Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3princip | Hacker News Reader

As a European I don't understand how requiring an ID to vote is disenfranchising voters? It just stinks of voter fraud, and in light of the latest Project Veritas videos I can only conclude that the establishment parties and democrats in this case are engaged in massive electoral fraud and fight these initiatives not on principle but to maintain mechanisms by which they can influence the result.

It's just weird, especially since the US has been very vocal in judging others with regards to their electoral processes. Pot calling the kettle black it seems.

View on HN

There's only one type of vote fraud that voter ID laws have a hope of defending against, which is in-person voter impersonation. In-person voter impersonation statistically doesn't happen in the U.S, and there's a reason.

In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election. You would need to physically go to a polling station, impersonate a registered voter, hope nobody recognizes you as not that person, cast a vote, hope that person doesn't actually show up later to vote, and then travel to another polling station to do it again. And also hope nobody just notices that you voted at both places, a real concern in this age of ubiquitous cameras. You have something like 18 hours at most to do this, so with optimistic assumptions, an individual could vote maybe 36 times at a high risk of getting caught.

Even something like absentee ballot fraud is more efficient and less risky. However, absentee ballot fraud is still less efficient than gray and even positive/legal uses of your time.

Gray methods would mostly include voter suppression in districts that don't favor your outcome. The town I grew up in made national news this last primary for having a massive traffic snarl and long lines around its single polling station, after closing the second one for budgetary reasons. People were giving up after waiting multiple hours to vote. There may not be anything illicit there (certainly nothing provable), but you can see how that might be done "accidentally".

Positive and legal methods would mostly include things like voter registration drives, phone work to remind and encourage people to vote, and even physically transporting people to the polls.

I'm really interested in how you came to these conclusions as it seems you have trivialized the basic cognitive ability of the people who might engage in these acts.

> In-person voter impersonation is just about the least efficient and highest risk way to manipulate an election.

That is incorrect, as it is done in almost every election for the last 2 decades (iirc). I remember multiple stories about democratic fraud from as far back as 1994 (I usually vote democrat). "Hope nobody recognizes you" is not a concern across county lines, much less state lines. Did you even take a moment to read up on how it HAS been done? Republicans are much bigger on the absentee fraud. It's also very effective (and cost effective).

Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.

Just the first few duckduckgo results of a search for "usa in person voter fraud":

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naa...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/11/nearly-300-cases-the-exten...

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2588/how-many-kn...

So, one source out of the first random 3 that duckduckgo gave me considers in-person voter impersonation to be a substantial problem. It cites a Heritage Foundation report containing "Nearly 300" cases. This is less than the 537 votes by which Bush defeated Gore in Florida, and spread across 50 states and more than 30 years, but it's possible that each of these instances could include many fraudulent votes. The report is linked, though, so we can just break it down. The instances citing impersonation are:

Shasta Nicole Crayton, Alabama, 2004, impersonated one person and was caught by one of the means I specifically listed

Eugene W. Victor, New Mexico, 2015, impersonated one person and turned himself in

Gary Copeland, Tennessee, 2011, impersonated two people and was caught by voter ID laws. Credit where it's due, there is some positive effect here.

Mary Lou Simpson, Tennessee, 2005, impersonated one person, unspecified how she was caught.

Hazel Brionne Woodward, Texas, 2015, got her son to impersonate her husband and was caught when the husband showed up to vote.

Reyna Almanza, Texas, 2011, got her son to impersonate his brother, who was incarcerated. Unspecified if she was caught just by someone noticing that or by other means.

Doris McFarland, Washington, 2005, cast her husband's absentee ballot. This appears to me to be mis-characterized absentee fraud, but I'll count it anyway.

Robert Victor Holmgren, Washington, 2005, "cast a ballot for his recently deceased wife". That seems unlikely to have been done in person, but I'll count it anyway.

That's nine votes across more than a decade and five states.

There are a number of instances of duplicate voting, which is where you vote as yourself in multiple jurisdictions, and registration fraud, where you register as multiple individuals. Voter ID laws plausibly prevent those, but it seems more sensible, efficient, and effective to take measures to protect the integrity of the voter registry instead of verifying identity at the polls. After all, if one wants to do this in a state with voter ID laws, all one needs to do is use absentee ballots.

You're right that absentee fraud is relatively effective (which is why all parties do it). It's just less cost effective before a certain point than making sure legitimate votes for you are cast, and legitimate votes for your opponent are not.

> Since nothing much has been done in the past 20 years, I don't expect anything to change when you inevitably find people on camera.

You can arrest those people and try them for election fraud, as has happened in the past.

it's actually two mechanisms hand in hand:

- require an ID to vote;

- make it difficult to get an ID: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/alabamas-dmv-shutdown...

What if you:

- require an ID to vote

- issue ID's for free

- if someone shows up to vote and doesn't have an ID, take their photo

At least with the third option, you don't require that people spend TWO days (one to get the ID, one to vote) but only ONE day (show up to vote, get picture taken), and it would eliminate the "voter fraud" that may or may not exist

That would be a simple, workable system, which of course is why it won't get implemented.

This is too true. While I think that ID should be free and required for voting, I am concerned that either of the two parties will exploit it for their own advantage.

(I support ID in theory because another form of disenfranchisement is dilution of voting power; if someone is able to vote twice, that reduces the power of people who vote once. Not sure I support it in practice).

> issue ID's for free

This really is the crux of the issue, and I think it's a great idea. Prevent fraud, make everyone's life easier at the same time.

There are European countries which don't require ID (for example the UK). The thing you're perhaps missing is that if you don't have a compulsory national identity card of some kind, then many people will not have an easily available 'official' ID. The problem is worse in the states because so many people don't own a passport.

In any case, there is very little evidence for substantial voter fraud in the US as far as I'm aware.

The general point about the US being perhaps overly smug about its democracy is valid however. Just not because of a lack of voter ID requirement (in fact, the introduction of requirements is more likely a source of undermining democracy there).

If you believe the project veritas videos you should look harder at the source and his history of creating misleading videos. The problem is that in the US it is quite possible to get along just fine without a government-issued ID; mandating such ID can be considered a barrier to voting since it is actually inconvenient to get such an ID in the first place. Your assumption that there is massive electoral fraud in the US is simply incorrect and in fact there is far more voter fraud across Europe than there is in the US. Most voting in the US occurs in-person, and in such cases voter fraud is incredibly rare (as in less than 100 known cases over billions of ballots cast.)

How is it inconvenient to get an ID?

You mean, if I believe my own eyes and ears rather than someone insulting me on the internet? You're funny.

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all. Civic responsibility is not an inconvenience, it's what keeps civilization running. Taking a few moments out of your daily routine to be informed and choose your government is the least one should expect.

If someone can't be bothered to obtain an ID to vote, possibly they shouldn't be voting at all.

And when those people without IDs happen to be poor and minority voters, so much the better, right? Getting a government ID is not 'taking a few moments out of your daily routine', or we would not be having this conversation. How about you ask an American how fast and easy it is for them to just waltz in the the DMV and walk out a few minutes later with their shiny new ID card. State IDs are done by the same agency, and a lot of those poor people have one or two jobs they are working where taking an entire day to get an ID could cost them serious money or their job itself.

I think in the US you have to have an ID to get a job. Last time I looked at an I-9, it required 1) proof of citizenship or right to work (GC); 2) proof of identity.

If you take a look at the actual documents which are required for an I-9, they are a lot more flexible than what are required by most of the voter ID laws the courts are throwing out left and right. The proof of citizenship can be a birth certificate or a social security card, while the proof of identity can be a school ID, a local government ID card or a military ID. If you started your job before 1986 you never needed to provide the information, nor would you if you were a retiree or on disability.

You're repeatedly making the argument that requirements to obtain ID are too onerous. Perhaps what's broken is the process for getting that ID. Let's look for ways to streamline that process so that it's less of a burden.

The popular idea is that "it's your responsibility to vote", and that we should get as many people as possible to do so.

Thank god Mike Rowe, somewhat of an opinion leader, is showing how dumb that is. For democracy to work, we need educated, we'll-informed voters. If you're voting on a whim, without having invested the time necessary to understand the issues thoroughly, then you're part of the problem.

If voter ID restrictions serve to weed out people who aren't willing to make an investment in being a good voter, then I'm all in favor of it.

EDIT: s/week/weed/

Given the fact that numerous voter ID laws have been invalidated over the past year due to blatant attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters (c.f. North Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) I wonder if your objection is really about being a 'good' voter.

Your speculations about the other party's motives are completely inappropriate to a reasoned discussion.

No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here. It was suggested that someone who cannot obtain a voter ID that meets the requirements in many states is somehow now a 'good voter'. It has been shown repeatedly over the past few months that the objective, and consequence, of most of these voter ID laws has been to drive down voting by poor and minority voters. The logical conclusion seems to be that poor and minority voters, who have difficulty obtaining these voter IDs, must not be 'good voter(s)' and perhaps should be 'weed(ed) out' of the voting pool. The question of motive is right there staring us in the face.

No, in fact I think they cut to the heart of the objection here

Not at all. I told you what my reasoning was, and you decided that I was lying. That doesn't seem to be arguing in good faith.

It may be true that there's a differential in the impact of the rules. But (a) that doesn't mean that rules were secretly crafted for that reason, or (b) that I wouldn't feel the same way about rules having a differential that affected the more affluent to a greater degree.

Assuming evil intent on the part of your opponent is a sure-fire way to ensure that you can never reach any common ground.

Thank you CWuestefeld, for elevating this conversation by being so patient and reasonable.

When several voter ID laws have been shown to be explicitly about disenfranchisement based upon race and poverty (c.f. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) I don't really need to accept your claim of good faith on this issue. You claimed that acquisition of a voter ID is some necessary demonstration of being well-informed or willing to make an investment when in fact the rules WERE crafted specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. Until you address this issue directly there is no common ground to be found and I will happily continue to beat you in court and at the ballot box.

>If you believe the project veritas videos you are a gullible moron

I don't think this has a place on HackerNews?

You are probably correct. Edited to remove my intense distaste for believing things you see on a web site without doing a bit of basic research.

Getting an ID takes time and money. To get such an ID, you have to go through institutions like the DMV which do not have convenient opening hours or are in inconvenient locations. Many people, especially poor people, cannot afford to take the time to jump through the hoops to get an ID - and this is explicitly intended by those who write such voter ID laws. There have been several instances where conversations were leaked that revealed the purpose behind voter ID laws being not fraud prevention (which is overkill anyway) but keeping Democrat-leaning groups from voting.

Then again, your main source is Project Veritas, which despite the name is spearheaded by convicted fraudster James O'Keefe. His MO is to lie and deceive to advance his ultra-conservative cause, so anything that comes from him is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Of course, even he might stumble upon something real, but so far his videos have always been edited to show what he wants, instead of reality.

I don't understand. ID is something everyone needs over there, no? Elections are after every 4 yours, people really can't take time to fix this problem?

I'm euro but with the whole id thing I agree with Republicand. This whole system screams FRAUD.

Not really, in many cases. And no, a LOT of people can't afford to take time off in the US. Their employment systems really are that fucked up in certain cases. Plus, not all IDs are valid for voting!

Hell, it's a hassle here in Switzerland to get your ID renewed. We don't need it to vote, though.

Sorry, but that's a stupid excuse. Getting an ID takes time everywhere. For how long are they valid? If you use that excuse, Americans don't have time for a lot of things. Getting an ID should be a priority. It's common sense.

I don't understand Americans. One side thinks Earth is 6000 years old and other think that having ID to vote is racist. What is this bullshit?

It doesn't take the same amount of time everywhere though. It took me almost an hour last time I did it because the trip was 10 minutes each way plus waiting plus the actual procedure. That's in Switzerland, and if it were this efficient in the US, it would be a bad excuse.

However, with all the bullshit requirements (often introduced specifically to make it harder for people to get ID), overworked agencies and much greater distances involved in the US, the same process easily takes multiple hours - in a good case! Taking a day off is seriously not possible for many people in the US.

And voter ID in principle isn't racist. In practice, though, it is: "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans." and "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess." are direct quotes from a federal court striking down voter ID laws in North Carolina. That's intentional and that's why voter ID is treated as a racist idea.

To get your first ID in my state, you need to provide proof of signature, birthdate, social security number and residency.

The closest government office to me is a 15 min drive, 30 min bus ride, or a hour and a half walk.

The wait varies but I would say an hour minimum from my experience. The fee is between 10 and 20 dollars depending on your age.

All of these offices are only open during regular business hours(8 to 5:30 Monday through Friday. Closed on weekends).

Getting my first ID was a four hour and a half hour affair. I was lucky enough that my dad was able to take off work and also drive me. A quarter of my time was spent at the bank getting my Social security card out of my safety deposit box(we tried to use a photo copy but they only accept the actual card).

Renewing a license is easier because you just need the expired license, but my last renewal took 2 hours.

The process sucks and I imagine it sucks even more if you don't have a car or have a job that is m-f 9-5(or can't easily take a day off)

For how long is the ID valid? I mean if you do it only for voting, how often do you need to renew it?

The whole process sounds regular bureaucracy like in every other country. You need ID everywhere (at least in developed countries) to vote.

Having ID is common sense. It all sounds political pseudo-problem.

In my state I can renew my drivers license online, no hassle required.

No, for many people they would never need an ID until it came time to vote. The problem with most of these newly enacted voter ID laws are the additional restrictions on what type of ID is permitted, and the extra burden on getting said forms of ID. It's not so much the requirement of having proof of identification, as 31 states have had such laws for years.

For example, in some states, I would no longer be able to use my government-issued military ID -- which arguably has stricter requirements for obtaining than a driver's license. A lot of these new laws weren't enacted to reduce fraud (which isn't even that prevalent), but to make it harder for certain classes of voters to exercise their right to vote.

What are the difficulties you are talking about?

I live 75km from the biggest city. After every 4 years I need to fill a form I want a new ID. Wait. Then go and pick up new ID. Spending time the government building, as we all know bureaucracy is slow. I don't have a driving licence and don't drive. My friend helps me or I take a bus. This allows me to vote and do other necessary things where I have to identify myself and travel.

How is the system different in America? What are the problems? How many years does it take for the ID to expire?

I've heard this, but Indiana's voter ID law went to the Supreme Court [0]. The plaintiffs were unable to find a single case of someone who was unable to obtain an ID as a result of the law. Further, it was possible to vote early (up to 30 days before the election) by filling out a ballot at city hall -- so you didn't even need to go on the official election day.

It seems that if the ID is provided free of charge, then it does not burden the individual any more than normal voting does.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

Individuals most likely not to have the required ID are poor, and while the ID itself may be free of charge, the burden of obtaining it is not. Once you factor in time waiting, traveling and lost wages (many people don't have paid leave in the U.S.), that ID may very well cost them $75 - $400. For those living pay check to pay check, that may be a considerable amount of money. That's not necessarily the same burden as taking time off to vote, as most individuals won't need to, as their polls open early or after working hours unlike a DMV. Most states also have time off to vote laws, and some even require that it's paid time off.

Let's say you want to obtain a voter ID in South Carolina, for example, because you have no other photo ID. You'll need to present a birth certificate. What, can't find yours? Good luck, you'll need a photo ID to obtain a new copy of that birth certificate.

Perhaps you are an 18-year old high schooler in Alabama eligible to vote for the first time. You don't have a driver's license, because you can't afford a car and don't drive. Your closest DMV is 40 miles away and only open one day out of the week. There's no public transportation, so you'll have to coordinate a ride with someone who can take you on a day the DMV is open. Previously, this voter would be able to show up to their polling site on the day of the election with a bank statement and vote.

It would be one thing if voter fraud was prevalent and all these new measures needed enacted, but there isn't. The rate of fraud in U.S. elections is close to zero. Instead, they're yet another set of hurdles voters, particularly minorities and the poor, face when asserting their right to vote.

Once again, in the Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs could not find a single case of voter disenfranchisement due to the ID law.

You're hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical.

And since that time there have been numerous examples of legislative disenfranchisement via restrictive voter ID laws. You really have a hard-on for this one case, as though it somehow makes all forms of voter ID laws somehow magically valid. Law doesn't work that way, and the specifics of how this was implemented in Indiana vs the many other states which have tried even more restrictive forms of voter id and been slapped back by the courts should be a clue to you that this area is far from settled.

These are not hypotheticals, there are specific examples of legislators being caught on the record trying to craft voter ID laws such that they had the greatest effect upon poor and minority voters. We are still waiting on your to address these issues instead of repeatedly posting a link to this one case that happened to be the trigger for all of these laws that have now been found to be illegal.

That's because I'm proposing the law that was found to be legal.

If Law X is legal, and I support Law X, then stop telling me Law Y is illegal -- it's irrelevant.

To be frank, this sounds ridiculous to me.

Also, why is it important who is doing the journalism to uncover the fraud? Sure, I don't have to agree with their interpretation, but I can plainly see and hear what was said.

Organization of payed protesters to disrupt a political opponent and lay blame on another political opponent. Massive voter fraud by way of out-of-state voters.

I don't doubt for a second that the other side is doing very similar things. The problem is this election both sides seem to be united to stop the outsider, which should make people think.

The problem isn't requiring an ID per se, but the requirements for obtaining such an ID: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St...

For example:

> A 2009 study found that 84.2% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there

Okay, so... your first mistake was watching the Project Veritas videos, and your second mistake was believing them.

In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID. The most common ID is a state-issued driver's license, but not everyone is licensed to drive. States can issue photo ID cards which can be used in voting, but not everyone has one, they cost money, and can be difficult to obtain.

I live in North Carolina. Our voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal court as being clearly intended to disenfranchise minority voters. Here's an explanation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...

Are you really suggesting that people shouldn't watch videos that they might not agree with, or which might contain propaganda?

If that was the criteria for consuming information, no one should ever watch/read any media outlet.

Also, I still don't understand why I should not believe what was said in the video?

> In the US, there is no federally-issued photo ID.

Well, you can get a passport. But that's a whole different process.

I would not have a problem a problem with requiring photo ID's be free in states that requiring them for voting.

I'm not going to get into parsing the video you watched, but the source raises monumental red flags when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. Project Veritas is the same folks who did the widely discredited hack-editing to swat at Planned Parenthood and ACORN. They are partisan hacks well-understood to be either the pot or the kettle.

To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself.

I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is.

Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy.

In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.

I would like to propose the following counter-argument: not everyone who supports voter ID is doing so because they want to disenfranchise a certain class of voter; not everyone who opposes voter ID wants to commit fraud.

From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy.

There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included

(1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and

(2) free voter ID.

Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law.

So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

If the inconvenience is greater than the reward why go to the effort? What you claim to be a certain type of disenfranchisement is more commonly known as voter fraud, and the sort of voter fraud which showing an ID at the polling place seeks to combat DOES NOT HAPPEN. Prove that there is a problem before you seek to erect any additional roadblock between the citizenry and the polling booth.

> Prove that there is a problem ..

Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence? I sense that the anti-Voter ID crowd uses the following arguments:

Step 1: Deny that a problem exists

Step 2: Deny that the evidence exists

Step 3: Pretend that you are still correct

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/10/18/state-alleges-...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fra...

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/...

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/electi...

https://www.rt.com/usa/363097-texas-investigation-voter-frau...

Sorry, not even going to try to deal with propagandist mouthpieces like RT or freep, but lets look at the others.

What you have are _concerns_ about voter registration and indications that some people may have submitted multiple mail-in votes. Please note that none of the cases mentioned in these articles touched in-person voting. They primarily talking about things like dead people still being on voter registration rolls (because dead people have this annoying habit of not filling out the paperwork to properly close accounts after the die it seems), cases where registration information does not match data on other government databases (because we all know that data entry is a perfect science and so any case where we have two different records for the same person is obviously a case of attempted fraud), and a few cases of people who submitted absentee or mail-in ballots and then also voted in person.

Lots of 'alleged', a few instances of 'concern' regarding what might possibly happen, and a small handful of cases where voting other than in-person polling was abused.

In short, you have a big, fat, nothingburger. Over the billions of ballots cast in the past decade this is the best you can do I guess, which proves my point that this is not a problem.

You have yet to prove that there are instances where Voter ID laws led to disenfranchisement, yet you require that everyone who supports Voter ID provide immense evidence that you will accept.

But you will never accept any evidence, because you have already convinced yourself that it's not a problem, and thus don't have to provide any evidence yourself.

It has been shown repeatedly, but I will just link you to a nice story by the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) regarding the 4th Circuit Court utterly destroying the North Carolina voter ID law a couple of months ago as being strictly about disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters. If you read the ruling (linked to in the article) the court shows exactly how the conditions of the law were decided and evidence that such conditions were specifically aimed to disenfranchise these voters.

I do not need to dig hard to provide such evidence because the courts are doing quite well at digging them up. On the other hand, you fail again and again to show that in-person voter fraud is actual a problem in this country. If you wish to create additional constraints on exercising a fundamental right I am sorry, but we are going to require you to actually make the case that these constraints are serving democracy and not just your desire to keep poor and minority voters out of the polling booth.

And the Supreme Court found that Voter ID laws, properly enforced, do not impose any excessive burden [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

And since that time numerous appellate courts have found that voter id laws which go beyond the limited requirements in the Crawford case were explicitly designed to create an excessive burden and to disenfranchise voters.

Well, I support the Crawford implementation. Doesn't disenfranchise voters, still ensures the integrity of our elections.

Politics is about compromise -- deal with it.

The integrity of our elections is not at risk, but the rights of many citizens to vote is being risked by adding additional burdens on casting a ballot. I guess letting them into the polling booth scares you for some reason, but I and others are not going to compromise on this issue and when we continue to win in court and in the elections the one who is going to have to deal with it is you.

You know ... you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.

I would support sending teams of people to provide help with voter registration every 10 years the same way we do the census. This would be even more proactive than what you're proposing.

You assume that everyone who disagrees with you has bad intentions, and it's simply not true. I suspect that you sincerely believe that everyone who disagrees with you is evil. I'm not sure what will ever convince you that it's not true... but it's not going to be a discussion on the internet.

I'm done -- you don't want to discuss, as everyone else on HN does. You want to continually believe that you're right and anyone who has a different opinion is a closet racist.

On this specific issue there is no problem to be solved, so the question of why you are seeking to impose a solution leads directly to questions regarding your motives.

I have stated quite clearly that in-person voter fraud is not a problem, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a problem, and have continued to cling to a solution that is both unnecessary and has been shown to be easily manipulated to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is racist, but I am looking at your insistence on adding addition burdens to solve a non-problem and it leads me to conclude that you are, in fact, a closet racist. All evidence leads in that direction and I have no particular reason to think otherwise. If you were here in front of me I would say it to your face.

Sorry if this bothers you, but since we are just talking past each other at this point and no one else is bothering to read or examine a thread that has been long-since buried you can be assured that your little secret is quite safe. I do not assume that everyone who disagrees with me is evil and know that I am quite often wrong in many cases, but in this specific instance you have continued to fail to make any substantive case in favor of voter id and continue to cling to this cause even in the face of direct evidence of its risks.

> Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence?

One side is claiming racism. We are such a vigorously anti-racist society, claims of racism dramatically tilt the field.

I think you mean that one side is showing over and over in court that the objective of those pushing strict voter ID laws is to disenfranchise poor and minority voters and therefore any such restrictions have a high bar to cross.

I think you mean that the Supreme Court has found that Voter ID laws, properly enforced, do not impose an excessive burden [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...

No, I mean that numerous examples over the past few years have shown that partisans of a single political party have been using the loophole provided by that case to try to pass laws which are trivially shown to be aimed at disenfranchising people. Luckily, we have lots of good examples now of cases working their way up the appeals process and once they get cert before a new court the Crawford decision will likely be overturned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com