|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:32 AM EST |
It doesn't show that. On the contrary, it shows
some felons who voted. That
isn't allowed, but
voter fraud -- virtually none. The laws the
Republicans
wanted with ID were about people
pretending to be someone else. That was
their
stated purpose. There is no proof that that
occurs on any significant
level. See this article:
In Minnesota, there have
been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation
reported since 2000.
“Voter fraud at the polls is an insignificant aspect of
American elections,” said elections expert David Schultz, professor of public
policy at Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul.
“There is
absolutely no evidence that [voter impersonation fraud] has affected the outcome
of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United
States,” Schultz said. So what was it really all about? It was
about preventing Democrats from voting, making it hard for them to vote. Here's a judge saying so, in the Ohio context, that it
was done for the same reason as poll taxes used to be used in the South before
it became illegal.
I'm positive we'll see some legislation dealing with
this coming down the road. It was the worst case of voter suppression efforts
I've ever seen, personally. And if it were not for some courageous judges
calling a spade a spade, it would have been much, much worse. As it was, people
were standing in line for hours and hours and hours in the elements just to
vote, and some were intimidated, asked for ID that the law did not require them
to have. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:25 AM EST |
The linked article contains a claim from photo ID advocates
in Minnesota that 156 felons were convicted of violating
voter laws in the last 50 years.
There is nothing in Minnesota law to prevent a felon from
getting photo ID. Therefore a photo ID law would do nothing
to prevent convicted felons from voting.
Further, not all of those convicted actually voted. In
Minnesota it is a crime for a disenfranchised felon to
register to vote. In a report after the 2008 election,
Minnesota prosecutors are quoted saying that about half of
the convicted registered did not vote. They violated the
law by registering, but not by voting.
Even assuming the 156 convictions is an accurate number, it
is not sufficient to justify a photo ID law. It does not
justify imposing the burden of getting photo ID on those
with the least resources to do so.
I suppose it's just a coincidence, but last summer there
were reports in Georgia of four hour, and longer, waits to
renew a driver's license. The driver's license bureau also
issues the state photo ID.
Finally, have any of the "fiscally responsible" Republicans
advocating photo ID said anything about the expense to
taxpayers? Certainly not where I live.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
