Here are the facts. The voter ID laws prevent certain groups from voting more than others. They are being put in place in Republican controlled locales mostly. There is no widespread voter fraud happening. So why the need?
He's probably not concerned with it because it's not actually happening. But why do you want an expansion of government rules and regulations, along with added expenditures for training, to solve a non-existent problem?
1) 99% of 2010 voters had a government issued ID, whether for convenience or requirement. 2) Only 6% of non-voters cited no-ID as the reason for not voting (6% of 60% in 2010). 3) It has been proven very easy vote as someone else in states that do not have voter ID laws. 4) A majority of both Democrats and Republicans support strong Voter-ID laws While we don't actually know how much voter fraud is going on (that's the whole point of voter fraud), why wouldn't we do everything we can to prevent it, especially if all it takes is finding a way for 2% of the US population a photo-ID.
Fake IDs are cheap & easy to get - even by teens - so this solution doesn't actually stop people who want to commit fraud. I see you want to do "everything we can to prevent" voter fraud, so now you've spent money on a solution that doesn't even work. Maybe we connect your voter registration to your DNA and DNA test everyone at the polls instead?
Because this country has a terrible history of vote suppression and it wasn't too long ago that we still had poll taxes and other methods to disenfranchise people. Our constitution GUARANTEES the right to vote. Any legislation that limits that right is unconstitutional, period. If the government is going to clamp down on fraud, it must prove it exists in large numbers in order to justify having a compelling interest in potentially limiting the right to vote. On top of that, in the case of Texas, not only is voting made difficult for those who don't live near a DPS location, don't have their birth certificate, etc... Most of those people also happen to be minorities which would constitute a dilution of minority voting as per the voting rights act. Where you're getting it wrong is saying pass the law now and the investigate whether there is fraud. In order to justify the state doing this, you have to prove the fraud exists first. Otherwise you're just unnecessarily disenfranchising people after failing to prove a real compelling interest.
Our constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms. Are you willing to join me in campaigning against all gun laws?
The government already proved it had a compelling interest with certain gun control laws in order to prevent violent crimes. You can argue whether or not gun control is actually effective at doing that, but the point is that the state proved it had a compelling interest in stopping violent crime. Like I said, you can have your voter ID laws when you prove fraud exists.
It has been proven that voter fraud exists. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/News/Madison-County-officials-arrested-for-voter-fraud.aspx How often it happens is unknown, but it DOES exist.
Race has nothing to do with the fact that voter fraud that these voter restriction laws intend to combat does not exist in any signficant way. You can't will it into existence. The fact that you might be a racist (don't know or care enough to figure this out, you could be the grand wizard for all I know or care, or you could be desmond mother****ing tutu.) is irrelevant to that fact.
That defeats the whole point. So if there's one instance of voter fraud, then its ok to disenfranchise millions who may not have a voter ID? That's not how it works. You have to quantify and justify it. That's why during preclearance cases, the Justice Department asks for statistics on voter fraud before it makes a determination on the legality of the law. And to this date, no state has submitted anything. Not to mention the link you posted was fraud involving absentee ballot laws, not voter ID rules. You're just grasping at straws at this point. When states start quantifying voter fraud due to a lack of ID rules, then I'll buy into voter ID laws.
Moving the goal posts. You just said you have to prove there is voter fraud. I proved it. Now you say there has to be lots of voter fraud.
Of course there's voter fraud. It isn't significant enough to be any sort of a problem though. That was in the link I already posted.
It's not false, it's a fact that a more restrictive voting law makes it more difficult for people to vote. That's why the more restrictive law is being passed, witht he pretense of the imaginary voter fraud problem (also a fact). You are getting raped by a trident of facts. Now do you see why the so-called reasonable conservatives aren't with you here? Because it is unfun. That is also a fact.
How would the ID law you are arguing in favor of prevent somebody from stuffing in fraudulent absentee ballots in a local school board election that you cited as the sole example of alleged voter fraud in the last decade? I'll help you out. Fact: It wouldn't.
The only people that it makes it more difficult to vote are people that are trying to commit voter fraud. The numbers don't lie. In the modern world it is almost impossible to live without a government issued ID. All I'm proposing is finding a way to get that 2% of the population an ID. Also, why do you support raping people that don't want white people to steal black voters ballots? Not only are you a racist, but you support sexual violence against people that don't agree with you.
Someone in their household has to sign a lease, not everyone living in a residence is on the lease. An 18 year old dependent could easily live in a residence and if they don't drive, would have very little reason to get an ID, particularly if they lived 150 miles from a DPS office. I buy alcohol regularly and haven't been asked to provide ID in decades. Since we are talking mostly about poor people, probably not. Since we are talking about mostly poor people, it is likely that they didn't. In addition, a parent can establish a bank account for a child with a birth certificate or less, the child can use the account without providing ID anywhere, deposit checks in the night deposit and use a debit card. Again, this is more likely for poor people who live 150 miles away from a DPS office. I haven't bought cigarettes in years, but when I did, I hadn't been carded in decades. Since we are talking mostly about poor people, probably not. I don't think you apply for welfare at the SS office, but even most poor people aren't on welfare, they work. The last place to ask to see my ID to use a CC was Best Buy for a purchase over $1000, I have never once been asked to provide ID at the grocery store. I saw Eddie Murphy's Delirious at the ripe old age of 13 by showing a note purporting to be from my mother asking them to allow me to view the movie. If they live 150 miles away from a DPS office, what are the chances they need to go to a federal building? 6% is a pretty big number. Certainly enough to skew an election, which is what the Republicans are counting on from Voter ID laws. Thank you for providing such clear evidence that Voter ID laws have the ability to seriously skew an election. Actually, your numbers add to 98%, not 99. 2% is easily enough to skew a close election, particularly since the people most likely to lack ID are primarily Democratic voting constituencies. Again, thank you for showing so clearly how Voter ID laws could skew elections, as the Republicans are hoping for. The reason that the Voter ID law was tossed by DoJ is precisely because Texas didn't find a way to get IDs for the people who actually don't have them and can't get them. They didn't do this because they were counting on the fact that this law would suppress the votes of Democratic constituencies. I love it when people prove my points for me, even as they argue against.
That's bull*****, we know damn well how often it happens. It's about 0.0009% to 0.00004%. (http://brennan.3cdn.net/c176576c0065a7eb84_gxm6ib0hl.pdf) Between 2002 and 2007, 120 people were charged with voter fraud and 86 were convicted. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)
