ilikebeans wrote:Q1: What studies/statistics show that, for the other six states with strict photo voter ID laws, fraudulent voting at the ballot box decreased as a direct result of the law?
Five states passed the laws this year so we'll have to await the statistics but former Elections Board commissioner Hans von Spakovsky points out
Some opponents have tried to narrow down the argument, claiming that voter ID can stop only impersonation fraud, and that this particular type of fraud is rare or nonexistent. But as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in the Indiana case, the relative rarity of prosecutions for impersonation fraud can be “explained by the endemic underenforcement” of voter-fraud cases and “the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator” without the tools — a photo ID — needed to detect such fraud.
One of the most egregious examples was revealed by a Brooklyn grand jury in 1984, a case the New York Times conveniently ignores whenever it rails against voter ID. The grand jury detailed a widespread conspiracy that operated without detection for 14 years, involving not only impersonation of voters at the polls, but also voting under fictitious names that had been successfully registered. Thousands of fraudulent votes were cast in state and congressional elections.
David Blaska wrote:Placing a mark on drivers licenses denoting felon is under consideration.
ilikebeans wrote:Q2: What is your source on this?
Q3: Assuming this plan passes, how would the law prevent felons from voting if they presented an ID other than their driver's license?
It is something I heard directly from a legislator. It is not difficult to replicate the requirement on the few other forms of I.D. Wisconsin recognizes. For instance, I do not believe passports are issued to felons. The certificate of naturalization must be issued within 2 years of an election so that pretty much precludes felon status. Or do you think felons should be able to vote? That's a question, Beans.
ilikebeans wrote:Q4: Please cite numbers to show that prosecuting the current low numbers of fraudulent voters (11 charged in 2010) is more expensive to state taxpayers than the estimated $6 million this year and $4 million/year after this law will cost.
These are largely one-time start-up costs, if accurate. Now, I ask you, what is the dollar cost of a crooked election? Why did Joanne Kloppenburg ask for a recount in 72 counties when only Waukesha County was (arguably) in question. Furthermore, you continue to make the illogical leap that 11 fraudulent voters is the sum total of voter fraud in WI. That is the number adjudicated.
Now, Beans, why did the Democrat-majority Rhode Island legislature and governor sign its own voter I.D. law. As Von Spakovsky writes,
Von Spakovsky wrote: State senator Harold Metts, a black Democrat whose support of Rhode Island’s voter-ID bill angered the ACLU and other leftist organizations, said he was “more interested in doing the right thing and stopping voter fraud.”
Numerous studies — including those by the Heritage Foundation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln — have looked at data from many states and several elections and concluded that voter ID does not depress turnout. In fact, the Delaware/Nebraska study said that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”