|
Series DD Funding posted:Still waiting on proof that Crosscheck actually disenfranchised people instead of conjecture. Al-Jazeera story on CrossCheck. quote:Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, have launched a program that threatens a massive purge of voters from the rolls. Millions, especially black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters, are at risk. Already, tens of thousands have been removed in at least one battleground state, and the numbers are expected to climb, according to a six-month-long, nationwide investigation by Al Jazeera America. At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. Until now, state elections officials have refused to turn over their Crosscheck lists, some on grounds that these voters are subject to criminal investigation. Now, for the first time, three states — Georgia, Virginia and Washington — have released their lists to Al Jazeera America, providing a total of just over 2 million names.The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud. The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities. Enough proof for you? Just in case, here's the followup story: "Not everyone on the Crosscheck lists loses their vote. But the purges are, nevertheless, huge. Just one state, Virginia, canceled the registrations of 41,637 voters last year, 13.5 percent of those on the list — and has since announced it will remove many more." Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 27, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Al-Jazeera story on CrossCheck. I've already seen those links. 41,637 canceled VA registrations and al-jazeera couldn't find a single person who tried to vote but failed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I've already seen those links. 41,637 canceled VA registrations and al-jazeera couldn't find a single person who tried to vote but failed. Why would you go to the polls when the state refused to accept your registration?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I've already seen those links. 41,637 canceled VA registrations and al-jazeera couldn't find a single person who tried to vote but failed. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6076536 I know you're going to say "but this is different from crosscheck  " but the point is that the voter id laws are at their heart aimed at making it more difficult to vote. There is negligible voter fraud. The effects of the voter id laws are not negligible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
The cognitive dissonance of the right is frustrating as the handful of actual cases of fraud were carried out by right wingers, not to mention the increase in regulation and government tyranny is directly counter to their mission statement. Not to mention the overreaching destruction of individual state rights with garbage like crosscheck. It's not about discrimination though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Istvun posted:Why would you go to the polls when the state refused to accept your registration? If you had bothered to read the links, you would know her claim is that people were having their current and legally valid registrations canceled with little or no due process. In that case, you should be able to dig up approximately 20k Virginians with stories of their names not in the rolls on Election Day or letters from the VA SBE canceling their registration. Lemming posted:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6076536 Not a fan of voter id but lol at the people who think they could vote on out-of-state ids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Not a fan of voter id but lol at the people who think they could vote on out-of-state ids. There's a Supreme Court decision that says that students get to vote where they go to school. Symm v. United States, 1979. HuffPo has a writeup on how it's being violated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If you had bothered to read the links, you would know her claim is that people were having their current and legally valid registrations canceled with little or no due process. In that case, you should be able to dig up approximately 20k Virginians with stories of their names not in the rolls on Election Day or letters from the VA SBE canceling their registration. The first year I lived in Kansas I was able to vote with my Michigan DL but that's probably because I'm white
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Not a fan of voter id but lol at the people who think they could vote on out-of-state ids. You can in Georgia, as long as it is valid (not expired). You can also use an expired Georgia license.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Not a fan of voter id but lol at the people who think they could vote on out-of-state ids. I can and do with the addition of a utility bill. Even without either I could just bring an otherwise qualified voter willing to say I live in the right place with me and register on the same day because Minnesota.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Not a fan of voter id but lol at the people who think they could vote on out-of-state ids. Why. Does moving to a different place magically make my identity card not indicate my identity? What is the purpose of showing an ID to vote: to prove you're the same person who registered, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
It also indicates state residency
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well what in the hell does he think the Constitution was for? It's in the first goddamn sentence, "establish justice". "Justice" to Clarence Thomas does not mean functional equality, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It also indicates state residency College students often register to vote in the state they reside in for school rather than their home state. This is legal and allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:College students often register to vote in the state they reside in for school rather than their home state. This is legal and allowed. If they are actually residents of the college state, yes, which something like an out-of-state DL would serve as evidence against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It also indicates state residency No, it indicates your identity to be checked against a state registry of voters in the case of voter ID. You can reside in one state temporarily while holding a licence from another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If they are actually residents of the college state, yes, which something like an out-of-state DL would serve as evidence against. You can qualify for residency in multiple places, you just have to pick one to vote in. There was a Supreme Court decision on this one, there isn't on whatever the DMV wants to count as residency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If they are actually residents of the college state, yes, which something like an out-of-state DL would serve as evidence against. No you can register to vote in the state you go to college in, even if you don't live there. I've lived in New York most of my life but I first registered to vote in Pennsylvania because I went to college there, even though I never was a resident of that state
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can qualify for residency in multiple places, you just have to pick one to vote in. There was a Supreme Court decision on this one, there isn't on whatever the DMV wants to count as residency. Cite that case please. Scrub-Niggurath posted:No you can register to vote in the state you go to college in, even if you don't live there. I've lived in New York most of my life but I first registered to vote in Pennsylvania because I went to college there, even though I never was a resident of that state https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/student-voting-guide-faq quote:Some states base their voting residency laws on "domicile." Domicile is usually defined as more than residence. In order to establish domicile, you must intend to make a place your home, and not just physically live there. Even when the word "domicile" isn't used in defining where you can vote, the concept of legal residence for voting may rely a lot on ideas about domicile. There are two things that can be tricky for students about establishing domicile at a school address. First, there's usually a presumption against changing your domicile, meaning that you usually keep your old domicile until you gain a new one, even if you've moved out of your old domicile. Under these guidelines, most students' default domicile is their parents' house. Second, in order to establish a new domicile you often need to assert an intention to remain somewhere permanently or indefinitely, in other words, to make it your permanent home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:It also indicates state residency Eligibility to vote in that state is determined when you register, not at the polls on voting day. Try again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eligibility to vote in that state is determined when you register, not at the polls on voting day. Try again. And if you lose residency in a state, you can't vote there anymore. You know, the reason Crosscheck exists, besides of course the conspiracy that apparently involved Alison Grimes' super-secret plan to steal the election from herself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:"Justice" to Clarence Thomas does not mean functional equality, though. I give up -- trying to think like Thomas has bent my brain, as I suspect it has bent his. What does it mean to him then? I'm gripping my head in consternation and confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Cite that case please. I already did. Symm v. United States, 1979.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Guys, I'm not a fan of voter ID, just watch as I defend it to the death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And if you lose residency in a state, you can't vote there anymore. An out-of-state ID is not proof that you're ineligible to vote, and an in-state ID isn't proof that you didn't vote somewhere else, so it's useless for what you're claiming it will do. joeburz posted:Guys, I'm not a fan of voter ID, just watch as I defend it to the death. Even the worthless requirements that are only a nuisance and don't fight fraud, I really want to defend those too for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
"I'm not racist, I just have no problem with the intentionally disparate racial impact of these laws which govern who is and is not represented in our democracy"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I already did. Symm v. United States, 1979. Which does not stand for the proposition that someone can choose between voting residencies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Which does not stand for the proposition that someone can choose between voting residencies. How does "students can choose to register to vote at their temporary college residence or at their permanent home address" not fit that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:How does "students can choose to register to vote at their temporary college residence or at their permanent home address" not fit that? Because the case doesn't stand for that either!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
What does the case stand for then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Maybe it's because words like "arbitrary" and "capricious" are just too loving complicated for these hicks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Uh, why not? You're OK with someone being denied the right to vote because their boss wouldn't allow them the time off necessary to go get their state voter ID card? If we have polls open only 2 months before the election instead of a full 3 months, you are probably going to have at least one person who somehow is unable to vote in the final 2 months, but can vote 3 months before. You gotta draw the line somewhere, kinda like we have to just be OK with having a few dead grasshoppers per ton of lettuce in food inspections or whatever the food safety standards are. The standard can't just be zero people inconvenienced when voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:If we have polls open only 2 months before the election instead of a full 3 months, you are probably going to have at least one person who somehow is unable to vote in the final 2 months, but can vote 3 months before. You gotta draw the line somewhere, kinda like we have to just be OK with having a few dead grasshoppers per ton of lettuce in food inspections or whatever the food safety standards are. The standard can't just be zero people inconvenienced when voting. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even the worthless requirements that are only a nuisance and don't fight fraud, I really want to defend those too for some reason. My issue is that the reaction to the VRA decision and voter ID laws looks hilariously over the top to me. Folks, its really not that big of a deal, virtually everyone has ID. These dumb old white guys can't stop demographics, the conservatives are literally dying off every year. That decision was really not very important, at all. If voter fraud is just dumb paranoia, fine. States can pass dumb unnecessary laws. Kinda like a neighborhood with a street that is completely safe but the elderly neighbors are complaining about cars going too fast, at some point the town is going to throw their hands up and put up the stupid 25mph sign or stop sign thats not needed just so the community feels better about something they didn't need to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
The amount of voter fraud that voter id protects against is minuscule compared to the amount of people disenfranchised so there is literally no reason to enact voter id laws except to disenfranchise people you don't want voting. You don't care because you're not one of those people and a bad person, but I'm guessing if the policy was 'Northjawhawk is no longer allowed to vote' you would feel differently even though it would have a negligible impact on elections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:My issue is that the reaction to the VRA decision and voter ID laws looks hilariously over the top to me. Folks, its really not that big of a deal, virtually everyone has ID. These dumb old white guys can't stop demographics, the conservatives are literally dying off every year. That decision was really not very important, at all. It is important, actually
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
A comparison to food purity standards is a bad one, since the individual and collective harms under the food purity standard are nonexistent- they don't exist. An individual being illegally deprived of poll access is already an immediate harm. There are also harmful social externalities when individuals are unable to vote that don't analogize to the FDA example, mostly having to do with expectation effects. That's before the removal of poll access has a nonrandom distribution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The amount of voter fraud that voter id protects against is minuscule compared to the amount of people disenfranchised so there is literally no reason to enact voter id laws except to disenfranchise people you don't want voting. You don't care because you're not one of those people and a bad person, but I'm guessing if the policy was 'Northjawhawk is no longer allowed to vote' you would feel differently even though it would have a negligible impact on elections. Making people feel better about the validity of elections is not a big fat zero. Even if their concerns are silly, if voter ID laws make them more likely to accept the outcome of the election as real, then that has value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Making people feel better about the validity of elections is not a big fat zero. Even if their concerns are silly, if voter ID laws make them more likely to accept the outcome of the election as real, then that has value. I .... what do you think the effect of disenfranchising people is??!? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
The concerns of white people are more important than the rights of minorities
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 04:49
|
|