Voter ID Issue

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1) There is no problem to be solved.

This was addressed when I pointed out the scenario of finding a vulnerability in a computer network or software or in physical security for a building. Even if no one else knows about it or you can prove that anyone has ever tried to exploit it, you don't say "this isn't a problem" and ignore it. You fix it.

Having such an obvious gaping fraud vector open like this is craziness. We should do everything within reason to make sure everyone who votes is who they say they are and are legally able to vote. Photo ID is a good way to do that.

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

Again, you're conflating two separate things. Photo ID in and of itself doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Other "add-ons" to such proposals are disenfranchising such as shortening DMV hours, not having DMVs open during hours that all people can get to them, closing DMV locations, shortening early voting windows, not giving voters enough lead time to get proper ID, not addressing possible costs for obtaining an ID, etc. If we adequately address these issues, there is no disenfranchisement.

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"? What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" . While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"?

No, I'm in network security. Words like "exploit vector" get tossed about all the time. I just adapted the term to this discussion.

What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" .

You really think that photo ID, which is required for scores of normal everyday transactions that the vast majority of Americans have to make for things as simple as writing a check or buying a beer, is on the same level of reasonableness as DNA verification?

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

Then feel free to stop responding to it, Mr. Smiley. I'd prefer not to waste my time with insipid responses anyway. But should you decide to be somewhat serious in talking about it, I'm more than willing. Your call.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"? :laugh:/>

No, I'm in network security. Words like "exploit vector" get tossed about all the time. I just adapted the term to this discussion.

What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/>.

You really think that photo ID, which is required for scores of normal everyday transactions that the vast majority of Americans have to make for things as simple as writing a check or buying a beer, is on the same level of reasonableness as DNA verification?

No, was just trying to help find the ultimate solution. After all, we can't really count on volunteers checking photo IDs. It's on obvious gaping fraud vector if I've ever seen one. What if the people attempting to undermine and overthrow the government create fake identification? See, another obvious gaping fraud vector. Let's go ahead and nip this in the bud now. No more obvious gaping fraud vectors.

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

I will if you will.

While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR :laugh:/> . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

Then feel free to stop responding to it, Mr. Smiley. I'd prefer not to waste my time with insipid responses anyway. But should you decide to be somewhat serious in talking about it, I'm more than willing. Your call.

I was serious. Maybe I need a timeout to think about questioning your "obvious gaping fraud vector". You're much too important to be trifled with. Your call.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

No, was just trying to help find the ultimate solution. After all, we can't really count on volunteers checking photo IDs. It's on obvious gaping fraud vector if I've ever seen one. What if the people attempting to undermine and overthrow the government create fake identification? See, another obvious gaping fraud vector. Let's go ahead and nip this in the bud now. No more obvious gaping fraud vectors.

Well I was attempting to come up with a realistic solution, not invoke the eyes of God on the situation. We require ID now, but it's stupid simple to copy. Any lobotomy patient with a laser printer could fake a voter ID card. A government issued ID isn't foolproof, but is far, far better.

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

I will if you will.

Been doing it. Feel free to join me.

I was serious. Maybe I need a timeout to think about questioning your "obvious gaping fraud vector". You're much too important to be trifled with. Your call.

I guess the old-school AE level of smileys threw me.

I'm not important. I'm just trying to have a conversation with people who are able to show they can do so like an adult. It's evident you're not really interested so I'll just let you have a conversation with yourself for a while.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"? :laugh:/>

No, I'm in network security. Words like "exploit vector" get tossed about all the time. I just adapted the term to this discussion.

What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/>.

You really think that photo ID, which is required for scores of normal everyday transactions that the vast majority of Americans have to make for things as simple as writing a check or buying a beer, is on the same level of reasonableness as DNA verification?

No, was just trying to help find the ultimate solution. After all, we can't really count on volunteers checking photo IDs. It's on obvious gaping fraud vector if I've ever seen one. What if the people attempting to undermine and overthrow the government create fake identification? See, another obvious gaping fraud vector. Let's go ahead and nip this in the bud now. No more obvious gaping fraud vectors.

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

I will if you will.

While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR :laugh:/> . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

Then feel free to stop responding to it, Mr. Smiley. I'd prefer not to waste my time with insipid responses anyway. But should you decide to be somewhat serious in talking about it, I'm more than willing. Your call.

I was serious. Maybe I need a timeout to think about questioning your "obvious gaping fraud vector". You're much too important to be trifled with. Your call.

You and homer have the same quote problem. At least homer will use red text making it a little easier to see wtf he is trolling posting about.

Can you please learn how to quote and respond to posts? If you're going to quote a post, quote it. Don't quote it and respond INSIDE of it. Your responses look like they were written by Titan with a multiple personality disorder.

See Titan's post above this one for an example of how to do it properly.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

No, was just trying to help find the ultimate solution. After all, we can't really count on volunteers checking photo IDs. It's on obvious gaping fraud vector if I've ever seen one. What if the people attempting to undermine and overthrow the government create fake identification? See, another obvious gaping fraud vector. Let's go ahead and nip this in the bud now. No more obvious gaping fraud vectors.

Well I was attempting to come up with a realistic solution, not invoke the eyes of God on the situation. We require ID now, but it's stupid simple to copy. Any lobotomy patient with a laser printer could fake a voter ID card. A government issued ID isn't foolproof, but is far, far better.

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

I will if you will.

Been doing it. Feel free to join me.

I was serious. Maybe I need a timeout to think about questioning your "obvious gaping fraud vector". You're much too important to be trifled with. Your call.

I guess the old-school AE level of smileys threw me.

I'm not important. I'm just trying to have a conversation with people who are able to show they can do so like an adult. It's evident you're not really interested so I'll just let you have a conversation with yourself for a while.

Interesting. You've gone from closing the "obvious gaping fraud vector" to something is better than nothing.

It is barely possible that you take yourself a bit too seriously sometimes. You have to expect a little ridicule at times. We all get some of that. And, come on, you didn't have a moment of pause when you typed "obvious gaping fraud vector"?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"? :laugh:/>

No, I'm in network security. Words like "exploit vector" get tossed about all the time. I just adapted the term to this discussion.

What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/>.

You really think that photo ID, which is required for scores of normal everyday transactions that the vast majority of Americans have to make for things as simple as writing a check or buying a beer, is on the same level of reasonableness as DNA verification?

No, was just trying to help find the ultimate solution. After all, we can't really count on volunteers checking photo IDs. It's on obvious gaping fraud vector if I've ever seen one. What if the people attempting to undermine and overthrow the government create fake identification? See, another obvious gaping fraud vector. Let's go ahead and nip this in the bud now. No more obvious gaping fraud vectors.

Could you at least pretend to be engaging this like a grown up?

I will if you will.

While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR :laugh:/> . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" :laugh:/> and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

Then feel free to stop responding to it, Mr. Smiley. I'd prefer not to waste my time with insipid responses anyway. But should you decide to be somewhat serious in talking about it, I'm more than willing. Your call.

I was serious. Maybe I need a timeout to think about questioning your "obvious gaping fraud vector". You're much too important to be trifled with. Your call.

You and homer have the same quote problem. At least homer will use red text making it a little easier to see wtf he is trolling posting about.

Can you please learn how to quote and respond to posts? If you're going to quote a post, quote it. Don't quote it and respond INSIDE of it. Your responses look like they were written by Titan with a multiple personality disorder.

See Titan's post above this one for an example of how to do it properly.

I understand and I will accommodate you when I can. I have to find the problem that will not allow me to use most features in either mode. Apologies.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Interesting. You've gone from closing the "obvious gaping fraud vector" to something is better than nothing.

No, not using photo ID is still an obvious opening for fraud that should be closed. It's a reasonable measure to mitigate voter fraud. That's not going from anything to anything else. It's the same position I've had the whole time.

I never proclaimed it to be the end-all be-all nor do I think if one thinks photo ID to be reasonable that he must then jump to measures such as DNA verification. That is not feasible, is not something most people use already and so on.

It is barely possible that you take yourself a bit too seriously sometimes. You have to expect a little ridicule at times. We all get some of that. And, come on, you didn't have a moment of pause when you typed "obvious gaping fraud vector"?

I can take a joke. But I get tired of the way debate goes here and I'm just not in the mood for more goofiness right now. Everyone seems to want to address anything else under the sun other than the subject. Or they only want to discuss it on their terms. I just wish we could have better discussions here.

[Ouchyfish 67]

I understand and I will accommodate you when I can. I have to find the problem that will not allow me to use most features in either mode. Apologies.

I throw the word quote inside brackets and /quote in brackets around the parts I want to quote. Easiest way that I have found for responding to individual parts if the tools aren't working. Hope that helps!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I understand and I will accommodate you when I can. I have to find the problem that will not allow me to use most features in either mode. Apologies.

I throw the word quote inside brackets and /quote in brackets around the parts I want to quote. Easiest way that I have found for responding to individual parts if the tools aren't working. Hope that helps!

TY

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Interesting. You've gone from closing the "obvious gaping fraud vector" to something is better than nothing.

No, not using photo ID is still an obvious opening for fraud that should be closed. It's a reasonable measure to mitigate voter fraud. That's not going from anything to anything else. It's the same position I've had the whole time.

I never proclaimed it to be the end-all be-all nor do I think if one thinks photo ID to be reasonable that he must then jump to measures such as DNA verification. That is not feasible, is not something most people use already and so on.

It is barely possible that you take yourself a bit too seriously sometimes. You have to expect a little ridicule at times. We all get some of that. And, come on, you didn't have a moment of pause when you typed "obvious gaping fraud vector"?

I can take a joke. But I get tired of the way debate goes here and I'm just not in the mood for more goofiness right now. Everyone seems to want to address anything else under the sun other than the subject. Or they only want to discuss it on their terms. I just wish we could have better discussions here.

So what's next? Where does it end?

No one likes to be challenged in that manner. However sometimes we all need to be. Let me take it all back and say that I believe your argument is terribly weak and poorly thought out. It sounded like an IT guy trying to apply his skills to something totally unrelated and use his jargon in order to make his opinion sound more credible. It smacks of someone who only sees the world through his own eyes and never for a moment attempts to see it any other way. It did make me laugh. I will never forget the words, "obvious gaping fraud vector", and I look forward to having the opportunity to use that expression.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

No one likes to be challenged in that manner. However sometimes we all need to be. Let me take it all back and say that I believe your argument is terribly weak and poorly thought out.

Then do more than say it's terrible or poorly thought out. Explain why making photo ID rather than the rather worthless ones we have now is such a bad idea. Merely asserting it doesn't mean a whole lot.

It sounded like an IT guy trying to apply his skills to something totally unrelated and use his jargon in order to make his opinion sound more credible. It smacks of someone who only sees the world through his own eyes and never for a moment attempts to see it any other way. It did make me laugh. I will never forget the words, "obvious gaping fraud vector", and I look forward to having the opportunity to use that expression.

Haha.

But my point was simply that when we see a problem...a vulnerability...a loophole begging to be exploited...do we wait until we can prove someone has actually done so to fix it? If the lock on my front door is broken, I don't wait until a burglar actually tries the door and steals my stuff to fix the lock.

With such weak requirements for identification and verifying a person is who they say they are, it's an opening ripe for abuse and fraud. And unlike DNA or a signed permission slip from God Himself, it's something the vast majority of American citizens of voting age already have and use regularly for ID. And we have an existing infrastructure in place to get one for those who don't have one already.

[AUDub 11,148]

I will never forget the words, "obvious gaping fraud vector", and I look forward to having the opportunity to use that exp<b></b>ression.

I'm going to start using it in the football threads. "Obvious gaping blitz vector!"

[Ouchyfish 67]

I will never forget the words, "obvious gaping fraud vector", and I look forward to having the opportunity to use that expression.

I'm going to start using it in the football threads. "Obvious gaping blitz vector!"

hehee

[homersapien 11,373]

1) There is no problem to be solved.

This was addressed when I pointed out the scenario of finding a vulnerability in a computer network or software or in physical security for a building. Even if no one else knows about it or you can prove that anyone has ever tried to exploit it, you don't say "this isn't a problem" and ignore it. You fix it.

Having such an obvious gaping fraud vector open like this is craziness. We should do everything within reason to make sure everyone who votes is who they say they are and are legally able to vote. Photo ID is a good way to do that.

First, I'd like to hear how the current system is going to be potentially gamed on such a scale

Secondly, one does not introduce "fixes" for "potential" problems when those fixes carry a high, known cost, in this case, voter suppression.

Republicans are pushing for this to make it harder for poor people to vote, which they assume will help them. We know that too, both from their history of such tactics and from the occasional slip up when they actually admit it.

[homersapien 11,373]

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

Again, you're conflating two separate things. 1) Photo ID in and of itself doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Other "add-ons" to such proposals are disenfranchising such as shortening DMV hours, not having DMVs open during hours that all people can get to them, closing DMV locations, shortening early voting windows, not giving voters enough lead time to get proper ID, not addressing possible costs for obtaining an ID, etc. 2) If we adequately address these issues, there is no disenfranchisement.

1) No, but requiring one creates are real hassle for some people.

If the law required a special ID (non DL) and you had to go apply for one as well, you probably wouldn't like it. You do it for a DL because you need one to drive. But if you had to get one to vote, especially if there is no real need for it, it would be a hassle. For people without transportation or the time to take off to do it, its the sort of thing that is just hard to get to.

It's easy to discount the hassle when you know that a DL will be accepted and you already have one in your wallet.

2) Those issues have not been addressed nor will they be. I understand if you are making a theoretical argument and I might even agree with it. But we are not dealing with theory here, we are dealing with fact.

Republican-controlled states starting jumping on this opportunity as soon as the SCOTUS gave them a opening. They aren't doing it to strengthen the integrity of our system, they are trying to affect the electorate to their favor.

[homersapien 11,373]

http://mediamatters....aims-but/189823

But Evidence Is Growing That Voter ID Laws Lead To Vote Suppression ...

Federal Court: Texas Voter ID Law Discriminates Against African American And Hispanics. A federal court recently found that Texas' voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act because it will make it harder for African Americans and Hispanics to vote. The court stated:

[The] evidence conclusively shows that the implicit costs of obtaining [Texas state law] SB 14-qualifying ID will fall most heavily on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty. We therefore conclude that SB 14 is likely to lead to "retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." [

Texas v. Holder

,

8/30/12

]

PA State Election Data: Hundreds Of Thousands Lack State Photo ID Cards. A July 5 Philadelphia Inquirer article reported that 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania do not have the ID a new state law requires to vote, and that this could stop them from voting. From the article:

More than 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania do not have photo identification cards from the state Transportation Department, putting their voting rights at risk in the November election, according to data released Tuesday by state election officials.

The figures -- representing 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voters -- are significantly higher than prior estimates by the Corbett administration. Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele has repeatedly said that 99 percent of Pennsylvania's voters already had the photo ID they will need at the polls in November.

The new numbers, based on a comparison of voter registration rolls with PennDot ID databases, shows the potential problem is much bigger, particularly in Philadelphia, where 186,830 registered voters - 18 percent of the city's total registration - do not have PennDot ID.

Under Pennsylvania's new voter ID law, various other forms of photo identification will be accepted at voting places in November, including U.S. passports, student identification cards with expiration dates, current military identification, and ID cards issued to government employees.

But for most voters, the Pennsylvania driver's license is the standard photo ID. The disclosure that 9 percent of the state's registered voters don't have one - or an alternative, nondriver PennDot photo ID - provides a clearer picture of the hurdle set up by the state's new voter ID requirement. [

The Philadelphia Inquirer

,

7/5/12

]

Politics PA: GOP House Majority Leader Turzai Admitted Voter ID Law Is "Gonna Allow Governor Romney To Win" Pennsylvania. A June 25 PoliticsPA blog post quoted a speech that GOP State House Majority Leader Mike Turazi (R-Allegheny) delivered at the previous weekends' Republican State Committee meeting. In the speech, Turazi claimed the GOP-led legislature had gotten a voter ID law passed that "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." From the post:

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) suggested that the House's end game in passing the Voter ID law was to benefit the GOP politically.

"We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we've talked about for years," said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

The statement drew a loud round of applause from the audience. It also struck a nerve among critics, who called it an admission that they passed the bill to make it harder for Democrats to vote -- and not to prevent voter fraud as the legislators claimed. [PoliticsPA,

6/25/12

]

DOJ: South Carolina's Data Indicate Minority Registered Voters "Nearly 20% More Likely To Lack DMV-Issued ID Than White Registered Voters." In a letter to South Carolina Assistant Deputy Attorney General C. Havird Jones Jr. regarding a voter ID law in that state, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote:

In assessing the impact of the proposed photo identification requirements in section 5 of Act R54, we turn first to the data that the state has provided concerning registered voters within the state. The most recent voter registration data available from the State Election Commission indicate that, as of October 1, 2011, there were a total of 2,701,843 registered voters in the state, of whom 69.6% were white and 30.4% were non-white. These data also show that of the total number of registered voters in the state, 239,333 (or 8.9%) did not possess DMV-issued photo identification (either a driver's license or a non-driver's photo ID card) that would satisfy the requirements under Act R54. When disaggregated by race, the state's data show that 8.4% of white registered voters lacked any form of DMV-issued ID, as compared to 10.0% of non-white registered voters.

In other words, according to the state's data, which compare the available data in the state's voter registration database with the available data in the state's DMV database, minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by Act R54's new requirements.

We note that the voter registration data matched against the DMV database, and provided to us by the state, does not include several categories of existing registered voters listed

as inactive voters, and hence, the number of registered voters without DMV-issued ID may well be higher than even these numbers suggest.

Put differently, although non-white voters comprised 30.4% of the state's registered voters, they constituted 34.2% of registered voters who did not have the requisite DMV-issued identification to vote.

Non-white voters were therefore disproportionately represented, to a significant degree, in the group of registered voters who, under the proposed law, would be rendered ineligible to go to the polls and participate in the election.

[Department of Justice letter to South Carolina,

12/23/11

, emphasis added]

Brennan Center for Justice: Early Voting Restrictions Most Heavily Disrupts Minority Voting. The Brennan Center for Justice noted that ending early voting on Sundays disproportionately restricts the African American and Hispanic vote:

New restrictions on early voting will also have their biggest impact on people of color. Opponents of these restrictions have been particularly angered by the efforts to eliminate Sunday early voting, which they see as explicitly targeting African-American voters. Florida eliminated early voting on the last Sunday before Election Day, and Ohio has eliminated early voting on Sundays entirely. There is substantial statistical and anecdotal evidence that African Americans (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) vote on Sundays in proportionately far greater numbers than whites. [brennan Center for Justice, accessed

9/10/12

]inactive voters, and hence, the number of registered voters without DMV-issued ID may well be higher than even these numbers suggest.

Put differently, although non-white voters comprised 30.4% of the state's registered voters, they constituted 34.2% of registered voters who did not have the requisite DMV-issued identification to vote.

Non-white voters were therefore disproportionately represented, to a significant degree, in the group of registered voters who, under the proposed law, would be rendered ineligible to go to the polls and participate in the election.

[Department of Justice letter to South Carolina,

12/23/11

, emphasis added]

[homersapien 11,373]

http://mediamatters....aims-but/189823

... And That Voter Fraud Of The Kind Voter ID Laws Would Counter Is Virtually Non-Existent

In-Person Voter Impersonation Fraud Is "The Only Kind Of Fraud" That Voter ID Laws Protect Against. As election law expert Rick Hasen has pointed out: "The only kind of fraud [voter] ID laws prevent is impersonation: a person registered under a false name or claiming to be someone else on the voter rolls." [The New York Times, 8/5/12]

Examples Of In-Person Voter Impersonation Fraud Are Infinitesimal. An analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years conducted by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found only 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. FromThe Washington Post:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters. [

The Washington Post

,

8/11/12

]

PA State Official Acknowledges No In-Person Voter Fraud In State. In a July 24 blog post, Talking Points Memo ointed out that Pennsylvania has "formally acknowledged that there's been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn't likely to be in November" in a stipulation agreement with a coalition of civil rights lawyers currently involved in a lawsuit revolving around the Pennsylvania voter ID law. From the post:

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there "have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states."

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania "will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere" or even argue "that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law." [Talking Points Memo,

7/24/12

]

Supreme Court Plurality Found Only "Scattered Instances Of In-Person Voting Fraud." The Supreme Court plurality in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board did not find widespread in-person voter fraud, the type of fraud that a requirement that voters show identification at their polling places is meant to address. Rather, it found only "scattered instances" of such fraud. From the plurality opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

Judge Barker cited record evidence containing examples from California, Washington, Maryland, Wisconsin, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Miami, and St. Louis. The Brief of Amici Curiae Brenan Center for Justice et al. in Support of Petitioners addresses each of these examples of fraud. While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud. For example, after a hotly contested gubernatorial election in 2004, Washington conducted an investigation of voter fraud and uncovered 19 "ghost voters." Borders v. King Cty., No. 05-2-00027-3 (Super. Ct. Chelan Cty., Wash., June 6, 2005) (verbatim report of unpublished oral decision), 4 Election L. J. 418, 423 (2005). After a partial investigation of the ghost voting, one voter was confirmed to have committed in-person voting fraud. Le & Nicolosi, Dead Voted in Governor's Race, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 7, 2005, p. A1. [u.S. Supreme Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,

4/28/08

]

Justice Department Report Shows Very Few Prosecutions For Illegally Casting Ballots. According to a report by the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, from October 2002 through September 2005, the Justice Department charged 95 people with "election fraud" and convicted 55. Among those, however, just 17 individuals were convicted for casting fraudulent ballots; cases against three other individuals accused of casting fraudulent votes were pending at the time of the report. In addition, the Justice Department convicted one election official of submitting fraudulent ballots and convicted five individuals of registration fraud, with cases against 12 individuals pending at the time of the report. Thirty-two individuals were convicted of other "election fraud" issues, including Republicans convicted of offenses arising from "a scheme to block the phone lines used by two Manchester [New Hampshire] organizations to arrange drives to the polls during the 2002 general election." In other words, many of these convictions were connected to voter suppressionefforts, not voter fraud. Several other people listed in the report were convicted of vote-buying. [Department of Justice, accessed 8/2/12]

Brennan Center For Justice: Allegations Of Widespread Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out" And Distract From "Real [Election] Problems That Need Real Solutions." A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice found that allegations of widespread voter fraud "often prove greatly exaggerated." The report further found that "many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out." From the report:

Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up -- when any exists -- is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

These inflated claims are not harmless. Crying "wolf" when the allegations are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems that need real solutions. If we can move beyond the fixation on voter fraud, we will be able to focus on the real changes our elections need, from universal registration all the way down to sufficient parking at the poll site. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. Overly restrictive identification requirements for voters at the polls -- which address a sort of voter fraud more rare than death by lightning -- is only the most prominent example. [brennan Center for Justice, accessed

8/2/12

]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Why do all these "experts" think it's Ok to require IDs to board planes, buy booze, buy guns, cash a check, etc., bot not to vote?

[homersapien 11,373]

Of all the things that you should be required to provide an ID for, this has to be near, if not at the top of the list. I have to provide an ID to buy a beer to consume in my own home, why shouldn't I have to provide identification for something as important as electing the people who make decisions on my behalf; decisions that affect other citizens?

Anyone who opposes this, IMO, has to have an ulterior motive. There's simply no reason for a citizen of this country to think otherwise.

I don't know if you are jumping in without reading the thread from the beginning, but there have been reasonable arguments against this. Do I need to summarize them for you?

(It's OK, I understand you are from Texas.)

I did jump in without reading. I probably should not have. I have, however, heard many of the reasons before. They've yet to change my mind, though.

If you'd like to summarize for me that would be great; it would save me a whole lot of time...

And I'm from Georgia, not Texas. I work for a software company based out of Auburn. I'm in TX working on a contract for the state.

Awww, just start from here. By the time you get to 20 pages, it's all repetition anyway.

(jk about Texas. One of my sisters moved to Corpus Christi years ago and I now have "native born" Texans as part of my own family.)

[homersapien 11,373]

Why do all these "experts" think it's Ok to require IDs to board planes, buy booze, buy guns, cash a check, etc., bot not to vote?

Probably because those aren't equivalent comparisons.

I was thinking it's funny that the "gun crowd" is all for enforcing the existing laws instead of regulating guns but are so eager to put more regulations on voting when there is no evidence of a problem. And what very few problems that do occur aren't being aggressively prosecuted.

[homersapien 11,373]

1) There is no problem to be solved.

This was addressed when I pointed out the scenario of finding a vulnerability in a computer network or software or in physical security for a building. Even if no one else knows about it or you can prove that anyone has ever tried to exploit it, you don't say "this isn't a problem" and ignore it. You fix it.

Having such an obvious gaping fraud vector open like this is craziness. We should do everything within reason to make sure everyone who votes is who they say they are and are legally able to vote. Photo ID is a good way to do that.

2) The "fix" for this non-problem will disenfranchise voters of a particular category that Republicans assume are likely to vote Democratic, which is why they want to do it, and it's no secret.. Republicans have a history of voter suppression.

Again, you're conflating two separate things. Photo ID in and of itself doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Other "add-ons" to such proposals are disenfranchising such as shortening DMV hours, not having DMVs open during hours that all people can get to them, closing DMV locations, shortening early voting windows, not giving voters enough lead time to get proper ID, not addressing possible costs for obtaining an ID, etc. If we adequately address these issues, there is no disenfranchisement.

Are you a bureaucrat? "obvious gaping fraud vector"? What logic, what foresight. The infinite possibilities leading to infinite solutions for problems yet to be uncovered. Now I know why we have infinite bureaucracy. How about this one Titan, this will close almost all of the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" , onsite DNA matching identity verification. No expense should be spared closing the "obvious gaping fraud vectors" . While we're at it, throw in a couple of federal marshals to make sure all procedures are strictly followed. OBVIOUS GAPING FRAUD VECTOR . Half of the departments in every local, state, and even the federal government are "obvious gaping fraud vectors" and you want to start with this one. Possibly the most humorous thing I have ever heard.

Not to be redundant, but

[homersapien 11,373]

We require ID now, but it's stupid simple to copy. Any lobotomy patient with a laser printer could fake a voter ID card.

Yeah, one vote at a time. And it will be virtually undetected, because, well because somehow, they will know exactly what voters aren't going to show up to find they already voted.

That's going to happen on a massive scale. :-\

[TexasTiger 12,873]

There are very few postions more condescending and downright racist than the one the left has taken which insists that people of color and others dont have the wherewithal to procure a FREE GOVERNMENT ID. Good grief..its free and whatever assistance that is needed in the effort to procure that ID will be provided to all who need it! This is ridiculous and just another racially divisive tactic used by the left to portray the right as racists who not only don't care about people's right to vote but also would prefer to suppress that right. Hogwash!

Wow. For someone who generally has no faith in government efficiency and effectiveness it's interesting to see you have total faith that all state governments will perform these tasks so admirably! What caused your transformation and is it permanent?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

No one likes to be challenged in that manner. However sometimes we all need to be. Let me take it all back and say that I believe your argument is terribly weak and poorly thought out.

Then do more than say it's terrible or poorly thought out. Explain why making photo ID rather than the rather worthless ones we have now is such a bad idea. Merely asserting it doesn't mean a whole lot.

It sounded like an IT guy trying to apply his skills to something totally unrelated and use his jargon in order to make his opinion sound more credible. It smacks of someone who only sees the world through his own eyes and never for a moment attempts to see it any other way. It did make me laugh. I will never forget the words, "obvious gaping fraud vector", and I look forward to having the opportunity to use that exp<b></b>ression.

Haha. <_</>

But my point was simply that when we see a problem...a vulnerability...a loophole begging to be exploited...do we wait until we can prove someone has actually done so to fix it? If the lock on my front door is broken, I don't wait until a burglar actually tries the door and steals my stuff to fix the lock.

With such weak requirements for identification and verifying a person is who they say they are, it's an opening ripe for abuse and fraud. And unlike DNA or a signed permission slip from God Himself, it's something the vast majority of American citizens of voting age already have and use regularly for ID. And we have an existing infrastructure in place to get one for those who don't have one already.

I have explained why I feel you, and others have flawed logic, if any at all, several times. However, I will summarize again.

1. It is a solution looking for a problem.

2. The true motives are political, not practical.

3. It is bureaucratic and will lead to a never ending chain of even more bureaucratic actions.

4. If there is a problem, it lies in registration and the solutions have nothing to do with photo ID.

A. Remove deceased voters

B. Remove convicted felons

C. Prevent loosely affiliated partisan groups from fraudulently registering voters in the first place. ACORN as an example.

5. Photo ID would be a futile countermeasure against someone determined to commit voter fraud.

6. Your logic specifically is flawed on a galactic scale. Do you wear a bulletproof vest when you leave home? Why not? Why wait for someone to threaten your life?

You can't be too proactive. I see an obvious gaping personal security vector.

7. Vulnerability? Loophole begging to be exploited? Find an example of a contested election in which the alleged fraud could have been prevented by requiring photo

ID. It is simply not an efficient enough method to rig an election.

Finally, your analogy is as faulty as the rest of your logic. This is not analogous to repairing the lock on your front door. The lock is fine. It may stick a little but it is working. This is analogous to adding a deadbolt while there is a fire raging in the kitchen. This issue has no business anywhere on this country's list of priorities right now. Again, this is not a practical issue, this is political nonsense. And, it's not even smart as a political tactic. This is the country's big problem? Wow, Obama must be doing a great job if this is at the forefront of the political debate. If the Republicans divert the nation's attention away from the real problems and onto more matters like this, they may as well start thinking about how President Hillary Clinton sounds to them or maybe they like the sound of President Joe Biden better. Heck if the they really apply themselves, maybe they can get Obama the elusive third term.