Voter ID pattern is emerging.

[rld]

Looks like the courts are slapping these down as quickly as the GOP hacks can draft them up:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charl...h-week-for-voting-issues-in-court-134027.html

This sure is not the party of Abe Lincoln.

 

[groggy]

Just look at it as a preview of what the conservatives will likely be up to here next election.

 

[WoodPeckr]

This is all part of the execrable GOPer mindset today, to try and 'steal' elections any which way they can!....

 

[Aardvark154]

DOJ just approved the New Hampshire voter ID law yesterday.

Now why you ask would New Hampshire of all places have to seek DOJ prior approval? During the New Hampshire test election which was used for the Voting Rights Act there was dramatic under-voting in a number of places in New Hampshire - of course what the geniuses in Washington failed to take into account was that there had been a Blizzard on Election Day! However, almost a half-century later New Hampshire still requires prior approval.

 

[fuji]

Aardvark, do you actually doubt that the GOP pushes these ID laws because they believe they will exclude viewers likely to vote democrat?

 

[Aardvark154]

Fuji, do you doubt the specific instances of voter fraud over several decades that the New Hampshire General Court (the Legislature) documented?

 

[Asterix]

Fuji, do you doubt the specific instances of voter fraud over several decades that the New Hampshire General Court (the Legislature) documented?

Do you doubt that any cases of "fraud" pale in comparison to people who will be excluded from voting? Make your case counselor, I'd love to hear it.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Surprised counsel doesn't argue it's better to exclude thousands of Americans from voting if that stops a handful of folks from voting fraudulently....

 

[Aardvark154]

Do you doubt that any cases of "fraud" pale in comparison to people who will be excluded from voting? Make your case counselor, I'd love to hear it.

Read if for yourself and see how onerous you believe it to be, particularly the free nondriver’s picture identification card for voting purposes:

659:13 Obtaining a Ballot.

I. A person desiring to vote shall, before being admitted to the enclosed space within the guardrail, announce his or her name to one of the ballot clerks who shall thereupon repeat the name; and, if the name is found on the checklist by the ballot clerk, the ballot clerk shall put a checkmark beside it and again repeat the name. The ballot clerk shall state the address listed on the checklist for the voter, and ask if the address is correct; if the address on the checklist is not correct, the ballot clerk shall correct the address in red on the paper checklist and the supervisors of the checklist shall cause the centralized voter registration database to reflect the correction. The ballot clerk shall request that the voter present a valid photo identification meeting the requirements of paragraph II. If the voter does not have a valid photo identification, the ballot clerk shall inform the voter that he or she may execute a qualified voter affidavit. The voter, if still qualified to vote in the town or ward and having presented a valid photo identification verifying the voter’s identity or executed a qualified voter affidavit, and unless challenged as provided for in RSA [659:27-33] 659:27 through 659:33, shall then be allowed to enter the space enclosed by the guardrail. After the voter enters the enclosed space, the ballot clerk shall give the voter one of each ballot to be voted on in that election which shall be folded as it was upon receipt from the secretary of state. The ballot clerk shall also mark the checklist using a ruler or other straight edge to ensure accuracy of the mark in order to show that the voter obtained his or her ballot. The person entering voter information into the centralized voter registration database shall cause the records to indicate when a voter has not presented a valid photo identification and whether such voter executed a qualified voter affidavit.

II. The following forms of identification bearing a photograph of the voter shall satisfy the identification requirements of paragraph I:

(a) A driver’s license issued by the state of New Hampshire or any other state, regardless of expiration date.

(b) An identification card issued by the director of motor vehicles under the provisions of RSA 260:21.

(c) A United States armed services identification card.

(d) A United States passport, regardless of expiration date.

(e) Any other valid photo identification issued by federal, state, county, or municipal government.

(f) A valid student identification card.

(g) A photo identification not authorized by subparagraphs (a) through (f) but determined to be legitimate by the supervisors of the checklist, the moderator, or the town or city clerk, provided that if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to the use of such photo identification, the voter shall be required to execute a qualified voter affidavit as if no identification was presented.

(h) Verification of the person’s identity by a moderator or supervisor of the checklist or the town or city clerk, provided that if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to such verification, the voter shall be required to execute a challenged voter affidavit.

III. If a voter on the nonpublic checklist executes a qualified voter affidavit in accordance with paragraph I, the affidavit shall not be subject to RSA 91-A.

IV.(a) The secretary of state shall cause a letter of identity verification to be mailed by first class mail to each voter who executed a qualified voter affidavit in accordance with paragraph I. The letter shall be mailed within 60 days after the election, except that if the election is a state primary election, the letter shall be mailed 60 days after the general election, and if the election is a regularly scheduled municipal election, the letter shall be mailed by the July 1 or January 1 next following the election. The secretary of state shall mark the envelope with instructions to the United States Post Office not to forward the letter and to provide address correction information. The letter shall notify the person that a person who did not present valid photo identification voted using his or her name and address and instruct the person to return the letter within 90 days with a written confirmation that the person voted or to contact the attorney general immediately if he or she did not vote. The letter shall also inform the person of the procedure for obtaining a free nondriver’s picture identification card for voting purposes.

(b) The secretary of state shall cause any letters mailed pursuant to subparagraph (a) that are returned as undeliverable by the United States Post Office to be referred to the attorney general. The secretary of state shall also prepare and forward to the attorney general a list of all persons who were mailed letters under subparagraph (a) and have not confirmed that they voted. Upon receipt of notice from a person who receives a letter of identity verification that the person did not vote, or upon receipt of a referral from the secretary of state, the attorney general shall cause an investigation to be made to determine whether fraudulent voting occurred.

(c) Within 60 days after a state general election, the secretary of state shall compile a report of the number of voters that did not present valid photo identification at each election occurring since the previous state general election, and forward the report to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, and the chairpersons of the appropriate house and senate standing committees with jurisdiction over election law.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0289.html

 

[basketcase]

Just look at it as a preview of what the conservatives will likely be up to here next election.

You give harper too much credit.

 

[basketcase]

Read if for yourself and see how onerous you believe it to be, particularly the free nondriver’s picture identification card for voting purposes:

...

How does a free cause a government issued photo ID to become an avenue for voter fraud?

From what I understand, documented cases of voter fraud in the modern era are pretty insignificant. Sort of like sending a battleship to kill a fly.

 

[Aardvark154]

How does a free cause a government issued photo ID to become an avenue for voter fraud?

Huh?

From what I understand, documented cases of voter fraud in the modern era are pretty insignificant. Sort of like sending a battleship to kill a fly.

New Hampshire documented many. Further since the argument it would be to expensive for the poor is unavailable, what else are you going to argue other than philosophical disagreement.

 

[Asterix]

Read if for yourself and see how onerous you believe it to be, particularly the free nondriver’s picture identification card for voting purposes:




http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0289.html

Counselor, you are relying on government to contact all people who are legally, legitamtely able to vote, to make sure they have these cards. I thought you didn't believe in government's ability to do such things. This will be especially hard in Southern states and in poor neighborhoods and communities that have been forgotten. You're wrong. This is a blatant attempt to restrict voter involvement.

 

[Aardvark154]

Asterix, read the New Hampshire law, there is a good reason why the DOJ Precleared it.

 

[basketcase]

Huh?
...

My bad. I mis-read the post.

I do find it an interesting law since it does not seem capable of eliminating voter fraud from happening but merely creating a mechanism to count the number of potential fraud cases. Unless they had a way of identifying who the vote was for (and I doubt that's legal) it's a data collection process. If someone votes without picture ID and chooses not to get picture ID in the future, they will still be able to vote in the next election. The only possible result on fraud is if the stats are used as a justification for more severe laws in the future.

This law isn't particularly heinous but many of the proposed laws are (and why they are being struck down).

 

[Aardvark154]

If someone votes without picture ID and chooses not to get picture ID in the future, they will still be able to vote in the next election.

The New Hampshire Law is incremental, the above is true for the next two elections, after that if you refuse to obtain a photo ID, the Register of voters will take your photograph and create one.

 

[fuji]

Fuji, do you doubt the specific instances of voter fraud over several decades that the New Hampshire General Court (the Legislature) documented?

I think the real problem is that you have created an economy that depends on illegal labour, but you don't want to enfranchise the illegal labourers. Given the supposed scale of the problem, I don't really think you can blame the labourers.

If you believe in democracy you should enfrancise those people anyway, in which case--problem solved.

If you don't believe in having people illegally in the country, then maybe, just maybe, you should restructure your economy so that there aren't jobs for them. And yes you could easily do that--offer an open amnesty to all illegal labourers, while sending anyone who employs one to jail for 10 years, and the problem will quickly resolve itself. Of course... then you would have to start paying a lot more for goods and services because you'd lose the cheap labour on which you rely.

 

[rld]

Asterix, read the New Hampshire law, there is a good reason why the DOJ Precleared it.

Yes, primarily that you can sign an affidavit rather than present photo ID. A very reasonable approach that most GOP initiatives have ignored.

 

[basketcase]

...
If you believe in democracy you should enfrancise those people anyway, in which case--problem solved....

Democracy means majority rule so why don't we leave it to the majority of Americans to decide whether to extend the franchise to a group of people who went there knowing they would have very limited legal rights.

Maybe before complaining about the US, you could advocate for a similar change in Canada. We have our share of illegals and migrant workers; maybe not have the same numbers as the US but we also have no where near their population.

 

[fuji]

Democracy means majority rule so why don't we leave it to the majority of Americans to decide whether to extend the franchise to a group of people who went there knowing they would have very limited legal rights.

Because that isn't majority rule, it's tyranny by the the enfrancised people over the disenfranchised. Majority rule is not democracy unless you have universal suffrage. You have 11 to 12 million illegal workers, representing 3-4% of the population of the United States. If there were one or two of them, you would have a point, but when you have 11 or 12 million people it's structural. Those people are there because the United States, whatever it may say officially, wants them to be there, employs them, brings them in, and relies on their labour.

Since they are such an integral part of your economy, and such a large part of your population, they should be enfranchised.

If instead you would rather not have them in the country, I pointed out how to do that. It would not be all that hard for the government to pass laws that would eliminate that workforce, by prosecuting employers so severely that no-one would employ them. Since the US is choosing, rather consciously, NOT to do that, I submit that you are choosing to have those people in your country, and therefore, they should have a vote. They are not there despite your intentions to keep them out, they are there because of your intentions to employ them as an integral part of your country.