POL - And A democrat isn't exempt from retardation

[Flasch186]

Investigators Find Evidence of Voter Fraud

By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer Tue May 10, 9:04 PM ET

MILWAUKEE - A task force looking into potential voter fraud on Election Day said Tuesday that it found more than 200 felons voted illegally and more than 100 instances of people voting twice or using fake names and addresses.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The investigators found hundreds of fraudulent votes in all and counted 4,600 more ballots than registered voters in Milwaukee — but did not uncover any proof of a plot to alter the outcome of the hotly contested presidential race in Wisconsin's largest city. They also found ballots cast using the names of dead people.

Prosecutors have not filed criminal charges in the probe.

"There is not the evidence of an overriding conspiracy in all of this," U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said.

The task force, however, did find evidence of sloppy record-keeping and poor training for poll workers, who were overwhelmed by thousands of absentee ballots. Biskupic said the faulty records will make it tough to prosecute many of the crimes.

Biskupic, the Milwaukee County district attorney, Milwaukee police and the
FBI launched the probe after a newspaper investigation found more than 1,200 people voted from invalid addresses and that election officials were unable to process 1,300 same-day registration cards.

Democrat
John Kerry received more than 71 percent of the 277,000 ballots cast in Milwaukee in the presidential race. Kerry won Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes by about 11,000 votes.

The review comes amid a partisan fight over plans to make voters show ID at the polls.

Wisconsin allows same-day registration, and those who already are registered can simply show up to vote without ID. The state also allows anyone to vote absentee without a reason, which caused long lines and headaches for clerks around the state before Nov. 2.

Both the GOP-controlled houses of the state Legislature passed bills this year that would have required ID. Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, vetoed them. Now, Republicans want to amend the state constitution to require voter ID.

Doyle said Tuesday a voter ID requirement wouldn't have solved any of Milwaukee's Election Day problems, which he attributed to "bureaucratic mistakes, poor management and lack of training among the poll workers."






WTF, Why would it be a BAD thing to have to show ID. Heck, they proved that dead people voted. Silly, if you dont have some sort of ID, even a liberal interpretation like BJ's cards and stuff but NO ID - NO vote, should work just fine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why would it be a BAD thing to have to show ID.

You certainly won't get any argument from me about the need for voter ID's, but the common refrain during the recent legistlative fight in Georgia over a similar proposal was that the requirement was racist/classist/ageist since blacks/poor/elderly were less likely to have driver's licenses or other common forms of picture ID.

[Peregrine]

I'm all for IDs when voting. It's not like they're trying to re-institute literacy tests at the polling place! And from what I've seen at polling places, if you are a legitimate voter with ID problems, the poll workers will usually bend over backwards to get it straightened out.

[BrianD]

You certainly won't get any argument from me about the need for voter ID's, but the common refrain during the recent legistlative fight in Georgia over a similar proposal was that the requirement was racist/classist/ageist since blacks/poor/elderly were less likely to have driver's licenses or other common forms of picture ID.

We get the same complaints here in Wisconsin, but I'm not sure what the big deal is. You don't have to drive to get a driver's license, and you are supposed to need ID to be able to write a check, or cash a social security check. I can't believe that most of these people don't already have ID. If they don't already have ID, then political parties that already try to gather people to take them to voter registration locations can also take them to ID locations.

[Klinglerware]

You don't have to drive to get a driver's license.

I'm under the impression that while you don't ultimately have to drive once you get a license, you will not be able to get a license unless you have been trained to do so (classroom course, behind the wheel course, behind the wheel time with mommy or daddy in the passenger seat, written test, eye test, behind the wheel test, etc.). I guess that might depend on the state, but you can't just walk in to the DMV to get a drivers license if you're not qualified to drive...

[ice4277]

But don't most states offer a separate state ID card that could be used in lieu of a driver's license?

[BrianD]

I'm under the impression that while you don't ultimately have to drive once you get a license, you will not be able to get a license unless you have been trained to do so (classroom course, behind the wheel course, behind the wheel time with mommy or daddy in the passenger seat, written test, eye test, behind the wheel test, etc.). I guess that might depend on the state, but you can't just walk in to the DMV to get a drivers license if you're not qualified to drive...

Bad phrasing on my part. It isn't technically a driver's license, it is just an ID card. Anybody can go to the DMV and get one, it just doesn't allow you to drive. The cost of these cards is $9.

[Huckleberry]

The cost of these cards is $9.
Aha.

So you are in effect requiring that citizens pay to vote. The amount of the cost isn't the issue, the existence of the cost is the issue.

I'm all for requiring ID to vote. But only if states requiring as much supply ID cards at no cost to their citizens.

And before anyone starts with "it's only $9 every 4 years (or however many years" complaint, keep in mind that only means that the increase in taxes to cover that cost will be miniscule.

[st.cronin]

There was an article in the Wisconsin State Journal (I think) yesterday (or the day before). I didn't read past the first paragraph, but it implied that no fraud had been found, just massive clerical errors.

I find that hard to believe. In Wisconsin, voters are basically on the honor system. It's hard to believe there's not massive vote fraud going on every election.

[Solecismic]

New Hampshire doesn't require ID. Haven't seen evidence of fraud, but since NH is the only state in the entire region that isn't solidly red or blue, I sure wish people from neighboring states would leave us alone in the days before the election.

[Ksyrup]

We're ID'd in Florida (at least in Leon County). They match up your address, too, and require you to sign a document stating you are who you are. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Klinglerware]

Bad phrasing on my part. It isn't technically a driver's license, it is just an ID card. Anybody can go to the DMV and get one, it just doesn't allow you to drive. The cost of these cards is $9.

Okay, that's a different story. I am with Huckleberry, though, in that if the ID would be used to prove voter eligibility, then the costs should payed for with taxpayer dollars.

I am anticipating the argument that "well, then shouldn't Drivers licenses fees be reduced too, since you could use the card to prove voter eligibility as well?" I would argue that with the drivers' license you also are paying for the privelege to drive. I don't think you should have to pay to prove who you are.

[Flasch186]

Okay, that's a different story. I am with Huckleberry, though, in that if the ID would be used to prove voter eligibility, then the costs should payed for with taxpayer dollars.

I am anticipating the argument that "well, then shouldn't Drivers licenses fees be reduced too, since you could use the card to prove voter eligibility as well?" I would argue that with the drivers' license you also are paying for the privelege to drive. I don't think you should have to pay to prove who you are.

I agree.

[Ksyrup]

I guess we should all be reimbursed for our gas and time for driving to the precinct as well. I bill at $225 an hour; I spent 45 minutes in line last October. They owe me $170!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess we should all be reimbursed for our gas and time for driving to the precinct as well. I bill at $225 an hour; I spent 45 minutes in line last October. They owe me $170!

Bingo.

[BrianD]

Aha.

So you are in effect requiring that citizens pay to vote. The amount of the cost isn't the issue, the existence of the cost is the issue.

I'm all for requiring ID to vote. But only if states requiring as much supply ID cards at no cost to their citizens.

And before anyone starts with "it's only $9 every 4 years (or however many years" complaint, keep in mind that only means that the increase in taxes to cover that cost will be miniscule.

The $9 isn't just to be able to vote. It also gives you the ability to write a check, or cash a check. Banks are supposed to require a photo ID any time someone gets cash back from depositing/cashing a check. People need a photo ID anytime they want to get on a plane. There are all kinds of reasons people need a photo ID. Because of this, most people probably already have one. I don't really care whether the fee is $9 or less, I just don't think the cost is a reason to not require ID to vote.

[Klinglerware]

I bill at $225 an hour; I spent 45 minutes in line last October. They owe me $170!

Not if they make Election Day a national holiday. :D

Seriously, the ID card and the other costs incurred in voting are two separate issues. The former is used to prove who you are--you shouldn't have to pay to do that (we don't have to pay a fee to get a social security number, for example).

The latter is a problem of it's own--the vacuum for getting people out to the polls who can't afford it is currently filled by the Democratic and Republican "get out the vote" machines. I'm not sure how I feel about the practices involved...

[Ryche]

Part of Wisconsin's problem is the way they register voters. Each individual city is responsible for this, so you're basically trying to enforce a uniform set of rules and procedures over a few thousand different units of government. When you start having people move shortly before elections and such, no wonder they are having problems keeping their voters straight.

[Ksyrup]

The idea that the driving force for someone to get a driver's license/state ID card is primarily to vote is beyond ridiculous. Hell, if you want to get into an over-21 bar you've got to show an ID! Maybe if the state offered to waive the cover charge at a local bar we could call it even...

[Klinglerware]

I don't really care whether the fee is $9 or less, I just don't think the cost is a reason to not require ID to vote.

Agreed, but I can't see why the government can't subsidize free picture IDs for poor voters--like you said, if most people already have picture IDs, the affected population should be limited...

[st.cronin]

I wonder why they couldn't use SSN's?

[Ksyrup]

Not if they make Election Day a national holiday.
Where I work, a holiday means there aren't secretaries in the office and no one answers the phone.

And again, you can't tell me that the amount you paid for your ID hasn't been worth it, when it allows you to do all sorts of things you couldn't do without it. You can't simply say it is solely for voting, because it's not. There are not thousands of people out there who are sitting home on election day saying to themselves, "Damn, I'd like to vote, but since I can't prove who I am because I never got a state-issued ID with my picture on it, I'll just sit home and watch Jerry Springer."

[BrianD]

Agreed, but I can't see why the government can't subsidize free picture IDs for poor voters--like you said, if most people already have picture IDs, the affected population should be limited...

I wouldn't complain if the State wanted to subsidize picture IDs. I really don't see how $9 is a prohibitive cost though. I also have no doubt that come election time, the local democrat and republican parties would be glad to help out.

[Flasch186]

some people cant even afford $9...they should not be precluded from voting. This should be either vouchered out for those who cannot afford it or paid for by, OMG, taxes. Remember during the civil rights movement one of the ways that minorities were discouraged from voting was by intimidation. This, ina strange way, could be construed as such. Voting should be free for all our citizens.

[Ksyrup]

...and then they can reimburse the state for all of the other activities that the free ID entitled them to do, like gain access to clubs, open checking accounts, fly on an airplane, use a credit card, get a hotel room, etc. This is really a stretch, Flasch. The relative cost of the ID specifically allocable to voting, when spread across all of the opportunities one has to utilize the ID, is minimal.

[MrBigglesworth]

Voter ID cards are really nothing more than a GOP attempt to disenfranchise poor voters wrapped into voter fraud rhetoric. The GOP doesn't ligimately care about voter fraud, they've won all the time recently. And it is a myth that ID's provide any security whatsoever. Ask any teenager where to get a good fake ID.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Aha.

So you are in effect requiring that citizens pay to vote. The amount of the cost isn't the issue, the existence of the cost is the issue.

I'm all for requiring ID to vote. But only if states requiring as much supply ID cards at no cost to their citizens.

And before anyone starts with "it's only $9 every 4 years (or however many years" complaint, keep in mind that only means that the increase in taxes to cover that cost will be miniscule.
Arizonans passed Prop 200 last fall, which among other things requires every person to show identification before receiving a ballot. When writing the regulations for this new law, the Secretary of State (responsible for elections in this state) drafted regulations that would accept any state issued identification. If the voter didn't want to pay the $25 for a driver's license or state issued ID card, car registrations, insurance cards, utilitiy bills even library cards were acceptable substitutions. Alternatives were offered. Yet the state Attorney General refused to enforce these regulations last election because, in his opinion, the regulations were unfairly intimidating to old people and minorities.

I guess banks intimidate old people and minorities too, because you can't cash a check without any identification.

[Klinglerware]

I guess banks intimidate old people and minorities too, because you can't cash a check without any identification.

But you can deposit a check into a bank account, no questions asked (at least nobody has ever asked me). Even for people without picture IDs, the banks make it ludicrously simple--in NY/NJ, a thumbprint is all you need...

[Huckleberry]

I'm curious as to why some of you think it's logical to bring up private businesses that require ID as some sort of counterargument to what I posted.

Last I checked, drinking alcohol, renting library books, and writing checks are not rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is.

Was that easy enough to understand for everyone?

I also think it's funny that some of you keep mentioning how low the cost is. Well, goodness, if requiring ID to vote is that important to you (as it is to me) then you should be willing to cover that cost, right? I certainly am.

Perhaps more importantly, the reason the amount of the cost is unimportant is that burden is relative. To the person, to the year, etc. Saying $9 isn't too much simply begs the question of what is too much. What about when they decide to raise that to $25. And make it annual. Then raise it to $50.

Almost forgot that gas example. Boy was that weak. I'm pretty sure that the government does not require you to buy gas in order to get to the polls. Could be wrong, but probably not.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The idea that the driving force for someone to get a driver's license/state ID card is primarily to vote is beyond ridiculous. Hell, if you want to get into an over-21 bar you've got to show an ID! Maybe if the state offered to waive the cover charge at a local bar we could call it even...

Whether or not it's ridiculous it is Constitutionally not allowed to require a poll tax. See Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections ($1.50 poll tax found unconstitutional). And a system that prohibits people from voting without an ID that requires people to pay feesis essentially the same thing.

There's no reason you can't have an ID requirement, you just have to make sure that at least one of the forms of acceptable ID can be obtained for free. This sounds like exactly what AZ did.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Last I checked, drinking alcohol, renting library books, and writing checks are not rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is.

Was that easy enough to understand for everyone?
A library card from the Phoenix Municipal Library is a form of identification issued by a quasi-governmental agency that is free and open to anyone. So what if the right to check out a library book isn't guaranteed by the constitution? It's a way to comply with the law that doesn't cost anything. Voting is guaranteed by the constituion (so long as you meet the eligibility requirements) yes, and I hope everyone exercises that right. But the right to vote in a manner that's convenient and easy isn't guaranteed by the constitution.

The issue of the cost of state ID's was being discussed, I offered a solution based on the laws of my state. Since voter registration information and many polling places are located in public libraries, it seems like a very good solution. I don't know how much more convenient the Secretary of State could have made it. Unless of course, she disregarded the wishes of the voters of the state and refused to enforce the ID requirements at all.

[Ksyrup]

I'm curious as to why some of you think it's logical to bring up private businesses that require ID as some sort of counterargument to what I posted.

Last I checked, drinking alcohol, renting library books, and writing checks are not rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is.

Was that easy enough to understand for everyone?
You're confused. I'm not making a counter-argument, I'm suggesting that you're asking the public to pay for an ID that provides all sorts of benefits that everyone else has to pay for, under the guise that the sole cost of the ID is really attributable to being able to vote. It's not.

You want to dismiss the gas thing, go ahead. But my time is valuable, and it is required in order for me to vote. Am I just supposed to suck up the cost in order to vote? Isn't that a restriction on my ability to vote freely?

As ridiculous as that argument sounds to you, yours sounds to me.

In Florida, I have no idea what alternative forms of ID are acceptable. I'm not even sure it is a requirement in all counties, frankly; nor do I know whether someone could show up with an electric bill and be handed a ballot. It's all the same to me.

[BrianD]

I'm curious as to why some of you think it's logical to bring up private businesses that require ID as some sort of counterargument to what I posted.

Last I checked, drinking alcohol, renting library books, and writing checks are not rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is.


It isn't a counter argument, it is a different argument. Because all of these things require IDs, it is a good bet that almost everyone already has an ID, thus requiring a showing of that ID during voting isn't really a hardship. For those that don't have IDs, they need to get one. A government program which allows poor people to be subsidized for this ID is fine.

[Suicane75]

HA is a Democrat? Burnnnnnnnnnnn.

[BrianD]

Interesting note: Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a bill that will require a picture ID to purchase cold medication.

[st.cronin]

Interesting note: Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a bill that will require a picture ID to purchase cold medication.

Not sure if this is apocryphal or not, but I often hear it said that 75% of the worlds Brandy is consumed in Madison, Wisconsin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting note: Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a bill that will require a picture ID to purchase cold medication.

Georgia didn't, as far as I can tell, require photo ID for pseudoephedrine, but did require all products that contain only pseudoephedrine to be placed behind the counter or other place with restricted access.

[HomerJSimpson]

I wouldn't complain if the State wanted to subsidize picture IDs. I really don't see how $9 is a prohibitive cost though. I also have no doubt that come election time, the local democrat and republican parties would be glad to help out.


Actually, in Georgia the ID cards are going to be free. It still was called racist, to the point that the Black Caucus walked out of the state house while this was being debated, singing "We shall over come." One congressman actually walked in in chains and claimed this was equal to a return to slavery. Can someone please rationally explain how a free ID card is a return to slavery? How does this some how supress voters that have the legal right to vote?

[Easy Mac]

Interesting note: Wisconsin lawmakers are proposing a bill that will require a picture ID to purchase cold medication.
I know they're currently making/trying to make it a law that all cold medicine must be behind the counter and that no one under 18 can purchase it without parental consent... trying to combat the rash of meth labs.

[Buccaneer]

I know they're currently making/trying to make it a law that all cold medicine must be behind the counter and that no one under 18 can purchase it without parental consent... trying to combat the rash of meth labs.
I thought it was just Sudafed? Pretty much every store here has pulled Sudafed off of the shelves.

[Ksyrup]

Senate approves electronic ID card bill
Published: May 10, 2005, 8:10 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Last-minute attempts by online activists to halt an electronic ID card failed Tuesday when the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to impose a sweeping set of identification requirements on Americans.

The so-called Real ID Act now heads to President Bush, who is expected to sign the bill into law this month. Its backers, including the Bush administration, say it's needed to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses.

If the act's mandates take effect in May 2008, as expected, Americans will be required to obtain federally approved ID cards with "machine readable technology" that abides by Department of Homeland Security specifications. Anyone without such an ID card will be effectively prohibited from traveling by air or Amtrak, opening a bank account, or entering federal buildings.

After the Real ID Act's sponsors glued it to an Iraq military spending bill, final passage was all but guaranteed. Yet that didn't stop a dedicated cadre of privacy activists from trying to raise the alarm in the last few days.

UnRealID.com, which calls the legislation a "national ID card," says that more than 10,800 people filled out its online petition to senators.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation hastily created a "Stop The Real ID Act!" campaign last week, and the ACLU denounced the bill as a measure that would create "a system ripe for identity theft." Security guru Bruce Schneier offered his own negative critique.

If the Real ID Act had been a standalone piece of legislation--instead of being embedded in an unrelated military spending bill--its passage in the Senate might have been less certain.

The House approved it in February by a relatively narrow vote of 261-161, and some senators had condemned it. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., warned last month that the Real ID Act creates "de facto national ID cards" and the National Immigration Law Center said it will make it harder even for legal immigrants and citizens to get drivers' licenses.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and Real ID Act sponsor, applauded the Senate vote on Tuesday. "The Real ID is vital to preventing foreign terrorists from hiding in plain sight while conducting their operations and planning attacks," Sensenbrenner said. "By targeting terrorist travel, the Real ID will assist in our war-on-terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders."

[BrianD]

Wouldn't it be better to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country?

[Flasch186]

you'd think

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, let's form a human chain across the entire border of the country!

[BrianD]

Yeah, let's form a human chain across the entire border of the country!

I should have realized that was the only alternative to doing nothing.

[Ksyrup]

Q: Wouldn't it be great if there were no homeless people?

A: Sure would!

[BrianD]

Q: Wouldn't it be great if there were no homeless people?

A: Sure would!

-reinstitute authority for the Border Patrol to conduct open-field searches
-stop seventy-two-hour deportation notices (known as "run letters")
-stop giving citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors
-end public benefits for illegal aliens
-make alien smuggling and document fraud into racketeering crimes
-hold sponsors accountable for immigrants they sponsor
-extend the Border Patrol canine program and highway checkpoint system
-combine the immigration service (INS) work form with the IRS work form
-increase personnel in Inspections, Intelligence, Border Patrol, and Detention and Deportation
-reduce temporary employees in INS Inspections and increase the permanent staff
-dedicate investigators to work solely on employment of illegal aliens
-set up a verification system for welfare and work eligibility

Take your pick.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

-reinstitute authority for the Border Patrol to conduct open-field searches
-stop seventy-two-hour deportation notices (known as "run letters")
-stop giving citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors
-end public benefits for illegal aliens
-make alien smuggling and document fraud into racketeering crimes
-hold sponsors accountable for immigrants they sponsor
-extend the Border Patrol canine program and highway checkpoint system
-combine the immigration service (INS) work form with the IRS work form
-increase personnel in Inspections, Intelligence, Border Patrol, and Detention and Deportation
-reduce temporary employees in INS Inspections and increase the permanent staff
-dedicate investigators to work solely on employment of illegal aliens
-set up a verification system for welfare and work eligibility

Take your pick. The Answer is Alex "What is the dream solution for illegal immigration that will never be implimented because parties on both sides of the aisle are wussies?"

[BrianD]

The Answer is Alex "What is the dream solution for illegal immigration that will never be implimented because parties on both sides of the aisle are wussies?"

This is very much true. My whole point was that instituting a national ID system to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses is missing the real problem.

I understand that this isn't the only reason for a national ID, but bringing up this point is a poor attempt by Bush to pretend to care about the immigration issue.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, that would be great but totally unrealistic to see it happen.