“This is what voter suppression looks like.”
Those are the words on the final title card in the video [embedded below] shot by a Wisconsin woman documenting her experience at the DMV in Madison last week. The video purports to illustrate the ridiculous extra, and invasive, efforts many previously-legal voters in the Badger State will now likely face in order to exercise their right to vote in the state since the passage of the GOP majority’s newly enacted voter suppression laws.
In this case, the woman was trying to help her son get a free Photo ID at the DMV, as is his right under the new statutes. At first she was told the charge for the supposedly-free ID would be $28, and that was only after she convinced a clerk that there had been enough “activity” in her son’s bank account, as used by the clerk to determine whether or not he actually resided in the state.
And that was for an affluent white resident. If you’re a homeless person in WI, as the woman’s interview with another clerk in the video suggests, you can pretty much just forget about being able to vote at all under the new law.
An official at the Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation confirmed to The BRAD BLOG that those seeking the Photo ID for free must actually know to request it during the application process, as required by the language, she told us, in the new state statute…
Back in 2008, just after the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed, for the first time, a polling place Photo ID restriction to take affect in the state of Indiana, we ran down the absurd hoops one was required to leap through in order to simply cast a legal vote if one did not already own an acceptable state-issued Photo ID on Election Day.
The steps are particularly absurd and onerous for those who don’t already have a drivers license in the first place or, for example, who might need a walker to get around at all, like some of the 80 and 90 year old nuns who were turned away from the polls that year without being able to cast a normal vote as they had for decades prior, in the exact same place, without a problem.
Since then, similarly disenfranchising polling place restrictions have been instituted on legal voters by Republicans in order to suppress the votes of largely Democratic-leaning constituencies — such as students, the elderly, minorities and urban-dwellers — in a number of states across the nation, including Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Texas and, most recently, Wisconsin.
Making matters still worse in the Badger State, Republican Gov. Scott Walker — who is likely to face a recall election next year on the heels of 9 state Senators facing recalls this Summer in the wake of the new GOP law revoking rights for citizens to collectively bargain with the government — is now working to make it even harder for Wisconsinites who don’t have a state-issued Photo ID to get one at the DMV.
According to Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, the Walker administration is now finalizing a plan to limit the operational hours for DMVs in Democratic areas of the state, while (surprise, surprise!) extending hours in some Republican districts.
But that’s not all. As you’ll see in the following video, taken by a Wisconsin resident trying to help her son get a state-issued Photo ID from the DMV, there are still more of the maddening hoops the state is now forcing legal voters to jump through in order to exercise their franchise. Among those hoops — which back in the day when we had a Constitutionally representative democracy would have been considered an unconstitutional poll tax — is the $28 fee that citizens are charged to get their ID in the first place unless they happen to know the secret password, or check the right box, in order to get one for free, as they are entitled to according to the new law.
Back in the days before the modern day Republican War on Voting began anew, the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed similar barriers to voting where a voter might have been forced to pay as little as $1.50 in order to cast their vote. That was then, of course, while this is 2011…
As noted at the beginning of the DMV video seen above and at the WI Dept.of Transportation (WisDOT) website, in order to obtain a WI Photo ID for voting, one must provide:
Among the evidence for residency presented by the woman and her son in the video was a copy of his bank statement. After examining it, the DMV clerk questioned whether there was enough “activity” in the account.
“How much activity has he had?,” the clerk says, while closely examining the son’s personal statement. “I need to show…is that checking account or is that savings?…But does he show activity? Does he use it? We need to show activity, not just a balance.”
The woman points the clerk towards an Amazon purchase and he then asks, “Just one?”. Nonetheless, after further examination, according to the video, the clerk decides there is enough activity to send the woman and her son on to the next station at the service center.
The BRAD BLOG asked Kristina Boardman, Director of WisDOT’s Bureau of Field Services, whether the inquiry seen on the video tape, including the requirement for evidence of bank account “activity”, was appropriate and normal.
She says that it was not. She explained that the clerk seen on the video tape “was a temporary person and they were incorrect. That staff person has been advised.”
“I think there was a time that anybody could just go and set up a back account and it didn’t necessarily prove that they were a resident,” explained Boardman. “That is not the case any more.”
“I know that everything that’s online has been updated in the last couple of weeks,” she added when we asked when the policy was changed, and whether it was before or after this video was recently released on YouTube. “The policy itself was changed about a year ago,” she said.
The woman on the tape then inquires what might happen if her son was homeless and didn’t even have a bank account.
“I haven’t dealt with that yet,” the temporary clerk responds, directing her to “the full time employees” as the ones who’d need to answer the question.
At “Station #2” her son’s photo is taken before she proceeds to “Station #3” where the son’s passport appears to be inspected by the next clerk, who then asks for a social security card. He doesn’t have it with him. In the alternative, “proof of Wisconsin residency” is requested, and once again they give this clerk the son’s bank statement.
“This clerk examines the bank statement and finds it acceptable,” a title card in the video says, followed by another which reads: “I find this ‘reading of the bank statement’ to be an invasion of privacy.”
The next title says, “The clerk automatically jots down ‘$28’ on the application,” before “He then notices that the ‘special box’ on the form has been checked, so he crosses off the amount due.”
Here is the pertinent section of the form they would have been filling out, as linked for us [PDF] by WisDOT’s Boardman:
You’ll note the “special box” in question is the one that reads:
Apparently, the DMV clerk did not ask the son whether the application was for a Photo ID needed for voting, or whether it was to be an ID needed for a different purpose. The son had to simply notice the “special box” on the form himself, or he would have been assessed a $28 fee. That he was not asked, “bothers” the woman, according to the next title in the video. “How many people will forget to check the ‘special box’ (or won’t notice it all)?”
“They will either be charged $28 (a poll tax), or will go away without getting a Voter ID,” she contends.
We then hear her ask the clerk whether or not someone who simply said they needed a state ID card, “would they know it was free if it was for voting?”
The clerk answers directly: “Unless they tell us it’s for voting, we charge them.”
After further inquiry as to why — since the ID is supposed to be free for voting, according to the new law — the clerk wouldn’t simply tell the applicant that “right from the start, a voter ID card is free?” The clerk responds, “They’re the same card. So unless you come in and specifically request it, we charge you for it.”
“Let’s say you’re 20 and going on a trip,” he continued in his explanation. “Ya know, you may not vote, so we’re still gonna charge you for that card.”
“Well, would you ask them?,” she wonders. “Would you say ‘Is this for voting, or…’?”
“Only if they check the box,” he replies. “It’s, ya know, one of ’em where, they shouldn’t even really be doing any of it. But it’s just one of ’em where, ya know, they wanted to make this law, and now it’s gonna affect a lot of people. So, if it’s for voting we do it for free, but if it’s not, we don’t know that they’re going to use it for voting.”
The woman continues to wonder why they don’t ask people. Her son wonders why there isn’t “a sign” posted or something.
“They put it on here,” the clerk says, referring to the form, “and that satisfies the state statute, so I can’t really answer that question.”
After requesting to speak to a supervisor about it, one comes over and is asked again whether they notify applicants about their right to receive the ID for free. “They need to ask for it. It’s something that is available, but they should ask for it,” he responds.
“The instruction is that if someone comes in and says they need an ID card to go and vote, then it’s free — if it is an original issuance or a renewal. If someone comes in and they’ve lost their ID and need a replacement, we have to charge for it,” says the supervisor. “Our direction is to let them ask.”
“Who gave that direction?,” the woman asks. “Well, it’s from The Powers That Be,” he responds.
“And who would that be?” she pressed, before being given the name and phone number of Tracy Howard, “the next step in my chain of command,” says the clerk about Howard, who he identifies as his “Regional Operations Manager.”
We called the number for Howard as given by the DMV supervisor and left a voice message inquiring as to why applicants aren’t specifically asked if the ID will be needed for voting, and whether it was a specific directive that they should not do so.
We were called back by Boardman, Howard’s superior, after she said our query was sent up the chain of command to her.
Boardman explained that “the statutory language specifically puts the onus on the customer for getting the ID for free for voting. We try to make that as easy as possible, that this is indeed an option by including a checkbox on the application.”
She read the pertinent section of Wisconsin Statute 343.50 (5) to us over the phone — the part which says that the ID card will be free if “the applicant requests that the identification card be provided without charge for purposes of voting”:
“All they have to do is check that box and we honor it,” continued Boardman, referring to the application. “We’re implementing the law as written.”
The woman in the video then asks the supervisor about how they’d provide an ID “if someone’s homeless?”
“They still have to provide us with an address,” he tells her, “even if it’s the shelter.”
“Well, how do they show you if they don’t have a bank account…How do they…I was asked for a bank statement?”
“Homeless is a very unique situation,” he responds. “A homeless person is not gonna have any of that stuff. If they have a letter from the shelter where they’re staying, saying they are a resident in good standing at the shelter, we can accept that as an exception. Or proof…”
The DMV supervisor’s remarks are cut short, as the woman explains on another title card that her “camera’s memory card is full.” She goes on to explain that the she was told the letter from a shelter where a homeless person is staying “has to be on shelter letterhead,” leading her to wonder “how many homeless shelters have official letterhead.”
When she then asked about a homeless person who “lives on the street rather than in a shelter,” she says she was told that person would still need to provide “acceptable proof of Wisconsin residency,” or they wouldn’t be able to obtain a voter ID.
Finally, the woman goes on to note that “an estimated 300,000 eligible voters in the state…do not have a driver’s license,” according to University of Wisconsin political science professor David Canon — “a number disproportionately made up by elderly, minorities, the disabled and students” — before she wonders how the DMV plans to accommodate all of them who will need “a Voter ID”.
“This is what voter suppression looks like,” she contends as the last statement on the final title card of her video.
According to a 2005 study [PDF] by John Pawasarat of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Employment and Training Institute, described as “a first-time analysis of drivers license issues based on the racial/ethnicity of drivers and unlicensed adults in Wisconsin,” it’s not just homeless Wisconsinites who are likely to have trouble voting when the new Photo ID restriction law takes full effect in 2012. The elderly, ethnic minorities, and the state’s sizable college population are also among those likely to be hardest hit, all demographics who tend to lean Democratic in the state of Wisconsin (and other states where such laws are also being implemented.)
For example, some of the report’s findings include [emphasis in original]:
Minorities and poor populations are the most likely to have drivers license problems. Less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults in the Balance of State (BOS, i.e., outside Milwaukee County). The situation for young adults ages 18-24 is even worse — with only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County with a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the Balance of State.
…
Only 65 percent of adults in Milwaukee County have a current and valid Wisconsin drivers license, compared to 83 percent of adults in the Balance of State.
…
At UWM, Marquette University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a total of 12,624 students live in residence halls, but only 280 (2 percent) have drivers licenses with these dorms’ addresses.
Over all, notes the AFL-CIO, in summarizing from the same report:
- 23 percent of Wisconsinites over the age of 65.
- 17 percent of white men and women.
- 55 percent of African American males and 49 percent of African American women.
- 46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women.
- 78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24.
Good luck with that hoop jumping between now and 2012, Wisconsinites, as your rights continued to be stripped by the new Republican-majority regime.
UPDATE 7/27/11: I covered this story, along with a bit of additional background context, on my Pacifica Radio show on L.A.’s KPFK today. Here is that audio version of this story…
One disturbing feature is the two week waiting period between DMV approval of the paper work and receipt of the photo I.D.
It is interesting to note that the WI GOP, in swiftly ramming their polling place photo ID laws through the legislature, included an amendment to insure that the bill would take effect before the upcoming recall elections.
One wonders whether some lawfully registered voters who had signed a recall petition will now be prevented from casting their vote on Election Day?
Talk about changing the rules in the middle of a game.
Thought you might like to peruse this article;
http://www.opednews.com/article...10725-855.html
Ernie – Just FYI, while the law was quickly amended to take effect before the recall elections, it’s not yet in full effect. During the recalls, poll workers must ask for voter’s IDs, but if they don’t have one, they are allowed to vote normally any way. Or at least they are supposed to be allowed to do so. I’ve received some reports that some weren’t, but haven’t been able to nail those down yet.
Ms. Kitty – Just FYI, I had Fitrakis as my guest on the Malloy Show to discuss that very report last Friday night. If you’re interested in hearing my interview with him, it begins in “Hour” 2 of the show, as archived here.
Forewarned is forearmed- prepare to vote now!
Of course, most people won’t do anything different-
This kind of crap could only be legal where courts and Justice Dept. permit it. And if they permit it, they are in on it.
StPete, #5: If the legislature passes a law and the governor signs it, the courts and (state) Justice Department don’t have much choice about “permitting” it, unless and until someone files suit to challenge it.
They’re left having to take the enacted law as written, giving it prima facia credence, so they can’t self-start any opposition.
Once someone else does file suit, though, a court can act rather quickly. Case in point: Wisconsin’s anti-union law was challenged in court and stopped for a while… until the re-elected Prosser’s vote on the state supreme court upheld it.
So the third and vital component you need to mention is an active and alert citizenry — to challenge bad laws like this; and to keep bad politicians from taking elective offices that can enact or enforce such bad laws.
Non-voting, out of disgust with the available range of candidates, amounts to permitting the bad to continue… thus being “in on it” (as you say above).
The evolution from left to right marches on to an alien, anti-democracy manifesto.
They intend to fully and completely thwart the rights of the weak and infirm to vote.
Here is an interesting bit of news. Bussing homeless persons to the polling place. Got burned by combining the GOTV training (paid training!) with bussing the homeless.
At first glance I might hope that a photo-ID would stop this (if one makes the assumption that homeless persons do not have a PID), but upon further investigation, the GOTV Program REQUIRED a Photo ID to be hired! Ha…what irony.
oops…forgot to post the link…
http://www.wowt.com/home/headli...113459664.html
Make no mistake, Walker & the WI GOP are acting out of a political survival mode in their desperate attempt to suppress the vote via photo ID laws.
According to TPM a majority in WI favor Walker’s Recall.
Unlike CA where a Recall entails a simple “yes” or “no” ballot question, WI Recalls entail direct contests between candidates.
Davey Crocket – And why is that 6-month old story “interesting…news”?
Davey Crockett @8 & 9 provides us with a link to an article that reveals that homeless people were bussed to polls in Omaha, Nebraska.
Not sure what your point is Davey? Are you suggesting that the most unfortunate of our citizens — the homeless — must be stripped of their right to vote because of their poverty?
Are you in favor of a means test, as opposed to citizenship, as the criteria for eligibility to vote?
It seems to me that what disturbs the winners in the global class war is democracy. The idea of one citizen, one vote, should work as the great equalizer. But that doesn’t sit well with right-wing devotees of an inequality that is so stark as to portend to an undemocratic, feudal society.
Ernest and Brad,
The story (ancient by internet time) was interesting to me because of what it illustrated…
My point was to illustrate 1) a case where those acting on behalf of a politician appeared to have attempted to take advantage of homeless persons in order to influence their vote, and 2) the irony of the ID requirement.
Peaked my interest.
The homeless persons I have dealt with are homeless for a reason (a variety of reason actually).
I wish that all homeless persons could get a job, pay taxes, and then vote–in that order. Then they would be in a better position to make objective choices. I discount, however, those who are mentally disabled (as the cause of their homelessness). These should not vote, but we should take care of them–but that is a different thread.
I have no desire to disenfranchise (or means test) the homeless and I do not believe the PID does so. We disagree on this point, so no sense in us arguing back and forth.
The video was interesting and it illustrated a long-held belief of mine that bureaucrats are a bane of the government. It should be a more simple process to obtain a PID, but I suspect rules evolve over time based to catch the crooks.
Anyway, I am sure everyone is glad to see me commenting again 🙂
Davey Crocket –
No actual evidence of #1 there. But I appreciate that’s your interpretation. As to #2, I guess I fail to see the “irony” you refer to.
Voting, unlike a job, is a right, not a “privilege”. Creating barriers to that right is appalling, cynical and evil. And yes, if anyone should be able to express an opinion through the excercise of that right, it should be those who have had the most difficult time with the government system in which they are forced to live: ie Homeless people.
Glad that seeing rights stripped from citizens by Big Government all amuses you though.
Me too. Among them, lack of opportunities given the policies of government that has gutted the US job market.
What “crooks”?
“no actual evidence”
I said “appeared to have.” Here is what Suttle’s office said:
“The decision to intermingle the transportation assistance and worker recruitment created an unacceptable conflict of interest. The financial incentives associated with Election Day employment should never be used to affect the vote of any citizen of Omaha. The Mayor does not support this or any other type of voter manipulation. Any effort to inappropriately acquire votes from the homeless is inconsistent with Mayor Suttle’s core values and will not be tolerated. For these reasons, Mayor Suttle has contacted Forward Omaha and demanded that efforts like yesterday not be repeated. He has made it clear to all involved that under no circumstance should voter transportation and worker recruitment be combined.”
“what crooks?”
The ones to whom the evolving rules are intended to catch.
Perhaps “crooks” was too harsh a term.
There are many reasons for the homeless, not just the ones you stated.
So the hackable voting machines with no voter verification weren’t enough??
Every state that has been mugged by the tea party has this in common.
A fraudulent voter, about as rare as Big Foot, can change one vote.
One voting machine, as prevalent as right wing rhetoric, can change a million votes in an instant.
Do the math Davey.
Davey Crocket – You charged this was “a case where those acting on behalf of a politician appeared to have attempted to take advantage of homeless persons in order to influence their vote.” I said there was “no actual evidence” of that, and you have still provided none.
As to my question as to “what crooks?” you were referring to, you said “The ones to whom the evolving rules are intended to catch.” To which I ask again: What crooks?
The only “crooks” involved here are those that are hoping to keep legal voters from voting. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please have at it. Good luck.
In the meantime, I’ll keep fighting for Constitutional freedoms, no matter how much you seem to be fighting against them.
Brad, I already conceded that “crooks” was too harsh a term but you will not let it go.
Nevertheless, nefarious behavior on the part of the democrats. Were it not so, Suttle would not have given in.
Dredd, show me the equation and I will do the math…happily. Where is the equation? Where is your proof?
Have democrats ever fraudulently won an election?
Davey Crocket said:
Right. Because you kept digging by saying, in reply to my asking “what crooks?”: “The ones to whom the evolving rules are intended to catch.”
So, again, I asked “What crooks?” You aver that the “evolving rules are intended to catch” someone (presumably “crooks”) and so I ask you to specify who you are referring to and what those “crooks” (or less “harsh” name you’d prefer to use) are doing that they deserve to be caught.
Am I supposed to just “let it go” when you have smeared someone here as a criminal, but failed to specify who they are or what they did?
Really? You don’t think people have “given in” to avoid media pressure about bullshit stories? Are you unfamiliar with the fake ACORN stories that succeeded in taking them down?
If you are going to accuse people of crimes, the least you can do is specify who the people are, and what the crimes are that they have committed. You haven’t, and likely won’t, because you are merely passing on propaganda bullshit here and don’t care for having been called on it.
Please prove me wrong. Or, the easier thing, just retract your comments by apologizing and admitting you were incorrect and out of line. Much easier.
Davey, Davey, Davey. Christ, son. You sure do yourself immeasurable damage every time you post.
Brad has managed to do just fine making short shrift of your short-sighted, undersourced hooey, but I AM glad to see you finally asking some questions. You should try doing that more often around here, makes you seem less intentionally mis-informed.
You ask: “Have democrats ever fraudulently won an election?” YES.
Now ask me some more…I’d offer you links without, but I’m really curious to see if you’re even remotely curious. Somehow, I doubt it.
Brad has covered many of those irregularities right here. Simple search would do you a dab of good, doncha think? Or…do you think?
Best to you, our supercilious righteous wrong-ster. Still hoping you have a shred of decency in you, some moral center that will kick in and inspire you to do some real research, instead of knee-jerking-off all over us every time you get a delusional wild partisan hair.
You really should drop that. It’s not working here for you at ALL, yet you keep flogging your flaccid dolphin in public here, in full frontal view of all the experts who read us and can see right through your posts. What you don’t know CAN hurt you.
…and US. Arm yourself. Learn something while you’re here. You’re welcome.
Ms. Dean,
Thanks for answering my question, though it was rhetorical–I already knew the answer.
Also thanks for expanding my vocabulary–had to look up “supercilious.” Good word…will put it into my toolbox.
As far as the other stuff you wrote…whoa…must be some tension that needs to be unleashed.
In all candor, that last bit is offensive to me. I would never say something like that to you or anyone else. I wonder if it meets Brad’s rules. I respect the opinions of those who post here though I mostly disagree but even where I disagree I do not engage in offensive rants–just my upbringing I suppose.
…which part, DC? Dolphin flogging? Or the part where I called your argument “flaccid”? (Not a reference to your ‘membership’, per se, but I understand why you’d be confused.) I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think metaphorical references to masturbatory logic is on Brad’s rules for posting…he’ll let us know.
Did not mean to offend you, but if I did – bonus!
Glad to hear you know (or allude to knowing) something about Democratic shenanigans re: election fraud. Honestly, I can never tell what you know vs. what you don’t, vs. what you’re misinformed about, vs. what you think is real but isn’t, vs. the BS you don’t distinguish as such, vs. the general feeling I get from your posts here that you think election fraud is a partisan issue…you’re just so wrong, so often. Forgive my confusion.
It would seem from your links and posts above that you don’t know it’s legal for homeless people to vote (or…you don’t want it to be?) What’s with that, DC? Not very “king of the wild frontier” of you. Kind of astoundingly un-American, imho.
And hey, now that you bring up your upbringing – I am curious. Authoritarian father? Did you get the switch when you talked in masturbation metaphor?
Yes, SOMEONE’s tense, and it ain’t me. I think now I know why.
Ms. Dean,
I do not consider election fraud a partisan issue. Election fraud in all forms is wrong, irrespective of political persuasion. Fraud of any kind is wrong.
It is legal for homeless people to vote…never said otherwise.
I do believe PIDs are a good idea.
I do believe that voting requires some effort and that is OK in my view. Getting a PID takes some effort. The effort demonstrated by the video is probably too much–I already stated such in this thread.
One of the arguments on the PID issue is that it disenfranchises the homeless.
SO, my ORIGINAL post was intended to illustrate that homeless people can be pawns in the political game as well as the irony of the PID requirement by GOTV. It appears the irony was lost on everyone but me. GOTV was committing fraud in my view. Granted, a PID does not deter using the homeless as pawns–assuming that they have a PID of course.
And BTW…I had a wonderful childhood and continue to live a wonderful adulthood.
I hope that you have a great rest of the day.
I need to get back to work!
Davey Crocket, unable to admit he was wrong, kept digging his hole deeper with:
Why?
You mean like showing up to vote, waiting in line, often for hours to do so? That’s not enough in your view? Folks — not including yourself, because you, like the majority of affluent Republicans already own a Photo ID — should be made to go through extra measures, above and beyond what you must do in order to cast their vote?
Really? Why? And who gets to decide how much extra effort — none of which you are required to extend, just those less fortunate than you — is enough to pass your test?
Actually, you called them “crooks” and then you persisted to suggest they had broken some law in subsequent note. So, no, you didn’t simply “intend to illustrate…homeless people can be pawns.” That would be what we in the reality-based community refer to as a blatant, after-the-fact, ass-covering lie.
And, again, I ask what the evidence you have for that view is? There appears to be none, at least in the link you shared from which you seem to get your “view”.
Please try to actually answer each of the questions I’ve bothered to leave for you this time. It would be very respectful. Thanks in advance.
Question 1: Why?
Answer 1: Because a PID enhances the likelihood that the person voting is the person registered.
Question 2: your question was garbled but I will attempt to answer.
Answer 2: everyone should have equal opportunity to obtaining a PID. I have a PID and I have to go through some effort to get it/keep it current.
Question 3: who gets to decide the effort
Answer 3: sadly, it is the bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers. It should be simpler and have STATED THIS TWICE ALREADY–NOW THE THIRD TIME!!
Question 4: I will have to make this one up for you: “Why Davey, do you think all homeless people are crooks.”
Answer 4: I never called homeless persons crooks. You tried to convolve my comments about the video with the message about using homeless as pawns. This may be a great debating technique, but you get no points. It is a total mis-characterization. Let me make it perfectly clear. I did not call homeless people crooks. Moreover, I do not believe such.
I said that the rules for getting a PID were probably in place to make it hard for those who wish to obtain one for nefarious reasons. I did not direct this toward homeless people, but rather toward the general populace (those of ill intent). I later said that “crooks” was perhaps too harsh a term, but you and everyone else on this blog cannot read my posts for what they are but read into them all of your hate for those of my persuasion.
Question 5: what is the basis for my view?
Answer 5: I read the article. The mayor and his office clearly made a crawfish look like an olympic sprinter (in reverse of course). Nobody was ever convicted, nothing was ever proven. It is all circumstantial. Nevertheless, I was able to form an opinion. That opinion is thus my view.
No one’s hatin’ on you, Davey. I don’t even know of what “persuasion” you are. No self-respecting hater could hate you without more proof. (No need to rush to deliver, it, however.)
Maybe those of your “persuasion” should register somehow to identify yourselves via a state government I.D. designed to restrict the same rights that are allowed to those of our “persuasion”.
Davey Crocket said:
I suppose on a strictly numerical basis, you could be correct. If you are able to find anybody who actually carries out polling place voter impersonation, that is. If so, it’s possible they might be stopped by this scheme. Given that lawmakers in Georgia, for example, (where the first such law to be allowed by the SCOTUS was created, in 2008) could not come up with even one single example of even one fraudulent vote that would have been stopped by their law in the entirety of their state’s history, these laws are unlikely to actually make a dent in the phony GOP story line that there is massive Democratic voter fraud going on.
By way of another example, in Ohio, the League of Women voters did a study of the 2000 and 2004 elections in Ohio and find that of 9 million votes cast in the two elections, there were just 4 fraudulent ballots cast.
Nationally, according to the George W. Bush Dept. of Justice’s own figures collected from early 2003 to late 2005, they were able to identify just 23 cases in the entire nation of voting by people who were ineligible or multiple voting (most likely from absentee fraud, which wouldn’t be detected by polling place Photo ID, but they don’t break that catagory down in their stats). That, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast across the nation during the same period.
So, your “Answer 1”, as is, without any other elements taken into effect could arguably “true” in and of itself.
However, what is FAR more clear and FAR more of note is that Photo ID restrictions tremendously enhance the likelihood that a legal voter will not be able to cast their legal vote and will be denied their constitutional right to do so. There is no debating that point, as the plusses and minuses of Photo ID restrictions taken into account, it’s not even a close contest by anybody’s measure (even the measure of Photo ID proponents).
If you bothered to read the story you are commenting on, you’d see that in the state of WI alone, there are some 300,000 legal voters who would become inelligible to cast their votes. And those numbers, as I also noted in the story, far and away disenfranchise voters likely to cast their votes for one party over another. Here’s a quick reminder of what I already posted in the story above, in case you had trouble getting all the way to the end of it:
* 23 percent of Wisconsinites over the age of 65.
* 17 percent of white men and women.
* 55 percent of African American males and 49 percent of African American women.
* 46 percent of Hispanic men and 59 percent of Hispanic women.
* 78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24.
So if you supporting Photo ID restrictions at the polling place (they do not apply to absentee voters, btw, where the greatest amount of voter fraud actually occurs), then you support disenfranchising far more legal voters than the illegal ones that you falsely believe you’d be detering.
The question was not garbled at all. Nonetheless, if I were you, I’d obfuscate the question as well. As you know, you, unlike hundreds of thousands of voters, already have a Photo ID, because you drive and have a drivers license. Those hundreds of thousands who don’t will have to go through *extra* effort to vote, above and beyond what you do.
By your same (likely purposely) flawed reasoning, you could also say that land owners may show the deed to their property to vote. Anyone who doesn’t own a house or land has to “simply” go get an ID at the DMV (difficult for folks who don’t already drive, but that’s a separate, if related, issue).
You, by dint of your privileged status as a car owner/driver will have to make no extra effort to vote. Everyone else will. They will have to go to greater effort than you. If you don’t see that, or understand that, it’s because you conveniently do not wish to.
It is simpler. We already have a Constitution which speaks, in part, to these issues, and disallows bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers from over-ruling “we, the people” on the matter. That is, unless you can get a favorable bunch of folks on the Supreme Court who do not believe in settled law (no matter how they testified to the contrary during confirmation hearings) who are willing to allow the politicans who are elected via elections to decide who gets to vote and who doesn’t. And to overule a previous finding that $1.50 was a poll tax, while the costs associated with getting a Photo ID no longer amount to such a tax.
It’s not necessary to puts words into my mouth. That may be a great debating technique, but it’s fundamentally dishonest in every way, shape and form.
We can use your actual words instead. You refered to somebody or some class as “crooks” before saying that was “too harsh”. So I asked who you were talking about, and what it is they did that either rose to “crook”edness, or just below it.
I have no “hate” for you, or for those of your “persuasion”, which I’m taking you to mean as Republican. Suggesting otherwise, without evidence, may be a great debating technique, but you get no points, since making yourself a victim is completely dishonest and without substance.
All of that said, if you have statistics you’d like to share on the crooks/less-than-crooks who are of “ill intent”, please let me know what they are. As soon as you tie Photo ID to a Constitutional right — as opposed to something like the privilege of driving a car on our publicly funded (socialist) roads — there is a much higher bar. Clearly, the state of WI is unable to meet that bar, as are all of the other states passing these voter suppression laws.
If everyone had a Photo ID already, as you already happen to, the discussion would be very different. But that’s not the case.
So I’ll defend constitutional and legal rights here, and you are free to make excuses for those rights being legislated away from the citizens.
Your opinion is that there was law breaking, though no evidence for same was given, and even less that “GOTV was committing fraud” or “tak[ing] advantage of homeless persons in order to influence their vote” as you have suggested.
You are welcome to have any opinion you like. And those of us paying attention are equally welcome to notice that your opinion is based on zero evidence and, even worse, on your complete lack of information on a number of topics.
I hope some of this discussion has helped you understand what you don’t.