Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

sawyerloggingon · Apr 19, 2012

Jetboogieman said:
The terms liberal and Conservative don't actually denote someones intelligence.

Nor does it denote someones actual beliefs, because a liberal in 1850, is different to a liberal in 1950, is different to a conservative in Canada, is different to a conservative in England etc.

And it is true that so called "conservatives" like you have tried to turn liberal into a dirty word.

If one is to stick to what those words mean. Conservative is about maintaining the status quo, and liberal is about challenging that status quo.

In that case Liberals ended slavery.

Liberals got women the right to vote.

Liberals got African Americans the right to vote.

Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly citizens out of poverty.

Liberals ended segregation.

Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the clean water act, the clean air act.

Liberals created medicare.

What did the conservatives of their day do? They opposed every single one of those things.

Now if you've actually been paying attention to what I've been saying, I'm not trying to say Conservatives of today want slavery again, what I'm trying to say is these terms are relative to the time, and place we are in. So when you try to hurl that word around "liberal" as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from.

It won't work.

I have never seen such a long list of liberal delusion and revisionist history, impressive.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

sawyerloggingon said:
I have never seen such a long list of liberal delusion and revisionist history, impressive.

What you're seeing, through goggles of partisan hackery, is the official results of the South Carolina Election Commission investigation. You didn't recognize it, probably, because it's reality.

Kal'Stang · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Can we see the actual results of the investigation? Because these sorts of claims are made all the time, and 99% of the time they turn out to be false. Let's look at the state's initial inquiry into the supposed dead voter scandal:

Oop -- looks like another epic fail!

Your own article says that the investigation is not complete yet you're tossing it in here as if its a done deal.

Yep...epic fail alright, by you.

Not to mention you totally ignored what I was actually concerned about. Which was the college students finding dead people voting.

Kal'Stang · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Yes, I would definitely want a lot more than that. Despite the "shocked" tone of the reporters, it appears that their investigation only turned up one illegal alien who voted (actually she doesn't even have an accent -- is she illegal?), and there's no reason to think that a photo ID law would have prevented it. This is another case where the problem seems to stem from something else (Florida's motor voter law). Nor can we be sure that the one illegal who allegedly voted actually voted. Do you think it's possible that ... wait for it ... there could be two people with the same name?!

Two people of the same name, sure its always possible. I know there are lots of John Smiths in the country. But two people with the same address? Highly unlikely.

MaggieD · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
No, I absolutely guarantee you that you can't. I've posted three studies on the subject of voter ID. Now you post your three studies showing that voter impersonation is, one, a real problem, and two, a problem that voter ID laws can fix.

opcorn2:

opcorn2:

No studies are needed. Having to prove you're who you say you are is so basic that the left's demand for "proof" -- which they systematically criticize, claim they want more, and ignore -- is nothing more than crying, "Ohhhhhh, but the chilllllllldren!!!"

AdamT said:
Is it really hard to see reality? Because if you look at reality, you will see that these laws are almost universally sponsored by Republicans, and Republican lobbying groups like ALEC, and they are almost universally opposed by Democrats. Do you really, honestly believe that Democrats don't care about voter fraud?

No, I don't think Democrats who oppose voter i.d. care about voter fraud one bit.

Gimmesometruth said:
I would rather have a large number of eligible voters vote and accept a tiny fraction of fraud rather than a sizable number of eligible voters not voting with little or no change in the fraud.

I'd much rather rest comfortably in the notion that we're doing what we can to make sure we don't disenfranchise the votes of those who are legitimately entitled to vote.
I wouldn't.

AdamT said:
And the Indiana officials who supported the law couldn't find a single example of voter impersonation in the entire history of Indiana elections. Imagine that.

Who cares? This is the obstacle the left always throws up when voter i.d. is brought up. Explain to me how you would "find" an example of impersonation if no one is required to produce an i.d.? Perhaps it's that a poll worker has to say, "Hey, wait a minute. I know John Smith. You're not John Smith." Gimme a break.

And in states where some studies show that voter participation goes down? Prove to me that's not an indication of voter fraud being stopped in its tracks. The whole idea of requiring voter i.d.'s is to lessen participation -- participation by frauds.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Your own article says that the investigation is not complete yet you're tossing it in here as if its a done deal.

You are mistaken again. The investigation is complete. What they said is that they don't have enough money to investigate the remaining claims, and they are apparently satisfied that at least 95% of them are innocent mistakes based on the first 207 claims.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

MaggieD said:
No studies are needed. Having to prove you're who you say you are is so basic that the left's demand for "proof" -- which they systematically criticize, claim they want more, and ignore -- is nothing more than crying, "Ohhhhhh, but the chilllllllldren!!!"

No, I don't think Democrats who oppose voter i.d. care about voter fraud one bit.

I'd much rather rest comfortably in the notion that we're doing what we can to make sure we don't disenfranchise the votes of those who are legitimately entitled to vote.
I wouldn't.

Who cares? This is the obstacle the left always throws up when voter i.d. is brought up. Explain to me how you would "find" an example of impersonation if no one is required to produce an i.d.? Perhaps it's that a poll worker has to say, "Hey, wait a minute. I know John Smith. You're not John Smith." Gimme a break.

And in states where some studies show that voter participation goes down? Prove to me that's not an indication of voter fraud being stopped in its tracks. The whole idea of requiring voter i.d.'s is to lessen participation -- participation by frauds.

Hmm, so you claim you can produce studies and then, when challenged, your response is that no studies are needed. Brilliant. Your idea seems to be that, if it sounds like it might be a good idea, why not just pass a new law and new regulations that will inconvience millions of people and cost them tens of millions of dollars?!

As how they can discover fraud, that should be obvious from the South Carolina story. In fact they do check ballots against the voter roles and they do investigate fraud claims when they arise. It just happens that those claims almost never turn out to be anything. As I mentioned, the Bush DOJ invested a lot of time and effort trying to find organized voter fraud and they basically came up with bupkis.

It's amazing to me that so-called conservatives who supposedly favor less government regulation are all for new, expensive, regulation that is being mandated for no demonstrable reason.

Kal'Stang · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
You are mistaken again. The investigation is complete. What they said is that they don't have enough money to investigate the remaining claims, and they are apparently satisfied that at least 95% of them are innocent mistakes based on the first 207 claims.

No wonder you are confused. Read it again....

The State Election Commission said Thursday that 95 percent of the 207 allegedly dead people who voted in the 2010 general election either were alive and cast ballots legally or did not vote.

That's 95% of the 207...not 95% of the whole based on the first 207.

However, Attorney General Alan Wilson Thursday said his office still is investigating the allegations along with SLED.

“Everything we do in prosecution and law enforcement is expensive. No question. As a prosecutorial agency, however, we can’t pass the buck on a case because it is expensive,” said Mark Plowden, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office. “We don’t believe you can perform 20 percent of an investigation on potential criminal activity and throw in the towel and call it a day.”

And as is evidenced here the investigation is still going on. It was not stopped due to no money as you claim. The only money mentioned is that they are not going to stop the investigation "just because it is expensive".

MaggieD · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Hmm, so you claim you can produce studies and then, when challenged, your response is that no studies are needed. Brilliant. Your idea seems to be that, if it sounds like it might be a good idea, why not just pass a new law and new regulations that will inconvience millions of people and cost them tens of millions of dollars?!

As how they can discover fraud, that should be obvious from the South Carolina story. In fact they do check ballots against the voter roles and they do investigate fraud claims when they arise. It just happens that those claims almost never turn out to be anything. As I mentioned, the Bush DOJ invested a lot of time and effort trying to find organized voter fraud and they basically came up with bupkis.

It's amazing to me that so-called conservatives who supposedly favor less government regulation are all for new, expensive, regulation that is being mandated for no demonstrable reason.

#1 -- Having to prove fraud is ridiculous. Having to identify one's self with an i.d. is just so plainly common sense as to negate any need for proof that fraud occurs.
#2 -- Checking ballots against registered voters does not uncover voter fraud. It does not in any way prove that Voter John Smith is really Voter John Smith. And that that same Voter John Smith isn't Voter Adam Caine in another precinct.
#3 -- The continual mistake the right has made in dealing with liberal cries of "Ohhhhh, the chillllldren!!!" has been to think they should have to prove anything. Identifying one's self is a basic requirement of life. Don't want to identify yourself? Don't vote.
#4 -- Having an identification is neither new nor expensive. Driver's License. State I.D. Every state has 'em. Know why? Because we all need formal identification to get on with life.

Gie · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Blah blah blah. Where are those studies you claim you posted? opcorn2:

You really just are not cut out for critical thinking exercises are you? I said you have been shown over and over again that voter turnout in states that passed voter ID laws has not produced the "disenfranchisement" of "hundreds of thousands" of voters that various morons on the internet have claimed was going to occur over and over like some idiotic broken record.

Here is a link you have now ignored every single time it has been shown to you, over and over.
Voter Photo Identification: Protecting the Security of Elections

While the hackery is strong with you, everything else is pretty feeble. Maybe it is time to try to work back in evil republicans and their evil union killing machinations again, huh?

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
Your own article says that the investigation is not complete yet you're tossing it in here as if its a done deal.

Yep...epic fail alright, by you.

Not to mention you totally ignored what I was actually concerned about. Which was the college students finding dead people voting.

You're right -- my bad. However, given that they've already checked over 200 and 95% of them were innocent mistakes, it seems highly improbably that any significant problem will be found.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

MaggieD said:
#1 -- Having to prove fraud is ridiculous. Having to identify one's self with an i.d. is just so plainly common sense as to negate any need for proof that fraud occurs.

Translation: I'm right because I say so, all evidence to the contrary.

Brilliant.

MaggieD · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Translation: I'm right because I say so, all evidence to the contrary.

Brilliant.

I took away the only talking point you had and left you speechless. It's about damned time.

Gie · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
You're right -- my bad. However, given that they've already checked over 200 and 95% of them were innocent mistakes, it seems highly improbably that any significant problem will be found.

AdamT said:
Translation: I'm right because I say so, all evidence to the contrary.

Brilliant.

Round and round he goes, like some kind of mind washing machine...............

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Gie said:
You really just are not cut out for critical thinking exercises are you? I said you have been shown over and over again that voter turnout in states that passed voter ID laws has not produced the "disenfranchisement" of "hundreds of thousands" of voters that various morons on the internet have claimed was going to occur over and over like some idiotic broken record.

Here is a link you have now ignored every single time it has been shown to you, over and over.
Voter Photo Identification: Protecting the Security of Elections

While the hackery is strong with you, everything else is pretty feeble. Maybe it is time to try to work back in evil republicans and their evil union killing machinations again, huh?

Thank you for finally providing something other than references to nonexistent arguments that you claim to have made in the past -- even if the article is a partisan hack piece published by the wingnut Heritage Foundation! :2rofll:

Basically the meat of the article focuses on a 40-year-old NY grand jury investigation that resulted in no convictions. For some reason the author would not provide a copy of the investigation, but it eventually came out and, of course, it turns out that almost all of the alleged fraud would not have been stopped by a photo ID law, and in fact the vast majority of it would be caught now due to changes in election procedures:

The fact that most of this fraud took place 40 years ago and nothing like it has been discovered since is a good argument that schemes like these cannot successfully be done anymore. Vote buying schemes, fraudulent registration schemes, and absentee ballot fraud do get discovered and prosecuted. There’s no reason to think this kind of fraud, if it happened, would not at least occasionally be discovered and prosecuted as well. At most we find a handful of isolated cases—nothing organized, and certainly nothing to swing elections.

1984 New York Grand Jury Report on Voter Fraud Now Available | Election Law Blog

Grim17 · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
generally voter participation does not fall immediately when these laws are passed because they are attended with a lot of publicity, education campaigns, and concerted efforts to register voters. But after a couple of years those efforts fade and the voter participation rate starts to slide.

So what your saying is, according to those studies there is no problem the first couple of years (aka, no disenfranchisement) but for some reason after those first 2 years, voter participation drops off.

If there is no disenfranchisement the first few years, then voter ID's don't cause disenfranchisement period. It sounds to me like voters were either are less enthusiastic about those particular elections, or simply too lazy to get off their asses and vote.

Indiana democrats couldn't produce even 1 disenfranchised voter in their effort to have SCOTUS over turn their voter ID law, and a study on the voter ID law in Georgia showed that the law has had no effect on voter turn out and only a very, very small percentage of registered voters didn't have the proper ID and had to obtain one anyway.

Conclusion: The whole "disenfranchisement" argument is nothing but a steaming crock of democratic crap, designed to cover up the real reason they oppose voter ID's. We all know what that reason is and it's an American disgrace.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

MaggieD said:
I took away the only talking point you had and left you speechless. It's about damned time.

You posted a useless tautology and tried to pretend it was an argument. SUPER weak.

Gie · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
Thank you for finally providing something other than references to nonexistent arguments that you claim to have made in the past -- even if the article is a partisan hack piece published by the wingnut Heritage Foundation! :2rofll:

Basically the meat of the article focuses on a 40-year-old NY grand jury investigation that resulted in no convictions. For some reason the author would not provide a copy of the investigation, but it eventually came out and, of course, it turns out that almost all of the alleged fraud would not have been stopped by a photo ID law, and in fact the vast majority of it would be caught now due to changes in election procedures:

1984 New York Grand Jury Report on Voter Fraud Now Available | Election Law Blog

Round and round he goes, like some kind of mind washing machine for dishonest hackish morons. Circles within circles, like a broken whirlygig.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Grim17 said:
So what your saying is, according to those studies there is no problem the first couple of years (aka, no disenfranchisement) but for some reason after those first 2 years, voter participation drops off.

Sometimes the dropoff is immediate, but it can be ameliorated by making the IDs free (at taxpayer expense), implementing an educational campaign to make voters aware of the requirements (at taxpayer expense), and by voter registration drives aimed at minimizing the impact of the laws. But once the educational campaign ends and the ramped up effort to register voters fades, the laws result in a significant decrease in voter participation. So again, a lot of wated time and money to address a non-problem.

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Gie said:
Round and round he goes, like some kind of mind washing machine for dishonest hackish morons. Circles within circles, like a broken whirlygig.

And yet another stupid, non-responsive word fart from Gie. Where it stops, nobody knows....

And you wonder why people don't respond to you? :lol:

Gie · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
And yet another stupid, non-responsive word fart from Gie. Where it stops, nobody knows....

And you wonder why people don't respond to you? :lol:

I have no problem with people responding to me, least of all morons responding to me saying nobody responds to me. That non existent "issue" really changes the basic fact that you post like a dishonest cretin who performs routine mental enemas upon himself over and over again, now does it not?

Well, no it does not. Imagine that.

Kreton · Apr 19, 2012

AdamT said:
You posted a useless tautology and tried to pretend it was an argument. SUPER weak.

Because Adam says so. The guy doesn't have a valid argument so he resorts to saying things like super weak. and And yet another stupid, non-responsive word fart. He has resorted to the arguments of a 10 year old. I think you guys have once again beaten the baby into submission. Kudos.

Gie · Apr 19, 2012

muciti said:
Because Adam says so. The guy doesn't have a valid argument so he resorts to saying things like super weak. and And yet another stupid, non-responsive word fart. He has resorted to the arguments of a 10 year old. I think you guys have once again beaten the baby into submission. Kudos.

Don't worry, he will simply..............

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

Gie said:
I have no problem with people responding to me, least of all morons responding to me saying nobody responds to me. That non existent "issue" really changes the basic fact that you post like a dishonest cretin who performs routine mental enemas upon himself over and over again, now does it not?
Well, no it does not. Imagine that.

Dumb de dumb....

Do you have any response to my criticism of the Heritage Foundation article you posted, or are you planning to continute posting nothing but simpleminded ad hominem to divert attention from your pathetic source?

AdamT · Apr 19, 2012

muciti said:
Because Adam says so. The guy doesn't have a valid argument so he resorts to saying things like super weak. and And yet another stupid, non-responsive word fart. He has resorted to the arguments of a 10 year old. I think you guys have once again beaten the baby into submission. Kudos.

Looks like the peanut gallery is filling up. What Maggie wrote was a pure tautology (ID laws are good because ... IT'S OBVIOUS!). Try to come up with something worth reading.

Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

sawyerloggingon

AdamT

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

MaggieD

AdamT

AdamT

Kal'Stang

MaggieD

Gie

AdamT

AdamT

MaggieD

Gie

AdamT

Grim17

Battle Ready

AdamT

Gie

AdamT

AdamT

Gie

Kreton

Doesn't know

Gie

AdamT

AdamT