by Darryl, 12/13/2011, 12:09 PM

The bad news is that up to 5 million voters may be disenfranchised by new state voting laws according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice.

The good news is that the Justice Department has noticed:

The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008.

A dozen states this year tightened rules requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have been raising alarms about the remaining laws, calling them an “assault on democracy” and an attempt to depress minority voter turnout.

In Wisconsin, new voter ID laws, and the specific ID requirements have resulted in numerous anecdotes of hurdles and disenfranchisement that will disproportionality affect people who lean Democratic: the young, the old, the poor, those without a drivers license, students, and minorities.

It’s legalized election fraud brought on by a systematic Republican effort to suppress Democratic voting blocks.

I’ll add my anecdote from Wisconsin, where most of my family lives.

My niece—let’s call her Maria Elaine Valdez Holman—recently turned 18. Because of a disability, Maria does not drive. So she recently got a ride to a Department of Motor Vehicles office from her occupational therapist, to get a state ID card, specifically with the intent of using it to vote. When her turn came, she showed her birth certificate and a high school photo ID as proof of her identification.

She was told she would need a Social Security card. Without it, she could not get an ID card.

She couldn’t find her Social Security card, so she used her birth certificate and high school ID card to get a replacement.

After another ride to the DMV and another wait in line, she shows them her high school photo ID, her birth certificate, and the temporary Social Security card that is issued on the spot. And she is told that the temporary Social Security card is not valid for getting an ID. Yeah…you can use it to get a job but, apparently, not an state ID. She would have to wait until her “permanent” Social Security card arrived and try again.

Her “permanent” Social Security card arrives, and she gets another ride to the DMV and waits her turn. She shows them her high school photo ID, her birth certificate, and her Social Security card. This time she is told she cannot be given an ID because…her birth certificate has her four names: Maria Elaine Valdez Holman listed, in that order, spelled correctly, but it does not clearly identify what name or names are her middle name(s) and surname(s). She is told she would have to apply for another birth certificate that clearly labels each part of her name.

At this point she requests a supervisor, who sheepishly agrees with his underling, that her birth certificate just won’t do. Never mind that it was fine for getting her Social Security card. Never mind that her mother used it to get a passport when Maria was a small child (the passport is now expired).

She argued fruitlessly to the point that she got quite angry, and finally screamed out, “What are you? Scott Walker’s cock suckers?” (Oh dear! My sweet, demure niece. Has she been reading HorsesAss.Org or something?)

Her friend spirited Maria away before she did something rash…like plunge her hands into their chests and withdrawing their beating hearts. Or twisting their testicles off.

When my sister conveyed this story to me, I suggested that Maria renew her passport, and then see if showing her high school photo ID, her “faulty” birth certificate, her “permanent” Social Security card, and her shiny new, high tech, hologram-bearing Passport would be enough to get a state ID.

I believe a passport would be sufficient to vote, but I hope she pursues a state ID anyway. It will be interesting to see just how far Walker’s cock suckers will go to suppress the vote of a young, non-car driving, disabled, female student with a Hispanic surname.

Or is that her middle name?

Update: The story continues here.

60 Responses to “Republican voter suppression: Maria’s Story”

1. Steve spews:

As James Watt said back during the Reagan administration, there are liberals and there are Americans. So it makes perfect sense to today’s wingnut to deny anyone they don’t consider American the right to vote. They know what they do is wrong, because they whine that it’s about stopping voter fraud. Horseshit. The truth is, in their quest for power and to satisfy their insatiable greed, they’ll willingly deny people who don’t vote for them their rights.

It’s not the only means of voter suppression they have up their sleeve. Voting machine distribution. Scare tactics. Caging. If all else fails, maybe they’ll send Ohio’s votes to Tennessee again like they did in 2004 for, um, a little manipulation for the cause.

2. Steve spews:

Voter fraud. It makes sense when one realizes that wingnuts believe anyone who isn’t marching lockstep with them isn’t a Real American. So any liberal vote is a fraudulant vote and wingnuts are damn well justified in taking away our rights.

3. Evergreen Libertarian spews:

She should send letters to the editor and anyone else in the news business who knows how to read.

4. dutch spews:

the DMV was correct in not issuing her a ID. Even in liberal WA there will be no IDs for fictious persons.
Come on Darryl, even you can do better.

5. Deathfrogg spews:

@ 4

lolwhut?

6. N in Seattle spews:

Even an expired passport qualifies as proof of citizenship. At least, for the United States (I’m not sure whether it’s enough for Walker’s Wisconsin).

7. Deathfrogg spews:

@ 6

In Walkers Wisconsin, and several other states, if your surname isn’t from Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany (especially Germany) Belgium, Italy or it can be shown that you cannot possibly be an American by your surname, they will find a way to disqualify you.

The GOP must suppress legitimate votes to gain office. It cannot continue as a Political party establishment, or achieve public office otherwise. The best and most obvious way to do this, is to reject anyone not having a White-sounding surname. The GOP is the political arm of the KKK.

8. rhp6033 spews:

Want to bet that in Tennessee, another state requiring specific types of voter ID, someone bearing a birth certificate showing their name as Bobbie Jo or Billy Ray will not have to apply for another birth certificate indicating which is the middle or last names?

9. rhp6033 spews:

# 7: Agreed. It’s the equivilency of the old literary tests in the South. They made sure nobody passed it. One of the reasons the NAACP was able to challenge those practices in court was to bring in black professers of Constitutional Law to apply to vote. They were all told they couldn’t read well enough to pass the test. White voters were never given the test at all.

10. rhp6033 spews:

Let’s review for a moment some of the tactics used by the Republican Secty of State in Ohio to suppress Democratic votes in 2004:

1. Caging of precincts which traditionally voted Democratic, with particular emphasis on black precincts and those with a number of residents serving overseas in the military. Any postcards returned (as were all sent to APO addresses) were striken from the voting list without further notice or opportunity to respond. Those voting by mail (as with most military ballots) were simply not counted, the voter never learned they were rejected. Voters appearing in person who found their names not on the rolls were given provisional ballots, but those too were simply not counted, the voters were never informed.

2. Interruption of GOTV campaigns, including hiring telemarketing companies to flood Democratic GOTV phone banks in a denial of service attack. Those seeking a ride to the polls simply got a busy signal most of the day.

3. Re-organizing polling machines so that Republican precincts received more than they could ever use, and Democratic precincts received far less than needed. Some precincts reported that voters were waiting for several hours to vote – many gave up because they had to go to work.

4. Closing polls early in Democratic precincts – in precincts where there were long lines of Democratic voters seeking to vote, the Secty of State ordered the doors to be closed and voters outside the doors to be told the polls were closed and they should go home. This was contrary to state law, which said that anyone in line at the time of a poll closing still had a right to vote. Lawyers immediately went to court to get an injunction, but the whole process took a couple of hours and by the time they arrived back at the precinct with the orders for the doors to be re-opened, the voters and poll workers were gone, the doors locked, and the lights were turned out. (Notably, poll workers in Republican precincts took a lot longer to close up, even though they had no lines and lower vote counts – apparantly the orders came in to close up and get out while the judge was still hearing arguments on the motion).

11. rhp6033 spews:

Remember also that here in Washington State, in the electorial challenge of 2004, Republicans sought to put voters on the stand in court and require them to testify, under oath, who they voted for.

If they have there way, there would be no such thing as a secret ballot, and your employment would be subject to review of your voting record by your employer.

12. Darryl spews:

Dutch @ 4,

“the DMV was correct in not issuing her a ID. Even in liberal WA there will be no IDs for fictious [sic] persons.”

You seem pretty cock-sure of yourself, there, Squirt. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

How ’bout this: I’ll bet you $1,000 Maria Elaine Valdez Holman is a real person as I described (although, as I allude to, I disguised her real name).

Here are the rules.

1. We both deposit $1000 checks with someone mutually agreeable, and who agrees to act as moderator. (Just to make it easy for you, I’ll nominate Stefan Sharkansky and Reporter Ward–we would just need one of them to agree to moderate.)

2. I will provide the moderator with evidence for Maria’s existence, including her real name, and enough documentation to establish her as the non-fictitious person I wrote about.

3. If the moderator is convinced, your check is sent to the charity of my choice. If I cannot produce convincing evidence that she is a real person, my check goes to the charity of your choice.

How ’bout it, hot shot?

13. Politically Incorrect spews:

Vote early and often!

14. SomeRepublicanDullard spews:

@7
They let drunken, papist, breeders, like the Irish vote in WI? You let stuff like that go on, then you get what you’ve got coming to you.

15. Roger Rabbit spews:

“It will be interesting to see just how far Walker’s cock suckers will go to suppress the vote of a young, non-car driving, disabled, female student with a Hispanic surname.”

I’m thinking, if he gets desperate enough, he might post armed thugs at polling stations to kill anyone who looks like an opposition voter, like African dictators do.

16. puddybud spews:

Just went to the Wisconsin site to see what were the ID Requirements. Gov. Scott Walker new photo ID requirement for Wisconsin elections starts in 2012. So that Wisconsin department is working under the old law. And who was the governor then? Jim Doyle a DUMMOCRAPT. So Darryl’s niece is actually receiving service under the previous laws.

Butt, y’all need to rag on something as always and facts never stand in the way of a good libtard HA rant..

p.s. … Wait for it… rujax will call me a liar! He won’t research it and put forth a rebuttal cuz when it’s on HA it’s ABSOLUTELY correct.

17. Roger Rabbit spews:

Actually the polls are so lopsided against Scott Walker that I don’t think disenfranchising your niece will be enough to save his sorry ass.

18. Michael spews:

Here’s the list of what you need in get an ID in WA.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/idproof.html#identity

Here’s WI’s. It looks like a valid passport would do it.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

19. puddybud spews:

I believe a passport would be sufficient to vote, but I hope she pursues a state ID anyway. It will be interesting to see just how far Walker’s cock suckers will go to suppress the vote of a young, non-car driving, disabled, female student with a Hispanic surname.

So is this paragraph a lie?

You decide. It’s still 2011. The new law takes effect in 19 days.

It’s so sad to see the standard HA moonbats never checking facts. They are just a bunch of lemmings following any thread writing pied piper. It took me 30 seconds to look up both facts.

20. Deathfrogg spews:

Wow Spudds. You really do put an extraordinary amount of effort into being a complete fucking moron.

21. Pete spews:

@16, @19 She wasn’t voting – the new law is about what IDs are required in order to vote. She was trying to get a state-issued ID, where the new requirements are already in effect.

But then, I suspect you know that. You’ll say anything to defense the indefensible if it’s an R doing it, won’t you?

22. Steve spews:

Wingnuts do love them some brown people when they’re little zygotes and blastocysts. Once born, eh, not so much. Certainly not when they become of age and seek a voter ID.

Rush Limbaugh sez of hungry little children, “Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple.”

Wanton kids? Hmm, that’s probably just Rush’s little blue pills speaking for him again.

Republicans are too weird. I’m thinking that they only want to save zygotes and blastocysts so they can fuck them once they’re born.

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/Pedophiles.html

23. dorky dorkman spews:

re 19:

So is this paragraph a lie?

You decide. It’s still 2011. The new law takes effect in 19 days.

…and no one would ever stoop to disobeying the current law? Voter suppression is and always has been a myth?

24. Darryl spews:

Puddybud @ 16,

“Wait for it… rujax will call me a liar! “

Naaa…your not lying. You’re just too fucking stupid to know what you are talking about.

Most of the “Enrolled 2011 Assembly Bill 7″ went into effect on the date of publication, which happens to be June 10, 2011 (see Photo ID Law Update #1: Changes to the Election Process Effective Immediately for the first set of changes)

One provision of the bill, the VOTING ID REQUIREMENT, goes into effect in Feb 2012 (hence Maria’s need to obtain an ID to vote).

Another part of the bill, that provides for free IDs for people without a drivers license, kicked in at the start of the fiscal year (July 1). That program has been subject to much criticism because numerous hurdles like long lines, an administrative directive to NOT inform people they can get the ID for free, and an overly strict interpretation of the ID requirements. Besides Maria’s story, I linked to one other such tale, here’s another, and another–I’ve read dozens more like it.

P.S. Puddy…you might be amused to learn that this comment was trapped by the spam filter. I had to release my own freakin’ comment!

25. Roger Rabbit spews:

This is how Republicans behave in Wisconsin.

http://www.wisn.com/r/29982716/detail.html

The good news is this thug was identified and arrested. Even better news, Walker recall supporters have collected over 450,000 signatures.

26. Darryl spews:

Puddybud @ 19

“So is this paragraph a lie?”

Nope. There was nothing misleading in it.

“You decide. It’s still 2011. The new law takes effect in 19 days.”

You’re mistaken in three ways. First, parts of the law took effect starting June 10, 2011. Second, one provision, the Voter ID requirement, goes into effect in Feb. 2012 (not in 19 days, as you mistakenly state). Third, my post was not about Maria being thwarted while trying to vote. It was about her being thwarted while trying to get an ID so that she can vote in Feb. (And note that she was able to vote in November WITHOUT a State ID.)

“It’s so sad to see the standard HA moonbats never checking facts.”

Says the guy who just stated some incorrect facts, and completely misread the topic of Maria’s story. (*Snicker*)

It took me 30 seconds to look up both facts.

Correction. It took you 30 seconds to find facts that were not germane to the topic of the post.

27. No Time for Oligarchies spews:

“It’s so sad to see the standard HA moonbats never checking facts.”

Puddy is guilty of this too.

According to puddy, The VRA(voter right act) and CRA(civil rights act) were NOT passed by liberals.
http://horsesass.org/?p=39160&cpage=4#comment-1128518

I would love to read his justification of that.

28. Rujax! Celebrating the MASTER BULLSHITTIUM-ER (or something)...the puddywuddyduddypussy!!! spews:

16. puddybud spews:

p.s. … Wait for it… rujax will call me a liar! He won’t research it and put forth a rebuttal cuz when it’s on HA it’s ABSOLUTELY correct.

12/13/2011 at 3:27 pm

No problemo, dude…

The puddywuddyduddypussy is a liar.

Happy, wanker?

29. Steve spews:

The stupidity of the loon is exceeded only by his self-loathing.

If the the loon and his wingnut masters could realize their dreams and disenfranchise 5,000,000 minority voters in the 2012 election, they’d be fucking thrilled. To call the loon a self-loather doesn’t do him justice. He is a traitor to his god, humanity, his peeps and this country.

30. YLB spews:

Maria Elaine Valdez Holman

Oh, according to right wing degenerates, of course she shouldn’t be allowed to vote..

People of puddybud’s ilk have one word for her:

…cheap…

31. puddybud spews:

Pete @21,

Did you look at the Wisconsin state link?

32. puddybud spews:

Most of the “Enrolled 2011 Assembly Bill 7″ went into effect on the date of publication, which happens to be June 10, 2011 (see Photo ID Law Update #1: Changes to the Election Process Effective Immediately for the first set of changes)

I checked Politifact, the standard used by Moonbattery against Puddy.

33. puddybud spews:

Darryl @24,

So let’s roll on your stuff…

1) Your link points to this file Major Impacts of Photo ID for 2011.pdf

2) That file in #1 points you to here http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id

3) That file in #2 points you to here… http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

Which is exactly the same link http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm I linked to in my original post #16

Just went to the Wisconsin site to see what were the ID Requirements. Gov. Scott Walker new photo ID requirement for Wisconsin elections starts in 2012.

So yes Pete as you said

She was trying to get a state-issued ID

and that is THE SAME LINK you end up at. And on that link these words are in bold…

Free Wisconsin ID cards for voting

Somehow everyone misses the FACTS. Liberalism is a mental disorder!

You see HA DIPSHITS:

YOU didn’t read or process what I wrote.

YOU immediately jumped on Puddy without understanding the (does a leftist idiot ever understand) FACTS.

YOU didn’t read the information from the link. Otherwise you’d see the word FREE!

Maybe just maybe I cut through all the crap and placed the real link that affects Darryl’s niece. It was updated Aug 24th after June 11th date Darryl refers to.

Good try morons! YOU FAILED!

34. puddybud spews:

…and no one would ever stoop to disobeying the current law?

Then headless dorkface Maria would have a case to sue. With the leftist hatred of Scott Walker, Maria would receive pro-bono service from the bestus leftist lawyers around so they could get big time media notoriety with her visiting the same office three times as stated above.

35. puddybud spews:

Darryl,

(*snicker*) You didn’t process the links all the way through as I did. As stated above with Politifact I started the process. From Politifact

The state would issue free IDs for those lacking one of the approved cards.

So the 30 seconds used proved all the facts were available and totally germane to the post. As Politifact further states

Photo ID laws do not directly bar anyone from voting. They add hurdles and rules to a process that already prescribes voting hours, legal voting age and residency requirements, and — as allowed in the U.S. Constitution — bars felons from voting in many states.

and

ID requirements are “not a fundamental loss of franchise rights.”

So Darryl, you are wrong. The Voter ID is FREE as the link implies, the law takes affect January 2012 as Politifact says, and she can get one before 2012.
/(*snicker*)

36. puddybud spews:

[Deleted -- see HA Comment Policy]

37. puddybud spews:

To ylb, where did I ever imply anything as you state about Maria? I said that about you and your peeps. You demonstrate your peeps here all day 24×7 with your silly ASS at home blogging, screen scraping blogs while Mrs ylb is working her SEIU job.

Mrs ylb: Hello ylb I’m home. What did you do today?

ylb: Nuthing useful looking for a yob as always! Butt I did clean the house, did the laundry and dinner is simmering on the stove.

Mrs ylb: That’s nice.

Get the quote right ya moron!

Stupid idiot!

38. puddybud spews:

The stupidity of the loon is exceeded only by his self-loathing.

If the the loon and his wingnut masters could realize their dreams and disenfranchise 5,000,000 minority voters in the 2012 election

And for Stupid Solution Steve direct from Pilitifact…

Photo ID laws do not directly bar anyone from voting. They add hurdles and rules to a process that already prescribes voting hours, legal voting age and residency requirements, and — as allowed in the U.S. Constitution — bars felons from voting in many states.

and

ID requirements are “not a fundamental loss of franchise rights.”

So stupid 24x7x365.25. Real links give real FACTS!

I think it’s interesting the Boeing Machinist Union demands to see an ID before allowing one to vote on the new proposal around Boeing and South Carolina.

39. puddybud spews:

[Deleted -- see HA Comment Policy]

40. rhp6033 spews:

The problem with voter ID laws isn’t so much the details of the legislation. As long as the ID is easy to get, there are accomodations for the elderly and disabled, and there is no charge, it’s not restrictive on it’s face.

But there has never been any evidence of any significant voting fraud which would compel such a requirement (despite considerable unprovable stories circulated by right-wingers and anti-immigrants about “a friend of a friend who saw….” In the past, using local precinct workers who presumably know the area, and requiring signatures to match between the voter registration and the person requesting the ballot, has been more than sufficient to keep it honest.

So why make everyone go to the trouble? It’s because those who are pushing for the requirements know that it’s the application of the requirements, rather than the requirements themselves, that make it have a discriminatory impact.

We’ve been through this before. Literacy tests could have been race-neutral, but they were applied specifically in a manner which excluded blacks from registering to vote. Poll taxes were per se discrimanatory against the poor, but were arguably racially neutral, except that officials refused to issue receipts for payment of poll taxes by blacks, and if they had a receipt it was usually confiscated by the poll workers when they demanded to see it (usually under some pretext about it being an “obvious forgery” or such).

That’s why the application of such laws are being watched so closely now. And every instance like the one being posted in the original post will be documented and investigated, as Eric Holder (atty general) said yesterday.

41. YLB spews:

I said that about you and your peeps.

You said that about my relatives.. For all you know I could be distantly related to Ms. Valdez Holman..

Which of my relatives Puddybud? My European or Hispanic relatives..

Which ones are more likely in your eyes to labor in Nancy Pelosi’s vineyard??

Why would you call them “cheap”??

When I have EVER called your European or West African relations “cheap”???

You are DISGUSTING!

42. YLB spews:

They add hurdles and rules

EXACTLY the point everyone’s trying to make here dumbass.

Your right wing masters are putting up more hoops for disabled, elderly, poor and minority voters to jump through..

And why is the ID “free”?

Otherwise it would be a POLL TAX which is unconstitutional..

Think this is the first time those who “stink right” have tried this in the last 10 years???

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/19/nation/na-briefs19.3

43. Darryl spews:

Puddybud,

Now you are just piecing together bullshit to cover up for your numerous errors and misunderstandings, you bullshitting asshole.

So let’s roll on your stuff…

1) Your link points….
[...]
Which is exactly the same link http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm I linked to in my original post #16

That wasn’t in dispute.

Just went to the Wisconsin site to see what were the ID Requirements. Gov. Scott Walker new photo ID requirement for Wisconsin elections starts in 2012.

Yes…that isn’t in dispute either. But that is only one provision of the “Enrolled 2011 Assembly Bill 7″

She was trying to get a state-issued ID
and that is THE SAME LINK you end up at. And on that link these words are in bold…
Free Wisconsin ID cards for voting
Somehow everyone misses the FACTS.

Nope…nobody is disputing the fact that the DMV is supposed to provide IDs for free.

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

(*Snicker*)

Says the idiot who

(1) Didn’t realize the law was implemented over more than 1/2 a year.

(2) Misstated when one provision of the law went into effect (“19 days”).

(3) In this response seem to imply he thinks the issue is about whether IDs must be given for free.

“YOU didn’t read or process what I wrote.”

No…what you wrote wasn’t relevant to the discussion. Nobody disputed that and ID would be needed in Feb. (Why the fuck do you think Maria is trying to get the state ID now, ya fucking dope? So she can vote in Feb.) Nobody disputed that the state-issued ID is available without charge.

YOU immediately jumped on Puddy without understanding the (does a leftist idiot ever understand) FACTS.

No…you just didn’t realize that the facts you cited don’t have any bearing on the story. And some of your “facts” were wrong.

Let’s do a detailed analysis of one statement you made:

@16 you said

So Darryl’s niece is actually receiving service under the previous laws.”

–Your statement is trivially true in that there are thousands of laws and administrative codes that are the same. I hope we can agree that this trivial truth is irrelevant to the discussion.

–Your statement is false in that the law changed starting in June (publication date). One administrative provision began on July 1 2011 to make free state IDs available through DMV. So your statement is factually, unquestionably wrong.

–Your statement is misleading in that a serious repeated issues in Wisconsin has been the hurdles people have had in acquiring a free ID, including a (post-Doyle) administrative decision to discourage DMV employees to divulge that the ID is free upon request.

– Your statement is irrelevant in that, under Doyle, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites didn’t have to overcome numerous hurdles (frequently involving quality of birth certificates, issues of maiden and married names, etc) to get an ID. That is because of the one provision of the law that goes into effect in February.

“YOU didn’t read the information from the link. Otherwise you’d see the word FREE!”

No…that wasn’t the issue (nowhere in Maria’s story did I mention cost or payment as an obstacle).

“Maybe just maybe I cut through all the crap and placed the real link that affects Darryl’s niece.”

Nope…she was quite aware that she needed a different ID to vote in the primary next February than she needed last November.

“It was updated Aug 24th after June 11th date Darryl refers to.”

What fucking planet are you on? I stated:

‘Most of the “Enrolled 2011 Assembly Bill 7″ went into effect on the date of publication, which happens to be June 10, 2011′

June 10th is the date of publication recognized by WI. It is the date when many provisions of the law took effect. Other provisions kicked in at later dates.

Good try morons! YOU FAILED!

Uh-huh. Sure.

44. Darryl spews:

Puddybud @ 35,

“…The state would issue free IDs for those lacking one of the approved cards….”

You know, Puddy, you are going to have to elevate the level here–we’re playing chess and you and playing with your own poo.

Read the post again, very carefully, before commenting. There is no suggestion that ID cost is a hurdle for Maria.

“So the 30 seconds used proved all the facts were available and totally germane to the post.”

If I had said something about ID cost being an obstacle, you would be right. But that wasn’t in there at all.

“As Politifact further states
Photo ID laws do not directly bar anyone from voting.”

Again, you are off in la-la land playing with your own poo. Maria’s story was not about photo ID laws directly baring anyone from voting.

“They add hurdles and rules to a process…”

Bingo! Maria could vote last November. Before February, she and many thousands more like her (who have franchise rights) must overcome a number of obstacles to exercise their franchise.

‘ID requirements are “not a fundamental loss of franchise rights.”’

And I don’t claim they are. You seem to be confusing “loss of franchise rights” with “disenfranchise” (inability to exercise the right). These are two very different things.

The photo voter ID laws do have the effect of disenfranchising voters–for next election, perhaps 5 million voters, previously able to vote, will not be able to vote. Not because they lose their right to vote. But because they are unable to overcome numerous administrative obstacles before casting their vote.

45. Steve spews:

“for next election, perhaps 5 million voters, previously able to vote”

I wonder how many of those 5 million are the self-loather’s so-called peeps? He should have to look each of them in the eye and tell them, “I fought for the hurdles and rules that prevented you from voting. I did this to serve my rich white masters. I betrayed you for thirty pieces of silver.”

46. Deathfrogg spews:

[Deleted -- see HA Comment Policy]

47. Deathfrogg spews:

Heh, it was a goodun too. I believe thats my first one.

48. puddybud spews:

Darryl,

So rujax is free to attack me and that’s fine? I have no cause to rebut?

49. Darryl spews:

Puddy,

“So rujax is free to attack me and that’s fine?”

Yes…I decided to let his comment go because you fucking asked him to attack you, dumbass. I found his response amusing.

“I have no cause to rebut?”

Yes. You most certainly do. Take it to an open thread! How many fucking times do I have to say that???

In short: don’t comment in this thread unless it is on-topic.

50. puddybud spews:

Oh rhp6033, little evidence of voter fraud?

Of course when you are a DUMMOCRAPT, you think devious thoughts.

This link has gone but it’s from my old archives of 46,000 people dually registered in NY and FL. ylb has it.

“The finding is even more stunning given the pivotal role Florida played in the 2000 presidential election, when a margin there of 537 votes tipped a victory to George W. Bush.”

Then there are the lovely ACORN peeps in action. The problem is how many got away?

51. puddybud spews:

(1) Didn’t realize the law was implemented over more than 1/2 a year.

Used Politifact. Their claim of January 2012 was good enough for me.

“It was updated Aug 24th after June 11th date Darryl refers to.”

Did you read the whole web page? DUH!

And I don’t claim they are. You seem to be confusing “loss of franchise rights” with “disenfranchise” (inability to exercise the right). These are two very different things.

Nope Politifact uses that.

52. Darryl spews:

Puddybud @ 51,

Unfortunately, you neglected to educate yourself to the fact that the photo ID requirement was only one component of the law.

Not sure what you are babbling about in the rest of 51.

53. nwgal spews:

Darryl – Of course you know by now that some people just can’t admit when they’ve screwed up. You’ve done a commendable job of explaining why Puddy doesn’t know what he’s talking about; and he’s done a fantastic job of providing examples for your argument. You’re just not going to get him to admit the obvious.

54. Bob in SeaTac spews:

Let’s get away from this bickering on this site.

Back to the subject!

Nobody commented when it was noted by puddybud that the Boeing Machinists Union required photo ID to vote on this last contract. Why would they possibly want that if photo ID disinfranchises people as Darryl claims?

I’ve pasted a comment below.

“[Last] Wednesday, Politico ran a story about the International Association of Machinists Union at Boeing agreeing to approve a contract extension…. Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder … abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls. Yet the IAM … required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. … [T]he photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why? At some point during all these years of covering the voter-ID issue, you would think that someone in the press, much of which is unionized … would have noted that unions at least occasionally and likely far more than occasionally require that members present a photo ID to be able to cast their ballots. Nope. How typically irresponsible.” –NewsBusters contributing editor Tom Blumer

55. Michael spews:

@54
The problem here was that Darryl’s niece was not able to get an ID so that she could go and vote. Somehow I doubt those union members had a hard time getting a union card.

56. Darryl spews:

Bob @ 54

“Let’s get away from this bickering on this site.”

No.

“Back to the subject!”

Okay.

“Nobody commented when it was noted by puddybud that the Boeing Machinists Union required photo ID to vote on this last contract.”

Not really on topic. But your comment sets up a false equivalence. The very fact that Boeing Machinists have an employee ID (Boeing has had photo ids since at least WW II), are mostly employed, not at the margins of society, typically not a high school or college student, more likely have a driver’s license, etc., it seems exceeding unlikely anyone member could not produce an ID. No doubt this was considered in setting the policy.

(Additionally, I’d bet a college photo id, or even a Costco AMEX card (with photo on the back) would suffice to identify the individual for voting purposes. And I’d bet they do have provisions for people who forgot their ID.)

My niece has a constitutional right to vote in Wisconsin. She has two photo ids: an expired passport and a current high school ID. The new laws in Wisconsin exclude these ids. Furthermore they seem to have introduced numerous obstacles to getting an acceptable ID!

If Wisconsin did what Boeing does: Require that everyone have an ID and pay individuals to come in and get their IDs created, then the photo ID requirement would be much less likely to interfere with people’s ability to exercise their right to vote.

57. YLB spews:

50 – Yawwwwn.. stupid propaganda…

A canvasser who registers Mickey Mouse to vote to get paid more, doesn’t get Mickey Mouse to the polls..

ACORN on the brain…

Next time it’ll be the “feminazis” at the League of Women Voters..

Oh wait, they’ve been vote suppressed too…

58. Michael spews:

My niece has a constitutional right to vote in Wisconsin. She has two photo ids: an expired passport and a current high school ID. The new laws in Wisconsin exclude these ids. Furthermore they seem to have introduced numerous obstacles to getting an acceptable ID!

Putting it this way sure makes it sound like folks are trying to do more than block people from going to the polls. It could stop people from opening bank accounts, cashing checks, can’t by a gun though legal channels without ID.

Why’s governor Walker hating on peoples right to buy a firearm?

59. Jim spews:

Hey asshole. You can blog the hell out of some folks as: lets call her “Maria” Use real and verifiable incidnets to documnet yourbullshit so they can be verified.

60. Darryl spews:

Jim @ 59

No.

In weighing the trade-offs, I chose to protect Maria’s identity.

Don’t like it? Tough shit!