The Economics of ShowMe Vote Suppression !

[galloglas]

That, ranchhands, is the title of this thread. Perhaps nothing else fits.

ProgressiveEconomist has suggested that an answer I posted to another thread be started as its own thread.

And, as I like to think of myself as Progressive, but since Economics (as either a profession or academic subject) is Greek to me, I'll split the two halves of PE's handle, submit, but share the floor with them.

So, I give you both the URL of the thread where we ran acoss each other, to be found here, (where PE made many insightful comments, themself)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=448916&mesg_id=449395

AND

both the text of PE's request, and my own Screed (written to a third poster). One which carried enough new and detailed information that PE thought it worthy of its own thread.


First the request, found below, followed by the Screed.


from ProgressiveEconomist:

56. galloglas, this EXCELLENT post deserves its own thread

The "Voter ID" gambit for Republican vote suppression is GENIUS! No armed stormtroopers with armbands, as in Tom Kean's 1981 2000-vote "victory" in NJ. No ChoicePoint biased purges.

Even on this board, progressives who consider themselves well-informed are drinking the Kool-Aid, posting in all innocence, "What? You don't want voters to have to show ID on Election Day?"

Your superb post makes much clearer that's not what the Republicans are doing. We're talking about voters who already are registered and about special IDs that are completely unnecessary, an abuse of the concept of ID designed to discriminate against city-folk, poor people, and the elderly--groups that tend to vote for Democrats.

I like the way your post includes Voter ID cards as an item in a list of unacceptable documents for qualifying for a Special Republican Vote Suppression Photo ID Card!



And now The Screed where PADem2 suggest, perhaps, I doth protest too much. It includes a short answer to a fourth poster who suggested that Photo IDs were a good "paper trail".



48. PADEM2, you need to read this !!

This is posted down page, but most of what it addresses concerns you and your aunt. I ask questions at the end of the post. But I'll start with one.

Did you say what you said as a kneejerk reaction? Or did you know nothing about our Missouri Law? If neither, are you just anti-immigrant?


Here's the post:


(this part to the fourth poster) ]It establishes a "paper trail" to protect against the largely non-existent threat of losing elections to "Voter Fraud" (the GOP frame). But it does nothing to help create a paper trail for the lastest Diebold Cheat-o-Matics.

Btw, here in Missouri, a law passed in late May requiring State Issued VoterIDs. Our SoS got around to announcing the problem to the voter right before primaries. There are 180,000 voter (most all Democratic) who will be affected.

That in a state that could pick up one of the much needed five Senate seats. Yet, guess what? The only place that these can be gotten are at the State License Bureaus which are, after a sale this past year, are now owned by the family of and inlaws of Gov. Matt Blunt (Congressional House Whip Roy Blunt's son). Think they will stay open overtime to help out the elderly, poor, underserved, etc?

Not on your life. The sale makes it impossible for the SoS to compel the license bureaus to accomodate them.(end part to the fourth poster).



As for PA-DEM's suggestion that you, or I,

"Take your 80 year old aunt out for a valid state ID and a nice lunch, for crying out loud! Have her bring a couple utility bills and a social security card and you're good to go."

I have news for them.

Missouri is requiring photo IDs, alright; but a Driver's License, a Passport, or a Military Photo.

How many of our 80 year old aunts are still licensed drivers? Or with valid Passports? Or still active military?

Specifically excluded as IDs (from the MO SoS page) are:

1) Voter Identification Card
2) Utility Bill
3) Bank Statement
4) Paycheck Stub
5) University ID
6) Employer ID

So, if you don't have an ID, here's what the SoS asks you to do (on your lunch with the 80 year old aunt).

(Again, from the MO SoS page.)

"Here’s What You’ll Need To Do:"

1. Show Who You Are.
ONE of these will do:
* Social Security Card
* Medicare Card
* U.S. Passport
If your name on the card you show does not match your current name, you must show proof of name change on:
* Marriage License
* Divorce Decree
* Court Order
* Adoption Papers

2. Show You’re A U.S. Citizen.
ONE of these will do:
* Birth Certificate
* U.S. Passport, valid or expired
* Certificate of Citizenship
* Certificate of Naturalization
* Certificate of Birth Abroad

3. Show Where You Live.
ONE of these will do.
* Recent Utility Bill
* Voter Registration Card
* Government Check
* Pay Check
* Property Tax Receipt
* Rental Contract for Current Address
* Letter from Postmaster in Last 30 Days
* Government Document Showing Name and Address in Last 30 Days


Now, KEYSTONE, if you and auntie get that handled, here's where you go to get those Photo IDs.

(Again, from the Sos Official Page)

You can get a Missouri driver’s license or non-driver’s license at your local Department of Revenue office (average wait time 2 to three hours, without any extra people showing up for IDs). Non-driver’s licenses may be free of charge. To find the license office nearest you, call 866-443-4165 or go to www.dor.mo.gov/mvd/offloc. (There are an average of 1.3 offices per county, statewide! So, average trip would be about 70 miles, roundtrip)

Also, a Mobile Licensing Unit (there are only 4 of them) will travel the state to visit locations accessible to and frequented by elderly and disabled Missourians who cannot visit a motor vehicle license office. These units will provide an opportunity to sign up for photo IDs that will be mailed out later. (any chance of a slipup there?????) To check the schedule, call 866-443-4165 or go to: http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/voterid.pdf



Now, Keystone, do the math.

These Revenue offices are open year round. They serve an average of 100,000 people per month.

So, in addition to their regular business, you and your auntie, me and mine, and everyone else's, would funnel an extra 180,000 clients a month through their doors (open 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM), tripling their traffic during the four months until the election.

And a GOP Governor's cronies own them, and get no fees for helping you and Auntie. Really think many people are going to get taken care of?

And, BTW, you and your Auntie will be standing in a line for the whole, long time of it. So, is she healthy? Not in a hospital or a nursing home, I hope?

Perhaps you failed to think this through?

Or, possibly, you are also incited to near-riot by the GOP's race-baiting tactics. You know, the Administration and GOP Congress talking (so suddenly) last spring about all those illegal immigrants who used to pick the fruit that now hangs rotting on trees in our orchards throughout the nation? (Just asking, of course)

Do you really think Missouri's plan is workable???
How much time were you planning on spending with Auntie?
Maybe ought to plan to spend about a week on this???


ONE LAST THING for all of the closest xenophobes out there. A question.

Do you REALLY thing this is designed to keep Juan and Jose from south of the Border from voting??

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. (It stretches from the Alaskan Mainland to bloody NoWhere!)

[kiteinthewind]

1. Damn, that was well said!!

:kick:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. Great job, again! These kinds of subtle disfranchisments are nothing

new. They have a long history, and there's just one must-read book to read on the subject. Just before the Florida election fiasco in 2000, then-Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar happened to publish "The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States" (excerpt on Amazon, at http://www.amazon.com/Right-Vote-Contested-History-Democracy/dp/046502968X ).

His thesis is that, since the original electorate 230 years ago was propertied white males only, throughout American history there has been an ebb and flow in voting restrictions, away from and back toward that original set of entitled voters. Who does not carry recently-re-issued photo ID? Why, people who don't own homes in the suburbs or cars to drive back and forth from them daily, of course. Whose letters will be returned by the post-office, because they have moved recently? Why, people who get evicted every few months because they're too poor to stay current with their rent.

Keyssar offers many more such examples of voting restrictions and traces them throughout US history.

The way things are going, he'll have to revise his book to put the Bush II era with Reconstruction and early-20th century immigration waves as periods of historically unprecedented deep retrenchment in the franchise.

[galloglas]

3. You know something scary??

Your paragraph (below) has an ominous reflection of something not yet tied to the Election Reform issue. Or even mentioned here in E_R (that I have read, anyway).

"His thesis is that, since the original electorate 230 years ago was propertied white males only, throughout American history there has been an ebb and flow in voting restrictions, away from and back toward that original set of entitled voters. Who does not carry recently-re-issued photo ID? Why, people who don't own homes in the suburbs or cars to drive back and forth from them daily, of course."

I've not read this book (I will now, of course), but the precedent of white, male landowners (if the tract was large enough) was long established before our Constitution.

What has been missed (unless the book covers it) is the link between a subset of the GOP, with even more regressive views about voting, and a certain religious group to whom many of those same GOP members belong.

It is not Opus Dei, Illuminati, or others.

It is a subset of the American Fundamentalist Evangelicals, known generally as Dominionists. Consequently, said GOP members are just exercising "Freedom of Religion", (in the same manner as members of the post-Civil War "Ku Klux" Klan. They were not still "In Rebellion", just exercising their religious beliefs, by burning and hanging newly freed citizens).

These Dominionists believe that the "Dominion" over the world, and the resources and creatures thereof, assumed by the Jewish peoples through the Torah, has defaulted to those "Christians" who own the resources of the world today!

And, though the Dominionists are largely a "stealth group" (and subdivided by imparsably dense semantics with other like, and inseparable, groups), the single defining concept is that of Ownership Privilege (largely White, of course, and Protestant), and a belief in what amounts to a Theocracy. Is a Theocracy, by whatever name.


The little differences in the subgroups beliefs amount to items such as "Do we accept all Mosaic Law, or only that portion not contradicted by the New Testament?"


Yowsers!! Sounds so nutty as to not be believable. Yet, they exist. And are powerful (enough to have been the force behind Path to 9/11).


How would these people ever attempt to accomplish such bizarre and unattainable goals?

By use of a Master Agenda, now in motion, which was created over thirty years ago.

By implementing that that Master Agenda. Combining stealth, and the membership's contradictory dual alliances between "The Cause" and our Constitution, which many are now in positions to have sworn to the latter.

To them, the solving of the problem of their paradoxical loyalties, would be by the change of the US to the Theocracy they envision. Yet, how could that come about?


Well, any Master Agenda better have some specifics, to have hope of success. So where is theirs? Specifically, how to overthrow "Our Constitution"?

I would suggest looking no further than reading SB 2082 of 2004 or the HR that accompanies it, HR 3799 of 2004.

They (the six Senators, and 30 plus Reps. who are co-sponsors) say the proposed bills protect the right of Freedom of Worship.

I say "read the bill's text". It's short, and can be Googled.


Those legal scholars among us will immediately see that it would overthrow Marbury vs. Madison, of 1803, and the Separation of Powers. It would also make a majority party able to change the Constitution with a fifty per cent vote.

It also goes a far distance in explaining Bush's recent remarks about CIA agents being sued and his desire to unilaterally amend common article #3 of the Geneva Conventions.

This is a huge threat to the nation. For any who think otherwise, believing that the GOP would not go along 100%, I suggest that the apparatus for that subset of Republicans to take control already exists.

The framework is the Constitution Party (check its stance on SB2082 or HR3799, both called the "Constitutional Reconstruction Act"). All those Dominionist GOP members have to do is jump ship to the Constitution Party, just like Dixiecrats in 1948.

There is enough here to swallow for now.

Just understand that the money to steal elections, create "Cheat-o-Matics" voting machines, and fund these horrible laws aimed at disenfranchisement, are all coming from that same fount of Theocracy-to-Be pockets.

The Forces of Darkness are moving, on all fronts, in for the kill. It is not our imagination when we see those Shadows in the darkness. They truly are the forces who would steal our way of life, our Freedoms... but, they are not Muslims, nor dark-skinned peoples.

They are, to steal from Joseph Conrad, true creatures from "The Heart of Darkness".

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

But, after that time taken for fear and thought, muster up your courage and we'll all go mount the Barricades together!!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. Very scary. 6 Sens and 30 Reps have signed on to simple majority amendment

amendment of the Consititution? You need to post another thread about SB2082 and HR3799 and their sponsors. Maybe other DUers besides me have never heard of them.

Do any of these co-sponsors have viable opposition on the ballot in 7 weeks? At least 30 of them must be up for re-election.

[galloglas]

9. "Coming Soon to a Forum Near You!!"

"You need to post another thread about SB2082 and HR3799 and their sponsors. Maybe other DUers besides me have never heard of them."

That will be coming quickly. But, there are other parts of this "Handiwork of Heresy" which must be included.

It has taken three years to hunt these folks down, tie 'em together, then sort them out. Until then, anyone wanting to get a headstart could check the following sources.

WWW.Yuricareport.com (good, but not partisan)

This is choice:
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=115

www.chalcedon.org - Home of Heresy, though currently in hiding

Gary North's "Backwards, Christian Soldiers ?"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/11/151212/239

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/06/int06020.html (check the site for a later review by a friend of ours)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. This issue could change election results! Only a KOOK would support

sending an amendment out to be ratified by the States on the basis of a simple majority of Congress. There may be dozens of Republicans who could be forced into campaign-season assertions that, "I am not a kook"!

[galloglas]

11. No Constitutional Amendment needed!!

At least according to the Screwballs.

They work directly from an assumption (see Peroutka's home page below for details) drawn from the Constitution that the proposed Joint Resolution of Congress, enacting the Constitutional Restoration Act, would not and could not be overriden by the Supremes.

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=115


Why?

Because the CRA is a "law" stating that certain acts, performed by public officials (presumably those in Congress are included), are not reviewable by the Judiciary (not even the Supremes), if such acts were performed because of the official's belief in a Supreme Creator.

So, let's say that the CRA is passed. The next step would be filing of a suit which would/should ultimately result in the law being declared "unConstitutional".

But, they (Congress) would argue (and I can see Alberto Gonzalez explaining this already:scared:) that the CRA can't be sent to the Supreme Court for review because the CRA law prohibits such review!

The argument would be presented, weirdly and illogically, much like an ex post facto argument.

And, if the argument is accepted, it would overthrow Marbury vs. Madison, the nail upon which the balance of powers in our Republic hangs.


"But, why?" might the Supremes ask?


"Well," Alberto would say, "it's because the majority who passed this law did so because of their conviction in a Supreme Being. And, clearly, the CRA prohibits judicial review of officials acting because of their beliefs in a Deity."

And the majority of the GOP (and any Democratic) members who voted for passage, obviously, would affirm that such was the case.

In addition, he would go to the Constitution, recite the powers of the Congress to make Laws, and refer obliquely to the Separation of Church and State and, in general, misinterpret the Constitution's words, using NewSpeak Legalese Parsing, and procede to tell the Supremes that the Constitution says, in so many words, that "black" really means "white".

We've seen it all before.

Again today, Bush argues that "outrages against human dignity", from Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention, is "too vague" to interpret.

As an aside. IMHO, anyone who needs to ask that question should never be put into, or allowed to remain in, any position where they need it explained to them!



But, here's is where it gets slick...


While the rest of us go ahead and start phoning for Guy Fawkes and breaking out our own muskets, the Supremes meet anyway!

And (surprise of all surprises) they find that, though they still retain their Powers, they cannot not rule on the Constitutionality of this law, since such Law forbids them to do so.

Possibly even a minority opinion in affirmation, but saying that "the Law having already become effective, being duly passed by the Representatives of the people, any ruling by this Court would become moot, such ruling having been rendered after the effective date of the CRA."


It is absolutely ludicrous! Or so it seemed, in the 1970s, when it was first dreamed up by the Dominionists. But then, I'm sure, one of the clever little Demons chimed in with, "But what if we had five Justices who would agree?"

Certainly, someone would have said, "But that would take a damned lifetime!"

Then the first Demon would have responded, "Well, we got time."

Now, I pose a question to all, some (my best guess) 33 years later. What is the answer to that hypothetical 1973 question?

I would say we are one, maybe two, votes away from that scenario, if the CRA ever passed. What would happen if the Court were to find for Gonzalez. Voting, say, 5-4?


Who we gonna call? GhostBusters?


This is the way it is supposed to play out. But, though I have no clue as to when we shall hear the sound of hobnailed boots, I think we are but one or two Supreme lives from knowing.


PS. I will post a thread tomorrow about some breaking developments in this area.

Hopefully, in a day or so after, I will be able to answer ProgressiveEconomist about how many of the 6 Senate seats (now seven, I think) and thirty House seats that are held by members who have co-sponsored the bills. And any others who have gone on record in support.


Meantime, spend a couple of minutes watching a trailer of a freshly released documentary. It's name is "Jesus Camp". And, though most will be unaware of it, these kids at "Jesus Camp" are being homeschooled, down the street from each of you, and attend services in that huge new MegaChurch that you may have thought (while it was being built) was going to be a WalMart or a High School.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE


An eye-opening edit of the same "Jesus Camp" trailer, very different and (I hope) more hopeful, is shown below. It's only four minutes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gTjKQDCXBM&mode=related&search=


But, for a total investment of six minutes, it will alter your sense of our world. In what manner our world will actually be altered will be up to each of us, and what we make of this phenomenon in these films.

I think we owe it to ourselves to find out about this quickly. Please let me know your takes on this.

[galloglas]

15. as Julie Andrews sings in the G.B. Shaw play....

Edit to put in question to which this answer responds,

"This issue could change election results! Only a KOOK would support sending an amendment out to be ratified by the States on the basis of a simple majority of Congress. There may be dozens of Republicans who could be forced into campaign-season assertions that, "I am not a kook!"

"Oh, wouldn't it be lover-ly!!"

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. cool, I never did the fifth recommend before

Someone raised the voter ID issue with me just yesterday, and I didn't know where to start. This would have been a good place.

[ms liberty]

6. K&R: Excellent and important points! n/t

[Febble]

7. Here's what we do

in the UK.

Once a year, all households receive a form from the Electoral Registry. We fill in the names of all eligible voters and send it back. I think they include a pre-paid envelope, but we did it online this year, which is now an option.

If you move house during the year you contact the Electoral Registry, give them your old and new address, and the names of eligible voters. If a person turns eighteen and becomes eligible to vote, you also contact the Registry.

When an election comes round, you get a card through the letterbox for each registered voter. It tells you where your polling station is (very close, usually nearest primary school). You take your card to the polling station and hand it to the poll worker, who checks your name off the list. If you forget your card it doesn't matter, as long as your name is on the list. Then you are given a ballot, you mark it with a pencil in a plywood booth, fold it, and drop it in the ballot box. (I won't tell you the rest, it would be too cruel....)

Vulnerabilities are:

• There's no obvious check on eligibility. But we don't seem to be very worried about it.
  
  
• Students can register both at home and where they study, and so get two cards. They are only allowed to vote in one place. Student houses often get lots of cards from students who have left. Sometimes someone has the bright idea of stealing them and using them to vote more than once.
  
  
• Because you don't need your card, you could impersonate someone who has, as long as you go early. I've never heard of it happening, but it might. Most people who want to vote are eligible to vote. Having a conviction doesn't stop you voting. You need British nationality or Commonwealth nationality plus British residency.
  
  
• Postal voting on demand may become a problem. Ballots were stolen in the last election. It used to be that you had to have a reason to vote by mail. I think they are trying to make it more difficult again.

That's about it. If you want to steal a UK election, it's probably easiest to do at the voter end, but it isn't an issue that seems to worry us very much.

[galloglas]

8. Missouri sends out Voter ID Cards, too.

But primarily to see if the P.O. returns them.

However, the new law (subsequently struck down) specifically does not allow one to use that.

Can anyone think of a reason to not use the ID sent by the local Election Board, one week before, as an ID?

GOP voter suppression is the only answer that seems credible.

[Febble]

13. So many

of the real problems in your democracy seem to be created by solutions to problems that aren't actually problems.

For example, a lot of the obsession with voter ID would go away if the right to franchise were more universal. In the UK being convicted of a crime does not remove your right to vote. Any British citizen can vote, as can any UK resident with Commonwealth nationality. The only group denied a vote are peers (members of the House of Lords).

We don't seem to have a major problem with Lords or Baronesses trying to use fake ID at the polling station.

[galloglas]

14. I totally agree!

"So many of the real problems in your democracy seem to be created by solutions to problems that aren't actually problems"

Ahhhh. If it only were a "democracy", as opposed to this Republic, perhaps we would have fewer ex-used car salesmen and carnival barkers selling "cures" to electoral diseases" that don't (or barely) exist.

[galloglas]

12. Cross-posted to General Discussion RE: "Jesus Camp" film

It's hugely late here in the Heart of the Bible Belt, but perhaps someone with an interest in the macabre may see it. Its URL is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2149201&mesg_id=2149201


Now I must go chase off the villagers, attendant with their torches and pitchforks, and raise the drawbridge before I trundle off to bed.:hide:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. Have you seen Skidmore's 'Jesus Camp' thread, at URL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2158228 ?

[roseBudd]

16. People who drive don't have to do a damn thing, people who don't

have to jump through hoops. That is not fair. And the GOP is for photo ID because they know their base in the lily white suburbs will not be effected because everyone in the suburbs drives. It's impossible not to.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. A Drivers License is NOT proof of Citizenship

HR 4844, the federal bill to require voter id, is far more than just
a photo id law.

It is a law that requires you to prove a citizen.

The only existing document right now that fills that bill is a
passport.

TO get the government issued photo id needed for permission to
cast your vote, you will have to provide a birth certificate or
passport.

Right now, I do not the documents needed for permission to vote.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. EXCELLENT

You nailed it.