published Saturday, September 22nd, 2012

Voter suppression? Ha!

If you can't win an argument with facts and reason, shout louder.

That seems to be the guiding principle for opponents of voter ID laws, whose arguments keep disintegrating one by one and reducing them to incoherent rage.

The most despicable of those arguments holds that laws requiring valid photo identification at the ballot box are nothing but a ploy to suppress voting among minorities who may be less likely to possess a driver's license or other forms of acceptable ID.

The rhetoric employed to make that ludicrous assertion is scarcely measured. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous described a voter ID law in South Carolina as "little more than a 21st century poll tax."

That would seem to suggest Jealous' limited grasp of what real voter suppression looked like several decades ago.

At any rate, as driver service centers across Tennessee gear up to open on a couple of Saturdays to help provide a valid photo ID at no cost to those who lack one and want to vote in the Nov. 6 election, fresh data indicate once again that the vote suppression claim is baloney on steroids.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution bothered to do what hasn't been done often enough since voter ID laws were enacted in a number of states: It looked at actual minority voting patterns in one such state: Georgia. Georgia's voter ID law took effect five years ago.

Encouragingly, the hysterical predictions of minority voter suppression failed to pan out -- and how.

The newspaper's analysis found that "Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period." From the 2006 election, before the law took effect, to the 2010 election, the black vote increased by 44 percent. It spiked in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama. But "Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout," the paper reported.

"It hasn't had the voter-suppressing effect that some people feared," Edward Foley, head of an election center at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, told the AJC.

Added Hans von Spakovsky, a former legal counsel to the U.S. Department of Justice's civil rights division: "If you look at the numbers, they clearly show that critics of this law were wrong. Their argument has always been it would depress turnout, but it didn't happen -- quite the opposite."

That is particularly impressive in light of the fact that Georgia's law is deemed one of the strictest in the country. Georgia residents must present state-issued photo identification for in-person voting.

Today, nearly three dozen states have some form of voter ID law, indicating widespread popular support for reasonable efforts to prevent fraudulent voting. Here's hoping the rest follow suit.

36
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
conservative said...

No one has a right to commit fraud but every good citizen has a duty to prevent fraud.

September 22, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.

"If you can't win an argument with facts and reason, shout louder."

Actually, that's your guiding principle. See the facts and reason demonstrate that the outrage over in-person voter fraud that would be remedied with the ID solutions being imposed are nothing more than overwrought hysteria.

No one has a right to deny people access to the voting booth in the name of an imagined danger. You have to have real and substantial grounds.

Why don't you report on the reviews of this fraud you're trying to fight? Why don't you note how it's only speculative? Why don't you even consider the requirement that I've suggested, that the state have a pro-active duty to provide ID? Or is that too expensive and costly for you?

September 22, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
conservative said...

Rolando, on the loontoonist site summed it up best -

"Photo ID works -- which is precisely why Democrats hate it"

September 22, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.

Photo ID works...to disenfranchise the public, which is indeed why Democrats hate it.

It is proper to hate such misconduct.

September 22, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
conservative said...

No one is taking away anyone's right to vote.

September 22, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
rolando said...

bulbs said, "Photo ID works...to disenfranchise the public"

Put your money where your mouth is, bulbs; prove it.

[You cannot, of course, because any objective research from any side indicates quite the opposite -- the cited source, for instance.]

On this topic you[pl] "hate such 'misconduct'" blindly, without cause, and without objective, non-emotional evidence...as always.

September 22, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
rolando said...

Be interesting to compare this years absentee ballots submitted against other years. No photo ID needed for submission...a legitimate path supporting the franchise.

September 22, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
conservative said...

Dead democrats tend to vote for the first democrat on the ballot.

September 22, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
jesse said...

dead repubs. too!

Matter of fact just about ALL dead folks vote democrat!

September 22, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
rolando said...

Maybe that's because the dead want others of their kind to represent them, jesse. Most Democrats are dead in one way or another, anyway...

September 22, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
charivara said...

Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai said "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done. " Are you going to continue to claim that these laws are only to protect the sanctity of the voting booth? Are you really that stupid?

September 22, 2012 at 6:34 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

First, you would have to prove that there is an in-person voter fraud problem. Then you would have to prove that the "dead" have voted.

Oh wait, you can't. To date, no one has. They've admitted it in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Yet they are still pursuing these voter ID laws.

However, many studies have been done to show that the new voter ID laws would disenfranchise young, poor, minority and elderly voters. And every empirical study has come to the conclusion that in-person voter ID fraud is all but non-existent in the United States; not to mention how moronic it would be for someone to try it.

Here is some of that proof you asked for:

http://brennan.3cdn.net/f5f28dd844a143d303_i36m6lyhy.pdf

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2012_summary_of_voting_law_changes/

http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2011/05/24/the-disproportionate-impact-of-stringent-voter-id-laws/

http://brennan.3cdn.net/f332bdfce2f35e1edd_e3m6bna0u.pdf

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf

http://brennan.3cdn.net/9dfd902a36ac8a7a27_aqm6b0w84.pdf

http://brennan.3cdn.net/2f0860fb73fd559359_zzm6bhnld.pdf

http://m.ibtimes.com/voter-id-registration-laws-may-affect-5-million-americans-2012-election-report-320841

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/the-myth-of-voter-fraud.html?_r=0

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202517706103&slreturn=20120822204141

I could produce thousands of studies and articles that speak directly against any false claim you make about voter fraud and how voter ID works.

I notice you haven't provided any proof of your own claim. Why is that?

Put your money where your mouth is and talk facts. I bet you can't. You just follow in lockstep with your Republican/Conservative/Fox News talking points. Objective, you say? HA HA HA FREAKING HA!

Provide some evidence to back up YOUR claims. I have. Your move.

September 22, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.
jesse said...

Sorry easy123 but there is no proof of anything ther execept a list ofopinions and where laws are being pushed!

September 23, 2012 at 5:52 a.m.
charivara said...

jesse: you call that evidence to back up your claims? Another "useful idiot" heard from.

September 23, 2012 at 8:43 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jesse,

That isn't a list of opinions. The Brennan Center for Justice does studies and has their own publications where the print empirical evidence about a number of topics but, in the case of the links I provided, voter ID laws.

You are either ignorant or just willfully blind if you believe that the list I provided is "a list of opinions". Do some research of you own. Use the links I provided. Make your own educated opinion instead of spewing ignorant rhetoric. I double dare you.

September 23, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.

I'm sure jesse goes to the doctor, and says "What, you only think I have cancer? That's just an opinion, you quack!"

Then jesse goes and drinks snake oil which promises a cure.

September 23, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
rolando said...

easy. Stop building straw men and publish something in support of your contention that there is no such thing as voter fraud. You know, things like dual-sate voting, hanging chads, non-eligibles registered, more votes cast than registered voters, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum

September 23, 2012 at 3:24 p.m.
jesse said...

You guys can talk all the trailer park trash talk you want BUT STILL no proof of anything there!

September 23, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
rolando said...

The following phrases were chosen because they show predisposition, a biased agenda, or an expected [but unrealized] outcome. Do not fit the "objective" label. The key words are usually in bold.

Brennan assumes and presumes many things, most of which are either inaccurate or misleading; for instance, early on they cite “All men are created equal” regarding voting rights while conveniently ignoring that only adult white males had the vote when that phrase and our constitution was adopted. So much for equality...at least insofar as voting was concerned. [See http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html] [That has changed, of course.]

Further, brennan adopts the position that those without transportation, etc cannot reach an ID-issuing center. This begs the question of how do they get food? Routine or scheduled medical care? Anything else that requires mobility? If they can get one, they can get the other.

Those pretty much discredit brennan en toto.

Latino Decisions? You are kidding, right? They group mestizos [Caucasoid, last I heard] in with blacks [Negroid] and Asians as “people of color” [however they define it]. Trying for a little special treatment, evidently. In any case, their paper – a collection of guesses, polls, and false conclusions – failed to discriminate between legal and illegal “immigrants”. Another paper with a biased, predisposed agenda.

One brennan cite disclosed this in its introduction [Emphasis mine]:

“This paper is based on a survey of registered voters in three states—Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi...SURPRISINGLY, only about ONE PERCENT of registered voters in all three states lack a photo ID, and in Indiana, which has the most stringent requirements, ONLY 0.3 lacked an ID. More than two-thirds of respondents believe the U.S. electoral system would be trusted more if voters were required to show a photo ID.”

This did two things – it supported the contention that all but very, very few voters did NOT have a photo ID...which supports the editor's position. It also pointed out its predisposition for previously expected results when it used “Surprisingly”; obviously expecting something different. Telling, that, but typical of brennan.

IBTimes cites brennan's biased, misleading reports.

NYTimes? We all know their unbiased reporting...yeah, right.

The National Law Journal also [and unfortunately] cites and depends upon brennan.

So you have essentially provided two independent but tainted sources in support– brennan and latinodecisions – and one that actually supports the editor's position, American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management in its abstract entitled Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: A Survey of Three States.

September 23, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
rolando said...

What, you thought I wouldn't sample them? I admit to a limited review; wading through that...ah...hogwash was tedious.

I cited the editor's cite of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in support of his argument.

September 23, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
jesse said...

Rolando,now that you shot easy and bulbs down in flames i doubt they will respond back!

Thanks, it good to see someone deflate some of the gas bags around here!

September 23, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

"Brennan assumes and presumes many things, most of which are either inaccurate or misleading; for instance, early on they cite “All men are created equal” regarding voting rights while conveniently ignoring that only adult white males had the vote when that phrase and our constitution was adopted. So much for equality...at least insofar as voting was concerned."

This means nothing. This isn't the 1700's. This doesn't discredit the Brennan Center for Justice in any way whatsoever.

"Further, brennan adopts the position that those without transportation, etc cannot reach an ID-issuing center. This begs the question of how do they get food? Routine or scheduled medical care? Anything else that requires mobility? If they can get one, they can get the other."

They do not adopt that position. The voter ID laws have made it harder on people without transportation to get identification. How will people that do not have access to a personal vehicle get to a DMV or wherever to get identification?

You are assuming that everyone has transportation because you believe that everyone drives to get food, medical care, etc. This is asinine. Many people do not have personal transportation. Any fool knows this.

"Those pretty much discredit brennan en toto."

No, it doesn't.

"Trying for a little special treatment, evidently. In any case, their paper – a collection of guesses, polls, and false conclusions – failed to discriminate between legal and illegal “immigrants”. Another paper with a biased, predisposed agenda."

This does not discredit the source. It is simply your opinion.

"This did two things – it supported the contention that all but very, very few voters did NOT have a photo ID...which supports the editor's position. It also pointed out its predisposition for previously expected results when it used “Surprisingly”; obviously expecting something different. Telling, that, but typical of brennan."

So you are attempting to guess the bias of the source by the usage of one word? That is asinine and does not discredit the source in the slightest.

"IBTimes cites brennan's biased, misleading reports."

You still haven't shown Brennan Center for Justice to be biased or misleading.

"NYTimes? We all know their unbiased reporting...yeah, right."

Then debunk the article. Oh wait, you can't. You have copped out.

"The National Law Journal also [and unfortunately] cites and depends upon brennan."

You have yet to discredit both sources.

September 23, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando, (continued)

"So you have essentially provided two independent but tainted sources in support– brennan and latinodecisions – and one that actually supports the editor's position, American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management in its abstract entitled Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: A Survey of Three States."

Neither sources are tainted and you have yet to disprove them.

You didn't read the entire abstract. Why did you omit this part?

"Still, there are serious problems in the way in which the ID laws have been drafted or applied that might have the effect of reducing voter participation, particularly of certain groups. The paper proposes ways to construct an ID system that will assure ballot integrity while attracting new and more voters."

September 23, 2012 at 6:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

"What, you thought I wouldn't sample them? I admit to a limited review; wading through that...ah...hogwash was tedious."

What? You thought I wouldn't respond to your substance-less post? You have proved nothing and you haven't cited any evidence or proof that supports your own position.

Your hogwash isn't tedious. It's ignorant and biased. Would you like to try again?

Stop building straw men and publish something in support of your contention that there is a voter fraud problem. Go on. I dare you.

September 23, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

"Rolando,now that you shot easy and bulbs down in flames i doubt they will respond back!"

Nothing has been shot down. Your ignorance is still flying high. I always respond. It's interesting how you will believe whatever it is you want to hear without doing any research of your own. You supported Rolando's fallacious rebuttal like it was fact. It isn't and if you had an ounce of sense, you would know that. But, of course, you don't and you didn't.

"Thanks, it good to see someone deflate some of the gas bags around here!"

It's always sad to see people like you double down on ignorance! :-)

Try again.

September 23, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
rolando said...

easy, when you cherry-pick posts to lose the continuity, I do with you as I do with alpo...I read your first sentence or two per post...that summarizes your post nicely.

So, in order; It means brennan used emotional arguments typical of Progressives. So you refuse to recognize the evolution of the voting process...interesting. Now who is living in the 1800's [actually].

Any source that misquotes and misleads [such as you] is tainted; that alone dismisses the source.

I expected you to respond, easy. That's your job, isn't it? What you are paid to do? Your cherry-picking technique is used on this forum by only a few other Progressives? Coincidence? I think not.

You entire theses is "shot down", easy. The only thing you can respond with is more tainted, biased cites. So why haven't you attempted to debunk the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, hm-m-m. You know, the cite I cited...

September 23, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.
rolando said...

Thanks, jesse. Shooting fish in a barrel, rather. Not very sportsmanlike on my part, but one does get fed up with their koolaid-ed crap.

September 23, 2012 at 9:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"easy, when you cherry-pick posts to lose the continuity"

I responded to you and Jesse in order, save one post. Get over it.

"So you refuse to recognize the evolution of the voting process...interesting. Now who is living in the 1800's [actually]."

No, you apparently believe that the Brennan article is somehow ignoring the fact that only whites could vote. How are they ignoring that fact? By using a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence? You cannot logically come to that conclusion based on the inclusion of a phrase.

"Any source that misquotes and misleads [such as you] is tainted; that alone dismisses the source."

No source I have presented has misquoted or mislead anyone. Therefore, the source isn't tainted and you cannot dismiss it. You are the one attempting to pass misinformation as fact. It won't work.

"I expected you to respond, easy. That's your job, isn't it? What you are paid to do? Your cherry-picking technique is used on this forum by only a few other Progressives? Coincidence? I think not."

I expected you too also. Not my job. Not what I get paid to do. I haven't cherry-picked anything. The fact that you think I have only adds to my claim of your bias and ignorance. It is used on this forum by many other Regressives. Coincidence? I think not.

'You entire theses is "shot down", easy. The only thing you can respond with is more tainted, biased cites."

You haven't presented anything that any sentient human being could even remotely qualify as debunking or discrediting my sources. You haven't responded with anything.

"So why haven't you attempted to debunk the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, hm-m-m. You know, the cite I cited..."

Might want to include the article next time lazyass:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/

I don't have to debunk it. It already proves my point.

"Emmet Bondurant, the Atlanta lawyer who filed the federal lawsuit against the Georgia law, noted that that records obtained as part of their lawsuit showed that more than 198,000 registered Georgia voters lacked drivers licenses and another 91,000 had had their licenses suspended or revoked."

"As a way to win federal court approval for the law, Georgia offers free photo IDs to anyone who needs them. Records obtained through the Secretary of State’s office show that 26,506 Georgians have obtained free photo IDs since the law took effect."

"The others, who can no longer vote, “didn’t just disappear,” Bondurant said. He calls them victims of voter suppression."

"Still, the law has had real and measurable effect for some voters: Since November 2008, the ballots of 1,586 Georgians didn’t count because of the law. (They arrived at the polls without a photo ID, cast provisional ballots, and did not return later with the required ID.) Overall, 13.6 million votes were cast in the state during the same period."

September 23, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"Thanks, jesse. Shooting fish in a barrel, rather. Not very sportsmanlike on my part, but one does get fed up with their koolaid-ed crap."

You don't have a big enough gun. And these fish shoot back.

I don't get fed up with your Kool-Aid consumption. The ignorance and lack of substance in any one of your posts is just sad. It's common from you and your ilk but it really never ceases to amaze me how truly deficient and incompetent you Wingnuts really are.

Please keep it up.

September 23, 2012 at 10:29 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

One of the saddest things in the world is a liar. They cannot imagine a world without lies. They would lie, so they think everyone lies. Voter fraud is very much like lying. Since the Republicans are guilty of voter fraud, they think everyone must be. And we know they are guilty, they are getting caught all over the place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...!

September 24, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
rolando said...

No, that's not what I am saying at all, easy.

To which of my guns do you refer? Not that shooting you down is all that difficult...dependent on tainted and incompetent sources as you are.

September 24, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, that's right, woman, jump on a pleasant young girl who is dressed conservatively, well-groomed, and well-spoken [considering she is replying to a harridan and obviously Democrat piece of work]. The old bat's day [and yours] must be complete after humiliating a young person who is working to end The Obama's Socialistic and Communistic efforts to destroy us. She was confused? Well, she didn't have Mr. TelePrompter, did she? Ever hear our Fearless [yeah, right] Leader without his?

Do something useful. Go attack a slovenly, publicly-defecating, incompetent, rapist of a Democrat-Always Gimme-Gimme Occupier.

I didn't see the old battleaxe picking up a pen and start registering Democrats. No, she had to spy on and talk to the girl to find out what she was doing and who she was registering before grabbing her vidcam. I bet she was a prime worker for ACORN...until they were destroyed because of voter fraud.

You got a gripe with that girl, woman, report it to the Justice Department. Since the young lady is evidently registering those voting for a particular candidate AND ANYONE ELSE, AG Holder will jump right on her, particularly since she is not black.

sarc=OFF

September 24, 2012 at 6:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Rolando,

I expected a better effort from you. Then again, your overall effort has left something to be desired.

And I'm referring the BB gun you are using in repeated failed attempts to "shoot me down". Keep trying though. :-)

Your bias and ignorance are rearing their ugly heads in your last post to JustOneWoman.

September 24, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.

rolando, I noticed you mentioned transportation, but you failed to make note of something...that transportation to a place that provides food is not the same as to a place that provides IDs.

As many as a third of counties in this state don't have Driver's Licenses offices.

Is the same true of sources of food?

I guess you'd rather go with empty and thoughtless remarks than give true consideration to the facts. Reminds me of Mitt Romney, who just shot off his mouth about opening a window in an airplane.

Besides, you should know that lack of transportation IS a reason why absentee ballots have been compelled to be issued, and why voting precincts have been established.

Heck, you'd think you'd remember the American Revolution, and how access to the courts was considered something that was being restricted since in some cases people had to go to England to get things done.

But don't let those facts get in your way.

September 25, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, right, bulbs. The only thing you left out is "It depends on the meaning of 'is.'

Transport is transport, whether to the money bank, the food bank, the ID office, the welfare office, the Social Services office, or anywhere else.

I don't think I mentioned Drivers' License offices specifically; Photo ID offices is the phrase.

How many people are involved? Since you and others here claim the number of voter fraud cases is so small as to be meaningless... Evidently the definition of "is" or whatever enters in here, too.

I DID mention absentee ballots as an answer to the Photo ID issue, after all. Its a good one, although Democrats don't want them submitted by our military members. Republicans, on the other hand, welcome them from ALL eligible US citizens; but then, they aren't afraid of what is on them.

After the American Revolution, bubls, the only people who had the vote were adult, white male citizens. That, too, changed over the years. That was then, not now. Are you saying we should violently revolt because of the Photo ID issue?

Just keep on ignoring "the rest of the story" -- you do it well.

September 25, 2012 at 9:31 p.m.
rolando said...

easy -- Translation of your last is you cannot refute the obvious bias, limited research that discards information not supporting an expected outcome, ignoring other comments about your capabilities, etc., etc., etc.

I will give you the last word on your chosen topic.

Woman doesn't need your support; she is quite capable of acting in her own regard. Rather good at it, if memory on this forum serves. [Unlike you.]

September 25, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.