Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

[Greenday]

Oh, this is RICH!!!

Gravekeeper is bitching at me, yet CANADA (where I believe he is, if I'm not mistaken) actually HAS voter ID laws...

Oh, the irony...

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all Canadians get IDs for health insurance, that thing they are all given by the government without being bankrupted of their paychecks?

The difference is the Republicans want to choose IDs that involve paying money which is un-Constitutional.

[jackfaire]

To this point, I'd think that it would be fairly easy to come up with "work arounds" for situations such as these..

There actually are which is why voter ID laws never get presented in my state because they wouldn't work for their inteneded purposed to disenfranchise voters.

In my state you can register while renewing your ID and the state if you are eligible will give it to you at cost for $5.

Also they send everyone a mail in ballot. You can go in person but you don't have to. This increases the amount of people voting by making it so if they can't take off the day they still can. The ballot is a double envelope system and you have to sign it if the signature doesn't match the one you signed for your state issued ID card then your vote doesn't count. If you're worried about your signature disqualifying your vote then you show up to a polling station to vote.

So you would think that if Voter ID laws were really only to weed out voter fraud

You could even put in the same bill a program to get people who need assistance acquiring an ID to get an ID so disenfranchisement wouldn't happen. Judges throw out Voter IDs a lot because they have never been introduced for the purposes of combating Voter Fraud. If they were then a simultaneous program to assist the people targeted by such a bill not be targeted would be introduced as well.

[jackfaire]

Why does anyone have to take off at all to vote? Why doesn't America treat voting seriously like other countries and make it a national holiday? America's voter turnout is a joke and this is a big reason for it.

Because everyone wants the day off but no one wants anyone else to have the day off. There are even a lot of people that have to work on Christmas and just about everywhere is closed on Christmas.

Giving every citizen the day off would mean closing service industries and that's where the people are hardest hit for not being able to take time off to vote. Schools are most often used as polling places so teachers don't usually need the day off they just take turns covering each other or go at lunch or after work."

My state lets us do mail in ballots if we need to. If I want to take time off of most of the jobs I have had it's not possible without taking vacation time because god forbid I not be there to take their call.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all Canadians get IDs for health insurance, that thing they are all given by the government without being bankrupted of their paychecks?

The difference is the Republicans want to choose IDs that involve paying money which is un-Constitutional.

But, it is Constitutional for me to have to pay money to get a card to invoke my 2nd Amendment rights?

[Kheldarson]

But, it is Constitutional for me to have to pay money to get a card to invoke my 2nd Amendment rights?

Yes. Because, honestly, the idea that everybody and their brother could have a gun "just because" didn't pop up until 2008. And given that a gun is far more dangerous and requires you to, you know, pay for the gun, you can go get a card that says you know how to use it.

[jackfaire]

But, it is Constitutional for me to have to pay money to get a card to invoke my 2nd Amendment rights?

You have to do the same before getting behind the wheel of a car.

While I will agree a car is the deadlier weapon it's intention is not to be a weapon but transport. Expecting people to know how to use a weapon whose primary function is to kill makes a lot of sense.

Only one of my friends is allowed to Carry concealed in my home and that's because she's undergone extensive police level training on how to use her firearm. Sidenote she's not a cop and she did the training voluntarily because while she wants to have the protection she also doesn't want to be responsible for taking an innocent life.

I don't have a huge issue with people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights but you know what I am a shitty farmer. I couldn't farm to save my life but if you dropped me into the time where that Amendment was passed I would have to learn how to farm really bloody quickly if I wanted to survive.

The 2nd Amendment was created in a time when a person not knowing how to use a firearm was the exception. These days many people who own firearms only for protection and never go to a range and have never fired a weapon don't really know what they are doing. Because it's not a part of daily life anymore.

And just like we wouldn't hand an 18 year old kid that's never driven a day in their life a license we also shouldn't just hand over a gun for the same reason.

And that's usually the thing the argument is usually "we should have classes and tests etc"

My dad made me and my brother take 3 weeks of gun safety courses before we were allowed to go on a hunting trip with him.

Background checks and Psych evals too sure but the woman who killed the victim of a carjacking while trying to shoot the carjacker was sane and had passed a background check. But guess what isn't mandatory.

[wolfie]

Good idea (seriously, that's not a bad idea at all -- though I don't know about mandating voting), but to play Devil's Advocate: Let me turn it around. Under that system, what about those who don't have access to a computer/transportation/whatever? How would they vote? And what about people for whom it's actually illegal to vote? Like green card holders, felons, and illegal immigrants? It's the same sort of deal, isn't it?

Voting by computer, especially an arbitrary (i.e. the person's own) computer connected to the tally system via an insecure connection (internet) is a BAD idea - see the Risks digest for numerous examples. A paper ballot is still pretty much the easiest way to maintain integrity. Using computers to assist the process (e.g. counting ballots, data entry verification to catch "overvotes" and warn of "undervotes, then marking the ballot when the voter gives the OK) is fine, since the voter can verify that their ballot was marked with their selections before depositing it in the box, and the paper ballots are available for a manual recount.

As for mandatory voting and people not eligible to vote, the legislation can easily include a clause that exempts people who are not eligible.

Keys to ensuring the integrity of an election:

- Ensure that people who are eligible can register
- Ensure that people who are not eligible can't register
- Ensure that the person casting the vote is who they say they are (mail ballots fail this one - in an abusive relationship, the abuser can easily force their victim to mark their ballot the way the abuser wants, in the privacy of the home so nobody else sees what's happening.
- Ensure that the record of votes matches how the voters actually voted

[mjr]

The difference is the Republicans want to choose IDs that involve paying money which is un-Constitutional.

That's an easy fix, though. And as a taxpayer, I'd honestly be willing to foot the bill for a "free" photo ID for those who can't afford one.

[mjr]

Voting by computer, especially an arbitrary (i.e. the person's own) computer connected to the tally system via an insecure connection (internet) is a BAD idea - see the Risks digest for numerous examples. A paper ballot is still pretty much the easiest way to maintain integrity. Using computers to assist the process (e.g. counting ballots, data entry verification to catch "overvotes" and warn of "undervotes, then marking the ballot when the voter gives the OK) is fine, since the voter can verify that their ballot was marked with their selections before depositing it in the box, and the paper ballots are available for a manual recount.

I do agree with you there. Votes are also supposed to be anonymous, so I'm not sure how tying them to IRS tax records would help, now that I think about it.

Although I suppose you could send a card/form/whatever to the taxpayer with a unique ID on it, and they could bring that with them, show it to the clerk at the polling station, and have to sign a form that basically says, "I understand that if I'm lying about who I say I am, I can get my ass thrown in jail for a long time", then something like that might work.

You hand them the form with the ID number on it, they match it up, and hand you the form. You sign it, you get a ballot.

That way, all they know is you voted. There's no real way to tie it to who you voted for.

[s_stabeler]

actually, that - with some supervision to ensure that everyone eligible to vote received the form- would be fine. the issue isn't with requiring you to prove who you are- it's that voter ID laws require you to purchase an ID in order to vote, and the requirement to purchase an ID veers a little too close for comfort to some of the Jim Crow laws.(specifically, ones requiring you to pay a tax to vote)

That, and I do worry that an " enterprising" politician could arrange for games to be played regarding if the proof of ID their opponents' supporters provide to get the ID is accepted.

[Greenday]

That's an easy fix, though. And as a taxpayer, I'd honestly be willing to foot the bill for a "free" photo ID for those who can't afford one.

If it's such an easy fix, why is the Republican party purposely trying to make it so it's not free to register?

[jackfaire]

- Ensure that the person casting the vote is who they say they are (mail ballots fail this one - in an abusive relationship, the abuser can easily force their victim to mark their ballot the way the abuser wants, in the privacy of the home so nobody else sees what's happening.

Without mail ballots the working poor would never get a say. Even if they declared National Voting Day a Federal Holiday the working poor would till not be able to vote without a mail in ballot. Just ask how many of them have to work on Christmas because enough middle class assholes (those that are not that all are) demanded shop owners keep open coffee shops, restaurants, and grocery stores forcing people who can't afford to tell their boss "Hey but I have to vote too I need the day off" if they want to keep their jobs.

I was working as a clerk and I lost my job because my boss gave me the wrong work schedule then admitted it was his mistake but counted it against me and when I called in sick fired me. Because I didn't understand what FMLA is and at the time no employer ever explained FMLA seriously there should be a law that forces them to educate employees on this. Too many think they have to show up when their kids are sick or lose their jobs.

As for the abusive thing there are few people in that kind of situation that wouldn't vote in public for who they were told to vote for by the abusive partner if that is really something the abusive person cared about enough to make a big deal of.

When you're in an abusive relationship there is an irrational level of paranoia that any "defiance" will be detected and get you into trouble.

The kid who, and yes the article makes it pretty clear that it's one kid acting on his own, forged registrations. Quick question was he being paid for how many registrations he got?

He personally has nothing to gain by registering voters who.....will never vote. See that's the thing to keep in mind even if the kid registers a bunch of dead people whose going to cast those dead people ballots oh right no one.

He's not the first one to be caught registering dead people but every investigation thus far turned up it wasn't voter fraud. In every previous case it was because kids being sent around to register people are paid based on how many people they can register. This creates false registrations that go on to not vote. Because their dead.

But rather than passing laws to prevent these false registrations like pay the kids a flat rate for time worked instead of for amount of registrations. or just pay them a specific amount of money for turning in completed registration forms regardless of how many their are. Instead these cases are used to try and justify Voter ID laws that are continually rule unconstitutional.

Also note that these Voter ID Laws are seldom reintroduced after the election's over. Odd that. Really if you want to make sure the election isn't rigged wouldn't you do so four years before the election rather than try to rush in laws at the last minute that only serve to suddenly disqualify voters for the other side.

And both sides do this. If you watch in the two months leading up to an election states all over the country suddenly introduce laws and practices to try and give their side an edge screaming about how it's unfair if these laws that are usually thrown out by judges don't go into place. Then they all shut up after the election and don't bring up these laws they cared oh so much about two days before.

Funny that.

[mjr]

If it's such an easy fix, why is the Republican party purposely trying to make it so it's not free to register?

AFAIK, no one is saying that. The discussion is about IDs, not registering to vote. They are two different things. That's also why pollsters talk about "registered voters" vs "likely voters". Because not everyone who is registered to vote will do so, for whatever reason.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The sticky wicket here is that "photo id" is one of the more bureaucratic things to establish because so many other things depend on it. You have to be able to legally establish your identity to the clerk. That means inevitably that it is not as simple as "just go down there and do it."

It often entails a hunt for long lost documentation that most people who had parents could easily establish when they were 16 but becomes much harder at 52. Then there's things like this http://www.dps.texas.gov/internetforms/Forms/DL-62.pdf which is Texas. This means an applicant can be on the hook as the DPS and DHS jockey back and forth with documents until approval. You may be asked for multiple supporting documents. And some of the documents are far more likely to be found in affluent households than not. Some documents are extremely difficult to reproduce. If you were born in a house and you're family never applied - you're basically screwed as far as a current election goes because just getting a birth certificate or certificate of live birth can be problematic.

So this issue with ID immediately becomes it holds up and stops certain groups of people from continuing either because they are legit missing something or through attrition through the bureaucratic process they're going through.

We know statistically it disproportionately hits people of color (which is why the Supreme Court struck it down). And because it does it in such a larger proportion than supposed "ID" fraud, it's "which problem do you find acceptable?"

Simplified do you want to do the less than 1% fraudualent voter or the 5%-10% legit voter stopped by a bureaucracy.

But I also have very hardcore (to a silly degree) views on this. For me, I'd be extremely lax in allowing people to vote but if you can prove voter tampering, voter fraud, or voter suppression - death penalty. Absurdly severe, yea I know. But from my perspective we use the death penalty in treason cases and deliberately subverting the will of the electorate should be treason (the US supposedly being a grand experiment in self government). That goes for individual voters that try it, electoral officials that are running a game, and politicians that intentionally try to subvert voting rights. I think we ought to treat it far more severely than we do.

[Greenday]

AFAIK, no one is saying that. The discussion is about IDs, not registering to vote. They are two different things. That's also why pollsters talk about "registered voters" vs "likely voters". Because not everyone who is registered to vote will do so, for whatever reason.

It's exactly what we are talking about. The Republicans only want to make legal IDs that cost money.