Syskatine don’t take my word for it

[CBradSmith]

Alright Wharry, here we go.













Ok. See, I don't know whether that's true, or whether you're being objective. So I don't know where you guys are coming from. So I looked.




In 2007, the Justice Department was upended by scandal because it had pursued a partisan agenda on voting, under the guise of rooting out suspected “voter fraud.” Its actions during the George W. Bush administration were well outside the bounds of rules and accepted norms of neutral law enforcement. In pursuing this agenda, DOJ political leadership fired seven well-respected U.S. Attorneys, dismissing some top Republican prosecutors because they had refused to prosecute nonexistent voter fraud. Top officials hired career staff members using a political loyalty test, perverted the work of the nonpartisan Voting Section toward partisan ends, and exerted pressure on states and an independent government agency to fall in line with an anti-voting rights agenda.

Ultimately, the effort backfired badly. The U.S. Attorney firings touched off a wave of investigations that exposed just how partisan the Justice Department had become and how far it had strayed from its mission of neutral law enforcement. The result was the worst scandal to hit the Department since Watergate. The Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to resign, as were other top DOJ officials. It also helped drive Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief White House strategist, from his job. Moreover, the Justice Department not only lost credibility with Congress, but it also lost in the courts, where judges repeatedly rejected the untenable anti-voter legal theories it had urged.
://www.brennancenter.org/publication/justice-departments-voter-fraud-scandal-lessons

That's something that gives me pause. Look what Rove, et al were doing with the issue. We know now how much you distrust the neocons and politicization of the DOJ, don't you think this kind of corruption deserves a second look whenever the same side of the aisle brings it up?

So Biff claimed there were millions of fraudulent votes in the last election, and they set up a commission to get to the bottom of it. It was an intellectually dishonest exercise to validate Biff's claims and thy could not, and clumsily tried to keep people from seeing the results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bdba9b0c741 I think it's safe to assume there's no pattern of voter fraud going on.

Yes, I hear your talking point that you have to use an ID to do various things (Biff recently claimed you must have an ID to buy groceries) but that begs the point -- why?

Here's a court order regarding the North Carolina attempts to get voter ID (flip ahead to pg. 9 for the subtantive part). I didn't read it all in, but a few pages it it looks like the NC legislature ordered up all the voting and racial breakdowns and passed the voter ID laws specifically to disenfranchise blacks. They wanted exactly what you advocate. Why?
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

Then in the 5th Circuit (conservative AF) let Tx' law go,

look at the states that enact these laws. The South is harder than the rest of the country. Why do you think it's disproportionately the South where the laws are the hardest? http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

I'm still unaware of a problem with voter fraud. It seems to me if there's no current voter fraud, we're enabling a new layer of fraud by giving government more control over who does and doesn't get to supervise goverment in the voting booth.

i haven't even gotten into the historical perspective.

I appreciate this effort. I appreciate this form of you, @syskatine

 

[Ponca Dan]

Alright Wharry, here we go.













Ok. See, I don't know whether that's true, or whether you're being objective. So I don't know where you guys are coming from. So I looked.




In 2007, the Justice Department was upended by scandal because it had pursued a partisan agenda on voting, under the guise of rooting out suspected “voter fraud.” Its actions during the George W. Bush administration were well outside the bounds of rules and accepted norms of neutral law enforcement. In pursuing this agenda, DOJ political leadership fired seven well-respected U.S. Attorneys, dismissing some top Republican prosecutors because they had refused to prosecute nonexistent voter fraud. Top officials hired career staff members using a political loyalty test, perverted the work of the nonpartisan Voting Section toward partisan ends, and exerted pressure on states and an independent government agency to fall in line with an anti-voting rights agenda.

Ultimately, the effort backfired badly. The U.S. Attorney firings touched off a wave of investigations that exposed just how partisan the Justice Department had become and how far it had strayed from its mission of neutral law enforcement. The result was the worst scandal to hit the Department since Watergate. The Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to resign, as were other top DOJ officials. It also helped drive Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief White House strategist, from his job. Moreover, the Justice Department not only lost credibility with Congress, but it also lost in the courts, where judges repeatedly rejected the untenable anti-voter legal theories it had urged.
://www.brennancenter.org/publication/justice-departments-voter-fraud-scandal-lessons

That's something that gives me pause. Look what Rove, et al were doing with the issue. We know now how much you distrust the neocons and politicization of the DOJ, don't you think this kind of corruption deserves a second look whenever the same side of the aisle brings it up?

So Biff claimed there were millions of fraudulent votes in the last election, and they set up a commission to get to the bottom of it. It was an intellectually dishonest exercise to validate Biff's claims and thy could not, and clumsily tried to keep people from seeing the results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bdba9b0c741 I think it's safe to assume there's no pattern of voter fraud going on.

Yes, I hear your talking point that you have to use an ID to do various things (Biff recently claimed you must have an ID to buy groceries) but that begs the point -- why?

Here's a court order regarding the North Carolina attempts to get voter ID (flip ahead to pg. 9 for the subtantive part). I didn't read it all in, but a few pages it it looks like the NC legislature ordered up all the voting and racial breakdowns and passed the voter ID laws specifically to disenfranchise blacks. They wanted exactly what you advocate. Why?
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

Then in the 5th Circuit (conservative AF) let Tx' law go,

look at the states that enact these laws. The South is harder than the rest of the country. Why do you think it's disproportionately the South where the laws are the hardest? http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

I'm still unaware of a problem with voter fraud. It seems to me if there's no current voter fraud, we're enabling a new layer of fraud by giving government more control over who does and doesn't get to supervise goverment in the voting booth.

i haven't even gotten into the historical perspective.

Very interesting. But it doesn’t answer the question of how requiring a citizen to present an ID before he/she votes disenfranchises blacks in particular.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Very interesting. But it doesn’t answer the question of how requiring a citizen to present an ID before he/she votes disenfranchises blacks in particular.

I believe I linked the fourth circuit opinion. It gets into the weeds.

Edit: I also stipulate nothing anyone publishes will change your opinion. Utopia, etc.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I’ll read this tonight hoping it’s not another dodge.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Just read the first article. There’s no details in there about what happened. Ami I missing something? I can also tell immediately what side that person is in.

On to the other links.

 

[HighStickHarry]

2nd article linked I thought I remember several states refusing to participate. Am I remembering that right? Did the panel dive into the records of the sanctuary states? Wa po and a Democrat condemn trump actions? I wish they hadn’t lost my trust 1000 times before I read this article.

On to the next.

 

[HighStickHarry]

83 pages of lawyer talk?

 

[HighStickHarry]

I can’t copy and paste for some reason but interesting stat. Between 2000 and 2012 when an Id was not required black voting increased 51%. Am I supposed to forget the skin color of who ran for president in 2008 and 2012?

 

[HighStickHarry]

It also looks like the north carolin law required multiple ids that African Americans disproportionately had. Per capita compared to what? Whites? Asians? Everyone else combined? We know African Americans proportionately have more in lower income brackets, but again total numbers, which is how votes are counted, whites have twice the number of people living in poverty. So this lawsuit is leaving out so far why skin color is a factor and not economics.

 

[HighStickHarry]

It sounds like this particular bill went after early voting, absentee voting, early registration and photo ids after the North Carolina republicans continued to request racial data on voting. All parties ask for racial breakdowns along with thousands of data points for their moneyball analytics. The attempt to tie this to the bill, in my opinion is typical lawyer slime. I saw the aclu along with some social justice groups mentioned on the first couple pages.


It has mentioned that blacks disproportionately Are more likely to be poor, move, have poor health and be less educated due to socioeconomic factors. I get that and believe that.

However why are there no lawsuits for gun purchases? You have to have an Id that blacks disproportionately lack to participate in the second amendment right? Why no lawsuits?

Osu requires Id for will call tickets at football games. They require ids for everyone on the prayer guest pass list. I worked for the ticket office that list is 75% black. I assume all state institutions from d1 to naia for all sports do the same. Why no lawsuits for this disenfranchisement of black families?

What about Home loans? Car purchases? Car insurance? Cashing pay checks/disability/social security checks at grocery stores or check cashing businesses? Why no lawsuits for blacks wishing to participate in these functions?

Why just voting? Why only blacks mentioned in the law suit? Are reservation native Americans getting ids at a higher rate? I bet they are not.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Yes, I hear your talking point that you have to use an ID to do various things (Biff recently claimed you must have an ID to buy groceries) but that begs the point -- why?

You’re trying to insinuate that beer isn’t “groceries”?????????