Can you help Ruthelle to keep her right to vote?


An 84-year-old Wisconsin woman, told she can’t vote for the first time in 75 years, because she lacks an “appropriate” birth certificate, and perhaps she’s been spelling her name differently from how Wisconsin wants her to spell it, for more than 80 years.

Meanwhile, has anyone ever found any voter fraud that I.D. can stop?

Since voting is a civil liberty, the ACLU is working to keep Ruthelle voting.

Volunteer to help, here.

About these ads

198 Responses to Can you help Ruthelle to keep her right to vote?

  1. Nonstick says:

    Morgan, you are correct. I should have been more diligent in my research. James K, sorry dude. Blocking and copying text must be time consuming.

    Looking your your very first post, I’m struck by how accurate it was.

    Like

  2. That’s not true NS, JK has posted lots of links from ThinkProgress.

    Like

  3. Nonstick says:

    Again, Ed. Behold the magic of the internet:

    “Who can request and receive an absentee ballot? Any qualified elector who registers to vote. (A qualified elector is a United States citizen, 18 years of age or older, who has resided in the district in which he or she intends to vote for at least 28 days.)”

    So, again, you present something as fact (absentee voting is only for voters that are out of town) that is actually speculation or preference on your part. Nothing in the Wisconsin voting rules states any such thing.

    “It’s contrary to the intention of the Voting Rights Act, if not an outright violation of the act itself. And it’s immoral.” Well, that, of course, is your opinion, and entirely fact free.

    The Supreme court has found voter ID laws constituitonal.

    Now, to prove a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that Wisconsin’s voter ID law discriminates on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. Under the governing statute and case law, a voting practice or procedure violates Section 2 only if, under the “totality of the circumstances,” the political process is “not equally open to participation” to a racial minority “in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” This presents a fairly high evidentiary hurdle: the plaintiffs must show that Wisconsin’s new voter ID law, in its actual use, makes it less likely for racial minorities to be able to participate in the political process. That is, there must be hard data that the voter ID law results in a “denial or abridgment” of minorities’ right to vote.

    The problem is that ID is so universal, and most voters have valid ID, it is going to be tough sledding to make the case. Also actual data, from actual elections, suggest that ID laws have done very little, if anything, to depress voter turnout. Makes a voting rights violation very hard to prove.

    Thta leaves only one avenue – lawsuits based on state consitutions. That’s pretty specific to the state and the judge. So far some ID laws have passed muster, some have not. It has resulted in softening of voter ID laws in some states. Who knows – maybe the Wisconsin law gets tossed on this basis. I’m not sure what the latest and greatest status is there, and I’m too lazy to look it up. Besides, I’m the only one who ever seems to do any homework around here….

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    . . . absentee voting seems designed exactly for her situation.

    No, absentee voting is designed for people who will be out of town on election day. It’s not designed as a counterattack to New Jim Crow laws.

    Still no justification for making this woman jump through hoops, I see. “Her problem” is a Jim Crow barrier to her voting put in place by modern bigots. It’s contrary to the intention of the Voting Rights Act, if not an outright violation of the act itself. And it’s immoral.

    Like

  5. [W]hy should we go along with your sides [sic] Voter ID nonsense when…

    Because the alternative is a viewpoint that is logically unsupportable and unsustainable.

    In a nutshell, James K., put in language you can understand…”your side’s” mindset is one that says the right to vote is so cherished, so sacred, so precious, so essential to our very existence as a sophisticated civilization, so beautiful and irreplaceable and so sacrosanct, that we should make NO move to make sure it’s secure until the damage has already been done.

    Such a worldview, carried to its logical conclusion, would insist that museums install motion-detectors and man-traps and other countermeasures only to protect the cheap knock-offs, while leaving the original Rembrandts and Rafaels and Michaelangelos on easels and platforms outside, on the sidewalk, at eye-level, free for the taking…hey…no, don’t secure that in any way, you have to prove someone has actually walked off with something first.

    I’d call it insane, but the insane people would be offended.

    Like

  6. Nonstick says:

    Ed, there is this thing, called the internet. On it is a tool, I believe called “Google”. It allows people to actually look up stuff rather than believe whatever random facts you assert without proof. Check it out some time.

    For example, I can go to the Wisconsin voter website and download the absentee ballot form. I can also call, fax, or email a request. There are also dozens of citizens groups happy to help Ruthelle figure this out.

    http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/voters/absentee

    Not complicated. Not extraordinary. Not essentially differing from most states. 360,000 people (12% of the electorate in Wisconsin) seem to have had no trouble working this out.

    “Funny how you abandon all your principles about the sacredness of requiring voter identification in your floundering around to find an argument to support the bigoted, New Jim Crow voter identification laws. ” First off, I have never said anything about the “sacredness of requiring voter ID.” You are now reduced to making stuff up that I said to support your own collapsed argument.

    I’ve said (many times) that voter ID laws are no big deal, a small amount of added effort to get rid of a small amount of fraud. It is certianly not the equivalent of Jim Crow. I’ve proven there is a problem (the FBI and Milwaukee Police report), I’ve proven that Voter ID laws have virtually no impact on turnout (Pew Studies, and Rhode Island Turnout). I’ve demonstrated that Ruthelle has several ways to solve her problem, and could easily cast an absentee ballot. I’ve provided links to unbiased information.

    In response, you’ve demonstrated…nothing. Not a single solitary fact or study to prove your point. You simply assert things that are demonstrably not true. When cornered you change the subject. Lie and deny. Make up stuff. Re-assert Ruthelle’s vote is being “stolen”.

    Who’s floundering again? You or me?

    I have no problem with absentee voting. Never said I did. I’d prefer that Ruthelle fix her ID problem and vote in person. But I don’t want to deny her the vote, and absentee voting seems designed exactly for her situation. Like every other form of voting, absentee ballots can be stolen as well. Various states have solutions to the problem – automated signature checks, information verification, etc. Would you now like to have an adult discussion on the the pros and cons of how to prevent absentee ballot fraud? I thought not.

    Like

  7. So James O’Keefe, one of Breitbart’s bastard children, released a video purportedly showing voter fraud in North Carolina. The video claims that non-citizens like Zbigniew Gorzkowski have voted in recent elections.

    The problem? Mr. Gorzkowski and his wife have been naturalized citizens since 2008.

    So tell us, Morgan and Anon..why should we go along with your sides Voter ID nonsense when your side can 1: never come up with any actual evidence to support it and 2: your sides attempts to come up with evidence turn out to be wholly false?

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/15/484462/james-o-keefe-voter-fraud-north-carolina/?mobile=nc

    Like

  8. But in Pennsylvania? Absentee voting is not easy. Wisconsin? No walk in the park.

    Nice try, but you need to elaborate on what you mean by “no walk in the park.” After all, Ruthelle can fix her problem for twenty bucks. That’s supposed to be some insurmountable hurdle according you and the others who insist, literally, that a federal case has to be made out of Ruthelle’s problem…so pardon me if I don’t take your word for it.

    This is looking more and more like a case of one person’s problem has to become everyone else’s problem because, somehow, zero-effort is to be expected. I’m still not entirely sure how we got there. I have to put effort into everything, including voting and several other things throughout the year. So do most other people. I’m still not sure what makes Ruthelle so special.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Both Washington and Oregon took steps to make absentee voting easier, and neither requires voter identification cards.

    Funny how you abandon all your principles about the sacredness of requiring voter identification in your floundering around to find an argument to support the bigoted, New Jim Crow voter identification laws.

    So, were this woman living in Oregon or Washington, her voting would not be challenged at all.

    But in Pennsylvania? Absentee voting is not easy. Wisconsin? No walk in the park.

    Thanks for demonstrating that consistency is also not a value of the conservatives this year. To make a point in discussion, you’ll even throw out voter identification.

    Why bother with it, if it means so little to you?

    Like

  10. Nonstick says:

    I have voted absetee. Most of the stuff is on-line. Pretty easy, and it didn’t take weeks….at least in my state.

    So…you’re claiming that Oregon, a state that requires all citzens to vote absentee, is racist? That Washington state, where most people vote by mail, is disenfranchising its voters? I’d always thought absentee voting was supposed to help people get to the polls who were having difficulty, and increase voter participation. Like Ruthelle. And I’m sure some Dem GOTV effort would love to help her fill out the forms.

    Sorry, but your position boils down to “why should she have to do anything to solve her problem”. Therein is you answer.

    Reading James K. is always amusing. My favorite part is when he starts the “your side/my side” stuff. Like we had picked teams. Well, that and the complete nonsequiters. I’d used to try following him…but I soon realized that there was no there there…He simply cuts and pastes random stuff from other liberal websites, and doesn’t worry if they have no bearing on the conversation.

    Like

  11. Reading James K. is like watching a M*A*S*H marathon, skipping over all the parts where Hawkeye Pierce isn’t being angry about something.

    Well, you failed the Turing test again. Do you think you could put up a link to the AlterNet or ThinkProgress story that got you all excited, so we don’t have to guess what you’re talking about?

    Like

  12. To quote:
    Other than, please explain why Ruthelle can’t vote absentee when the law clearly allows for it?

    You mean besides the fact that certain right wing groups have a habit of challenging every absentee vote because if they can con or convince the election judge that it’s somehow wrong the person who made the vote isn’t 1: told the vote was rejected and 2: therefor have no chance to vote again to get a legitimate vote through?

    But I have a question for you. Under usual right wing voter id rules I can’t use a college id to vote but I can use a gun license to vote?

    The difference is what?

    I mean seriously your side just got a petition thrown out because it was supposedly in the wrong font size and you expect us to trust you jokers with voting? Governor Walker tried to close DMV offices in Democrat areas while extending the hours of DMV offices in republican areas and you expect us to trust you jokers with voting?

    Then there is the fact that every time my party wants a paper trail to be made when it comes to those electronic voting machines guess which party raises hell and objects?

    Oh wait..yours.

    Sorry, Anon, your party doesn’t want better accuracy in voting.

    It wants less legal votes.

    But feel free to prove that statement wrong..get your party to compromise with my party and come up with a better way of ensuring voting integrity then a stupid voter id law. Because that will do absolutely nothing to protect the integrity of votes and do everything to lower the number of legal votes.

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, not much to say here. Other than, please explain why Ruthelle can’t vote absentee when the law clearly allows for it? I keep missing your explanation. You’ve said that someone could use absentee ballot to defraud the system, which is true, but irrelevent to the basic question.

    Have you ever voted absentee? Most of the time, in most venues, it’s a pain in the rear. It takes days of preparation, or weeks. And often absentee ballots are not counted if the elections don’t provide a few very close races.

    Why should Ms. Frank be put through the mill simply to vote? What crime has she committed that you think she should be hassled?

    And, since most analyses indicate absentee ballots are easier to use for fraud, doesn’t your suggestion that a fraud-prone ballot system be used to replace a fraud-free system offer at least a hint of hypocritical irony?

    (Short Little Rebel claims readers here don’t recognize irony — was she talking about you, Nonstick?)

    Like

  14. Nonstick says:

    Ed, not much to say here. Other than, please explain why Ruthelle can’t vote absentee when the law clearly allows for it? I keep missing your explanation. You’ve said that someone could use absentee ballot to defraud the system, which is true, but irrelevent to the basic question.

    Like

  15. Nonstick says:

    Now let’s see, James Kessler. All I’m getting here is you want a Republican party that agrees with Democrats most of the time. Lots of luck there.

    Like most people, you assume your oppositon to something is founded solely in logic and facts, while those that oppose you think only with illogic and emotion. While such a world view is very pleasing to one’s ego, it is not consistent with reality. I might suggest, just as thought experment mind you, that you stop painting everyone with a broad brush. There is no “my side” and “your side”, at least if we are playing with logic and analyses as you suggest. There are two arguments pro and con. The concept of “sides” is a purely emotional argument that has no meaning.

    You say “extremist” a lot. The first step to delegitimizing people is to 1) label them and 2) lump them all in the same group. It is a lot like racism that way. It is also gives you the excuse to disengage all logic and reason, because heck, who wants to argue with some crazy extremist? So when you use that term, rather than offering up cogent rejoinders to different political views, you are essentially putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la-la-la”.

    Reagan. What is it with you Dems and Reagan? I’m old enough to remember when Reagan was vilified by Democrats, absolutely eviserated on a daily basis. Now….its pretty funny to see Dems whine how Republicans are far to the right of Reagan, while Repubs fret they are too far to the left of Reagan. GHWB, GWB, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich – they have all be hounded for being much softer conservatives than Reagan.

    Jaemes, you might want to spend some time carefully reading the definition of an ad hominum attack. Then stop using them as your go to weapon of choice.

    I can honestly say I have never heard anyone in the Republican party say most of the things you list. I’m sure you can find someone, somehwere, that ahs said such a thing. But again, you are holding large groups of people responsible for things they didn’t say, and probably don’t agree with. I’m not even sure what “root hard or die” means. Something with pigs and truffles?

    This discussion is about ID at the polling place. I’ve said before, I don’t think this is that big a deal. It seems pretty obvious to most people that showing ID is not then end of the world, and I think (emotions aside) there can be arguments made for and against it. But so far most of your arguments have been a tad…offpoint. You don’t want to admit that there may be a small amount of fraud…you insist that there is no fraud at all, and no possibility of any fraud ever anywhere. You grossly exagerate the possible negative impacts backed, as near as I can tell, with nothing other than fear.

    I’ll say, I can see that there might be a slight decrease in voter participation. I don’t think that would affect one party over another. I think that can be adjusted for by GOTV and proper adjustments to the law. I see the potential value of ID in the polling place, and don’t think it is an undo burden on most people, especially those most likely to vote. The data I’ve provided seems to support these positions. So does common sense. 31 States have voter ID provisions, including such conservative bastions such as Conneticut, Delaware, and Hawaii. No ID is currently allowed only in a shinking minority of states. ID laws have been found to result in a less than 1.1% decline in turnout based on a study of the Harvard law review.

    In your mind, this rational point of view is extremist. la la la.

    Like

  16. Nonstick says:

    Yes James Hanley, you are right. Total failure! Curse Ed and his ID identification system! I might just have got away with posting as you if it hadn’t checked my ID when I posted! Or at least, no one would have known it was me who made the fake post! Oh the humiliation!

    Wait…is there a lesson in there somewhere? Seems like something important may be escaping me…..Nah!

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Speaking of drunk driving, at his blog Morgan laments Don Surber’s hanging up his blogging keyboard. Surber frequently invented things to be outraged about, too* — perhaps he just ran out of the creative juices to make stuff up.

    * I think I first ran into Surber when he was complaining that DDT should be brought back to cure malaria and environmentalists and Rachel Carson should be blamed for the ban that cut off DDT from Africa — never mind that DDT doesn’t cure malaria, never mind that the problem is that pharmaceuticals are becoming ineffective against the parasite itself, never mind that WHO stopped using DDT in great quantity in 1965 because over use of DDT had bred mosquitoes resistant and immune to the stuff, and never mind that the 1972 ban on spraying DDT on crops in the U.S. had a special exemption for fighting malaria (or other health problems) and did not extend beyond U.S. shores, especially not to Africa nor Asia. (See the Wall of Shame for 2010, here.)

    Should we blame that on drunk blogging?

    Like

  18. Morgan writes:
    Morgan said: Also irrelevant. According to the logic you have used here, you need to PROVE that I, personally, am about to commit either injury to someone’s person, or damage to someone’s property. Failing to do that, you M-U-S-T stop doing harm for sake of fixing irrelevancies, and let me drive.

    Gee..I wonder which came first…drunk driving…or drunk driving laws.

    I somehow suspect that drunk driving laws came after drunk driving. So no, Morgan, it wasn’t to stop a hypothetical.

    If you want to worry so much about the integrity of our voting system, Morgan, then support a means to actually protect it.

    Instead of Voter ID which will do absolutely nothing to protect it.

    Because I have yet to hear you or any other proponent of Voter ID propose anything that would stop election fraud..which happens a hell of a lot more then voter fraud. Just to name one thing. And it’s not like Voter ID is going to stop what little voter fraud does happen.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    I said earlier: On the other hand, we have a great deal of experience that drunk drivers DO commit mayhem. I can find two or three stories each week on that issue here in Dallas County.

    Morgan said: Also irrelevant. According to the logic you have used here, you need to PROVE that I, personally, am about to commit either injury to someone’s person, or damage to someone’s property. Failing to do that, you M-U-S-T stop doing harm for sake of fixing irrelevancies, and let me drive.

    There’s a serious aspect to this: We have a great many laws on the books that are based, sensibly, on hypotheticals.

    So does Wisconsin.

    I made an argument to the significance of the problem you claim. This is not logical gymnastics:

    The problem you claim is so infinitesimally small that it has not been documented. The problem of people voting under a false name is pragmatically non-existent.

    Moreover, there is no question about Ruthelle Frank. Not even you have alleged she might vote illegally. There is no good reason on God’s Earth to keep a patriotic citizen like Ruthelle Frank from voting, especially after she’s raised two civically active kids. She’s the epitome of a good citizen.

    Whatever solution you propose that requires a new law is too much. If your solution damages even one vote, that’s one more vote lost than frauds prevented.

    Drunk driving simply is not analogous. For every 100 drunk drivers, there will be a greater-than-statistically significant number of auto accidents, with great destruction of property and, perhaps, injury and death. You have no right to drive. You have no right to drink intoxicating fluids. Voting, a noble civic duty, is simply not analogous to driving under the influence, an ignoble hazard to life and property.

    We have a few laws that are aimed at insiginficant problems. We don’t need any more.

    Like

  20. On the other hand, we have a great deal of experience that drunk drivers DO commit mayhem. I can find two or three stories each week on that issue here in Dallas County.

    Also irrelevant. According to the logic you have used here, you need to PROVE that I, personally, am about to commit either injury to someone’s person, or damage to someone’s property. Failing to do that, you M-U-S-T stop doing harm for sake of fixing irrelevancies, and let me drive.

    There’s a serious aspect to this: We have a great many laws on the books that are based, sensibly, on hypotheticals.

    So does Wisconsin.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    The more details we know, the more it seems a travesty to keep Ruthelle Frank from voting:

    Written by
    Robert Mentzer
    Wausau Daily Herald

    Voter ID becomes law of unintended consequences

    BROKAW — Ruthelle Frank was born on Aug. 21, 1927, in her home in Brokaw. It was a hard birth; there were complications. A doctor had to come up from Wausau to see that she and her mother made it through.

    Frank ended up paralyzed on the left side of her body. To this day, she walks with a shuffle and doesn’t have much use of one arm.

    Her mother recorded her birth in the family Bible. Frank still has it. A few months later, when Ruthelle was baptized, her mother got a notarized certificate of baptism. She still has that document, too.

    What she never had — and in 84 years, never needed — was a birth certificate.

    But without a birth certificate, Frank cannot get a state ID card. And without a state ID card, according to Wisconsin’s new voter ID law, she won’t be able to vote next year.

    A diminutive, fiery woman who has voted in every election since 1948 and is an elected official herself, Frank finds the prospect of being turned away from the polls infuriating.

    “It’s really crazy,” she said this week, sitting at her kitchen table with evidence of her identity spread out before her — the baptism certificate, a Social Security card, a Medicare statement, a checkbook. “I’ve got all this proof. You mean to tell me that I’m not a U.S. citizen? That I don’t live at 123 First St. in Brokaw?

    “It’s just stupid.”

    ‘A fee to vote’

    Though Frank never had a birth certificate, the state Register of Deeds in Madison has a record of her birth. It can generate a birth certificate for her — for a fee. Normally, the cost is $20.

    “I look at that like paying a fee to vote,” Frank said.

    And for Frank, that might not be the end of it. The attending physician at Frank’s birth misspelled her maiden name, which was Wedepohl. To get a birth certificate that has correct information, she will have to petition a court to amend the document — a weekslong process that could cost $200 or more.

    She’s heard different things from different sources, but one email from the State Vital Records Division advised her to pay the $20 for an incorrect birth certificate, then go to the DMV and see if that office is willing to accept it. Roll the dice, in other words.

    “If she gets it (the state ID), great!” the email said.

    And if not, it continued, then she can begin the lengthy, potentially costly process of getting the document fixed. Then she can return to the DMV and try again.
    A statewide problem

    Frank’s case is just one example of how the voter ID law is creating complications even for qualified voters in Wisconsin — and in some cases, potentially disenfranchising them.

    “I don’t think it’s an isolated situation,” said Andrea Kaminski, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, which is suing the state over the law. “We’re hearing about cases from all around the state. Often they are older people who have been voting (their whole lives). All of a sudden they’re not going to be able to vote, and that’s really terrible.”

    A 2005 study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Employment and Training Institute found an estimated 177,399 Wisconsin residents 65 and older do not have a driver’s license or state photo ID — 23 percent of that population. The study estimated that another 98,247 residents ages 35 through 64 lack IDs. Disparities were especially pronounced among racial minorities.

    State Rep. Donna Seidel, D-Wausau, whose office has worked with Frank, said she has been visiting senior centers and assisted living facilities to discuss the impact of the law — and has found many seniors are angry about what they find to be confusing changes.

    “These people are proud of their history of voting,” Seidel said. “The overwhelming reaction has been that (the new requirements) are totally unnecessary.”

    The number of Wisconsin residents without birth certificates is hard to pin down. But while the particulars of Frank’s case seem rare, the situation is common enough that state Sen. Jim Holperin, D-Conover, has circulated a bill that would waive the state’s birth certificate fees for people who are trying to vote. Holperin said he will introduce the bill this week, but its prospects are unclear: Of 11 cosponsors in the Senate and eight in the Assembly as of last week, only one, Sen Luther Olsen of Ripon, is a Republican.

    The voter ID law was a longtime cause of state Republicans, and was passed this year mostly along party lines. Sen. Pam Galloway, a Republican from Wausau, was unavailable for comment this week, according to one of her spokesmen. Gov. Scott Walker’s spokesman Cullen Werwie, the Republican Party of Wisconsin and Sen. Joe Leibham, R-Sheboygan, the voter ID law’s main sponsor, each did not respond to separate requests for comment.

    “The photo ID law was put into place to protect voters and give them a means of confidence that their vote will not be hijacked by fraudulent voting,” said Republican Party of Marathon County Chairman Bruce Trueblood in an emailed statement. “In today’s society, it is very difficult to function without some type of photo ID. One must present a photo ID to open a bank account … and to buy cold medication at the pharmacy.

    “Asking someone to prove their eligibility to vote is no different, and the Republican Party of Marathon County applauds the implementation of the law,” Trueblood said.
    Discouraging voters

    Another solution offered by one of the bureaucrats Ruthelle Frank talked to in one of her many afternoons spent on the phone to this or that Madison office: She could claim she is “indefinitely confined,” a category of people granted an exception in the new voter ID law.

    Even recalling the suggestion rankles.

    “That would be real voter fraud,” she said. “I’m not good at walking — I couldn’t win a marathon. But I go down to the Village Hall for meetings. I get around OK.

    “I don’t want to be a liar,” she said. “I’m a pretty straightforward person. That would be lying.”

    It’s true. A lifelong resident of Brokaw, Frank has served on the Brokaw Village Board since 1996. Each month she walks the couple of blocks from her home to the Village Hall for meetings.

    While Frank spoke to a Daily Herald reporter at her home, her daughter Rochelle (also a Village Board member) and her son Randy chimed in occasionally with details. They were evidently outraged by the burden the new law has place on their mother. Each made the point that their mother is especially tenacious and, with help from the family, willing to fight this battle — something that’s likely not true of other senior citizens.

    What about those Wisconsin residents, they asked, who don’t have Frank’s feisty constitution? What about those who don’t have family members to help them navigate the bureaucracies?

    Frank herself agrees.

    “I feel for other people out there” who don’t have IDs, she said. “I think they just won’t vote.”

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    Morgan, Ruthelle isn’t blasted. No one else in Wisconsin is “blasted” to steal votes. On the other hand, we have a great deal of experience that drunk drivers DO commit mayhem. I can find two or three stories each week on that issue here in Dallas County.

    Vote fraud isn’t that prevalent. It poses no clear or present danger. Surely you can see the difference between drunk driving and sober voting, can’t you?

    Your analogy is inapt, and mean.

    Like

  23. It’s Saturday. Maybe I should try that one tonight: Get blasted, drive aways, and when the cops pull me over I’ll tell them I haven’t hurt or killed anyone yet. Why do harm to fix an irrelevancy? We shouldn’t.

    Like

  24. Ed Darrell says:

    No ballot was handed to O’Keefe.

    Irrelevant.

    Despite O’Keefe’s being a convicted criminal whose reputation is that he has no real morals…

    Also irrelevant.

    Not irrelevant at all. If political tricksters who have demonstrated they will walk all over the law to sway elections, won’t steal ballots with impersonation, who will?

    I suppose, actually, “irrelevant” is accurate: The problem the law purports to fix is irrelevant. Again, it’s that old Hippocratic rule: Why do harm to fix an irrelevancy? We shouldn’t.

    There is no justification to take away Ruthelle’s vote. None.

    Like

  25. No ballot was handed to O’Keefe.

    Irrelevant.

    Despite O’Keefe’s being a convicted criminal whose reputation is that he has no real morals…

    Also irrelevant.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    Rest easy America, if anyone ever tries to commit vote fraud, some extra smart person like you will instantly figure it out with their & your super-extra-special perceptive/inferential powers? So…not like the volunteer in O’Keefe’s video who handed Eric Holder’s ballot over?

    No ballot was handed to O’Keefe. Despite O’Keefe’s being a convicted criminal whose reputation is that he has no real morals, even he refused to take a ballot.

    Madison warned us that men are no angels, and consquently we need checks and balances and separation of power and a whole lot of other stuff in the Constitution, to make it work well. Madison also warned that the Constitution is not well fitted for any but “a moral people.”

    The fact is that most Americans are honest. Voter fraud of the type you describe isn’t a big problem. You have difficulty establishing that it has ever occurred, let alone that it is something 20 or more state legislatures should worry about. There simply isn’t that much fraud, even by you and your unsavory colleagues like James O’Keefe. Even convicted criminals (wasn’t it burglary they got him for?) don’t commit voter fraud by posing as someone else the polls, one vote stolen at a time.

    You don’t seem to understand the scale of things. See, murder is worse than littering, to most people. And stealing the votes of thousands of citizens through latter-day Jim Crow laws is much worse than one almost-stolen ballot in Washington, D.C.

    If you’re concerned about vote stealing, why aren’t you concerned about Ahab Walker’s stealing of Ruthelle Frank? There’s one vote being stolen now, and thousands more in Wisconsin. In Texas, it’s about 200,000 people who were slated to lose their votes.

    Why doesn’t this gross violation of the Constitution and citizenship concern you?

    Fighting voter fraud is a great idea — but this isn’t a case where we need to bring in a forest fire to fight a birthday cake, you know? Fight fire with fire when appropriate, and then appropriately. This case does not require a new law to fight non-existent voter fraud, and if the new law in its operation steals votes from more people than the law could possibly protect, it’s a bad law. We don’t need a philosophical discussion — in the political Hippocratic code, first do no harm. This law starts out doing lots of harm, and so it fails the first rules of politics.

    Like

  27. Nope, I don’t hate the Republican party. Hatred implies that I want them destroyed..that I want the party to die out. I like the idea of there being a party that can check the Democrat party when needed. There should be a party that opposes the Democrat party. But one that opposes them out of honesty and intelligence and gravitas.

    What I want is for them to get their head out of their arses and go back to being a center right party instead of a party of far right extremists. I want them to go back to being the party of Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, the elder Bush and even Reagan. If George H Bush tried running for office today your party would kick him out. If Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan came back to life your party would crucify them. And your party long ago kicked Lincoln to the curb as well.

    Your side constantly makes up crap about the President, your side constantly lies about the President. Your side on an almost daily basis engages in conspiracy talk about the President and the Democrats and liberals. If your side opposes something it’s because your opponents are engaging in a conspiracy to promote that something. *points to global warming* Or the President isn’t really the President because he was supposedly born in Kenya. Or if your side loses in elections it’s because of a mass amount of voter fraud that yet neither you nor anyone else can proves actually exists.

    Your side simply has no honest criticism anymore. It’s lost its ability to criticize intelligently and honestly . It’s lost its ability to be the loyal opposition. It’s lost its ability to compromise and to govern effectively. It’s lost its ability to do whats right for the people. The GOP has become nothing more then a cult, to use a term a former high level GOP operative has labled the party, engaged in a grand Ayn Rand inspired excess of social darwinism.

    I neither have to make up crap about the Republican nor do I have to lie about them.

    Sorry, I don’t hate the Republican party. The Republican party is the party I grew up in. But the Republican party has lost its way..it has lost what grace it had. It simply is no longer the party of my father or my grandfather. I simply don’t recognize it anymore. It’s become the party of hatred, fear, intolerance, ignorance and white male power and privilige and the abject need to see anything that helps those who aren’t white, male and priviliged as attacking those who are white, male and priviliged. It has become the party of blatant hypocrisy and desire to squelch democracy. It has become the party of using God, Jesus and Christianity as weapons. It’s become the party of “I do what I want and damn the consequences. I don’t have to care about anyone other then myself.” It has become the party of “root hog or die.” It has become the party of “In this world only the strong survive. If you’re strong (rich) you live, if you’re weak (not rich) you die.” It has become the party of “America is weak and poor and can’t do anything. You’re all on your own.” It has become the party of worshipping the individual to the point that it no longer recognizes the need and responsibility of community.

    Your party loves to claim “We are going to take our country back!” Which really only raises the question of “Take it back from what?” Because it seems to me that the answer to that question is “We’re going to take it back from our fellow Americans.” Because its not like being liberal and Democrat or in the President’s case..also being black makes any of us lesser Americans then you. And yet that is how your party acts.

    I don’t hate the Republican party, Non, I pity the Republican party..I find it becoming more and more pathetic and following the same destructive path that the Whigs did. Which I suppose says something about sins of the fathers.

    Like

  28. Eh, excuse me, I think in your zeal to score a third-grade-playground “win” against the opposition, Mr. Hanley, you’ve lost track of your own argument. What are you trying to say with NS’s so called “failure.” Rest easy America, if anyone ever tries to commit vote fraud, some extra smart person like you will instantly figure it out with their & your super-extra-special perceptive/inferential powers? So…not like the volunteer in O’Keefe’s video who handed Eric Holder’s ballot over?

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t think you have too good of an idea what it is, either.

    Like

  29. James Hanley says:

    James H, I made the fake post extra special fake given your doubt such identity theft could ever occur . I thought you might be a bit…ahem…challenged unless it was obvious. I apologize.

    Nothing’s harder than admitting failure, is it?

    Like

  30. Ed Darrell says:

    Asking Ruthlle to fill our an absentee form is like lynching a black man? You don’t think that comparison might be a wee bit over the top?

    I didn’t say it’s like a lynching. I said the intent is the same — to stop people from voting. We’re talking about voting here (odd I have to remind you).

    No, sadly, the comparison isn’t over the top at all. The Klan violence was directed at keeping thousands of people from voting. Walker’s bill is intended exactly the same way.

    I merely call a shovel a shovel. Proper labeling, you know.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, I get it. You hate Scott Walker. Burning like the sun hate. I mean, you call him “Ahab” fror crying out loud.

    There’s a literary allusion there. Surely it didn’t escape you. How does such an allusion indicate hate?

    You’re doing some championship projecting there, I suspect.

    Like

  32. Nonstick says:

    And James Kessler – You don’t hate anyone? let’s see, in one post we have…

    “There is reasonable opposition to the President’s ideas and actions…and then there is the Republican party.” Um yeah. Who other than Republicans are opposed to Obama again?

    “Your party makes up fake crap and on a daily basis, lie and personally attack the President.” Ummm How do you know my party? Am I responsible for anyone other than myself?

    “Hell, more than a few people who are Republicans have openly called for the death of the President.” I wonder if he gets more calls than Scott Walker.

    “It acts like the President is the anti-Christ combined with the second coming of Hitler and Stalin.” I keep seeing in my mind those pictures of Bush with a Hitler moustache. In your world, I’m responsible for people I don’t know and can’t control, for things I didn’t say and don’t think. Right.

    “One does have to wonder at what issues you have. Since you so gleefully are willing to bend over and be any Republican’s….well..it rhymes with the word witch.” Ditch? Snitch? Lich? But YOU don’t hate.

    “Wisconsin is the only state in its area that has seen job losses the last couple years.” Now that is just funny. And wrong. But mostly funny.

    “Like the stupid little 5 year old who has no capability to think for himself that you really are, Morgan.” Seems a tad hatey to me.

    “As for NS…I’m sure to you it must feel nice to finally have someone on this blog who is as silly, unreasonable and asinine as you.” More hatey hate hate.

    “Must be nice to have a fellow parrot.” Sqwawk!

    Funny – you and Ed agree, but it never occurs to me that you are anyone but individuals with your own unique opinions. I don’t assume you have any particular affiliation with any outside group, and I don’t hold you to words other than your own. Please afford me the same consideration.

    Like

  33. Nonstick says:

    Yawn.

    James H, I made the fake post extra special fake given your doubt such identity theft could ever occur . I thought you might be a bit…ahem…challenged unless it was obvious. I apologize.

    Ed, I get it. You hate Scott Walker. Burning like the sun hate. I mean, you call him “Ahab” fror crying out loud. Like I said, it might be your reason for rolling out of bed in the morning, but not mine. And I don’t much care about most of the other sins of Walker you list – those are just ad hominum arguments with no bearing on the issue whatsoever. And comparing him and this…to the Klan? Seriously? Asking Ruthlle to fill our an absentee form is like lynching a black man? You don’t think that comparison might be a wee bit over the top?

    What gives Scott Walker the right etc etc? Uh nobody. Are you saying that it Walker royal decree that Ruthelle’s name no longer be good? Interesting concept of how goverment works.

    What makes me think the report is real? Gee, I dunno. It sure looked pretty real to me. So your thought process is that secretive conservative groups are faking investigations with FBI logos? And Scott Walker Milwaukee County executive, has some sort of incredible pull with the Milwaukee Police department and FBI…or something. Actually it all gets a little muddled there. But when you have to fall back on conspiricy theories to prove your point…

    So your theory is that the NY Times is unbiased, but the Milwaukee police department and FBI is biased? But then the Times article references the same police report, which you suggest is fake…Hmmmm. Maybe the Times article is fake? Wait, in your theory, what’s fake and what’s real again? I’m confused.

    The problem, as I see it, is that you have asked me to prove there is some vote fraud. And there is a report saying exactly that, one you were too lazy to find yourself. What’s left to do? Admit Scott Walker is anything less than Satan incarnate? Hell NO! Double down on the hate, and start tossing out any and every conspricy theory you can think of. Next up – personal insults!

    “What we know is that your intent is as nefarious as Ahab Walker’s — you don’t care about the fraud (absentee ballots, you say, don’t require the identification, and so by your definition are prone to fraud). You just want to erect barriers and create scares to frighten Democratic voters.” Er. yeah. Where did I say any of that exactly? I guess once you have the Milwaukee police, the FBI, Scott Walker in a imaginary conspiracy, it’s not hard to throw me in there too.

    All I’ve done is point out the obvious solutions to Ruthelle’s problem. You know, the problem that has you up in arms. It’s not that I don’t care about solving Ruthelle’s problem, it’s that you don’t. Not really. Because solving it would give you one less reason to hate Scott Walker.

    I do care about absentee fraud. Where have I said I didn’t? ID laws won’t stop that, I’ve never said they would. I don’t want to erect barriers to voting. Like I said many posts ago, I can see versions of an ID law that I would support, and those I’d be against. This one seems pretty mild. I also suggested methods of improving and increasing registration. Did you forget that?

    One of us definately wants to scare and frighten Democratic voters, and it isan’t me.

    “Nonstick, may I say that I regard your position as immoral as well as unnecessary? I think it’s sinful to take away a right to vote from people in a democratic republic. You should repent.” Er. Okay. I fully repent of the imaginary sin you have accused me of.

    “Our problem is not too many people voting — it’s too few. You’re working the wrong way. It’s as if you claim we should give vodka to babies in 1915, instead of passing the 18th Amendment. The vodka won’t be so apparent on the babies’ breath (if they live).” Hmmm. So…I want to kill babies? Or get them drunk? I can’t follow that, sorry.

    More people should vote, and we should make people confident that their vote matters, and isan’t stolen. That is in everyone’s best interest.

    I think goverment works best with high levels of voter participation. That way decisions are supported by a large fraction of the population, not just the small percentage that typically votes. One certain way to depress voter turnout is to have less than clean elections. In Chicago I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard people say “Why bother voting? The bastards will just steal the election anyway.” Lack of security depresses voter turnout, clean elections encourage it.

    So, ID laws discourage turnout? Funny, it doesn’t seem to discourage much else, like plane travel and credit card purchases. And of course there are the studies that show that ID laws do not depress voter turnout. So who is imagining problems here, you or me?

    1,305 problems identified, 18 charged, 4 convicted? I thought this was all just hokum? If Ruthelle’s vote gets negated by 1 person illegally voting or 1,000, what’s the difference? You’ve given exactly one example of someone who might be disenfranchised, I’ve given you dozens of stolen votes. Which is more important? If you say there are other Ruthele’s, my resposne is, there is other fraud we have’nt found, given the easiest method of voter fraud, the one protected by IDs, is also the hardest to detect.

    “The elderly also will be affected, but they are not really the GOP’s target.” Aren’t they more…conservative? Hey GOP, you’re shooting yourself in the foot dummies!

    Cronies, henchmen, sinners, oh my!

    Like

  34. Morgan writes:

    Gotta love it. NS comes to a reasonable conclusion after watching the actions of one person…James K. responds by smearing “pretty much” an entire political party, I guess that’s everyone running it, everyone elected from it, everyone who ever contributed to it or volunteered for it. Daddy issues, I guess.

    It isn’t smearing when its true, Morgan. Sorry, Ed reasonably opposes Walker. That isn’t hate. Oh and by the way..there is reasonable opposition to the President’s ideas and actions…and then there is the Republican party.

    Your party makes up fake crap and on a daily basis, lie and personally attack the President. Hell, more than a few people who are Republicans have openly called for the death of the President. And what does your party do? Does it condemn them? No…it supports those people. It acts like the President is the anti-Christ combined with the second coming of Hitler and Stalin.

    As for “Daddy Issues” don’t try and psychoanalyze me, Morgan. First off..you don’t have the training. Secondly..you simply don’t have the brains for it.

    However, one does have to wonder at what issues you have. Since you so gleefully are willing to bend over and be any Republican’s….well..it rhymes with the word witch.

    Walker has been a disaster for Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the only state in its area that has seen job losses the last couple years. He took a budget surplus, turned it into a budget deficit by giving out tax breaks to his rich cronies and then blamed it on a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it. All so he can screw them over and take away their rights. And then he starts messing with democracy in Wisconsin by attempting to take away people’s right to vote and making damn sure that his political opponents can’t get those precious ID’s you so think will solve everything and then coming up with false reasons and bulldrek in order to save himself from being recalled.

    And instead of thinking “wait..if he and his fellow Republicans can do that to those people..what will they do to me?” you cheer them on and act like you’re going to benefit from their shenanigans. Like the stupid little 5 year old who has no capability to think for himself that you really are, Morgan.

    As for NS…I’m sure to you it must feel nice to finally have someone on this blog who is as silly, unreasonable and asinine as you. After all, your pal Black Flag left. And it’s not like Joe has been much of a friend of yours as of late either. Since, as much as I disagree with him on some things, at least he manages to be intelligent and reasonable.

    Must be nice to have a fellow parrot.

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Morgan, I don’t hate Scott Walker. But his Ahab-like quest to “stick it to” his political enemies is ugly, immoral, and damaging to his state, party and soul.

    If you don’t find his actions abominable, your soul may be in danger, too.

    Like

  36. Oh you mean like how you, Morgan and pretty much every other Republican are blinded by hate of Barack Obama?

    Gotta love it. NS comes to a reasonable conclusion after watching the actions of one person…James K. responds by smearing “pretty much” an entire political party, I guess that’s everyone running it, everyone elected from it, everyone who ever contributed to it or volunteered for it. Daddy issues, I guess.

    What a red herring. Some people who vote, are not Republicans. Some are named Eric Holder; others claim to be named Eric Holder. Just seems like a good idea to count the votes from people who are supposed to be voting, and are who they claim to be. After all the prose & poetry and “your side’s failed to prove X” I’m still not sure what’s wrong with this.

    Like

  37. Nonstick writes:
    I’m sorry Ed. I keep forgetting you are blinded by hate of Scott Walker. A guy most of us have no clue about.

    Oh you mean like how you, Morgan and pretty much every other Republican are blinded by hate of Barack Obama?

    Every single “case of voter fraud” you and morgan provide have all had the same common denominator…it was a court case.

    In other words, geniuses….the system works as is.

    Like

  38. James Hanley says:

    If all potential illegal voters are as competent as non-stick in perpetrating identify fraud, we’ve definitely got nothing to worry about!

    As my teenage daughter would say, “Epic fail!”

    Like

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    Interesting how Jack Hanley, the new James Hanley, and Barack Obama, all have Nonstick’s ip-specific avatar next to their names. Curious, don’t you think? Maybe it’s not so easy to commit fraud as Nonstick alleges.

    Nonstick said:

    I’m sorry Ed. I keep forgetting you are blinded by hate of Scott Walker. A guy most of us have no clue about.

    Ahab Walker is a repeat offender, to those who do have a clue. It’s not difficult — you could read the Milwaukee papers.

    Of course, Ruthelle is not deprived of the vote, except self deprived. She can vote absentee OR fix her birth certificate problem. Either/or. Her choice. This has been established. If you don’t believe me, read the damn law and stop wasting our time.

    Sure, and any black man in Mississippi only had to keep out of the clutches of the Klan (don’t answer the door, or otherwise be alive in the county, for example), and any black man could have bought a bean jar the same size and filled it with beans and counted them before registering . . .

    Why is that unreasonable, you ask, passive-aggressively?

    Who the hell is Ahab Walker to claim that Ruthelle’s name isn’t good enough? She’s old enough to be his grandmother. Why can’t she declare his name invalid, and strike him from office? How does any person get such odd, unconstitutional powers?

    The class of fraud that is prevented by ID? Well let’s say someone from outside the district wants to vote. Their ID, the card we all carry, would have an address, OUTSIDE THE VOTING DISTRICT. That might be relevent. Or say, just as an example, there were college students from out of state that were ineligible to vote. An ID might illuminate that fact. The investigation by both the FBI and the Milwaukee police department found both problems.

    Actually, the report you linked to (oddly from a Republican group in Minnesota . . .) said it could not determine whether that was a big problem. That was part of Ahab Walker’s earlier fight against old people and people of color voting, when he was a county official down in Milwaukee (there’s a clue for you).

    Are you sure that “report” is genuine?

    In any case, that 2005 report turned out to be in error, and in court it proved not always accurate, but puzzling. See the story in the NY Times that noted the results of the “investigation”:

    In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings.

    But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals. ["Acquittal" means "no fraud" here.]

    The Path to Jail

    One of those officials was Rick Graber, former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

    “It is a system that invites fraud,” Mr. Graber told reporters in August 2005 outside the house of a Milwaukeean he said had voted twice. “It’s a system that needs to be fixed.”

    Along with an effort to identify so-called double voters, the party had also performed a computer crosscheck of voting records from 2004 with a list of felons, turning up several hundred possible violators. The assertions of fraud were turned over to the United States attorney’s office for investigation.

    Ms. Prude’s path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

    Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years’ probation.

    Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary. [Nonstick says all Ruthelle has to do is call these same officials . . . will they get it right, or will Ruthelle wind up in jail, too? Excuse my skepticism.]

    “I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it,” Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation.

    Of the hundreds of people initially suspected of violations in Milwaukee, 14 — most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters — ever faced federal charges. United States Attorney Steven M. Biskupic would say only that there was insufficient evidence to bring other cases. [Biskupic is listed as a signatory on the report Nonstick linked to -- looks like his source is crabbing on him.]

    No residents of the house where Mr. Graber made his assertion were charged. Even the 14 proved frustrating for the Justice Department. It won five cases in court.

    The evidence that some felons knew they that could not vote consisted simply of a form outlining 20 or more rules that they were given when put on probation and signs at local government offices, testimony shows.

    The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

    Where is there a problem? According to federal prosecutors in Wisconsin, there isn’t a major problem at all. According to the results of the 2005 investigation, voter ID can’t solve any of the problems. Each of these people had identification as required under Ahab Walker’s law, but voted illegally, or registered and did not vote. The new identification law offers no way to catch improper voting as demonstrated in these cases.

    Look, the need for an ID is not something I created, or Scott Waker created. It was a specific reccomendation from the FBI and the Milwaukee police department. Page 26 of the report. Check it out.

    The law allows the absentee ballot. Instead of arguing you could actually read the law. Or better still, read the post where I wrote the text of the law so you wouldn’t have to look something up. I know this is hard. But try. Try.

    Why should I try to find a solution your imagined problems?

    First you argue there is no fraud, ever, anywhere, then that the absentee ballot is prone to fraud. So…which is it? Oh wait, I get it. Special fraud. Only fraud that cannot be fixed by any type of security measure Got it.

    What we know is that your intent is as nefarious as Ahab Walker’s — you don’t care about the fraud (absentee ballots, you say, don’t require the identification, and so by your definition are prone to fraud). You just want to erect barriers and create scares to frighten Democratic voters.

    Nonstick, may I say that I regard your position as immoral as well as unnecessary? I think it’s sinful to take away a right to vote from people in a democratic republic. You should repent.

    Our problem is not too many people voting — it’s too few. You’re working the wrong way. It’s as if you claim we should give vodka to babies in 1915, instead of passing the 18th Amendment. The vodka won’t be so apparent on the babies’ breath (if they live).

    Not just an unworkable “solution,” but a damaging solution.

    Holy mother – finally?! You admit there is actual fraud and define methods that might secure the vote? I thought it was all denial? So…your rather bizarre position is now…that fraud does in fact exist (after denying any fraud exists for a 100 or so posts), but that ID checks won’t make a difference? I am going to count that as progress!

    Now, if you just READ the Milwaukee police report. Page 26. You can do it. Read it. Think to yourself – Scott Walker was not EVEN in office when this report was written.

    Yes, Scott Walker was in office — stealing elections in Milwaukee. A good reason not to trust the report at all — as the federal courts determined.

    Why would the police lie to protect a politician that isan’t even running? Yet…they reccommend…IDs. How is that possible?

    Appointed by Walker or his cronies. Wrong on the data. Relied on the biased and error-filled Republican Party reports. There are all sorts of ways they could be wrong.

    You also should see here, where the Wisconsin papers reported the 2005 investigation provided no value: http://thexofffiles.blogspot.com/2005/12/no-organized-voter-fraud-in-milwaukee.html

    Please remember that 277,000 people voted in the city in the last presidential election. Eighteen people have been charged. Four have been convicted.

    But the fairy tale of “massive voter fraud” in Milwaukee, has been repeated endlessly by the Republicans and reported hysterically by the media, especially the Journal Sentinel, which has killed entire forests to print its long stories on the subject.

    Milwaukee’s “fraud” has become the rationale for requiring every voter in Wisconsin to show a photo ID card at the polls.

    The real reason Republicans want to do that is to discourage the poor and minorities from voting, because they tend to vote Democratic and are less likely to havthete required IDs. The elderly also will be affected, but they are not really the GOP’s target.

    The GOP-run legislature has repeatedly passed a photo ID bill and sent it to Gov. Jim Doyle for his certain veto. They have never been willing to compromise and offer a bill that would require ID without disenfranchising tens of thousands of people. Now they are proposing a constitutional amendment to require photo IDs.

    So we have a record of Walker and his cronies and henchmen refusing rational identification laws that do NOT disenfranchise patriotic voters, but instead pushing laws repeatedly that take away voters from people of color. Hello, Voting Rights Act of 1965?

    Shameful position backed by astonishingly bad evidence that, if you were up on the Constitution, you’d refuse to post under your 5th Amendment rights.

    Like

  40. Barack Obama says:

    Seriously, I think Nonstick is on to something here.

    Like

  41. James Hanley says:

    Oh wait, I’m sorry. JAMES Hanley.

    Like

  42. Jack Hanley says:

    This is Jack Hanley,

    I know I said I wouldn’t post, but I really think Nonstick is on to something here. Seriously, it is frightening to me that someone could steal my ID, my voice, and vote for things things I don’t agree with due to lax security measures. We should have very tight security, or my name isan’t Jack Hanley.

    Signed,

    Jack Hanley.

    Like

  43. Nonstick says:

    I’m sorry Ed. I keep forgetting you are blinded by hate of Scott Walker. A guy most of us have no clue about.

    Of course, Ruthelle is not deprived of the vote, except self deprived. She can vote absentee OR fix her birth certificate problem. Either/or. Her choice. This has been established. If you don’t believe me, read the damn law and stop wasting our time.

    The class of fraud that is prevented by ID? Well let’s say someone from outside the district wants to vote. Their ID, the card we all carry, would have an address, OUTSIDE THE VOTING DISTRICT. That might be relevent. Or say, just as an example, there were college students from out of state that were ineligible to vote. An ID might illuminate that fact. The investigation by both the FBI and the Milwaukee police department found both problems.

    Look, the need for an ID is not something I created, or Scott Waker created. It was a specific reccomendation from the FBI and the Milwaukee police department. Page 26 of the report. Check it out.

    The law allows the absentee ballot. Instead of arguing you could actually read the law. Or better still, read the post where I wrote the text of the law so you wouldn’t have to look something up. I know this is hard. But try. Try.

    First you argue there is no fraud, ever, anywhere, then that the absentee ballot is prone to fraud. So…which is it? Oh wait, I get it. Special fraud. Only fraud that cannot be fixed by any type of security measure Got it.

    Holy mother – finally?! You admit there is actual fraud and define methods that might secure the vote? I thought it was all denial? So…your rather bizarre position is now…that fraud does in fact exist (after denying any fraud exists for a 100 or so posts), but that ID checks won’t make a difference? I am going to count that as progress!

    Now, if you just READ the Milwaukee police report. Page 26. You can do it. Read it. Think to yourself – Scott Walker was not EVEN in office when this report was written. Why would the police lie to protect a politician that isan’t even running? Yet…they reccommend…IDs. How is that possible?

    Like

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Voting machines that are certified to work and which cannot be easily hacked, and which provide a paper trail for verification.

    A signature verified absentee ballot — perhaps where the signature is placed on the outside of the envelope and verified before the ballot is opened and counted.

    Same-day voter registration — the registration verification in most states is much tougher than voter ID — at the polls, with a photo ID given to each voter if you want a voter ID.

    Frauds that move elections have been committed with threats to voters, machines whose counts are juggled, uncounted ballots, false notifications sent out on polling places and times — stop that stuff, you’ll end almost all voter fraud. None of those methods is touched with voter ID.

    Like

  45. Okay Ed, let’s say you and the Jameses have convinced me. Or at least, I’m not willing to convince that vote fraud is non-existent, but let’s say I’ll throw in the towel, and bow to the superiority of your “merry-go-round arguing beats common sense” democrat party logica, and say yes, you’re right, this is not the answer.

    I’m sure you’ll all agree that the public confidence in our voting system is beneath where it needs to be. All who doubt me, ask a loyal, passionate democrat who wanted to see George W. Bush voted out of office back in ’04. That should settle it. So there’s a problem. What’s the answer?

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    That Ruthelle can vote either absentee, or fix her birth certificate and get a free ID from the state.

    You’re really playing the naif here. Can she vote absentee? Perhaps. So you’re willing to allow fraud in absentee voting? You claimed there’s some sort of fraud ID stops, but now you’re willing to wink at it?

    Why should she have to vote absentee when the polling place is next door, and she’s not going to be out of town? In Utah in the old days, you had to sign an affidavit that you would be unable to vote on election day — that is, you had to perjure yourself if you were instead going to be in town. Does Wisconsin not have such a rule?

    Then she can avoid perjury by voting absentee.

    “Fix her birth certificate.” Can you tell me how that’s done in Wisconsin? It’s not like a name change, which would cost maybe $200 in most states. One has to hire a lawyer to argue to a judge to get an order for an agency to fix something, and maybe argue to the administrative law judges of that agency, and that has to be done months before balloting.

    So she can’t vote this year. You’re only trying to stop her from voting one year, and cost her a few hundred dollars unnecessarily?

    How Nixonian RFing of you, you know?

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve demonstrated that the voting sytem is vulnerable to fraud. That a small amount of fraud does occur. That ID laws would reduce certain classes of fraud.

    I missed that. Can you again point out what classes of fraud are fixed by depriving this woman of her vote?

    Like

  48. Nonstick says:

    Well, Ed seems to have fled.

    I’ve demonstrated that the voting sytem is vulnerable to fraud. That a small amount of fraud does occur. That ID laws would reduce certain classes of fraud. That ID laws do not supress turnout. That Ruthelle can vote either absentee, or fix her birth certificate and get a free ID from the state. That voter ID laws are clearly constitutional, and in complaince with the voting rights act. I’ve even shown that the movement in Wisconsin to clean up elections proceeded Governor Walker, and was a bipartisan effort.

    Nothing left to prove, nothing left to say. Victory lap.

    Look, Ed, I don’t hate any politican or person, even those I strongly disagree with. I might mock a bit, but but only at the most pompous assertions. And I apologize for any badly brusied egos. I think most of your articles are agreeable and interesting. I appreciate the level of effort you dedicate to this.

    regards,

    Like

  49. Nonstick says:

    From the Wisconsin DOT website:

    “FREE Wisconsin ID cards for voting
    ID cards used for voting are FREE. If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and require a Wisconsin ID card to vote, please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (405 KB) – Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) Application or when applying online. Otherwise, please pay the required fee.”

    There is no special photo ID for voting, just the regular old ID almost everyone already has. Ruthelle could simply fix her birth certificate, and get one for free.

    Like

  50. Nonstick says:

    Sorry Ed, but what in the devil are you blathering about? Ruthelle doesn’t need any sort of “special” ID, just the same ID everyone else has. Actually, she can vote absentee with NO ID. That’s what the law actually says. You need to try and get information from the source.

    Also, I can’t remotely detect where Morgan made fun of her name.He was comparing her to other sob stories that have been trotted out by Dems, which, upon investigation, were found to be less than entirely truthful lets just say. Not saying that is the case here, but there is certinly a record of this sort of mischief.

    Like

  51. Nonstick says:

    I’m pretty sure we solved poor Ruthelle’s problems a half dozen times already – you must try and pay better attention. She can fix her birth certificate, or she can vote absentee. Both would require her to make some sort of marginal effort.

    So now I don’t have to just prove voter fraud, but it only matters if it is in Wisonsin? Well played, sir, well played. And it has to be only and exactly the kind of fraud you want to see, the kind that is virtually unprovable?

    Gee, I don’t think I can do that Ed.

    I didn’t provide the Milwaukee task force link, since, given it is in Wisconsin, isan’t hard to find, is quite famous and recent, and might just be one of the REASONS the Wisconsin law was enacted, I assumed you already knew all about it. There are several reports, but this one was endorsed by the FBI:

    http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/WisconsinElectionFraudSummaryReport.pdf

    The Milwaukee police did a more through study:

    http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/WisconsinElectionFraudFullReport.pdf

    Findings…what were the findings?

    There were individuals voting in Wisconsin who were residents of other states;

    Same-day registrations that were unable to be entered into the voter registration system due to lack of complete and/or inaccurate information;

    Election officials allowing ineligible voters to cast votes in contested races;

    Individuals with voter registration addresses that were not a legal voting address;

    Students listing residence halls as their legal address who were not residents at these facilities;

    Individuals who were allowed to vote in precincts in which they did not reside;

    And of course there were numerous unproven allegations suggesting things were much, much worse than thse findings. Hmmmm. If only there was some simple method of verifying voters, you know, their legal name and address. Some sort of….well…a…card I guess, something 99% of us already carry, every day.

    Investigators made attempts to prosecute a number of individuals for voter fraud. However, they concluded that records mismanagement by the Election Commission during and following the election precluded criminal prosecution of suspected violators. As the report said:

    “It is hard to prove bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money there was in the first place.”

    Man, oh man, there are laughs a plenty in those documents. But what’s a couple of thousand stolen votes between friends? And what about poor pathetic Ruthelle? How can we expect her to fill out some crazy absentee form?! She might get confused and vote Republican, or jab herself with a pen! The horror!

    Can I also assume you also know nothing about the bipartisan Wisconsin vote fraud task force and their various findings? Eh. I’ll let you find that yourself.

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    You got a lot of gall to poke fun at the name this woman has carried for 84 years. You haven’t earned the privilege. Nor has Ahab Walker earned the privilege of denying her the right to vote, because of someone else’s error nine decades ago.

    Earlier, Morgan, you asked why we don’t like the identification requirements, since everyone has to show ID to cash a check, or even use a credit card.

    Ruthelle has that kind of ID. Why have you changed position, now, insisting that they go beyond what would be considered secure for a bank, and requiring her to change her name?

    Will there be a Ministry of Name Changes in your dystopian fantasy?

    Like

  53. Ah, you remember, don’t you? Winifred Skinner in her Winnebago. Has to choose between her heart medication and food for her cat, or some damn thing…Al Gore talked her up as a mascot for his lock-box fix, singled her out, she took her valuable tin-can collecting time to come out in her Winnebago.

    Then Saturday Night Live parodied it. How could they not…

    Then it emerged the Winifred Skinner’s Winnebago was actually the democrat party’s Winnebago. Yup. It was a stunt. Ever since then, it seems, the democrats can’t talk up a problem without choosing a mascot. Sandra Fluke. Warren Buffett’s secretary. And now we have Ruthelle Frank…you, Ed, make the point that there is no question about who Ruthelle Frank is. As I’ve already replied, yes, you’re correct, there isn’t — that’s what makes this a dumb way to talk about public policy issues that apply to millions of other people. And, in this case, the selection of the mascot is dumb too, since Ruthelle Frank is in no danger of being disenfranchised, by anybody, except perhaps Ruthelle Frank who doesn’t want to spend $20 to correct her own dumb stupid birth certificate.

    Okay, point noted. The democrats are whining and crying about someone who doesn’t want to spend twenty bucks. As usual, they want the rules that apply to everybody, to be twisted around to accommodate people who won’t help themselves.

    Yes, you can’t charge someone for the privilege of voting. That is not the same as saying you have a constitutional right for your voting process to be costless…when it’s your own paperwork that’s messed up. If that was a constitutional right, then I’d have a right to bill my various states & counties for all the cumulative time I’ve spent voting. I could have used that time to clock in to work early, darn it…I should be compensated.

    That would be nonsense, obviously — and so, of necessity, the claim by Ms. Frank that she shouldn’t have to fix her own buggy paperwork, must also be regarded as nonsense.

    Like

  54. Nonstick says:

    Off he goes, tail between legs. Absent video documentary evidence of someone commiting actual fraud, he’ll never buy it. Even then he’d whine about the quality of the video.

    Let’s try a thought problem. Say I go to the polling both early in the day and say I am James Hanley. Don’t need no stinken’ ID. I vote. My vote is recorded.

    A few hours later the real James Hanley strolls in, he is informed that he has already cast his vote. He complains, loud and clear, “I have been disenfranchised!” He tries to show his ID, but no one wants to see it. “But, I’m ME!” he cries, to deaf ears. He files a complaint.

    The prosecuter has to show A) James is not a liar, O’Keefe style activist, or nutter and B) ID the person that stole his vote. Now, mind you, he has no way to prove James is telling the truth, and no way to ID the perp. All the evidence is long gone or never existed. If asked about the incident, he might say something along the lines of “We BELIEVE there was fraud at the ballot box, but we have no direct evidence such.” That’s presecutor speak for people complained, but I can’t prove anything in court.

    I don’t think I have a reading comprehension problem, I think James has a reality comprehension problem.

    And of course, as has happened over and over, he bails on the central questions. What is so bad about the Walker law, what ID methods might be okay, and what about the 2004 Milwaukee study? And, why couldn’t Ruthelle simply vote absentee or fix her birth certificate problem? here’s another thought – show me that there couldn’t ever be ay mixups that ID might clear up at the ballot box. People with similar names, etc.

    Sigh. We are never ever going to get to a real discussion are we? If you guys ever admit the glaringly obvious, that there is a problem, or at the very least a potential problem, then we can never discuss solutions. So it’s deny deny deny, and when you run out of denials, flee.

    Like

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    Who is Winifred Skinner?

    Like

  56. Ed Darrell says:

    Texas is over the top, yes.

    The newspaper article Nonstick points us to:

    The rule for signing a ballot for someone else – the signer is called a witness – is also explicit:

    “The witness must state on the document or paper the name, in printed form, of the person who cannot sign. … The witness must affix the witness’s own signature to the document or paper and state the witness’s own name, in printed form, near the signature. The witness must also state the witness’s residence address unless the witness is an election officer, in which case the witness must state the witness’s official title.”

    Vote harvesters, who can assist voters legally, are entitled to as many ballots as they need or want, and can even request them at the Secretary of State’s website.

    “They get the mail-in ballot, then the fraud comes in,” said Pam Hill, election administrator in San Patricio County. She’s been in office since January 2006, and the practice has grown since that time, she said.

    The number of mail-in ballots cast varies wildly, depending on the contest, she said. “It could be 1,500 mail in ballots, or 100.”

    So, we got a voter ID law in Texas. One of the problems: At trial, the state has been unable to demonstrate that the requirement for ID does anything to stop this type of vote fraud, if it is fraud.

    That, coupled to the fact that we have a couple hundred thousand voters in counties where it is impossible to obtain a valid voter identification card (average trip — about 80 miles; one trip 176 miles one-way), and the federal courts say the law isn’t allowed under the Voting Rights Act.

    Ruthelle in Wisconsin has committed no voter fraud. There is not even an allegation that she might want to, or might ever have wanted to. Removing her right to vote by blocking her from the polls does nothing to stop voter fraud at all. What good is a perfectly worthless law?

    Like

  57. No one can offer a good justification for taking votes away from 30,000 Wisconsinites

    Your “Winifred Skinner” mascot-for-the-cause, upon examination, turns out to be a WON’T-vote rather than a CAN’T-vote.

    So you have failed to prove this is about taking anyone’s vote away. You probably should’ve picked another mascot.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    “We believe these complaints ran the gamut from voter registration fraud issues through potential fraud at the polling place on Election Day,” said Donald Palmer, secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, who was appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell in February 2011.

    No state law in Wisconsin will touch anything in Virginia. You’ve demonstrated, once again, how wholly inappropriate the Wisconsin law is.

    Are you saying Gov. Ahab Walker is crazy enough to think he’s curing Virginia voter fraud?

    Like

  59. Ed Darrell says:

    Tsk, tsk. “Asses from elbows.”

    Around here, Dr. Hanley, we use “burros from burrows.”

    Like

  60. Good bye. I’m bored with your failed attempts to provide real world evidence. If the best you can come up with is is “believed,” you’re not in the game.

    Well going by that criteria, it’s “believed” this is just a ruse by Republicans to try to steal elections…but that hasn’t been proven, so it’s not in the game.

    Like most left-wing argumentation, this often takes on the appearance of nothing more than “Look at all the wild crazy stuff this lefty can ‘prove,’ by assuming absolutely no responsibility to prove anything, and putting it on his opposition to prove everything.” And what wild crazy stuff it is. Here I’ll boil down your position, for you…

    The right to vote is a sacred, fundamental building block of our system of government and the public’s confidence in it. Therefore, it needs to work COMPLETELY differently from other things that are also important to us, like our health care information, our bank records, the credentials for logging in to our bank portals so we can transfer balances, the assurances to the bartender than you’re really over twenty-one, our video rentals…

    Drunk driving laws, too, don’t work according to this “proggie-security” scheme. Nope, sorry. The cop doesn’t have to prove you’ve killed somebody, or you’re about to, before you’re hauled down to the pokey. It’s just assumed. It can’t work any other way.

    Same is true of most of our criminal laws…our statutory rape laws…along with anything & everything that is security related. Research paper comes out and says “This 128-bit hash algorithm might be compromised someday soon”…you don’t wait for it to happen, you start using a stronger algorithm. There’s a limit to what has to be proven. Even when you’re trying to convict someone. Which is not what’s happening here…all that’s being offered here, is that the system should be demanding more proof, because a credible threat exists.

    So some semi-anonymous ankle-biter progs on Ed’s site have yet to be convinced. They suspect, without proof, that this is a Republican conspiracy to steal elections. Yeah, uh-huh. So?

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    C’mon Ed, can you cogently explain your position?

    Ruthelle has been a patriot, voting for the last 63 years (since 1949). I see no reason for a system that won’t accept the identification she has, at no cost. No one can offer a good justification for taking votes away from 30,000 Wisconsinites, even had there been a total of 1,305 fraudulent ballots. The cure is worse than the disease.

    Plus, the cure takes away constitutionally and legally protected rights.

    Like

  62. Ed Darrell says:

    So why are your ignoring the the 2004 Milwaukee study, showing 1,305 fraudulant votes?

    Solely because you offer no supporting documentation, and I don’t have time to track down every wild goose.

    Got a citation?

    Like

  63. James Hanley says:

    Oh, by the way, let me emphasize that the article said most of these fraudulent votes were felons trying to vote. That’s not a problem solvable by photo ID. You guys need to focus on that issue, but you keep sliding away from it.

    Like

  64. James Hanley says:

    Note the weasel wording “appeared to.”

    Note the lack of evidence.

    You guys are the ones doing the weaseling. You bring in all kinds of dubious anecodotes and implications. The one thing you don’t bring in is actual fricking evidence.

    Nonstick, do you really have such difficulty with reading comprehension? Look at your own snipped quote again.

    “We believe these complaints ran the gamut from voter registration fraud issues through potential fraud at the polling place on Election Day,” said Donald Palmer, secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, who was appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell in February 2011. “We do not have specific numbers on how the complaints broke down. However, (the state board of elections) is aware that arrests have been made over the past few years for individuals engaging in voter registration fraud.”

    They “believe,” they haven’t demonstrated. Whine all you want about how hard your case is to prove. Give me evidence or I’ll continue to write you off as people who really can’t figure out how their asses differ from their elbows.

    Good bye. I’m bored with your failed attempts to provide real world evidence. If the best you can come up with is is “believed,” you’re not in the game.

    Like

  65. Nonstick says:

    James, you might want to read that article a little closer:

    “We believe these complaints ran the gamut from voter registration fraud issues through potential fraud at the polling place on Election Day,” said Donald Palmer, secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, who was appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell in February 2011. “We do not have specific numbers on how the complaints broke down. However, (the state board of elections) is aware that arrests have been made over the past few years for individuals engaging in voter registration fraud.”

    You focus on this, because you know the truth. It is nearly impossible to convict someone of fraud at the ballot box – there are a slew of articles by former prosecuters complaining about that. Let me ask you – how do you catch someone without an ID law? If I vote for someone, then they come in later and try and vote and are turned away, how do I ever get caught? The person might file a complaint, but I will never, ever get prosecuted. The only danger I might face is an election official knows who I am, or who I am impersonating. The O’Keefe video shows this is a pretty slim reed to hang from.

    And what, no response to anything else? Nothing on the Wisconsin law? No specific issues you’d like to talk about? What about the 2004 Milwaukee investigation? Got nothing?

    Like

  66. James H.,

    Note the weasel wording “appeared to.”

    Also, the second story linked includes the statement from a judge, “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery,” as she installs a Republican state senator who didn’t actually win the election. Which switches control of the state Senate! Wow!

    Why not just bring a stop to the shenanigans with some better methods to validate the identities of these voters? Look at all that damage being absorbed the democrat party.

    You know, one thing that has been alleged many times in this thread, and I don’t recall it being demonstrated, is this: This whole effort is a premeditated ploy by Republicans to disenfranchise voters to steal elections. Any proof of that?

    Like

  67. James Hanley says:

    Nonstick,

    From the very first article you linked to:

    “None of the cases appeared to involve someone who misrepresented his or her identity at the polls to vote”

    Try again. And this time try reading the actual articles, instead of just the headlines. In other words, do your homework so you don’t make a fool of yourself again.

    Like

  68. Nonstick says:

    http://www.themonitor.com/articles/rio-45868-seldom-south.html

    Texas always has to top everyone.

    Well, that’s all I have time for now. But let me just say – when voter fraud is so common and expected that we in Chicago joke about, I don’t think requiring ID is somehow out of place. Illinois goverment, especially Cook County, suffers from a lack of legitimacy over this very issue – people don’t trust the goverment because they don’t trust the elections. It erodes the fabic of our society. Those that love big goverment should support every possible means of stamping out illigimate voting.

    Like

  69. Nonstick says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/us/politics/us-voter-registration-rolls-are-in-disarray-pew-report-finds.html

    This is justa linc tot he pew article you have been too lazy to read. When hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. And they should get the vote, amiright?

    Like

  70. Nonstick says:

    If Mayor Daley and three aides were stuck in a crashing plane with only one parachute and they had to vote on who gets to use it and survive, the mayor would win… twelve to six.

    http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120210/BLOGS03/120219999/award-winning-trib-reporter-bill-mullen-retires-helped-uncover-voter-fraud

    Like

  71. Nonstick says:

    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/apr/22/tdmain01-va-investigates-voter-fraud-ar-1859666/

    Let’s see how many vote fraud articles from major newspapers I can find in the next…oh say…30 minutes?

    Warning: This could get boring.

    Yes I know. Only a small amount fo fraud. But then again, you’ve only presented me with Ruthelle, and her problem could be easily solved…

    Like

  72. Nonstick says:

    So why are your ignoring the the 2004 Milwaukee study, showing 1,305 fraudulant votes? I’m sure there is more, but why bother dredging up additional examples, when you havn’t dealt with what has been presented? Also the Pew study shows ID laws have inconsequential effect on voter turnout. So start with those two and move forward.

    We seem to have migrated from showing any ID at the ballot box is akin to a poll tax, to specific objections to the Walker law. So what is the Walker law? The Walker law requires the following: a voter would have to present a driver’s license, a state ID (issued at DMV for $20), a passport, a military ID, naturalization papers or a tribal ID. College students could vote with a school ID as long as it has their signature and an expiration date within two years of the card’s issuance. Lots of options.

    Nursing or retirement home residents, stalking victims and anyone who objects to having his or her photograph taken for religious reasons would be exempt. So – Amish friendly. Anyone who forgets to bring an ID to the polls would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, but would have to show an ID to the local election clerk by the Friday after the election to have the ballot count. So it is also friendly to the forgetfull.

    And any registered Wisconsin voter can vote absentee and avoid the whole ID requirement.

    C’mon Ed, can you cogently explain your position? Are you against any and all ID requirements or just this specific one? What changes might be acceptable to you? What part(s) of the law are specifically objectionable? Stop with the abstract, imaginary impacts, and focus on the real – what part of this don’t you like and why? Why are you getting the vapours over something this mild?

    By the by, Ruthelle would be expempt from the law if she claimed to be disabled, but she says she’s no. She’s just disabled enough the compliance is difficult, but not so diabled as to be exempt. And she could just vote absentee – why is that not an option for her? No ID required. Plus she could bite the bullet and fix her problem. Or a GOTV effort could help her. So, to clarify, of the six possible solution I have presented for Ruthelle, four are completely compatable with the Wisconsin law.

    My own position is that I don’t think fraud is a huge problem, maybe 1% of the vote. And of course, that depends on how you define “fraud” – most of this stuff is just innocent screw-ups by people who think they are eligible to vote but are not for various reasons. I also don’t think requiring ID is a very big deal. In fact, I’m honestly surprised that it isan’t required everywhere since it seem like such a basic security measure, one practiced universally in our society.

    So the Walker law solves a smallish problem by slightly inconviencing a tiny number of people. What am I missing here?

    Like

  73. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve tried to put it simply, Morgan, but you don’t answer directly, or simply: Is there a problem of any significance that voter identification can solve? Voter fraud is not such a problem — all the convictions on voter fraud are for actions other than someone trying to vote illegally for someone else.

    What is the problem you wish to solve with voter ID? How significant is that problem?

    I’m not asking you for proof. I’m asking that you not demand wild goose chases in Antarctica, where there are no wild geese.

    Like

  74. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve tried to put it simply, Morgan, but you don’t answer directly, or simply: Is there a problem of any significance that voter identification can solve? Voter fraud is not such a problem — all the convictions on voter fraud are for actions other than someone trying to vote illegally for someone else.

    What is the problem you wish to solve with voter ID? How significant is that problem?

    I’m not asking you for proof. I’m asking that you not demand wild goose chases in Antarctica, where there are no wild geese.

    Like

  75. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve tried to put it simply, Morgan, but you don’t answer directly, or simply: Is there a problem of any significance that voter identification can solve? Voter fraud is not such a problem — all the convictions on voter fraud are for actions other than someone trying to vote illegally for someone else.

    What is the problem you wish to solve with voter ID? How significant is that problem?

    I’m not asking you for proof. I’m asking that you not demand wild goose chases in Antarctica, where there are no wild geese.

    Like

  76. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve tried to put it simply, Morgan, but you don’t answer directly, or simply: Is there a problem of any significance that voter identification can solve? Voter fraud is not such a problem — all the convictions on voter fraud are for actions other than someone trying to vote illegally for someone else.

    What is the problem you wish to solve with voter ID? How significant is that problem?

    I’m not asking you for proof. I’m asking that you not demand wild goose chases in Antarctica, where there are no wild geese.

    Like

  77. Ed Darrell says:

    I’ve tried to put it simply, Morgan, but you don’t answer directly, or simply: Is there a problem of any significance that voter identification can solve? Voter fraud is not such a problem — all the convictions on voter fraud are for actions other than someone trying to vote illegally for someone else.

    What is the problem you wish to solve with voter ID? How significant is that problem?

    I’m not asking you for proof. I’m asking that you not demand wild goose chases in Antarctica, where there are no wild geese.

    Like

  78. No, Morgan, you are incorrect. You have not proven…

    You are incorrect James K. “You have not proven” is not functionally synonymous with “you are incorrect.”

    As I said. Five decades of forming your arguments around “the other side must prove everything and we don’t need to prove anything,” has spoiled you rotten. Your ability to form arguments that actually convince someone in a logical way, has diminished to the level of the guy who couldn’t poor human waste out of a boot with instructions written on the heel…

    Like

  79. Morgan writes:
    But you haven’t proved that there are people out there who are ready and willing to take advantage of the system.

    That is incorrect.

    No, Morgan, you are incorrect. You have not proven that there is this widespread voter fraud that must be dealt with. Nor have you proven that the present system doesn’t deal with what little voter fraud does happen. Nor has your party done the same.

    But please, have fun explaining how your party is not engaging in shenanigans when Governor Ahab Walker instituted Voter ID in Wisconsin and then proceeded to shut down DMV offices in democrat districts while extending the hours of DMV offices in Republican districts.

    From: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277592/walker-closes-dmvs/

    Gov. Scott Walker’s administration is working on finalizing a plan to close as many as 10 offices where people can obtain driver’s licenses in order to expand hours elsewhere and come into compliance with new requirements that voters show photo IDs at the polls.

    One Democratic lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts. [...] Rep. Andy Jorgensen, D-Fort Atkinson, called on the state Department of Transportation to reconsider its plants to close the Fort Atkinson DMV center. The department plans to expand by four hours a week the hours of a center about 30 minutes away in Watertown. [...]

    Like

  80. James Hanley says:

    But you haven’t proved that there are people out there who are ready and willing to take advantage of the system.

    That is incorrect.

    No, it’s not incorrect. You’ve only shown O’Keefe, and he was only doing a demonstration of potentiality. He didn’t cast an illegal vote, so clearly he was not ready and willing to actually take advantage of the system.

    You’ve shown no evidence. We invite you to join us here in the real world, where real world action, not mere speculation, motivates our actions.

    Like

  81. Ed Darrell says:

    Must we remind you it was the Republicans who sued to stop the vote count in Florida? Al Gore gracefully conceded, though subsequent studies indicate he may have been duly elected president.

    Democrats put up no serious fight against the system in Florida after the election disasters that befell Florida’s voting system.

    By the way, voter ID could have done absolutely nothing to alter that result, except maybe made it worse by distracting poll judges from helping voters decipher ballots.

    Once again, Morgan, you demonstrate that the Gov. “Ahab” Walker method of fighting vote fraud is completely misdirected, wholly ineffectual, and useful only in helping Republicans perpetrate OTHER vote frauds.

    Why not drop this voter ID kick, and fight voter fraud instead? Is it possible that, without voter fraud, Republicans could not win anywhere? Is that what you’re telling us?

    Like

  82. Both of whom are on your “me no like” list, so I guess they don’t count.

    Maybe we should be “fair” about this; trust the integrity of the voter registration process, the same way democrats trusted it right after George W. Bush won re-election. Can’t be more charitable than that, can we?

    Ah, I recall it like it was last week…that feeling of “I’m going to believe this process has perfect integrity until someone [I like] proves otherwise!” Why, the air was cackling with the electricity of all that goodwill.

    Like

  83. Ed Darrell says:

    Well, no one other than James O’Keefe and Wisconsin’s Ahab Walker.

    Like

  84. But you haven’t proved that there are people out there who are ready and willing to take advantage of the system.

    That is incorrect.

    Like

  85. James Hanley says:

    Non-stick,

    I would also note, Libertarian James, that the most libertarian solution for Ruthelle would involve her solving what is essentially her own damn problem.

    You obviously don’t know jack shit about libertarianism.

    Like

  86. James Hanley says:

    Morgan,

    A Congressional Research Service report states:

    “As discussed, a NEXIS search of the ALL NEWS file did not identify any reported instances of individuals who were improperly registered by ACORN attempting to vote at the polls.” (P.1)

    Also, ACORN self-reported suspected registration fraud among its own employees, as reported by none other than Fox News. ACORN was badly run in many ways, and was excoriated by the California Attorney General for training its employees improperly. But no legal authority has ever determined that the organization intentionally committed fraud, nor is there any evidence that actual fraudulent voting resulted.

    So the criteria is, I have to provide proof of fraudulent voting having taken place.
    Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying. I’m glad you finally caught on.

    Proof that the system allows such a thing with absolutely no resistance against it, and proof that people are out there ready willing & able to take advantage of such a system, are not good enough

    But you haven’t proved that there are people out there who are ready and willing to take advantage of the system. Dude, if, as you say, there’s no resistance, then if there are people ready and willing, what has been stopping them so far? It doesn’t add up. Either the system does have some resistance or there aren’t people who are ready and willing.

    Like

  87. And your objections, too, have been met.

    Your use of the term “hypocritical” is as disingenuous as your use of the term “disenfranchise.” Words are devices of custom and convention; they suffer in their functionality when they’re applied to new things, outside the scope of where they have been historically applied.

    Like

  88. Ed Darrell says:

    Now you’re waxing lyrically about the lofty new higher standards of this new requirement . . .

    No, I’m just pointing out that your excuses are hypocritical, and your objections are already met. You claim this woman is unreasonable, because, after all, the bank requires ID to cash a check. But that kind of ID won’t work for this woman. You claim she’s unreasonable because it’s easy to fix the problem, maybe — but it’s a costly procedure that requires hiring an attorney, usually, changing official documents that date back more than 80 years, and it’s more than is required to cash a check, or get a credit card, or buy a $300,000 home, or get a gun permit, or . . . just about anything else.

    The 1984-ish implications of this particular ID requirement should be clear to all, but not to you. You think I’m waxing lyrically? I wish you knew the lyrics and the song, and would sing it.

    Chimes of Freedom flashing, and you’re claiming it’s just noise that should be stamped out.

    Like

  89. Well gee, I don’t know. Now you’re waxing lyrically about the lofty new higher standards of this new requirement, but reading over your newest paragraphs I see it’s all an appeal to emotion, you’re not specific about any of it.

    The stories about Ruthelle Frank, on the other hand, are completely specific. She could fix her birth certificate, and with that, the whole problem, for $20. There is a possibility it may end up costing her $200, but nobody knows that for sure until she spends the $20. To fix a problem that has nothing to do with voting, her birth cert has remained messed up all these years.

    Honestly? I am sitting here wondering how the “keep voting fraud legal” movement picked her as her Winefred Skinner tragedy-case poster girl. There are supposed to be thousands of others. Why not choose another one who isn’t obstinately digging in her heels about a birth certificate error she’s needed to have fixed for eighty years anyway? This is the best they could do?

    Like

  90. Ed Darrell says:

    Also– making sure the election is clean and fair is kinda sorta an election worker’s job.

    What sort of unclean and unfairness exists in current Wisconsin elections that this ID requirement fixes?

    You’re right, the poll judge’s job involves keeping elections clean and fair. This ID requirement keeps the poll judges from doing that job, and instead requires them to bar fully-qualified historic voters from the polls.

    Don’t claim to increasing “clean and fair” when you add filth and invidious discrimination. Pee, rain — you know.

    Like

  91. Ed Darrell says:

    Why would showing my ID materially differ from those voting requirements?

    No, not just ID — new, unavailable to many, super-secret, double-ID. The ID that your bank accepts won’t work. The ID you use to cash a check isn’t good enough. Heaven knows, even illegal aliens have ID to do that!

    You have to swear an oath, and the ID must not appear weird through the magic decoder ring.

    Identifying one’s self isn’t the issue. It’s meeting news standards that go beyond indentifying one’s self, with forms of identification that could not work for, say, George Washington (“anyone can have bad choppers — you may have pulled your teeth with pliers for all we know — don’t listen to those thousands of cheering patriots”), or Franklin Roosevelt (“anybody could put wheels on a kitchen chair and get a cigarette holder, and get former nannies from Hyde Park to falsely testify for them”), or Ronald Reagan (“sure looks dyed to me, just sayin'”).

    Why should certain voters be deprived of their right to vote because they can’t get the newly-required identification forms? What is the problem this was intended to solve?

    You’ll notice that none of the voter frauds anyone has mentioned could be fixed by Wisconsin’s new requirements — and we still have no one alleging any serious problem at all in Wisconsin for all forms of voter fraud together, let alone any kind of voter fraud that ID would solve.

    No problem, but an onerous, arbitrary and capricious, spiteful and damaging solution. Sounds like a bad law to me, but I’m just a citizen.

    Like

  92. Ed’s back to reciting rhetoric and bumper sticker slogans again.

    Why are you afraid of having a linear-traveling, progressive, construction conversation about this Mr. Darrell? Why do you insist on having a circular one? What scares you so?

    A new requirement for ID has been imposed. If it sticks, the persons being affected are:

    1. Those who cannot get the required ID and therefore can’t vote;
    2. Those who WON’T ge tthe requried ID and WON’T vote;
    3. Those who cannot get the ID and SHOULDN’T be voting (Mickey Mouse, Pluto, Donald Duck, et al).

    Your position is that 3 doesn’t exist, simply because you refuse to accept any burden of proof necessary to secure our elections; furthermore, that the membership of 1 represents a real thorny constitutional problem. You’re willing to accept burden of proof for that, apparently because it allows you to act smug. But, to prove the presence of 1, you present Ruthelle Frank, who is actually a member of 2. Poor, poor Ruthelle Frank, she wants to keep her birth certificate botched up. It’s her constitutional right, or something.

    Perhaps it’s possible for an argument to be more screwy than this. It’s difficult to imagine how.

    Like

  93. Ed Darrell says:

    nonstick said:

    solutions. All on the table. All rational, cheap, workable, easy.

    So, you agree that Morgan, and Gov. “Ahab” Walker, are unreasonable for not accepting any of your cheap, workable and easy solutions, yes?

    Would you like the address of the ACLU so you can send money to support the effort to bring sanity to this matter?

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,211 other followers

%d bloggers like this: