Spectre, you may think voter ID doesn't hurt poor minorities, but federal courts are disagreeing with you. Also, one example of voter turnout increasing does not create a rule. Surely you aren't oblivious to how statistics work.
Except, uh, the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't place undue burden. And further, Federal courts short of the Supreme Court make stupid statements all the time - several have denied that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms, for example, until the Supreme Court recently and finally shut them up (at least for a while) by affirming otherwise.
In the 2008 Supreme Court decision over Voter ID, which was a 6-3 decision with liberal Justice Stevens writing for the majority, the Court said: ""There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only eligible voter's vote." Further, the case was decided so in part because despite the best efforts of the NAACP, ACLU and many other organizations, not one single credible person could be found who could show they were denied the right to vote in Indiana because of Voter ID.
And it's not just one example. I've already covered Georgia. How about Indiana, a state Obama won *with* Voter ID.
Indiana:
Minority turnout rose after Voter ID. In fact, the number of black voters DOUBLED.
More reading here, in this study:
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/2549
The University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska?Lincoln examined data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. At both the aggregate and individual levels, the study found that voter ID laws do not negatively affect turnout, including across racial/ethnic/socioeconomic lines. The study concludes that ?concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.? Source: Jason D. Mycoff, Michael W. Wagner, and David C. Wilson, The Empirical Effects of Voter-ID Laws: Present or Absent, PS: Political Science & Politics, 42 (2009), 121?126. An earlier version of this paper appeared as Jason D. Mycoff, Michael W. Wagner, and David C. Wilson, Do Voter Identification Laws Affect Voter Turnout? Working Paper, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware (2007).
There's more examples, if you want me to swamp the thread with them. There is not one single impartial, peer-reviewed scientific study that says that voter ID reduces minority turn out.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA The Brennan Center? Non partisan?????
Sorry, it's just not:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...ibes-soros-funded-brennan-center-non-partisan It's no more non-partisan than the American Enterprise Institute.
Further, how can they be unbiased and impartial about the matter when
they are an active participant in lawsuits against Voter ID? Hint: They can't. It makes them about as impartial as those law firms that put up web sites that always blame manufacturers for every car crash ever, i.e., not in the least.
Further,
peer-reviewed studies by *actual* impartial institutions like American University have shown that only a tiny fraction of voters are lacking acceptable ID.
Some indicate less than .01% of voters are likely to be lacking an ID. Which, uh, last I looked, wasn't any 700,000 in Pennsylvania, considering the Census only recorded 12.7 million for the entire state.
And no, you don't go to the DMV the same as you go to the polls. There are far more polling centers than there are DMVs, they are much easier to get to.
And again, there are even fewer welfare offices and social security offices than DMVs. Yet the poor have no problem getting there, apparently. Or in securing benefits. Which require an ID.
Further, the PA Voter ID law accepts student IDs, nursing home IDs, and other governmental IDs like military and similar IDs, which don't require going to the DMV, and cover pretty much everyone who is likely to be missing them.
In the end, though, it isn't all about what harm voter ID laws may do. It is about creating more of a burden on voting for zero reason, which makes it bad policy. There is NO EVIDENCE that any type of voter fraud exists in any amount that actually affects elections. Boards of Elections all over the country agree with that,
the Brennan Center for Justice agrees with that,
the US Department of Justice agrees with that.
And FINALLY, whatever you may believe the actual effect is, there stands the fact that Republicans have been quoted as saying the stated goal of their efforts have been to help Romney win with voter ID laws.
And the fact remains that some Democrats 1) publicly support the suppression of minorities, a la the KKK, and 2) support Voter ID. Should these be construed to mean that the entire Democrat organization nationwide supports Voter ID to suppress minorities as well? Also, you never answered my other question - who were the Democrats in Rhode Island and Kansas wishing to oppress?
As for the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT? I'm sorry, this Justice Department cannot be trusted by anyone - they were handed a case of clear voter oppression and intimidation with video evidence and dropped prosecution of it - then trying to cover up the fact that they dropped it for political reasons (
Black Panther case). They channeled firearms to Mexico illegally resulting in hundreds of deaths including several of US citizens and law enforcement officers (Fast And Furious). They have investigated opponents and critics of the administration in what appears to be some attempt at Chicago-machine style intimidation (Gibson Guitars, Gallup Polls, more.)
The Justice Department says this is okay and not intimidation at ALL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
And as for zero reason - I'm sorry, but if you want me to start listing media reports of indictments and convictions for in-person voter fraud, we're going to be here a while. There are good reasons for Voter ID. Not least of which is getting more people to vote, but also providing at least some initial barrier against Mr. Smith (not real name) coming and voting as four or more different people during the course of one day, as I have seen in more than one election. As the Democrat legislator in Rhode Island that started Voter ID there was, I was disgusted with the whole thing after witnessing blatant voter fraud and supported the idea ever after. But, voter fraud doesn't matter, right?
Oh, wait...
As you liberals like to say, "It's for the children! If it only saves ONE child, isn't it worth it?" Well, by that logic, if it only stops one fraudulent vote (and therefore disenfranchising someone else), it must be worth it.
