Court will find record of voter suppression
Wikimedia Commons
After substantial review, Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006 because the powerful still try to prevent the weak from voting.
The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear an Alabama case that seeks to neuter the Justice Department’s power to prevent voter suppression in places historically prone to discriminate against minorities.
Two questions are at stake: Did Congress overstep its constitutional bounds in reauthorizing in 2006 the 1965 Voting Rights Act? Is the provision under Section5 still necessary that requires all or part of 16 states, including Virginia, to seek “preclearance” from the Justice Department before enacting any changes, such as redistricting, precinct locations, types of voting machines, new voter ID provisions?
February 27, 2013 - 6:27 AM
If the state is going to shoulder the cost of providing photo IDs to the protected class you are worried about, how does having to show it to vote “suppress” them?
When precincts go 99% for any candidate, you know there is voter fraud afoot. But the Democrats want to ensure that voter fraud keeps happening.
Voter ID and a requirement for having a reason for early voting is not voter suppression. They are common sense measures to assure the voter is who they claim to be and prevents multiple voting by the same individual. Even if such abuse is small, it is justified for combating all voter fraud. With today’s technology such measures are simple for all to comply. To claim otherwise is a willingness to accept a level of voter fraud, however small. Such abuse does exist.
Since voter fraud happens more in absentee balloting than in any other place (and photo ID does nothing in that arena), this is just a scheme to make it harder to vote for those the GOTP has deemed “Democrat” voters. Nothing more and nothing less.
–
Henry, if I had a candidate so appallingly bad he got 0 votes in some precincts, I would want to blame unproven voter fraud too. Even better when an anonymous blog entity can smugly level such charges and insults without a shred of proof required. What a world.
Why is it that the liberals hate the NRA for supporting candidates both financially and with campaigning, all perfectly legal, while tending to ignore voter fraud perpetrated by aliens and minorities, which is a felony?
The libs just shrug off voter fraud and say it’s not a problem!
If aliens voted Republican, we would have voter ID and guard towers manned with machine guns every 100 yards along our southern border!
Google “voter fraud convictions” and you get over 2 million hits! It is a problem.
So is having to show ID to buy liquor or cigarettes also a scheme to make it harder for Democrats to do so? As yet no one has answered the question. If the state is going to provide the ID, how is having to show it on election day suppressing anyone?
Now Henry is parroting suzie, but over on the RT. Jeez.
-
Henry, show us where the Repubs or anybody has come up with proof that those precinct votes ere a result of fraud.
Google “right wing media” and you will get “About 111,000,000 results (0.33 seconds)”. So what?
–
I do not “hate the NRA for supporting candidates both financially and with campaigning”, I hate the NRA for pretending that their mission has anything to do with rights and self defense. That is their cover and gun sales is their mission.
–
Convictions for the felony of voter fraud are just not what you all claim. Over 118 million votes were cast in 2012. Just 1% of that is one million one hundred eighty thousand. You want to disenfranchise voters, make them feel distrusted and make them jump through Jim Crow-esque hoops for far, far, far less than 1% of fraud. That is clearly partisan and has nothing to do with fair, free or open elections IMO.
–
“Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state’s Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.”
–
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376
–
Honesty and integrity do not reside with those seeking to stop Americans from voting or making it harder for them to do. Neither does evidence.
#6 Buying liquor or cigarettes is not something that is limited to one day per year and often to a window of a couple of hours on that day for people with jobs. If something goes wrong with your ID at the liquor store, you can come back the next day. Not so with voting. Also, I hope you are speaking for yourself when you imply that cigarettes and liquor are as fundamentally important to free citizenship as voting.
Chuck, do you know the details of just how “the state is going to provide the ID”? What will the state require? Where will they have to go to get it? How many trips? Who pays for or arranges that? Will it expire? How often will they be required to “renew” or “update” it?
–
Do you REALLY equate voting with buying liquor or cigarettes or any thing else for that matter? Do you REALLY? Are Women’s Suffrage, Jim Crow, poll taxes and the Civil Rights Era just words to you? People fought and died for the right to suffrage and it should be the last of any right to be infringed and the first right deemed to be straight from the Creator IMO. Removing perfectly acceptable methods of identification is infringement. Creating specific tests and acceptable ID for voting IS a poll tax. Do I trust Virginia and several other states to do it right? HELL NO.
10 – shouldn’t we all trust the state to develop a plan that would not discriminate, allow all eligible to vote with minimal fuss, etc? Isn’t that what the left is always saying, that no one can do this but the state? And that the state is infallible (or will work diligently to correct all wrongs)? Why the sudden concern over the state’s abilities to determine requirements, verification protocols, renewal procedures, etc? Why bring up something now that you have worked so hard to dismiss in the past?
The problem here is the double standard. States still subject to the act have had voting requirements shot down by federal oversight…..while states not subject have had more restrictive laws upheld….and by federal courts.
Just one (of many) examples, Texas & Indiana, respectively.
Where is it assumed all such acts in the south are racist…..but those elsewhere are not?
Answer, the federal government.
I was astonished twenty years ago when I voted in Virginia, and not only was not required to show identification but was not even required to sign my name.
I suggest the Commonwealth consider the method used in New York. A booklet is produced for each election, listing registered voters in a district and showing their signatures. Before voting, people sign their name beneath the signature from when they registered. I am not aware of any complaints about this method, which has been used for many decades.
If your comment #11 was indeed aimed at lowly ignorant me 89Hoo, I think it would behoove you to visit the archives. I do not trust states to do jack squat and I believe I have been extremely consistent on that point. If you can find an issue where I deferred to this or any other state to solve, resolve, or even know a problem, do bring that example forward and we can discuss what I am “always saying”. I am willing to bet that claiming “states rights” and “trust the state to handle it” are not part of my blogging history.
14 – not you specifically, Sandi, statists in general. Thank you for responding.
#14 Dear Mrs. Saunders….as I have perhaps said to the point of being trite….not, I think, with ‘Hoo…..but others, surely he can speak for himself.
Yet, with this qualification, I am willing to bet many dollars to few doughnuts, that by “the state” he means government in general.
One might read another interpretation as looking for issue (something I would never do).
John R: “Google “voter fraud convictions” and you get over 2 million hits! It is a problem.”
And the first link when you do that: “Voter fraud: It’s real, but rare.”
“Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.”
And for this, you want the state to spend millions of dollars providing IDs? Do you know how massive and coordinated an in-person vote fraud conspiracy would have to be to have any effect on a statewide, much less a national race?
Dan, with electronic machines, it would be easier than you might thing. Changing the program to alter one out of every twenty votes, or fifteen votes, or whatever, would not be that hard, and would only need involve a few well-paid people, and almost impossible to catch.
.
If you do a search on auditing voting machines, we see that there is serious concern for their accuracy and their security, and the line between an accidental algorithm error and an intentional one can be almost invisible.
.
I’m not saying we should fly off of a handle to fix what may not be a huge problem (of course, we may not see that it’s a problem), but we cannot be blind to the possibility.
@ #16, Jim Lucas”
Dear Mr. Lucas, you may well “bet many dollars to few doughnuts” and you would lose. If 89Hoo, in saying “the state” meant “government in general” in this particular context, my limited powers of reasoning and deduction, not to mention comprehension, would be bound to say “hunh?”
–
Granted there might be instances in discussing the state versus federal role that anyone would refer to them both as “the state” but not often. Since this issue was the states (specifically those under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act) versus the Federal DOJ decisions, I took him to mean the actual states involved when he said “the state”. Being the ignorant rube I am, it was a natural mistake.
–
True, one “might read another interpretation as looking for issue”, something that you regularly do, but your issue is with him, not me, in my lowly opinion.
–
If indeed 89Hoo meant shouldn’t we all trust the federal government to develop a plan that would not discriminate, allow all eligible to vote with minimal fuss, etc, then by golly, I agree wholeheartedly and apologize for my ignorance once again making a mess of a great discussion.
–
IMLO, no one can do this but the federal government. These states cannot be trusted with making such vital rules and that has been proven. While not “infallible”, it certainly has a broader view than any of the Voting Rights Act states do and “will work diligently to correct all wrongs”.
–
As Sotomayor put it so well yesterday, “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”
89Hoo #18, what specifically about a photo ID would stop what you just outlined as the perfect crime?
#18 89Hoo, okay, “might be easier than you think” … “impossible to catch” … “serious concern” … “almost invisible” …
–
Nice fear-mongering language, but how does voter-ID prevent “accidental algorithm error”?
–
As Dan has pointed out, you can shout from the rooftops that voter ID fraud could be a problem, but in fact it isn’t a problem, because reasonable measures are already in place.
#19 Spin as you wish….(but I agree with much of your personal observations)….think I keep my dollars & you owe me doughnuts.
Pray tell….when someone says; “the state”…..which of the individual states of the Union do you assume? You are aware VA is a commonwealth?
Per #11….you may wish to look up statist.
Voter fraud ranks right up there with bigfoot, ufo’s and that random person you will have to shoot that comes in your house. It’s all smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real issues that need attention. Right wingers talk of waste all the time. What would this be? Yes you are correct. Waste. Time, money and resources.
“Voter fraud ranks right up there with bigfoot,…”
-
Except that the Republican Party hasn’t fund a way to frighten people with Bigfoot. Yet.
It is not “spin” Jim Lucas, it is context. Chuck in #6 did not mean the federal government. I in #10 did not mean the federal government, and if by some fluke, 89Hoo DID mean the federal government, that was his error, not mine.
–
But as always, thanks for the attention.
Also Jim Lucas, I am not sure what “statist” (even if I was one) would have to do with the voting process. That IS a function of the state (whether you mean a state or the nation state) and has nothing to do with economic controls and planning or ownership of industry.
Bigfoot is real … if you believe in him.
20, 21 – apologies, I was addressing another aspect of (potential) voter fraud. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
#26 In a hole…..ten feet down….with a broken shovel….still digging.
And the whole time….both elbows were always there.
The notion of “voter fraud” didn’t really come into discussion until elections in the recent past (let’s say 15 years) became so close. The margins between the winners and losers was wide enough prior to 2000 that the impact of voter fraud (if it indeed existed) was not great enough to have had an impact on the outcome of the elections.
Nowadays, with the margins between the winners and losers being so much smaller, the slightest deviation between real and alledged fraudulent votes can make a difference between the winner and loser.
Frankly, I see no problem with providing a government issued picture form of identification prior to casting a vote. Quite honestly, I don’t want someone using my name in order to cast a vote, especially if I don’t agree with the candidate they happen to be voting for.
In the total scheme of things, I frankly think this is muchado about nothing. I don’t see some grand diabolical scheme either on the part of the Democrats or the Republicans to get people to vote in the names of dead people or to have people vote multiple times.
What seems to me to be more problematic moving forward is the sharp divide that has come forward within the electorate and the inability of any candidate to come forward with the ability to transcend the divide and make things work. There’s the area that needs work in my humble opinion.
“Melowese Richardson is the Ohio poll worker who admitted to casting two votes in November for President Obama. Now, Ohio officials are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people as well and cast a total of six ballots in the 2012 election, according to Fox News.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341051/ohio-officials-poll-worker-may-have-voted-six-times-eliana-johnson
Not to worry! Obama would have won anyway! Who cares if minorities and aliens commit voter fraud? They should be allowed to vote as often as they like since they are oppressed. It’s the rich Republicans that steal elections.
This may sound silly but there are liberal intellectuals that support the concept “Cumulative Voting”. A voter would be given multiple votes that could be cast for one candidate.
“In a cumulative voting election, each voter has as many votes as
there are seats to be filled.11 If three seats are to be filled, for example, each voter is allocated three votes. However, voters in a cumulative voting election are not restricted to casting only one vote for
the candidates of their choice.12 If a voter prefers one candidate more
than the others, for example, he may reflect the intensity of that
preference by giving that candidate more than one vote.1″
http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawreview/media/is-cumulative-voting-too-complex.pdf
Well Jim Lucas, #29, I would suggest that you stop digging.
–
@ #30 Will, frankly, I do see a problem with requiring any ID a large group of people simply will not have. If the government wants to make the ID a national one (not leave it to the states), fund it, and make it easily accessible, I have no base problem with it. But again there are the issues for all of us to consider: how the ID is to be obtained, what will be required as “proof”, where will people have to go to get it, how many trips, who pays for or arranges that, will it expire, how often will they be required to “renew” or “update” it? Until these questions are answered adequately and no large swath of any community is left with a more onerous task than is reasonable to undertake, I will never offer a blanket “picture ID is good”.
–
The ideal of this nation is “no taxation without representation” and a republic is only as good as the voting system a free people have to choose that representation. This stuff matters. Making it harder for anyone to vote, especially to the extent that they might not, remains a concern for me. This has never been about the outcomes and no one has any evidence of the kind of real fraud that could affect an outcome. But the GOTP is well aware that the some people in this nation will not vote if they can make it hard enough on them. Many who cannot stand comfortably will not stand in an hours long line to vote. Many who have to find a birth certificate that has long since gone missing to gain an ID they have to pay for simply will not vote. How the hell anyone calls that progress or a worthy system of picking leaders is beyond me.
–
I am not of the mind that voters should be anything but American citizens over the age of 18 to vote. Period. As long as they have a suitable ID, they should be able to vote. Going to the DMV for even routine things is unpleasant. Adding to that pleasure is just anathema to many of us.
Voting is my God Given right as an American and my responsibility. It’s not a privilege like driving a car. If I’m in a coma for 20 years and wake up on Election Day I should be able to walk in without Government approved ID and vote…
#32 So it would be less “inconvenient” to obtain a federal ID….than a state one?
And you have civil liberties concerns about a state ID requirement….but not a federal one?
I have no idea whether ” it would be less “inconvenient” to obtain a federal ID….than a state one”. I have no idea what either ID system will be based on or how hard or easy it will be to obtain, use, keep, renew. How many ways do I have to say that?
–
I have “concern” over the motives of the states, most especially the states still covered under the Voting Rights Act. I have no such concern over federal voting decisions.
Sandi @ #10 -
“Chuck, do you know the details of just how “the state is going to provide the ID”? What will the state require? Where will they have to go to get it? How many trips? Who pays for or arranges that? Will it expire? How often will they be required to “renew” or “update” it?
–
Do you REALLY equate voting with buying liquor or cigarettes or any thing else for that matter? Do you REALLY? Are Women’s Suffrage, Jim Crow, poll taxes and the Civil Rights Era just words to you? People fought and died for the right to suffrage and it should be the last of any right to be infringed and the first right deemed to be straight from the Creator IMO. Removing perfectly acceptable methods of identification is infringement. Creating specific tests and acceptable ID for voting IS a poll tax. Do I trust Virginia and several other states to do it right? HELL NO.”
Sandi, in response to your questions, I have no idea how the state will implement the photos or photo ID requirement but was referring to the editorial’s assertion that the state would spend one million dollars implementing the plan. In answer to your other questions, no. I no more equate buying cigarettes with voting as do most liberals actually believe in the faux argument they present about a voter ID requirement unfairly suppressing the otherwise lawful votes of the poor and elderly. In my opinion this is a sham argument intended to do nothing more than tug at the heartstrings of the ill-informed. As of yet, no one has been able to answer how requiring someone to present an ID that the government will provide free of charge is burdensome. Even if they have to go to the DMV to pick it up, how is that so burdensome? They had to go somewhere to register to vote. They had to go to the polls on election day. But they can’t go to the DMV once every four or five years? Really? You say Republicans want to disenfranchise groups who tend to vote for democrats. I say democrats want to make it easier for people from those same groups who are NOT legally eligible to vote to do so. In my opinion that is the only reason people oppose requiring ID to vote that isn’t simply smoke and mirrors. So do I understand your posts to mean you do trust the federal government to administer such a program, just not the states? Finally how do you feel about the fact that based on the oral arguments presented and the questions posed by the justices, it appears that the SCOTUS appears to be ready to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/50974532/
#35 Thank you.
33…you just described a perfect example of a low information voter. I think you should have to pass a stringent current events and civics test before being allowed to vote. Ignorant voters are a big danger to our country.
Wow, missing the paragraph capability makes for some grotesque reading! Please ask the IT folks to fix that one!!
-
Chuck, I am not interested in what you think of my opinion or that you reject my premise. This discussion does not take place in a vacuum. Our history and our present are replete with gerrymandering and political machinations to manipulate votes and voters. That is simply and completely a fact. The states affected by the Voting Rights Act had egregious and demonstrable voter disenfranchising efforts and many still do.
–
I am truly sorry that you believe all of the bad is behind us for that is a false premise. The main and most important reason that I KNOW the whole “voter fraud” issue is bogus is because this effort, photo ID, does not even address the fraud possible with absentee ballots. If voter fraud is your battle cry, you want to “fight it” everywhere, not just the in person votes.
–
JimW’s response to Marian more than proves my point. This is about disenfranchising those voters some deem “unworthy” to vote. How can you have a representative government if that government is not elected? How can you have an election if there is no right to vote? It is indeed a God given right to decide who leads you, not to mention, it is the backbone of our independence.
–
Under all of the Amendments, the theme has been to REMOVE barriers to voting, not install them.
–
We abolished the property qualifications for white men
We abolished Non-white men
We allowed direct election of senators
We abolished restriction on Women
We abolished restriction on Native Americans
We allowed DC to vote for President
We abolished poll taxes that barred the poor
We abolished Jim Crow racial exclusions
We allowed people below the age of 21 to vote
–
Over and over again, we made voting MORE inclusive, less restrictive, but at no point did we have to really argue that the right of suffrage did not exist.
–
First of all, gaining a photo ID at the DMV involves much more than just a trip to the DMV and you all know this. Second, this is a deliberate effort at a poll tax and in hopes that those borderline voters like the ones JimW thinks should not vote can be excluded while looking like they have only to make one little trip to the DMV.
–
The sophistry here is not from me!
#38 Wow, Jim, seriously? Old-school elitist disenfranchisement? What’s next, literacy tests? Well you’re in good company, the Supreme Court was wrong on that too (Lassiter 1959). Fortunately the US Congress did away these shenanigans starting with the Voting Rights Act. Or was that not covered in your civics courses?
#31 I take it back John R, that’s some really solid proof of a massive nationwide fraud conspiracy there.
JimW | March 1, 2013 at 8:55 am
33…you just described a perfect example of a low information voter. I think you should have to pass a stringent current events and civics test before being allowed to vote. Ignorant voters are a big danger to our country.
Smile…. This low information voter just exposed to the readers how you think.
“…according to Fox News.””
I swear if you people keep linking Fox I’ll start linking Kos. Objective sources, please.
Lets make it easier to vote!
Just put a ballot box in city hall and leave it unattended for a week and allow anyone to vote anytime. Why have voting officials at polling places any way?
Al, no one is asking for that extreme, no need to be dishonest.
#43 Right you are Mr. Hill.
I’ve heard on FOX that the AG of VA will keep third party candidates off the ballot. That the president can eliminate assault weapons with the stroke of a pen.
Others…but who’s counting?