If you were a lawmaker, and you wanted to defeat voter fraud in your state, what would be the FIRST study you'd read? Would it be about voter fraud prosecutions or black voting patterns??

Neither.

I'd study all voting systems around the world, and which worked as fairest and most representative.

I'd compare worst with better and best and see which features caused the improvements.

I'd also look at what causes and prevents corruption, and what cures it.

If that is the case, shame on them.

If I were going to pass a voter fraud law(s), I would require photo ID (gov issued ID). Since the fee for the license is an issue then I would provide a waiver for people who quality for gov assistance.

I would start over with the voter registration list, just make it to were if you have a gov issued ID, (driver's license or non-drivers identificaton) then you are registered to vote.  (Assuming the state is a state that only issues these ID to citizens, if not then there would need to be another type of license for non citizens and others that are not legal voters that did not register you to vote automatically)

I really don't understand how this law could succeed in disfranchising anyone. Why don't black people just change their patterns? If they need a photo ID, why don't they just get one?

Are they saying white people somehow can get a photo ID no problem, and black people can't? Or that white people are capable of registering early and black people aren't?

If they announced this change 2 days before the election then I could understand why it would catch people unprepared and disenfranchise people. Though if everyone has been informed well in advance, it makes no sense to me.

Hello again, my:

It IS true, and it's the primary reason WHY they lost their case..  They can mouth the words about voter fraud all they want, but the STUDY they READ first showed their REAL intent..

Like you, I have NO trouble with voter ID, as long as EVERY registered voter can GET one at NO COST. 

excon

You have to start somewhere and I don't believe it really matters which study you read first as long as your read BOTH.

I'm on the fence on this and I'll tell you why...

I completely understand how the NC voting fraud laws were used to deny voting rights and I know damn well WHY they did this.

In my state of NH, we have had to provide a photo ID for as long as I can remember, but you have to consider that NH is one of the "Whitest" states in the union. The small ammount of voter farud we've encountered were several Mass residents with NH vacation homes who reside in Mass, but used their NH addresses to vote in BOTH states.

Before implementing any effort to prevent voter fraud, every bit of information must be considered first and the primary concern should be the impact to legal citizens and their voting rights.  If one person's right to vote is denied, then the law is totally out of line and illegal, IMO. 

A bigger concern for me and everyone should be the impact of gerrymandering... 

Yes that is what they claim.  They claim minorities cannot afford the cost of an ID.  Also that states are purposely closing license bureaus in poor towns.

It will be interesting, this year I believe MO is voting to modify our constitution to require voter ID.

I have always been asked for ID. But I guess it is not required because of court ruling in 2006.  (Just found this out)

Hello AS:

I'm going to answer you as though you really and truly don't know about these things.. I'm only going to point out ONE example and you can multiply it many times..   Plus, there are hundreds of examples that can also be multiplied.

Although it may come as a shock to you, MANY black people are dirt poor.  Yeah, yeah, yeah..  They probably HAVE TV's so according to right wing lore, if they have TV's, they're really NOT poor..  After all, really poor people don't have those luxuries..  But, I digress..  So, these poor people don't drive, don't have cars, aren't on welfare, and some don't even have a birth certificate.  The ID required to vote ISN'T free, and it ISN'T just mailed to you..  You have to GO to an office and PAY for it..  It's just out of reach for some, so, they DON'T jump through the hoops and just don't vote.. 

That is the INTENT of the law, and that is why it got overturned.. I don't know why you're so perplexed about this stuff..  It's NOT difficult.

excon

I agree that the law is putting too much bureaucracy in the way and should be rethought.

It's one thing to accuse them of being thoughtless of the poor. It's another thing to consider it a malicious attempt to disenfranchise the poor. It's another thing entirely to accuse them of maliciously targeting race. Aren't there any dirt poor whites in North Carolina?

If any corruption is present here, I'd say they were just trying to disfranchise the poor since they are more likely to vote left.

How can you have a secure voting system without such hoops?

Study?   I would put voting booths all over the place and post a sentry at the gate of the booth.

Hello again, AS:

So, disenfranchising the poor is ok? 

You ask about hoops.  They should happen at the registration office..  But, once registered, in my state, they simply MAIL me a ballot.  Why couldn't they do that in NC? 

excon

I agree the gerrymandering is rediculous.  I think they should just take a the map start at the state border make a square that puts the proper population in that district.  Go to the next and do the same.  Take all the game out of it. 

Yup... Voter reform is needed completely across the board.

And ...regardless of party affiliation, super delegates are a travest and another form of voter fraud.

We all know Hillary would most likely not be sitting in the cat-bird seat if they did not exist and that the unfair usage by the media in including the "undelcared" super-delegate votes during the primaries for the DNC was highly manipulative in favour of HC. 

Yes Superdelegates are a joke.  

"So, disenfranchising the poor is ok?" Of course not!

Though as usual the system finds any excuse to put a racial spin on things.

Just to reinforce the point, I'd like to post a couple of  following passages from the court's decision in the North Carolina case:

But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics. A state legislature acting on such a motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

One can read the entire decision here (note: the actual decision starts on page 9, page 1-8 just list parties to the lawsuit).

But, no, of course this was all about protecting the integrity of elections from "election fraud"....;-D....

I guess voter fraud prosecutions because doesn't everybody already know the black voting pattern, 90% vote Democrat because they know no better. 

In the UK, it is not necessary to even take your polling card to vote, never mind produce any ID. I guess we could be wide open to potential fraud. There was a case a few years back involving postal votes, involving Labour, if I remember correctly.