VICTOR JOECKS: Democrats’ flip-flopping on voter ID would make even John Kerry blush

[DKW 86 7,481]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-democrats-flip-flopping-on-voter-id-would-make-even-john-kerry-blush-2384829/

VICTOR JOECKS: Democrats’ flip-flopping on voter ID would make even John Kerry blush

Democrats urged Manchin to create a compromise plan that he could back, which he released last week. Manchin’s proposal contained a host of things Democrats like. He wanted to require more than two weeks of early voting and automatic voter registration at the DMV, although states could opt out. He would expand absentee voting and force presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.

He also included a couple of olive branches to Republicans. Most notably, his plan would mandate voter ID in every state. Under his proposal, non-photo options, such as a utility bill, would satisfy that requirement.

You’d expect Democrats to have risen up in fierce opposition. They certainly have when Republicans have pushed voter ID laws.

In 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden said voter ID laws are “an attempt to repress minority voting masquerading as an attempt to end corruption.”

Barack Obama’s Justice Department blocked certain states from implementing new voter ID laws.

The rhetorical attacks on voter ID have continued. Minority communities are “disproportionately burdened by voter identification and other voter restrictions,” H.R. 1 states. It also claims voter identification requirements “burden” voters. The bill itself would gut state voter ID laws by providing a way for voters to cast a ballot without presenting ID.

But instead of outrage at Manchin’s suggestion, there’s acquiescence. The White House called Manchin’s plan a “step forward.” On Monday, Obama endorsed the plan. Other Democrats, including Georgia’s Stacey Abrams and Sen. Raphael Warnock, underwent similar metamorphoses.

Even by the cynical standards of politics, these reversals are shocking. What this flip-flopping suggests is that many Democrats understand voter ID doesn’t disenfranchise voters. They claimed it did to falsely cast Republicans as racists in an attempt to galvanize minority turnout.

But they’re willing to abandon those smears and support voter ID to secure other election law changes they think will be of greater political benefit. Ironically, minority voters are more supportive of photo ID than white voters, according to a recent Monmouth poll.

It’s unlikely Manchin’s proposal or any other election law will earn the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. That’s good. The federal government shouldn’t micromanage state elections. But Democrats’ reversal on voter ID should lead states without it — a list that includes Nevada — to require voter ID going forward.

[CoffeeTiger 5,227]

I don't see this as 'flip flopping' I see it as a step towards trying to compromise. Democrats accept concession that they don't like (voter ID...which as you noted doesn't require a PHOTO ID, which is what a majority of Republicans demand in their ID laws), for things Democrats do want in a voting reform bill. 

 

Why are we slamming Democrats for being open to compromise on issues that they have firmly entrenched beliefs about? 

[DKW 86 7,481]

Coffee, in doing answer for you, I was going to quote Maddow about how crazy she was about ALL Voter ID Laws were racist because Blacks were just too stupid to be able to have IDs and to be able to find where to get IDs. It was classic Overboard HYPERBOLE by the dumptruck load.

The video is now...gone. I had a link to it and now: "This video has been removed and is no longer available."

Strange how that happens...Now that Manchin has proposed the very thing RM was so adamant about just a few months ago...the video suddenly disappears from youtube. 

And thank you for stating the obvious, scorched earth, and hyperbole, are getting us nowhere. Time for everyone to grow back up. I openly hope that now that Limbaugh is gone, maybe some of the partisanship can abate naturally. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by DKW 86

[autigeremt 6,776]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:15 PM, DKW 86 said:

Coffee, in doing answer for you, I was going to quote Maddow about how crazy she was about ALL Voter ID Laws were racist because Blacks were just too stupid to be able to have IDs and to be able to find where to get IDs. It was classic Overboard HYPERBOLE by the dumptruck load.

The video is now...gone. I had a link to it and now: "This video has been removed and is no longer available."

Strange how that happens...Now that Manchin has proposed the very thing RM was so adamant about just a few months ago...the video suddenly disappears from youtube. 

And thank you for stating the obvious, scorched earth, and hyperbole, are getting us nowhere. Time for everyone to grow back up. I openly hope that now that Limbaugh is gone, maybe some of the partisanship can abate naturally. 

The two parties don’t want it to abate. 

[homersapien 11,513]

One major detail that has been omitted from the discussion.

It's my understanding that the voter ID law the Democrats are now supporting does not require photos.  Something like a utility bill can be used.  This makes a big difference.

Democrats do not oppose voter ID requirements in general, just those that specifically reduce participation from some people.  Photo ID's did that.

Edited July 1, 2021 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,481]

Yea...Some folks still think that People of Color are too stupid to find access to IDs. <MFER>

 

[sandyclawedtiger 206]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Yea...Some folks still think that People of Color are too stupid to find access to IDs. <MFER>

 

I'll just leave this here.

 

[DKW 86 7,481]

2 hours ago, sandyclawedtiger said:

I'll just leave this here.

 

Looks like Systemic Racism to me...

[homersapien 11,513]

This has nothing to do with race or racism.

Photo IDs discriminate against disadvantaged people - including poor whites as well as blacks and Native Americans who live on reservations.  These  folks typically vote Democratic - or at least that is what Republicans think which is why they propose such measures to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

That's my last post on the subject. I forgot this is the "trash talk" forum which apparently includes covert racism.

[SLAG-91 1,488]

I kind of come down in the middle on this. I'm fine with photo ID requirements, but acknowledge that cost is a hurdle for some. Fee waivers can be, and have been in places, implemented to assist those who are looking for employment, reduced cost housing, health insurance coverage, etc. with a photo ID, because one is needed to do so many things.  A few states have photo ID fees reduced/waived for the sole purpose of voting.

If a state has sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that cost is not a barrier to entry, so to speak, then photo ID requirements to vote should not be considered an undue burden.  States that don't have some of those opportunities in place should probably consider it if photo IDs are a requirement.

Heck, on federal/state tax returns, instead of asking me if I'd like to contribute $3 to the presidential election fund, change that to a contribution toward defraying costs for photo IDs.  I'd check that box in a flash.  For states that don't have a state income tax, I'm sure there's some sort of way to figure out how to send that money back to the states, and earmark it for its intended purpose.

[homersapien 11,513]

20 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

I kind of come down in the middle on this. I'm fine with photo ID requirements, but acknowledge that cost is a hurdle for some. Fee waivers can be, and have been in places, implemented to assist those who are looking for employment, reduced cost housing, health insurance coverage, etc. with a photo ID, because one is needed to do so many things.  A few states have photo ID fees reduced/waived for the sole purpose of voting.

If a state has sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that cost is not a barrier to entry, so to speak, then photo ID requirements to vote should not be considered an undue burden.  States that don't have some of those opportunities in place should probably consider it if photo IDs are a requirement.

Heck, on federal/state tax returns, instead of asking me if I'd like to contribute $3 to the presidential election fund, change that to a contribution toward defraying costs for photo IDs.  I'd check that box in a flash.  For states that don't have a state income tax, I'm sure there's some sort of way to figure out how to send that money back to the states, and earmark it for its intended purpose.

Any requirement that is imposed to solve a non-existent problem is an undue burden, period.

[SLAG-91 1,488]

52 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Any requirement that is imposed to solve a non-existent problem is an undue burden, period.

So you're against photo ID requirements to vote, even if said IDs are free of charge, correct?

[homersapien 11,513]

33 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

So you're against photo ID requirements to vote, even if said IDs are free of charge, correct?

Yes.  It's less the expense that creates the undue burden, it's the hassle of obtaining the photo ID.

Otherwise, everyone already has documents that can be used to prove their ID, such as utility bills.  Again, no one has demonstrated this is a problem to begin with.

[bigbird 60,580]

Ignorant

[DKW 86 7,481]

I have a Right to Vote: Therefore no IDs should be required.

SSSOOO: I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Firearms. Therefore no ID should be required? 

Do some of yall hear yourselves, EVER? 

Disclaimer before "Those that perpetually overreact" get involved. This is a thinking exercise. we all should know that. There is a small level of voter fraud in the US, it is in no way flipping even one precinct in the national elections. In the locals, there MAY be a real issue. 

How does NYC, with all the technology and media attention miscount 135K votes?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nyc-elections-2021/ny-nyc-mayoral-race-results-20210629-sua7digqinauxnwuyvfonhhlze-story.html

What an absolute mess.

The Board of Elections hurled the city’s first-ever ranked-choice mayoral race into disarray Tuesday by releasing updated results showing Eric Adams’ lead in the contest shrinking drastically — only to withdraw those tabulations hours later due to an embarrassing counting error.

The BOE first dropped a tally that showed Adams, Brooklyn’s borough president, leading the Democratic mayoral primary with 51.1% of the vote after 11 rounds of ranked-choice counting eliminated all other candidates except for ex-sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia.

Under the new tally, Garcia had soared to second place with 48.9% of the vote — trailing Adams by just 15,908 ballots. That spelled potential trouble for Adams — who had enjoyed a nearly 10% lead before the ranked-choice rounds — and turned all eyes to tens of thousands of absentee ballots that won’t be counted for at least another week.

 

But hours after releasing the nail-biting update, the Board of Elections deleted the tabulations from its website because it said it had forgotten to remove 135,000 “test” ballots from its system before running the count.

“The board apologizes for the error and has taken immediate measures to ensure the most accurate up-to-date results are reported,” BOE said in a statement, adding it will try again to get it right on Wednesday.

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,481]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/nj-election-mail-voting-fraud.html

New Local Election Ordered in N.J. After Mail-In Voter Fraud Charges

A judge ruled that the election in Paterson had been irreversibly tainted. The president has used the case to assail mail-in voting as dangerous, though election experts disagree.

 

 

 Nearly 20 percent of the mail-in ballots in a municipal election in Paterson were thrown out because of irregularities. Credit...Bryan Anselm for The New York Times

By Troy Closson

Aug. 19, 2020

In the days before New Jersey’s third-largest city held municipal elections in May entirely by mail, postal workers became suspicious when they found hundreds of ballots bundled together.

The discovery triggered an investigation that led to charges of voter fraud against two local elected leaders and resulted in nearly 20 percent of the ballots being rejected. 

On Wednesday, a New Jersey judge ruled that the election in Paterson, N.J., had been irreversibly tainted and ordered a new vote to be held in November to settle the race for the City Council seat.

The superior court judge, Ernest M. Caposela, wrote that the election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters.”

 

 

 

His decision came one day after the Trump campaign sued New Jersey over its recent decision to conduct the November election almost entirely by mail to keep people safe from the coronavirus.

The lawsuit claims that the move by Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a Democrat, was unconstitutional, arguing that the power to change election rules lies with state lawmakers, not the governor.

Mr. Trump’s campaign cited the Paterson corruption case as a reason not to expand voting by mail. “By ordering universal vote-by-mail, he has created a recipe for disaster,” the suit said.

With more voters than ever eligible to vote by mail because of the outbreak, Mr. Trump has repeatedly warned, without any evidence, that mail-in ballots would lead to widespread fraud and would call into question the results of the November election.

But some election experts said it was somewhat misleading to use the Paterson scandal as a cudgel to discredit mail-in voting, noting that election fraud is extremely rare and, as the case in New Jersey shows, is usually easy to detect.

Once votes were tallied after the May 12 special election in Paterson, William McKoy, a 20-year incumbent city councilman, had lost by 240 votes. But after he filed a lawsuit in June accusing Alex Mendez, the person who defeated him, of fraud, Judge Caposela ruled that no one would be allowed to take office until the case was resolved.

“There were so many problems that came up that we were never going to be able to come to a realistic answer of who actually won,” said Scott Salmon, a lawyer representing Mr. McKoy.

The state attorney general, Gurbir S. Grewal, started an investigation and in June charged four men, including Mr. Mendez and another councilman, with the unauthorized possession of ballots. The two elected officials were accused of delivering mail-in ballots that were not theirs and of submitting voter registration applications for people who were not eligible to vote.

All four men have denied any wrongdoing.

 

Image

 The New Jersey attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, charged four men, including two elected leaders, with voter fraud following the election. Credit...Julio Cortez/Associated Press

As the investigation unfolded, some conservative groups seized on the more than 3,000 ballots that were thrown out to make the case that mail-in voting makes it too easy to manipulate elections by allowing ineligible voters, including the dead, to vote.

 

SIGN UP FOR THE NEW YORK TODAY NEWSLETTER: Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

Sign Up

“The defendants in the ballot fraud case are not criminal masterminds,” a writer at Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that focuses on government misconduct, wrote on the group’s website. “Ballot fraud is easy.”

But officials in New Jersey argue that what happened in Paterson was being oversimplified and that the majority of ballots were rejected because they had been filled out incorrectly and not because they had been submitted illegally.

 

About 1,200 votes were disqualified because voters’ signatures did not match those on file, according to the Passaic County Board of Elections.

In New Jersey, voters can designate someone to submit ballots on their behalf, but no one is allowed to drop off more than three during an election. As a result, an additional 1,000 votes were disqualified because a section on the ballot to list the name of the person sending them in had been left blank.

Only three ballots were thrown out because they had been cast in the names of people who were dead, and another was rejected because of suspicions that someone might have attempted to vote twice.

Voting experts say seizing on a relatively small case involving a handful of people to tar efforts to make voting easier has become a tactic to disenfranchise voters.

“If these claims are true and these people are saying they’ve seen voter fraud, they need to produce what that looks like,” said Amber McReynolds, the chief executive of the National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition, a nonpartisan group focused on expanding access to the ballot. “Every time I’ve ever asked for that, nobody has ever given it to me.”

Mr. Murphy has also dismissed criticisms that the Paterson scandal signals larger issues with mail-in voting, arguing that the rejected ballots show that even a quickly rolled-out vote-by-mail election can weed out ineligible votes.

On Wednesday, he fired back on Twitter against the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, arguing that it was a “brazen attempt to sow fear and confusion, and to delegitimize our elections,” adding in another post that “we will defend our rights vigorously and we will not back down. Bring it on.’’

Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, said the problems in Paterson illustrate the challenges of mass rollouts of mail-in voting and the need for anti-fraud mechanisms like ballot tracking, which allows voters to follow their ballots through the postal system.

But, he added, the case also shows large-scale voting fraud would be difficult to successfully carry out.

“When you start tampering with absentee ballots, if you were doing it on a large enough scale to try and influence an election, it’s going to typically involve a large number of moving parts,” Mr. Hasen said. “It’s hard to keep conspiracies quiet and people will notice when they go to vote.”