How astounding! Are ALL Democrats so embolden to the fraudulent vote that they’ll squash any attempt to ensure only legitimate votes are counted? How utterly transparent can you get?

Oh, I’m sorry, you did mention 4 voting for this provision.

Before you pop that champagne, perhaps you should know the kind of law the GOP just passed. Here, for example, is a description of the George Voter ID law that was struck down last year:

>>Under the Georgia law, residents would need to produce original birth certificates and other documents to get the new digital identification card. The cards could only be obtained at Department of Motor Vehicles offices.

Fair enough, you say. Gotta crack down on that voter fraud, right?

But, um...

>>But critics say that many potential voters do not have the required documents and that some could not afford the $20 processing fee for identification.

Hmmm. That's a pickle. Cause $20 to vote amounts to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. So, they proposed a solution to THAT, too:

>>State officials promised to provide free identification to anyone who swore under oath that they were indigent. But the law provided no definition of what constituted indigence in the state of Georgia, opening the possibility for possible perjury charges, activists said.

Boy, that IS difficult, isn't it? But, tell me, are there any MORE problems with this legislation? Why yes!

>>Liberal critics compiled statistics showing that far more white residents owned cars than African Americans. The law, they argued, gave an unfair advantage to white people while placing a burden on those who are black.

I'm sorry, but what does have a CAR have to do with all of this, you silly liberal critics?

>>On top of that, the state recently reorganized the Department of Motor Vehicles, paring down the number of offices. After the reorganization, there were no DMV offices in Atlanta, a city with a wide black majority. The closest station is at least nine miles away. Fewer than 60 of the state's 159 counties have DMV offices.

Oooooh. So the legilation actually WOULD be aimed at lowering the minority vote. But, do you have a solution to THAT problem, too? I mean, one that isn't totally ridiculous?

>>State officials countered that they were providing a single vehicle, known as the GLOW bus, to traverse the state, providing applications and licenses to those with the proper documents. Critics expressed disbelief that one bus could accommodate the needs of so many potential voters.

I see. A bus. A voter registration bus. For the ENTIRE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Gee, it's a shame that law was struck down...I'm just SURE the new one is better, right?

Sorry--

Voter fraud is over the top--and is as much a travesty to our electoral process as it was to attempt to deny the military vote in 2000. Something has to be done to stop it.

You got a better idea? Are you serious about stopping voter fraud?

Let's hear it.

Psycmeistr -

You assertion that voter fraud is over the top could use some statistics. Exactly how big a problem is it in terms of numbers?

Nate,
Fraud varies from State to State, read this; from the Harvard Law Review. "Milwaukee, notably, boasted close to a 50% turnout, with over 277,000 votes cast. But a discrepancy emerged after election day, growing clearer in the days and months following: city records revealed fewer than 273,000 registered voters had actually participated in the election."

Voting twice, voting absentee then voting in person, voting under the names of deceased relatives, using the “overseas” voting affidavit, this is a significant problem. By some conservative (as in "cautious on the low side") estimates the voter fraud in 2000 exceeded the margin between Bush and Gore.

Nate:

Oh, vote fraud is a problem, all right. Just not in the way that you might think. Have a look at this passage from Robert Kennedy's article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen" from Rolling Stone about Ken Blackwell's shenanigans in Ohio during the last election:

>>No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln's....Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign -- more than to any other state.

But in the battle for Ohio, Republicans had a distinct advantage: The man in charge of the counting was Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of President Bush's re-election committee. As Ohio's secretary of state, Blackwell had broad powers to interpret and implement state and federal election laws -- setting standards for everything from the processing of voter registration to the conduct of official recounts. And as Bush's re-election chair in Ohio, he had a powerful motivation to rig the rules for his candidate. Blackwell, in fact, served as the ''principal electoral system adviser'' for Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, where he witnessed firsthand the success of his counterpart Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who co-chaired Bush's campaign there.

Blackwell -- now the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio -- is well-known in the state as a fierce partisan eager to rise in the GOP... During the 2004 election he used his official powers to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens in Democratic strongholds. In a ruling issued two weeks before the election, a federal judge rebuked Blackwell for seeking to ''accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.''...

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Frustrated by his party's failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee's minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters. In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ''massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.'' The problems, the report concludes, were ''caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.''

''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''

These days? Blackwell will be in charge of counting the votes in his own election for Governor of Ohio. Niiiiiiiiice.

The whole article is here and is worth a read: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Although cyber’s cut and paste talking points are right out of the ACLU press releases; the Georgia law accounts for free ID cards for those without one, and the Georgia law is almost identical to the law in Indiana which has been upheld by the Federal courts.

State Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. will be overturned, despite the breathless assertions from cyber about automobile ownership, which has nothing whatever to do with this case.

Robert Kennedy?

Thoroughly discredited black helicopter nonsense.

Thanks Bane - I agree, not good. You say that the Georgia law accounts for free ID cards for those without one. Can you be more specific?

Cyber...they are FREE ID's

So liberals in GA can spend thosands of dollars on political ads every election, and pay lawyers' fees to try to stop the implementation of the legislation; but they can't find the bucks to rent buses and take people to the DMV locations?

The State adopted the recommendations of the commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III for free, easily available, tamper-proof ID’s. This satisfied the US Justice Department in their review of the lawsuit brought in April by former Governor Roy E. Barnes.
Although it is not "in the law" as I indicated, sorry. Nonetheless, this requirement has already been satisfied by the State.

Why does this shock any of you?

Tameny Hall voter fraud = Democrats

1960 Presidential election JFK, dead people voting in Texas and Illinois = Democrats

2000 Presidential election "every vote must count" (except they didn't want to recount all counties, just 3 Democratic counties and apparently "every vote must count" didn't apply to the military abroad that the Democrats tried mightily to stop from being counted = Democrats

And on and on and on. The Washington governor's race. The issues in 2000 and 2004 in Wisconsin.

The union thugs beating up people in Florida and New York.

This should be no surprise to anyone. This is the same party that wants to give illegal aliens (let me stress this again...ILLEGAL ALIENS) a form of official identification here in California with a drivers license but doesn't want to require it of voters.

HYPOCRISY at work my friends....on a daily basis.

Um, Bane?

>>Although cyber’s cut and paste talking points are right out of the ACLU press releases; the Georgia law accounts for free ID cards for those without one, and the Georgia law is almost identical to the law in Indiana which has been upheld by the Federal courts.

Yeah, I already sorta, kinda mentioned that the cards would be free to people swearing that they are "indigent" in my original post. I notice that you don't address the dearth of DMV facilities in Georgia OR the super-cool GLOW bus that will take care of all those pesky voters wanting to register. Maybe you left that out because, um, it's a really dumb idea?

According to the US Justice Department; making cards available to citizens of voting age satisfies the "poll tax" argument. There is no law, State or Federal that establish the relative ease or difficulty with which the cards may be distributed, providing the distribution is not discriminatory. The ACLU already argued unsuccessfully that some persons are less likely to be able to avail themselves of this service. The Federal Court (Indiana) already rejected the idea that this is racially motivated or otherwise discriminatory.

Face facts; this judge is wrong, the State has crafted a bill that meets the requirements, and democrats will just have to find another way of stealing votes.

In principle I think ID's are a reasonable requirement although they should not create a burden that might limit legitimate voter turnout. At the same time, in the interest of preventing voter fraud, every vote ought to have a paper trail. If voter fraud is the issue, then why isn't the approved bill comprehensive?

The problem with this voter ID legislation is the fact that it purports to be intended to prevent voter fraud, yet it completely ignores the voter paper trail issue. Unfortunately, that leads me to conclude that those supporting this voter ID bill are simply pushing legislation that they feel would be beneficial to Republican candidates on two fronts. One, it may suppress Democratic voter turnout and it is also being spun as a means to "strengthen border security and crack down on illegal immigration"...a position the GOP feels will benefit them in November.

Here's my problem. There is little doubt that the GOP has not been motivated to provide effective border security or the means to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The failure to enact and enforce measures and methods to combat illegal immigration has been a concession to the business community, which has been the beneficiary of hard working, low wage employees. The system in place for employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the U.S. is a virtual joke and it is so by choice...which makes the current voter ID legislation all the more disingenuous and wholly political.

Sadly, it appears that the GOP doesn't see any advantage to including these paper trail provisions. It is situations of this nature that lead to voter cynicism in their elected officials as well as the entire political process. Ironically, while we are in the process of exporting democracy to other regions of the world, we have U.S. politicians that prefer to manipulate our democracy for partisan advantage. This and other inconsistencies in the application of democracy simply undermine the potential for other nations to believe that the United States is actually an agent for democratic principles.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

In general, I think ID's are reasonable and I believe preventing all voter fraud should be our goal. The fact that there isn't a paper trail for votes cast in many precincts is a voter fraud issue, yet this bill doesn't address that issue.

The problem I have with this voter ID legislation is the fact that it purports to be intended to prevent voter fraud, yet it completely ignores the voter paper trail issue. Unfortunately, that leads me to conclude that those supporting this voter ID bill are simply pushing legislation that they feel would be beneficial to Republican candidates on two fronts. One, it may suppress Democratic voter turnout and it is also being spun as a means to "strengthen border security and crack down on illegal immigration"...a position the GOP feels will benefit them in November.

Here's my problem. There is little doubt that the GOP has not been motivated to provide effective border security or the means to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The failure to enact and enforce measures and methods to combat illegal immigration has been a concession to the business community, which has been the beneficiary of hard working, low wage employees. The system in place for employers to verify employee eligibility to work in the U.S. is a virtual joke and it is so by choice...which makes the current voter ID legislation all the more disingenuous and wholly political.

Sadly, it appears that the GOP doesn't see any advantage to including these paper trail provisions. It is situations of this nature that lead to voter cynicism in their elected officials as well as the entire political process. Ironically, while we are in the process of exporting democracy to other regions of the world, we have U.S. politicians that prefer to manipulate our democracy for partisan advantage. This and other inconsistencies in the application of democracy simply undermine the potential for other nations to believe that the United States is actually an agent for democratic principles.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Well, but it sounds like the Georgia bill isn't settled yet. The decision will undoubtedly be appealed, and I don't think it would be wise to bet on the outcome.

And Bane, did you mean to say, "making cards available to citizens of voting age FOR FREE satisfies the "poll tax" argument"? Because again, the imposition of a processing fee looks to be an issue for the courts, regardless of what the DOJ says.

My comment above was in response to Bane. I should have made that clear.

Thoughttheater,
I agree enthusiastically with your entire post. One of the most upsetting things to me recently has been the way the GOP has coddled companies like Diebold, a company who's incompetence and immorality become more astonishing with every move they make.

What I want to know is why the Democrats are so hell bent on making sure Grandma's vote counts but could give a rat's A$$ that my legitimate vote could be cancelled out by a fraudulent voter that isn't supposed to vote at all.

My vote is just a valid but the Dems are not doing a damn thing to stand up for that.

Hypocrisy again

Who are these "phantom voters" and where in the wide world of sports did you hear about them? I mean, I read all this stuff about the Democrats "hauling the homeless in to vote" and suchlike nonesense and I think "Where EVER do they get this claptrap?" Care to enlighten me?

Cyber...I lived in Milwaukee for 8 years. This is where you can register the SAME DAY of the election to vote. All you need is a letter or a bill and you can vote.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (a liberal paper) reported in 2000 and 2004 where Marquette University students (my alma mater) as well as Univ. of Wis. Milwaukee students and others were going from precinct to precinct to register to vote and vote. You see there is no voter rolls to be concerned about. You just sign up that day and vote. Then go on a 5 mile drive and give your bill to the 80 year old poll worker and sign up again and vote. And on and on and on.

Then we have states where felons cannot vote and yet each and every election year there is a story by the local press or statewide press that 1000's of felons somehow got by the 80 year old poll worker and her snappy detection work and voted anyway.

To ignore this is happening is ridiculous on your part.

Just do a Google search on fradulent voting and there are stories all across this country of people voting that are legally NOT ENTITLED TO. Those people are cancelling out votes of legitimate voters!!

Oooooh, yeah. I read about that. Some squawking about a Democratic "Cigarettes for Votes" thingy up in Milwaukee. Thousands of illegal votes in Wisconsin that probably turned the tide in the election from Bush to Kerry. They were going to investigate that. Did, um, the investigation yield any findings there, Warrior? Hmmmmm?

Nate,
Providing the ID cards by the State in and of itself satisfies the Poll Tax issue as the cards are for identification purposes not for voting purposes or, in the case of the Drivers’ License for driving but can be used to verify one’s identity for the purpose of voting. The TSA cannot require that you buy an ID card for the purpose of flying, but they can require you have a government issued ID card before being allowed to pass the inspection station required to board a commercial airliner. Sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it really isn’t.

The issue of free versus a cost to provide the cards was addressed when Georgia offered to provide the cards free of charge to Georgia citizens that have the right to vote. The issues raised in the Georgia case are the same as the ones already addressed in the Indiana case. The lawyers from the Justice Department advised the State of Georgia after the first lawsuit, and they can file an amicus (or friend of the court) brief on behalf of Georgia in the appeal which has already been filed by the State’s Attorney General with the State's supreme Court (July 2006).

The issue of Diebold, I cited this before; much conspiracy, little or no facts.

As to a “paper trail” for voting, that is eminently stupid; unconstitutional, and rife with abuse. How I voted is none of your business, the only thing the government should be aware of is if I’m entitled to vote (which they do) have I registered to vote (which they do) and did I vote (which they do). Finding my vote and following the vote I cast back to me would allow the government to know for sure and for certain for whom and for what I voted. Maybe in your little socialist fantasy that’s a good idea, but not in my world.

Cyber,
Did you read the Harvard Law review I cited? Or do you enjoy looking like an ignoramus?

Bane asks: >>Did you read the Harvard Law review I cited? Or do you enjoy looking like an ignoramus?

A little of both.

The link you provided, interestingly, is neither a comprehensive look at voter fraud nor, even more interestingly, does it dismiss the idea out of hand that there was, indeed, voter fraud in Ohio. It merely posits that in order for it to have happened, it would have had to have been a massive conspiracy. To which the only response is, "Well DUH."

Even the detailed examinations, most of them, either say "probably false" or "unlikely." A few claim that the charges are "false" but the research performed is minimal at best, selective at worst.

Er? How can one argue with logic like this?
Cyber ... the link you're referencing is from Tom Paine Not Harvard Law Review.

*smacks forehead*
If you can't keep up, take notes.

Gee, Bane, I'm sorry I made you hit yourself. Don't let it jangle whatever loose cells are rattling around up there.

Cast an eye over the Harvard Law Review article and I'm puzzled. Most of it references how dangerous and discriminatory voter ID laws can be. For instance: "Regardless of its ultimate outcome, the legal dispute over the Georgia
identification laws strikingly captures the fundamental tension between the purported urgency of combating voter fraud and the likely unconstitutional burden that poorly drafted and hastily implemented photographic identification requirements place upon traditionally disadvantaged voters."

Note the PURPORTED urgency line. A particular favorite.

Shoot, most of the article is a refutation of EXACTLY the Georgia law that I brought up in the first place. Go on, ask me why. Because it turns out that the Georgia Voter ID measure was unconstitutional. This isn't an article I dredged up. It's yours!

Also, didja notice the mention of Wisconsin voter fraud? Maybe YOU know what might have happened when the allegations of widespread, Democratic Party organized voter fraud was examined. Do you?

Now, don't y'all go smackin' yourself!

Pick a story and stick with it.

Who are these "phantom voters" and where in the wide world of sports did you hear about them? I mean, I read all this stuff about the Democrats "hauling the homeless in to vote" and suchlike nonesense and I think "Where EVER do they get this claptrap?" Care to enlighten me?

Hmmm. That's a pickle. Cause $20 to vote amounts to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. So, they proposed a solution to THAT, too:

As to the issue of established voter fraud; the case in Milwaukie is addressed in my post above.

"Milwaukee, notably, boasted close to a 50% turnout, with over 277,000 votes cast. But a discrepancy emerged after election day, growing clearer in the days and months following: city records revealed fewer than 273,000 registered voters had actually participated in the election."

Finally, because you have engaged in hyperbole, the subject of the thread is House Republicans Pass Voter ID Bill the Harvard Law Review answered the concept thusly:

A nationwide photographic identification requirement, properly implemented, could both provide an effective solution to voter fraud concerns, real or imagined, and help eliminate confusion among voters and election officials alike.

*Sighs*

So free ID's are bad because folks can't get to them? Using ID's we've already got is bad because not everyone has them? Saying I'm me and being able to prove it so no one else uses my vote is bad because?

I hear a lot about these electronic voting machines and "paper trails" and that's fine. I've brought up how here in California those same electronic voting machines now leave a paper trail and no one ever seems to remember that. Yet every time voter ID's come up everyone is up in arms.

So let's make this simple. Yes or no for all of the following:

1. Voter ID's. Are they a good thing?

2. Voter ID's, should we have them?

3. Does voter fraud occur?

4. Should we "count every vote" including military overseas votes?

5. If voter fraud occurs, shouldn't we do something to try and prevent it?

Nothing is sillier than to have the Dems complain that poor people can't get to photo places without cars etc. These are the same fools that demanded motor voter laws to help the poor vote.

One of the most upsetting things to me recently has been the way the GOP has coddled companies like Diebold, a company who's incompetence and immorality become more astonishing with every move they make.

Could we have some links, or are you just gonna continue with the DNC talking points. Next you'll be claiming that Diebold sends the broken machines to Halliburton for repairs

Cyberass lost all credibility when she cited the Rolling Stone piece by Robert F. Kookedy, Teddy Kennedrunk's nephew.

See, Gnat, I even call the famous ones names; you should be honored...

Ok Gozer, I'll bite. And I bet we agree.

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. absolutely, especially the military
5. ofcourse, yes

Those answers will undoubtly be different when (or if) Nate decides to answer.

Ok Gozer, I'll bite. And I bet we agree.

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. absolutely, especially the military
5. ofcourse, yes

Those answers will undoubtly be different when (or if) a moonbat decides to answer.

I'll go with kjs answers, especially number 4.

Keefer -
Here's a summary, as short as I can make it:

During the 2000 presidential election, Diebold voting machines in precinct 216 in Volusia county Florida gave an obscure socialist candidate over 10,000 votes. The problem is, Volusia county had 600 voters. Worse, the machines also reported that Al Gore had received NEGATIVE 16,000 votes. Diebold blamed the problem on faulty memory cards, and this claim was repeated by the mainstream press without futher investigation.

In 2003, however, someone from the company leaked internal memos which indicated that the "faulty memory card" claim was completely unsubstantiated, and that the Diebold employees themselves were suspicious of tampering. The company obviously never aired these suspicions. Look here:
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm#appendix3

Here's where the fun starts. A couple of scattered groups start looking into these memos, and start their own investigations. Some of them get a hold of some Diebold voting machines to take apart, others start talking to the press. When Diebold finds out about this, they go *apesh1t*. Diebold starts sending out DMCA takedown notices to the student groups, telling them to remove the memos from public display and to shut down their websites.

Of course, this was the kiss of death for Diebold. All of a sudden, this is national news. The students know they've hit on something really serious, and they immediately garner free legal support galore.

Diebold's legal threats were promptly slapped down, so badly in fact that Diebold had to offer mulitple retractions in order to stay out of legal trouble. Look here:
news.com.com/2100-1028-5112430.html

Ever since then, it's been downward spiral for the company:

- In Sept. 2004, a video was released showing a Diebold voting machine being hacked... by a monkey. Diebold's response was laughably weak. Look here: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133214,00.html
www.techdirt.com/articles/20060913/190935.shtml

- In April 2004, Stephen Heller, an employee of a law firm working for Diebold gave documents to the Calfornia secretary of state showing that Diebold was in the process of deceiving state election officials. Look here:
www.laweekly.com/news/news/diebolds-revenge/12809/

- Diebold's machines were decertified for the 2004 California elections because of outstanding vulnerabilies, and the state's top election official asked the attorney general’s office to investigate allegations of fraud, saying Diebold had lied to state officials. Look here:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

- Later in 2004, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed civil and criminal lawsuits against Diebold. Diebold settled for $2.6 million and agreements to supervision.

- In Nov. 2005, Diebold withdrew it's machines from N. Carolina after the state decided to require it to let a third party do a security evaluation of the machines' software. Look here: www.engadget.com/2005/11/30/embattled-diebold-withdraws-from-north-carolina/

- In December 2005, Diebold CEO Wally O’Dell resigned without explanation. That week, company shareholders filed several class-action lawsuits alleging that Diebold lied about security problems in the their products to boost the stock price.

- Also in December 2005, California’s elections chief refused to certify Diebold’s machines for that state’s 2006 elections, citing “significant unresolved security concerns”.

- 2006 gives us a bizarre show of persecution against a whistleblower in Utah, a state eployee who aired concerns about the security of Diebold machines. His story's too big for this post, but it's really incredible. Google for "diebold bruce funk", or look here:
newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3181
blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2785

- In March 2006, the Maryland House voted to ban Diebold machines from the state's elections. Look here:
politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/10/206218

- In July 2006, the Open Voting Foundation gets a hold of a Diebold AccuVote TS, takes it apart, and finds this insane security hole:
politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1646246

- In August 2006, Princeton researchers demonstrate a virus that can easily allow an attacker to take over Diebold's machines remotely. The problem is very serious, because the virus can be spread with the memory cards that the machines use. Look here:
www.securityfocus.com/brief/302

- In August 2006, failures in Diebold's machines forced elections in Alaska into a hand count. Look here:
www.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8113627p-8006175c.html

- In Sept. 2006, Ed Felten shows how you can gain access to an AccuVote TS using a hotel minibar key. Look here:
it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/178218

This is only a fraction of the crap that this company has pulled. Google will find you an unending amount of dirt, and company's response to each incident gets it into more trouble.

I'm going to the mountains for a while on vacation. No, don't cry, I'll be back, and the other Nate can fill in for me in the meantime.

Cyber

The DA of Milwaukee ( a Democrat) did find that the students had voted illegally and then decided not to press charges even though the students said they did.

Milwaukee is much like other big cities in this country...corrupt and run by liberals.

Your response as you pooh pooh the notion of fraud speaks volumes.

It's very simple, you know you guys win elections with fradulent votes and you don't want to cut that off.

We have decades of proof of this and you guys just don't give a damn. Hopefully it comes to a stop and soon.

In March 2006, the Maryland House voted to ban Diebold machines from the state's elections. Look here:
politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/10/206218

Thanks, Nate, at least you provided links. I'm from MD, and the MD House is overwhelmingly liberal DemoCRAP. They even passed early voting, which was struck down by the courts.

You see, DemocRAP-controlled state governments are more apt to desire early/often voting, and no voter id requirement. Why? Too expensive for the poor? haha!!!

When I see a "poor" pesron whining about being disenfranchised, and then said "poor" person has to excuse himself while he answers his cell phone, or hang the nozzle back up on the gas pump, I get skeptical.

It's all bullspit--Dems don't like voter ID because it cuts into one or more of their voter blocks. Dead people and illegal immigrants come to mind.

Warrior:

Not quite. From your own Journal Sentinel:

>>No vote fraud plot found; Inquiry leads to isolated cases, Biskupic

The nearly yearlong investigation into voter fraud in 2004 has yielded no evidence of a broad conspiracy to try to steal an election, U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic said Monday. He predicted that perhaps "a couple of dozen" isolated cases of suspected fraud might be charged, and he said sloppy recordkeeping by election officials was a key impediment to proving such cases.

Nothing in the cases that his office has examined has shown a plot to try to tip an election, Biskupic said during a meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and reporters. Critics had raised such fears of partisan voter fraud schemes in the election aftermath. But Biskupic said, "I wouldn't say that at all." He said, "We don't see a massive conspiracy to alter the election in Milwaukee, one way or another."

Biskupic, a Republican whom President Bush appointed in 2002, and Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann, a Democrat, announced a joint effort to investigate allegations of illegal voting in January.

So, no, it wasn't that dastardly Democrat DA that put the lid on this "story." It was a Republican, appointed by your buddy Chimpy. No widespread Democratic effort to rig the election because...pssst!...even if you were so inclined to get "phantom" voters to come out and vote for your guy, it's hardly worth the effort. In a city like Milwaukee, for example, where over 250,000 voted, the numbers you're talking about are paltry. Miniscule. In other words: there's no there there.

On the other hand, disenfranchisement of thousands upon thousands of voters by Blackwell in Ohio and current GOP dart-board target Kathleen Harris in Florida? Boy THOSE efforts sure bore a lot of fruit.

Bane:

The trouble with selective quoting is that it can easily be refuted. The NEXT SENTENCE in your Harvard Law Review article reads:

>>Many of the alleged difficulties of implementation that affected the outcome of Common Cause/Georgia — limited access by citizens to facilities for obtaining voter identification,
limited awareness on the part of voters of their right to waive the fee by declaring indigence, and the stigma attached to such declarations
— need only be temporary situations. The hurdles that photographic identification proposals face today could diminish in as few as two election cycles if the states take on more of the responsibility of educating voters, ensuring greater access to voter identification facilities, and adhering to HAVA requirements such as cleansing of the voter rolls. These efforts would minimize at once both the severity of the proposal’s disenfranchising effects and any potential for voter fraud.

See the way that works? The Georgia law was NOT an effort to clean up vote fraud. It was an effort to keep poor, elderly and minority voters from getting to the polls. And that's why it was struck down. Fix it, with a REAL reform that ensures that such people will experience a minimum of difficulty in voting, and you have your solution.

We over here on the left, FYI, are not opposed to laws that protect against vote fraud. We simply want them to be implemented fairly. Too much to ask?

Cyberactor... the quote you provided in your last post (10:49 AM) does not in any way, shape or form support the conclusion you posted along with it.

LNC:

So sorry. I was working under the assumption that someone reading my last post would have actually read the Harvard Law Review article Bane provided and thus got the context. Here is a further quote from the same article that should clear things up for you. Remember, the issue is fairness and access. If you pass a law that makes it MORE difficult for legitimate voters to go to the polls, you're not helping. Thus:

“What distinguishes the provision at issue in Common Cause/Georgia is the refusal to accept these alternatives, thereby placing an undue burden on those voters who do not have photographic identification and for whom procuring such identification would involve an unreasonable expense and burdensome travel requirements."

Undue burden = no good. With me so far? But in Georgia, they had a proposal to fix this problem, remember? Still quoting:

"Yet the ruling in Common Cause/Georgia should not be framed, as some commentators have done, as merely a dispute over a modern day poll tax. As the court noted, Georgia made efforts to alleviate the burdens of its identification law, both by waiving the fee to obtain a voter identification card for those voters attesting to their indigence and by providing a mobile facility for those unable to travel to distant Department of Motor Vehicles stations."

Well, there you go. All a voter has to do is go through the humilating process of swearing before a witness that they are too poor to afford an ID and somehow get ahold of this "mobile facility" to register if you lived in some far flung county. So how easy did they make this process? Still quoting:

"These remedial measures were lacking, however, for a number of reasons. Georgia failed to publicize adequately both the fee waiver option and the schedule of the mobile facility. The facility itself — a single bus to serve 159 counties — neither provided sufficient availability for the large number of voters in need of its services nor was equipped to service an additional disadvantaged demographic, disabled voters. In sum, the state’s mitigating measures had the air of a slapdash remedy, put in place in the short time between the passage of HB 244 and the local elections in November 2005.”

Get it now?

Please remember, this isn't MY article. It's Bane's. It just so happens to support my argument. Hardly my fault.

Cyber,
The Law Review is explaining the background and citing the reasons for the decision, that's what a Law Review is. You and the ACLU have already listed the objections. Interesting that you now cite the portion that mocks your original contention that the case is about a Poll Tax. The point is that the Justice Department has already addressed the issues raised by the lower court, and the State Supreme Court will find the lower courts ruling not compelling, as the Justice Department and the State's Attorney General claimed in the appeal.
Either way, the issue of this thread is the Federal Action, not the State's action which will become moot once the Federal Law is enacted.

Bane:

That is, frankly, what makes your argument such a hoot; the refutation of the States' assertion to be able to run their own stinkin' elections. Once again, you have the conservatives (former states' rights advocates) conceding control over yet another major state-level issue to the Feds. Fine by us over here on the left, by the way, so long as the process is fair (which I've said from the beginning).

And while I've got your attention, clear something else up for me: What is with the conservatives hate and distrust of the American Civil Liberties Union? I mean, here we have an organization whose sole purpose is to safeguard the civil rights of ordinary Americans against government oppression and they are continually attacked by the right. These people have defended everyone from fundamentalist churches to Oliver North. What, generally, is the beef?

Not being facetious. Genuinely curious.

Sigh...Cyber you mean the left leaning Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that...I'm shocked. Shocked I tell ya.

Now go read the Wisconsin State Journal, the Marquette Tribune, etc and get back to me.

Michael McCann, the D.A., said he couldn't prove the charges against those committing the fraud even though they ADMITTED DOING IT.

States rights, correct. The Constitution clearly states that the respective states will conduct elections; that is the domain of the state, and conservatives agree. Each state that has acted to safeguard the voting rights of their citizens has had to run a legal minefield set up by the tolerant left and activist judges. One Federal standard for voting, acceptable to all states precludes the loony left from dragging 50 different states through 50 different lawsuits, and all the manifestations they can imagine. Conservatives also believe that the respective states may place additional requirements provided the minimum acceptable standard is met; that is our right.
As far as the communist front organization is concerned; the ACLU, founded by avowed communists, supported by communists and heralded by communists worldwide hardly works to safeguard civil liberties; they are no more a civil liberties organization than the National Socialist Party of Germany was really socialist! To quote the founder

“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.

Thanks for pointing me to the Wisconsin State Journal, Warrior. This was simply FASCINATING:

http://www.madison.com/toolbox/index.php?action=printme&ref=archives&storyURL=/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2005/05/03/0505030088.php

Hah! Nice try at painting the ACLU as a commie organization, big fella. And when you speak of it's leader, you of course mean Roger Nash Baldwin who was, indeed, a Communist early in his life. He founded the ACLU and continued as it’s leader until 1950. However, if you knew your history, you would know that:

“In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW.”

You mean that guy, right?

The ACLU is both non-profit AND non-partisan, as you can see from the many left and right groups it regularly represents. It is regularly bashed by the folks on the right due to the dubious early history of one of its founders but that's just a straw man. Anyone who looks at the work they do on behalf of the First Amendment (among many other fine projects) can see that the ACLU is, indeed, devoted to defending and protecting the people of America against encroachments upon their civil liberties.

This means that they fight the Bush Administration a lot, of course, since no one quite specializes in taking away civil liberties like Dubya and his cronies.

The bulk of the funds used by the ACLU are from "attorneys' fees" collected as a result of suing the government, all the while claming to be working pro bono. this makes them taxpayer sponsered.

There is no point in debating this issue; you will ignore the historic data and the ACLU's choice of causes and instead focus on the words "Civil Liberties" as though it makes them so. Your icon, Lenin had a term for people like you, "useful idiot." The Boy Scouts thank you for your support.

Cyber here you sunshine

"Marquette Students admit to voting more than once"

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2000/11/14/News/Marquette.Students.Admit.They.Voted.More.Than.Once-1061712.shtml?norewrite200609230042&sourcedomain=www.iowastatedaily.com

"Wisconsin Madison finds voter fraud"
http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/10/29/wisconsin_finds_vote.php

And on and on.

They admitted to doing it but Democrats in the D.A.'s office said they found no evidence...oh the irony.

Here's more...Inquiry finds evidence of fraud in election (until Democrats call off the dogs)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933