READER COMMENTS ON

"GOP Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions: Keeping Vets (and So Many More) From Voting in America"

(50 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 5/4/2008 @ 2:02 pm PT...





Why does the Supreme Court hate America?

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 5/4/2008 @ 2:04 pm PT...





Why does Flush Rimbowl hate America?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Ronald Legro said on 5/4/2008 @ 4:54 pm PT...





I smell class action lawsuit.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... molly said on 5/4/2008 @ 7:36 pm PT...





#3 Can you do that after a supreme court ruling? Alito and all of bush cronies on the supreme court need to be replaced, seriously.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/4/2008 @ 7:44 pm PT...





You mentioned Missouri here. In the lead-up to the 2006 midterm election, I recall reading in a blog maintained by Mainstreet Moms a post by a Democratic voter who moved to Mo. from another state (can't remember which) and was hassled by the local ROV when she attempted to register in that state. Whatever official she had to deal with made her run all over the place looking for one piece or another of proof that she was who she is and lived where she said she lived, before letting her register. It was pure harassment, and this voter was afraid to do anything about it for fear of not being allowed to vote.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/4/2008 @ 9:51 pm PT...





Yup. That's Missouri. Thor Hearne Country. (And my old home state.) He's the man behind every Photo ID/Voter Suppression curtain in America. Or, at least the man in front of the other man behind the curtain.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... greg0 said on 5/5/2008 @ 1:07 am PT...





When any official screams at me, "Vere are your papers, old man?", I will gladly show my passport. Because the most important right we now have is the right to obey. The US Constitution and all those ancient 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' ideals are quite out of date. Money is the new equalizer and only Big Money gives true liberty.

Just as the courts have ruled money is equivalent to free speech in regard to campaign finance laws, I anticipate new rulings that reconsider poll taxes as not taxes at all, but rather user fees. How else can the idle rich keep the rabble from conducting class warfare at the ballot box?

Democracy is SO dangerous!

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/5/2008 @ 1:29 am PT...





I really have to wonder about Justice Stevens who voted along with the majority in this decision. What gives? Is this guy getting senile or is he reverting to his conservative roots (I believe he was a Ford appointee)?

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Geri said on 5/5/2008 @ 5:57 am PT...





We need to stop waitng to fix these voting problems. Every election its the same FRAUD. I am fed up.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Nacho Mamma said on 5/5/2008 @ 7:03 am PT...





It appears to me that if you would do some reseach on your own, you might know that a PHOTO ID is NOT needed to obtain an Indiana birth certificate. The ID documents needed. Here is the research for you: http://www.in.gov/isdh/b...ertifs/faq.htm#VitalFAQ6

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/5/2008 @ 8:50 am PT...





And along these lines of discussing how much it costs to get these documents ... Last summer, my family of three spent a grand total of $260 getting passported-up to travel into and out of Canada. That is NOT chump change to us, since we are ACTUAL members of America's middle class, and not members of that part of the middle class that lives off of $200,000/year (which is, btw, an absurdity, that my family is somehow lumped in with families pulling in that kind of money every year). Additionally, I spent all day long driving to San Francisco, standing in line at the county records office, and then driving back home again, in order to get a certified copy of my daughter's birth certificate (the copy I had paid for and had on hand since her birth, which I had also stood in line for the greater part of a day back in 1995 when she was born not being good enough for the purposes of getting a passport), a certified birth certificate being a requirement for obtaining a passport for her. Fortunately, I had a certified copy of my birth certificate at home, but if I hadn't, that would've been yet another hurdle to jump over, and it would have been a huge hurdle, since I was born in some podunk town in west Georgia so long ago that all records of my era were on microfiche (who remembers THIS method of records storage?!) And my husband, who is even more ancient that I am, fortunately had a passport that had been used within the time frame allowable to be accepted to get another passport, otherwise, that would have been yet another hurdle to leap through. Also, at the post office, they tried to intimidate me into spending an additional $300 or so for "speedy service," telling me that, even with 12 weeks before our trip, I may not get these passports in time to travel. When I told them that was absurd, that even government offices aren't THAT inefficient, I was told that holidays and weekends did not count in the calculations of how long it might take to get my passports (another blatant, patently absurd attempt to get an additional $300 out of me.) I cannot fathom how difficult a similar process might be for people who are disabled, chronically or acutely ill, elderly, impoverished, not savvy in the way you need to be to deal with bureaucracy like this, loaded down with four young kids, or just plain fed up with a system which is all about harassing people, and not helping them. What about people who don't know for sure exactly which county in America stores their birth records and who don't drive and so don't have drivers' licenses? These fascist-loving goons who think all Americans should be suited up with special documentation allowing them to vote should be required to step into someone else's shoes for a project to get this documentation under less-than-ideal circumstances. I deliver food every week to families who can't afford to turn on their heat in the winter months. Where the hell are these people going to find a couple hundred dollars and a driver willing to transport them all over the area to get their required documents?! This is a travesty! People like Thor Hearne should be required to devote their anal tendencies toward more productive, less obstructive projects, like tracking the billions of dollars that are being dumped into the ME right now with so little accountability that many over there are getting their hands on it and using it to relocate themselves to a less violent political environment. And please, spare everyone the ignorant, mal-informed responses that, since it's no big deal for YOU to get "written permission" from the government to vote, it's not a problem. End of current rant.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/5/2008 @ 8:55 am PT...





And after all that, I left out an important question to ponder. How long do you think it'll be before we all have to get tatooed? And where on our bodies do you think these tatoos will be placed? And if you somehow can't imagine that we are heading in that direction, then you don't deserve to live in a country that's supposedly all about freedom.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... CharlieL said on 5/5/2008 @ 12:50 pm PT...





Forget a tattoo. The "sign of the beast" will be a broadcast RFID chip implanted at birth. Failure to have a chip when "scanned" will result in instant death, the presumption being that only an ultra-dangerous criminal would not have the chip in place.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... ERW said on 5/5/2008 @ 3:42 pm PT...





This just makes me so damned mad, I'm speechless.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Tim said on 5/6/2008 @ 12:30 am PT...





I don't understand the hullabaloo over voter ID cards. My mother-in-law is 78, has never driven a car in her life but she has a ID card issued to her by the Texas DOT, which is exactly like a drivers license, except she is not permitted to drive. So instead of going overboard with the court decision it will be in the best interest of democracy if everybody put is some effort to get ID cards for every US citizen.

PS: I am not a Republican.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... lmwilker said on 5/6/2008 @ 6:46 am PT...





I live in Indiana and just voted this morning. It was very intimidating. When I entered the voting site the woman at the table barked, "You must show us an ID" very old school Soviet style. Very un-American. I had voted in the last Indiana election that also required ID and had similar feelings. It's a feeling I get whenver I'm in a WalMart supercenter surrounded by an ocean of cheap, Chinese, crap. The Communists won, comrade.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/6/2008 @ 8:35 am PT...





Re "I don't understand the hullabaloo over voter ID cards." Neither do I! Why are we asking citizens to get them? What problem(s) are they solving? These cards, and all the money taxpayers are spending to acquire them, are a result of lobbying by database companies. That, my friends, is where all this information-gathering for "national security" purposes is coming from. It is providing huge income streams for all kinds of businesses, beginning with Oracle and Sun. Instead of wasting money in this way, how about sitting down and developing a comprehensive national secure elections policy, based on true security needs, and not based on providing streams of revenue flowing from taxpayers to private corporations. BTW, my mother's grandparents in Germany and my husband's great-grandparents in Germany had no difficulty whatsoever getting their government-approved documentation from public officials in Germany, either. That, my friends, is NOT an argument for forcing citizens to get all "documented-up."

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/6/2008 @ 1:28 pm PT...





"He had been to the license branch several times, trying to attain a new photo ID card, and had been denied. In order to get a new photo ID, one must have one form of primary identification: an original birth certificate or naturalization card, a U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card, a current military ID card or a valid U.S. passport." This is article is suspect. Mr. Baughman doesn't need a "new photo ID card", all he needs is to renew his driver's license. To do so, he DOES NOT NEED "an original birth certificate or naturalization card, a U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card, a current military ID card or a valid U.S. passport." To renew his driver's license, he can use his voter ID card mentioned in the article, and proof of SS number.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/6/2008 @ 1:34 pm PT...





Reply to lmwilker, #16. I voted in Indiana today without a problem. Everybody was nice, simply show my ID, sign the book, and tell them what ballot I wanted. I have had more trouble getting a prescription filled than I did voting.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/6/2008 @ 1:40 pm PT...





Mark If he can't get his voter's ID without a valid driver's license, and can't get his driver's license renewed without his voter ID or proof of any of those other maybe-impossible-for-him-to-get (whether in time or ever) IDs, HOW THE HELL IS HE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE? There are many Americans who are trapped in a no man's land of this ID bullshit. Everyone isn't like you. Not everyone can get their hands on their birth certificate, or find their Social Security card... or have the ID to get a duplicate.... Many, many, many people are going to have extreme difficulty meeting Indiana's ID requirements. Think about it! You sound like a glib person with enough money to ignore the realities of your fellow citizens.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/6/2008 @ 1:48 pm PT...





And, I don't mean to be insulting, but... you should try listening to yourself and comparing it to the way fascists in Germany and Italy were talking back in the 1930s.... If you can't bring yourself to believe the difficulty for people this presents, you could just concentrate on how unAmerican the whole Show Us Your Papers thing is, irrespective of whether it's easy or difficult or impossible to comply.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/6/2008 @ 2:26 pm PT...





Agent 99, #20. "If he can't get his voter's ID without a valid driver's license, and can't get his driver's license renewed without his voter ID or proof of any of those other maybe-impossible-for-him-to-get (whether in time or ever) IDs, HOW THE HELL IS HE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE?" If you had actually read the article, you would have known that the had his voter's registration card on hand. "He had with him his expired driver’s license (he rides a bicycle), his Department of Veterans Affairs card (featuring his purple heart endorsement) and, of all things, his voter’s registration card." To renew his driver's license, he don't need any other IDs,"maybe-impossible-for-him-to-get (whether in time or ever) IDs". Clearly, you have let your emotions override you ability to bring a fact based argument to the table.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/6/2008 @ 2:31 pm PT...





I'm sorry for being unclear, Mark. I was using the term "he" in the generic sense, not specifically about one person's trouble. I was not paying attention to the nits that started your picking. My concern, right here, is to get you to stop with this voter ID being just fine thing you've got going, and think about how offensive to the Constitution it is.... My comments are DEFINITELY fact-based. I'm not talking about one bicycle rider; I'm talking about America.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/6/2008 @ 2:39 pm PT...





Reply to Agent 99, #21. I am use to those who have no clue to making arguments and accusations based on ignorance. "If you can't bring yourself to believe the difficulty for people this presents" you could just concentrate on how unAmerican the whole Show Us Your Papers thing is, irrespective of whether it's easy or difficult or impossible to comply." Give us REAL examples of these "difficulties". And please don't resort to making them up as you did in #20.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/6/2008 @ 2:56 pm PT...





Give us REAL examples of these "difficulties". And please don't resort to making them up as you did in #20. Are you ten? I may be vexing you with my imprecision, for which I am sorry, but not sorry enough to bog down my time playing your game of excusing the inexcusable. If you really can't think of it, or of the Constitution, may I suggest night school? You can learn about the founding documents and become socialized enough to someday be able to see for yourself what a problem this law is for many of your fellows... and by "fellows" I mean the rest of the citizens of this country... assuming you even are a citizen.... [Oh, oh, and just to be even clearer, even if all the citizens of Indiana might be able to get this ID without it being so much of a burden as to constitute disenfranchisement, which I'm not saying it is, just saying even if that were true, it isn't true in other states and the Supreme Court's decision does not merely make this Nazism legal for Indiana; it makes it legal all over the country. That is just not okay. Period.]

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/6/2008 @ 4:36 pm PT...





99, ten-year-olds are not necessarily this clueless. Clearly, Mark is not reading anything that doesn't support his "opinion" that acquiring "permission cards" to vote in many cases constitutes disenfranchisement. If a person doesn't get to vote today in Indiana because of this nonsensical Supreme Court ruling that solves no existing problem, btw, then that person has been, effectively, disenfranchised. Mark, what elections security problem do you think is being solved by these voter ID cards? Just answer the question, w/o clouding the issue by talking about how your grandmother got on her scooter, drove down to the DMV, didn't have to wait at all, and got her permission slip to vote? What elections security problem do you think is being solved by these voter ID cards?

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 5/6/2008 @ 4:49 pm PT...





Golly, Linda, "permission cards"! That rocks! Good way to put it to clarify the issue. I'm thinking maybe even "permission slips" might drive it home even more effectively, but I'm not sure if that's the term all over the country for grade schoolers getting parental consent.... It is in California. What do you think?

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/6/2008 @ 5:11 pm PT...





You betcha! The Republicans are treating our elections like they're a junior high school gym dance, and you have to bring written permission from yo' mama to show to the principal to get in and dance! This is b******t! What problem is being solved by requiring these cards?

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/6/2008 @ 7:56 pm PT...





Reply to Linda, #26 "permission cards"?? Are you talking about a voter registration card?? Afterall, you can't vote in Indiana unless you register to vote.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/6/2008 @ 10:37 pm PT...





Since you can't vote in Indiana now without a voter ID, which gives you permission to vote as you registered with your ROV, then yes, I will call voter ID cards "permission cards/slips." What problem is being solved by requiring that all registered voters carry with them and present to poll workers an ID card before voting?

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/7/2008 @ 6:28 am PT...





Reply to Linda, #28. In the Indiana lawsuit, the court noted that voter impersonation takes place in this county. The court noted the 2004 Washington State election. This was the elections where the Governor was not elected by the people, but by election fraud, i.e. the 133 margin of victory was overshadowed by 1600 fraudulent ballots cast in the election. "State’s Ex. 3, pp. 4-5, 19 (court findings that in the State of Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial elections more than 1,600 fraudulently cast ballots, including 19 ballots cast by dead voters, six double votes, and 77 votes unaccounted for on the registration rolls)" http://www.insd.uscourts...ov/opinions/ao6340o1.pdf The state of Indiana took a pro-active stance to make sure that this type of voter fraud would not take place in our state.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Kathy in St. Louis said on 5/7/2008 @ 10:20 am PT...





The repukes have done everything in their power to disenfranchise minorities and poor people. Now they're going after nuns, veterans, and college kids. They are taking us back to the "good old days" when only property owning white men were allowed to vote. Thanks to the black robed ideologues on the Supreme court our liberites are in jeopardy and the Bill of Rights is faltering at the whims of the far right.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 6:55 am PT...





Reply to Kathy, #33 The nuns in South Bend could have voted by absentee ballot, no ID required. The veteran in this story could have voted absentee, no ID required.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 2:43 pm PT...





Mark Cook #31 - Consider this your first warning that posting knowing disinformation will lose your posting privileges here. Under the assumption that you did not know you were posting disinfo, when you described "court findings that in the State of Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial elections more than 1,600 fraudulently cast ballots", I'll help you out. You can read more from the Seatle Times article here, but here's a couple of cogent responses to the bullshit you alleged: Judge John Bridges today upheld the election of Gov. Christine Gregoire, dismissing a Republican lawsuit and so soundly rejecting the party's claims that Dino Rossi said he would not go forward with what had been seen as an inevitable appeal.

...

In a ruling that took nearly one hour to read, Bridges said he saw no evidence of fraud

...

"I think it was a resounding rejection of every one of the Republican claims," said Democratic attorney Jenny Durkan. "They chose the county, they chose the court, they chose the method of proof," meaning the proportional deduction analysis.

...

On the Republicans' fraud charge, the judge repeated the fact that there was no official fraud claim in the case, but then said that in any case, he saw no evidence of fraud.

...

There is no evidence that the problems in King County had anything to do with "intentional misconduct or someone's desire to manipulate the election" or "partisan bias," the phrase Republicans used to allege wrongdoing.

...

Secretary of State Sam Reed, who had been critical of some of the claims of vote fraud made by his fellow Republicans, said he hopes Bridge's ruling, which he called "forthright, practical and clear," will help rebuild voter confidence.

...

Reed criticized the Republican efforts to claim vote fraud without producing convincing evidence. "I think if they were going to allege fraud, they should have done it in the initial filings of the case and I think they should have had proof of fraud, and obviously they didn't do that."

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 2:47 pm PT...





Constitution-hating Mark Cook #33 said: The nuns in South Bend could have voted by absentee ballot, no ID required. The veteran in this story could have voted absentee, no ID required. Good idea! What say we pass an equally arbitrary and unnecessary law which says that everyone named "Mark Cook" will be forced to vote by a different means than everybody else! Even if those ballots are not counted with the same weight as everyone else's. Sound like "equal protection" to you, genius? (see: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment for more details.)

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/8/2008 @ 3:17 pm PT...





Mark Cook, re "In the Indiana lawsuit, the court noted that voter impersonation takes place in this county." It is not worth engaging with someone who is not taking the time to not be uninformed, let alone actually informed well. The court actually admitted that voter impersonation is mostly nonexistent, and that when it has actually taken place, those instances have been rare, isolated, and of no consequence. That's it. I'm through with you. You are way behind in this game and, instead of spending time typing in your opinions which are based on factual misperceptions, you need to go get better-informed. Adios.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/8/2008 @ 3:21 pm PT...





Your ignorance persists. Re "The nuns in South Bend could have voted by absentee ballot, no ID required. The veteran in this story could have voted absentee, no ID required." You conveniently left out that these voters then have a limited time to physically get their asses down to the ROV to prove that they are who they already proved they are when they registered to vote. If they don't do this, their votes are nullified (not tabulated in the final vote count). Are you trying to be ignorant?

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 8:03 pm PT...





Reply to Brad, #34. "Consider this your first warning that posting knowing disinformation..." I am sorry, but repeating the actual court findings is not disinformation, it is called fact. Apparently you do not know the difference. Court's oral decision,

Borders v. King County

June 5, 2005. "Based on the findings, the Court concludes that 1,678 illegal votes were cast in the 2004 general election. This includes felons established by petitioners totaling 754, felons established by intervenors totaling 647, deceased voters totaling 19, double voters totaling 6, provisional ballots in King County totaling 96, provisional ballots in Pierce County totaling 79 and additional votes in Pierce County for which there could not be found a registered voter through crediting, at least, totaling 77. And, therefore, the total is 1,678." http://moritzlaw.osu.edu...cuments/oraldecision.pdf

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 8:30 pm PT...





Reply to Linda, #37 You conveniently left out that these voters then have a limited time to physically get their asses down to the ROV to prove that they are who they already proved they are when they registered to vote. If they don't do this, their votes are nullified (not tabulated in the final vote count). Sorry, but your argument fails because you are trying to apply the provisional ballot laws upon the absentee ballots. IC 3-11-10-1.2 Proof of identification not required Sec. 1.2. An absentee voter is not required to provide proof of identification when: (1) mailing, delivering, or transmitting an absentee ballot under section 1 of this chapter; or (2) voting before an absentee board under section 25 of this chapter. As added by P.L.109-2005, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.103-2005, SEC.10.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 8:55 pm PT...





Reply to Brad, #35 Good idea! What say we pass an equally arbitrary and unnecessary law which says that everyone named "Mark Cook" will be forced to vote by a different means than everybody else! PLEASE DO SO, I WOULD LOVE IT!!!! The 98 year old nun could have voted from home with an absentee ballot, which is a PAPER BALLOT, and then mailed it in. In 2004, I stood in line for 2 1/2 hours to cast my vote in an ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE. Yes, Brad, I would GLADLY vote from home with a PAPER BALLOT. I don't have get out of bed, I don't have to drive to the polls, I don't have to show an ID, I don't have to stand in line, I don't have to drive back home. Even if those ballots are not counted with the same weight as everyone else's. Indiana doesn't count a vote on a provisional ballot as one vote? What is the "weight" of that ballot? 1/2 of a vote? 1/3 of a vote? Sound like "equal protection" to you, genius? (see: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment for more details.) Unlike your "same weight" argument, this is a REAL 14th Amendment protection. Sims v. Reynolds, USSC, 1964 "The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election."

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 9:17 pm PT...





Mark Cook #38 said: I am sorry, but repeating the actual court findings is not disinformation, it is called fact. Apparently you do not know the difference. Oh, I'm sorry, where in the "actual court findings" does it say that "in the State of Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial elections more than 1,600 fraudulently cast ballots"? Apparently you don't know the difference between "repeating" and inaccurately and misleadingly paraphrasing. You also seem to have trouble with the word "actual". I'll refer you back to what the Judge actually said, as reported contemporaneously at the time, and quoted in my note to you above.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 9:21 pm PT...





Mark Cook #40 continued to embarrass himself with: I would GLADLY vote from home with a PAPER BALLOT. I don't have get out of bed, I don't have to drive to the polls, I don't have to show an ID, I don't have to stand in line, I don't have to drive back home. Wow. Then you are even more foolish than your previous notes would indicate. And, apparently, willing to give up your right to a private ballot and to allow your vote to be counted differently (and thus, with different weight) as the other ballots cast in the election. On the other hand, without having to show that ID you're in favor of, you could enjoy much easier voter fraud, and hey, you could even sell your vote and make a few dollars! Odd that you'd be in favor of Photo ID's for everyone but yourself (and others) when voting absentee, eh? As to the varying weights of provisional, absentee and regularly cast ballots, I'll let you go educate yourself a bit. I believe Justice Souter speaks to it in his dissent against Indiana's unconstitutional law. Go teach yourself something, boss.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 9:29 pm PT...





Reply to Linda, #36 "The court actually admitted that voter impersonation is mostly nonexistent, and that when it has actually taken place, those instances have been rare, isolated, and of no consequence." Linda, I want to thank you for challenging my arguments. Over the years, I have read case over case over case involving elections. You claimed that this was rare ect. That made m reread the both the Indiana and the USSC decisions. It has been repeated in Brad Blog that Indiana had never experienced "in-person" vote fraud. But when I re-read the USSC, I found where it has happened in Indiana. "While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s out-come." http://www.supremecourtu...opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf I believe the court in referring to Lake County in 2003. You and Brad can claim this is an "unnecessary law", but isn't it the state's obligation to keep this from happening again?? After all the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROTECTS Indiana citizens from having their ballots diluted by voter fraud. The question here is who to balance to Constitutional right. The right to vote, and the right of the voter not to have is ballot diluted. Just because I understand the argument, doesn't mean that I hate the Constitution. Name calling such as this just shows that people like you and Brad can't hand real fact based debate.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 9:44 pm PT...





Reply to Brad, #41 Brad, maybe you should take up your childish word games with Judge Baker. Maybe she will get a kick out you whining about the difference between the words "illegal" and "fraudulent". Border v. King County "....deceased voters totaling 19, double voters totaling 6, provisional ballots in King County totaling 96, provisional ballots in Pierce County totaling 79 and additional votes in Pierce County for which there could not be found a registered voter through crediting, at least, totaling 77..." http://moritzlaw.osu.edu...cuments/oraldecision.pdf Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita "State’s Ex. 3, pp. 4-5, 19 (court findings that in the State of Washington’s 2004 gubernatorial elections more than 1,600 fraudulently cast ballots, including 19 ballots cast by dead voters, six double votes, and 77 votes unaccounted for on the registration rolls)" http://www.insd.uscourts...ov/opinions/ao6340o1.pdf

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Mark Cook said on 5/8/2008 @ 9:58 pm PT...





Brad, #42 "On the other hand, without having to show that ID you're in favor of, you could enjoy much easier voter fraud, and hey, you could even sell your vote and make a few dollars!" Odd that you'd be in favor of Photo ID's for everyone but yourself (and others) when voting absentee, eh?" Thus, Brad is now making the argument that Indiana's voting laws are NOT strict enough. What should Indiana do to stop the kind of vote fraud that you have described? An ID for those who vote absentee?

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 10:09 pm PT...





Mark Cook #44 persists in his nonsense: Brad, maybe you should take up your childish word games with Judge Baker. Maybe she will get a kick out you whining about the difference between the words "illegal" and "fraudulent". Did you not read what the actual judge in the Washington State case said when he decided it? Given Cook's bad decision in the Rokita case, I'm hardly suprised she doesn't know the difference between "illegal" and "fraudulent". But clearly, the actual Washington State judge (whose decision she was inaccurately paraphrasing) does know the difference. Further, he knows that the Republicans who challenged the election never charged fraud, nor gave any evidence for it. If I'm a former felon who is allowed to vote in my state, then I move to Washington State where felons are not allowed to vote, and I vote anyway, not knowing that I've been disenfranchised by Washington State, is that a "fraudulent" vote? Ask a lawyer, if you don't know the answer. But the answer is no, it's not fraudulent. As to your silly reply to Linda, yes, voter fraud occurs. Rarely, according to the Bush DoJ and the Bush EAC's own numbers. And hardly ever in-person, in the way Indiana's law was meant to describe. No, you should not have your vote diluted by anybody voting fraudulently. Though with your love of absentee balloting, where most voter fraud occurs --- and where the fraud mentioned in the link you cited happened, as I recall --- it seems you don't actually care whether your vote is diluted or not. In the meantime, since I don't like to have my vote diluted, by those voting for someone I oppose getting to vote easier than those who may agree with me (but who become disenfranchised, because, say, they're 98-year old nuns who don't have drivers license), and since the Constitution is on my side, you can huff and puff, but you will not win. Don't disenfranchise my side, as has now happened in spades in Indiana, because you're afraid a bad person somewhere might cast a fraudulent vote (even though it's never happened that way in the entire history of Indiana). Since you don't seem to do well with words, perhaps pictures and a chart may be more helpful?

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/8/2008 @ 10:18 pm PT...





BTW, Mark. Be sure to go read about some of those pathetic convictions for voter fraud, as mentioned above, that the DoJ was able to get into that column. You'll be mighty impressed. And remember, the Bush DoJ has spared no expense (no politicization) in trying to bring such "voter fraud" cases.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Linda said on 5/9/2008 @ 8:26 am PT...





Scott Ritter recently wrote a very good piece on how our military has moved away from being a protector of the citizenry, with mutual respect existing between citizens/miltary, to one that is out to protect the executive branch from the citizenry not supporting its policies, with a breakdown in that relationship of mutual respect, with the enabling of this process by an unresponsive legislative branch. I would say that this same phenomenon is now occurring between citizens and the elections process, also being enabled by the legislative branch.

I would also say that Mark Cook is just as confused about this relationship between citizens and our elections, as some other citizens are about the relationship between our military and us. Just like some citizens falsely believe that citizens who don't support the policies of the executive branch are enemies of the military ie. they don't "support the troops," MC falsely believes that citizens who don't support elections regulations that create roadblocks between citizens and the voting booth are somehow enemies of honest elections and by extension democracy. The Kool-Ade is working. There is no point, from an activist's POV, in dialoging with someone who's had the Kool-Ade slipped into their food. BTW, the "spare no expense" approach to "voter fraud" is very similar to the "spare no expense" approach to domestic surveillance, or any of the other myriad policies that fall under the GWOT umbrella. How is it that we have plenty of money for fascist policies like spying on Americans and requiring them to carry around "voter IDs," while there's no money whatsoever for universal health care (Oh, that would be waaayyy too expensive, can't do THAT!) or a world-class public education system (Naaahhh! I don't want "my money" to go toward educating kids who don't attend my children's private school!)

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 5/9/2008 @ 11:50 am PT...





Mark Cook #45, having backed himself into corner, begins to eat self alive: Thus, Brad is now making the argument that Indiana's voting laws are NOT strict enough. Nice try. But an honest response would have been more impressive. You also could have read the graphic above to have educated yourself a bit along the way, which you're obviously disinterested in doing. Better to keep catapulting the propaganda for ya apparently. What should Indiana do to stop the kind of vote fraud that you have described? An ID for those who vote absentee? Actually, it seems, according to your own argument, that they are doing just fine in stopping such fraud. You said the bad guys got caught. Sounds good to me. Encouraging more absentee balloting is certainly not the way to combat absentee ballot fraud (as mentioned, where the few instances of voter fraud are actually much more frequent.) First order of Election Reform: Do not do more harm than good. If you stop 2 instances of fraud, but disenfranchise thousands, there may be something wrong with your "Reform" plans. Worse, if you know the above, as Rokita, Hearne, DoJ and all the other scammers who helped pull off this unConstitutional coup, then it's not just bad Election Reform, it's anti-American, and its evil. If you wish to buy into evil, and support it, that's up to you. I'll stand against the democracy terrorists, instead of with them. Proudly. Hope you'll eventually see the error of your ways and join me.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Joe Wingarten said on 6/24/2008 @ 6:08 am PT...

