Under the proposed Wisconsin bill, voters must present a valid (presumably current) Wisconsin driver's license, military ID, or "identification certificate" issued by the Department of Transportation -- not just any government-issued ID; other forms of government-issued photo identification, including student IDs from public universities, would not be accepted. In practice, anyone who does not currently have an in-state driver's license with their current address will have to go through the arduous process of obtaining an ID at the DMV, which entails providing one's Social Security number as well as proof of name and date of birth (presumably with a birth certificate) and citizenship (with a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers). Note also that voters would have to rely on the under-resourced Departments of Motor Vehicles, which has extremely limited hours.Surprise! Meet the modern poll tax. If you're a civilian in Wisconsin, it's at least $28 to vote plus proof of legal citizenship if this law passes. The Bush Justice Department must have found hundreds of voter fraud cases involving faked IDs to warrant this rule, yes?
Some basic numbers: Eighty percent of men and 81 percent of women in Wisconsin have a valid ID, but:
So the target of this measure becomes clear: young people, including students, African Americans, the poor, and the elderly -- coincidentally, groups that have traditionally voted for Democrats.
- 23 percent of people over 65 do not have a valid ID
- only 45 percent of African American men and 51 percent of African American women have valid ID;
- 54 percent of Hispanic men and 41 percent of Hispanic women have a valid driver's license; and
- 47 percent of Milwaukee County's African American adults and 43 percent of the county's Hispanic adults have a valid driver's license.
an intensive five-year investigation by the Department of Justice under George W. Bush famously netted only 86 voter-fraud convictions. Most of these were for offenses like vote-buying schemes or ineligible voters registering to vote—not for voter fraud that could have been prevented by a voter-ID law.
I see. So what's Indiana's reasoning behind the current toughest voter ID law in the land?
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has conceded the state has never presented a case of “voter impersonation,” which the law was designed to safeguard against.
Say what?
But a photo ID requirement would boost public confidence in state elections, he said.
Yeah...confidence that poor minorities will be disenfranchised at the polls. I hope Wisconsin's ready to pay for every state citizen to get an ID card or license, because otherwise there's a very strong argument to be made that this is a poll tax, plain and simple, in violation of the 24th Amendment and Harper v. Virgina Board of Elections.
Seems simple to me, you must have purchased a state license or ID card before you can vote as a civilian. There's no other reason for this law other than to act as a poll tax.
Period.
[UPDATE] Turns out the legislation does have a provision where some are eligible to waive the ID card fee if they specifically ask for it to be waived. Nice. Still, nobody seems to be able to point to why this law is necessary.
(h/t Balloon Juice)
And of course, DMVs never have convenient downtown offices in cities because they have to have giant parking lots and space for driver testing. A trip to the DMV involves multiple transfers on public transportation, if it's accessible at all. Count on taking off a day of work. And the same or worse holds for carless rurals. I've been there, done that.
ReplyDeleteRemember that elderly convent nun who wasn't allowed to vote last time around because she lacked proper ID?
Surprise! Meet the modern poll tax. If you're a civilian in Wisconsin, it's at least $28 to vote plus proof of legal citizenship if this law passes...
ReplyDeleteI hope Wisconsin's ready to pay for every state citizen to get an ID card or license, because otherwise there's a very strong argument to be made that this is a poll tax, plain and simple, in violation of the 24th Amendment and Harper v. Virgina Board of Elections...
There's no other reason for this law other than to act as a poll tax.
Period.
That is until you read the actual bill (page 4):
The bill also permits an elector who is eligible to obtain a Wisconsin identification card to obtain the card from DOT free of charge, if the elector specifically requests not to be charged.
Oops. Per Anthony Weiner, I need to take a drink. I hope I don't get sloshed before today's Bears game (Go Bears!!!).
There is no poll tax. Period. Guess those nasty Republicans were way ahead of you, don't you think?
Even your link to the American Prospect page didn't mention anything about a poll tax. How the hell did you come up with thinking there is one without possibly guessing that the people who wrote the new bill factored in the 24th Amendment? Do you actually think things remain static? How insulting of you.
Such irresponsible rhetoric of yours might trigger, although the odds are astronomically low, some sort of violence by some murderous lefty, like the one that recently attempted to murder Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri. You know, the kind of news the Democratic media didn't mention since it didn't fit the "narrative".
From the American Prospect piece:
ReplyDeleteNote also that voters would have to rely on the under-resourced Departments of Motor Vehicles, which has extremely limited hours.
What do these idiots think would be reasonable hours? If every DMV office were opened 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Some of the DMV offices in the rural areas do have very limited hours, but the more urban areas usually have quite a number of facilities and are opened every weekday during business hours.
JoyfulA:
And of course, DMVs never have convenient downtown offices in cities because they have to have giant parking lots and space for driver testing. A trip to the DMV involves multiple transfers on public transportation, if it's accessible at all. Count on taking off a day of work. And the same or worse holds for carless rurals.
Do you think all of these people live in a bubble and never leave their homes for any purpose, let alone to get to the DMV? Are you so insulting as to think all adults are children to be led around the hand by the nanny-state government? Don't you think the vast majority have family and/or friends to get around, and can schedule, on their own without help from the nanny-state government, on when to go to the DMV?
As far as taking a day off work to go to the DMV, that would probably have to be done anyway just to renew a driver's license, depending on how busy the facility is. You have no argument.
So the voters have to themselves specifically request this be done at no charge?
ReplyDeleteNice.
I wonder how many of them will know that. What a novel and cynical way to get around the poll tax. It's only a tax on those who don't ask for the ID card for free.
So can you explain to me why the law is necessary? Where are the cases of identity theft used to vote?
So the voters have to themselves specifically request this be done at no charge?
ReplyDeleteNice.
Aww. Poor dears will have to ask. Cry me a freakin' river.
I wonder how many of them will know that.
Being insulting again, aren't you? Do you think rational adults have to have the nanny-state government hold their hand like you do?
What a novel and cynical way to get around the poll tax.
But they did it. And you got caught making up a story. Are you working towards the Stephen Glass award for "journalism"?
So can you explain to me why the law is necessary? Where are the cases of identity theft used to vote?
What do you care? You wouldn't read them anyway. You make it a point not to read a lot of things.
I do care.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the necessity for this legislation?
Where are the cases that prove there is a concerted effort for people to use identity theft to vote that could be prevented by a Voter ID law that make this a vital tool needed now rather than being an extra hurdle imposed by Republicans to try to disenfranchise traditional Democratic voters?
Thank you for updating the post.
ReplyDeleteI do care.
Where have ever shown that? In your latest screech against Glenn Beck, you claim he's picking on some poor, old lady. That "lady" makes it a point to say that she wants to see people killed:
An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.
She likes violence from her side. She advocates for violence from her side. This isn't the first time. She's been doing this shit for well over 40 years. For all we know, Jared Loughner saw Piven's piece and took it to heart to commit his crimes (it came out just before he went on his spree).
But to you, Piven is a little old lady. If only you cared, you'd know she is much more than that.
So, instead of actually answering my question, you go back to another argument from another thread.
ReplyDeleteGot it, that's all I need to know, thanks.
So, instead of actually answering my question, you go back to another argument from another thread.
ReplyDeleteGot it, that's all I need to know, thanks.
Don't play me for a fool. A) it ain't just that thread, there's a whole slew of them where I've caught you making outrageous allegations; and B) you and I both know it would be a waste of my time showing you things you won't read.
Tell you what. Why don't you show me a case of actual voter disenfranchisement in Indiana since their new law went into effect. I'd wager the "voter(s)" who is(are) "disenfranchised" isn't/aren't legally allowed to vote. I'd win the bet, too.
Let me save him the trouble Steve since you and I both know he won't.
ReplyDelete"The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter identification law in a 4-1 decision Wednesday, saying the Legislature has the power to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.
Wednesday's ruling is the latest decision in a string of lawsuits trying to overturn the politically charged 2005 law -- among the strictest in the nation -- but it may not bring an end to the challenges.
Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the majority decision that no actual voters harmed by the law were named in the suit.
"No individual voter has alleged that the voter ID law has prevented him or her from voting or inhibited his or her ability to vote in any way," the decision states. "Our decision today does not prevent any such voter from challenging the law in the future."
The notion that "voter ID" laws disenfranchise anyone is one of the biggest liberal media lies in existence today.
But you never, ever, ever tell the truth on your hate site. You never will. So Steve and will continue to counter your lies with FACT until you get the picture that nobody in America wants to listen to your lies anymore and this blog shuts down.
As long as you lie on a daily basis, concerned Americans like Steve and I will be here to call you out on every single one.
Moron.
I've noticed your regulars are all but gone from your comments section.
ReplyDeleteThey're sick of looking like idiots defending your lies too when they are so easily countered by a couple minutes of research.
When it's just SteveAR and myself, will you shut the blog down?
Anyone else want to take a crack at defending Zandar's poll tax fallacy?
ReplyDeleteNo? I didn't think so.
It's so easy shutting down liberal bullshit. I enjoy this immensely.
I suggest the few regulars you have left find another blog to frequent. This one doesn't have much longer.
I've noticed your regulars are all but gone from your comments section.
ReplyDeleteit's sunday, you nitwit. normal people have better things to do. admittedly, i'm outing myself as something of a loser by posting today, but it's hard to resist pointing out your flagrant idiocy.
i'll also add: z would probably get more comments in general if he didn't allow trolls like you and steveAR ruin every fucking comment thread with your ridiculous contrarian bullshit. and in spite of what you guys keep insisting, Z does seem to believe in free speech as evidenced by the amount of conservative horseshit left up on comments threads here. even when he locks a comments thread it's after some conservative douchebag has been given ample space to make his (or her) point.
...insults again, and not a valid defense to be seen.
ReplyDeleteComplete defeat for you, libs.
You can close the thread now, Zandar. This one's over.
"I've noticed your regulars are all but gone from your comments section."
ReplyDeleteNah, just watching the playoffs, drinking beer and eating nachos like REAL AMERICANS. Only godless commies inanely troll blogs during NFL playoff games.