Arizona first state to require citizenship proof to vote

[jswordy]

Elections officials across the state are scrambling to enforce the voting provisions of Proposition 200, which became law Tuesday after the Justice Department signed off, making Arizona the first state that requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
So when Jassey Salgado registers for the first time after her 18th birthday in June, she will have to present her birth certificate, a passport, her naturalization papers or a driver's license issued after 1996. And when the high school senior shows up at the polls for the first time, she will be asked to show a picture ID that lists her name and address or two other forms of ID that prove her residence.

The new law, aimed at preventing voter fraud, will affect an estimated 200,000 who register to vote yearly in Maricopa County and up to 1.6 million residents who are eligible to vote in the next general election.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0126prop200-voting26.html

[forgethell]

1. Well,

it's a start, anyway. Much more remains to be done to ensure honest elections in the future.

:)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

26. Fraud is fraud.

This should be addressed, too. Or don't you worry about non-citizens voting?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

27. My candiate was

kerry. What the hell are you talking about?

[tom_paine]

44. Of course.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wisc Badger]

33. At the risk of getting myself nailed I am in favor

of a picture ID for voting purposes. Need to show valid Drivers License or other picture Id with a verifiable address.

To much fraud goes on in Milwaukee, just look at the Journal Sentinal reporting.

10k voters without a valid address.

Same day registration is also an open invitation for fraud.

Hey if we scream about Ohio and Florida than we can't (on intelluectual grounds) turn a blind eye when our side commits any all sorts of fraud.

Free and open elections means just that for both sides, not just my side and I can stiff the other side.

[tom_paine]

45. As I said, I am not condoning the practice nor turning a blind eye

But if you had to prioritize the various cheating methodologoies, the one remedied by the New Poll Tax is low on the list.

Unless one happens to have a vested interest in disenfranchising one side while allowing "your side" to continue on uninvestiagted nor remdied.

Sure, it may be a problem (I wonder how much of a problem it was in the 30s, 40s and 50s that they created the Poll Tax and Reading Tests, eh?), but we have much more serious ones.

However, if one looks at Imperial Amerika as a Totalitarian Nation struggling to pretend it has all the mechanism of a Free Nation, then such soft disenfranchsiement, which has long been the backbone of Republican Operations from way back before when they were Dixiecrats, should be expected.

And Imperial Amerika is now officially a Totalitarian Nation, tough we put on a good magic show and Der Fuhrer, like Hitler and Stalin before him, talks quite the good "freedom" game.

[forgethell]

47. Yes you are.

See my above post.

I agree, things should be prioritized. That doesn't mean we can't rejoice when even a minor problem is fixed. And, really, you should stop accusing others of being Republicans, no matter how subtly. It's against the rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Langis]

64. I agree that we should prioritize things a little better

Next we should work on bringing back the poll tax. What do you think? I'm sure your for that.

[easyway]

112. voting early, often, and straight

since the enemy has better cars, and therefore will win in a drive from poll to poll and vote contest, it seems to me that there must be some attempt to get people to vote only once, where they should vote.

exactly how to you propose to do such

[LisaM]

71. Then picture IDs need to be FREE.

Otherwise it's a poll tax. Maybe you've never been in the position of not having $10, $20, $30 till pay day. But if you were, and you needed the picture ID to vote and you couldn't afford it and it was election day, you would then be disenfranchised.

Make picture IDs free and easily available to people who work or depend on public transportation and I might agree with you (for example, have it available at public schools, etc.)

[Wisc Badger]

72. As far as I know a straight State ID card in Wisconsin is Free

I could be wrong though.

[lonestarnot]

2. Don't know about this state...

First their was Eve Mechaam...the pickininny gov.
Then Slimmy Simmington...the retirement money theif
Now this...Is this?? what is this??? There are many closet KKK people that live in AZ I'm guessing.

[City Lights]

21. I know about this state.

I live here. It sucks. Period.

[lonestarnot]

54. Well I do too, but I'm not making admissions, just wondering.

[Sal316]

4. this isn't about ensuring there's no fraud....

....it's about legalizing voter intimidation.


There is a very virulent anti-Mexican attitude here in AZ. We've got home grown commandos patrolling the border and people supporting laws that legalize intimidation of non-caucasian people for voting, public benefits, etc. Next on the agenda is a gay-marriage amendment and English-only laws.

God help us!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

5. How is this intimidating?

Either you are a citizen and can vote or you aren't and can't.

[Sal316]

14. Works the same as anywhere else......

...a non-white person comes in to vote and is immediately challenged by GOP poll workers. Valid or not, it's still intimidation.

[Wisc Badger]

34. It works the other way also

take Milwaukee for example. Minority voting area, want to gin up the vote simply come in and register, does not matter if the address is valid or not, a friendly helper can vouch for you living there (even if it is an open field) an boom instant voter.

Hey it's fraud but what the heck when we as Dems commit it is for the good of the nation.


Pot = Kettle = Black.

[DownNotOut]

98. Again, either your a citizen

and can prove it or not. If you can, its LEGAL for you to vote.


DownNotOut

[Mystified]

152. Don't you know, Alicia?

I feel intimidated every time someone asks me for ID to buy alcohol, write a check, gain admittance to a nightclub, make a withdrawal at the bank, and any number of other things!

[unblock]

6. they will work this list like florida works felon disenfranchisement

people with acceptable last names in republican precincts will be able to vote by simply announcing their name, or maybe with ANY form of id, utility bill, whatever.

people with democratic-sounding last names in democratic precincts will not be on the list no matter how many times they've voted before and will be required to show a passport, a birth certificate, two major credit cards, and two citizen witnesses.

[BraSize45]

15. WTF?

democratic-sounding last names

Democratic sounding last names? Like Gonzalez? As in Bush's new attorney general?

[tom_paine]

20. Nope... like Dunbar or Jefferson

And yes, given the surge of Hispanic support for Bush, I do imagine it will be, as always, targetted at the same group the Busheviks used to target with Poll Taxes back when the Democratic Party was the Republican Party and vice versa.

You know, when those socialist, regualtion and federal power expanding communists like Lincoln and Teddy Rooseelt were Republicans (which means they were Modern Democrats)

[jswordy]

7. That's what I thought...

...combined with unblock's post #6.

[Desertrose]

9. big part of the fraud was the way they worded prop 200

They advertised it one way and it ws worded in a way that was very difficult for many people to understand. Of course if you read it very closely it was pretty clear...as usual there was the "misinformation" surrounding it.....lots of repub anti Hispanic money went into selling it....very sad.

I really didn't think it would pass.

Anyone know how close the actual count was? IIRC it was fairly close.

God help us indeed......what will they do if they don't have the non-anglos to work the really shitty low paying jobs??


AZ- the right to work for nothing state!


DR

[jswordy]

12. Links

Rundown on Porp. 200 from group that worked to get it on ballot...it means a lot more than just checking voters!

http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=2481&c=54

"Arizona Star" infers Hispanics narrowly approved it! (But be sure to reads into the piece.) Overall, it passed with 56 percent of the vote statewide.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/prop200/46587.php

[Desertrose]

39. more "big brother" mentality .....

"Proposition 200 requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote and evidence of legal residency when applying for some government benefits. It also could mean jail time for state workers who don't report illegal immigrants who seek benefits."

this is from your second link above......


and they really played into this fear that someone might take "your" joband "your" money.....

"Rick Oltman of the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, which worked for passage of the measure, said he thinks income - rather than Hispanic support - was key to the success of Proposition 200. He said he doesn't think Hispanics vote any differently from the general population. "The longer you've been here, the better you do . . . you're more likely to be a conservative voter, you've got more invested in this society," he said."


Its all in how the message is spun...they evidently did a good job, but then they had the financial backing to do it....

[primavera]

143. A lot more than checking voters indeed

The whole Prop 200 debate was engineered by FAIR as a way of keeping people divided on the subject of immigration. They got nervous that a consensus might emerge between pro-business conservtaives and pro-immigration Dems that might result in the passage of an immigration reform package which didn't just automatically line every person of color up against a wall and shoot them. Since FAIR desires nothing less than that, it was in their interest to stir up a scandal, fan some racist flames, tell a bunch of horseshit about how immigrants are destroying America and, voila! The debate becomes polarized and too hot to be touched by politicians who need to worry about being re-elected.

FAIR never gave a shit about voter fraud, they wanted to reproduce the results they achieved in California in 1994 with Prop 187, which, as in Arizona's Prop 200, they authored and provided most of the money technical support for the campaign to get it on the ballot. As with Prop 187, Prop 200 is immediately being slammed by dozens of lawsuits, and, as was the case with Prop 187 as well, such suits will almost certainly be successful. But it won't really matter from FAIR's point of view, because, even if Prop 200 gets shot to pieces by the courts, that will only fuel passions about "judicial activism" and state's rights, it'll be a mess, just like Prop 187 was. Which is exactly what FAIR wanted all along.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, Arizona, but you guys are just dupes here, being played by an extreme right-wing hate group.

[AP]

28. Alot of US citizens will not vote now becuase registration is too

difficult.

This means that there will be no more voter registration drives down at the supermarket (who brings their birth certificate with them to the Circle K?)

[Bridget Burke]

8. Since when is a driver's license proof of citizenship?

Aren't legal aliens allowed to drive in Arizona?

And will Bobbie Whitegirl be examined as thoroughly as Jassey Salgado, even though Ms. Salgado's family may have been in Arizona for centuries?

"Raising Arizona" was set in Maricopa County, wasn't it?

[trogdor]

31. Apparently, there is authentication with DL's issued after 1996.

I would imagine there is something on the DL itself that indicated one's citizenship status, as well as anti-counterfeiting measures that make them useful in verifying one's eligibility to vote.

Correct me if I'm compeletely full of shit, but isn't citizenship a NATIONAL friggin' requirement for voting in the United States? I mean, if I were to move to Canada, I wouldn't expect to be able to vote there until I became a Canadian citizen, right?

[Jester_11218]

10. Authenticate the vote too!

They authenticate the voters but not the vote. What's the point?

[alarimer]

93. yes

You can id people all you want but if you use those voting machines with no paper trail, how can anyone be sure their vote even counts??

[SoCalDem]

11. I may get flamed, but I really don't have a problem with this

I needed a birth certificate to get my DL when we moved to CA in 1980, even though I had a New Mexico licence.

The simple solution to voting "problems" AND Homeland Security, is for the government to have a "Passport Amnesty" period, and just issue passports to all US citizens over 18.

It has a number totally unique to you..It's valid 15 years..and in case a fantastic trip comes along, you're good to go.

No voting flunkie could refuse your ID if you have a valid passport with your picture on it.:)

and I can tell you from personal experience, the passport office is pretty finicky about the documentation you send them :) They rejected my husband's birth certificate, and we had to order one from the state..

He was born in a little podunk hospital in Coffeyville Kansas. during WWII, and his BC was more like an art project than an official document.. It had birds and flowers, and little swirly designs on it..

[jswordy]

13. Swap your word "passport" for "national identity card" and...

...you can easily see how I vehemently oppose that concept. Let's not give away any more of our freedoms and devolve into a nation where "checking papers" is necessary for routine daily activities. Hell, they already legally can issue a secret warrant against me and search my home when I am away without ever telling me.

You know, the terrorists win every single time we voluntarily restrict or give up more of our freedoms, and they don't have to fire a shot!

[candle_bright]

19. What freedoms are you giving up

by needing to prove your identity and citizenship to vote?

Sorry, but we need to do this to help insure legitimate elections, otherwise we might as well let anyone vote willy-nilly, wherever they want, as often as they want.

[BrendaStarr]

24. If you're a Republican you will still be able to vote more than once

Once at home and again at each vacation home.

The news media found that it has been happening already.

Of course all this was forgotten when corporate news was told to shut up about the election.

During the recall petition drive here in CA people were brought in and instantly registered from their motel rooms so they could work on petitioning.

How much does this happen during other campaigns when the might R machine starts moving hundreds of thousands of voters around the country. Dallas Morning News reported that for the Nov 2002 election 170,000 were brought in to the state by the Republicans supposedly for "Get out the vote" work.

If they are honest about stopping vote fraud, then they need to also work immediately on the double registration fraud.

[Wisc Badger]

37. What you describe is the way Democrat leaning orgnizations

registered voters here in SE Wisconsin and believe me there was fraud, just check out the stories in the Journal Sentinel.

"Fade to Claued Raines: I am shocked to learn about gambleing goin on"

Current Milwaukee mayor Barrett and voting hack Lisa Artison: "We are shocked and dismayed, oh and by the way 10k voters that do not exist = no fraud.

YEAH RIGHT!

[BraSize45]

16. Amnesty?

The simple solution to voting "problems" AND Homeland Security, is for the government to have a "Passport Amnesty" period, and just issue passports to all US citizens over 18.

No need for passport amnesty. All citizens are already able to get passports.

[SoCalDem]

116. "Amnesty" from the COST of them.. They are pretty pricey these days

Last year a free trip to Tahiti came our way, and for the two of us to get passports it cost almost $300.00. Poor people should be able to get their first one free.. Renewals are pretty reasonable.

[atreides1]

18. Sieg Heil To You Too

You have to look at the group that was pushing this piece of legislation, it was headed by a woman known for her views on the segregation of the races. She's not a bigot, she just believes that people of different races should not reside together. And that each racial group should live with their own kind.

Would you really want to be asked for your identity papers? Do you really believe that if we were all issued passports, that they would not be used as a national ID?

When we moved to Arizona from Hawaii, I didn't need my birth certificate to get a DL.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Those of us with a melanin deficiency won't be hassled.

But some of us gringos see this as a racist scam.

[One_Life_To_Give]

74. Cost of Background check for Passport?

What will it cost us/Gov't to perform the checks on all those who don't have Passport's though. And what will be cut to pay for it.

Opps, of course we will pay for it by cutting taxes. Silly me.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

22. FYI...

Federal law requires me, a person who is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. (i.e., one who holds a "Green Card"), to carry with me at all times my green card or, as an alternative (if I don't yet have my green card), my passport with the USCIS (formerly known as INS) stamp granting me permanent resident status, because, according to the law, anyone who asks is allowed to view my green card.

Therefore, I don't find it particularly problematic to show a document that shows you are a U.S. citizen, be it a passport, naturalization certificate or birth certificate, before you can vote.

Of course, there is the potential of abuse, but this potential is also there for the requirement of showing your green card when asked.

When/if I become a naturalized citizen and I will be voting, I personally will not have any problems showing proof of my citizenship if asked; after all, only U.S. citizens can vote.

[BrendaStarr]

25. So if you were born here and were constantly asked for proof

that you are legal here just because of your skin color would you still be saying you aren't bothered by having to prove it?

It is a major hassle many times to get a birth certificate from the county. For one of our daughters we had to apply 3 times.

[candle_bright]

29. Constantly asked for proof?

We are talking about providing proof *to vote*, not just walking down the street or at the grocery store. At least that's what this thread is about---proof of citizenship and identity to VOTE.

I think people are exaggerating here about "skin color." I've lived in many communities that are predominantly black and/or Hispanic and the first I've heard of this "constantly asked for proof" is right here on this message board. Please provide a source for your claim of "constantly asked for proof" because I am having trouble believing it.

[AP]

30. The problem is that in the US the idea is that you want to make

voting as easy as possible for people to encourage participation.

This is a rule that will no doubt decrease the number of legal voters who participate.

For example, a lot of people register to vote at registration drives without any plan to do so when they leave their homes in the morning.

How many people carry their birth certificate with them just as a matter of course? Nobody. People will not have with them the forms they now need to register to vote. So now, the only people who register to vote will be people for whom the idea strikes them when they're at home near their documentation.

[candle_bright]

35. :::scratching my head:::

Are you saying you are willing to lower/eradicate standards to accommodate people who might not have planned on registering to vote on any given day?

This is a very slippery slope. Enforce some rules, but not others is what it sounds like to me. If we truly want fair, legitimate elections we should not shave things off here and there for "convenience", as this taints the overall process.

[AP]

40. You got me scratching my head.

The only standard that applies in most states is that you're willing to attest that you are a citizen and that you're over 18.

In most states, you don't need any documentation at all to vote. Most states make it incredibly friction-free to register to vote.

I think that's just fine. That slope hasn't been slippery at all.

Convenience has been the operating principle when it comes to voting in America for a while now, and I have yet to see evidence that this is a bad thing. People who actually want to vote in the US is such a rare thing that the gov't doesn't try to put up hurdles for people who really care (other then subject them to criminal liability for lying on their registration form).

In fact, the only stories I've heard about people voting when they're not allowed to have nothing to do with citizenship. Apparently, a lot of people with winter homes in FL vote in both their home state and in FL. I bet the same thing happens in Arizona. When are FL and AZ going to pass a law that requires the state to check part-year residents' voting records against the voting records in the states in which they have second homes?

[alarimer]

Yes and how many illegal aliens vote anyway?

This is a solution in search of a problem. It sounds racist to me. The only people who will be challenged will be those who are not white.

[True_Blue]

114. I am curious to know what the percentage is

of votes that are actually cast by illegal immigrants in an election. I'll bet it's not enough to justify the added expense and effort it's going to take to implement this.

[Bridget Burke]

42. The proposal is not about lowering or eradicating standards.

It is about raising them to an unreasonable standard. And racism is rearing its ugly head.

What has been "shaved off" in the election process is the ability to prove votes are counted honestly.

If you do plan to become a citizen, you really ought to read up on American History & Political Science.

[candle_bright]

43. I disagree

that requiring proof of citizenship is "unreasonable." I think it is HIGHLY reasonable.

The fact of the matter is that you *must* be a U.S. citizen to vote. What good is that law if enforcing it is blocked? It's about time this is taken more seriously.

[AP]

52. If the difference between requiring a registrant to simply

attest (under penalty of perjury) and actually have to produce evidence is that a lot of people who are legally allowed to vote don't register, what values are you serving?

Why do you prioritize strictness over the desire to see as many legal applicants as possible vote?

[candle_bright]

53. You are assuming

that people wont lie. That might be good enough for you, but I think our nation deserves better.

There is absolutely no way you are going to convince me that we shouldn't enforce voting laws. You need to be a U.S. citizen to vote, and you should be asked to prove it. You need a valid license to drive, valid ID to purchase alcohol, etc, so people should need a valid ID to vote.

I want as many eligible people to vote. I also don't want any ineligible people voting. In other words, I'd like to see voting happen legally.

[AP]

56. And you're assuming that everyone entitled to vote has proof of

citizenship readily available at the moment they have both the impulse and the oppotunity to register to vote.

I'm inclined to lean towards trusting that people won't like under penalty of perjury over trusting people will have all their documentation available when they have that impulse and opportunity.

We WANT people who are entitled to vote to be able to with as little friction as possible. Voting shouldn't be something you only get to do after you've jumped through a bunch of hoops. Voting is the foundation of democracy.

Arizona's law is going to guarantee that homeless people, for instance, probably will not be able to vote. That's not good. It will ensure that women who escape abusive husbands with only the clothes on their back will not be able to register when they move into the women's shelter. That's not good.

I seriously don't understand what values people are protecting when they think voting should be this thing that we have to keep under lock and key and that we only trust people who come with letters of reference and documentation of their worthiness, even if that means that a lot of people who are entitled to vote will be shut out.

[candle_bright]

59. Good grief

Voting is not "this thing we have to keep under lock and key" nor is it about individual people's "worthiness."

It's about proving their *eligibility.* That is all.

Why don't we just let people drive cars, without asking them to prove they know how to operate the vehicle, are old enough, etc? Someone might get the impulse to drive, and not have time to stop at the DMV.
(Yes, this is sarcastic, but I don't see the difference, really.)

[AP]

76. Driving is a privilege. Voting is a core right in a democracy.

When the rules you make for voting prevent elligible voters from voting, you've gone to far.

Look, in the criminal courts, we're willing to let a few guilty people go so they we don't convict the innocent.

It's amazing to me that anyone would advocate a more stringent standard for voting then they would for convicting a CRIMINAL.

Voting is not a criminal act. It's an essential right.

[candle_bright]

83. How do you know

if you are preventing eligible voters from voting if you don't know if they are eligible?

Another poster asked you what you would suggest to verify who's eligible and who's not. I think that's a good question.

If there's a better way to insure that only eligible citizens are allowed to vote, let's hear it.

[AP]

85. See post 84.

I know because I've registered people to vote.

[forgethell]

67. If they are not

citizens, they are not entitled to vote. And I wonder that you would think people who are unwilling to take the time to register would make good, informed voters. Or would even bother to do so.

[AP]

77. A person who registers to vote outside a supermarket is not an

uninformed voter.

We value mobility in our society so much that we let people write off their moving expenses as a below-the-line dedcution from the federal income tax.

Well, another consequence of moving, in addition to the financial expense, is that it unregisters you to vote. If you've moved, and haven't had the time to register, you should be at least able to register in front of the supermarket.

Anyway, registration to vote isn't actually voting. If they're so uninformed that they're no worthy of voting, you're going to lose them on election day anyway.

At the very least, we want them to get registered so they have the option of voting.

Why do people want to put up hurdles for elligible voters?

[forgethell]

79. To make sure they're eligible.

You're avoiding the question. How do you propose we keep non-citizens from voting??

[AP]

84. I have had to register to vote several times, and the threat of being

proscecuted for lying on the application was enough to convince me not to lie, and it was sufficiently unobtrusive. It meant that I could register by mail.

Also, I have registered others to vote, and if I had to do a citizen check, I doubt I would have registered even a tiny fraction of those people. And you know how many of those people I registered probably weren't US citizens? Zero.

In fact, of the hundred or so people I've registered working on political campaigns, you know how many people who weren't US citizens tried to register? Exactly ONE. You know how I know? Because he checked the box that said he wasn't a US citizen. When I told him that meant he couldn't regsiter, he apologized and said he didn't realize that was the law. He didn't try to reregister, but he did continue to volunteer for the campaign on which I met him, right up to election day.

For people like me who have actually been on the ground registgering people, I'll say that I ONLY see this rule as making it harder to register legal voters, and probably won't stop but a tiny tiny tiny number of people who aren't elligible to vote.

[candle_bright]

87. Um...

You know for a fact that only one ineligible voter tried to register, because he checked the box?

What about the people who know NOT to check the box saying they are not a citizen?

I appreciate your registration work, but I don't think this example demonstrates anything on a bigger scale.

[AP]

88. I'm just telling you what my experience was.

I highly doubt that anyone who said they were a US citizen wasn't -- that's just my feeling from talking to them, watching the fill out the application, etc. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty certain.

I once asked a guy if he wanted to register at his door (his wife was on my list of reg'd voters, and he wasn't but he was talking like a Dem, so I asked him if he wanted to register). He said he couldn't because he was Canadian.

He could have lied, and registered. But he didn't. You wonder why? Probably because even though he wouldn't have to show me any proof of citizenship, he knew there were criminal penalites, and his one in 100 million vote wasn't worth the risk. Don't you think?

Again, I can see how this rule would greatly reduce the number of elligible people who end up registering, and I can't see anyone I registered who this law would have stopped -- because I highly doubt I've ever registered anyone who wasn't entitled to vote.

[candle_bright]

95. I think I see where we differ

I want to see the voting laws enforced in a straightforward manner, not go on hunches or feelings.

You admit that you didn't "know for sure" they really were eligible, but you were "pretty certain."

This isn't meant to be rude, but I'd like something more solid than that enacted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring people to prove they are eligible citizens to vote.

[AP]

97. I think the difference is between conservative values and progressive...

...values.

You're "law and order," and I'm "let's not get too much in the way of people exercising their most valuable legal rights."

And for the 10th time: they are required to prove they're eligible to vote: with a sworn statement that will result in a criminal conviction if they lie. What is wrong with that?

[candle_bright]

100. Values

You say I am "law and order" as if that's a bad thing. (Unless I am misinterpreting you.)

Do I want election laws followed? Yes
Do I want only eligible people voting? Yes
Do I want election fraud eradicated? Yes

I guess that makes me "law and order" then. I can live with that. I also notice I am not the only one here who feels this way, not that that matters, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

[AP]

103. If your priority is obedience to law and order to a degree that prevents

people from lawfully exercising rights, such as the right to vote, then there is a big difference between you and me.

I should point out (again) that that would place you to the right of our criminal justice system which is designed to let a few people go so that no innocent person gets convicted.

Here's another anecdote for you: I have asked people who are clearly American citizens, who have probably never been more than 50 miles from the place they were born, and they refuse, and they can't be encouraged to vote. I strongly suspect that these American citizens have run afoul of the law at some point, and they don't want to get their name into some government computer that would help track them down.

Having that experience, I just can't help but think that this law isn't meant to prevent the 10 or so illegal aliens who register to vote out of 300,000, but is designed to make it harder for the 150,000 occoassional or infrequent voters who are 2:1 Democratic, who are usually encouraged to vote on a whim by someone who stops them on the sidewalk, or comes to the door at a moment when they have a bout 5 minutes to fill out a form but no more to go find their birth certificate (presuming they know where it is).

[candle_bright]

104. I guess we are different

Can you explain what election laws *you* think should be enforced, and which shouldn't?

My position is that we can't, with any integrity, select which ones should be followed and which should be shrugged off or downplayed.

[AP]

107. Not a Q of which laws to enforce. It's a Q of HOW to enforce the law.

I think that we should enforce election laws requiring US citizenship, but I don't think they should be enforced in a way that prevents legal voters from registering to vote.

I see no problem with requring an oath.

And speaking anecdotally --from relatively extensive experience -- I see how this law wouldn't prevent very many illegals from voting, but would make it a lot harder to register a lot of legal voters.

Therefore, it's not worth it.

[candle_bright]

108. Okay

I guess we've come to the end of the road at this point.

You think requiring an oath is sufficient, and I do not. People who know they are registering illegally aren't exactly mindful of laws, thus I find falsely signing a sworn document to be a reasonable concern.

I'm in favor of this Arizona proposal, and you are not.

C'est la vie.

[AP]

89. I'm just telling you what my experience was.

I highly doubt that anyone who said they were a US citizen wasn't -- that's just my feeling from talking to them, watching the fill out the application, etc. Obviously I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty certain.

I once asked a guy if he wanted to register at his door (his wife was on my list of reg'd voters, and he wasn't but he was talking like a Dem, so I asked him if he wanted to register). He said he couldn't because he was Canadian.

He could have lied, and registered. But he didn't. You wonder why? Probably because even though he wouldn't have to show me any proof of citizenship, he knew there were criminal penalites, and his one in 100 million vote wasn't worth the risk. Don't you think?

Again, I can see how this rule would greatly reduce the number of elligible people who end up registering, and I can't see anyone I registered who this law would have stopped -- because I highly doubt I've ever registered anyone who wasn't entitled to vote.

[forgethell]

91. Well, you are

a laww-abiding citizen. So am I. But there are lot's of people who are not.

[AP]

94. The people stuffing the ballot box are not illegal aliens.

I'll say this again: I've never seen someone I remotely suspect is an ilegal alien who wanted to get their name on the voting roll, expose themselves to jury duty, or raise their profile in any manner just to be one of 100 million voters.

The illgal immigrant voter hord is a myth -- I'm not saying there aren't any, but they are a tiny problem that the law tolerates to make sure that all the eligible voters are likely to make it to the polls.

This law is designed to make it harder to get people registered and plays into a cultural myth that conservatives love: the onslaught of the illegal aliens.

Voter participation rates are very high among conservatives. However, first time and occassional voters are very democratic (and these are people who are legal voters). Occassional voters are 2:1 Democratic.

Republicans want to do anything they can to make it harder to get those occassional, first time, or frequent movers to the polls, and this is how they're doing it.

For every 1 illegal immingrant who might have voted without this law, there will be 5,000 eligible voters who will be lost from the rolls thanks to this law -- and they will be predominantly democrats.

I don't think the gain is worth that cost. We as a society should be figuring out ways to increase legal participation in voting rather than coming up with ways to decrease it.

[forgethell]

66. To make sure they're legal?

Just asking.

[AP]

78. Why isn't swearing and subjecting yourself to criminal prosecution...

...not enough?

Why have a rule that is going to leave out a lot of elligible voters from the pool?

I'd rather hire a few people to confirm registrations are valid, then have rules that make it more difficult for elligible voters to vote.

How much would you scream if you moved to a new state, had three days to register to vote, and all your personal papers where in transit and you couldn't prove you were a citizen, and the registrar said that they won't accept your oath even though they could prosecute you if you were lying?

[forgethell]

80. How much would I scream?

NOt at all. If I had to move near election time, I would plan the move to take that into account.

How many people would it take to confirm all registrations are valid?

Nobody ever lied under oath? Get real.

[AP]

82. I just don't understand some people's values.

I want people to vote. I'm willing to make a few mistakes so that everyone entitled to vote can do so easily.

If we're willing as a society to let a few guilty people go free so that we don't convict the innocent, I think it makes sense that we have voting regulations that make sure that every elligible voter has as few obstructions to their right to vote as possible.

[forgethell]

92. No one eligible

to vote should be refused that right. No one who is not eleigible should have it. In order to assure the second, I feel it is reasonable to require those who are eligible, and who want to vote, to make some very small effort to make sure they get registered.

[AP]

96. How many lost eligible voters are you willing to tolerate in order

to keep one ineligible voter from voting.

If the current system--requiring merely on oath which can result in criminal prosecution if you lie -- lets in 5 ineligible voters, but also results in 5,000 eligible voters registering who might not if they had to go buy a passport or track down their birthh certificate, whould you be fine with that?

Now, say this new rule reduces that 5 down to 1, but you lose those 5,000 eligible voters: are you OK with that? I am certainly not OK way that.

In fact, I think that's absurd. I am not going to lose 5000 just to improve one number by 4, and that's exactly what this law is going to do.

And you know that it's possible to forge documents. So, say you can get the 1 down to 0 by cross-checking databases, but the nature of those databases means you end up kicking out 50,000 eligible voters who made a transcription error when writing their passport number down.

So, is it so important to go down to 0 that you'll sacrifice 50,000 legal voters?

I value making voting as easy as possible for legal voters so much more than I value reducing to 0 the miniscule number of illegals who try to vote.

[forgethell]

105. How many ineligible voters

are you willing to tolerate to register 1 eligible voter?? What makes you think the numbers go one way rather than the other.

I am not willing that any eligible voter lose the right to vote. NOt one. I am willing for any number not to get registered if they won't prove they are citizens. Their rights will not have been violated.

[AP]

109. I know from experience. I know that many of the people I've registered

would not have had the documentation on them that this law requires and I know that people who are hiding from the law don't try to get their names in computer databases.

But my question doesn't ask you to accept my numbers.

I'm was aksing you to tell me what numbers you'd accept, and I think you've dodged it.

I don't think people would refuse to provide evidence. I think in a lot of cases they wouldn't have it, or wouldn't have it at that moment when they could register.

From the experience of registering voters, I have to say that this law is going to dramatically reduce the number of legal voters who register, and they will predominantly be Democrats, and that's why this law was passed (this is why wealthy individuals paid for the advertising campaing for it).

[forgethell]

122. Where I live,

there is this place called "the county courthouse". It's always in a prominent and visible place. You can take you documents and go there and register with ease.

I do not think that it is too much effort to ask for someone to exercise in order to vote.

Your question was How many lost eligible voters are you willing to tolerate in order to keep one ineligible voter from voting.

I thought my answer was clear, I am not willing that any eligible voter lose the right to vote. NOt one. I am willing for any number not to get registered if they won't prove they are citizens. Their rights will not have been violated

If they can't or won't prove that they are citizens, they should not be allowed to vote. Period. Now, really, do you call that dodging the question.

And, yes, it may be that they would be predominately Democratic voters. But, my position is that all voter and election fraud should be eliminated. I loathe hypocrisy, and it is not limited to Republicans. Yes, this may not be the biggest fraud in the American electoral system, but it exists. It's a start. Diebold may, or may not be, next. I would hope so, but I will applaud any further steps.

[AP]

124. I've always registered by mail, and if I everyone had to reg

in person, registrations will drop off dramatically.

Once again, you are advocating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

People hiding from the law tend not to want to get their names into government databases.

There's no evidence that swearing an oath isn't enough to dissuade from registering and seems like the perfect balance for making it easy for eligible voters to register.

You are picking a policy that makes it very likely that a LOT of eligible voters will not register to vote.

And there is a little hypocrisy in your position too. You know that even these rules can possibly be circumvented by fraud. There are even MORE rigorous rules that might eliminate even the remotest possible of fraud. You could require certified copies of the documents, and you could set up an entire agency of investigators who went out and made sure that everyone was legal.

It would be expensive, and it might mean that some eligible voters get caught up in the net. But it could eliminate ALL election fraud. If you're serious about your values, then you should advocate for that degree of investigation and government oversight.

Can I presume that you're OK with that? You think that's a legitimate expense to swallow, and that everyone who registers to vote should accept that a government agent will be dropping by the neighbor's house to ask questions about you, and will be contacting your friends and teachers from elementary school, the way they do when you apply for a job with the FBI?

[forgethell]

127. "There's no evidence

isn't enough to disuade disuade <[i>sic] from registering and seems like the perfect balance for making it easy for eligible voters to register."

OK there's no evidence that it is, either. Especially when the chances are very low that it will ever be detected, or if detected, prosecuted.

However many voters do not register, it is no concern of mine. People have died for the right to vote. If someone cannot be bothered to prove their citizenship, then it is obvious that she doesn't care about it.

Hypocrisy in my position? I don't think so. Any rules can be circumvented, any at all. I think providing documentation that you are a citizen is reasonable. Investigation of everyone on no evidence is not, IMO. But neither is the acceptance of illegal voters because we don't want to put anybody to any trouble whatsoever.

I do not ask for perfection, and it is foolish to expect it. I do ask that some effort be made. By the way it strikes me. You never did answer my question: How would you prevent illegal voters from voting? Please don't say that you would just take their word for it, under oath. Think of it this way: how many people sign off on their income tax returns, under penalty of perjury, and lie about their incomes. The answer is "plenty".

[AP]

129. Since the Civil Rights Act '64, the attitude in American politics

has been that the exercise of voting rights should not require the voter to jump through hoops. The philosophy was that we wanted to get as many people to vote as possible.

This AZ rule is based on the same kind of anit-democratic sentiments that the Civil Rights Act '64 was trying to dismantle.

I guess it nice that it took 40 years before people got back to the mood that voting shouldn't be easy.

I have answered your question a dozen times: the oath on the registration is fine by me. I have registered voters and I've met several who weren't interested in voting because they didn't want their name in a database (because, for example, they were felons not entitled to vote, or because they were Canadians) and I have seriously not met anyone who wanted to register who gave of the slightest whiff that they were up to no good, or that they weren't entitled to vote.

Now if you have actual convicted felons who don't want to register to vote because they don't want their name in a database which would be evidence of breaking the law -- these are people who have a history of breaking the law!!! -- then I'm really not worried about the onslaught of illegal alliens trying to create a paper trail of criminality.

I think the oath is the PERFECT balance which allows a lot eligible voters to register on their way out of the supermarket, or on their lunch breaks.

As for your IRS example, why doesn't the IRS ask for more? Why is the signature enough for the IRS? If it's enough for the IRS, why isn't it enough to vote? They don't ask you to submit every single document that is evidence of you income and expenses?

And how many lie? I think most Americans make an extremely good faith effort to follow the tax laws, because they know there's no escape, and there's a paper trail, and there are laws -- and it all comes down to a signature.

[forgethell]

136. Fair enough.

We disagree. Seems like Arizona voters agree with me. Although I do not think providing documentation of citizenship is "jumping through hoops"

Peace

[AP]

138. Read the article above. Read what she has to bring with her the first

time she votes.

That's just a recipe for preventing her vote from counting even AFTER she's produced evidence that she's a legal citizen at the registration stage.

That's what this law is all about.

As for AZ "agree{ing}" with you -- I was just reading in Clinton's book where he says that when voters were asked in a survey if they wanted a health plan that did X, Y, and Z, by rates of over 60%, voters said yes, but when they were asked if they wanted Clinton's health plan, they overwhelmingly said no.

It was because voters were being lied to by a media campaign funded by people who had a financial interest in not changing the law, but who knew tha people probably didn't want the health care landscape that they wanted.

This AZ law was passed as a statewide referendum, based on an advertizing campaign. As Clinton's health care plan showed, often that's not the best way to get what the voters want.

[AP]

101. And by the way, when you're calculating your tolerance level...

...it might be worth considering that, IIUC, it wasn't even until the early 1900s that national citizenship was a requirement for voting in federal elections.

For the first half of America's existence, residence was considered enough of a qualification to vote. But when immigrants started coming from places in hordes and started to upset established political power structures, that's when the law changed.

So when you're deiciding what's a more important value (makign sure as many eligible voters as possible vote or making sure as few illegal aliens voters as possible vote) I think it's important to remember that (IIUC) we used to let illegal aliens vote.

[forgethell]

106. People also

used to be able to go from one country to another without a passport. People used to ride horses and write letters. So What?

[AP]

110. Within Europe you no longer need a passport to cross borders.

That's progress. Meanwhile, we're going backwards.

As for riding horses, etc., the law didn't require it so I'm not sure that works as an analogy.

[forgethell]

121. Is it?

Perhaps so. Do the British vote in French elections, too?

[AP]

123. A British citizen can vote in EU elections in France...

...I believe.

I also had a Canadian friend with an Irish passport who claimed he could vote in local elections in the UK, but I didn't believe him.

[forgethell]

128. Well, that's interesting

Thank you for the information. However, the Brits are members of the EU. Can they vote for President of France?

[AP]

130. EU cititzens can vote in the municipal and EU elections where they

reside in the US, regardless of their national citizenship (so my Canadian friend with the Irish passport was right).

It's up to France as to whether they allow EU citizens to vote in their national elections. Perhaps they'll PROGRESS to the point where they allow that too.

Here's the EU rule:

Article 19 (8b) ECT gives all citizens of an EU Member State the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and local elections in the Member State in which they reside — whether they have its nationality or not — in the same conditions as apply to nationals of the country of residence. Such rights are an application of the principle of equality and non-discrimination between Union citizens from the home country and abroad. They supplement the right laid down in Article 18 (8a) ECT to freedom of movement and residence. The main purpose of Article 19 (8b) ECT is to abolish the nationality condition that most Member States had previously attached to exercise of the right to vote or stand as a candidate. Its aim is to improve the integration of Union citizens in their host country.

http://www.europarl.eu.int/factsheets/2_4_0_en.htm

[forgethell]

134. And American citizens

can vote in local, STATE, and national elections where they live. So it seems we have already progressed past them.

OK, can American citizens vote in European elections? How about Mexican elections? Canadian elections?

[AP]

137. An American citizen with an Irish grandparent can get an Irish passport

and vote in municipal and EU elections if they are residents of the EU.

Progress in America would be if eliigibility to vote in muncipal elections were based on residence and not citizenship.

There are schools in the US where most of the children have parents who are immigrants and can't vote for the school board members who run their children's school.

I find that very undemocratic.

And I'll repeat: IIUC, in the US up until the 1920s, foreign citizens could vote in most elections (local, state and federal).

Although I'm not making an argument about whether non-citizens should be able to vote in American elections, I think all this evidence that shows that it's probably pretty democratic to let people vote based on residency on the issues that influence their lives suggest that if, say, you had to allocate your resources and prioritize your values, the way you'd do it is this:

1) make sure as many legal voters can register as possible by not requiring a poll tax, litteracy tests, documentation that many people might not have;

2) make sure that nobdy is voting twice or more -- one person one vote, please; and

3) make sure people not eligible to vote aren't registering.

I think that's a good ranking of the values I would like to express through vote registration regulations.

[forgethell]

139. The American citizen with

the Irish passport complies with the laws there.

I can agree with your points 2 & 3, and all of one except the documentation. In fact, how do you do 2 & 3 without it?

I don't think we are going to come to an agreement on this because you do not have a plan to prevent, or at least minimize, fraud in registration.

Let's move on to Diebold.

[AP]

141. If you read the article above, there's a court challenge on the AZ rule

that will result in the rule being overturned if it's vound to reduce the likelihood that eligible minority registrants will have a harder time registering and voting.

So there's a legal mechanism in AZ which balances #1 against #3.

Now, since I'm so sure that it will prevent ALL eligible voters, minority from otherwise, from being able to register and to vote in many circumstances, I think there's a pretty good chance that the requirment to produce a birth certificate or passport at registration, and a picture ID and two proofs of residency at the polls will be overturned.

I guess we can sit back and watch the courts work on this issue.

I still think the signature and oath will be deemed to be sufficient.

[forgethell]

144. I didn't say the courts

would agree with me. But the voters do. It's wonderful to live in a democracy.

[AP]

146. I think that if the voters were informed by something closer to this

DU debate, rather than by a well-funded advertising campaign, they might not agree with Proposition 200, at least insofar as it has been applied to voting.

(And I think that argument is illustrated by what I said about Clinton and the health care reform.)

So, I say thank god for the courts who are doing the job of applying higher legal principles to which we've all assented through the democratic process.

[primavera]

145. Citation, please?

I think you're wrong, I don't believe the law requires one to carry identification establishing one's identity and/or legal status. Think about it, how could it? Were that the case, I could be walking along, minding my own business, and, yet still be charged with a crime if I didn't happen to be carrying identification papers with me at the time. My understanding of criminal law is that I am not required to aid or assist or even speak to a law enforcement officer if I do not wish to - and declining to do so may not in and of itself serve as a basis for charging me with a crime. I know there have been all sorts of court cases about what types of activity may reasonably provide an officer with probable cause to suspect me, such as running, for instance. I'm quite sure that just sitting peacefully minding my own business has not been found by any court to constitute acceptable grounds for taking legal action against me. So if I can't be arrested for declining to furnish identification, how can it be a law that I carry it?

[umass1993]

32. Makes sense to me........

hey, you need a license to get a pack of cigarettes. Presenting a license is not a big deal.

If you can present a license for Lucky 100's, I think you can handle a license to vote.

Far from unreasonable. Moreover, this should be step one in preventing voter fraud. For me, the fact that I'm not asked for any proof of ID when I'm voting is a little disturbing. Culturally, asking for ID is the norm, and when people are "trusted" it seems incongruous.

[AP]

58. Be able to drive shouldn't be a requirement for voting.

And I'm suspicious of any law that makes it harder to stand outside a supermarket and register people to vote.

[Bono71]

68. So get a passport. n/t

[AP]

90. Easy to say if you're a guy skirting cap gains tax thanks to sec 1031

But if you live off food stamps, why should you have to pay your net worth to get a passport every 10 years just so you can vote?

The right to vote should not be made expensive and difficult to exercise. I am so willing to let a few bad ones sneak buy so that it's as easy and cheap as possible for all those who are eligible.

It's not like there's NOTHING stopping people who aren't eligible.

Hell, I'm all for the DA having a hugely publicized prosecution every October just to ward people off, so long as you're not making it harder for people who are eligible to vote.

[Bono71]

149. Fine...don't get a passport or a dl..get a state id card. The right

to vote should be balanced by the right to have a legitimate election. It's not too much to ask to have someone pay every ten years for an identification card.

[AP]

153. I agree. But I would define as an illegitimate election one that made it

so difficult and time consuming to register to vote that thousands of eligible voters lose the chance to vote.

If you read the statute above, it's not JUST that you need a state ID. In fact, there's a possibility that the post-'96 drivers licenses won't satisfy the law. And you also need to bring three more documents with you when you show up to vote.

And I DO think that having to have a state ID that you need to renew in order to register is too burdensome. Any legal voter who gets turned away just because they haven't purchased something, or forgot to renew something is being denied a very important right, and I think it's way more important that that one person gets to vote than it is to stop one non-citizen from voting.

And I'm willing to bet that the ration of non-citizens stopped: citizens denied the right to vote by this law is going to be at least 1:100.

What is wrong with requiring the oath?

[umass1993]

36. Frankly, it's issues like this ...

that make "liberals" seem like "libtards" to conservatives. And "proves" how disconnected Dems are from the mainstream.

To the mainstream, presenting a license is well within the norm for doing anything. You can't even make out a check at grocery store without presenting a license.

Objecting to this requirement, is counterproductive. It should be embraced as the first step in preventing voter fraud and shoring up the electoral process.

Next target, those goddam Diebold machines.

[Bridget Burke]

41. No, the FIRST step towards honest elections is getting rid of Diebold

Getting rid of conveniently placed brothers in swing states & selecting Supremes who care about the Constitution are steps 2 and 3.

Provide evidence that massive numbers of non-citizens have voted. Preferably from a reputable source.

Of course, "we" liberals don't want to be disconnected from the mainstream. We'll be marginalized! (Where have I heard these phrases before?)

[Wisc Badger]

38. You need an ID card to rent videos at Blockbuster

nothing wrong with needing one that proves you are who you say you are and are a legitimate voter for the area in question.

[Bono71]

69. Agree 100%. n/t

[KamaAina]

50. There are homeless people in Arizona, right?

many of whom are U.S. citizens, thus eligible to vote. How on Earth are they supposed to prove their citizenship, residence, etc., etc.

Oh, right, they're not people, anyway. </sarcasm>

[AliciaKeyedUp]

55. Of course they are people

And I believe can register as "living" at a designated shelter. However, because of local elections, they have to "live" in a district to vote properly.

[AP]

57. You do understand that when a homeless person registers as

living at a shelter or at an intersection, they get the ballot for the precinct in which that address is located?

They're considered as living in that precinct and they vote that precinct's elections.

[Virginia Dem]

60. I don't have a problem with this either

[Southern Dem 2005]

61. Why would anyone consider this a problem?

I know that part of the driving force behind this law is anti-immigrant feelings but that doesn't mean the law is bad. I have no problem with requiring proof of citizenship before you let a person vote. After all, it is an election for the U.S.

[primavera]

148. Read the fine print

The requirement that voters provide ID was the title given to Prop 200 to distract attention away from what the initiative's authors really wanted to achieve, which was the bit about how anyone who fails to report a person even suspected of being an illegal alien will face a five year prison term. Under Prop 200's fine print, a firefighter who puts out a fire at an undocumented alien's house, a librarian who checks out a book to an undocumented alien, a medical worker who provides emergency medical care to an undocumented alien, all are considered criminals who should be locked up. That's the real problem with Prop 200.

[Bono71]

150. It's overbroad...didn't know that, thanks. n/t

[primavera]

151. The architects of the initiative didn't want you to know that

Throughout the campaign to get Prop 200 on the ballot, the people who wrote it stressed that the narrowest possible interpretation would be taken of "public benefits," yet, literally the day after it passed, those same people were in federal court, suing the Arizona state attorney general to compel him to adopt the broadest interpreation possible of public benefits. This comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or the Fascist Anti Immigration Racists to those of us who know and hate them.

[KamaAina]

62. Yes, they're people. Now, how do they register and vote in AZ

under this draconian law? I've dealt with some who have had their papers stolen from right under their noses in the shelter (this may also be fertile ground for identity theft!)

Note to self: Put </sarcasm> metatag in bold next time.

[Southern Dem 2005]

63. I haven't been too involved in this discussion

but just because some people will have difficulty registering doesn't mean this is a bad law. Someone casting a false ballot is just as detrimental to the process as not allowing a person to vote. Either way, someone's vote is cancelled out.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

65. If you have no ID

They shouldn't let you or me vote. That is just ripe for abuse. I don't want anyone disenfranchised, but I don't want anyone cheating either.

As one other poster said, next step Diebold!

[Bridget Burke]

73. Why not "First Step Diebold"?

Which matter do you consider more important?

Where's the evidence on illegal aliens voting here?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

81. This is already moving ahead

And doing anything about Diebold will take years.

[AP]

147. This is moving backwards. It's reducing the the numer of LEGAL

voters, which ensures that fewer voters will have more of a say, and it will make it easier for computer error to influence outcomes by changing fewer votes.

[Bono71]

70. Birth certificate? n/t

[guajira]

75. I Worked at the Polls in Miami and Requiring Proof of Citizenship

is a good thing! I am sure there are voters in Miami who have voter registrations and are not US citizens.

One of the rewards for becoming an American citizen is gaining the right to vote. Unfortunately like many other of our laws, there is no pride in being honest, the idea now is just not to get caught!!

The proof of citizenship should be required when the voter registers, not when they go to vote.

[AP]

86. What do you think those people gain that's worth more than the risk

of getting caught?

Say 10,000,000 vote in FL. Does someone really want to risk getting caught, having to hire a criminal lawyer, getting a criminal record, etc, for a 1/10millionth influence on the election?

Most states put you in the jury pool after you register.

So an illegal is going to register, get in the jury pool, and risk being discovered? If they don't show up for the voir-dire (in order to avoid revealing they're illegal), they risk a second criminal offense!

Are a lot of people really assuming these risks?

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. A lot of people who are not legally entitled to vote do it anyway

One of the newspapers in WA did an investigation and found numerous ex-cons who voted despite it being illegal.

[AP]

102. US citizen ex-cons would not be captured by this law.

If a state gov't cares about the threat of ex-cons voting, they cross-check their lists and they go out and have show trials against ex-cons who voted so that others get the message.

Do you have any anecdotes abotu illegal aliens voting? I don't doubt there are some, but I'd be surprised if it's anywhere near a number worth sacrificing all the eligible voters who will be shut out from registration thanks to these procedural requirements.

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. 35 foreign citizens voted in Harris County Texas last year

Harris County cracking down on voting by non-U.S. citizens

07:58 AM CST on Monday, January 17, 2005


Associated Press



HOUSTON -- Officials are investigating how at least 35 foreign citizens, and possibly dozens more, were allowed to vote in elections in Harris county.

One of those illegal voters was a 73-year-old Brazilian woman whose registration was canceled in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen.

But the following year she was again given a new voter card, which wasn't discovered until recently. Records show that since 1997 the woman voted at least four times in general and Democratic primary elections, most recently in November.

Last year, at least 35 foreign citizens either applied for or received voter cards by checking a box on the application saying they were U.S. citizens, said Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, who also is the county's voter registrar.

more: http://www.khou.com/news/local/politics/stories/khou050117_jt_illegalvoting.1869fb6e.html

[AP]

132. Sounds like they're able to catch them, and that they have

a few office procedures they need to amend.

As for the number, 35 -- I'm going to guess that's 2 a year out of thousands of new registrants a year.

Does that justify changing the application procedure to make it harder for those thousands of citizens to register easily?

[Freddie Stubbs]

154. Catching them after the fact won't help in a close election

And who knows how many weren't caught.

[Freddie Stubbs]

118. Four non-citizens voted in Milwaukee in 2000

Similarly, it is impossible to check citizenship information at the polls. In 2000, the newspaper found four cases where non-citizens voted before their naturalization dates.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/296224.asp

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. 748 non-citizens voted in California in 1996

Task force Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens, not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt. He and other Republicans said the results nonetheless show that Dornan's challenge was not frivolous and that the GOP was not unfairly targeting Hispanic voters.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/sanchez.html

[AP]

126. The number was probably less than that...

They based their conclusion on whether they thought a signature on a INS doc looked liked a sig on a voter reg card and no further investigation.

And the point that remains is that you can have a system that reduces to 0 the possiblity that illegal aliens will vote, but the closer you get to zero, the more likely you're going to make it prohibitively difficult for legal voters to vote.

You have to be a real strict father moralist to care more about keepign out illegals than you do about making sure eligible voters can vote.


If the Majority had executed its analysis as thoroughly and exhaustively as its counsel claimed in his testimony, using an analytical protocol whose main steps included first keying into their database all the hand-written naturalization data that the INS provided to the Committee over the course of 8 months, second determining if the newly entered naturalization dates were subsequent to November 5, 1996, and third establishing a probable signature match between a suspect voter's registration signature and the INS signature associated with an individual who naturalized after the election, they would have discovered that only a fraction of the people on the Majority list who voted on November 5, 1996 may have been non-citizens at the time they voted.

We use the word may quite deliberately here because short of an actual face-to-face interview with the suspect voter, nothing can be concluded about a suspect's citizenship status and right to vote in the State of California from all the materials the Majority demanded from Orange County and INS. Even probable signature matches between Orange County registration ballots and INS records, which the Minority used to reach its estimate, while perhaps the most reliable indication of a match, do not constitute proof because of the often poor condition of the photocopied signatures received from the two agencies, the absence of a forensic hand-writing expert to certify what may be a match, and other related factors.

The Minority cannot emphasize enough that it no more condones or minimizes the gravity of proven cases of `illegal non-citizens' voting than the Majority does, be it 500 such cases, 100, or 1. The fact remains, however, that nothing in the process conducted by the Majority proves widespread voter/registration fraud, and certainly nothing coming close to the 748 votes they claim contributed to Congresswoman Sanchez's victory. Furthermore, the Majority grossly mischaracterizes and slanders Ms. Sanchez's election by suggesting that the `illegal' votes they have identified came out of her margin of victory. We do not know for whom any `suspect' voters voted. The Majority cannot present a shred of evidence that would support such an irresponsible characterization.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp105&r_n=hr416.105&sel=TOC_205758&

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. People who really want to vote will pony up the ID

For those who it is too much of a bother, how likely are they to take the time to head to polls on election day anyway?

[AP]

135. Many people move frequently. They put registering to vote

low on the list of things they need to do. Most people have no idea when the registration deadlines are for their new county or state.

Many many many new registrants don't think to register until someone stops them in front of the grocery store, or on their way to the office after lunch, and they might not be approached until days before the deadline. What if at lunchtime today someone said to you that today was the deadline for registering to vote for 2008, but we need to see your passport or birth certificate before you can register? What are the chances that you'd be able to vote in 2008?

The people I described should be allowed to vote if they're willing to swear under penalty of perjury that they live where they say they do, that they're over the age of 18, and that they're a US citizen.

I guarantee you that these new rules will prevent the registration of legal voters by at least 100:1 relative to the numbef rof non-citizens it will prevent from voting.

It is a solution to a problem that was practically non-existant and it's one that creates another (in my mind, bigger) problem.

I guess it was nice to live in an America that thought for a little while that it was good to make it easier for people to exercise their rights as citizens. Now we're going to back to an American that wants to make it harder to exercise those rights because too many of the wrong kinds of people (progressives) were taking advantage of their rights.

I'm going to go over this again: Occassional and non-voters or 2:1 Democrats to Republicans. It is the occasional and non-voter who registers at the last moment, either because they are frequent movers, or because they're young and it's their first election, or because they hold two jobs and are hourly employees, and sometimes have to pick getting paid over spending 8 hours waiting in line to register to vote and to vote.

Making it easy to register to vote (not having to provide ID, making it easy to register by mail) doesn't increase non-citizen voting so much as it dramatically increases the chance that a legal, elligible Democrat will register to vote.

AZ might have a high non-citizen population, but this proposition was passed so that AZ could hold back the tide of legal Democratic voters. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if non-citizen AZ immigrants are roughly 50:50 D:R, but young people, and retirees, etc., are 2:1 D:R, and it's this second group of people this law was really aimed at slowing up.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

155. It is attidudes like that that give credence to GOP claims

that Democrats are soft on voter fraud.

[AP]

157. It's arguments like yours that give credence to progressives claims that

conservatives prefer a world with lower voter turnout and an electorate less representative of the population.

I'll say it once again: this rule will eliminate a handfull of non-citizens at the cost of reducing the turnout of legitimate voters who otherwise would have been able to vote by thousand and thousands.

Read the article above. After proving that the voter is a citizen, she STILL needs to bring a photo-id and two confirmations of current address when she goes to vote.

That's going to kick out many people who already proved they were citizens.

[Freddie Stubbs]

158. Every time someone votes illegally it cancels out

the vote of someone who votes legally.

[AP]

159. Would it make sense for me to argue that every time an illegal voter

votes, it makes up for the vote of someone who tried to vote legally but couldn't because they only had one proof of current address when they went to vote instead of two?

[Rockerdem]

111. Weve opened the borders unofficially. Why dont we make it official?

It's unfair to wink at immigrants, invite them in, and then harrass them. Just eliminate the Mexican border altogether and give them citizenship. Would the harm be any worse than it is now?

[AP]

113. At the very least, let's not use them as an excuse to make

it harder to register legal voters who are likely to be Democrats.

[lynne]

115. Seems reasonable enough -

- birth certificate when registering and a photo ID, such as drivers license, or two other forms of ID when voting. I don't see where this would stop registration drives and it seems a logical way to make sure that those registering and voting are eligible.

If we are truly serious about eliminating all vote fraud, we have to begin somewhere and changes will have to be made. To complain about vote fraud and then complain when regulations are implemented to help prevent it makes us appear rather insincere.

[Bridget Burke]

120. Thanks for telling "us" what to do.

The first thing we need to ensure valid elections is getting rid of the damn machines.

How many elections have been swung by illegal aliens voting?

This is racist crap.

[lynne]

125. I didn't tell anyone what to do -

- I merely made an observation. Do we or do we not want to eliminate all possibilities of vote fraud? Simple question.

If we are sincere, it has to begin somewhere. Hopefully, this is only the beginning.

[AP]

131. Do we want to use methods that dramatically reduce the participation

of eligible voters?

The problem isn't that we do let illegals vote, or that there's no procedure for catching them.

The problem in AZ is that it was too easy for eligible voters to register, and since more new voters in AZ are Democrats, they passed this proposition to make it harder for ALL new voters, regardless of whether they're citizens or non-citizens.

[Bridget Burke]

140. It depends on which "we" you're talking about.

Some people would love to reduce voter participation. Especially by those who have a suspect skin color. And who don't vacation overseas often enough to warrant buying passports.

[AP]

142. Yep. I meant the progressive "we", and the "we" who shares my

values about trying to make in easier and not harder for Americans to excercise their rights of citizenship.

[umass1993]

156. Don't listen to Bridget

I don't.

Oops, I told you what to do.