Republicans Keep Accidentally Admitting that Voter ID Laws are Trojan Horses

A typical Voter ID reminder. I had to show one in Ohio
to vote in the Democratic primary, my first. But I had
no issues, fortunately.

Though I really haven't posted much lately, one continuing theme is the idea of trying to figure out the politics of the day, and the intent behind them. Do politicians (and their followers) believe the rhetoric they're spewing when they pass controversial or radical laws? Do they buy their own BS, or are they being deliberately disingenuous.

In the previous post, I wondered if anyone really believes the "religious freedom" excuse with all of these new anti-gay laws and bills. And in this one, does anyone really believe that Voter ID laws have anything to do with preventing in-person voter fraud? Or are they really all clear that this is about voter disenfranchisement, as is eminently clear? It's surely a mixture, and not always the same from politician to politician, or voter to voter. And just like with the other issue, it's wholly dependent upon intelligence, gullibility for "truthiness," or a lack of interest in digging beneath the surface.

Which is a handy reminder for me. Blogging apathy is a bad thing for me, should I wish to have a voice. I may have a tiny corner of the internet, but if I reach only a few people on any given story, it has the potential to exponentially seed some truth, rather than just truthiness.

[Excerpt]

Another Republican Admitted That Voter ID is All About Disenfranchising Democrats

They keep doing it. Republicans continue to accidentally spill the beans about unspoken GOP plots to roll back constitutional rights. Donald Trump, last week, accidentally blurted something about punishing women who undergo illegal abortions. And this week, Glenn Grothman, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, became another in a growing list of mid-level conservatives to blab about the true intention of voter ID laws: to disenfranchise Democrats. . .

Read more at: The Daily Banter

Post-Halloween Horror: The 2014 Election

I voted today, finally, after having been busy the past two weekends. We have early voting here in Nevada, and Ready, Set, Vote! voter guides, and it all works remarkably well. So far, though we have a Republican governor, there has been no attempt to curtail or change this system in the name of "protecting the vote," or "stopping voter fraud." Which is amazing when you think about it.

But not as amazing as the brazenness the GOP displays when cutting early voting, eliminating Sunday voting (known to be a big, post-church, African American voting day), requiring IDs (but only certain IDs), and more. . .with very little reason. Sure, they'll handwave the nonexistent in-person voter fraud "problem," but mostly they just make whatever changes will help them ensure that fewer Democrats vote.

Do you think that sounds radical? The fact that I'm saying it is not. The fact that they're doing it, is. Occasionally, they'll even admit it. Here's Paul Weyrich, a founder of The Heritage Foundation and ALEC, in 1980. Admitting it.



That, coupled with gerrymandering, with a politics-weary electorate, and the typical demographics of midterm voters adds up to: a bad year for Democrats, almost certainly. Maybe not historically bad, but not good. Double-plus ungood? Time will tell.

But it is baffling to me. Though I'm fairly a realist about my fellow Americans and their fickle, skewed, illogical voting patterns, I want more from them. I want them to be better than FOX "News" parroting, paranoid conspiracy theorists. I want them not to reward Republicans, when it is Republicans who have given us the obstruction, the gridlock, the governmental shut down, the lack of a Surgeon General. Many, many of the problems people complain about the state of our union, were either caused by, allowed to happen by, or are a byproduct of the GOP.

I'm with you, Jean-Luc.

And their slate of candidates? It really makes no sense to me that they're even electable, but even if they were not a clown car full of bozos, why reward them for what they themselves help come to pass?

I'm not saying that President Obama has been perfect, far from it. I'm still in his corner, and I'm not ashamed to say it (though many a cowardly Democratic candidate is). I think history will judge him well. But whatever you think of him, how does voting for say, Ted Cruz or Louis Gohmert help anyone? Sadly, for my side, Democrats don't offer a strong, defiant message to root for. To me, they are infinitely preferable, but they seem to not be trying. Why the Dems haven't pumped 90% of their cash into Get Out the Vote, I have no idea. That is all we need, matching the numbers or besting them.

I'm not optimistic. But a bad outcome will likely spur me to blog more. So, there's that.

Judge Declares Concern Over Voter Fraud Irrational

Image from source, Think Progress

You could call conservatives' concerns over voter fraud "irrational" as this judge did. Or you could go a little further and call it what it really is: a cover story. A cover story for whittling down the vote.

[Excerpt]

Striking Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law, Judge Finds ‘No Rational Person Could Be Worried’ About Voter Fraud

A federal judge invalidated Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement Tuesday, in at least the third court ruling to strike down the law. The ruling is an overwhelming win for plaintiffs, who argued that the voter ID law suppresses ballot access in the state. And while the decision could be overturned on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the law has also already been blocked by two state court decisions, one of which is still in effect. In March, Gov. Scott Walker (R) threatened to go so far as calling a special session to pass a modified law so that some ID provision is in place during the November election. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Daily Show Unmasks GOP's Motives Behind Changing Voter Laws

Don't let the door hit ya, dude. Image from source, News Observer.

You wouldn't think it would be possible for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's correspondents to take interview subjects off-guard. In the early days, a state politician could be forgiven for not knowing what the show is all about, or keying in on the interviewer's shtick. But they keep getting "gotcha-ed," and this time a guy ended up getting fired.

Aasif Mandvi interviewed both Congressman John Lewis (who seemed a little baffled, but held his own) and Don Yelton, a Republican Precinct Chair from North Carolina. Mandvi kept feeding Yelton rope, and he just kept stringing himself up with it. In the course of the interview, Yelton made very clear his own personal, overt racism. And he also laid out the real reason behind the state's tightened voting laws (and no doubt behind those spreading to states across the country). I wonder now, if we can finally drop the pretense that Voter ID laws (and their sibling voter restriction laws) have been enacted because of some rampant (phantom) voter fraud. Oh, and Yelton got fired the day after this aired. Poor guy.

Anyway, whatever your politics, this is worth a view, just so you know what's going on.

[Excerpt]

After 'The Daily Show' targets NC's voting law, precinct chair resigns

A five-minute segment of the Comedy Central show Wednesday night about the state’s new election law, focused a good bit on Yelton’s racial views. On Thursday, as the video went viral, Claude Pope, chairman of the N.C. Republican Party, called for Yelton’s resignation. . .

Read more at: News Observer

Attention Conservatives: THIS is Why Liberals are Howling About Voter Rights Changes

It's not just about "Voter ID," though that is part of it. While actual voter impersonation fraud is virtually unheard of, I'm aware that the argument for Voter ID sounds good. You need ID for everything else, right? Right. But when you put it into context with the whole list of things that they tend to pass along with Voter ID laws, you start to see that the actual reasoning behind the law has nothing to do with protecting the integrity of the vote. It has to do with stopping people from voting, or hindering them at least. Dissuading them. And it is a certain demographic.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

North Carolina Passes Laws Restricting Voting

Image from source, CBSNews

I'm getting to the point where I'm having trouble figuring out conservatives. Well, it's always been difficult, but I'm beginning to think that the elected officials and behind-the-scenes conservatives are working from a whole different playbook from the rabble. And their media lapdogs? I'd always assumed that they were in on the real story, while passing on talking points to the sheeple.

But how to parse this one? North Carolina has passed a whole bunch of restrictions on voting rights, from Voter ID to limiting early voting, to limiting what students can vote, and other measures. I watched All In With Chris Hayes, who had invited a Republican woman from North Carolina. Chris interviewed her, trying to pry out the reasoning behind the laws. All he got were the standard "protecting the sanctity of the vote" and anti-voter fraud answers. Was she feeding him what she wanted him to hear, or did she really have no other answers?

Steve Deace, an Iowa conservative (and how) talk show host posted on Facebook that he was truly baffled how anybody could be against Voter ID, since you need ID to rent a video at Blockbuster (how quaint). Is Deace really clueless as to the whole raft of other voting restrictions that came along with Voter ID? Has he really never heard why liberals are against these sorts of laws? Does he really believe that voter fraud is rampant in America?

Listen, folks, I know that the arguments for having ID to vote sound really, really good. You do need ID for all sorts of things less important than voting. But the fact remains--though it's hard to personally imagine--that tens and hundreds of thousands of voters don't have the ID. Some have been voting without it for their whole lives, going back to the fifties or earlier. In many cases, these people live in areas where the locations and times for acquiring legal ID is restrictive, sometimes purposefully so. You know how they pass tough restrictions on abortion clinics, like the width of hallways, or admitting rights at a hospital, and then they pass a law that hospitals can't grant admitting rights? It's often like that, a catch-22.

It is also true that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. The motives for passing Voter ID laws is not voter fraud. The proof is in the admissions of several conservatives saying things like "Voter ID is going to win for us in Pennsylvania," and in the fact that so many other restrictions are passed along with them.

If you honestly think that wiping out voter fraud is the primary reason for Republicans passing all of these laws, you have got to be hopelessly naïve.

[Excerpt]

N.C. sued soon after voter ID bill signed into law

North Carolina Gov. Patrick McCrory has signed a sweeping voting reform bill that imposes strict photo identification requirements on the state's 4.5 million voters, rolls back the early voting period and repeals one-stop registration during early voting.

Almost immediately following the signing, civil rights groups filed lawsuits in federal court challenging the law. . .

Read more at: CBS News

 

North Carolina Bill Aims to Make Voting Harder

I've said it before, Voter ID laws sound reasonable. I mean, you need ID to rent a car, or even a tuxedo. You need ID to cash a check, to get a library card, for all kinds of things, and we don't give it much thought. But here's the problem with Voter ID laws: they weren't created to stop voter fraud, they were created to prevent "undesirables" from voting. The fact is, the people most likely to not have ID (which includes an amazingly high number of voters) are disproportionally likely Democratic voters. In unguarded moments, several prominent conservatives and Republicans have even admitted as much.



Voter fraud is vanishingly rare in the United States, and North Carolina is no exception. But I hear you, you think it's a reasonable requirement. Though this ID had better be free, and had better not be difficult to obtain, or it is the equivalent of a poll tax. And if the passage of one of these laws is so urgently important, I'd say there ought to be a broad campaign to educate the public about exactly what they'll need in order to vote. That would only be fair, right? Except in places where these things tend to pass, that sort of assistance rarely seems to happen.

Add to that, that Voter ID itself isn't the only thing being passed here. There's a whole list of things on deck to complicate or restrict current voting rules. They want to cut early voting times. They want to stop pre-registering 17-year-olds who are soon turning 18. They want to complicate voting by college students. They want to repeal same-day registration. They want to ban straight-ticket voting.

Whatever you think about the individual parts of the bill, the fact is, this is an effort to make voting harder. What's amazing to me is that there doesn't seem to even be a cover story for why they're doing it. As with the huge list of restrictions and regulations (regulations from conservatives!) on abortion clinics that exist simply to make abortion harder, this voting bill is just trying to reduce the number of likely--mostly Democratic--voters. It's as plain as day.

And that--my dear Republican friends--should piss you off too. You've got an organized movement at the state level by the GOP to skew election results just by preventing voting by a group of people. It's not really "winning," it's cheating. And it's amazing to me that they don't even have to present even a bullshit reason for why they're doing most of it.

[Excerpt]

Voter ID bill raises controversy in North Carolina

Republican Leader Berger rejects the notion that his party is trying to suppress the Democratic-leaning black and youth vote. "Absolutely not," he said. "I am concerned the people are talking about substantial problem with this that I don't agree exists."

State-issued IDs, which now cost $10, will be free in the future, according to the bill. State Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr., the Democratic Deputy Minority Leader, tried to stop the reforms he called "draconian. . ."

Read more at: CBS News

SCOTUS Kills Key Provision of Voting Rights Act

Wade Henderson, president and C.E.O. of the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, criticized the decision on Tuesday;
from source, New York Times.

This one is a head-scratcher. I can't figure out why the Supreme Court found it necessary to carve out a cornerstone piece of the cornerstone piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. They basically said that since the Voting Rights Act has forced affected states to play by the rules, the act itself is no longer needed. What? Isn't that a bit like saying that stop signs have done a terrific job of getting cars to stop at intersections, so they are now no longer needed?

I just sit and shake my head, because I'm really not sure what to say. I mean, SCOTUS gave Congress the option of fixing the language, to modernize the act. . .but have they paid attention to this Congress lately? They're not doing shit. And already, states like Texas are pouncing, by ramming through voter ID bills and other things that--until Tuesday--were considered legally discriminatory against groups of voters. But no more! Sheesh.

And it really makes me queasy about the DOMA and Prop 8 marriage equality bills to be announced Wednesday. Ugh.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval. . .

Read more at: New York Times

Sarah Silverman on Voter Suppression (NSFW)

This video is Not Safe For Work, unless you have a very forgiving boss or a pair of headphones. But who cares, it's everyone's favorite vulgar comedienne, Sarah Silverman! And she's got a very important message: just about the only actual voter fraud going on is  voter suppression, and it is a Republican-sponsored activity.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Halted (For Now)

Image from source, Addicting Info

Republicans have enacted laws all over the country that make it harder to vote. Though it is done under the guise of "protecting" the vote by weeding out voter fraud (and I will admit, their storyline sounds good), it is increasingly clear that this is not the main reason they're doing it. First and foremost, actual in-person voter fraud is a vanishingly small problem. It almost never happens. And secondly, more and more conservatives have copped to the fact that it is in fact an effort at voter suppression.

This is not surprising, when you realize that all of the new laws had the side-effect of making it more difficult than it has ever been for groups of Democratic voters to cast their ballots. We've all seen the news stories of 92-year-old ladies who voted for FDR, and this year would be ineligible without significant effort. In Pennsylvania, there were an estimated 750,000 voters who would not be able to vote in November with each of them taking the initiative to meet the new standard. All in the name of preventing a handful of theoretical fraudulent voters. Of course this has nothing to do with Pennsylvania being a swing state. . . Ahem.

Fortunately, these laws are being squashed by sane courts and legislatures in most of the places they've been enacted (if they weren't shot down before). And finally, Pennsylvania has seen the light. It's not a done deal, but it's a really good chance that it's gone, at least for this election cycle. Here's hoping what has really been going on here gets a little more widespread before they try again.

[Excerpt]

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Remands Voter Photo ID Law

. . .The Supreme Court has ordered that the state’s controversial new voter ID law be returned to a lower court for a speedy hearing on how the state is implementing it to ensure all voters have access to appropriate state-issued photo identification. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info 

Chris Hayes Shines a Light on Supposed "Voter Fraud"

The reasoning for Voter ID laws sounds really good, I'll give them that. But it presupposes there's a rampant voter fraud problem--which there isn't--and that Voter ID would stop it--which it won't. Besides, the "official" reasons behind Voter ID aren't the real ones anyway. It's voter suppression. You knew that, right?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pennsylvania Latest Voter ID State

This sort of thing used to really bother conservatives.
Image from BartCop.

See, here's the thing I don't get. . . Several years ago, here in Nevada, there was a battle being waged by the American Independent Party to be recognized as a force in the state. Not independents, mind you, this was a party that used the word in their name, probably to confuse voters into think they actually were independents. No, they were extraordinarily fringy right-wingers, and they also seemed to be related to each other. Hanson? Hansen? Something like that. Anyway, the AIP was really irritated about having to have government IDs. No driver licenses for the AIP! It's downright un-American!

So, it's weird that there is a GOP-headed effort to pass voter ID laws all over the country. The funny thing about it is, they have a really good messaging campaign behind this one. It make sense, sounds reasonable (but contains just a hint of that GOP-brand meanness). I mean, who doesn't have ID? Honestly! You need an ID to rent a video (if people still did that). You need an ID to buy Jägermeister. And who wants a bunch of phony voters using dead peoples' names, cartoon character names, voting once, twice, a dozen times? So, it sounds like it makes hella sense, right?

And it does. Except that there aren't throngs of fake voters out there (other than Ann Coulter and perhaps one Willard Mitt Romney, but more on that later). In fact, actual voter fraud is vanishingly rare. So, is this one of those "solutions in search of a problem" laws that conservatives are always accusing liberals of? Yes and no. Actually, this was the solution to a different problem: how do conservatives prevent at least a slice of the Democratic electorate from voting? Because that is the reason for Voter ID laws, no matter how good the justification for them is. And it isn't just guesswork, or some wacky conspiracy theory either. They're actually admitting it.

[Excerpt]

Smile, Pennsylvania, You No Longer Have To Suffer The Agony Of Voting!



Good video, Pennsylvania! Very melting pot and clear-skinned and chipper, we’re sure! There may be a little bit of an omission about how 10 percent of your voting populace won’t get to actually vote under your new voter ID law, but we’re sure if they just show up with the birth certificate and the marriage certificate and the name-change order from when they got their sex change and also four other forms of photo ID all notarized and with the raised seal (AND DON’T FORGET THE LONG-FORM!), they too can get state-approved papers in order to exercise their constitutional right of suffrage. . . 

Read more at: Wonkette

FOX "News" Host Suggests Democrats are for Voter Fraud

The FOX "News" Brain Trust. Image from Raw Story

No, you stupid oaf, Democrats are just pointing out that actual voter fraud is almost non-existent. When states put Voter ID bills before voters, it sounds so innocent: we just want to keep the elections fair! What's the big deal? You need an ID to buy a pack of smokes! Which is all true. . .sort of. The fact is, the reason so many (shhhh. . . .Republican-controlled) states are putting restrictions on voting is because they know that the people most likely to not have a photo State ID are more likely to vote Democrat. And FOX "News" knows this. They're just playing all innocent, "Why don't Democrats care about voter fraud?" They would. If there actually were any measurable voter fraud. But there isn't. You'd think this widespread push to enact legislation on a fundamental right, would have a tangible reason, other than suppressing Democratic voter turnout.

[Excerpt]


Fox News host suggests Democrats are ‘for voter fraud’

Fox News host Gretchen Carlson says she can’t understand why Democrats would be against discriminatory voter ID laws unless they are “for voter fraud.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice blocked a law requiring Texas voters to show identification on the grounds that it could disenfranchise Latino voters.

Similar Republican-backed laws have also been blocked or temporarily barred in South Carolina and Wisconsin. . .

Read more at: The Raw Story

Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID

Image from source, TPM Muckraker

I know that a lot of Democrats are up in arms about this. They say that requiring a state I.D. card to vote will disenfranchise the poor and elderly, people who don't have any form of I.D. I suppose it's possible that some such people exist, but I'd really like to see some sort of study on this to see just how many people without I.D.s actually try to vote. I mean, how do they get by with the rest of their lives without an I.D.?

I suspect the actual number of people without valid I.D. is about as low as the number of people committing voter fraud by voting without an I.D. It's just a guess, but it feels right. You see, Voter I.D.s are the Republican's white knight for stamping out voter fraud, as they see it. They see dozens, maybe tens of dozens of people voting that have no right to--the horror!

But, fellow Democrats, let's just let them have this one. With this ridiculous argument out of the way, maybe we can have a substantive discussion on actual voter fraud, committed with caging lists, and hackable computerized voting machines. Thousands, tens of thousands, possibly more votes are being lost in actual voter fraud. It'd be nice to fix that next.

[Excerpt]

Court Upholds Voter ID Law

Finally, the country will be rescued from its long nightmare struggle with voter fraud! And if certain voters find it harder to get their ballot cast, then so be it. . .

Read more at: TPM Muckraker