirements and I choose to error on the side of protecting the individual right to vote as the COTUS does multiple times.
I have never argued even once that a registration requirement to own any type of firearm was constitutional. I do not know all state and municipal laws, but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that there is no law in this nation that requires registration to own any classification of firearm. There are requirements to register to carry a concealed firearm, open carry, and even some classifications of firearms but none that blanket registration for ANY type of firearm. Even the Washington DC law does not do that. The constitutionality of those registration requirements is open for debate, even in my own opinion I am still not firmly on one side or the other on that issue. Used to be pretty firm on the subject, but a good friend did a good job of reasonably stating the opposing view point that lessened my conviction on the subject.
When you consider all of the other issues that this nation faces, domestic and foriegn, our vote has a direct impact on every issue in this nation. Because we are in a representative form of government and our representatives have deviated so far from what the majority of this nation want for our laws and treaties it is even more imperative that we protect the right to vote for all citizens so that we can elect a government that represents the ideals of our citizens and enacts laws for the benefit of the nation as a whole. In my opinion the right to vote is the most important right of a US citizen because it is our most powerful weapon to enact change in this country's laws and regulations.
I hope these "blatherings" have not been too "asinine" to be responded to with respectful discussion and contemplation.
First, specifically to Marshall, I do not post that often on this board. I have tried to be pretty reasonable and back up my statements with facts and not be disrespectful of other people's opinions. I don't know what "blatherings" you are referring to, but if differing opinions are "blatherings" to you and are "asinine" then maybe a political discussion board is not the place for you. No skin of my back what you think of my opinions, just pointing out that with your statements you are behaving exactly the same as people that you rale against on this board and are not actually contributing to improving the behaviors on this board.
To deal with the actual subject at hand now. I can prove that I am an eligible voter the same way I do today without the need for a picture voter ID. The same way that I prove these things to get a job or other such things. It is in the powers of the state to establish polling procedures that do not violate the COTUS.
I do not think that the COTUS places restrictions on who can vote. In fact the COTUS specifically addresses the right to vote more times than any other right including free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. The COTUS in fact mentions it more in REMOVING burdens and restrictions on who can vote such as race, religion, gender, and poll taxing. As I have said before, I think that the COTUS is a document that limits the power of the federal government to infringe god granted rights for its citizens and grants it specific powers to protect those rights. If you are going to require ANYONE to pay for a voter ID then that specifically is in violation of the COTUS rights with a poll tax.
As mentioned by someone else in this thread I do not think you can find one instance of someone being tried for and convicted of voter fraud. With this in mind, I do not think it necessary to introduce this added burden or obstacle to someone exercising their right to vote. I do not think that voter fraud has been proven to a point to overcome the questionable constitutionality of the Voter ID requirements and I choose to error on the side of protecting the individual right to vote as the COTUS does multiple times.
I have never argued even once that a registration requirement to own any type of firearm was constitutional. I do not know all state and municipal laws, but I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that there is no law in this nation that requires registration to own any classification of firearm. There are requirements to register to carry a concealed firearm, open carry, and even some classifications of firearms but none that blanket registration for ANY type of firearm. Even the Washington DC law does not do that. The constitutionality of those registration requirements is open for debate, even in my own opinion I am still not firmly on one side or the other on that issue. Used to be pretty firm on the subject, but a good friend did a good job of reasonably stating the opposing view point that lessened my conviction on the subject.
When you consider all of the other issues that this nation faces, domestic and foriegn, our vote has a direct impact on every issue in this nation. Because we are in a representative form of government and our representatives have deviated so far from what the majority of this nation want for our laws and treaties it is even more imperative that we protect the right to vote for all citizens so that we can elect a government that represents the ideals of our citizens and enacts laws for the benefit of the nation as a whole. In my opinion the right to vote is the most important right of a US citizen because it is our most powerful weapon to enact change in this country's laws and regulations.
I hope these "blatherings" have not been too "asinine" to be responded to with respectful discussion and contemplation.
As a matter of policy, why shouldn't we do as much as reasonably possible to ensure that people aren't voting illegally? No one is trying to discourage anyone who is ELIGIBLE to vote from voting.
Bville, I can see you've drank deeply from all the liberal blogs on this subject. How can I tell? Because of all the nonsense about how the right to vote must be the most important right because it's mentioned more times than all these other rights.
The right to vote is mentioned so many times in the COTUS because of the slavery issue and due to the 13, 14 and 15th amendments fine tuning several issues surrounding the issue.
Tell me, how many times was the right to vote mentioned in The Bill of Rights? Surely you're familiar with the U.S. Bill of Rights and why they were required to gain ratification if the COTUS, along with their shared lineage with the Virginia Declaration of Rights, back through the 17th century English Bill of Rights and all the way back to the Magna Carta. Why wasn't this very important right mentioned right there in the Bill of Rights?
The right to vote is mentioned so many times in the COTUS because of the slavery issue and due to the 13, 14 and 15th amendments fine tuning several issues surrounding the issue.
Tell me, how many times was the right to vote mentioned in The Bill of Rights? Surely you're familiar with the U.S. Bill of Rights and why they were required to gain ratification if the COTUS, along with their shared lineage with the Virginia Declaration of Rights, back through the 17th century English Bill of Rights and all the way back to the Magna Carta. Why wasn't this very important right mentioned right there in the Bill of Rights?
Yes I do believe as a matter of policy we should do as much as reasonably possible to protect against voter fraud. I also believe we should do as much as reasonably possible to keep people from being murdered with firearms, but that does not mean that we can infringe upon a person's individual liberty and right to own firearms. It is that word "reasonably" that is a very subjective concept. I believe that we are doing everything reasonably possible at this point without photo voter ID cards that can be done. I believe that the reasonableness of the current policy is supported by the fact that as of sept 12 (newest numbers I could find) there are different numbers but they range from 30 -50 cases of plea bargain agreements for federal voter fraud. This is a relatively minute number compared to number of registered voters in the US. I do not think that photo voter ID cards, even if they cost absolutely nothing, would make any substantial impact on this statistic. The extra obstacle and burden placed by requiring them is not justified with this number of voter fraud cases and would put an unreasonable restriction on voting in this case. Requiring photo voter ID cards would have a more impact on reducing the number of people going to vote in federal elections than it would on reducing the number of voter fraud cases.
Good questions. Those admendments that you cite remove obstacles to individuals for exercising their right to vote. They do not restrict it. The reason it is not included in the Bill of Rights that were required for ratification of the COTUS is because it was already specifically addressed in Article 2 of the COTUS.
My point is that, when you can't prove this law will put a stop to a problem that actually exists, it is unreasonable.
So it is just an added benefit that this will discourage eligible democratic voters from voting?
From Posner - "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."
His logic is flawed, because there have been well documented cases of organizations actively seeking to illegally register voters.
Let me propose a corollary: what reason is there to engage in volume registrations of ineligible (and fictitious)voters if one does not intend for the registered voters to cast votes?
The problem with that statement is " if there is no actual danger of such fraud,".
So what if there is actual danger of such fraud?
He also makes a very specific statement here "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens"
How can he make such an absolute statement such as this?
I would say this statement is wrong, based on the use of the word only.
I don't think that answered my original question as well.
Why do we just assume that specifically Dem voters will be turner away at the polls?
Do we believe that every Republican can meet this laws requirements?
So what if there is actual danger of such fraud?
He also makes a very specific statement here "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens"
How can he make such an absolute statement such as this?
I would say this statement is wrong, based on the use of the word only.
I don't think that answered my original question as well.
Why do we just assume that specifically Dem voters will be turner away at the polls?
Do we believe that every Republican can meet this laws requirements?
Getting an official ID that is needed to vote is so simple that the argument against it is just obsurd.
The actual number that can't meet this requirement is miniscule and would take very little resourses by each state to have people who would specifically help people meet the requirement.
The only reason to oppose this is because a certain group knows it would elliminate a group of voters that aren't really voters and always vote for a certain party.
The actual number that can't meet this requirement is miniscule and would take very little resourses by each state to have people who would specifically help people meet the requirement.
The only reason to oppose this is because a certain group knows it would elliminate a group of voters that aren't really voters and always vote for a certain party.
Headhunter,
Your argument here is the same as Blonde's. I don't like the only word. It usually means what is to follow is not true.
Now I would like to eliminate a group of voters that aren't really voters for both parties. I don't consider this a party issue, and I have a hard time with any party or parties that oppose it. It just makes them look guilty.
Your argument here is the same as Blonde's. I don't like the only word. It usually means what is to follow is not true.
Now I would like to eliminate a group of voters that aren't really voters for both parties. I don't consider this a party issue, and I have a hard time with any party or parties that oppose it. It just makes them look guilty.
All I know is there is one party which the majority is against voter ID and everyone else who is smart enough to get simple ID that is needed to function in every day life.
If there was an actual danger, presumably the side defending these laws could show evidence that voter impersonation occurs on any scale. Since they have not, the court is left to presume, there isn't any danger of such fraud.
There may be some Republican voters turned away, but again, in the absence of actual proof that this is a problem, it would seem the logical reason one party is pushing these laws so hard is that they see a strategic advantage to disenfranchising up to 9% of Wisconsin voters.
In the case of ACORN workers it was to meet the quotas they were given to sign up each day. Also, worth pointing out that that was caught without the use of voter ID laws. So, again, if your best reason for enacting these laws is already effectively handled by other means, the actual occurrence of in person voter fraud is so low as to be non-existent, why do we need this law?
Ahhh, but what makes you think the one situation you cited was the only one (it wasn't)? Because it happened to be caught that means they're catching all instances? That's pretty poor logic.
"If there was an actual danger, presumably the side defending these laws could show evidence that voter impersonation occurs on any scale."
So we are left in catch 22 because the way the laws are written without voter ID there is no way to come up with the evidence you need to justify the law.
If we are left with the catch 22 I would rather err on the side of strengthening a very weak law, as it costs little to nothing to implement, and run.
So we are left in catch 22 because the way the laws are written without voter ID there is no way to come up with the evidence you need to justify the law.
If we are left with the catch 22 I would rather err on the side of strengthening a very weak law, as it costs little to nothing to implement, and run.
"If there was an actual danger, presumably the side
defending these laws could show evidence that voter impersonation occurs
on any scale. Since they have not, the court is left to presume, there
isn't any danger of such fraud."
True The Vote in Houston had the evidence from Sheila Jackson Lee's district until the warehouse housing the voting machines mysteriously burned down and the IRS was unleashed on them.
This post was edited on 10/20 11:55 AM by imprimis
defending these laws could show evidence that voter impersonation occurs
on any scale. Since they have not, the court is left to presume, there
isn't any danger of such fraud."
True The Vote in Houston had the evidence from Sheila Jackson Lee's district until the warehouse housing the voting machines mysteriously burned down and the IRS was unleashed on them.
This post was edited on 10/20 11:55 AM by imprimis
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Commie Snopes Reverses Previous "Fact Check," Admits Ashley Biden's Diary is Bonafide- Latest: GunsOfFrankEaton
