We've presented numerous anecdotes, statistics, and facts to support this assertion. Your continued rejection of any and all data that doesn't conform to your prejudices is absurd. Start providing solid evidence of your assertions, or start changing your mind, one of the two.

Nonsense! Leosayer and NeBils have confirmed from personal experience that no one they know has a hard time getting an ID. Ergo, no one in the country does. You must be confused.

There is absolutely a right to vote. Lest anyone take this post seriously, I'll explain what's going on in those quotes.

Of course the first paragraph is grossly out of context. Alexander v. Mineta did indeed affirm the district court's ruling, but the district court's opinion is 74 pages long, and the Supreme Court's opinion reads, in toto, "Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judgment affirmed. Justice STEVENS would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument." That does not mean SCOTUS adopted every word of that 74-page opinion and that the entire opinion is the law of the land. It merely affirmed the judgment.

The district court case was about the rights of D.C. citizens to vote for House Representatives. The U.S. Constitution--by its very words--limits voting for Representatives to the States. ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ...."). So yeah, D.C. residents weren't "qualified" to vote for Representatives because the Constitution didn't allow for it. The rest of leoslayer's quote was the gloss of someone named Jeff Milchen and *not* part of the opinion, but just looking at what leo quoted you'd think some court said "voting isn't a right but a privilege granted and withheld at the discretion of state and local government."

You can't look at a constitutional limit on the right to vote for Representatives and extrapolate that there isn't a right to vote. That's like saying there's no right to vote because the constitution limits it to people over 18. You're not "qualified" unless you're 18, but it's ******ed to jump from there to "states can strip you of voting rights if they want." Some hut-dweller in the Congo isn't a qualified voter either, that doesn't mean there's no general right to vote.

Voting is literally one of the few rights characterized as fundamental, leo. I second the idea that you need to find a new crackpot blogger to read.

obsurdity itt

I grew up in rural Alabama. I can tell you it's true, not everyone there has a photo ID.

But it's got to be a bigger issue in urban areas, where more people rely on public transportation.

FYP

"acceptable" is subjective.

Would Democrats feel a 1,000 votes of voter fraud in Florida for the 2000 election in favor of Bush to be acceptable?

1,000 in one election in one state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 9 spread over the whole country over a decade

If the amount of vote fraud is larger than the number of people disenfranchised by voter ID laws, then I'll support voter ID laws. This is not the case.

suzzer, you keep equating absence of proof to proof of absence.

Why would people who could win elections through voter fraud have an incentive to appoint those that would choose to investigate why?

As I said to suzzer from above, neither of us can make this claim. No one has any idea how much real voter fraud has occurred and no one has any accurate idea how many people haven't been able to vote who were truly valid.

Why would people who could win elections through voter fraud have an incentive to appoint those that would choose to investigate why?[/QUOTE]

Because proof is needed to potentially disenfranchise people by any reasonable standard.

Hey I can't prove you're running a human trafficking operation out of your basement. But since I can't prove that you're not, I'm going to go ahead and put you under surveillance and violate a bunch of your constitutional rights. Cool?

Well a study that was absolutely dying to find evidence (by the same group that brought you little vials of yellow cake) - which was able to find only 9 cases over a decade is actually about as close to proving a negative as you will ever get.

But again, that's just by normal, reasonable human logic standards. I'm sure you and the rest of the obtuse brigade itt remain unconvinced.

look i live in the south, im poor, i live in a predominately black neighborhood. i am just telling you it is very unlikely that somebody would not be able to get an id. if they dont have transportation they would get a ride. tons of churches and civic groups provide transportation for various events.

if people were required to get id to vote then folks on both sides of the aisle would find a way to get people to the dmv.

heck they could even set up tents in shopping centers and staff it with dmv folks ( kinda like health fairs and job fairs) there are pretty simple solutions to the id issue.

i just love how liberals think all poor people are completely helpless. im just amazed that we can even figure out to use a fork and spoon.

"... by any reasonable standard." -- again, subjective.

"beyond reasonable doubt" - subjective

Shut down the court system now. Nothing can ever be accomplished again.

Did you read the thread yet? Plenty of examples and statistics were presented that directly refute your repeated assertions.

leo- You keep arguing that the burden isn't so great. You're right. It's not an enormous burden. But why do we need it at all?

You have found a solution with only minor downsides to a problem that doesn't exist.

That's what I find so entertaining. I haven't even read into the 9 cases you've cited or how many people were involved. In fact, I haven't even googled any examples of voter fraud beyond the ones I already know about before reading this thread. But you are already conceding there are 9 cases that are confirmed of voter fraud and you assert that's not only acceptable, but that it should be even easier.

The answer is in there somewhere...

No one is doing this though, and no one is proposing to do this. In fact, the GOP is also shutting down DMV offices in rural and poor areas, and closing voting precincts in rural and poor areas.

And again, it's not that getting an ID is some hugely onerous task. It's not. It's a bit of a pain, and it's more of a pain if you're poor. But requiring an ID will be more of a pain on the poor, and poor people, who are much more likely not to have an ID anyway, would have to specifically go get one in order to vote. Voting is already of limited utility to the average poor person anyway, so you wind up with many fewer poor people voting than there would be compared to the number of proven vote fraud cases.

The whole spiel about "Oooooo, you can't prooooooooooooove that there are ONLY 9 cases of vote fraud over the last 10 years. There could be more!!!!" is stupid. That's not how things work. Your side has to prove the positive, that vote fraud is happening on a large scale. It's not that our side has to prove the negative, which is impossible. But so far, no one has presented any evidence of any vote fraud happening on a scale that is comparable to the number of people without a state-approved ID that is sufficient for voting.

Those 9 cases were without ID laws. We're not arguing that voting needs to be much easier than mailing in a card to get your name on the books at your precinct, giving your name and address at the precinct, and then signing.

leo, JrJr, the rest - how about this plan - in order to get any kind of public assistance, you have to get a photo ID and have to register to vote. That way we know everyone is on the up and up and it should really reduce the chances of voter fraud.

Sound good?

The ironic part is that if we were discussing a proposed law that would burden <insert corporate interest here> in ANY way whatsoever, even if we cited HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of incidents of legitimate, verifiable fraud (*cough* finance *cough*) the same people supporting this legislation would be screaming to the heavens about "excessive gubmint regulations"

Now I'm accessing The Google:

West Virginia county sheriff, clerk to plead guilty in voter fraud case

Voter fraud 'a normal political tactic' in upstate NY city

Truing the Voter Rolls, Voter Integrity Project: Many States have More Voters Registered Than Voting-Age Population

This is just in the last couple of years too.