SC Voter-ID Law: Justice Dept Blocks Legislation

Which is a matter that should be taken up with the respective State Secretaries of State for not mailing them out in a timely matter... This is different than passing a law that is deliberately designed to suppress voting. But thanks for playing... It's a false equivalence.

No one would suggest that the measure isn't designed to suppress the voting of those who fail to qualify as eligible voters - but that is a far cry from the allegation that you have invented here.

I've invented nothing. The Justice Department recognized it for what it was--a partisan attempt to suppress voter's rights where no infractions had taken place. They've thrown out the law, (as they should have), and I cheer them on for it.

I'm truly not interested in your attempts to cry "voter fraud" where none exists...

Let's not pretend that voter fraud doesn't exist - we have certain proof that the current executive was added to the ballot in one state as a result of voter fraud. That no infractions have been uncovered is not prima facie evidence that no fraud exists. We must all submit to security checks to travel on an airliner as a result of a handful of instances where hijackings of airliners occurred. If there were no instances of guns or bombs being taken onto a plane at DIA, would that be sufficient reason to forbid passengers flying out of DIA from being subjected to the security checks? Of course not.

The purpose of the security check is to prevent something that shouldn't happen from happening if at all possible, regardless of whether or not a problem found some place else is also present locally. The purpose of security checks is to prevent what happened elsewhere from happening in your state as well. That there have been zero confirmed, or even alleged, instances of voter fraud in SC does not alleviate the reality that voter fraud has occurred in other states and could, unless security measures are taken in advance, one day happen in SC as it has in other locations. One does not wait for a problem to occur before taking preventative measures. You don't wait until your engine has seized to change the oil, you change the oil to prevent the engine from seizing. SC shouldn't have to wait until a confirmed case of voter fraud is found before being allowed to take preventative measures designed to keep the fraud from occurring in the first place.

Yeah... Here are some real numbers:

Lessee:

WI: Out of approximately 3 million votes cast in WI in 2010 there were 26 confirmed cases of voter fraud. Thanks for throwing millions at that...
(.0000086%) Hmmmm... 26 votes--against how many $Millions of dollars?

FL: There've been 31 confirmed cases of voter fraud in 3 years in Florida. And that amounted to 31 fraudulent votes--against how many $Millions of dollars?

OH: Research done on ALL votes cast between 2004 and 2008 in Ohio, and out of over 9,000,000 votes there were 4 confirmed cases of voter fraud...That's 4 votes in 5 years--against how many $Millions of dollars?

NC: Research done on ALL votes cast between 2009-2010, there were 2 confirmed cases--against how many $Millions of dollars? (In this case, we know what the cost was: "[the] General Assembly is considering adding this $20 million program even as it is slashing spending on education, costing his university $10 million." Wow... $20million-for TWO confirmed cases of fraudulent votes)

SC: None... NO confirmed cases....

I did a search on "confirmed cases of voter fraud"... You find your own damned links...

This is problem that is so far-fetched it's ridiculous. You guys bitch about the school lunch programs; cuts to education... But you're willing to spend, in some cases, $20million (and cut school funding) to catch TWO fraudulent votes.

Oh, and by the way, NOT ONE of the confirmed cases that I could find involved "illegal aliens" voting... The overwhelming number of cases involved people who moved who voted twice--once in their old precinct, and again in their new precinct. And since the folks who are generally upwardly mobile and able to move when they feel like it are mostly folks with more money, there's no reason to think that the preponderance of voter fraud is in the GOP side, and not the Dem side... So, blow it....

Produce ONE...JUST ONE... confirmed case of voter fraud by an illegal alien....

Morons....

P.S., you're blowing stupidity out your nether regions again, and I'm done with this thread...

It's voter-suppression...and it's illegal... And I hope the Justice Department busts the chops of every one of these Koch Brothers-financed/ALEC-infested right-wing states.

How many billions of dollars are we spending to keep guns and bombs off of airplanes? You want to do a statistical analysis of how many times a plane has been hijacked over the last few years versus the total number of flights to show that we shouldn't be subjecting passengers to security checks when they board an airplane? We could spend a lot more money on education and a lot less on the TSA if the primary decision making apparatus is going to be a ratio of hijacked planes versus the number of flights that were made. We could do away with any airport security whatsoever and still have an incidence ratio that was a minor fraction of 1% of the total number of flights if we had a single hijacking each and every day out of the 30,000 commercial flights that take place every day in this union.

The perception of the presence of fraud can be very detrimental to the acceptance of the outcome of the election. No one should understand this better than Democrats given what happened in 2000 down in Florida. For how many months or years did Democrats go around proclaiming that Bush was not their president because he hadn't won the election? No, LJ, a determination that fraud actually exists is not the sole reason to take any and all precautions to prevent even the appearance that fraud could exist in the process. $20 million spent in the pursuit of avoiding a rejection of the results of the election is really not as expensive as an outright rejection of the results due to the perception of fraud being present would be.