Photo ID Laws Led To Voter Suppression
Photo ID laws resulted in six million fewer people voting this year, most of them poor or people of color, according to political scientist Michael P. McDonald. (h/t RightWingWatch)
[su_center_ad]
Just look at seven key Senate races and one gubernatorial race (Florida, where Rick Scott tightened felon re-enfranchisement laws in one of his first acts as governor) in the most recent elections. In three of those Senate races and the gubernatorial election, the number of disenfranchised felons was greater than the margin of victory. Not only does felon disenfranchisement contribute to the class and race bias in the electorate by primarily impacting low income people and people of color, it often disenfranchises more voters than the margin of victory…
They are also almost all passed by Republican legislatures, reducing turnout. Recently, the GAO examined voter ID laws and finds that out of ten studies, five had mixed results, four showed a statistically significant drop in voter turnout and one showed an increase in voter turnout. GAO finds that turnout decreased between 1.9 and 2.2 percentage point in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points in Tennessee.
For this year’s midterm, comparing McDonald’s turnout estimates with states with photo ID, non-photo ID and no ID law at all shows that on average, states with a photo ID law had 4.4 percentage points lower turnout than those that did not.[su_csky_ad]
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 8:37 am
Photo ID laws resulted in six million fewer people voting this year, most of them poor or people of color, according to political scientist Michael P. McDonald.
____________
That was the only point.
Wayout November 8th, 2014 at 9:06 am
But you can bet there were plenty of illegals that voted, but of course you don’t care about that salient fact.
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 9:13 am
No you can’t.
If so, prove it.
BILL DEAL November 8th, 2014 at 10:07 am
Not a “salient fact;” no illegals voted. Not anywhere! Not a single one. Illegals don’t want the attention to themselves–certainly not by exercising civic responsibility.
Wayout November 8th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
You cannot say that. I bet they did. Illegals can get drivers licenses in many states and once you have that you can vote. H e l l, many states have no ID requirement to vote so all they have to do is walk up to the counter and ask for a ballot in Spanish or some other language and they vote.
William November 8th, 2014 at 12:04 pm
” I bet they did ”
That’s actually not the same thing as proof
arc99 November 8th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
“I bet…”
the standard right wing fallback argument when you have no facts (which is almost always)
William November 8th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Asking Wayout for documentation activates his ejection handle. He’ll bail, then return with whatever Limbaugh or Levine dumps into his skull for a repeat of the same.
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/042009/1240478759_elevator.gif
arc99 November 8th, 2014 at 12:30 pm
stop lying. it really is getting annoying.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/11/07/california-plans-to-issue-14-million-driver-licenses-to-undocumented-immigrants/
California plans to issue 1.4 million driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants under new law
.
.
.
They’ll take a written and vision test, if they pass they’ll get their permit then they’ll take a behind-the-wheel test and if they pass that, they will get a license but theirs will look a little bit different than everyone else’s.
On the front, it will say “Federal Limits Apply.” On the back it reads: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes” and that it can only be used as a license to drive.
tr60 November 9th, 2014 at 5:10 pm
So what if they have a driver’s license? Now they can get insurance. Now they have an identity that Law Enforcement can tie them too. Still doesn’t mean they can vote. Where do you get that “fact”? out of your ass?
William November 8th, 2014 at 10:56 am
“But you can bet there were plenty of illegals that voted”
You have some sort of proof or documentation right?
Why don’t you post it?
neworleans878 November 8th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
citation, please
searambler November 8th, 2014 at 8:42 am
So they work as designed. Color me shocked.
edmeyer_able November 8th, 2014 at 8:44 am
DUH!
http://youtu.be/EuOT1bRYdK8
Budda November 8th, 2014 at 8:45 am
Anybody that thinks voter photo I.D. isn’t a form of voter suppression is either stupid, biased or lying..
Wayout November 8th, 2014 at 9:05 am
Oh bull hockey. If these people really wanted to vote they would go out and get their voter ID which in most cases is usually free. Funny how they seem to have plenty of cash for cigarettes, booze, big screen TV’s, take out food, cell phones or any of the other myriad of consumer items.
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 9:13 am
Like the elderly and infirm?
That is why Courts have struck it down again and again.
If the proponents of the ID law were REALLY serious they would provide the means to assure that EVERY citizen had EVERY chance to get the ID free of charge (that includes the cost of a copy of their birth certificate) and would NEVER pull such shenanigans as;
The Wisconsin legislature is finalizing a bill to close ten Department of
Motor Vehicle centers located in Democratic districts within the state. The
money saved will be used to extend operating hours at DMV centers in Republican
districts. These cuts come on the heels of new voter ID laws that require
voters to present a state-issued photo identification card at the poll booths.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm
And North Carolina College Voting Bill Seeks To Tax
Parents Of Students Who Change Registration.
William November 8th, 2014 at 10:44 am
Funny how they seem to have plenty of cash for cigarettes, booze, big screen TV’s, take out food, cell phones or any of the other myriad of consumer items.
Ahhhh good old Skippy, and his hate for the imaginary “welfare boogie man”
Here ya go.
(this is the part where you slink away)
Betty Thorn, an 84-year-old grandmother who lives in an assisted-living facility in Austin, Texas, has voted in every major election in her life since she became eligible. But Thorn didn’t vote this year, her granddaughter says. Thanks to Texas’s new voter ID law
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/texas-voter-id_n_6117742.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Wayout November 8th, 2014 at 11:57 am
And why didn’t her granddaughter see to it that she had one? Does some government entity have to do everything for everybody?
William November 8th, 2014 at 11:59 am
Clearly you didn’t read the article.
William November 8th, 2014 at 12:02 pm
I know reading is not one of your strong points, so take your time, and revel in the knowledge that an elderly veteran was denied the right to vote.
“Though she’s now based in Texas, Lauw still has a Louisiana driver’s license. She has tried to get one from Texas, but all the documentation she provided to The Huffington Post — including her teaching certificate and her honorable military discharge from her time in the Army — is under her married name. Lauw, who is divorced, has her birth certificate but not her marriage and divorce certificates or two proofs-of-residency, all of which she needs in order to get a Texas driver’s license.”
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
And why didn’t her granddaughter see to it that she had one? Does some government entity have to do everything for everybody?
____________
1) That is an undue burden. Do you even know where her grand daughter lives, or if SHE drives?
It was overturned in PA
because of cases like;
Wiola Lee, 59, was born
in rural Georgia and moved to Philadelphia in her early youth to live with her
grandmother. Ms. Lee worked for the Philadelphia Public Schools, including
special needs children. She has voted for well over 30 years and has been
civically active, volunteering as a poll worker in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
With the new voter ID laws, Ms. Lee is trying to access her birth certificate
which she will need in order to obtain a photo ID, but the state of Georgia has
no record of her birth. Without a photo ID, Ms. Lee will not be able to vote.
Bea Bookler has voted in
every election since 1940 but now 72 years later she may not be able to cast
what she believes might be her last vote. At 93 years old, Ms. Bookler lives at
an assisted living facility in Chester County, no longer posseses photo ID and
does not have her birth certificate to obtain ID.
After learning about
Pennsylvania’s new photo ID requirement, Ms. Block who hasn’t missed an
election in 70 years, went to her local PennDOT office so she could obtain her
free ID. Despite having all the documentation listed on the Department of State
checklist, her application was rejected because the PennDot worker couldn’t
read her Hebrew marriage license and the deed to her home and Pepco bill had
her married name, not her maiden name. Ms. Block takes her right to vote so
seriously that in 2010 she had her granddaughter take her from the hospital in
a wheelchair because she couldn’t obtain an absentee ballot..
and on and on.
And;
The Wisconsin legislature is finalizing a bill to close ten Department of
Motor Vehicle centers located in Democratic districts within the state. The
money saved will be used to extend operating hours at DMV centers in Republican
districts. These cuts come on the heels of new voter ID laws that require
voters to present a state-issued photo identification card at the poll booths.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm
And not everyone has someone.
2) “Does some government entity have to do everything for everybody?”
_________
When it is the government entity who is imposing the burden…
Yes. Yes they do.
mea_mark November 8th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
If the government demands something to get an ID so a person can vote, the government needs to bear the burden of that cost or the requirement is an unconstitutional poll tax, period.
Anomaly 100 November 8th, 2014 at 12:38 pm
“Does some government entity have to do everything for everybody?”
That’s exactly what your party is calling for with Voter ID, you silly ‘small government’ Republicans, you!
neworleans878 November 8th, 2014 at 1:02 pm
You silly Liberal…it’s not big government if it advances their agenda!
Anomaly 100 November 8th, 2014 at 4:39 pm
I’m such a libtard.
Budda November 8th, 2014 at 11:49 am
So are you stupid, biased or lying?
mea_mark November 8th, 2014 at 12:29 pm
I lean toward all of the above.
neworleans878 November 8th, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Don’t spend a lot of time in the real world, do ya?
Spirit of America November 8th, 2014 at 9:34 am
It is also a form of suppressing flying, getting married, applying for gov assistance and much more.
Suzanne McFly November 8th, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Exactly, this isn’t news, it just means it worked.
rg9rts November 8th, 2014 at 3:02 pm
And the gopee is dancing in the streets
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 8th, 2014 at 9:25 am
This years mid terms were based on lies and fear.
This years mid-terms had a turnout of 36%…..and the voters were mostly old, racist, white angry Fox viewers. Not to mention the staggering amount of corporate billions spent on this election coupled with voter suppression and gerrymandering of districts.
I don’t think republicans should get all uppity thinking they have a mandate for anything at all.
Red Eye Robot November 8th, 2014 at 10:32 am
Voter turnout in California was down 9.5% from the last midterm, Danged voter ID laws! Oh wait, you don’t need photo ID to vote in California
arc99 November 8th, 2014 at 10:59 am
do you ever post anything that isn’t either an outright lie, or a monument to ignorance?
Anomaly 100 November 8th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
No he doesn’t.
rg9rts November 8th, 2014 at 3:02 pm
Why??? and ruin his streak???
Wayout November 8th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Yeah, and what about the two thirds of people who did not vote because nthey chose not too.. I guess that was also “voter suppression”.
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Red Eye Robot • 2 hours ago
Voter turnout in California was down 9.5% from the last midterm, Danged voter ID laws! Oh wait, you don’t need photo ID to vote in California
Wayout Red Eye Robot • 8 minutes ago
Yeah, and what about the two thirds of people who did not vote because nthey chose not too.. I guess that was also “voter suppression”.
_____________
What do THOSE facts have to do with voter id and voter suppression?
Suzanne McFly November 8th, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Your funny Lefty, asking these two about their “facts” is like asking GWB for an educated opinion.
OldLefty November 8th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
That’s what the RNC counts on.
arc99 November 8th, 2014 at 12:24 pm
thanks for confirming my point that the only arguments you guys have consist of sarcasm and lies.
arc99 November 8th, 2014 at 11:12 am
Voter id is voter suppression pure and simple.
Just take a look at the comments in this thread. We have very real examples of people who are negatively impacted by these laws, as well as the financial burden.
What do we get as a reply? We get sarcasm. We get the thinly veiled racism of a variation on the ” cadillac-driving welfare queen” Ronald Reagan lie. But we get not a single example of these laws doing anything to “protect the integrity of the process” as the supporters claim.
Even reasonable supporters like our friend SOA can come up with nothing other than an apples to oranges metaphor which equates privileges with Constitutional rights. I am convinced that voter id is the implementation of Paul Weyrich’s goal to minimize the number of people who vote when he made it clear that even he knew that the right wing agenda would never win if everybody voted.
I will support voter id under either one of two conditions.
Either the laws are applied only to people who become of voting age after the law becomes effective. No more senior citizens who have been voting for decades, suddenly disenfranchised.
Or we pass laws so that you can only purchase a firearm one day each year and you must register in advance to purchase that firearm. If you cannot provide the proper id on firearm purchase day, you are given a provisional permission slip to make an appointment sometime in the future to purchase your firearm.
If restricting Constitutional rights to specific days and making the exercise of those rights more difficult, is such a peachy idea, let’s spread the wealth.
William November 8th, 2014 at 11:44 am
But we get not a single example of these laws doing anything to “protect the integrity of the process” as the supporters claim.
You aren’t going to get any examples either.
Because.
1.They actually believe whatever the Limbaugh, Levines and Hannidys dump into their skulls, and are perfectly happy with it.
They don’t require proof or even the most casual evidence.
2. They are still pretty pissed about that black guy in the White House.
Remember their priority is not and never will be the nation.
Spirit of America November 9th, 2014 at 12:46 am
“But we get not a single example of these laws doing anything to “protect the integrity of the process” as the supporters claim.”
You never will… if an id is needed, and john doe isn’t qualified to vote, he won’t show up to vote and therefore we’d never know… 🙂
“Or we pass laws so that you can only purchase a firearm one day each
year and you must register in advance to purchase that firearm.”
Talk about apple/oranges… it (constitution) specifically states A day to vote, never once mentions a day to buy anything.
I have no problem w/free voting ID(and any associated costs) and have no problem that when enacted it must be w/a 2 year delay.
And unlike what some say is about “pissed about that black guy in the White House” w/me it is a bit more personal due to what happened directly to me.
Christopher Richey November 10th, 2014 at 5:06 am
“But we get not a single example of these laws doing anything to “protect the integrity of the process” as the supporters claim.”
Felons cannot vote. It is not a new thing. If, as this article suggests, ENFORCING existing laws may have LEGALLY ‘swung’ the election, but, is somehow wrong in doing so, then you are admitting that it is okay to UNLAWFULLY swing an election.
So, which is it? I call for a response from Mr. Colmes himself. Spinning rhetoric does not change facts. To quote Lincoln, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?”
http://felonvoting.procon.org/…
By the way, this law also prevents White Supremacists with felony convictions from voting. THAT is the example of ‘protecting the integrity of the process’ that you need to consider. As long as the law is applied evenly, it is fair. That is just common sense. Oh, and since you are likely to reply with the disproportion between white and black felons, let us look at the actual numbers, shall we?
Total Disenfranchised 53,852,180
African American 25,231,022
Less than half of all ‘disenfranchised’ felons are African American. The other half can’t vote either. Sorry. Now, what is so terrible about that? Sounds (is) fair, right?
AZ November 8th, 2014 at 12:56 pm
How many countries around the world (but not 3rd world) require identification to vote?
How many countries “require” that only citizens of that country be allowed to vote?
Just wondering………
edmeyer_able November 8th, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Google is your friend…..or was that a rhetorical question? fyi…this one is.
rg9rts November 8th, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Wasn’t voter supression the exercise??
Christopher Richey November 10th, 2014 at 4:49 am
Felons cannot vote. It is not a new thing. If, as this article suggests, that ENFORCING existing laws may have LEGALLY ‘swung’ the election, but, is somehow wrong in doing so, then you are admitting that it is okay to UNLAWFULLY swing an election.
So, which is it?
http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/uscode922.pdf